Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:56, 18 July 2009

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Haplogroup E-M215 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days

	Human Genetic History (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History

Template:Wikiproject MCB

Archives

2006 to May 2008 early August 2008 late August 2008 September 2008 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Can haplogroup E1b1b be identified with ancient Kushites?

Can haplogroup E1b1b be identified with ancient Kushites? Humanbyrace (talk) 10:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that for this article it is best to only include information about links to clearly defined entities such as the Cushitic language family. Whether this family has something to do with the biblical Kushites is something best discussed in the articles about those subjects. I believe Cushitic (the language family) is discussed quickly but fairly effectively in the present E1b1b article, and it has been mentioned in connection to E-V32 in Hassan et al. (2008). Also see my new review mentioned above which is not in the bibliography yet. Please have a look and see what you think.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Coffman quote

Is quoted Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup.

This statement is somewhat ambiguous and contradictory. On one hand the authors writes Although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago and on the other the author states there is a missimpression regarding the origin. There is no standard method of describing haplogroups in relation to populations that harbor them. So in reality there are no African haplogroups, or European haplogroups or Asian haplogroups. There are haplogroups that are frequent in Africa, Asia, Europe, America or Australia but not elsewhere, and way may colloquially refer to them as African, Asian, European, American or Australian. This applies to all haplogroups not just e3b. We can also objectively refer to haplogroups by their most likely region of origin, in which case e3b is indeed "African". However this is complicated by the fact that haplogroups tend to move around and are continuously evolving. This obviously applies to e3b which is found in Africa, Asia and Europe. From a scientific perspective, the Coffman quote is not really useful because the author does not describe what is incorrect about describing e3b as "African". If the origin is the criteria for describing a haplogroup, it is legitimate to describe e3b as African. In short the author prefers not to consider e3b as african but this a personal opinion or choice in how to describe a haplogroup. It may contain some social commentary but it serves no value from a scientific perspective. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You've posted the same comment on two articles, but I am going to be difficult and say that although you you had a case on the other article, you don't have a strong one here. I recommend that you please stop this habit you have of pasting generic remarks on different talk pages all over Misplaced Pages. What is relevant in one place does not automatically deserve to be pasted all over the place.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone cut and paste the same remarks from this article onto the Genetic history of Europe. The Coffman statement is somewhat inflammatory. I can see from the previous posting, that this issue has been raised before, and for good reason. This article can do without it as it is a magnet for controversy. Coffman's opinion on what is or not African is purely subjective and trivial in a similar manner to the Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Trivia_section discussed above. Furthermore, I don't know what she is referring to when she says the media refers E3b as African. As far as I know, the media doesn't cover population genetics. Except for a few popular science publications, and the occasional mention on Natgeo or discovery, the specific details on human haplogroups are almost never discussed. I have never heard E3b being discussed on TV. It seems that she is whining about the fact that E3b is indeed African.

A thread that I started on the Genetics project page I think should be taken seriously. At the root of all the numerous and current disputes regarding these genetics articles are attempts to politicize these haplogroups and this leads to a lot of unbalanced and unscientific material in these articles. I will restate a quote from Genetics and Tradition as Competing Sources of Knowledge of Human History

Recent genetic studies aiming to reconstruct the history of human migrations made a claim to be able to contribute to the writing of history. However, because such projects are closely linked to sociocultural ideas about the categorization of identity, race and ethnicity, they have raised a number of controversial cultural and political issues and are likely to have important potential socio-political consequences. Though some such studies played a positive role helping the researched communities to reaffirm their identity, other projects yielded results that contradicted local narratives of origin

It is my hope that some wikipedians can step up and depoliticize some of these articles and simply state the current scientific consensus.

Wapondaponda (talk) 22:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

All very well but don't you realize that others accuse you of the same? And with good reason? Consider your constant attempt to delete discussion about the possible non African origins of DE and M, which are clearly real theories in the literature. I pointed out before, you always take the same side, so how can other editors see your editing as anything other than political? Concerning the Coffman quote you'll be aware from looking at the archives that I share some of your doubts about the clarity and meaning of it. However, I have learnt that what she was talking about was precisely the fact that E3b has been politicized by racists, sometimes leading people to misunderstandings. For example consider a Jew, Arab or Albanian who is told by internet propaganda that his Y lineage is African in the sense of not being Jew, Arab, Albanian etc. The sense she intended for the term African was, as I understand it, African in an excluding sense that an E1b1b person is less Jewish, Arab, or anything else non African than they might have thought. This is of course a real problem, and quite wrong, but it is out there. Whether it can be explained clearly in this article is something I would kindly ask you of all people to consider because you have expressed concern about social responsibility before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL You of all people talking about "depoliticizing" an article. Will wonders never cease... FYI, this issue has already been thoroughly discussed and long resolved. Ellen Coffman herself visited this page and explained in plain language exactly what she meant by that quote, and it predictably bears nary a resemblance to your self-serving mischaracterization of it and its author. And indeed, the passage has everything to do with the Origins section. There'll be no spinning this quote to mean something it doesn't, I'm afraid. Causteau (talk) 14:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I doesn't matter whether Jesus himself came and discussed an issue, there is no such thing as permanent resolution on wiki. See WP:CCC. The quote has nothing to do with the origins of E, which is purely a scientific matter. How people or the media discuss e-m35 is another issue. Maybe there can be a section on media portrayal, which discusses such thing. But as I can see from the above threads, it is quite trivial. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Causteau that Wapondaponda should be more self aware about being political. But I agree with Wapondaponda about the more fundamental issue that there is no closing of the books on any issue here on Misplaced Pages. Wapondaponda has raised real issues about whether the Coffman quote as it is now explained on the article is giving any clear and correct message. I've tried to explain a counter position but I guess everyone realizes that I basically agree with Wapondaponda. I've tried to explain how the citations might be interpreted in a clear way, but I am not sure anyone can get that interpretation from the Coffman article itself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

My statement was not intended to get Wapondaponda to be more self-aware, but to get him to stop removing reliable sources. I notice that in my absence he has repeatedly reverted a series of different editors over this one quote, and in an ostensible attempt to "address his concerns" as you put it (but curiously not those of the four other editors that support its inclusion, myself included), you added some original research attempting to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers. There are two problems with this: First, it has already been demonstrated by the author's own comments that you actually have no idea what her quote means. Second, WP:NOR makes it clear that adding original analysis of a source is not permitted:

"Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions."

As for the quote allegedly having nothing to do with the origins of E1b1b, I already posted a detailed explanation of what the quote meant, which went as follows:

"From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".

This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."

In response to this, Coffman-Levy asserted that my post above "restated argument quite eloquently" and that it was "precisely what was trying to convey" (notice the bold phrases). Let's not pretend like we haven't been through this before. I'm afraid you guys are on the wrong end of the demonstrated consensus, which is to keep the quote in the Origins section, and in its unadulterated, NPOV state. Causteau (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

where E1b1b SNP mutated .

Who know where SNP mutation defining this group appear? Plants rooted to ground move around the world in evolution its obvious: man can too.

a) In light of this uncertainty all soured thesis about the geographic location of mutation should be valid. There are at lest following possibilities:

1. It happen in the place where is today the highest concentration (no movement)
2. it happen in other place (then moved).

• b) If 'in other place' it can be:

1. south
2. north
3. west
4. east (we can skip up and down consideration:)

• c) The present distribution of genetic markers may be result of: (in any case with or without movement)

1. bottlenecks when somehow only newer moved out of 'mother/father'-genland
2. outgrow of newer generations caring newer markers(and perhaps other gens) pushing out the older markers eg. to pathogenic co-evolution refugia . see also genome lineages .Thesis/point c2 is valid to all other present day genetic markers distribution.

I rev to the previous Andrew Lancaster edit to include fragment which seem to adres the 'a' uncertainty. 76.16.176.166 (talk) 21:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the place where a haplogroup is most common is not so important. What people really look at more to try to estimate place of origin (or at least the place where dispersal started leading to modern people) is the diversity. The Horn of Africa has the highest diversity of E-M35. Frequency is not the key point. For example nobody is arguing that the Western Sahara is the home of E-M35. It has an extremely high E-M35 level, but all close relatives along the male line.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Sourced Material

Citing Cruciani et al. (2004), Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she added that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup also continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005 This info is scientific and sourced yet Wapondaponda will not stop deleting it. SOPHIAN (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC).

See the above threads, yes it is sourced. But wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The statement has nothing to do with the scientific methods used to determine the geographic origins of gene variants. Discussing what the media says about a haplogroup isn't relevant to determining the origins of the haplogroup. My suggestion has been that the quote can be placed elsewhere in a section or article that deals with media "misimpressions". Wapondaponda (talk) 16:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have to say that defending the quote needs more than just "it was sourced". The citation is done in such a way to give quite a specific impression about what it might mean, which anyone reading the original article will not recognize. The end result is to say the least very ambiguous, and therefore to say the least anyone defending it can at least go the effort of suggesting a better wording. It is certainly not a simple case that can be judged on the basis of whether it is cited or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. Sophian please state what is scientific about the quote. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I have tried re-wording the citation. My aim is to try to clarify the Coffman-Levy quote. Wapondaponda is right the citation is very ambiguous. It implies that Coffman-Levy has some doubts about the African origins of E1b1b, and this is clearly not the case. There is no reason to keep the quote ambiguous.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote does not imply that Ellen Coffman-Levy has some doubts about the origins of E1b1b in Africa. This is a nonsensical argument that was already raised before and thoroughly debunked. As SOPHIAN has shown, the quote actually plainly states that "citing Cruciani et al. (2004), Coffman-Levy (2005) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"". There is nothing amibiguous about that. Wapondaponda: I'm afraid no amount of gaming the system on your part (your new strategy after badmouthing the author as a "whiner" didn't work out) will eliminate the quote. It's high time you gave your POV a rest. Causteau (talk) 04:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The quote does imply doubts about E1b1b being African in origin, because "African in origin" is one of the most obvious meanings of the term "African" which the quote says would be a WRONG word to use. I repeat: there is no need to keep ambiguity. So why is this a problem to fix??? Of course many people think that the ambiguity you always try to get into this article always goes in one direction - precisely because you WANT to imply something which was not in the original text. The new version made no changes in substance, so why do you have a problem with it unless you want that confusion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

What you don't seem to understand and what you didn't understand back then either is that you can't analyze the statement for readers. You have repeatedly shown that you have literally no clue what Coffman-Levy means. Take your latest "intepretation":

"Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup".

All the section of highlighted above (i.e. your "explanation") is pure original research. Nowhere does Coffman-Levy state or even imply anything of the sort. You want to know what she means by that quote? Again, refer to this section, where all your concerns have already been thoroughly addressed (and via direct quotes from the author herself). Lastly, in our previous discussion from months ago when Coffman-Levy dropped by, I asked her the following, among other things:

"However, at least one other user has been very vociferous in his opposition against its inclusion. He writes that the paragraph above is irrelevant to the origins of E-M35, and that it somehow creates the impression that you believe that E-M35 originated in the Middle East/Near East. I've explained to him that this charge does not hold water since we state outright that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"" Please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written."

To which, again, she responded that my post above "restated argument quite eloquently" and that it was "precisely what was trying to convey" (notice the bold phrases). Please let's not pretend like we haven't been through this before. It's getting very annoying, and several other editors have already indicated to you the importance of the passage. Kindly stop tampering with it. Causteau (talk) 12:52, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

You are as usual insisting on writing about me and you and not about the text of the Misplaced Pages article. I have not altered the content of the paragraph, nor removed it. I have only tried to make sure that there is no ambiguity. Ellen took no sides in the discussion on these talk pages, and even if she did it would not matter, because this discussion right now is only about the English being used to cite her, as is the tiny snippet you quote from our discussion. I repeat my question: if you truly want the article to say clearly that E1b1b originated in Africa, then why do you want to insert an ambiguous which says it is wrong to call it African? Such a remark can clearly mean to any English speaker that E1b1b does NOT have African origins. You know very well that we get frequent editors visiting this article who rightly object to the wording I've replaced. Why do you want to make it sound like there is some doubt about the African origin of E1b1b? So often you argue for confusing English! Always in section concerning something to do with African or Asian origins. And funnily enough you always want to make African origins unclear, never Asian. Why would that be? Your editing is certainly much more POV than Wapondaponda's. BTW to imply that adding describing Ellen's article as comment as being about a modern ethnic identity is OR. For goodness sake look at the title of that article!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, it is interesting to re-read the summary you cite which you made about what you supposedly think Ellen meant, and that she called eloquent. Funnily enough, it is very close to what I have said on many occasions about this passage, even though when I have said it, you dispute it! It is very funny. The key question is what is meant by African, and why it would be wrong. Have a look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps I overreacted a little, but looking at your comments above, it's clear I wasn't the only one. Yes, I realize that you were just trying to explain the quote as best you could. But in doing so, you completely missed its essence since it has already been demonstrated that you didn't really understand the quote to begin with. You write above that "Ellen took no sides in the discussion on these talk pages". That is absurd. Of course she did. You and I were involved in a dispute, and we took polar opposite positions on the same issue (namely, on the meaning & relevance of her quote). You argued that the quote was irrelevant and ambiguous , and I argued that it was both relevant and actually quite easy to understand. You posted an entry describing your position which you addressed to Ellen, and I did the same with regard to my view. However, Ellen only described one of our two diametrically opposed positions as being "precisely what was trying to convey": mine, not yours. I don't mean to sound snotty, but those are the facts. You suggest that this quote is "ambiguous", yet I didn't have any trouble whatsoever understanding the quote -- only you did. But curiously, you now apparently believe that you understand the quote well enough to interpret it for readers? Does that make any sense??? The "frequent editors to the page who rightly object to the quote" that you allude to are yourself, an anonymous IP from months back when the quote in question used to flank a statement indicating that "according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture" (which it no longer does, and which was what he originally objected to), and a blocked serial sockpuppeteer. You call that company? Have a look at the article's recent history, and you'll see that there is plenty of support for Ellen's quote & in its unadulterated form -- not against it. The latter distinction, once again, actually falls on just you. You can try and affix the "POV" tag on me, but it won't stick just like it didn't stick last time you accused me of wanting "to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects", only to have the author herself say that my analysis you ridiculed actually perfectly captured what it is she was trying to convey -- not yours. I'm not going to indulge this nonsense any longer. Let me demonstrate exactly how completely off-base your edit is (which, as I've already pointed out, is also all original research). Here's what you wrote:

"Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup"."

Here's what Coffman-Levy actually writes:

"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."

And here's the direct paraphrase of her quote that you replaced with your OR:

"Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media."

It doesn't take a genius to see that, unlike the direct paraphrase you replaced with your edit, you are adding something to the article which Ellen in fact does not mean. For starters, you attempt to limit Ellen's argument to the "context" of "the genetic diversity in Jewish populations" & non-Africans, when she actually talks about haplogroup E3b and as a whole! Both in her study itself, and in her posts on this talk page, she talks about it being a mistake to label E3b as "African", not the genetic diversity of non-Africans that carry it. That's an astonishingly audacious understatement. Again, here is what Ellen actually means:

"From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".

"This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."

From the above and the quote itself, it is clear Ellen is talking about E3b as a whole: not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade. On this latter point, Ellen even expounded further in her own comments with the following very sensible remarks:

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

Your original argument regarding so-called "ambiguity" in the quote revolved around the notion that it immediately prefaced the aforementioned statement on ISOGG & the Genographic Project which indicated that E3b may have originated in the Near/Middle East ("To be honest it looks like the vague accusation is very deliberately being set-up to look like Coffman-Levy supports the paragraph you insist on putting next, in other words that E1b1b originated in the Near East."). Now that you fought tooth and nail to have those sources removed and that they are indeed long gone, you effectively have no argument and on this front either. And none of the forgoing of course changes the fact that your latest edit is OR & completely misses the point, to put it mildly. Causteau (talk) 06:31, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here, for reference, is Causteau's own summary of what he thinks can be non-controversially said about what Coffman-Levy specifically means by saying that E1b1b should not always be called African:

From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".

So we see that what she means can be defined in an uncontroversial way according to Causteau himself, because everything in this "eloquent" summary is quite similar to wording I have tried over a long time to insert into the Misplaced Pages article. For example saying that Ellen's point had to do with some sub-clades was something Causteau has specifically disallowed, even though it appears in his own summary, and in Coffman-Levy's article. (Causteau argued that it was irrelevant because a few paragraphs away from the passage he wants cited!). This seems a particularly tendentious and argumentative approach. How can Causteau say both that it is obvious how the term is being used, and then accuse people who he basically agrees with of OR for trying to explain this in the Misplaced Pages article? The basic theme of Causteau's defense of the present wording of this passage is one he uses quite often and is extremely tendentious: the passage has been discussed before and it uses some direct quotes, therefore any attempt to improve it should be reverted. While Causteau allows himself the luxury of being able to use such circular arguments there is a problem, because this passage is being kept deliberately vague and ambiguous, so that it implies things which it most certainly should not be implying.

Causteau, perhaps we should reference to your eloquent summary on the talk page archives???--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

So that's what you're reduced to again, I see? Third person narratives & personal attacks? I don't blame you seeing as how my post above is pretty damn incriminating. Say what you will, you haven't refuted a thing; you haven't demonstrated that your "interpretation" isn't OR (how could you?); & that you have, in fact, captured part (nevermind all) of what Coffman-Levy means. All you've done is demonstrate that you're not above falling back on those trusty personal attacks of old when stumped. Causteau (talk) 07:00, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Coffman-Levy citation: trying one more time to discuss

Yes, let's stop the personal stuff. Let's just look at the passage you want to revert. Please can you restrict your remarks entirely to that? Here it is:

Although the prehistoric African origins of E1b1b are not seriously disputed in peer-reviewed literature, it's role in scientific literature as a signs of links between Europe, the Middle East and Africa have led to it becoming a focus of less scientific discussion concerning ethnic identity, for example in modern ethnic groups which are not African, but which have a significant presence of E1b1b lineages. In the context of a discussion of the genetic diversity in Jewish populations for example, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) expressed concern that calling E1b1b1 (E-M35) “African,” sometimes creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup".

...and here is the version you are defending...

Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

...both quotes use the same source material, so obviously just complaining that "sourced material" is being removed is wrong. I see the difference this way:

• One of these versions tries to make it clear in what sense the author intended to say that E1b1b should not be called "African", and what sorts of confusions in the media were being described. What this latest attempt also does (in order to achieve the aim of providing more clarity and context) is that it adds an uncontroversial (in my opinion) new remark about E1b1 raises issues in the ways in which genetics and ethnicity sometimes interact, leading into the fact that the Coffman-Levy article as an example of a discussion about genetics and ethnicity of one group. That cited part of the article is about this, and that it refers to other discussion on the internet/ media, is clear.
• The other version does not try to address the ambiguity. Indeed it insists on increasing the ambiguity and potential to create false impressions by reverting to an old version which implies that the citation concerns "the media" right now, which is not possible given that the article is several years ago. (See Ellen's own remarks on these talk pages which are all in the past tense.) This potential to mislead is obviously a big problem, even if some readers like you, who wrote it, claim not to see any ambiguity. But as a potential solution I have noted that you, the editor who proposes this version, has explained (eloquently indeed!) how you read it on the talk page here, even though you won't allow such material to go in the article. Indeed this is the passage you always cite yourself in order to explain how the citation should be understood. You wrote:

From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history".

Obviously if this is how you defend the passage, and you argue that it is clear in the original article, then it should be possible to insert something like this into the article itself. Sourcing should not just be on the talk pages! So, let's please develop a passage which inserts soemthing into the Misplaced Pages article and removes ambiguity about why the particular sense of "African" which Coffman-Levy intended, and the particular type of confusion in public discussion which she was concerned about.

I want to make it clear that if we can not do that then the very Misplaced Pages norms you keep repeating require us to remove this entire passage. Just because a series of words was lifted from an article does not mean that they are clear enough to be pasted into Misplaced Pages in any form at all. They have to actually be able to be brought into a format which shows a clear and uncontroversial meaning.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry; I must've missed that policy where it states that if one editor is unable to understand a fairly straight-forward passage from a peer-reviewed study while several other editors are, then the passage must go. I am, however, familiar with the policy that goes:

"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. "

While I commend you for getting back to non-personal stuff (why are you still talking in the third person?), your edit above distorts what Ellen says. Perhaps this indeed wasn't your intention, but that is the net effect. Again, your edit limits Ellen's argument to the "context" of "the genetic diversity in Jewish populations" & non-Africans, when she actually talks about haplogroup E3b and as a whole. Both in her study itself, and in her posts on this talk page, she talks about it being a mistake to label E3b as "African": not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade. This has already been explained above with direct quotes, including one from Ellen herself; please stop defending this indefensible edit. Suggesting that my explanation is better, whether or not intended to be facetious, is actually of course correct since Ellen herself indicated as much. But what you don't seem to understand is that even my accurate edit is unsourced. And no, I don't feel comfortable adding original research to the article for the simple fact that that is a slippery slope, which for obvious reasons can only backfire in the long run. It's also very much against WP:NOR:

"Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "

Instead of rehashing the same old stale arguments of yore & going at it for weeks again, I therefore propose we just go back to our previous arrangement that settled this dispute in the past i.e. the passage that went as follows and which you yourself added way back when:

"Citing Cruciani et al. (2004) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCruciani_et_al.2004 (help), Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) wrote that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she added that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup also continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005.

Causteau (talk) 08:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

This sarcasm is not really very useful...

I'm sorry; I must've missed that policy where it states that if one editor is unable to understand a fairly straight-forward passage from a peer-reviewed study while several other editors are, then the passage must go.

The problem is that if the discussion is about whether the Misplaced Pages article's summary of an article is written badly, or unclearly, then there is no authority we can appeal to apart from other editors. So to ignore other editors in such discussions is very clearly tendentious editing.

The version as it stands after our tweaks today recovers some of the compromise we had before your round of edits celebrating the blocking of Wapondponda. But I still find this section very dissatisfying for the simple reason that I still think it is being kept deliberately ambiguous.

The current way of citing Ellen's article specifically insists that it is "incorrect" to call E1b1b "African" but obviously any normal usage of English must take account of the fact that "African" will very often, perhaps most often, mean "African in origin". You claim that you do not intend this to be in the article, and yet you resist any efforts to explain exactly what sense of "African" is intended. How can that make sense?

It is very ironic to me that your own summary which you made only on talk pages, shows exactly that it is possible and necessary to spell some things out about the terms used if this passage is to be clear. So why refuse to allow this on the article itself?

In discussion here, you always refer to this summary, and Ellen's agreement, as your defense of versions of this citation which include no such explanatory summary? How weird is that? So we can explain things and agree on the meaning here on the talk page, but not on the article itself?

If you saying that your summary was reading too much into Ellen's article, that is quite odd. Who said that? Surely not you?

Anyway, if it were true that you thought that your own summary contains too much unsourced OR, how can we take you seriously?

Personally, I never found your talk page summary very controversial. To me it does seem that you can understand these types of things from the original article. No one I can think of has disputed this with you. It is very strange that you want to argue BOTH that your summary is just an obvious reading of the article, and that it is OR which we should not be reading into the source. Which is it? You can choose only one of these two options I think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

• If you don't appreciate being on the receiving end of sarcasm, then don't practice it yourself ("But as a potential solution I have noted that you, the editor who proposes this version, has explained (eloquently indeed!) how you read it on the talk page here, even though you won't allow such material to go in the article.").
• I did not propose ignoring other editors. That's a strawman argument & something you have quite literally made up.
• What you lament as a "celebration", I call reverting POV changes by a blocked user.
• No offense, but we aren't here to "satisfy" any one editor's wishes. There's a lot about this article that I too wouldn't mind changing for my own personal "satisfaction", but WP:NPOV just doesn't work that way.
• Like I told you at least fifty other times over the past few months & literally just finished telling you minutes ago above, we can't add original analyses into the article because that is original research. Please start showing more respect for this important policy.
• Great. Another strawman. I did not say that my talk page explanation was "OR which we should not be reading into the source". You did. Here is what I did write: Suggesting that my explanation is better, whether or not intended to be facetious, is actually of course correct since Ellen herself indicated as much. But what you don't seem to understand is that even my accurate edit is unsourced. And no, I don't feel comfortable adding original research to the article for the simple fact that that is a slippery slope, which for obvious reasons can only backfire in the long run. It's also very much against WP:NOR:

"Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "

Causteau (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Causteau, that was not sarcasm. Please come back to the subject again?

If your summary is unsourced, and inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, then this clearly means that you do not think it is obvious enough to put in a Misplaced Pages article? Obviously if it can not itself be put in Misplaced Pages, then this applies doubly to anything which is based upon your reading of the Coffman-Levy article (as per the summary). And yet in all discussion over many months, when called upon to explain why the citation is not ambiguous and misleading, you have cited your summary and said that the obviousness of the material in this summary makes it no problem to include citation as it stands with no further clarification. That is a key part of your argument for not allowing anyone to clarify the wording. Let's put it this way:

• The accusation is that the wording in the Misplaced Pages article is ambiguous and misleading.
• Your consistent response is to say that the Misplaced Pages citation needs no help, because the snippet taken from the cited article as per the summary that you cite, or any similar ones, none of which are that different from anything I have said.
• But then when asked if we can put such obvious explanation into the Misplaced Pages article, you get very strict and suddenly claim that the summary you are making is not an obvious reading at all, and should not be included in Misplaced Pages.
• And yet you continue to want it both ways. You want the citation which you can only defend on the basis of the un-usable summary being obvious, to remain unchanged.

We have two options. You can only pick one:-

1. If the summary of your reading is unsourced and inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, then the whole citation as it currently stands is unsourced and inappropriate for Misplaced Pages, and needing original research just to interpret it. That means we need to remove it.

2. If the summary describes an obvious reading of a well-informed reader, something which your fellow editors seem not to be disputing, then there is no such problem. But this also means that there is no problem tweaking the wording on the basis of what we all think the original article meant, in order to remove all possible accusations that this citation is ambiguous and misleading.

Which do you choose?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you on about? Did I not just clearly tell you that my analysis is what Ellen meant in that quote? Did Ellen herself not say it perfectly captured what it is she was trying to communicate? And now you insinuate that I think my summary is not "obvious enough"???? Your little mind games are leave much to be desired. Look, I'm not going to add that analysis for the same reason that I wouldn't add any original analysis placed here: it hasn't been published by a reliable source (Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source). Do I have to explain to you again Wiki policies? How many times must I requote WP:NOR until you finally get it?

"Misplaced Pages does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Misplaced Pages is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions. "

If it's not published, it's OR -- get it? You're trying to pressure me into accepting original research into the article, but it simply won't happen. Only you find that quote ambiguous; the other recent editors have indicated with their own edits that they believe the quote to be valuable as it is. And with the statement that "according to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture" which used to flank the Coffman-Levy quote long gone, you effectively have no real argument left (repetition & strawmen arguments don't count). Causteau (talk) 14:24, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I think you do not understand what case I am making, or you are trying hard not to show any understanding. I am not pushing for anything at all to be included. The simplest answer if it is OR is that we have to remove this paragraph. In summary, your various statements are effectively stating that the citation in the article is OR, because you are saying it would not be possible for us to agree on what the words in the direct quote means, at least in any form which we can include in Misplaced Pages. You can't have your cake and eat it too. In effect you have created an absurd pair of diametrically opposed extreme definitions of what good sourcing practice is - for the existing citation, all that is necessary is that snippet of direct quote, no matter what amount of controversial twisting of the meaning it entails. But for a text which is agreed by everyone to be more clear, no amount direct quoting will do. Here is a caricature of the discussion just trying to make this clear to you how the discussion appears to be for me... AL: This looks ambiguous and misleading. C: No it's not, because anyone can see that it REALLY means...X. AL: Oh, that sounds clear, and that's also how I read the original article, so why don't we use words like those? C: We can't use those words which you find more clear, because that would be unsourced interpretation and original research. Your opinion about what is clear is not important anyway. AL: But didn't you say it was just a clear summary of the original article, and isn't that all we want? Isn't that also what the present paragraph is supposed to be? We can still use similar sets of direct quotes etc. C: Of course it is a clear summary of the source being cited, but the exact selection of words being used is unsourced original research. AL: This implies that you think no clear agreement is possible about how to summarize the original article, so we should drop this reference. If clear and agreed-upon wording would be original research, then the controversial, misleading and ambiguous version, which introduces implications that were not in the original article, is far more of a problem, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes Andrew, you've already make it clear in our previous encounter over this same issue that you ultimately wished to get rid of the quote altogether. But let me save you some trouble this time around and state things plainly: the quote isn't going anywhere. The demonstrated consensus is to keep it. As a reliable source, WP:VER also ensures its inclusion, even if you don't think what it states is "true":

"The threshold for inclusion in Misplaced Pages is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Misplaced Pages has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or the material may be removed."

Above, you've invented some technicality wherein its permissible to remove sourced material that's a direct quote from a reliable scholarly journal under the pretext that one user (i.e. you) believes it is ambiguous. We both know no such policy exists. I've already demonstrated above that that "ambiguous" tag does not hold water in this case either. Your "dilute or delete" ultimatum, I'm afraid, is a no go. Causteau (talk) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

It is entirely up to you Causteau. We need to clarify the ambiguous wording or remove the quote. It was you yourself who came up with the absurd hypocritical logic which says that clarifying wordings are OR. If you insist on that then we must remove it. That's your choice. I have no bias one way or the other. My position is very consistent. BTW how do you get to always call your own opinions a consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Andrew, you have neither the policies nor the consensus to back up such a unilateral decision. I asked you to quote for me the passage in Wiki's rulebook that justifies such a removal and of course you have avoided doing so because no such policy exists. You're also well aware that most recent editors to this page actually value the quote in its present form which is why they have fought for its inclusion. This leaves you yet again on the wrong end of consensus (not my "own opinion", I'm afraid; stop projecting!). Causteau (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no such strict rulebook. Stop wikilawyering. I can edit Misplaced Pages just like you can.

More importantly this whole issue can be resolved. I'll just cross reference here to your outburst on another talkpage about this subject. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)#Chandrasekar_continued_again Here is what you reveal as your true understanding of this discussion...

your true reason for wanting to get rid of the Coffman-Levy quote on the haplogroup E1b1b page: it also asserts an Asian origin for that haplogroup rather than your preferred African origin, and for whatever reason, this bugs you to no end.

Guess what? There is no big secret. You are right. Trying to use Ellen's article to imply that E1b1b has an Asian origin is indeed what I have consistently said would be wrong, because the article states that E1b1b originated in Africa. What is strange is that in discussion on this talkpage, for example when you summarized what Ellen really meant and Ellen and I agreed with that wording, you have consistently insisted that the quote does not imply that E1b1b has a non African origin. The case is closed as far as I am concerned. You have argued this (anyone can check) only since I showed you long age that Ellen's article takes the normal line in the literature and says it has an East African origin. Your true intention is now clear. I'll delete this paragraph but if you can find a better way to cite Ellen's article I'd be happy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Further copy from DE Haplogroup talkpage http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)&action=edit&section=13 :--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:49, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

You can't back up a bloody thing. I exposed your lies above like I have many, many times before and typically on your own talk page. Take the latest haplogroup M1 debacle on the Genetic History of Europe article. That's just a drop in the bucket. When I came to you in that revert war with that blocked user, I asked you specifically to intervene -- that's the very term I used. I can't say I'm surprised you'd attempt to pervert it into something else though given your record with the truth and all. And look at you still whining about the Coffman-Levy quote; still smarting about not having been able to sway the author to your way of thinking like you had undoubtedly been hoping to do when she first showed up; still disappointed that the quote means exactly what you wish it didn't. "True colors"? Newsflash: my analysis=Ellen's view per her own comments. Love it or hate it, those are the facts. Causteau (talk) 18:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Ellen agreed to a summary you made. You refuse to allow the citation to say what that summary said because you want it to say something else. Ellen never disagreed with anything I said, and your summary was in conflict with the edit your defend, and all the arguments you had with me. I'll move a copy of this to the E1b1b article also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:47, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I was not trying "to use Ellen's article to imply that E1b1b has an Asian origin", you disgraceful opportunist. What I meant to say was that the quote also discusses E1b1b in a non-African context, which is something you have already demonstrated terrifies you. That statement I made was after a long typically pointless discussion with you defending sources from your pathological need to remove them if they assert anything other then your preferred African origin -- just like you attempted right now, only to have your edit rightly reverted, and twice (1, 2). It's your POV that's getting the best of you, I'm afraid. Causteau (talk) 19:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is what you reveal as your true understanding of this discussion...

your true reason for wanting to get rid of the Coffman-Levy quote on the haplogroup E1b1b page: it also asserts an Asian origin for that haplogroup rather than your preferred African origin, and for whatever reason, this bugs you to no end.

— http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Haplogroup_DE_(Y-DNA)#Chandrasekar_continued_again

As I asked already many times, if your summary of Ellen's argument, that she and I agreed with, proves that you are not trying to imply that E1b1b does not have an African origin, then why do you refuse to allow the wording in the article to be cleared up? See the posting you just tried to delete. No one is arguing for more or less sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Because doing so is a) unnecessary, b) original research, c) something you have already proven yourself incapable of successfully doing in our previous discussion since its already been demonstrated that you don't even really understand what the quote means to begin with, and d) inserting OR as you are proposing is a slippery slope that can only lead to more instances of people asking for exceptions to include OR in the article. Bad idea. Also, you can keep trying to make a meal out of my verbal slip-up, but if you leveled with yourself for a minute you'd know that we had been discussing the Asian origins of haplogroup DE for hours at that point and it was a simple mental mix-up. Causteau (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I want to point out that if I "prefer" that the article says that E1b1b originated in Africa this is also what Causteau has claimed to prefer many times. Of course he has had to says this because this is what all the literature says. There is not even a fringe that says otherwise. To the extent that it "terrifies" me that people would slip another theory into the article, the word is an exaggeration, but it is abhorrent to see Misplaced Pages used to push for something like this. Causteau should supposedly also be worried about it, but the above outburst let's the cat out of the bag. He has clearly always seen this as a war of inches to try to get his wording in despite what the literature in this field says. Fellow editors might like to check User:Causteau's and User:SOPHIAN's talkpages for signs that they share an agenda which does not have sticking to the mainstream as its highest goal. We'll soon see again. After their tag team efforts to revert my recent deletion of this paragraph, I have included a new version which gives more direct quotation than the previous one. Will it be reverted despite the cries of horror that I deleted "sourced material"? Will careful edits insist on making it ambiguous? In the meantime Causteau has tried for a second time to censor my quotation of him here on this talkpage.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Push what, Andrew? Are you calling Ellen Coffman-Levy herself a POV-pusher? And you do understand that she described my analysis of her post as "precisely what was trying to convey", don't you? How am I then harboring some "sinister" view when the author of the study herself admitted that my analysis of her quote was indeed what she was implying? Your grasping for straws dude. Instead of just admitting that your edits are OR additions to the Coffman-Levy quote, you demonize the editors who have refused to allow you to insert it into the article. You write that I hooked up with SOPHIAN to gang up on you or whatever, but actually, I very casually solicited his input on his talk page regarding this discussion since he himself has in the past edited this article and was involved in a dispute over this same issue. You know this, yet why do you pretend otherwise? As for "censoring" information, what actually happened was that you copy and pasted select portions of a rather heated conversation we were having on the haplogroup DE article's talk page onto this talk page's completely separate, unrelated conversation. On the haplogroup DE talk page, you wrote a nasty edit (the one dated 18:10, 22 June 2009) to which I naturally responded in kind (my post dated 18:37, 22 June 2009), but you then opportunistically only quoted on this talk page my response to your unprovoked personal attack as well as a deceptively "angelic" follow up to that on your part to try and make yourself appear as innocent as possible. And when I tried to expose what you were doing on this talk page, you reverted that edit of mine as well! All in all, that was very low and uncalled for. We have successfully resolved disagreements through discussion many times in the past (particularly the recent past), yet you still felt you had to resort to these underhanded tactics? Not cool. Causteau (talk) 22:09, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

As you know, Ellen never disagreed with me on anything on these talkpages, and the big agreement she had with you was concerning a summary paraphrase which you made that actually looks like the kind of thing I'd been proposing. In other words she agreed with precisely what you keep fighting to keep out of the Misplaced Pages article. Please stop calling whatever you've pushed for a "consensus", and please stop trying to invent rules which do not exist about how if something has been discussed before then no one may edit it, or that if something contains a direct quote no one can edit it. It is an enormous distraction from discussion of the content. The controversy is about the wording you've been pushing on the E1b1b article. Talk about that? My concerns and the concerns of others are clear and easy to fix, and as discussed many times we do not need to use your summary because they can be installed by looking at more than one or two sentences in the article being quoted itself. (Concerning your stance that sourced material should never be removed it is interesting to note that you have repeatedly refused to let me quote from the detailed section of the cited article concerning E1b1b. You want everything centred on a vague introductory sentence which implies by a strange bit of wording that implies E1b1b might not be African in origin.) A simple fix can remove all doubts about the quote. You don't want to deliberately create doubts do you?. Concerning SOPHIAN, nearly all edits I've seen that new editor make have been quick reverts, without discussion, in favour of text originally fought for by you. I also had a vandalism accusation posted by SOPHIAN for trying to change this citation! Whatever your relationship should be described as, the effect on Misplaced Pages editing is not positive, and that is the simple fact of the matter. However the reason I referred to your talkpages was specifically concerning the agenda you share, which is to look for articles where African origins of anything at all can be questioned. If you are always taking the same side, then you are not being neutral.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:50, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is a bald-faced lie. Ellen at no point ever disagreed with me on anything; quite the opposite, actually. Not only that, I hereby dare you to post a quote from her where you believe she did! We both know you never could cause she didn't. The truth is, you and I were involved in a dispute regarding the aforementioned quote by Ellen Coffman-Levy, and we took polar opposite positions on the same issue (namely, on the meaning & relevance of her quote). You argued that the quote was irrelevant and ambiguous , and I argued that it was both relevant and actually quite easy to understand. You posted an entry describing your position which you addressed to Ellen, and I did the same with regard to my view. However, Ellen only described one of our two diametrically opposed positions as being "precisely what was trying to convey": mine, not yours. You also write that I "pushed" something or other. Actually, the past 48 hours have been the story of you relentlessly attempting to replace a direct quote from Ellen Coffman-Levy with original research that attempts to dilute the potency and significance of her quote. This has already been amply demonstrated by me in post after post in this talk page's two penultimate sections. You have a very nasty habit of misrepresenting what other people write, and especially when you believe them to be too far away from a computer to correct you. For example, you write that I "invent rules which do not exist about how if something has been discussed before then no one may edit it, or that if something contains a direct quote no one can edit it". I've already debunked above your many previous attempts at misrepresenting what I have actually written. But this time, I'm not going to do that; you're going to have to prove your baseless accusations with actual evidence in the way of direct quotes. If you fail in producing this (which you will), we will have no other option than to conclude that you are yet again manipulating the facts to suit your ends. You write that the controversy surrounding the Coffman-Levy quote "is about the wording been pushing on the E1b1b article". Another untruth. I haven't been "pushing" anything, and the "controversy", as you so disingenuously put it, is over two things: 1) Your addition of original research to the Coffman-Levy quote (1, 2, 3), which you have tried to make me believe only helps "explain" it, but in reality, is a rather transparent attempt by you to rob the quote of its potency, since it does, after all, indicate that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". 2) Your repeated attempts at removing the quote altogether. In fact, you even gave me an ultimatum, basically threatening me to either allow you to insert OR into the text, or that you would remove the quote altogether (your posts dated 11:38, 22 June 2009 & 17:57, 22 June 2009)! And since I of course refused your offer to add OR & rejected your threat to remove the quote -- quoting the appropriate WP:NOR and WP:VER policies to you along the way --- you opted to go it along and just remove the quotes altogether (1, 2) When SOPHIAN reverted you (1, 2), he was right to do so because you had no business removing that reliable source, and you know it. You also contradict yourself when you indicate that SOPHIAN reverting your edits contitutes supporting "my" version of the quote, but in the next breath you insist that there is no consensus on the matter. Make up your mind already! Fact is, you've been trying to remove that Coffman-Levy quote since the day I first added it months ago, and strictly because it discusses E3b in a non-African context, which is something you vehemently oppose for some reason. But of course, in your head, that opposition doesn't constitute a POV, but "neutrality". Please. Hxseek, Alun, etc.: those are neutral editors -- not you. Causteau (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Coffman-Levy continued again

Once again I need to start new sections in order to edit. I expect Causteau will accuse me again of doing this for some special tactical reason, but it is only a technical limitation. I remind him pre-emptively of WP:AGF.

Dear Causteau, please stop going off subject?? The opening sentence of your last post above is so misleading and comic-book-lawyeresque as to be comical. I did not say Ellen disagreed with you, so your outrage is unconvincing. I said she only ever commented upon your summaries on the talkpage which you made for her. But these summaries are very different from what you've been pushing on the Misplaced Pages article itself, which is that you've wanted to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa. This is something you originally argued for more openly, going to great lengths to say that Ellen herself wanted to express such doubts (15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)). In fact her point about the use of the word African was very specific and needed explanation, which she gives in her own article. One of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph! You only changed your tune (on these talk pages, not in editing the article) after I went through a lot of effort, including inviting Ellen to come and discuss things here. However the fact of the matter is that you did not take the opportunity to discuss the text you actually want in the article, but rather asked her to confirm a summary of her article which is actually the opposite of what you want in the Misplaced Pages article. So can you now pleas15:17, 29 October 2008 e stick to writing about the pros and cons of different versions of the text for the Misplaced Pages article itself?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another new talk page section; how did I know that was coming? And quoting for me WP:AFG? You of all people? Your last post was nothing but personal, so don't give me that. Here is the passage from 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) that you claim is me originally arguing openly and wanting "to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa":

"The accusation cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes."

As can be seen above, that's actually me yet again turning down your offer to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers, as you have been consistently attempting to do since I first added it to the article (that is, when you're not busy trying to remove the quote altogether). Funny how you attempt to explain to me what the point of Ellen's quote is when you didn't even understand it to begin with! Remember, you ridiculed my original edits, and described it as my "POV" only to have Ellen state that my anaysis in fact perfectly captured what it is she was actually trying to say. You write that "one of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph". That is another untruth. My one gripe with you has always been that you are adding original research in an attempt to dilute the significance of Ellen's quote, and only because that quote states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" (which is something that you are for whatever reason dead-set against). In fact, I can recall calling you out for having conveniently omitted the key word "incorrectly" from that very quote in one of your famous "neutral rewrites" (20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)). That's why I have been reluctant to allow you to rewrite her quote: because you have shown yourself incapable of faithfully reproducing it, as your own previous rewrites show. Like it or not, Ellen's quote is also discussed in only one particular passage in her study; this is fact. She doesn't discuss this issue anywhere else, which is something you tried and failed to suggest in the past (why are you exhuming dead sub-arguments if your intention is supposedly progressive and forward-looking?). Further, contrary to what you claim, in my post to Ellen, I included both the direct quote and paraphrase from Ellen's study that I added to the article and wished to see retained as well as a summary of the situation at hand and an analysis of her quote. I concluded all that with a question specifically asking to "please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written". And her response to that was of course to indicate that my argument was "precisely what was trying to convey". Lastly, your suggestion that "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" (i.e. the quote that goes "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") is somehow the opposite of what you call my "summary of her article" is beyond absurd and non-sensical, when said summary (which was actually an analysis, BTW; the summary of the situation then at hand was represented by the post in its entirety) was described by the author herself as perfectly capturing what it is she was trying to communicate in said quote, and what you label "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" are direct quotes of from the passage itself! And no, I will not stop defending myself from your distortions until you stop producing them! If you want to talk about the present, then let's do that. But don't bring up extraneous charges on old discussions and then express frustration at my having the audacity to defend myself against them.

The Present: Your latest edit appears to capture at least part of what Ellen means. You have again, however, left out the key part where she states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". I have corrected that (again). Causteau (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Yet another new talk page section; how did I know that was coming? And quoting for me WP:AFG? You of all people? Your last post was nothing but personal, so don't give me that. Here is the passage from 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC) that you claim is me originally arguing openly and wanting "to try to imply that she doubts E1b1b originated in Africa":

"The accusation cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes."

Here's what was written. Andrew: "It is your POV. You want to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects. I do not know why yet." Causteau: "No... it's Coffman-Levy's view. And you've really lost it this time. Per WP:PA"--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As can be seen above, that's actually me yet again turning down your offer to "interpret" the Coffman-Levy quote for readers, as you have been consistently attempting to do since I first added it to the article (that is, when you're not busy trying to remove the quote altogether). Funny how you attempt to explain to me what the point of Ellen's quote is when you didn't even understand it to begin with! Remember, you ridiculed my original edits, and described it as my "POV" only to have Ellen state that my anaysis in fact perfectly captured what it is she was actually trying to say. You write that "one of your big debates with me originally was that I should not be allowed to quote her detailed explanation, because the details are discussed in a different paragraph".

Here what's was written: Causteau: "You also quote from a passage in the Coffman-Levy study where she states that "although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago, certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years (Cruciani et al. 2004). ... However, you quote from an entirely separate discussion in the study, a discussion one page removed from the paragraph in question where Coffman-Levy actually discusses the controversy surrounding the treatment of E3b." Andrew: "Coffman-Levy is not a supporter of this position of yours. If her discussion of E1b1b is spread over a few paragraphs, so what?" Causteau: "Coffmany-Levy's discussion of the controversy surrounding E3b is not "spread over a few paragraphs". It is discussed in only one paragraph, which I've already quoted for you above."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That is another untruth. My one gripe with you has always been that you are adding original research in an attempt to dilute the significance of Ellen's quote, and only because that quote states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" (which is something that you are for whatever reason dead-set against).

Can you please name, for the first time ever, which original research I am inserting. Not every change of wording in a quotation changes the meaning of a sentence. You claim my edit is not needed, because the old word meant the same thing, so how can I be inserting original research? You can have the cake and eat it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I can recall calling you out for having conveniently omitted the key word "incorrectly" from that very quote in one of your famous "neutral rewrites" (20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)).

When you've been in edit wars with other extremists you've often called for my intervention and showed you see me as neutral. You've certainly described nothing non-neutral? Is it non-neutral to disagree with someone?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Thats why I have been reluctant to allow you to rewrite her quote: because you have shown yourself incapable of faithfully reproducing it, as your own previous rewrites show. Like it or not, Ellen's quote is also discussed in only one particular passage in her study; this is fact. She doesn't discuss this issue anywhere else, which is something you tried and failed to suggest in the past (why are you exhuming dead sub-arguments if your intention is supposedly progressive and forward-looking?).

So tell everyone in a clear way, for the first time, how I have changed the meaning the passage?? If the passage did not previously question E1b1b's African origins, and it still doens't, then no problem right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Further, contrary to what you claim, in my post to Ellen, I included both the direct quote and paraphrase from Ellen's study that I added to the article and wished to see retained as well as a summary of the situation at hand and an analysis of her quote. I concluded all that with a question specifically asking to "please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written". And her response to that was of course to indicate that my argument was "precisely what was trying to convey". Lastly, your suggestion that "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" (i.e. the quote that goes "Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") is somehow the opposite of what you call my "summary of her article" is beyond absurd and non-sensical, when said summary (which was actually an analysis, BTW; the summary of the situation then at hand was represented by the post in its entirety) was described by the author herself as perfectly capturing what it is she was trying to communicate in said quote, and what you label "what want in the Misplaced Pages article" are direct quotes of from the passage itself! And no, I will not stop defending myself from your distortions until you stop producing them! If you want to talk about the present, then let's do that. But don't bring up extraneous charges on old discussions and then express frustration at my having the audacity to defend myself against them.

The Present: Your latest edit appears to capture at least part of what Ellen means. You have again, however, left out the key part where she states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"". I have corrected that (again).

I did indeed remove it! Thank you for finally coming back to the subject of the wording. The practical disagreement between us is indeed that you want to insist on saying that E1b1b "is often incorrectly described as African". And I and other editors say you either remove that part or we take the whole passage out because in normal English usage, "haplogroup X is incorrectly described as African" would NORMALLY mean "haplogroup X did not originate in Africa". So these are the words that say that E1b1b might not have African origins. Why do you insist on those particular words, and show no interest in other ones, direct quote or not? See the discussion between you and User:SOPHIAN on your talkpages. This is part of your pursuit of trying to question any African origins theory wherever they appear in Misplaced Pages articles, irrespective of what mainstream literature really says. If this is not the case and I have somehow misunderstood then sorry but of course there should then be no problem accepting a wording change, because you and I and Ellen all supposedly agree that anyone who reads her article in context will agree that it is not intended to question the African origin of E1b1b. So the English language is what sets the rules here, because the English language tells us the current words would normally be read to mean something we apparently agree they do not mean. Before you start posting pages of Misplaced Pages rules, please note that we do not need to directly quote wording ambiguities from original sources, if the meaning is clear enough in context. (Even in the citation of this passage, you've had no problem with you or other editors reducing or changing what words are directly quoted, in order to make meaning clear.) And concerning this particular passage, you have now insisted many times that you do accept that there should be no implication that E1b1b is not African in origin. So you should be able to accept the wording changes being requested now for so long. If not, why not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you've chopped up my post again, just like the good 'ol days. But would you believe it, there it is back again in its entirety right above your post. Just like magic. But who exactly are these "other editors" you speak of that wish to see Ellen Coffman-Levy's statement that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" gone as badly as you do? Cause all I see above is the one same editor who has been trying very hard to get rid of that quote in its entirety from the moment it was first added to the article. And that's in addition to every single source that asserts anything other than an African origin for haplogroup E1b1b, a haplogroup which you have already admitted to belonging to. Above, you disingenously "thank" me for what you describe as "finally coming back to the subject of the wording" ("wording" was never what the dispute was about, but meaning), yet can't help yourself from again bringing up my talk page discussion with SOPHIAN that, besides not even concerning you (see WP:Wikistalking), dealt with Out of Africa (an article I've actually never even edited) -- not E1b1b. Moving on, the importance of the passage stating that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" has nothing to do with the rubbish you've written above. It has to do with two things that you are simulataneously omitting in not including it:

• The fact that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms. Ellen Coffman-Levy herself tried to explain this to you when she dropped by (but apparently in vain):

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

• E3b is often described in this erroneous way -- not just infrequently. She also tried to explained this:

"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."

Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today.

Here's where you return with more personal attacks & attempts to water-down that Coffman-Levy quote. Causteau (talk) 13:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

E1b1b is more a Mediterranean Middle-easterner&north African haplotype than African one.

Most of haplotypes(such R,J,G,C...)has a haplotype ancestor originating in Africa but the fact that E1b1b's are found majoritly outside sub-saharan Africa and that incorrectly Africa and Africans were used to denote essentially sub-saharan negroid Africans has led to this ambiguousity.

So I think the best thing is to precise that this haplotype has an origin in middle east(as middle east perfectly match the regions of origin and distribution of this haplotype since middle east encompasses Arabia,Turkey,Iran,Egypt,Sudan,and even horn of Africa,Libya and Greece)

Also this haplotype is largely associated with non negroid and afro-asiatic speakers and not with negroid and african(nilo-saharan or niger-kongo)speakers peoples so the most accurate statement is to underline that E1b1b is a "great middle-east" haplotype.

Since continent delimitations dont much cultural nor racial nor either geographical ones.

For example the sahara divides north and eastern Africa and also Arabia&Anatolia from the remenant of Africa whereas mediterranean sea and bosfor is rather lumpering middle easr to Europe and not splitting.

So we must take socio-cultural and geographical features into consideration.

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Humanbyrace (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well if nothing else, I see that there certainly is ambiguity and misunderstanding out there concerning E1b1b, which of course means that the Misplaced Pages article should avoid creating any extra confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll go through what I can follow, but honestly I think you could have written more carefully and clearly...

Most of haplotypes(such R,J,G,C...)has a haplotype ancestor originating in Africa but the fact that E1b1b's are found majoritly outside sub-saharan Africa and that incorrectly Africa and Africans were used to denote essentially sub-saharan negroid Africans has led to this ambiguousity.

I don't think that African mean "sub-Saharan" even if some people mistakenly mix their words up this way. Misplaced Pages needs to use standard English geographical terms, and really everyone should. This raises the question of whether E1b1b really is not sub-Saharan and I have to say this is also not clear. There are some quite significant pockets of it all the way down to South Africa, and one of the biggest concentrations of all is in Ethiopia and Somalia. Some may argue that the Horn of Africa is not sub-Saharan, but I think this is debatable, and indeed this raises a question of how clear the term "sub-Saharan" is.

So I think the best thing is to precise that this haplotype has an origin in middle east(as middle east perfectly match the regions of origin and distribution of this haplotype since middle east encompasses Arabia,Turkey,Iran,Egypt,Sudan,and even horn of Africa,Libya and Greece)

Every assertion in this paragraph is wrong unfortunately.

No article has ever been published arguing that E-M35 originated in the Middle East, and the idea that it might have goes back to days when it seemed to be part of haplogroup D. The distribution is also not particularly heavy in the Middle East at all compared to nearby parts of Africa such as Somalia and the Western Sahara.

Greece is not Middle Eastern, and certainly Albania and Macedonia aren't either.

Once again please note normal definitions. In casual and unclear speech some people do include parts of Africa in the Middle East, but this is not the standard we must follow on Misplaced Pages.

There is significant E1b1b in Eastern and Southern Africa.

Also this haplotype is largely associated with non negroid and afro-asiatic speakers and not with negroid and african(nilo-saharan or niger-kongo)speakers peoples so the most accurate statement is to underline that E1b1b is a "great middle-east" haplotype.

Since continent delimitations dont much cultural nor racial nor either geographical ones.

Sure. I think the article currently does not rely on any such strong links being assumed, and is fairly careful about that sort of thing? But it is hard to write an article if we can't use ANY geographical or cultural terms?

For example the sahara divides north and eastern Africa and also Arabia&Anatolia from the remenant of Africa whereas mediterranean sea and bosfor is rather lumpering middle easr to Europe and not splitting.

You would save people a lot of effort if you wrote more carefully. Can you explain how the Sahara seperates Eastern Africa from "the remnant" - by which I understand that you mean sub-saharan Africa???

So we must take socio-cultural and geographical features into consideration.

Sure, but which ones exactly? I am sure everyone can agree that we should take them into consideration, but that does not yet define what we should do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Coffman-Levy citation again

Causteau, your posts are so long and repetitive that I need to start a new section again. Sorry. I am also sorry for messily inserting quotations in response to the multitude of incorrect statements you made. I won't bother this time.

Please come to your point? Please state what difference in "MEANING" you think I am introducing into the text?

All versions under discussion have now and always included the concept that the term African can be used incorrectly in the specific sense of "over simplistically". This is exactly what Ellen intended. She clearly did not intend to say that it would be incorrect in a strict and literal sense, as her article, and your summary for her on these talk pages, and her comments on these talk pages, all confirm.

The current version explains this very subtle and important point in the author's own words, in a way your preferred versions do not. Your selection of words changed the meaning, deliberately, in order to imply that E1b1b might not have originated in Asia. My selection of words from the more detailed explanation does not.

So what's the problem? You say I am introducing original research, so what is it? Which new unsourced idea am I adding in? Just say it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop creating new sections. Try as you might, they won't obscure the discussions that have already taken place above. And don't ask me to "come to my point". You have just been shown in no uncertain terms with Ellen's own words the importance of the phrase you keep omitting. This means you have no legitimate reason for omitting it, like I keep saying. The version you edited did not capture the meaning at all. In fact, the current version doesn't either since it falsely concludes that Ellen is talking about the past (i.e. "at least until the time of writing in 2005") when my post above clearly demonstrates via her own words that she is talking about the present. Your claim that my edit changes the meaning to imply other origins is false, and was false from the minute you first uttered it. When I asked Ellen to "let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what written", that post included the following:

"Basically, the situation is that I have included in the Origins section of this E1b1b article a paraphrase from your 2005 study that goes:

Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

However, at least one other user has been very vociferous in his opposition against its inclusion. He writes that the paragraph above is irrelevant to the origins of E-M35, and that it somehow creates the impression that you believe that E-M35 originated in the Middle East/Near East. I've explained to him that this charge does not hold water since we state outright that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa."

And her response to that post was of course that it was "precisely what was trying to convey." Causteau (talk) 14:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Causteau wrote "And don't ask me to "come to my point".". I think that says it all! You've claimed I am introducing original research by quoting different words, but you refuse to define any difference in meaning which you see. I have on the other hand repeatedly defined a difference which I see which makes your preferred citations change the meaning, and yes, any review of the talk page history for this article will show that it has been frequently remarked upon by others. There is no point talking about anything else because that is the core of the whole conversation. BTW can you try to reduce the number of blockquotes where you cite yourself? Citing yourself adds nothing but distraction to this discussion and your replies are currently about 70% you citing yourself.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, what I said was "And don't ask me to "come to my point". You have just been shown in no uncertain terms with Ellen's own words the importance of the phrase you keep omitting." You only do yourself a disservice by quoting me out of context like you just did. Fact is, Ellen has indicated herself through her own words a) the importance of the quote you keep trying to omit (covered in my post above dated 13:23, 23 June 2009), and b) the fact that the quote I've inserted into this article in no way creates the impression that E3b originated in the Middle/Near East like you've repeatedly claimed (covered in post above from 14:23, 23 June 2009). In fact, I've also demonstrated (in my post dated 13:23, 23 June 2009), again, through Ellen's own words, the erroneousness of the current edit; specifically the part you added back the other day to the article asserting that there is no longer any such confusion surrounding the discussion of E3b. Errr, not according to the reliable source, Ellen Coffman-Levy. How's that for irony? I'm sorry if my posting actual details bugs you, but those are the breaks. Causteau (talk) 15:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No this is not an answer. You are just telling me I quote Ellen's article using some different words. We already know that obviously. But what is the difference in MEANING between the two quotes? I've told you what I think. I think that the wording you've selected implies doubt about E1b1b being African in origin, and mine removes that. But you've specifically said that you don't want such a meaning implied into the text, so in that case there should be no problem if I tweak the quote to remove the ambiguity I and others read in your construction. Is there any other difference in MEANING between the two ways of quoting and paraphrasing the article? Just say what difference there is. What is the MEANING I am removing or adding or changing? You can't argue BOTH that the meaning is the same, AND that the meaning is different. Which is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Your entire post above is based on the presumption that, as you say, you "think that the wording selected implies doubt about E1b1b being African in origin". However, I've told twice now that the author herself has indicated that she doesn't find that the way the quote is presented in this article creates the impression that E3b originated in the Middle/Near East (covered in post above from 14:23, 23 June 2009) -- only you do. And to ask how the two versions (i.e. yours vs. the one you keep trying to get rid of) differ is to ask how is one is superior or inferior to the other since Misplaced Pages can't accomodate two versions at once. It's an either/or proposition. I've indicated to you in my post above dated 13:23, 23 June 2009 the importance of the version which includes Ellen's key phrase that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"", again, using Ellen's own talk page comments. Your improvised phrases are necessarily inferior to Ellen's quote because they omit the important meaning imparted by that phrase above (the meaning in question is also covered in the aforecited post, BTW). And as we've seen, your argument asserting the superiority of your improvised text which omits that key phrase rested on the notion that including that key phrase creates the impression that E3b originated in the Middle/Near East. But as we've also already seen, that simply is not the case. Causteau (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You are refusing to make your own case. For example now you say that my "improvised phrases are necessarily inferior to Ellen's quote because they omit the important meaning imparted by that phrase above". And yet you refuse to explain what the important omitted meaning is! I've explained the only difference I've seen. Now you explain. If you have no case you can explain, then forget it. You've already said that you supposedly think your wording means the same thing as mine, so why is it so important to you that you need to accuse me of original research and all those other things you accused me of? There are editors with a concern about your wording, let them make things clear. Let them make the wording say what you say you think it already says?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something wrong with your computer screen, then, because I quite clearly did explain it (in post 13:23, 23 June 2009, for example). Of course, it's much easier to feign incomprehension when one has successfully obscured older text by continuously starting new topic sections. Again, the importance of the passage stating that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" has nothing to do with what you've previously suggested. It has to do with two things that you are simultaneously omitting in not including said passage:

• The fact that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms. Ellen Coffman-Levy herself tried to explain this to you when she dropped by (but apparently in vain):

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

• E3b is often described in this erroneous way -- not just infrequently. She also tried to explained this:

"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."

Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today. Causteau (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing in this or any other comment you have made gives any explanation about the difference in meaning between the texts I am proposing, for example the current one, and any other. What am I missing? The current text also says that the word African has problems. The only difference is that it specifies those problems more clearly than you want. Just say what the difference in meaning is? Stop pretending that I am arguing with Ellen's paper. I am not. We are talking about the wording for this Misplaced Pages article. We are talking about your wording and my wording. Stick to topic, please!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

You're seeing what you want to see, Andrew. Ellen -- with her own words -- has demonstrated the importance of the very key words in that quote which you have been trying very hard to get rid of (that would be the italicized ones above). The edits you champion, which, by contrast, aren't direct quotes from the author in question but instead very much your own, specifically leave out these same points. For one thing, you've essentially robbed the article & therefore its readers of knowledge of the fact that this mistreatment of E3b in the public & the media is ongoing (not of the past), and that it is incorrect to describe E3b as simply "African" per the author herself. Again:

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

Like I wrote, Ellen knows whereof she speaks. Causteau (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The edit which your SOPHIAN is currently reverting once more for you (though he asks below, after reverting, what the discussion is about) contains more direct quoting and explanations about these details than the particular sentence you want to put in, except of course that I can not accept pretending that the article was not written years ago. BTW you can't cite her words in 2008 on this talkpage as an update, even if they agreed with you. I repeat that you are not giving any justification for the reverts you and Sophian are making. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I never asked SOPHIAN to do anything of the sort, nor did I even notice he did. Unlike some people, I actually like to think before I write, so I don't always have time to mind other people's business for them. I will say, though, that the desperation in your arguments is almost tragic at this point. You're making literally no sense. It makes no difference whether Ellen were to have said that the mistreament of E3b in the media and public is still ongoing in her study or in her Misplaced Pages talk page posts. The point is, she, the author of both opinions, said it and emphatically. This of course completely debunks your fabricated notion that this mistreatment is no longer in effect, which is something you have then attributed to the author (if not the author, then who exactly? Yourself? Cause we all know what that would be, don't we?: Original research. And once again. More to be found on post 17:27, 23 June 2009. Causteau (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Material was moved from here to the section about the appropriate subject, along with a new reply. See http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Haplogroup_E1b1b_(Y-DNA)#Was_Coffman-Levy_a_fortune_teller.3F --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew why are you so against the wording: E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” ? sincerely The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 19:05, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I've moved this question to right place. You inserted it into a post of Causteau and I almost missed it. Second, to answer you: to say that it is incorrect to call E1b1b "African" begs the question of which sense is implied for the word "African". The sentence is taken out of the context it was originally in and can mean a lot of different things. The most obvious thing it would mean is that E1b1b did not originate in Africa. However, the original article being discussed makes clear that the author believes that it DID originate in Africa, and it also makes clear (as Causteau has agreed many times) that the special sense intended was that calling E1b1b African is over-simplified, and not actually wrong as such. In other words, the author felt that discussions based too much on these prehistoric origins gave people silly ideas. The author, who has been a correspondent of mine since long before she wrote that article, is absolutely right about this. And it is this idea which I have no problem including in the Misplaced Pages article. But any quote which implies that she said that E1b1b does not originate in Africa has to go, because that is nonsense. Please let me know if this makes sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well Ellen certainly is an eminently sensible woman, as she has amply shown in her talk page posts. But you are again mistaken when you suggest that the statement was taken out of context. It most certainly was not, and I have repeatedly demonstrated this above (for example, in my post dated 14:23, 23 June 2009). Causteau (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Ellen say that it is wrong in every way to call E1b1b African, or did she specify a very particular sense? Yes or no? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The answer is that, as you yourself have explained on these talk pages, that she noted a very specific sense, and certainly did not mean it in the most obvious and literal sentence. Indeed her article makes it absolutely clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Ellen ever express any opinion that the key sentence in her whole article was the one which said that it is incorrect to call E1b1b African? No she did not. And yet you continue to imply that she did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Did Ellen ever make any remarks about any versions of text being proposed for the article? No she did not. And yet you continue to imply that she did.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's say Ellen had agreed on this talkpage with your opinions on everything, and said that E1b1b might not have an African origin. What then? It still would make no difference. Her article does not raise any doubts about it. Her article says directly that E1b1b originated in Africa, ie, "E1b1b is African". You can't use the talkpages as a source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ellen said this:

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

Notice the allusions she makes. 21:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No problem. What she says is similar to what I want the article to say, and similar to what you summarized for her in 2008. It is very specific about the particular sense she intends by saying that E1b1b is wrong to be referred to in discussion as simply African. She very definitely did NOT intend the most obvious meaning, which would be that E1b1b did not originate in Africa (remember the context in her article is about Jews who are E1b1b). Do you agree or not? Just answer. How can we edit if you are only trying to win an argument? Do we have common ground or not? Or do you say that she doubts E1b1b is African in this sense of where it originated? Why not give clear answers?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:09, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ellen does not mean "E3b is ofen incorrectly described as African" strictly in the context of Jews. This is actually one of the misimpressions that currently plagues the article. She means E3b as a whole. I know this because that is precisely in what context I discussed the clade in my analysis of her quote, which she felt captured what it is she was trying to communicate:

"This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."

From the above and the quote itself, it is clear Ellen is talking about E3b as a whole: not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade. On this latter point, Ellen even expounded further in her own comments with the following very sensible remarks:"

Also, do not interpret non-acquiescence as "trying to win". My many edits on this talk page over these past few days alone show I am sincere. So sincere, in fact, that I refuse to settle for an edit that in no way, shape or form fully captures (or indeed even cites) what it is the author actually writes. Causteau (talk) 21:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not asking you to acquiesce. I just think you need to clearly explain your position. The aim is that we all win. I have no problem, once more, with the kind of detailed explanation you give in your first paragraph here once again on talk pages, but just how do you argue that this is best reflect by compressing everything into one sentence which says that it is incorrect to call E1b1b African? By the way, just to keep our eye on the picture this sentence is what you want to appear in a section marked as being about E1b1b ORIGINS. My only concern, to repeat, is that if the author meant anything BUT origins then it would be very wrong to imply otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, just look at what you wrote: the quote does compress everything into one sentence. So it's not a question of whether the quote is wrong. It is now a question of whether it is appropriate, given where in the article it is featured. This is something that Ellen has thankfully also already answered and which I have already pointed out to you several times (post from 14:23, 23 June 2009). I don't see how Ellen's view regarding the ultimate place of origin of E1b1b is misrepresented when a) we state in literally the same sentence at hand that she indicates the clade originated in East Africa, and b) she herself has indicated that not only is her view not misrepresented, it is actually well presented. Causteau (talk) 22:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

As I mentioned before this is simply a question of English, so let's use another example. Let's say someone snips a quote from a newspaper article saying that someone, let's say a football player who plays in Israel, is incorrectly called an African, with a full stop after it. The clear implication of this quote taken on its own, and no matter what else is written, is that this person was neither born in Africa nor has or had any nationality there. But let's say that the article is actually all about the them of how complicated the origins of all Jewish people are. And let's say that the article actually goes on to make an extended point over many paragraphs that what it means is that this football player is often discussed in an over-simplified way, but actually he is African - African and Jewish. Would it be appropriate in this case for a Misplaced Pages editor, writing a section in an article specifically concerning this football player's origins, should deliberately choose to use the sentence which says the player "is incorrectly called an African" as the focus sentence? This is what you are doing. You have yourself said that you see these words as the critical ones that you want as much as possible to be the core of the paragraph.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:29, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

That analogy of someone snipping a quote from a newspaper has no bearing on the present situation since in invoking it you are presupposing that Ellen's quote was taken out of context, when I've just explained to you that she herself has indicated that it was not. We also don't need to speculate on the meaning of Ellen's quote, since I've already provided a concise analysis of it, an analysis which the author herself has of course said was ""precisely what was trying to convey". Also, when Ellen writes that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"", she does not mean it strictly in the context of Jews. She means E3b as a whole, which is something that I've also already pointed out (see my post from 21:54, 23 June 2009). Causteau (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

We have defined a meaning on these talkpages, which was that the cited article is saying that calling E1b1b African in discussions in the media has led to over-simplification. We have long apparently agreed that the cited article did not intend to question status in terms of ORIGINS. But you will not allow the wording in the Misplaced Pages article to say the same thing. You want the Misplaced Pages article's ORIGINS section to centre around a sentence which says it is incorrect to call E1b1b African. You chose those words from an article which says that E1b1b's ORIGINS (the subject of the Misplaced Pages article section we are dealing with) are in "East Africa". So ins summary the analogy above looks perfect to me. If the analogy was wrong, please say how. Why do you never answer anything directly??????--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Calm down. Your analogy is completely irrelevant for the reasons clearly outlined above (see the word "since" in the first two sentences; that usually prefaces an explanation). Actually read my post this time and follow through on the other post I also linked you to. I also see you've fallen back on your argument that the key words "incorrectly" and "often" in the quote "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" are disposable, an argument which was debunked quite some time ago as well (post from 19:37, 23 June 2009). Since you are falling back on your arguments of old now, it's clear you have no new ones to put forth. Which begs the question: what's left to talk about? Are you writing just for the sake of writing or do you also have an actual argument to prove? Causteau (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion is very difficult if the only justification you ever want to make is that you already "debunked" the positions of other people long ago. I asked you what was wrong with the analogy, which by the way is not an old analogy, so it can not have been debunked long ago. I don't see your debunking of it anywhere. This is a question of giving the right wording to get the right meaning. The section of the Misplaced Pages article is about the Origins of E1b1b. The article being cited says E1b1b originated in East Africa. You want to cherry pick a sentence which says it is incorrect to call E1b1b African, and you want the wording to be such that this sentence is the prime giver of meaning. That's where we are. Just justify that, for the first time.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Was Coffman-Levy a fortune teller?

Causteau, I see that as hinted above you have decided to take action to (re-)open a second front on the Coffman-Levy citation. Here is your edit. Once again this is a repeat of an old edit you've been trying to force into this article for a long time. Once again I am afraid it can only be interpreted as part of a deliberate effort to create an impression of doubt about the mainstream scientific understanding that E1b1b is African in origin. I'll explain in detail before reverting...

Previous version:

In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) wrote that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005. She cited E1b1b...

Causteau version:

In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) writes that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continues to pervade the public and media. She cites...

The problem is simple. The article was written in 2005, which in the DNA world was a long time ago. Your new wording implies that the article was written now, or at least that it discussed what is happening now, in the future so to speak. This is obviously absurd. Please, if anyone thinks I am missing something, can you tell me?

For the record, because I think this is now a case of clear disruptive editing I think it is worth making clear the fact that when Ellen Coffman-Levy attended this talk page one thing she did make clear to Causteau and the rest of us reading editing this article at the time was that she had very specific cases in mind which were in the past already one year ago. It was about that time that Causteau finally allowed this implication of recentness to be removed the first time around. So this new edit is quite cynical. It is tit for tat. I at least see no other way to understand it?

I also note that amongst his reverts Causteau has even insisted to go back and change the haplogroup name to E3b again, using an outdated name just because this is how it was referred to in this article many years ago. This is also (believe it or not) something Causteau has fought for before! So this also looks like a tit for tat.

Just in case anyone is wondering User:Wapondaponda, whose blocking apparently triggered Causteau's latest sweep of a bunch haplogroup articles in order to changes references to Africa, had no impact on some of the reverts Causteau is making. They go back well before he appeared.

I would appreciate feedback from other editors than Causteau. Am I being too pessimistic?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually Andrew, my edit was based on the following comments by Ellen Coffman-Levy herself on her visit to this talk page from just a few months ago, comments which I hadn't paid close enough attention to in the past:

"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."

Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today.

I realize that a) you have contacted other editors, b) you believe that you therefore have a captive albeit silent audience, and c) are hoping that I lash out so that d) I may then be consequently reprimanded. Actually, I've been aware of this for quite a few posts now. But I'm afraid you just don't have a leg to stand on. You see, not only do Ellen's own comments above about her own study & world-view belie your own assertions, your entire argument that her comments are dated is based upon your own desire and not the author herself, much less her study. In fact, the passage in the study in question is also very much written in the present tense, just like the author's later talk page comments:

"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."

And that says it all. Causteau (talk) 17:27, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are a bad faith editor. I am not hiding that. I've explained the case above and I do not make the accusation lightly. Indeed others should please read through the evidence for themselves. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Coming from you of all people Andrew, that means very little and is deliciously ironic given the above. Causteau (talk) 19:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Whenever you are in these modes you use gloating and "tough guy" words. Can you ever stick to the topic, ever?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

And I suppose you are on topic right now too, eh? You know what they say about the pot & the kettle... Causteau (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I think asking people to stick to topic is not really going off topic in the sense people normally when they raise it as a concern. I was seriously asking you to come back to topic. Can you do so please?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I never left it. See post 19:04, 23 June 2009 for who did, then compare that to the section in question's heading. Causteau (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The Following is moved/copied from inappropriate section, where the discussion continued...

The edit which your SOPHIAN is currently reverting once more for you (though he asks below, after reverting, what the discussion is about) contains more direct quoting and explanations about these details than the particular sentence you want to put in, except of course that I can not accept pretending that the article was not written years ago. BTW you can't cite her words in 2008 on this talkpage as an update, even if they agreed with you. I repeat that you are not giving any justification for the reverts you and Sophian are making. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I never asked SOPHIAN to do anything of the sort, nor did I even notice he did. Unlike some people, I actually like to think before I write, so I don't always have time to mind other people's business for them. I will say, though, that the desperation in your arguments is almost tragic at this point. You're making literally no sense. It makes no difference whether Ellen were to have said that the mistreament of E3b in the media and public is still ongoing in her study or in her Misplaced Pages talk page posts. The point is, she, the author of both opinions, said it and emphatically. This of course completely debunks your fabricated notion that this mistreatment is no longer in effect, which is something you have then attributed to the author (if not the author, then who exactly? Yourself? Cause we all know what that would be, don't we?: Original research. And once again. More to be found on post 17:27, 23 June 2009. Causteau (talk) 20:41, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

How on earth can you cite a 2008 article in order to say what happened after 2008? Please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

That's a very weak argument (and I hestitate to call it that). Ellen showed up only a few months ago. And when she showed up, she maintained the exact same position she took up in her study from three whole years prior. Your argument tries to pit hope against hope that she has come to know differently in those few intervening months. Very doubtful. And certainly not based on anything concrete either like, say, her own words. Causteau (talk) 21:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

So you are citing the talk page? BTW I did not read her that way concerning what had happened since 2005.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not citing anything because to cite something would imply that there was a legitimate argument extant to begin with that merited address, when in fact, there never was. Nowhere does Ellen testify or even so much as allude to anything of the sort. Neither in her study -- which is written in the present tense, and does not set a time limit of any sort on the mistreatment -- nor in her talk page posts i.e. the two venues where she has testified on this matter. We can't very well fish from thin air that which the author herself never asserts. It's not only wrong, it's like speaking for her but without her consent. Actually, I would argue that it's speaking for her against her consent, since she has already clearly expressed a diametrically opposed view: that the mistreatment of E3b in the media & public is still very much going on. Causteau (talk) 22:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree that there is any disagreement between me and Ellen, but in any case please remember this is nothing to do with anything. Her article is the source, not her personally. We can talk to her in a common sense way about how to interpret her article, but there is not formal Misplaced Pages rule that authors can come in and update their arguments, which in any case Ellen did not do.

The real question is, what is your source for specifically wanting to add wording so as to change the meaning away from saying that the article described what was the case up until the time the article was written, and towards saying that it specifically remains true until today? Ellen's 2005 article can not be used as a source for what happened after 2005. Ellen's 2008 comments on this talkpage can not be used as a source at all, and in case do not back you up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:35, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you listening to yourself? You write that Ellen's "article is the source, not her personally", yet you have ironically been pushing for a time limit on her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" that the study itself never makes. Here is your edit:

"In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) wrote that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005."

Your additions above in bold are not cited in Ellen's study. If you think they are, prove it with a direct quote(s) from her study asserting as much. Didn't think so. I, by contrast, am quoting directly from the study itself -- that is my reliable source (what's yours again?)! Here is my edit:

"In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) writes that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continues to pervade the public and media."

And here is the statement in Ellen's study that it is sourced to:

"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."

As can clearly be seen and verified by anyone, my edit is directly drawn from the reliable source in question -- not your edit.

If your argument, then, is that Ellen is instead implying in her study that her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" only applies, as you've written, "at least until the time of writing in 2005", that too is clearly untrue since the author herself indicated in her own talk page posts from just a couple of months ago when she dropped by to shed light on the matter that the problem is still very much ongoing:

"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."

Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today. If you don't think it still applies, then you are necessarily hoping against hope that she has come to know differently in those few intervening months. That, of course, is very doubtful, and certainly not based on anything concrete either like, say, her own words.

And there you have it. Either you are asserting that Ellen directly states in her study what you have attributed to her in this Misplaced Pages article (she doesn't) or you are implying that she does (she doesn't do that either, as just shown). Either way, your edit is based on neither the author nor her study, but strictly on yourself. Causteau (talk) 05:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that the misimpressions continued past 2005? You should be able to answer in a few words. It can not be an article written in 2005, and it can not be Misplaced Pages itself, right? So what is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:32, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I see you took a lot of time to process my post above (joke). My edit does not say that "the misimpressions continued past 2005". This is something you have indicated, so you are in effect answering a remark of your own design -- not my words (see strawman argument). Refer to the long post above for what I did actually say. And when you're through with that, answer my questions for a change. Good luck. Causteau (talk) 06:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

It does not take long, because the subject is simple and you write about irrelevant things. You now claim that your edit did not even "say that "the misimpressions continued past 2005". This is amazing. The change we are talking about here is the change from "continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005" to "continues to pervade the public and media". By the way I have told you before that these very long sections are difficult to edit on some computers so I hope you won't be too worried if I move it back to the section I started for this subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If the subject were as simple as you claim, then you wouldn't have had any difficulty actually understanding what Ellen's quote meant to begin with, would you? The truth is, it does not take you long to post responses because you are not answering what has been presented before and asked of you (as you still are not). It also does not hurt that more text means more visual confusion on the page, which thus makes it easier to obscure older arguments, as do the new talk page sections you keep starting. This, in turn, allows you to ask questions, post arguments, and make accusations that have already been thoroughly addressed and/or debunked as if they were being leveled for the very first time (which is then, at least in theory, supposed to frustrate the other debating party i.e. me). I know the drill, Andrew. Now quit stalling and answer the questions I put before you in my post above from 19:37, 23 June 2009:

• When you "write that "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005", where in Ellen's study does it support the bold part? And where is that passage written in the past tense, as you have rewritten it to?

• If your argument is that Ellen doesn't actually write what you've claimed she does in her study but only implies as much, where then in her study or talk page posts does she do this? Again, I wish you the best of luck with answering those points.

Oh, and before I forget, would you be so kind as to clarify what exactly you mean by "this discussion", "a separate edit" and "this section" in your post above? You see, I'm no good with vague talk. Also, please produce a dif proving that I moved said things you claim I've moved (after having first clarified what you mean by them, of course). Otherwise, it looks like you are attempting to bait me into moving whatever talk page section you are talking about back to where it originally was after you promised to move it ("I hope you won't be too worried if I move it back to the section I started for this subject") -- something you would then undoubtedly complain about to an administrator. Diabolical. Causteau (talk) 07:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please delete the mention to Afro-Asiatic language hypothesis as this theory is not widely accepted.

In the passage below

E1b1b and E1b1b1 are quite common amongst populations speaking an Afro-Asiatic language. According to at least some theories on the origins of this linguistic group, such as those advanced by Christopher Ehret, Afro-Asiatic and E1b1b1 may have dispersed amongst the same populations from the same point of origin, making E-M35 a useful tool for speculation into the origins of Afro-Asiatic (Ehret et al. (2004)).

E haplogroup is rather connected to Niger-Kongo and Nilo-Saharan families,and the theory of Ehret is not widely accepted as the few common roots and similar grammar between Semitic and Kushitic languages are merely borrowings and spracbund that are due to different waves of J haplogroup middle-easterners migrations(which is obvious in the presence of J1 haplotype among Berbers,Egyptians,Ethiopian and Somalis whereas it's impossible to think that these J1 haplotypes are due to Berberistaion/Somalisation... of Arabs or Semites)to Africa but these African languages still have heavy African substratum and lexicon.

Have you questionned yourself why the called Afroasiatic words related to numbers,animals,relationship etc.. are so different whereas these basic words are always similar in the widely accepted language families such as Semitic,Turkic,IE,Finno-Ugric etc..?

You can read the text below

http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/ive-been-having-a-rethink-about-afro-asiatic-origins/

I’m having a rethink about Afro Asiatic’s origin after having a good look at the reconstructed nouns.

Particularly those dealing with with animals. I had a brief look through the nouns for PAA, and quite striking was the number of words for goats and sheep. Also included were horses and camels. Since goats, horses and sheep and camels were not native to Holocene Africa prior to the neolithic, I’m reconsidering my support of an African origin for proto Afro Asiatic. Although, as has been kindly pointed out, the reconstructions are all pretty hazy for PAA, but still it’s suspicious.

Another factor making me reconsider is the dating suggested for the languages. The presence of goats and sheep (many and varied terms) also gives an oldest possible date to the last node (a languages TMRCA) for Cushitic, which is a pastoral language of sheep, goat and cattle herders. Since Cushitic is sub Saharan, very relevant is the oldest known date for the arrival of ovicaprines in the Sudan, which is about 5,500 years BP ( Esh Shaheinab, Sudan). This would suggest the proposed 10k date for proto Cushitic is off by about 45%- although this may just be it’s last node and the 10k date for it’s seperation may be correct.

Relevant to this is the R1b Y chromosome present in the Ouldeme and the Hausa, both Chadic speaking groups, one in Cameroon and one in the Sudan. The Hausa have R1b ( R-P25* (R1b1*) at about 41%, and Ouldeme at 95%. This is quite a bizarre find for groups in the middle of Africa, as R1b is typically European and West Asian. It would be a logical suggestion that the Ouldeme and Hausa are quite closely related paternally, and may point to an East to West route for Chadic speakers- suggested by Blench in the ‘The Westward wanderings of Cushitic Pastoralists’- although there have been suggestions the Hausa moved from West to east recently, which would make the R1b in Cameroon possibly from a north to south route across the Sahara.

This particular branch of R1b has been dated to an entry of about 4,000 years ago- but bearing in mind the older (2002) papers tend to seriously underestimate the date of the Y chromosomes – a pet peeve- the oldest entry date for it at 8,000 BP would be more reasonable, and a good match for the Neolithic sheep and goat pastoralists arriving in Africa from West Asia. It doesn’t do my older theory of M78/M1 being linked to the spread of Afro Asiatic any good though. Oh well.

The coalescence age of the African haplotype 117, which we estimated as 4,100 years (95% CI 2,400–8,060 years), could thus represent a date for such an expansion and a lower limit for the time of entry into Africa.

From this paper.

This all has some relevance to Ehrets dating of Proto Nilo Saharan (both families dated by glottochronology). He gives the same 15k date for Nilo Saharan as for proto Afro Asiatic.. so I’m thinking 10-9,000 bp for Nilo Saharan too. This also brings proto Northern Sudanic into the outer estimate for the Neolithic in Africa (7,000) although it’s unlikely as they have a dearth of terms for pastoralism and agriculture. His dates seem to vary from 35% to 45% off the possible, which may be due to the difference in geographical points of origin in proto Cushitic and Proto Sahelian, so I’m assuming proto Sahelian is a little more Northerly in origin than proto Cushitic and have adjusted the dates for it for a ‘best fit’. Even if it does give a close date for age of separation fro the sub groups, Ehret never seems to take into account there may have been more recent nodes to account for the pastoralist terms.

This doesn’t really support Omotic as an afro Asiatic language, as it shows no proto words for pastoralism before it’s split. But it has been pointed out by several linguists that it has no more in common with Afro Asiatic than it does with it’s other neighbouring language groups, so it’s AA status is pretty suspect to start with.

Edit:

A little more DNA evidence has come out showing a pre Neolithic population movement into North and East Africa dating to 11-10k ago, involving J1 (Y) and H (mt DNA) which coincide with the IM/Capsian transition in North Africa. This could be the reason for the odd structure of the tree; Cushitic languages are the result of an earlier AA population expansion into East Africa from the near East. This expansion (as far as I can tell) seems to start about 13,500 BP from southern Turkey? I’ll need to dig into it a bit more. This cultural expansion may have been of a food ‘managing’ culture as opposed to food gathering or producing cultures, a proto Neolithic expansion wave of people that kept wild animals (a domestication step) and harvested and planted seeds from the wild. There are domesticated seeds from Syria at 12,500 BP so the people of the Turkey/near East area were definitely doing something along those lines at the right date.

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Humanbyrace (talk) 12:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

The present text of the Misplaced Pages article does not say that there is an accepted theory, but actually it could be changed to be a bit more assertive. See my review article about this subject here http://www.jogg.info/51/index.html . Several of the major genetics papers which considered E1b1b suggested a link to Afroasiatic, and my article goes on to show the arguments still look good when considered both in detail and from a multi-disciplinary perspective. The only person who ever questioned this proposal, an Australian archaeologist named Peter Bellwood, effectively really only said that genetic evidence is useless. He did not address any particular evidence as such. The theories you are mentioning come from a blog so you can't use them on Misplaced Pages. They are very casual and indecisive anyway.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop trying to change what Ellen said

Why whould you LIE about what someone said unless you have an agenda and are an extremist? Go ahead and debate me: all I have to say is you will not stop twisting what Ellen said. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 23:00, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't recommend referring to other editors in that way. See WP:CIV. Causteau (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Causteau, but he nevertheless is reverting for you whether this is pre-planned or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Spare me the backhanded compliments. SOPHIAN isn't "reverting for " any more than the user Yom -- someone whom you've just contacted for support in this content dispute -- is reverting for you. Causteau (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Neither you nor Causteau have yet explained any way in which I have changed the meaning of Ellen's article. Causteau's main concerns over this long debate has been to try to stop others putting in information from the original article. As part of this effort, Causteau has in fact specifically argued that the crucial words he wants to keep in say exactly the same as words I want, i.e. that it does not imply that E1b1b did not originate in Africa.

How can there be a double argument that (a) Causteau's wording means the same as the counter proposals already, so no change is necessary and (b) the proposed changes will change the meaning? It is ridiculous. It is one or the other.

Rather than writing such rude accusations why not read what has been discussed and make your points clearly about the job at hand which is how to word a Misplaced Pages article? If your only source of opinion is Causteau then please cease to edit on that basis. Only edit when you have something to say yourself. Go and read the article and the discussions you have suddenly entered. In practice, your current editing appears to be "meat-puppetry". Please read the link and ensure that it is not in future?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Your methods are so transparent Andrew, it's not even funny. First of all, you are not attempting to "put in information from the original article". You are, in fact, trying to add quite blatant original research to the article. This has been repeatedly demonstrated above by me (in my post from 05:16, 25 June 2009, for example). Secondly, I have not argued that the crucial words to keep in say exactly the same as words want." I have shown you the importance of those key words (and therefore what is wrong with your edit in replacing them with your own words) by referring to Ellen's own comments (see my post from post from 19:37, 23 June 2009). Thirdly, my edit bears absolutely no resemblance to yours (the latter of which is presumably what the "counter proposals" you mention above refers to) nor have I indicated or would ever indicate it does. This is a content dispute, remember? We are on different poles on this issue, and only one of us is right (hint: it is not you). When you find the time to stop casting aspersions on other editors, do me a favor and quote from Ellen's study or her own words during her visit to this page the parts you think support your edit. Good luck with that. Causteau (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please tell me, for the first time, which information I have removed or twisted or whatever in my proposed wording? I've asked many times but you refuse to explain your own position. My proposed quote makes it quite clear that Ellen thinks using the word "African" to categorize E1b1b is wrong, and in what particular sense she said it. I did this by adding direct quotations from her article. So what is the change in meaning I am creating? Please just answer. If you and SOPHIAN can not say how I am twisting the words, then please stop all this rude accusation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is something wrong with your computer screen, then, because I quite clearly did explain it (in post 13:23, 23 June 2009, for example). Of course, it's much easier to feign incomprehension when one has successfully obscured older text by continuously starting new topic sections. Again, the importance of the passage stating that "E3b is often incorrectly described as African" has nothing to do with what you've previously suggested. It has to do with two things that you are simultaneously omitting in not including said passage:

• The fact that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms. Ellen Coffman-Levy herself tried to explain this to you when she dropped by (but apparently in vain):

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

• E3b is often described in this erroneous way -- not just infrequently. She also tried to explained this:

"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."

Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today.

Here's where you start a new talk page section to obscure the earlier discussions, and then turn around and act like we haven't been through this song and dance before. Causteau (talk) 08:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

No this section is still short enough. I don't see how you can say I've ever acted like this is not all repetition. It is indeed repetition, and I wish it were not. You keep quoting yourself in circles as your own source. I just followed through all the cites, after putting in a proper diff link, and it all just comes down to saying that the words I want removed were in the original article being cited. Why do you need such long and complex postings to say this? But anyway it is not relevant. Yes, this is a wording question, so define what change in MEANING you are concerned about in the proposals I have made. Get the text I wrote, and say which things it gives the wrong message about. That seems like the best way to stop this "song and dance" surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew I apologize for implying that you have a agenda and are an extremist ): sorry. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:34, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Once again welcome to Misplaced Pages. I hope we'll laugh about it one day, but we'll see. Please remember this is just a community. If you walk into a group of talking people and start making heavy accusations before you even know them, this can have complex and negative effects.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh, look who's talking. Causteau (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Was Coffman-Levy a fortune teller (in 2005)? PART 2

Despite my constant requests to try to avoid these discussion sections becoming too long to edit on all servers, User:Causteau has filled up a few more sections with very repetitive and long postings which quote themselves constantly and appear not to stick to the subject. He now demands an explanation about why I asked him to keep separate discussions in separate sections, so despite some concerns I have that this is a distraction, here it is.

Firstly let me reassure Causteau that I did not accuse him of moving any text on the talk page. I stated reasonably clearly, I thought, that I was going to move some text. Sorry for any misunderstanding, but on the other hand please let's not spend time writing about how outrageous it would be IF someone would do something they haven't done yet, such as when Causteau waxed poetic about how "diabolical" it was that I would "undoubtedly complain about to an administrator". I guess we can fill many talk pages with outrage about things that MIGHT happen.

Obviously there are currently two specific discussions about two specific sets of words on this Misplaced Pages article. Each has its own discussion sections.

• One concerns the words "incorrectly described as African" which Causteau proposes need to be given special prominence in the article section about the origins of E1b1b. It was being discussed , but I see User:Causteau has just started discussion in two different sections instead (, ).
• The other concerns Causteau's change from "continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005" to "continues to pervade the public and media". This one is the subject in this section, which continues from , although it should be noted that Causteau's last "reply" on that thread was not about this subject anymore.

I believe it is best that we keep these two discussions apart. I think anyone looking at the discussion will see that for this discussion to get anywhere Causteau needs to give clarity about his what his points are, so all of this confusion of different issues, including all the personal stuff, is not helpful.

So to now repeat the question outstanding for this section, what is the source for specifically putting in wording that means that the misinformation continued from 2005 to 2009? The source can not be a 2005 article, and it can not be a Misplaced Pages talkpage, so what is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

A new talk page section. Ha! How did I know that was coming! Above, Andrew writes in the third person because, you see, he is no longer looking to resolve the issue with me (not that he ever was) but strictly trying to conceal the damaging text that preceded this one. He is also looking to revise the progression of the discussions that have already taken place, by rewriting a new and utterly fabricated version of what has transpired. For instance, here again is that post of mine where he claims that I "now demand an explanation about why asked to keep separate discussions in separate sections, so despite some concerns I have that this is a distraction, here it is" as well where I apparently "waxed poetic about how "diabolical" it was that would "undoubtedly complain about to an administrator"; see what a different picture it paints:

If the subject were as simple as you claim, then you wouldn't have had any difficulty actually understanding what Ellen's quote meant to begin with, would you? The truth is, it does not take you long to post responses because you are not answering what has been presented before and asked of you (as you still are not). It also does not hurt that more text means more visual confusion on the page, which thus makes it easier to obscure older arguments, as do the new talk page sections you keep starting. This, in turn, allows you to ask questions, post arguments, and make accusations that have already been thoroughly addressed and/or debunked as if they were being leveled for the very first time (which is then, at least in theory, supposed to frustrate the other debating party i.e. me). I know the drill, Andrew. Now quit stalling and answer the questions I put before you in my post above from 19:37, 23 June 2009:

• When you "write that "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005", where in Ellen's study does it support the bold part? And where is that passage written in the past tense, as you have rewritten it to?

• If your argument is that Ellen doesn't actually write what you've claimed she does in her study but only implies as much, where then in her study or talk page posts does she do this? Again, I wish you the best of luck with answering those points.

Oh, and before I forget, would you be so kind as to clarify what exactly you mean by "this discussion", "a separate edit" and "this section" in your post above? You see, I'm no good with vague talk. Also, please produce a dif proving that I moved said things you claim I've moved (after having first clarified what you mean by them, of course). Otherwise, it looks like you are attempting to bait me into moving whatever talk page section you are talking about back to where it originally was after you promised to move it ("I hope you won't be too worried if I move it back to the section I started for this subject") -- something you would then undoubtedly complain about to an administrator. Diabolical.

See how he completely distorts things? Andrew claims to be big on context, but as can be seen above, he isn't very good at quoting within it.

He is right about one thing, though, and that is that there are two main issues involved here:

1) The first issue involves his deliberate omission of the key term "incorrectly" in the phrase from Ellen Coffman-Levy's study that goes "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"".

2) The second is his deliberate omission of the key term "often" from that same phrase, replacing it instead with a phrase and verbs that refer to the mistreatment of E3b by the public and the media that Ellen speaks of in the past tense.

Both issues have been thoroughly addressed and repeatedly in the sections above. For example, here is the first issue (i.e. the fact that Ellen made a point of indicating that it is incorrect to describe E3b in such terms) addressed using Ellen Coffman-Levy's own words from when she dropped by a couple of months back to shed light on this same issue:

"But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa. I mean, if we go back far enough, all genetic groups have their origins in Africa. Would it be accurate to inform a Irish descendant with R1b results that his ultimate origins were really Middle Eastern/Anatolian? Or that those Italians with J2 results were really Middle Easternerns? Even if those J2's have been in Europe for 10,000 and have haplotypes essentially restricted to Europe? By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."

Note the bold phrase above. Andrew believes that his edit (cited in first blockquote above), which studiously avoids mentioning that it is incorrect to describe E3b as "African" according both Ellen Coffman-Levy's study and her talk page comments (including my analysis of her quote) -- somehow still captures the full meaning of what it is she is trying to say! Absurd!

Regarding the second issue, I already wrote in my post dated that:

Are you listening to yourself? You write that Ellen's "article is the source, not her personally", yet you have ironically been pushing for a time limit on her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" that the study itself never makes. Here is your edit:

"In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) wrote that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continued to pervade the public and media at least until the time of writing in 2005."

Your additions above in bold are not cited in Ellen's study. If you think they are, prove it with a direct quote(s) from her study asserting as much. Didn't think so. I, by contrast, am quoting directly from the study itself -- that is my reliable source (what's yours again?)! Here is my edit:

"In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) writes that although E1b1b1 (otherwise known as E-M35) "arose in East Africa", "E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that such misinformation about this haplogroup continues to pervade the public and media."

And here is the statement in Ellen's study that it is sourced to:

"Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."

As can clearly be seen and verified by anyone, my edit is directly drawn from the reliable source in question -- not your edit.

If your argument, then, is that Ellen is instead implying in her study that her assertion that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African"" only applies, as you've written, "at least until the time of writing in 2005", that too is clearly untrue since the author herself indicated in her own talk page posts from just a couple of months ago when she dropped by to shed light on the matter that the problem is still very much ongoing:

"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."

Note the bold phrases. Ellen wrote that post above in late 2008, so what she describes still very much applies today. If you don't think it still applies, then you are necessarily hoping against hope that she has come to know differently in those few intervening months. That, of course, is very doubtful, and certainly not based on anything concrete either like, say, her own words.

And there you have it. Either you are asserting that Ellen directly states in her study what you have attributed to her in this Misplaced Pages article (she doesn't) or you are implying that she does (she doesn't do that either, as just shown). Either way, your edit is based on neither the author nor her study, but strictly on yourself.

As can be seen above, the issue has already long been addressed. Andrew just didn't appreciate the answers (though, ironically, he never bothers providing any of his own, and certainly not in the way of textual evidence -- just idle talk). Causteau (talk) 11:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

If I did not see any clear answers in these explanations before, why just repeat the same enormous and repetitive words over and over? Quoting yourself quoting yourself quoting yourself is aimed at what exactly? Achieving a consensus? Just explain your source for the period 2005-2009. What is it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you do lots of quoting of quoting of quoting, but you do not ever quote for example my latest proposal and state what is different about the meaning. You just point to how the words are different. So what about those differences? I can also complain that your words are different from mine. Where does that take us?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Coffman citation yet again

In the editing I just did of the Coffman-Levy citation I have gone through several steps and explained each change step by step. Please, everyone, take a few breaths and go through the editing history step by step. I have tried to find a wording which actually even keeps the critical words according to Causteau, but properly calls them a "sense" of what could be meant. Concerning the issue of contemporaneity I've taken on board the most sensible critique I could read of Causteau, and shortened the wording, just making it simple. The current version follows.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:29, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

In a study about the complexity of Jewish DNA, Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help) writes that although E1b1b1 "arose in East Africa", it is "often incorrectly described as 'African'," in the sense that it creates a "misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup". She cites E1b1b as one of several examples of Y haplogroups (including also J1, J2, and G) too simplistically associated with a particular geographical or ethnic background. In particular, she writes that "various branches and sub-branches of haplogroup E had very different evolutionary histories and distinct migration patterns" while, as will be discussed below, "certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years".

While I commend you for actually trying to resolve this thing for a change, your latest edits are still obviously unsatisfactory because you have for some inexplicable reason completely omitted mention of the fact that Coffman-Levy asserts that the "misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media." This is unacceptable and smacks of censorship. I have already demonstrated above that Ellen neither states nor implies that the mistreatment of E3b in the media & public is a thing of the past but quite the opposite actually, so I won't repeat myself here. I've re-added this crucial information to the article. If you object to this addition, you will have to explain how omitting it as you've done still somehow captures what Ellen says. And you'll have to do this not just with your own words, but with those of Ellen per WP:PROVEIT. Causteau (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Inexplicable? That is a little disingenuous. As you know, my concern, and the concern of other editors, is that the wording you insert goes awkwardly out of its way to imply that the time being discussed is 2009, 4 years later than the article was written. No amount of citation of a 2005 article can be a source for this, ever, and in genetics it is absolutely impossible to think of 4 years as a short time - as you show that you know at least when you are arguing in favour of the latest literature concerning mitochondrial haplogroup M, proposing that it did not originate in Africa.

What I mean by saying that the words are fitted in awkwardly and not just as a "natural quote", is that if the words are not intended to imply this then they are simply un-necessary, and certainly not "crucial". "She thought X" and "She thought X at the time" mean the same thing unless there is a specific contrast between periods being made. The new version I've made implies no contrast either way as would be normal. Before you accuse me of always having wanted this, I'll say it myself. That is indeed how I always wanted it, and my addition of the "at least until 2005" was only because of your insistence of adding in words implying dates after 2005, which has always been disputed as wrong. It was an ugly compromise which should never have been necessary, and which you have yourself recently brought back into question when you removed the words accusing them of being unnecessary.

I believe the new version resolves all the problems you admit to having with the section. I understand that you might have other issues, in that your main aim is to de-emphasize any links between E1b1b and Africa, but the reason you don't argue openly about this anymore is because you know that mainstream science is absolutely clear and unanimous about those links.

Anyway, although we can not use it as a source you and I do know more, don't we? The first time we discussed this in 2008 the issue was settled in favour of that compromise when Ellen Coffman-Levy explained on these talk pages that "I also recall quite clearly that at the time I was writing the article, I was also examining and corresponding with researchers at AncestrybyDNA" and that "It is my understanding that AncestrybyDNA and DNAPrint have now modified their websites and this misinformation about the alleged "African" ancestry of Jews is no longer present". In other words she told us what she'd been writing about and she said it clearly it was over. Concerning whether there was still any other similar misinformation around in 2008 she was explicitly non-committal - although she did indeed say in general that "there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history" (who wouldn't agree?), concerning the subject of this Misplaced Pages article she said "perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b" and "I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups". So even putting the sourcing question aside, you and I as people do know that what you are trying to use Ellen's name to say, is not Ellen's position.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The "concern of other editors"? Again, do have your eyes examined because it is just you pushing for this preposterously obvious stab at censorship. Your argument that "the wording you insert goes awkwardly out of its way to imply that the time being discussed is 2009, 4 years later than the article was written" is utter rubbish and was exposed as such a long time ago (post from 05:16, 25 June 2009). It's also highly ironic to hear you talk again about me wanting to "de-emphasize any links between E1b1b and Africa", since that is almost word-for-word the same charge you leveled at me months back when I had the audacity to interpret Ellen's quote for her -- only to have the author herself say that it perfectly captured what it is she was talking about! LOL Face it pal: you don't have a leg to stand on, just like you didn't last time. Your disgraceful selective quoting above of what Ellen writes is inexcusable, for she states in no uncertain terms that the mistreatment of E3b in the public and the media is ongoing -- that was her concluding sentence, for cryin' out loud! Here as proof I'll do what you unsurprisingly didn't, and that is quote in full her talk page comments:

"To all, thank you for the warm welcome. Causteau, you have restated my argument quite eloquently. It is precisely what I was trying to convey."

"I do not, however, have any objection at all to removing my statement about public and media bias."

"When I wrote the article, there was an extremely strong bias against acknowledging the diversity and complexity of Jewish DNA results. There was instead a strong urge on the part of many researchers and lay geneticists to find primarily what I would describe as "non-European" origins for all Jewish DNA results. In my opinion, that bias tended to corrupt the research in some cases."

"I also recall quite clearly that at the time I was writing the article, I was also examining and corresponding with researchers at AncestrybyDNA. I was disturbed by their so-called "analysis" of Jewish autosomal results, which were never published or subject to peer review. One particular section on their website indicated "African" ancestry for Jewish DNA. Another was "Middle Eastern." There was no mention of "European" - that would have undermined what I suspected was their attempt to insure that Jewish ancestry was seen primarily as "non-European" in origin. Although they provided an autosomal test for consumers, no autosomal studies were cited. Instead, the "evidence" presented by AncestrybyDNA was exclusively based on Y chromosome results such as the E3b study from Semino. And because E3b was deemed an "African" haplogroup, then it allegedly supported AncestrybyDNA's assertion that Jews were primarly "African" (as well as "Middle Eastern" and hence "non-European") in their ancestry."

"It was, of course, terribly biased and scientifically unsupportable, but they were able to use these ideas quite effectively to assert "African" ancestry for Jews. Of course, they weren't alleging African ancestry for Europeans with significant E3b frequencies. Instead, they used selective labeling and emphasis."

"This is merely one disturbing example of what was happening at that time in the research community, the media and the reporting of DNA results. The misrepresentations were, in my opinion, quite intentional and also very widespread. They were certainly not limited to these companies. It is my understanding that AncestrybyDNA and DNAPrint have now modified their websites and this misinformation about the alleged "African" ancestry of Jews is no longer present."

"It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history."

As can be seen in the bold phrases above, Ellen is not just referring to AncestrybyDNA and the alleged "African" ancestry of Jews, as you have attempted to imply. She is talking about a much more widespread mistreatment, a bias which she only concedes is perhaps less widespread as more research is conducted & released (not nonexistent, as you have also attempted to imply). Despite this, she's quick to point out that although the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still much of said bias going on. That, I'm afraid, is not "non-comittal". In case you've forgotten, I also personally analyzed Ellen's quote and made it clear on that occasion that the mistreatment of E3b in the public and the media that she is talking about is current, and that it concerns E3b as a whole and not just in a Jewish context:

"From the above, it's clear that she is talking about how E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media (in the same way that J2 is described as "Jewish" or "Semitic") simply because it happens to be a sub-clade of haplogroup E (in the same way that J2 is equated with J1 simply because they both happen to be sub-clades of haplogroup J). She believes that this is incorrect, for one thing, because E3b is found in many non-African Asian and European populations (similar to how J2 is found in many non-Jewish European populations), and because not all of E3b's sub-clades have an origin in Africa (e.g. E-V13, E-M34). She also thinks it's incorrect because, unlike, say, E3a, whose presence outside of Africa is almost always attributed to the slave trade, E3b was principally spread by Neolithic migrants, Berber/Islamic peoples, and Roman soldiers i.e. its "complex history"."

"This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b1/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against."

Note that a) I described her as presently believing that "E3b is constantly and incorrectly labeled as "African" in the public and the media", and that b) the distortions by the media regarding all of the E3b-related things I discuss above (i.e. its genetic diversity, origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger "African" clade) are not subject to this imaginary "time limit" that you and only you have concocted and have in no way proven no longer exist. Quite the contrary, actually. Ellen described that analysis of mine above as "precisely what was trying to convey". Given all that, I can't believe you'd have the gall to try and distort what she it is she actually wrote and then turn around and project that distortion onto me. That takes serious POV and/or gall. Causteau (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

A load of nonsense and padded out nonsense at that. An article written in 2005 can not be a source for 2009.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel any better. Causteau (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Asian origins again

In this edit, I removed the claim that there is a theory that E1b1b originated in the Near East. I noted the edit as follows...

rmv recently re-added note; these websites are not intended to be cited in this manner and simply need updating; the fossized remarks go back to a time when the phylogeny of DE was simply not known

User:SOPHIAN then added it back in here. I know this has been discussed before, but it is clearly still a point of disagreement.

Info from reliable source

Presumably SOPHIAN must be able to make his own case about this and is not just blindly following Causteau, so I'd like him to explain why my explanation was wrong. I noted that the national genographic has "fossilized" information on its webpage which goes back to a time when E-M35 was not even a known clade. There was just DE which was found in Japan and Africa. Was I wrong? Surely you don't just delete stuff unless you've got some kind of case to make?

The webpages being cited were made when the National Genographic project started so they are by definition both old and also not based on any new research done within that project. So if this is a reliable source it must be information from published research somewhere. So which research is it? If no one can name any, then I think I am right, and this claim has to be removed as unsourced. Let me tell you that amongst normal non-fringe researchers I've looked hard and found no evidence at all that anyone is even thinking about this idea. This is pure internet fringe theory and it gets slipped in every time there is an edit war. So let's remove it again please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, DE was found in 5 Nigerians, 1 person from Guinea Bissau, and 2 Tibetans -- not Japan & "Africa", I'm afraid (note the spurious and telling juxtaposition of a little country by an entire continent). Here's a challenge, Andrew: Try and go two steps without mentioning my name. I know it's catchy, but it's also bordering on the creepy at this point. Causteau (talk) 10:06, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Causteau, read before you post aggressive nonsense please.

• You were being mentioned as the author of an edit being defended for you by the newbie SOPHIAN, who is defending all your old edits for you. That is a clear fact.
• Your mention of the latest data on DE* has nothing to do with the 10 year old research I am referring to. There was no such concept as DE* then.

I look forward to SOPHIAN's explanation about his edit, given his sources. That's all that is being requested.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So you did refer to DE rather than DE*; my bad. Nevertheless, the page you mention above quite clearly refers to the clade as "E3b(M35)", thereby undermining the relevancy for this particular source of your claim that "the national genographic has "fossilized" information on its webpage which goes back to a time when E-M35 was not even a known clade." Further, SOPHIAN didn't revert "for me" any more than you reverted for that blocked user (very mature, btw). Causteau (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

User:SOPHIAN has continued to revert all attempts to remove this Asian origins info from the article, so attempts have been made to communicate on his talkpage. Because he deleted that last night, I now add that discussion, or attempted discussion, here. SOPHIAN has been told to discuss edit disagreements on talk pages more.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:21, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Please justify these reverts you keep doing in a sensible way. How can you claim that this is "the worlds top genetic site"? This is just a fossilized webpage helping to promote a specific project. The website responds to no questions concerning source and the information has been there long before the project started publishing anything. Websites are not normally WP:reliable sources for Misplaced Pages, unless they are clearly authoritative. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Your attempts to insert this are becoming ridiculous. You keep changing your explanation. In your latest edit you claim "The link is reliable and peer reviewed and who says that a site has to be from a university to be reliable." The answer is that no one has mentioned anything about Universities at all. But the website you are quoting is NOT peer reviewed, and I can see no other reason to call it a reliable source. It is also not "scientific research". Even the editor who originally inserted this source, User:Causteau has now disowned it noting "perhaps it's best if we just stick to peer-reviewed studies". Please teach yourself what peer review means, and try to understand those who try to communicate with you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Please, provide reliable peer reviewed referenced text published by University edition quote from jingiby oh so The answer is that no one has mentioned anything about Universities at all.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 17:50, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You are changing the subject, but anyway, if you want to claim that someone said something, please post the link. In the meantime, please explain what your point is in making up all these new excuses all the time?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

The truth.The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 20:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Could you explain a little more? The truth is a strangely difficult word to use on Misplaced Pages, because it all too often means "my opinion". See WP:TRUTH. In the end you need to be able to convince other Wikipedians that you are not just trying to push your personal opinions. By the way, talk pages are often a good way to do this, but you never seem to use them, despite the controversial nature of your edits.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:14, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest accusation

I need to ask for more input from other editors because an accusation has been made. I want my freedom to edit defined, and not to have to defend myself repeatedly in case this builds up further as have other distractions.

I am surprised to see a new indirect attack building up from Causteau, against me personally, and specifically my neutrality. As part of his latest campaign I am now being accused of being a non-neutral editor with a conflict of interest. I think, looking at WP:COI (the reference Causteau pointed me to) that it is best to raise this here.

1. Reference to my review article was deleted at the same time as Causteau made his latest revert on the controversial Coffman-Levy citation which Causteau wants to put in to the section on E1b1b's origins.

The edit comment said, referring to both elements in the edit at once "restored author's assertion that problem is ongoing; rm editor's addition of his own article per WP:COI".

Of course many editors of articles on these subjects see Casteau's specific wording as a veiled attempt to twist some snippets of text from an article about Jewish DNA in order to say that there is scientific doubt about the African origins of E1b1b. If this is not what he intends, then the reasons for including such awkward wording with supposedly the same meaning are mysterious and Causteau can only explain it in terms of defending the original author's words from supposed censorship.

I mentioned that once more because the article reference Causteau has deleted is from the same journal as the Coffman-Levy article, but specifically about E1b1b, not just an article that mentions it as a side subject. It is one of only a few articles which exists which is so specifically about E1b1b, and it is by far the most detailed and most recent. Seems to me it should be referenced here?

If I can't I guess another editor will eventually. And why make such a big point when Causteau might be an author but we just don't know because he posts anonymously?

So, should the article be references or not? Was this deletion of a reference justified?

2. Causteau has reported in the same context to an admin's talkpage as follows, in reaction to a discussion about SOPHIAN's edits which have been helping Causteau to edit without editing:

Further, your charges of "POV" are difficult to take seriously when it's actually you that is a member of the E1b1b public forum and has openly admitted to belonging to the haplogroup in question. That makes you a "neutral" editor on that Misplaced Pages article? I beg to differ.

So, am I not neutral because I am E1b1b, and don't hide it? As a secondary consideration I'd like to point out that even more in this case, this accusation would not be possible if I were an anonymous editor like Causteau.

3. The third thread of accusation was posted as a follow up on the same admin talk page...

Stop playing the "British" card. It is so transparent. Not every Briton obsessively edits the E1b1b Misplaced Pages article, admits to belonging to said haplogroup, posts regularly on a forum exclusively devoted to that haplogroup, and is also the principal editor on that Project's wiki on the haplogroup as well. The forgoing would be just you. Face it: you have a vested interest in the haplogroup, and far more than any of the other editors you relentlessly bad mouth ever could. Do you even edit other pages???

By the way, I am not British and I also do not say Causteau claimed this would make me non-neutral. Don't ask me to explain why on earth he mentioned a British card though.

But am I non neutral because I have a well known interest in this subject? For example because I participate in online discussions about it, or because I help run a wiki?

I call for comments.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not at all why I reverted your edit. I quite clearly explained my reason for removing your own addition of your own paper to this article as follows:

"rm editor's addition of his own article per WP:COI"

I'm not surprised, though, that you should try and make more of it then it is & yet again selectively cite passages from previous completely unrelated conversations we've had out of context and without allowing readers the benefit of seeing for themselves the full extent of those discussions in question. That includes the whole Coffman-Levy issue, which readers can always read up on above and minus your predictable attempt at retelling it without the benefit of actual facts on your side. I also noticed you've spammed a legion of other users' talk pages soliciting comments rather than simply going to the conflict of interest board as an administrator that you already contacted recommended you do (viz. "if a question of COI has arisen, it is best asked at the COI noticeboard. Try to do so concisely and unemotionally"). Again, that whole image of a mountain & a molehill comes to mind. Causteau (talk) 12:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So this is all just a concern for dotting the "i"s? Then it is easily fixed and neither deletion nor citing me for COI would seem very appropriate. Causteau, as a fellow editor on this article, you could vouch for the reference and put it in yourself. Then law and order would be maintained. So then, do you think the reference is not an appropriate one for any reason apart from the fact the I inserted it? Sorry, but if you start making a series of strong accusations that imply that I should not be allowed to edit, then you should have a real reason, no? Please decide if your were serious or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, I think you know how I generally feel about your paper since I already congratulated you on getting it published. I have no problems if someone else cites your paper, only if you do. Imagine if I were to one day include an article of my own that perhaps contained one or two seriously debatable and/or questionable points (if I recall, for example, you reference Martin Bernal of Black Athena fame for certain parts of it), and then later cite from it myself, you would naturally object, wouldn't you? Well, that's obviously the sort of thing I was guarding against. Now if another editor sees fit to cite your study, then that's obviously not a problem since it is, after all, still a reliable source. So it's not so much a question of citing it that makes it a COI issue, but who is doing the citing: one is kosher, the other is potentially self-serving. That's all. Causteau (talk) 13:43, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

So now I've re-added the paper as a sign of good faith. But hopefully, its presence among the references won't be abused as described above. Causteau (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Andrew is non-neutral at all on this subject. I've been impressed in his general ability to appease both sides (those who try to de-Africanize the origin of E1b1b vs. those who over-emphasize its origin) and maintain an accurate article. This is, after all, an individual who has written a rather substantial dissertation on E1b1b published by a peer-reviewed journal. Really, the passage in question from the Coffman-Levy study is peripheral to study of E1b1b in general. Its presence in the article isn't really required; there are much better sources that explain just how E1b1b dispersed and became so widely distributed, rather than just saying E1b1b isn't "African" because it has a distribution outside of that continent (which is how the quote has been twisted and reinterpreted to mean). That would be as silly as saying mtDNA macrohaplogroup M isn't South Asian for not being restricted to the peninsula. — ዮም | (Yom) | Talk • contribs • Ethiopia 16:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the COI issue has been already been resolved. And it wasn't so much over being non-neutral, but potentially being non-neutral. While your arguments against the inclusion of the Coffman-Levy quote altogether are also well-taken, I'm afraid the veteran editor Hxseek (in addition to myself and the previous editors before him as expressed above) does not share your view. If you'll scroll above, you'll see that the author of the study from which the quote in question was drawn has already affirmed with her own words during her visit to this talk page some months back the importance of the passage in its present context, and the fact that it actually has not at all been misrepresented in the study but rather well presented. The entire issue has already been argued from quite literally every possible angle, and the scope of what Ellen means is much greater than what you've described above. Causteau (talk) 17:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• I don't find the review a COI, reviews are preferred over primary literature in many regards and this review is loaded with useful information. I would advise AL in the future, when you draft critics give us a better heads up. I finally found your review, the reference was not attached to the text that it was referring from, so I finally did a search for you name in the lengthy citation list. This is another instance were standard wiki-referencing (i.e. footnotes at the end of passages) is helpful.

Everyone please make an effort to wikify this article before inserting controversies that make the article more difficult to understand.PB666  16:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yom, if I understand correctly, Causteau has now accepted, based on HXseek's summary, that the implication of present tense can be adjusted. What I had also very recently got him to accept was including the words "in the sense of" which I think helps the meaning a lot, because Ell Coffman-Levy certainly only intended to make her remark in a very specific sense and context. The bigger question of whether the paragraph is too periphery and should just be removed is one I also have doubts about, but I guess I am 50:50. One thing I have certainly learnt is that E1b1b is a haplogroup that gets debated a lot, and very poorly, in public contexts where haplogroups are not normally discussed. This is of course because of the whole emotional issue which the word Africa seems to raise (on two sides) and therefore to the extent that the paragraph is giving a neutral indication to readers about this unusual characteristic of this haplogroup, I guess it is worthwhile information. She writes in the context of Jewish ethnicity, but the same goes for example for internet comments one sees amongst Arabic genetic genealogists and people in the Balkans. On the other hand see below where the whole article is being criticized for being too detailed. Your thoughts on what I have just written would be very welcome to me!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

........

I have been asked to comment on this discussion and edit-war. All I can say is that:

1. Lancaster's paper is an excellent review inclusive of all significative viewpoints and, without knowing him from anything at all (I'm glad to discover he's actively collaborating in Misplaced Pages), I had already made a favorable review of his paper at my blog when it was published. So I clearly think the paper is worth a reference, that's beyond doubt.
2. That E1b1b and its main subclade E1b1b1 are of NE African origin (somewhere in the Nile basin from Egypt to Ethiopia), and possibly related to the expansion of Afroasiatic languages, is absolutely mainstream today and therefore, according to WP:NPOV, this position should recieve preferential treatment over alternative hypothesis.
3. That, in my not-so-humble opinion, the rejection of an African origin for this lineage is always subjective and favored by a fear of anti-African racism or even at times by such racism itself. I cannot document this claim but it's painfully self-evident.

Regards, --Sugaar (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Ongoing battle here is not encyclopedic

I have been asked by AL to mediate a dispute. In fact this is difficult. The current ongoing battle is ruining the main-page in terms of encyclopedic content. This page is probably 3 times longer than it should be given comparison with other Y-haplogroup pages and is not written so a highschool student would understand it, let alone interesting enough that they might read it. Some ways the article could be improved:

• Subpopulation Frequency dropping in text - Put frequencies in table, no less than one table per continent.
• References should be at the end of sentences after the period.
• References should be in wiki style. (Not Journal of Cell Biology style)PB666 

In section:Other names, . . .

The current phylogenetic terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed by Karafet et al. (2008). This paper was intended to be an update of the "Y Chromosome Consortium"(YCC (2002)). The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature - "E3b" (E-M215) and "E3b1" (E-M35) - which is still found widely especially in older literature.

This is not encyclopedic. The entire section is made of one or two sentence paragraphs. Each paragraph should be no more than one sentence, condensed and wikified, in a paragraphed. References should be at the end of sentences and avoid name dropping midsentence. Unless the author is an official or it is an official nomenclature commisions and that commision needs to have its own wikipage where it credentials are made clear.PB666 

In Origins:

Concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004), (2006), and (2007), ...

The 11th grader who, for whatever reason just clicked on the section head has switched to the article about Britney Spears. This is not the way to write an encyclopedic article.

In Subclades of E1b1b1 (E-M35):

As mentioned above, nearly all E1b1b lineages are within E1b1b1 (defined by M35). Cruciani et al. (2004) found 2 out of 34 Ethiopian Amhara tested, to be M215 positive but M35 negative, and therefore in the paragroup "E-M215*". More recently, Cadenas et al. (2007) found one more E-M215* individual in Yemen, just across the Red Sea from the Amhara, out of 62 people tested there. Turning to E-M35, the most current phylogeny of E1b1b1 includes the individuals with no known sub-clade mutations (who are therefore said to be in the "ancestral state" referred to as E1b1b1* or E-M35*) plus seven known "derived" branches, which are defined by the following SNPs: M78, M81, M123, M281, V6, P72, and M293, all of which are discussed below.

Yikes! Folks, think about the reader or the encyclopedia, first. If its this complicated make a picture, a star diagram. For situations were you have a subclad and a particular distribution, make a table. I can go on but I am not.PB666 

The conflict of Interest claim. WP:COI is clearly at play. Misplaced Pages is not a battleground not even for scientist.

Where advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Misplaced Pages, that editor stands in a conflict of interest. COI editing is strongly discouraged. When editing causes disruption to the encyclopedia through violation of policies such as neutral point of view, what Misplaced Pages is not, and notability, accounts may be blocked. COI editing also risks causing public embarrassment outside of Misplaced Pages for the individuals and groups being promoted.

Please see: WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND. To simply state this for my fellow scientist: if your edits are not for the improvement of the article as a wikified encyclopedic entry (See WP:MOS) designed for a highschool reading and interest level, then you may have a conflict of interest in what you are editing.

Recommendation: This article is grossly non-encyclopedic. Since deleting it would be a conflict of interest I recommend deleting section by section an moving each section to the talk page. The section should then be criticized on the talk page for content, rewritten, and agreed upon, then returned to the main page in its edited form.

Talkpage recommendation: Talk pages are for the improvement of the article, not for personal attacks and counterattacks. One can discriminate whether a discussion is personal attack or working toward improvements when there is a generally hostile critiques but no offers of compromises toward the improvement. Much of what is on this talk page can be refactored to the bit bucket. This talk page on this obscure Y-sub-sub-sub-haplogroup has 6 archives???!!!! Sheeeeesh.

And since I am supposed to disclose any COI I have: I am an ex-participant in the UseNet group sci.anthropology.paleo since almost its creation, I am the owner and chief moderator of the Yahoo DNAanthro - molecular anthropology newsgroup. I have watched many arguments concerning origins on the UseNet and many have appeared in various other groups.

I have seen my fair share of highly imaginative 'extrapolations' of origins based on the Y-chromosome. Its a shame people don't have the same interest in HLA as they have in Y-chromosome. I would point out that the tMRCA of mtDNA in the two most current papers is 192 kya and 194 ky+/-32kya (Gonder et al 2007), my own estimate based on several techniques is around 230kya. The TMRCA listed in the Y-chromosomal Adam is "37,000–49,000 years ago to 51,000–411,000 years ago ". The most recent mtDNA article suggests an exodus from Africa 55 to 75kya when the archaeological evidence from India, china and the Levant suggest human spread from central or south central Africa to be well older than this. Indeed the most recent paper on mtDNA which deals with the issue of selection in the coding region (although by my standard not sufficiently enough) suggests that not long after the SeqMRCA formed that the population within Africa grew significantly. In general, since Vigilante et al established the first TMRCA for mtDNA there has been a recognize understatement of TMRCAs based on a number of assumptions that have proven to be just that - assumptions. These assumptions have been applied across the board and recently came up with a highly erroneous guess of the age of two 'popular' autosomal genes, FoxP2 and MC1R. As a consequence the spread from Africa of Y-chromosome is problematic and inconsistent with two independent sets of facts.

1. Either the molecular clock of Y is incorrect or subject to change of unknown cause.
2. Or there is a global pattern social/sexual selection that has been acting for long periods of time.

In either case the datings and the importance of Y-derived migrations needs to be questioned in terms of its relevance to molecular anthropology. Despite the rather critical weaknesses of Y chromosome as settlement or migration markers, in its capability to coordinate with archaeological evidence (i.e. that Roman british migration could have been the Neolithic migration that occurred 5100BC), ...... numerous instances on the Internet by some 'not-so-fact-based'-groups are made ascerting Y chromosomes to various historic and prehistoric migrations. The few papers that I have read on the issue of effective male population sizes suggest a male to female effective population size of 1:2. In the studies recent enough to compare HLA haplotypes, mtDNA, and Y this has been shown to be roughly true. Past this mixing ratio, Y chromosome often undergoes rapid differential selection and within 100s of years can shift frequencies rapidly as a consequence of the popularity of a name or a paternal (ruling) line.

Why am I presenting this? Because the level of information in this article is disproportionately large relative to its certainty in dating and relevance to overall population genetics in humans. This is a guide to which information can be trimmed down by willing editors with some confidence, particularly primary literature which draws an opinion that is not likely to be correct or more importantly (coming from the moderator and long term observer of molecular anthropology - their confidence is overstated, confidence interval is undersized, and conclusions do not account for all possibilities). Be conservative, if there is doubt about a conclusion, present the results, hold the conclusion. I have no better advice to offer on the subject than this, it is my opinion that if all editors agree to re-examine the literature and assume that these confidence intervals are larger than stated, and hold back or remove statements that, from a more distant perspective, could have many interpretations, then this battleground atmosphere can be resolved into a cooperative atmosphere. This allows the editors to create a shorter and more pleasantly read article. This is an encyclopedia, please the interest and reader not the ego.PB666  14:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

First an answer to your general point, without going through all the detail. I think you raise a good general point even if I end up disagreeing with some details (I realize Y haplogroups are not your big interest BTW), but the problems you point to arises from the same editing disputes which led to the deletion of a reference that you were called to look at. Every wording must be agreed after long debate, and normally this means long sentences, too many details added in etc. Have a look at recent editing disputes as examples. The source of the problem is known to those who've ever tried editing here. E1b1b gets to much attention from editors who are worried that Afro-centrists, or Euro-centrists will be having too much influence on the wording, and therefore we get a lot of pre-emptive "compensation". Again, have a look at some recent debates. Past experience shows me that these debates are actually quite simple that even a little bit of occasional help from outside editors has been very helpful.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Andrew, first off, I did not say anyone had a conflict of interest, in a discussion that needs mediation I will let the admins do that. What I said is that the tone of the article is in COI with the goals of wikipedia, the COI that exists on the main is clearly the composite construction of multiple contributors, has placed the reader at a disadvantage. The point I am making is that the article is not placed first. You probably don't want me as an editor, because when I see what appears to me to be opinion, even opinion from the primary literature I am inclined to delete it, particularly in an article this size. Building concensus is a key word here. Elicit the cooperation of your fellow editors in protecting the page by getting agreement with those editors first what should be on that page. In the page edits I have been in when two priniciple editors of a section become entangled, rather than having an edit war on the main page, the section can be discussed and edited on the talk page, so that these things can be hammered out. I have done major edits on some featured articles, and that edit environment is as tough as one can get.PB666 

The second issue you brought concerned splits. I have no problem with splits, if they logically uncomplicate material, and I hold to a deviant wiki-philosphophy of inevitability, IOW with the growth of the encyclopedia and links to a group whatever that contains whateverites, that if the interest of whatever increases then inevitably the whateverites will have their own page. However, first we need to test the hypothesis. To do this I look at hits. Your traffic (outside of editwars) is on this article, therefore it might justify spliting off the largest subgroup and observing traffic in that new split.

The third issue is how much resolution is needed. I have created many HLA pages on wikipedia, I decided to start with the serotype level because there are 1000s of HLA alleles of certain types, >100 for example of HLA-B15. Within the allele group there are serotypes B-62, ....B-76. These can be individually presented if there is enough relevance. Within each allele say B*1501 there can be suballeles such as B*150101, 150102 etc. Ask yourself the basic question. What relevance does it have that invites it into wikipedia, is there a population relevance or is it just a rare allele, is their a functional relevance (for XXXX0N in HLA these are generally synonomous or non-coding mutations). Finally what is the distribution, does it offer anything beyond there 'were 10 cases found in a village in Zimbabwe'. There are lots of villages around the world, we cannot possibly disclose all the deviant genetic markers from every village in the entire world. Is there a way to condense this information? To the right is an example of one HLA allele B*8101, it was one of the rarest I felt comfortable presenting, compared to some of the Y statistics however, is it so rare?

Great points you raise there! I'm glad to see that another editor (and a knowledgeable one at that) understands at least some of my concerns for having cited potential COI issues. Causteau (talk) 14:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way concerning a very specific point, I do believe that with all Y haplogroups, there is a natural evolution whereby they eventually need to be split up as details become more known.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted section

Here is the first section that needs to be rewritten, completely.PB666  14:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

==Other names, and history of the classification==

The current ] terminology "E1b1b" and "E1b1b1" was proposed by {{Harvcoltxt|Karafet et al.|2008}}. This paper was intended to be an update of the "Y Chromosome Consortium"({{Harvcoltxt|YCC|2002}}). The YCC first formalized the original phylogenetic nomenclature - "E3b" (E-M215) and "E3b1" (E-M35) - which is still found widely especially in older literature. It was also the 2002 consortium which proposed guidelines on the mutation nomenclature, "E-M215" and "E-M35". The mutation-based clade names have increasingly been used since then because they avoid the confusion which comes from the increasingly frequent discoveries of new SNP mutations - for example when older and newer literature is being compared. Prior to {{Harvcoltxt|Cruciani et al.|2004}}, both E1b1b and E1b1b1, not yet distinguished at that time, had been referred to as '''Hg21''' ('''Haplogroup 21''') within {{Harvcoltxt|Zerjal et al.|1999}}'s nomenclature, or as '''Eu4''' according to {{Harvcoltxt|Semino et al.|2000}}'s classification. They were also within {{Harvcoltxt|Underhill et al.|2001}}'s "Group III", and in terms of "p49/TaqI" tests, E-M35 came within Haplotype V. (It should be generally be kept in mind that some older haplogroup testing methods could not distinguish between related clades in a way perfectly consistent with more recent findings.) Other older names are referred to in the YCC 2002 report in the referenced articles, but are less common in the literature.

All very well but please say why? You've just deleted a section. Great but why? These old names for E1b1b are extremely important. For example they still appear all over Misplaced Pages. Frankly if autosomal DNA is your standard you are not going to get any feeling for the enormous public interest and confusion about Y haplogroups. As soon as you deleted this section what happened? Look at the new edits putting the old nomenclature in piecemeal. How is that good? This section you just deleted was created to resolve edit wars because of exactly the type of edits using old nomenclature which have already now started to reappear. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The section is deleted true, but not because it does not belong on the page, because its entire construction is unencyclopedic. It needs to be rendered 'wikipedia' in its tone, in the grammatical construction. This is not a negative thing but a positive thing, as in how to improve the page by improving section at a time. Here is the first step.

E1b1b and E1b1b1 are the current accepted names by the Y Chromosome Consortium. The nomenclature E3b (E-M215) and E3b1 (E-M35), respectively is used to designate the same haplogroups within the older literature. Prior to 2004 both haplogroups were referred to collectively as Haplogroup 21 (HG21) or Eu4. Prior to this the two haplgroups tested as "Group III" with "p49/TaqI" and E1b1b1 was identified within HaplotypeV.

Note you'll need to build the page for the Ycc. BTW if you are not already using this tool, this tool makes referencing easy for wiki and also adds identifyer tags, all you need is a pubmed ID or similar ID tag.Misplaced Pages template filling

I'm not sure I follow yet. Are your proposing to reinsert a section, just with clearer wording? Seems a bit harsh to fully delete before we have a new version ready? Even though I certainly agree that the language and construction of this article are tortured, I've explained the reason why. So I'm happy to work with someone to try to redevelop sections, but frankly if you are going to just delete and then walk away I think editing here is going to be a nightmare.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The basic sentence structure is better, but going through it a bit more closely I'd propose:

'==Current and previous names==

E1b1b and E1b1b1 are the currently accepted names found in the proposals of the Y Chromosome Consortium(YCC). The nomenclature E3b (E-M215) and E3b1 (E-M35) respectively were the YCC defined names used to designate the same haplogroups in older literature with E-M35 branching as a separate subclade of E-M215 in 2004. Prior to 2002 these haplogroups were not designated in a consistent way, and nor was their relationship to other related clades within haplogroup E and haplogroup DE.

In the spirit of trying to simplify I've left out discussion of pre-2002 nomenclature, because it requires a lot of discussion. The clades being named were not even understood in the same way by all the different authors previously. This is sumarized however in the 2002 YCC paper which is cited. Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have exchanged your reference for a more suitable style. I thought it over after I rewrote the first bit, and questioned why we are mentioning a PCR kit when we are not describing that kit, so that removing it is a good idea. Yes, it is easier to read, now come up with a simplified title and place it back on the main page and move onto the next section.

E1b1b?

The article is almost exclusively devoted to the discussion of the E1b1b1 subclade and descendant clades. Why is nothing on E1b1b presented in this article, does it represent the state of the literature? Is there a branch diagram available that can be used as a guide to all the E1b1b1 variants.PB666  14:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about the paraclade E1b1b1*? In fact every individual ever tested is mentioned. Amharan and Yemeni only and very few seen so far.

Here is how I think the phylogeny should be displayed.PB666 

At first sight this looks like a handy picture either for this article of for the E haplogroup article or both. There was once a debate whereby Causteau objected to too much concerning parent and sibling clades of E1b1b in the E1b1b article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

In the article E1b1b is described as having arisen in or near the Horn of Africa. However the sources cited use different naming conventions.

• Cruciani et al 2004 mention "Sub-Saharan Africa" and "East Africa".
• Cruciani 2007 refer to East Africa
• Underhill et al refer to Sub-Saharan Africa
• Semino et al refer to East Africa

None of these scholars use the term "Horn of Africa". Though parsimony indicates that E1b1b most likely did emerge in Ethiopia because M215 with ancestral M35 was found in ethiopia. It should be noted that E1b1b is a sibling of E1b1a and thus have a direct common ancestor E1b, E1b1a dispersed from West Africa. So where this common ancestor lived may have important implications for the origins of E1b1b. It could be that E1b1a also originated in East Africa but spread west accross the Sahel. Another complication is that E1b1a seems to have swamped all pre-existing lineages with the Bantu Expansion. Blench speculates for instance that Cushitic speakers may have had a much more southerly distribution prior to the Bantu Expansion.

The area Cruciani et al. define as East Africa is the Horn of Africa plus Kenya. This is clear from reading the articles, and looking at which countries they include in which of their designations. The reason for homing in on the Horn of Africa has been the need in Misplaced Pages to use standardized geographical terms, something which a researcher breaking up their data does not need to do. (You might want to look up the WP references to the debate on Gdansk or Danzig.) This is important when we deal with the Cruciani et al. articles, for example their northeastern Africa is pretty much by their own definition. I suppose that what you are saying should be taken seriously because our current wording ignores Kenya in the implied meaning of Cruciani et al. Here is the Misplaced Pages article on East Africa: http://en.wikipedia.org/East_Africa. It is not too far off from what Cruciani et al. us, and so I guess I see no problem with replacing Horn of Africa with East Africa or eastern Africa. I guess it depends upon how close it is to "original research" to say that Cruciani et al's argument seems to apply mostly to their Ethiopian data only.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Origins and Coffman

The section on the origins is dominated by a large paragraph devoted to quotes by Ellen Levy Coffman. However she is a family lawyer, should her quotes be given such prominence. This has been previously discussed here Talk:Khazars#DNA_Evidence Xavier Bolton (talk) 20:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with being a family lawyer? I think the more important question is whether the passage is clear, relevant, mainstream etc. I am not a strong defender of the presence of this passage, but it is true that there have been issues with the way haplogroups such as E1b1b have led to strange ethnic generalizations, and although her article is very specific about the Jewish experience in this, to me it does seem to be part of what people might want to know about E1b1b.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think its great to be a family lawyer, must be a lucrative job. However being a family lawyer isn't the same as being a geneticist. Because of this, her personal opinion should not be considered reliable or as reliable as a qualified geneticist. If her statement is referring to a scientific observation that has been published, its okay to user her as a source, but if it is her own personal opinion then it is unreliable. According to WP:SPS: "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media, whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, tweets etc., are largely not acceptable". The article is published by Journal of Genetic Genealogy, JOGG, however JOGG may have different standards than the most scientific publishers. In any case, it should be made clear the Levy Coffman is not an "Expert" herself in genetics. Xavier Bolton (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The JOGG seems to be widely accepted as a reasonable source. It's specialization is obviously not cutting edge lab techniques but rather more about genetic genealogy, which is of course exactly what the cited passage is about. The JOGG certainly is not a form of self publication. See their webpage. Have a look at some of their volumes (). I have a conflict of interests issue in commenting on this because this is where my review article was also published. Also, I have been corresponding with Ellen Coffman-Levy quite a lot over the years (since long before I did anything on Misplaced Pages I think). I consider her to be a very experienced and respected genetic genealogist. (Specifically in her case this means she has a lot of experience interacting between scientists and Jewish genealogists, which is exactly the expertise called for in this case.) I am also a genetic genealogist by the way. This is not a paid profession of course, but so what? Being paid for something can cause bias in itself and has nothing to do with being a reliable source. I think you can take my comments seriously just based on the logic and ethics on this case:- I have not been one of the people fighting to keep this passage in, but I think that trying to make VAGUE accusations about someone or somethings reputation only because you want them out of an article (this is the latest in a long line of arguments) is not good practice.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue of dates and confidence

Just to extend one thought AL made on his talk page. There are aspects, probably many on the X-chromosome that have undergone no significant recombination in the last 2.5 million years. PDHA1 is one example. These particular sites paint a much more complex picture of human evolution than do Y, in fact I did a comparison between expected fixation times versus observed fixation times in 22 X-linked loci and they pretty much agreed with a fixation time of about 500ky, of course made the assumption the constriction that caused fixation in many of these loci ended about 150+kya. That has to be contrasted to the Y-chromosome which has only a ploidy of 3 fold lower than X and its fixation time occurs after the putative constriction and is one 10th the age, even if we assume effective ploidy of 1.66 (X) vs. .33 (Y) that is a ratio of 5, still 2 fold lower and occurring after the constriction ended when the population was larger. I would discuss median population sizes versus ages but the fact is that the last fixation event for a given haplotype makes further backward analysis impossible . . . . Y-chromosome may be haploid and the picture may be simple, but the unfortunately it lives in its own self-explained genetic universe.

"E1b1b (E-M215) and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) are believed to have first appeared in or near the Horn of Africa about 22,400 years ago."

Without a confidence range this cannot be accurate past the first decimal place. In fact I would say greater than 20,000 years ago and leave it at that.

Here is another one (again I don't know who wrote these)

"The authors believe there were "at least 2 episodes between 23.9–17.3 ky and 18.0–5.9 ky ago".

The second episode has a credible confidence (at 1SD equalling their range) but the first 17.3-23.9 is less than the calibration error, it would not even consider random factors associated with the sequences evolution, not withstanding the issue of that pertain to Y descrepancies. The other thing is what do we care what the authors 'believe', what does their data suggest are the limits of the argument what can a consensus generate. This is why wiki likes reviews as sources of information, it is supposed to be up to a reviewer to digests beliefs, look at results and formulate a structure that meshes various sorts of information together into something better. If there are papers that handle confidence carefully then we can probably include those dates, but if their tightly unrealistic, I would say these are two much opinion and too little objectivity.PB666  03:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with all of this. Approximate dates are normally better than confidence intervals, because then they are obviously approximate, which however an accurate rendition of what most authors intend. Cruciani et al. are actually quite careful on this, giving many remarks about the contingencies involved, and even showing alternative calculations. When in correspondence I tend to say things like E-M35 is approximately 20,000 or more years old, and E-M78 is between 10,000 and 20,000 years old. Once we get within 10,000 years some clade look more accurate to date because they appear to result from a simple "star shaped" network. Remember by the way that very few age estimates for Y chromosomes are done with polymorphisms. I think this is something we'll see more of soon though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to prune down the beliefs about date to those that have been reviewed in the article?PB666  12:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which article? Perhaps it would be easier if you note which dates have caught your eye, and then we can consider them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

the referencing system

Continuing thanks to User:Pdeitiker for his efforts here. I hope won't mind my ignorant question about the subject of changing the referencing system.

Most haplogroup articles I've worked on or looked at have a horrible mixture of referencing styles which makes it very difficult to edit them without loosing the references, or doubling them up several times. Most, unlike E1b1b, are full of broken links, and incompletely referenced end-notes. Often editors don't have time, and hope someone will fix it all up later.

Therefore some time ago I started using Harvard style references (e.g. Lancaster (2009)) in E1b1b. There is a template for this on Misplaced Pages which I find works really well in conjunction with a nice neat bibliography. So I built that up.

Frankly (call this a COI if you want to) I now sometimes come to the E1b1b article in order to get my references right when working on other articles. This is the only one where you can find the references quickly and easily.

What I understand now is that the Harvard style is not seen as appropriate. I wanted to make sure I understand if that is really the case, because changing all the references over is going to be a massive job, and I believe it is at least arguable that (a) it is not easier to read in the sense that lots of footnotes scare people just as much as abbreviations like "et al."; (b) I fear that on-going editing is going to get messier.

If we are changing all referencing I suppose it means eventually moving every item in the present bibliography (reflist) up to a ref footnote somewhere where it is will become the basis of a ref name= footnote? And then we all hope no one ever deletes that particular footnote? And every time we recite an article we'll have to remember the right name (e.g. "cruciani2004" or "Cruciani2004" or "Crucianietal04").--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We have to be careful. I think the wiki standard is to use the . It is particularly handy in medical/science articles because of the Pubmed linking style and the autoreference generator that I mentioned. In addition we also have the ability to create footnotes. This does not preclude the other references since they can be placed in a section called additional reading in which, for example a book or review, has a broader context than a few sentences of text mentioned in the article.

I am not going to eliminate any references already given to point, and if you want to be careful place all you harvard references on one of your subpages. The disadvantage of the current referencing system in the article is that one has to hunt though a 90kb size article and have the whole article loaded at once to follow references. If one uses the autorefname generator in the ref generator even if a full reference is given a second time it will not be duplicated e.g. <ref name="pmid12345678">{{cite journal |author= |title=Denpasar Declaration on Population and Development |journal=Integration |volume= |issue=40 |pages=27–9 |year=1994 |month=June |pmid=12345678 |doi= |url=}}</ref> refname generator from PMID, PMCID, URLs

The disadvantage of this generator is it does not capture URLs if they are available outside of pubmed. PB666  13:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I would support Andrew on this. Seems to me that PB666 is being far too prescriptive (particularly in his opening "ongoing battle" comment), both as regards referencing style, and as regards prose style, in ways that go far beyond the specifics that are actually in the style guide.

Templates for Harvard referencing are made available so that they can be used. It may not be the most popular referencing style on Misplaced Pages, but nor is it deprecated.

It is especially useful in articles like this one, where there is a considerable volume technical literature being cited, and where additionally the subject matter has recently been moving very fast, so that it makes a real difference to know whether a reference is a 2008 paper or a 2004 paper. This in addition to the practical points Andrew makes above.

Finally, certainly it is very important to make articles accessible, but it is also sought to make them comprehensive. WP is not just pitched at highschool student level. The aim is to be a ready source for whatever information people are looking to find, at whatever level. Yes, adopt a pyramid approach if necessary, and present only the most broad-brush outlines first and up-front; but that doesn't mean eliminate nuance and complexity and history from the article, if they are a relevant part of the story that needs to be told. Jheald (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess the best summary of my thoughts on this is "doubt". I did not intend to take a strong position. But the thing is that if we start flipping over, we should do it the right way. I mentioned all the work I did but that is not the point. A bigger concern is my concern about a future article that might be hard to keep well referenced. I am into low maintenance.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Second paragraph in the intro, would it not be easier to just cite Semino 2004 and Cruciani 2004 at the end of the list of regions? I believe they cover all of these areas.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I am trying to unclutter the page and make it more user friendly, the page was difficult for even myself to read, if there where only a few references of this type it would not be bad, but one is stumbling over them. In regards to the critique, that statement would be true, however, if it were not for the fact this article badly needs to be simplified. Many of the references are not needed, for example there is no need to discuss J1 lineages in Ashkenazi Jews in the lead paragraph. Alot of information borders on trivia and makes the article unreadable.

Here is an clear example of unneccesarily cluttering up the page, this is the figure legend for the Africa distribution of M35 . . .

• The ancient dispersals of the major E1b1b1 (E-M35) lineages. The map seeks to show the standard theory based upon the most recent articles: Cruciani et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2007), Henn et al. (2008) and Hassan et al. (2008).

Replace with:

• A proposed dispersal pattern for E-M35.

PB666  03:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to use this thread to discuss just the formatting of references. It is a very specific question where a choice needs to be made. Concerning simplifying sentences as a general issue that can never really be a bad thing. But are footnotes simplifications in any straightforward way? I am not sure everyone would agree and I am not sure this is a matter of Misplaced Pages policy in any simple way.

Concerning the specific sentence you mention, it is not complex English that you are removing. So this is more about removing explanation which you think might not be necessary. I don't like the word "proposed" because it makes it unclear that this is simply the consensus as based on the latest articles. It is not OR, for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Wiki make no preference in the referencing system, however having written a great many articles on wiki, the Pubmed based reference generation system provides major advantage or hand generation of references.

• A condensed foot note, if you so desire you can use the name which appears at the bottom of the screen when you mouse over it.
• The ability to use endnotes to separate information such as worded text.
• A much more condensed format in the text, and references at the end of the sentence, not scattered about.
• Much more compatible for use in infoboxes, figure legends and tables.(An area which we are going to delve into pretty soon as this page has major problems with meaningful descriptions of tables and figures).
• Attenuating name dropping. This is a major problem in this article, 'Such and such says . . . ' If you look at Harris and Hey and then Hey and Harris they say almost the opposite thing in subsequent years. Paabo says Neandertals contributed to human population in mostly out of Africa scenario, now he is saying no evidence of Neandertal contribution. These are examples where authors have changed their mind. Even the last publication may not reflect the authors view, he might say something at the next seminar that contradicts what he says in his last paper which is at odds with his last review. This article has more name dropping than any other article I have seen in wikipedia. This also goes back to the issue of confidence, there are so many opinions out there one cannot possibly reflect every opinion, yes I understand one has to rely on the cited literature, but given the huge problems in confidence that have not be resolved, error should be made on the side of less opinion, and more about ranges, less about who said what when and more about the various opinions establishing a range.PB666  17:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
• Very important statements need to be quoted in text, less important statements can be resolved in notes and this can be a good thing, it helps to clean trivia and tangential material out of the main body of text.

If you are for simplifying, then start simplifying, lol. I can bow backwards out of this, I have many articles I need to create. Here are the major problems with the article:

1. Rambling disscussions. Start with "origins", right of the bat we talk about the horn of africa and wandering around in the highlands. Much of africa is above 3000 foot elevation. So what. Just delete this unreferenced speculation, thats it, they may leave a nasty note on your page, if you need support leave a note on my page. There is little discussion of how we got from E mentioned in the Lead to E1b1b. I provided an image to work from. Even an intermediate ancestral clade is not wikilinked.
2. The map of Africa, what do all those arrows mean, it looks like a bowl of spagetti to me, is that figure explained adequately, could it be simplified. V12/V13/V65, are those defined anywhere in the text previous to that map, I made a graphic and place it in the nomenclature section, but if you are going to have a map as such you need more graphics in from of the map, otherwise that map needs to be simplified.
3. Those tables with tandem repeats (which BTW still are not that useful in clocking anything), someone tell me that an 8th grade high school student is going to figure this out by the material on the table. Misplaced Pages gives folks the ability to create legends on tables. If you need to know how I can show you.
4. Cluttered text (referencing style, unsimplified information, intermixing of trivial or tangential facts with facts pertinent to the E1b1b clade.
5. I would actually like to see more tables where the population frequencies are listed for specific genetic types. I may be spoiled because 10 million people have been HLA typed, but that has the most meaning to me, I have no idea what those density lines on those maps mean. Could be 10% or 0.1% depending on what the author wants to emphasize.

Given that this article already has a very long list of pre-made citations, what is the advantage? The one you generated so far just doubled up a reference which already existed? (I deleted it and connected to the one that was already made.) Trying to learn here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You've added a lot to your original comment since I posted the reply making it look a little lost. Still the basic point about those pmid refs, if I may try to focus in on something: do average wikipedians know how to use these or are we going to get dozens of slightly different versions of references to the same article. Yes, this articles references can be simplified, because a small number of articles are very crtical. But then wikipedians who drop need to know how to reference to citations that already exist. The subject matter does not have big changes of mind yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As an example please see footnotes 11-15. All the refs here already existed, so this series doubles up and splits the referencing. A hybrid system where different parts of the article work different ways is a poor system.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Source

My source is Semino et al. (2004) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFSemino_et_al.2004 (help) I do not mind saying east africa other then the fact that east africa contains areas as far south as Mozambique and Zimbabwe places where no one says E3B began. Sincerely De The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 21:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As was pointed out, and I just checked again, Semino et al. (2004) does not mention the Horn of Africa. Also, none of the potential sources make any sort of definition which excludes Tanzania and Mozambique, so who says that these authors did not think these were possible places of origin? Please double check and confirm. None of us want edit wars. Let's work together.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

This is another example, because of the rate of displacement of Y chromosome as a consequence of migrations, it is not possible by genetic methods to place. Even if one cannot find examples to the south or west, this does not mean it did not originate in those places and later displaced. Consider the confidence of the conclusion. One could say east of the White Nile.PB666 

All we can do is cite the literature. East of the White Nile would not define the same area as is consistently defined in the literature. It implies a different area.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

ALthough true their appears to be a contradiction between East Africa and Horn of Africa, since East Africa is less likely to be incorrect then you should use East Africa.PB666  12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been moving, or allowing the move, to "East Africa". Causteau seems to be doing the same. SOPHIAN has some sort of issue with it but he is explaining it in the language of reverts so far. It seems to be a simple sourcing issue. The sources are relatively clear and although we might guess about the meaning, that's not what Misplaced Pages is about. A review might be a good source for educated interpretations of a bundle of articles, but I'm avoiding citing my own review.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The studies indicate E1b1b originated in East Africa, but they really mean the Horn of Africa. We know this because of the criteria they lay out. For instance, Cruciani et al. (2004) write that:

"Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b—that is, it had (1) the highest number of different E3b clades (table 1), (2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and, finally, (3) the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup.""

With the discovery of the M293 mutation in southern African chromosomes formerly labeled E3b*, it would appear that E-M215* has only really so far been found in Ethiopia and Yemen. And if we look at the sheer diversity and frequency of the E1b1b sub-clades in the Horn, it is obvious that that is the region Cruciani was referring to above, not to Kenya, Tanzania, etc. -- areas where E1b1b's presence exists at a much lower frequency & diversity, and is attributed to individuals or groups that migrated down from the Horn (which is indeed consistent with both historical & linguistic records). Causteau (talk) 11:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Your comments are not unreasonable, but Cruciani does not seem to say this. You need a different source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You misunderstand me. I'm not proposing we put the Horn of Africa as the place of origin for E1b1b. All I'm saying is that this is what Cruciani, Semino and all of the other researchers that refer to "Eastern Africa" or "East Africa" in their studies as the clade's place of origin really mean. Semino, for instance, indicates that Ethiopia has the highest frequency of E-P2*, while several linguists have proposed a link between the Afro-Asiatic linguistic phylum and E1b1b. The forgoing obviously also rules out the areas of eastern Africa south of the Horn. My comment was just trying to clarify this one point, especially since you seemed serious when you proposed that researchers could've actually been referring to Mozambique of all places (I sincerely doubt that). Causteau (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I have doubts about that too, but it would not be a shock if they might have Kenya in mind. Anyway, your comments are reasonable. Thanks for the clarification.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. However, you're forgetting one thing about Kenya, and that is that the Borana are, in fact, not originally from the area. They migrated down from Ethiopia in the sixteenth century or thereabouts. The Borana are actually just a very large sub-group of the Oromo Cushitic speakers. Many Borana in the Kenya area also aren't actually ethnically Oromo, but simply former subjects that have adopted the Oromo language (Oromos have very intricate clan systems, with certain clans having descended from foreign groups). Actually, just about all of northern Kenya is inhabited by Cushitic speakers (some ethnic, some not), not unlike neighboring Ethiopia. And this is the part of Kenya where E1b1b exists in high frequencies, not below it. By the way, I don't know if you've noticed or anything, but the Borana sample that Cruciani et al. (2004) used which reported a very high frequency of over 80% actually only numbers seven individuals. That makes for very doubtful extrapolation. It also runs counter to other studies, which report a significantly lower frequency of the clade in this particular population. Causteau (talk) 13:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes but see Sanchez et al. Anyway, I think your remarks are fine but it is common for language groups to expand over related families. You probably know more than me about this but I think Somali and Borana represent a relatively new expansion in the greater scheme of things in these region, and after the expansion of E-M35. Concerning what languages were in and around this area before, I think it is "clear that it is unclear"? Of course there does seem to be a sharp "cline" in genotypic populations in Northern Kenya, Uganda, Southern Sudan, to the South of Lake Chad etc, but could this all be post-Bantu expansion?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, seeing as how you wrote a decent review article on the subject, I think you already know plenty as it is. I'm looking at the Sanchez et al. study you're presumably referring to, but I don't see any frequencies for the Borana cited there. Was this the study you were referring to or another one? Causteau (talk) 14:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I could be wrong about Sanchez having more data. I just have it in my mind that there was more data somewhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

• wow, OK, guys let me reiterate the point, its not about arguing ad-nauseum a point where there is relatively good agreement, it is about cleaning up synthesis and original research on the main-page. I would do it myself but I think you 2 (or 3) need to sit down, go over the rules of wikipedia and decide what is clearly referencable and clearly parsimonious, and what is speculative. I understand that PMRCAs and TMRCAs are not factoids but derivations of facts, given that stick to what is least likely to be wrong. While the horn of africa may be more probable than the western Sahel or the southern part of east Africa, certainly one does not need perfect overlay of probabilities, after all this is an encyclopedia. The time for the debate here is over, its time to clean up the main. BTW, if I start cutting, just remember, I think the literature itself is highly speculative, I'm of the Bandelt camp of molecular anthropologists myself so . . . . .PB666  22:13, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW good job on moving some of the material to the notes section. Underhill (2002) believes that the structure and regional pattern of E-M35 sub-clades potentially give "reagents with which to infer specific episodes of population histories associated with the Neolithic agricultural expansion". Concerning European E-M35 within this scheme, Underhill and Kivisild (2007) have remarked that E1b1b seems to represent a late-Pleistocene migration from North Africa to Europe over the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt. OK, so the oldest known cultivars (not domesticants but cultivars) were from Anatolia c.12,000 years ago, while there is no solid Mesolithic/Neolithic boundary it would appear that the Neolithic occurs sometime after this before 9,600 years ago. The problem is that the date mentioned is 22,500 years ago, that is some 12,000 years before the neolithic begins. The second issue is that the african Neolithic, particularly in the Sahel region is characterized by dotted wavy line and wavy line pottery, and cattle industries to about 10,000 years ago, climate change of the period was severe and communities were not stable, such as those seen in the Levant and Anatolia. Core aspects of neolithization is increasing sedentary lifestyles pastoral or agrarian existence, primarily agrarian lifestyles with hunting wild game during the earliest neolithic. There is nothing even closely neolithic in 'the horn of africa' that would explain its spread 22,000 years ago and there is nothing convincingly neolithic from 22,000 years ago. The plants that were domesticated triggering the middle eastern neolithic 1st Rye, 2nd Quadraploid wheat - Sanduri wheat to the south and Emmers (Poulard wheat) to the north are both indigeonous to the levant, the only cultivar of the early neolithic that was used in Africa (Egypt) was barley. IOW how can this statement be credible? In addition people of the same age in the Levant were already using Triticeae extensively. The Neolithic spreads many genes from east to west in Europe, this is no secret, what brings E1b1b1 out of africa "22600" to "Neolithic" timeframe into the middle east whereby it can spread. What other evidence is there for a second migration from Africa?PB666  22:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the timeline is

• 23,000-17,000 E-M215/M35 emerges in East Africa
• 17,000-12000 E-M215/M35 migrates to Egypt
• 12,000 and afterwards E-M215/M35 migrates to the Near East.

E1b1b may be associated with the Proto-Neolithic peoples of the Natufian culture. This is supported by Brace et al, who state in The questionable contribution of the Neolithic and the Bronze Age to European craniofacial form

If the Late Pleistocene Natufian sample from Israel is the source from which that Neolithic spread was derived, then there was clearly a Sub-Saharan African element present of almost equal importance as the Late Prehistoric Eurasian element. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained. This picture of a mixture between the incoming farmers and the in situ foragers had originally been supported by the archaeological record alone, but this view is now reinforced by the analysis of the skeletal morphology of the people of those areas where prehistoric and recent remains can be metrically compared

Interesting since you mention a second migration, there is a recent study by Reich et al 2009 which states,

Couple of points here, CL Brace, believes(d) that Neanderthals were specifically human and has even proposed that aspects migrated to the New World. Brace has said (multiple times) in response of a comment I made that the he did not believe in a recent African origin for humans (c.1998). Having said that I do have evidence from the HLA for at least two recent migrations from Africa (unpublished however) one that occured between 25 and 40 kya that appeared to have reached Japan by 16 kya. The alleles and haplotypes brought are not found in many areas either to the northwest or southeast. Another wave more recent was probably from the Neolithic appears to have traveled from the Sudan region into the lower Indus directly and appeared to have originated in Western Africa (It is pre-bantu in origin however and represents a sahel culture more-so than Bantu). It carried the A33-B58-DR3-DQ2.5 and a number of similar recombinants. Since we can rule out the later, the former (25 to 40 kya), and again if one is using cultural landmarks, the first had to have been in the transbiakal by 18,300 years. The technological migration appears contemporary to pottery invention, the appears of soluterean/clovis like stone blades and knives, and precedes the mesolithic (microblades and composite blades).PB666 

In addition, there was trans-Mediterranean geneflow before the Neolithic begins, there is marked evidence in the eastern Mediterranean of material flows as sea levels were rising. The situation in Italy is more complex because of post neolithic factors have made archaeology in most regions difficult. However even in Italy there is evidence of regional trade. In Sardinian, about 35% of HLA are inferred as of more recent African origin, and Iberia has a large compliment of African alleles. The HLA from peoples living along the Black and Aegean seas indicates the arrival of rare alleles that are found at very low frequencies elsewhere in Eurasia but are found at high frequencies in sub-Saharan Africa (this stirred up a rather great controversy). The most notable type of recent African origins in Europe is the A1-B8-DR3-DQ2.5 AH8.1 haplotype, which is nodal in the western Irish. This haplotype is made of components that have been only identified in West Africa, it may have come about because of a reverse wave from Iberia, however, the DR3-DQ2 component is modal in West Africa where A1-B8 is also found and recombination of DR3-DQ2 is more evident there than elsewhere. The A29-Cw16-B44-DR7-DQ2 is clearly from west Africa and is nodal along the 0th meridian. The problem here is references and timing. For example the Cw16 is at very low frequency in the middle east and tends to be *1602 (indicating an origin elsewhere in Africa). Here is the point, lots of evidence of migration from Africa more recent than the first wave (65 to 130 kya), but actually good genetic studies to support this (other than Y) are not so good. If for instance AH8.1 recombined from African parts, it had to be at least 20kya. If A29-B44 came from west africa, probably >8000 years ago.PB666  14:08, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

A higher-resolution analysis (Fig. 1c) reveals a distinct gradient of Bantu-related ancestry from west to east across Eurasia, an observation that sharply contradicts the theory that a single African migration gave rise to the entire non-African gene pool. One explanation for this is that after the initial southern route migration out of Africa, there was later Bantu-related gene flow into Europe and the rest of Eurasia.

Agreed, HLA supports this, the problem is that certain haplotypes that are found in west Africa are all but absent in the Levant, the small level that exist can be explained by back migrations of Turkic peoples. I spent a great deal of effort trying to trace these Haplotypes and the closest migratory point that could be assigned in Asia is the western flank of the Indus river in Pakistan.

From Indus river northward into the Turkic republics and then eastward into Mongolia and China and finally reaching Korea after 2000 ybp. (None of these haplotypes are found in Japan, Yayoi extended from 3000 BC to 400 AD), How does one separate this from the more East African influences that occurred well before this migration? That is the problems. The bantu expansion began 3000 years ago, not >9600 years ago, BTW PB666 

With regard to the techno-genetic migration that reaches the Far East before 12 kya, this particular migration carried specific alleles and haplotypes all the way to the new world that are nodal exactly where some of the E1b1b1a2, this haplotype Cw4-B35 is found almost a magnitude higher in the Balkans than in Ireland, and most of the Cw4-B35 haplotypes in the Irish can be traced back recently to other parts of Europe. Cw4-B35 is closely related to Cw4-B53 which is abundant in super-Equitorial Africa. Cw4-B35 is very common in the middle east, the Mediterranean and North Africa have a large number of B35 variants that are found from India to Iberia but diversity and abundance drops markedly SE of India. It is interesting that some years ago I found a link between haplotypes found in SE to Central Europe and this I think explained the rise of Jomon culture, however as more genetic evidence came in a trail that was clouded (no evidence in Middle East) it became clear that the some of these haplotypes likely originated from africa by separate migrations out of Africa. This appears to be the case for certain turko-mongolian haplotypes. In other instances it appears that there were migrations across Asia involving protoTibetians and Yakuts that eventually reached Europe. This is a clean example where the original genetic evidence points one direction, but with better data we see that two peoples can be linked by complex history where direct genetic exchange may only be a minor factor.

There is also the A26 alleles in Japan, Japan has a high frequency of HLA-A26 and great diversity, but this appears to be due to a founder affect, whereas A26 is not found along the west pacific rim in frequencies great enough, and it would appear that Eurasian origin is from the SE Black Sea area, A25 appears to be a derivative of A26 and is notable across Europe and few other places. The most likely local origin of A26 given abundance and diversity is North Africa. There are other alleles and haplotypes. The other allele is A69, HLA-A68 and A69 are variants of A28 serotype. A69 is a major variant of A68, and likely originated in North Africa, however currently the node is in the Levant. This A68 haplotype has spread into Europe from the east and from NW africa, but isolated populations frequently have low A68 and its presence in SE Asia is all but absent. Its presense in Ireland is low. It is surprising that HLA-A69 would have such a high frequency in the middle east but Cw*1601 would have such a low presence, this and a number of other indicators suggest muliple complex waves from African into different areas of Europe and Eurasia at different times. To be fair, I would assert that the 'NE Africa' to Levant migration could have occurred anywhere between 18.5 kya to 60 kya and still explain the observations with HLA. The archaeology is problematic because it now begins to try to arrange its facts to be parsimonious with wide chronological framework. The archaeological interpretations (from a science history perspective) have often been wrong to being the almost exact opposite of current understanding. What I would find credible given an improved clock of genomic mtDNAs is an eventual separation of certain migrations from the base migration >65 kya. This means that second migrations may be very old, and residual evidence may tend to be local in Eurasia and confused with more recent migration. Secondarily, the X-linked DNA seriously needs to be re-examined as a migration tracker, because it is slightly less bias than mtDNA and much less biased than Y in factoring in migrations or settlement tendencies.PB666 

It is not yet clear whether the E1b1b who entered Europe were hunter gatherers or farmers, However there proliferation in the Near East and subsequently in Europe could mean they possessed some technology of some sort. Harvey Gustav (talk) 02:14, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

From the HLA point of view, you got bigger problems than that. From my point of view the population history of Africa is great, and the social evolution was a major driver of technological evolution prior to post-iceage period. The technological innovations likely drove african Y chromosome from Africa on numerous occasions, and at least by the Neolithic these start becoming difficult to track because of sea-faring activity in the Mediteranean and Indian oceans. Y chromosome evidence will tend to dominate the migration evidence, but mtDNA, for instance as a marker of slave trade, may appear to dominate later. The picture is very complex.

PB666  19:36, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

From my understanding, HLA genes are involved in the immune system and are thus under strong selection. Whenever human population migrate to a new habitat, HLA related genes will be among the fastest to evolve. Specifically since, prior to the advent of modern medicine, humans were almost exclusively at the mercy of their immune system when it came to fighting disease. Thus selection forces would need to be considered when tracking historical migrations based on HLA. The case often cited is that of Native Americans who have recent common ancestry with Eurasians (13kya). When Europeans brought smallpox and other Eurasian diseases to the New World, the Native American populations were drastically reduced due disease epidemics because they had no resistance to Eurasian diseases. Harvey Gustav (talk) 19:50, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

That explains why AH8.1 which is negatively selective in wheat eating cultures is still the most abundant haplotype in Europe. HLA tends to preserve diversity as opposed to Y chromosome which tends to fix more rapidly than any other neutral DNA. For example. Read Parham and Ohta, Science 1996. In africa positive selection is almost a non-issue, africa has the greatest HLA diversity of any continent, and as a matter of fact, in the exit regions we are talking about long-distance haplotypes (A-B, B-DR) tend to exist at frequencies a magnitude lower than Europe. HLA is under selection, Y chromosome is under greater patri-linear cultural selection. If selection is an argument to be used here, all the discussion under origins is effectively useless. Aside from that there is no corrobating evidence for a cultural wave that carried Y out of africa in any given time frame.

The section on Origins is biased, it brings in the issue of Jewish ancestry which a tangential aspects, but it does not discuss models of spread from Africa into Middle East or Europe, or the fact that other loci present complex models of migration from Africa into Europe, in effect one is presenting one side of the story _and_ then shifting the discussion to a topic that has no business being in origins. In addition the section does not discuss at all (other than the figure I provided) evolution from haplogroup E to E1b1b, which really is the most important item that should be discussed.PB666  04:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The Coffman quote is not specifically about Jewish ancestry, but about E1b1b as a whole: not just in terms genetic diversity, but also in terms of the origin of its sub-clades, its distribution, gene flow, frequency relative to population size, and its own unique identity as a haplogroup in its own right rather than as merely a sub-clade of a larger clade. Its pertinence has also already been discussed to death and agreed upon. In addition, the models of the spread of E1b1b sub-clades from Africa into the Middle East and Europe have already been very well presented in the article; the Origins section just focuses on E-M215 & E-M35 for obvious reasons. Unlike what the sockpuppet (Harvey Gustav) of the blocked user Wapondaponda has attempted to present above, it is specifically E-M78 that spread from North Africa to the Near East, not other sub-clades of E1b1b. The evolution of haplogroup E to E1b1b is also more appropriate for the haplogroup E article, where it is indeed already discussed. It's the evolution from PN2 to E-M215 that is perhaps more relevant, and that too is already covered in the notes section. Causteau (talk) 07:36, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Here is a paper that reinforces what I have been saying . What is said above is about right and makes sense. From the HLA perspective specific haplotypes can be traced to points in the East, in Anatolia, in Greece, in the middle east, but there is also contribution from North Africa in Italy, NW africa in Iberia and western Europe, in Sardinia from N or NE Africa. The basic argument that all instances of a haplotype must have come from a Levantine or Semitic population is wishful thinking, IMHO all references to Jewish studies in the origins section should be removed and also from the lead.PB666  01:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I see both sides here. Just focusing on this paragraph we can split up several concerns:

• Is this paragraph about the "science" of E1b1b? No. The author herself is clear about her agreement with mainstream science that E1b1b originated in Eastern Africa. Her concern is about how the public gets confused by a particular word. But Misplaced Pages does not have to be only about dry facts, if there is something else "newsworthy" to be said. What might be newsworthy, so to speak, is that E1b1b does get discussed a lot by non scientists. Although this discussion might be ignorant, it exists.

Then it does not belong in the origins section, it belongs in a section called ==E1b1b in popular culture==PB666  21:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

• Should discussion about such potential confusion be in the section labeled "Origins"? To me this has always been a concern, because it seems to imply doubts about the Eastern African origins theory which do not exist. Ellen's concerns are about the confusions created by misunderstandings. This is the reason for previous discussions which finally led to the acceptance of the "in the sense of" wording, that hopefully helps.
• Should such discussion be in an article on one haplogroup, or is it more appropriate to link to some other Misplaced Pages article about DNA and identity or some such thing?
• Is this comment really a good one to explain the confusion problem? As PB666 points out it seems to imply that this is all about Jewish DNA, whereas ideally it should be a more general comment. The problem might be that to give this quote its proper context and discussion you probably need a specialized article.

THe quote on the Jewish paper does is a proper section on E1b1b in popular culture, in a section concerning origins it is somewhat leading, and the reader wonders why it is placed there and not in a section concerning daughter clads that have increased frequency in the middle east. That's the problem.

Too Many Editors?

I do think that this discussion is a reflection of a bigger problem. A lot of Misplaced Pages editors on genetics articles like this are themselves confused by some of these issues, but urgently wanting their ideas expressed. There are many confusions in the field which are partly created by the word usage of the published authors themselves. How to use adjectives like "African" is one problem (there are really no agreed rules on this at all); whether "admixture" always implies a model of migrations is another (it normally does not, it is just a mathematical description so to speak); the use of the words "old" and "young" for clades also creates confusions (all clades have the same age); I also sometimes see comments about which clades are bigger or smaller, even though the clades could be grouped in multiple ways to give any ranking you like. Perhaps PD666 could have a look at the Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe (and its talk page) to see a more chaotic example of an article virtually driven by such confusions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I made a large number of changes in the Origin section and in the E1b1b1 section, this is all the changes I intend to make, I reduced the exposure to daughter clads to a brief synopsis, describing their pseudonyms, current accepted names, and a brief synopsis of the importance of the daughter clads. I also removed the 'formally ###' from section titles and placed them in their sections as bolded text. One could actually insert infoboxes in these sections. This is all the work I am going to do on this page, as to get the reader through the introductory stuff without dropping them into quicksand. I converted a few harvard tags to references which redirect to harvard references as is being done. The name dropping in the subsections I find less troublesome than in the introductory stuff. I also read Coffman-Levy and it reiterates may basic opinion that people draw too much from these early studies. One thing she did not say that I have repeatedly said, anyone in DNA-anthro knows, Sample, sample, sample. To many papers have drawn conclusions without sampling adequately and in particular, without sampling where diversity is greatest. While I appluad her rework of Jewish ancestry, the proper time to frame ancestry is well after the great sampling effort is complete. Somewhere along the way someone would find out why Y chromosomal TMRCA is so disconcordant with everything else, and you might have a decent molecular clock.

Archeological evidence

From the Mesolithic to the early Neolithic period different lines of evidence support an out-of-Africa Mesolithic migration to the Levant by northeastern African groups that had biological affinities with sub-Saharan populations. From a genetic point of view, several recent genetic studies have shown that Saharan genetic lineages affiliated with the Y-chromosome PN2 clade have spread through Egypt into the Near East, the Mediterranean area, and, for some lineages, as far north as Turkey , probably during several dispersal episodes since the Mesolithic. This finding is in agreement with morphological data that suggest that populations with sub-Saharan morphological elements were present in northeastern Africa, from the Paleolithic to at least the early Holocene, and diffused northward to the Levant and Anatolia beginning in the Mesolithic.

Discrete Traits in a Byzantine Population and Eastern Mediterranean Population MovementsKompolompo (talk) 03:17, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I will get back to you on this one.PB666  03:31, 11 July 2009 (UTC) As I suspected referring to African in terms of Neolithic and Mesolithic is increasingly out of fashion. The small blade technology reached N Africa well after a time frame for migration of Y, and evidence for earlier migrations is relatively scarce. I cast my warning that many of these migrations may be invisible, a few males that leave and take over ruling structures of eurasian tribes that end up taking politically dominant positions that allow further spread of Y chromosome.PB666  15:29, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The article "Discrete traits . ." cited above comes from the journal Human Biology. Aside from the fact that HB articles are difficult to access, the article itself had numerous problems. They could not define the sex and some parameters of many of the skeleta and consequently they decided not to intepret the sex. The analysis found the closest match with Scandinavian (which has a minimal genetic link with Sudanese or NE african or somali other than the most ancient links) and the somali. My opinion is that the link is most probably due to a poor preservation of skeletal features fuzzied up by the fact that they could not ascertain the sex. The second problem is this article is not about classic Greek by about the early Christian period, from the new testiment we know that many of these communities were founded by Jews of Middle Eastern descent, and frequent members of the early Christians were travelers from other regions (Syria, coastal Anatolia, the Balkans, Italy, and some may have been born as far away as Iberia). IOW a possible broad mixture of traits.PB666  12:54, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Tone, Context Provision, Clarity, Topicworthiness

Misplaced Pages articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using unintelligible argot, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.

Misplaced Pages is an international encyclopedia. People who read Misplaced Pages have different backgrounds, education and worldviews. Make your article accessible and understandable for as many readers as possible. Assume readers are reading the article to learn. It is possible that the reader knows nothing about the subject: the article needs to fully explain the subject.

Avoid using jargon whenever possible. Consider the reader. An article entitled "Use of chromatic scales in early Baroque music" is likely to be read by musicians, and technical details and metalanguage, linked to articles explaining the metalanguage, are appropriate.

Evaluating context

Here are some thought experiments to help you test whether you are setting enough context:

   * Does the article make sense if the reader gets to it as a random page? (Special:Random)
   * Imagine yourself as a layperson in another English-speaking country. Can you figure out what the article is about?
   * Can people tell what the article is about if the first page is printed out and passed around?
   * Would a reader want to follow some of the links?

State the obvious

State facts that may be obvious to you, but are not necessarily obvious to the reader. Usually, such a statement will be in the first sentence or two of the article. For example, consider this sentence:

Stay on topic

The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information. While writing an article, you might find yourself digressing into a side subject. If you find yourself wandering off-topic, consider placing the additional information into a different article, where it will fit more closely with the topic. If you provide a link to the other article, readers who are interested in the side topic have the option of digging into it, but readers who are not interested will not be distracted by it. Due to the way in which Misplaced Pages has grown, many articles contain such redundant texts. Please be bold in deleting them.

Many things in this article can be directly deleted, there is alot of Jargon, individuals switch from using M35 to E1b1b1 and the like, you've got figures with labels that are not explained. The article does not take a basic up approach, instead it takes a top down approach. Misplaced Pages can present complex topics, but they have to be explained in a way that someone following the leads can figure these things out. If the links do not explain the background then that is a priority for presentation in the article first. What I have noticed is that the combatives here are more interested in getting their point across than actually making the article understandable, and we are now having an argument about references. There are references scattered all about the article, but in terms of clarity, they don't add a bit. Before you guys get into your next big dispute read WP:TONE and the other and see if the article manages to meet the basic criteria.PB666  17:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. The article definitely has a lot of wordiness issues and growths of various sorts. Citations was a very specific issue because it is a choice of system.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Shortened Origins section

WP:BOLD - I removed mention of Jewish haplogroups, cleaned up the sentence which mentioned other haplogroups since these are adequately mentioned in the notes. If anyone wants to create a section on E1b1b1 in popular culture and go into more detail about myths and authors responses to those myths that would be a fine start to moving other statements out of science descriptions.PB666  22:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Archive 7 was created

Threads ending before March 31 were archived.PB666  22:34, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

split off E-M78

At the suggestion of User:PDeitiker I have created a new article for E-M78 (E1b1b1a). Eventually this should allow us to safely reduce the size of the E-M78 section in this article. Have a look at how many sub-section levels we have and you will understand why this was becoming a necessity according to the normal way in which Misplaced Pages evolves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, lets reduce E-M78 to a synopsis so that we don't WP:POVFORK, lets all cooperate with Andy on this reduction so that it can happen as quickly as possible.PB666  14:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Related studies

Halder et al A panel of ancestry informative markers for estimating individual biogeographical ancestry and admixture from four continents: utility and applications. The study states,

We observed patterns of apportionment similar to those described previously using sex and autosomal markers, such as European admixture for African Americans (14.3%) and Mexicans (43.2%), European (65.5%) and East Asian affiliation (27%) for South Asians, and low levels of African admixture (2.8-10.8%) mirroring the distribution of Y E3b haplogroups among various Eurasian populations.

Another study by Auton et al, Global distribution of genomic diversity underscores rich complex history of continental human populations, Supplementary material

Our analyses also have direct relevance to current debates in human population genetics regarding the extent of historical gene flow among Africa, Europe, and the Middle East. Our observation of a north–south gradient in diversity with the highest estimates of diversity in the southern part of the continent is consistent with the initial founding of Europe from the Middle East, the influence of Neolithic farmers within the last 10,000 yr, or migrations south followed by a recolonization of Europe after the last glacial maximum. The unusually high number of haplotypes in South Western Europe is indicative of recurrent gene flow into these regions. Furthermore, when we considered the extent of haplotype sharing with the HapMap YRI population in Europe, we found that the South and South-Western subpopulations showed the highest proportion of shared haplotypes. If gene flow had occurred solely through the Middle East, we would expect the South-Eastern subpopulations to have the highest haplotype diversity and sharing of YRI haplotypes. These two results therefore suggest that while the initial migrations into Europe came via the Middle East, at least some degree of subsequent gene flow has occurred directly from Africa. A potential concern is that the HapMap YRI are not representative of diversity in North Africa, and the levels of haplotype sharing must be interpreted with this in mind. It is currently unclear how patterns of genetic diversity in the Yoruba are representative of the wider region, although genetic similarity appears to decline with distance. Nonetheless, the haplotype sharing between Europe and the YRI are suggestive of gene flow from Africa, albeit from West Africa and not necessarily North Africa. Future studies will hopefully be able to better resolve this question by comparing haplotypes from further populations around the Mediterranean.

Wapondaponda (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

The molecular determination of HLA-Cw alleles in the Mandenka (West Africa) reveals a close genetic relationship between Africans and Europeans {{quotation|A comparison of Cw allele frequencies among several populations of different origins, Mandenka, Swiss, English, Ashkenazi Jews from the UK and Japanese, reveals a high genetic heterogeneity among them, but also a much closer relationship between Mandenka, Europeans and Ashkenazi than between any of these populations and Japanese. The results possibly support a close historical relationship between Africans and Europeans as compared to East Asiatics.} Wapondaponda (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Haha, not filling the talkpage with OT stuff? Anyway I find this interesting, but concerning HLA how do you tell directionality of migration if there are so few variants? Perhaps better to reply somewhere else like one of our talkpages though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you can't. In general recombination is more likely to occur where the templates for recombination are highest. So for example if you have an A3-Cw7-B7-DR15-DQ6.2 AH7.3 and A2-Cw5-B44 you wont be surprised if you find new recombinants of A3-Cw5-B44 or A2-Cw7-DR15-DQ6.2. HLA generally (synonomous mutations) evolve by gene conversion 90% of the time, so that in general you have to have both templates in a local population for new haplotype recombinants to form or new alleles to form. Tracing the origins of older HLA through western Africa is a problem. The serious nature of climate change disperses peoples allows different people back in, and disperses them again. It brings two groups of people together allowing for new recombinants, and then flushes them across halfway across the planet. An excellent example of this is A33-B58-DR3-DQ.25. Both of these are found in West Africa at high frequencies, but not as one haplotype (A node jumps for both). There is a trace amount of this in Sudan, there is an anti-node of in the middle east, the frequency Jumps in the lower Indus and some level of these are found up into the Turkic republics for DQ2.5 (Though not AH8.1) and the frequency subsides to the East. It was dispersed by Mongols/Jurchen and later Chinese all the way down to Thailand. This is why i am rather suspicious about claims made of things coming from or originating from one part of North Africa and not another. Do a search on Hemachromatosis (HFE) and A3-B7 on pubmed you should find some interesting reading. I will refactor my posts above in a couple of days.PB666  13:50, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Genographic

If Genographic project is unreliable why does it link to so many articles about mtdna and y-dna in so many articles on this wiki(such as haplogroup H mtdna and Haplogroup R1B y-dna ect?)The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 05:58, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN, please sign your talkpage postings. I am not directly aware of any articles citing the Genographic project as a source for anything controversial, because I do not work equally as much on every Misplaced Pages article. There are of course many articles on Misplaced Pages that need a lot of work to bring them to reasonable standard. There are articles also linking to blogs and so on. Of course this only becomes an urgent problem when such sources are being used to defend something controversial. Otherwise it is just a case of someone needing to find a BETTER source for the same information. Anyway, if another article links to a source, that does not make the source reliable. By all means if you think that editors of those other articles can defend this source, go ask them. But in discussions on this talkpage (look back through the archives too), no one could come up with a good defense. You could also call for opinions at for example WP:HGH or you could make a Misplaced Pages "Request for Comment" on "Reliable Sources". At the moment you are the only one left defending this particular piece of information on this particular article, so you should in any case not just keep pushing it back in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:50, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

SOPHIAN, also, please do not insert your answers into your original posts! How on Earth can anyone follow that? OK, so you say this source is cited on the R1b and H articles? Is it used to source anything controversial? And why should we care if it is used on another article? What is your point? Do you have ANY other argument for using this source? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

The Genographic project is run by Spencer Wells, the specific website has not been updated and is based on old data. The data in the Genographic project is based on data before Semino et al 2004 and Cruciani et al 2004. Spencer Wells acknowledges this as he is a co-author to this article which states

The sub-haplogroup E (E-M40), defined by M40/SRY4064 and M96, was also suggested originated in Africa, and later dispersed to Middle East and Europe about 20,000 years ago.

So even the author of the genographic site now acknowledges an African origin of E and E3b. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:57, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Then let spencer change his site and notice he uses the word was. The Count of Monte Cristo (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes he should change his site, however it is a private commercial website, so the owners can do whatever they want with it. It is obviously better to cite peer reviewed publications because they have a methodology and discuss how they reach their conclusions. So great care should be taken when citing information from private commercial websites. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
2. Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
3. Ellen Coffman-Levy (2005) A Mosaic of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1:12-33. From pp.22-23: "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
4. Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
5. Ellen Coffman-Levy (2005) A Mosaic of People: The Jewish Story and a Reassessment of the DNA Evidence Journal of Genetic Genealogy 1:12-33. From pp.22-23: "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
6. Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
7. Coffman-Levy (2005) harvcoltxt error: no target: CITEREFCoffman-Levy2005 (help): "Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media. Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup. Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood."
8. Middleton D, Menchaca L, Rood H, Komerofsky R (2003). "New allele frequency database: http://www.allelefrequencies.net". Tissue Antigens. 61 (5): 403–7. doi:10.1034/j.1399-0039.2003.00062.x. PMID 12753660. {{cite journal}}: External link in |title= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
9. ^ Karafet TM, Mendez FL, Meilerman MB, Underhill PA, Zegura SL, Hammer MF (2008). "New binary polymorphisms reshape and increase resolution of the human Y chromosomal haplogroup tree". Genome Res. 18 (5): 830–8. doi:10.1101/gr.7172008. PMC 2336805. PMID 18385274. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
10. ^ "A nomenclature system for the tree of human Y-chromosomal binary haplogroups". Genome Res. 12 (2): 339–48. 2002. doi:10.1101/gr.217602. PMC 155271. PMID 11827954. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
11. Cruciani F, La Fratta R, Santolamazza P; et al. (2004). "Phylogeographic analysis of haplogroup E3b (E-M215) y chromosomes reveals multiple migratory events within and out of Africa". Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74 (5): 1014–22. doi:10.1086/386294. PMC 1181964. PMID 15042509. {{cite journal}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
12. whatever