Slovenski Volk (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 555: | Line 555: | ||
:Something needs to stop, that's for sure. I'm sure both editors have the article's best interest at heart, however, look at this talk page ! its all from the past week. Seems like excessive, sometimes pointless edits arguing about minute details at best, sometimes arguements posted are tangential and cirumentative (?if that's a word) [[User:Hxseek|Hxseek]] ([[User talk:Hxseek|talk]]) 11:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
:Something needs to stop, that's for sure. I'm sure both editors have the article's best interest at heart, however, look at this talk page ! its all from the past week. Seems like excessive, sometimes pointless edits arguing about minute details at best, sometimes arguements posted are tangential and cirumentative (?if that's a word) [[User:Hxseek|Hxseek]] ([[User talk:Hxseek|talk]]) 11:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
:::Yes, and interestingly enough Andrew is carrying on the war when my addition to the page has dropped markedly, He misses me, feels he needs a sense of closure. While he was working his Maelstorm, however, I have been gathering references for. Go to the ANI, you will see clearly they tell Andrew 1. Take a few days away from editing 2. He has ownership issues, which he argued with one editor about. OTOH, I left a 1 paragraph response. The thing is here, I am the one person he can't deal with. He can deal with Muntawandi, he has the upper hand, he can deal with Small Victory, obviously upper hand, but when it comes to me, I have access to far more literature, basic science literature and critiques than he does. Not only that I have been editing longer made more edits. And I know the difference between an encyclopedia than content like this:"Concerning E-M123* (tested and definitely without E-M34) Cruciani et al. (2004) located one individual in Bulgaria after testing 3401 individuals from five continents, and Underhill et al. (2000) located one individual in Central Asia. In a 568 person study in Iberia, Flores et al. (2004) found 2 E-M123* individuals, both in Northern Portugal out of 109 people tested there. In a 553 person study of Portugal, Gonçalves et al. (2005) also found 2 E-M123* individuals in Northern Portugal, out of 101 people, as well as 2 in Madeira out of 129 people tested there. Flores et al. (2005) found one individual out of 146 Jordanians. Cadenas et al. (2007) found none amongst the significant presence of E-M34 they found in their study of the UAE, Yemen and Qatar. Arredi et al. (2004) found 1 Tunisian in their study of 275 men in Northern Africa. Zalloua et al. (2008) found 26 E-M123 cases in Cyprus, out of 164 men tested; and 27 Palestinians out of 291 tested[28]". |
|||
:::He does not have the upper hand. And shortly I am going to bring several more references into the fray that really question why he carried on about by critique of 'trivial' errors. This is not a wall of words and what Andrew is going to do next is say I wasn't talking about this I was talking about that and your not on-topic. Watch.[[User:Pdeitiker|PB666]] [[User_talk:Pdeitiker#References|<sup>yap</sup>]] 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Of course this talkpage should not be about individuals, but I think at this stage I need to summarize the problem in order to avoid misunderstandings. (I have no way of communicating with PB666 which works. See his talk page.) On the basis that there is a clear consensus on the problem you mention now, I have proposed (above [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29#A_constructive_proposal]) to PB666 that he and I agree to limit our talk postings on this page. He has characteristically managed to take >1000 words to refuse, without any actual relevant explanation. |
::Of course this talkpage should not be about individuals, but I think at this stage I need to summarize the problem in order to avoid misunderstandings. (I have no way of communicating with PB666 which works. See his talk page.) On the basis that there is a clear consensus on the problem you mention now, I have proposed (above [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29#A_constructive_proposal]) to PB666 that he and I agree to limit our talk postings on this page. He has characteristically managed to take >1000 words to refuse, without any actual relevant explanation. |
||
Line 560: | Line 564: | ||
::1. They are enormous, and their unnecessary size (they are filled with irrelevant chatter) is in itself very disruptive. This needs to stop in and of itself. |
::1. They are enormous, and their unnecessary size (they are filled with irrelevant chatter) is in itself very disruptive. This needs to stop in and of itself. |
||
::2. They are filled with disruptive accusations and misstatements about what other editors are saying and doing, and he increasingly seems to be dedicated to deliberately trying to create disputes between other editors and me personally. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29#Andronovo_associated_w.2F_Indo-Iranian], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29#Other_concerns], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29/Archive_5#Bullet_list], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29/Archive_5#Indo_European_Studies] |
::2. They are filled with disruptive accusations and misstatements about what other editors are saying and doing, and he increasingly seems to be dedicated to deliberately trying to create disputes between other editors and me personally. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29#Andronovo_associated_w.2F_Indo-Iranian], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29#Other_concerns], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29/Archive_5#Bullet_list], [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29/Archive_5#Indo_European_Studies] |
||
::Other editors might also want to keep in mind that PB666 has stated quite openly since he arrived at this article that putting ''me personally'' through a "painful" self improvement process as an editor is his ''main goal'' in what he is doing here. (Because he says then I can handle more Y haplogroup articles the same way as he is teaching me.) |
::Other editors might also want to keep in mind that PB666 has stated quite openly since he arrived at this article that putting ''me personally'' through a "painful" self improvement process as an editor is his ''main goal'' in what he is doing here. (Because he says then I can handle more Y haplogroup articles the same way as he is teaching me.)--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
⚫ | :: |
||
:::You are doing that all by yourself. For example getting all peeved about the 3 remaining comments, and then going biserk about a new added comment. You could have just sat down and tried to see if there was a better way to word it, considered that to some trivial might be an opinionated word. Nope you pulled the red flag and tossed it in front of the bull, problem is you had movie props as swords. As for the rest of your diatripe below, I not taking your bait, you can wait, and I will defend my comments above and we will see if you actually have literature to back you up. "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones;So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:....."[[User:Pdeitiker|PB666]] [[User_talk:Pdeitiker#References|<sup>yap</sup>]] 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC) |
|||
::Although PB666's behavior here is clearly outside all norms (as several admins have confirmed to him on ANI) |
|||
⚫ | ::, and on its own would normally get a block, admins tend not to like to get involved in anything looking like a content dispute between only two people. The very long postings of PB666 make it seem like there is a highly technical content dispute somewhere, but there is none. And he jumps on every third voice that appears, either to chase them away (attacking MarmadukePercy and Wapondaponda, for example, both of which cases spread to other talk pages) or to try to get them confused.--[[User:Andrew Lancaster|Andrew Lancaster]] ([[User talk:Andrew Lancaster|talk]]) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC) |
||
== The evidence to support the origin of R1a1 is overwhelming.... == |
== The evidence to support the origin of R1a1 is overwhelming.... == |
Revision as of 01:16, 4 December 2009
![]() | Human Genetic History B‑class (inactive) | ||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Kurgan hypothesis conflicts with main page statements
Again I am trying to be objective about this. I have read parts of the page, parts are clear and parts are very difficult, when this page is finished its process I recommend someone fix the R1a1 section on that page. I did find conflicts between what was written here and what was on the page. There were statements among sources that a predecessor culture was in place 6500 to 5500 years ago (Sredny Stog culture) and some rough statements indicating ends of post-Kurgan culture at about 4800 to 4300 years ago. There are lots arguments over the extent of contribution. Even within core areas there are arguments about how influential the kurgan culture was. There seems to be a concensus that it spread Westward, but there are questions of whether this was linguistic, cultural or whatever. There is some agreement of its influence on greek culture, although not explicitly stated as protoDoric. The connection with later Urnfield culture can be made. The evidence of influence around the western flanks of the black sea seem strong, but it is already known that there were Hittite like peoples who descended from the caucasus regions, and yet in some models the Caucasus are excluded. The evidence for an Indo-Aryan connection is weak and cultural shifts in N.India indicate a hybrid culture. PB666 yap
"Proposals of Bronze Age R1a migrations have the attraction to some authors that they would seem to link R1a1a (M17/M198) to well-known language dispersals which resulted in the development of the modern Indo-Aryan language family in India, Central Asia, and the Middle East. This popular scenario has been linked to the "Kurgan hypothesis" concerning the origin of these languages. Making this link therefore involves assuming that Asian R1a, or at least a large segment of it, dispersed from Europe, or at least from the Eurasian Steppe which protrudes into the southeastern edge of Europe.[40]PB666 yap "
Copper Bronze age
Chalcolithic period (Copper Age) begins about 6300 years ago to <6000 years ago it remains the copper age through the bronze age is not apparent until 5500 years ago well to the south of NE Ukraine-Ural region. The copper and bronze ages in these two regions are much younger than 4800 years ago. PB666 yap
Kurgan stages
Kurgan 1 was very early, indicating some expansion to Stredny Stog, this period is considered controversial. Kurgan II culture but should be contemporary with the Sredny Stog culture where use of horses appears to have occurred first horses a culture that spread to the SW and NE. About the time of the end of the many outlying cultures remained in the neolithic, these are hybrid culture with some copper and no bronze. Cucuteni-Trypillian culture, Globular Amphora culture. PB666 yap
Comparison bronze and Kurgan
I would say that it is a very poor choice to mesh Bronze age and Kurgan together. The two of three hypothesis, Sredny Stog origin, the Kurgan I hypothesis all three predate the Bronze age. Evidence for expansion into India is weak. The third hypothesis is the ""Indo-Hittite" model, separating Anatolian from all other branches around 6500 BC, more than a millennium before the next split at 5000 BC. The Balkans qualifies as a "secondary Urheimat" (6500-3000 BC), from which he derives the Satem groups and Greek, at a time (3000 BC) compatible with the Kurgan time frame, qualifying the suggestion further as a Graeco-Aryan (and Graeco-Armenian) model."PB666 yap
Again, as molecular anthropology _we have no place engaging this complex discussion_, it really belongs on another page. The so-called PIE or IE expansions appear that culture radiates from one place, and language radiates from the other copper bronze culture radiates with Anatolian bronze age, lending support to the Indo-hittite model. PB666 yap
" The question of further Indo-Europeanization of Central and Western Europe, Central Asia and Northern India during the Bronze Age is beyond its scope, and far more uncertain than the events of the Neolithic and the Copper Age. The specifics of the Indo-Europeanization of Central and Western Europe during the 3rd to 2nd millennia (Corded Ware horizon) and Central Asia (Andronovo culture) are nevertheless subject to some controversy. "-Kurgan hypothesis
"Such a Bronze Age European origin for R1a1a in at least parts of Asia has also been argued on the basis of a 2009 study of DNA results from Andronovo culture remains in South Siberia. The Y DNA was almost exclusively R1a of some type.[41] This archaeological culture, has also been genetically studied in Kazakhstan, and is thought to have been a carrier of an Indo-Aryan language (the same family of languages as is commonly associated with R1a in modern India) from the direction of Europe. (In particular it has been noted that their mitochondrial DNA is almost entirely of types associated with Europe, and that this Asian population appears to have had a relatively high level of red and blonde hair and blue eyes.)[42] "
Andronovo was not European, however it might have had an origin of Kurgan IV as the source of R1a1a, beyond that any connection with contemporary European groups is speculative and not with the scope ofthe page. In addition it was temporo-spatially separated from the Kurgan period by at least 600 years." So this is where the core of the problem is. The Andronovo culture should be considered completely different from Kurgan culture.PB666 yap 02:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
"Evidence that during and before the Bronze Age R1a existed in Europe to the west of its modern core range, and even west of the Balkans, has come from ancient samples, which appear to show that R1a was common in this region well before Slavic languages are thought to have arrived.[43][28][44] This was probably R1a1a* (M17/M198 positive, M458 negative) according to Underhill et al. (2009)."
"According to Klyosov (2009) however, there was a movement of R1a1a from Europe to India during this period, and it was associated with Indoeuropean language and culture. The author believes this flow originated on the edge of Europe, near the Urals. It should be noted that according to this scenario Indian R1a1a is made up of two components, one which came from the direction of Europe and one which arrived much earlier."
IMHO, there are too many factual inconsistencies either by the primary authors (unmarked) or page editors to include this material. There is no cohesive transport of culture into central Europe, for example where R1a1a7 is found, and there is no confident path of Kurgan migration, there is a disjoined path from Kurgan I to IV expansion, followed by a 600 year gap, followed by the Andronovo expansion which only reached Northern India. I caste warnings about using this kind of popular science material from publications that is insubstantial, and time an time again this cautious approach has shown its value. Beware of studies that sample partially and that rely on unproven methods.PB666 yap 02:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Lancaster's comments
[Ad hominim style header replaced, Andrew's POV attack noted]
- Heading up some remarks as being addressed to a person's comments is not a personal attack. This is not the first time you have posted comments apparently for discussion and then reacted aggressively when anyone actually tries to comment. Your replacing of the section header certainly seems to have no possible good faith interpretation? By the way, could you sign talk page postings?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
PD, is there anything at all in the above which you can turn into a concrete remark which is relevant to the job of editing R1a? For example:---Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Everything above pertains to the article, most of it comments on material quoted from the article, and most everything written in the article is wrong, and is still wrong, basically you are either quoting fiction or the synthesis you have created is fiction.PB666 yap
- So you are saying that we should try to decide what is wrong in the literature and remove all reference to it in this article. That is clearly in violation of wikipedia's notability and neutrality policies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying we should not mention that many geneticists have associated R1a, Indoeuropean and the Kurgan hypothesis? If so, this would be against Wikipedia's neutrality and notability policies. We need to at least mention it.---Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- If they wrote fiction, why do we need to mention it. If they misunderstand the nature of Kurgan culture (i.e. Neolithic age pastoral societies with specialization in horse culture) you will only confuse readers familiar with Kurgan culture. If the authors of the paper made the connection as anything other than pastoral tribes, its an error and it should be either pointed out as faulty or deleted, you have no other choice. PB666 yap 11:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- We need to mention it because of wikipedia's notability and neutrality policies. Also, inserting a comment that the literature contains errors would be in violation of wikipedia's OR and synthesis policies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying we should write criticisms of these geneticists, and put those in the article? But this would be against Wikipedia's OR and SYNTH policies.---Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is not fiction to point out an obvious error. For example if the author says 1 + 1 = 6 and therefore for 1 * 4 = 12, I suspect this is not the case however, obvious errors that the simplist of reader could point out are not WP:OR. When in doubt chop it out.PB666 yap 11:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- It might or might not be fiction, but it is against Wikipedia's OR and synthesis policies. BTW we are clearly not dealing with anything as obvious as 1 + 1 = 6. You've clearly had a lot of problems understanding the literature yourself despite your background.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Are you saying that the current article text mis-undertands or mis-represents some of the genetics authors? If so how? One point I think I see is that maybe you object to the term Bronze Age, because it does not cover the necessary time period to reflect the times being talked about. This could well be something to be fixed.---Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Here is something we can certainly adjust without drama. A few small words changes could cover this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- You mention inconsistencies, but you do not name them.---Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I name the inconsistencies specifically, you are talking about bronze age migrations but referring to a pre-bronze age cultural context, referring to a culture that is completely separated from the bronze age by several hundred years, in addition the term cacolythic is only used in the middle east, the copper age culture that is found on the Southwest boundaries toward the end of the period is more than likely a derivative near eastern culture and not a true -Kurgan culture.
- would appear only to be influential on the migration to the SE or the origins of the early Celtic culture.
- Is well away from the mode of European R1a, either by R1a1a7 or R1a1a.
- well after the evidence for R1a in Europe (Eular).
- Therefore it is trivially associated with R1a and WP is not a place to present Trivia. (WP:TRIVIA)PB666 yap
- Ditto. I may have been too hasty to use the term Bronze age. I take no position on it. No drama. It just needs a word change or two. Can you make any constructive suggestions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- You imply that there are major alternative theories which conflict with the core part of the Kurgan hypothesis with way geneticists refer to it, which is that India's languages arrived in the area from the direction of the Eurasian steppe and the edge of Europe. I think this is incorrect. All mainstream theories pretty much accept this particular idea?
I hop DinDraithou will chip in.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Geneticist are not authorities on cultural evolution or language-type evolution, they are no more authorities on these issues than say the saturday evening post. In WP we rely on reliable sources. If the author is not a linguist and none of his coauthors are linguist or arcaheologist, and he is making controversial claims about culture then it is not a reliable source. One could even go so far as to question his genetics given bias.
- The theory of the origin and spread of IE languages is not trivia, the language study is one of the more respected hypothesis regarding IE languages at it meshes with many aspects of European culture. For example from the proximal region we know that LKB cultural packages were first found, we know that certain cultovars (rye and wheat) spread from these regions. The near east is where bronze age culture spread from. So it is hardly controversial. There is no really good evidence of proto-indoeuropean language in western Europe, the only other indigeonous languages are the Basque Ergo they are advocating the western spread of PIE into europe but there is no language evidence for PIE spread into or admixture with IE languages in central or western Europe.
- The kurgan is one of many hypothesis on its spread Proto-Indo-European_language#Historical_and_geographical_setting and not apparently the best hypothesis either.
the two lowest branches of the tree split between anatolia and greece
- The key to IE origins lies within the anatolian and the only evident language node exists along the Iranian/Afghani border region which appears to be a close branch of and anatolian/indo-iranian ancestor. From WP the only support for the hypothesis that associates PIE with Andronovo spread of IE in to Iran is that the scythians (late bronze age) spoke an indoaryan language and that Andronovo is connected with IE languages. The evidence is weak and the direction of spread of IE into Andronovo is unknown, it could have very well occurred from south to north, not vice versus. In addition, here is the best site on II origins [1], the evidence for the direction of spread and origin of this wave, the iranian influences and scythian origins is better than the origin of the first wave, which cannot be directly tied to any source, and can only be referenced to a relic language spoken in eastern Afganistan.
- Here is the major point, Wikipedia genetics articles should not be a platform for the spread of speculation in other feilds of research, our task here is to explain R1a, not what the National Enquirer says. Unless the foundations for the assertions are firm it does not belong here. If the authors who made these assertions are not clear on the cultural science or they are producing handwaving arguments, we are not obligated to place these style of arguments here. We only have to produce Major theories and major minor theories. That is the extent of the obligation. The major theory on hand right now is that R1a spread from south Asia, the minor theory is that it spread from Western Asia or Central Asia (bending over backwards and allowing a minor/minor theory).
- That is the extent of the obligation. We are not obligated to propogate hypothesis of origins with very little genetic support and a very confused and confusing cultural association. If you want to discuss this modern age myth, it is best placed in the 'in popular culture' section. Cut the crap out of the article or I will.
PB666 yap 11:09, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am aware of the fact that there are lots of theories about Indoeuropean and Kurgans and all the rest, but the present R1a article, which is what we are discussing, does not attempt to discuss any of them and all of what you are writing seems to be written without actually reading it. As I mentioned, the basic core of what the geneticists are talking about is that Northern India's main languages arrived in the area from the direction of the Eurasian steppe and the edge of Europe. I have tried not to imply anything else in the article. Can you look at the real R1a article and mention what is wrong there? The term Bronze Age is one thing which is easily fixed. Is there anything else justifying this enormous use of the talkpage?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, you apparently do not realize that the Indo-Hittite hypothesis has no impact on this discussion at all. Indo Aryan is only one branch of Indo European. It is not in the Anatolian branch according to any theory I have ever heard.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:32, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
PB666, you appear to be raising questions about this article based on debates and details related to the finer points of the Kurgan hypothesis itself and archaeological interpretations and classifications. However, the article accurately discusses what the overall theory of the Kurgan hypotheei involves; and the Andronovo culture is generally considered a part of the Kurgan horizon.Hxseek (talk) 14:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- This Kurgan hypotheses is about PIE/IE spread and therefore the discussion of where IE radiated is of utmost concern, the bronze age spread may be a factor in IE spread, but the point of spread is not Ukraine, its Anatolia. As pointed to many times in many articles the spread of cultural artifacts may have nothing to do with language, but the Kurgan hypothesis has everything to do with language. What worthy evidence do we have that PIE spread, as hypothesized by the Kurgan hypotheses actually existed. Second what good evidence do we have the PIE as hypothesized by the kurgan hypotheses spread as per the Kurgan hypotheses (I find this aspect the most speculative since there is no evidence that PIE entered any of the regions claimed by the hypothesis, the evidence we have is that IE evolved in Anatolia near the caucasus region. If we look at the IE family tree the balto-slavic languages are found as a highly peripheral branch on the family tree. So that is problem #1.
- "there are lots of theories about Indoeuropean and Kurgans and all the rest, but the present R1a article" true, but what business do we have trying to interpret that. If we are talking about bronze age movements, the Kurgan hypothesis has to go. If we are talking about migrations from the Ukraine to India or whatever else, and the bulk of the data we have at the moment contradicts that, that the R1a found in the proximity of the Andonovo culture is lower than both India and the Ukraine, with the highest diversity in poland then it presentally cannot connect with R1a.
The Kurgan hypothesis describes the initial spread of Proto-Indo-European during the 5th and 4th millennia BC.[15] [6000 to 4000 years ago] The question of further Indo-Europeanization of Central and Western Europe, Central Asia and Northern India during the Bronze Age is beyond its scope, and far more uncertain than the events of the Neolithic and the Copper Age. The specifics of the Indo-Europeanization of Central and Western Europe during the 3rd to 2nd millennia (Corded Ware horizon) and Central Asia (Andronovo culture) are nevertheless subject to some controversies".
- In addition Kurgan is not even mentioned on the Andronovo page, more even, on the Kurgan page it suggests termination around 4800 BC with some residual elements lasting to 2300 BC which is still older than Andronovo culture from 2300 BC. As I repeat its not our business to go about interpreting what is good cultural paleoanthropological theories or not, the business here is R1a.
PB666 yap 16:40, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- PB666 might not be aware that I already changed the term Bronze Age on the article, long before he posted his tag. The remaining problems that he is referring to vaguely probably have to do with the fact that geneticists write in a vague way in order to cover all bases. That Indo Aryan came from the NW towards the corner of Europe is not controversial, and that is all they are really pointing at. I have not seen any genealogist take a position about the period in which this occurred. So the text should be adapted to reflect this. No drama. I think we should not forget that this subject was raised by a person (Dindraithou) coming to look at the article. PB666 never raised it before then and indeed he held up all editing for several weeks by being disruptive about dozens of dead horse questions to do with the first sentence, the second sentence, etc. We are basically talking about a section which is in first draft form, after all the working I was doing stopped because of PB666, quite some time back. I am happy to admit, indeed request, that this should be improved. I believe PB666's contribution to improving it absolutely negative.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hkseek can you point to references which use Kurgan in any form to describe Andronovo culture from the Copper age or Bronze age horizons or higher?PB666 yap 17:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Question for Andrew: you said, "As I mentioned, the basic core of what the geneticists are talking about is that Northern India's main languages arrived in the area from the direction of the Eurasian steppe and the edge of Europe." how can the geneticists be talking about languages? they can be talking about genes, and the people carrying them; language family is not biologically coded, so associating the languages should not be done in the article about the genotype. I'm sure you know this , so probably you meant something different. ?? DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- DGG, actually if you put aside the showmanship the answer to your questions is clear and there is no good faith disagreement about that. amongst any editors on this article, at least as far as I know. The geneticists tend to have a section in their survey articles where they comment upon what the genetic patterns they have found might correspond to in terms of theories about languages and archaeological material cultures. When it comes to R1a, like it or not, almost every well-known paper on the subject has mentioned that R1a (or perhaps just a branch) has some sort of connection with the movement of Indo Aryan languages into India, whatever period that happened in. Some of them have additionally gone out of their way to connect both concepts (R1a, Indo Aryan) with Kurgan cultures. That is the raw material which the real world has given us to work with. There is no real source we can cite which destroys this type of theory, and to be honest, in its simplest version it is not all that unreasonable. In linguistics there is indeed such a theory of Indo Aryan coming from the NW, and in archaeology and linguistics the Kurgan connection proposed for the vector of these languages is quite common and mainstream what problems there might be in the details. Apart from his one point about the term Bronze Age, the concrete points PB666 are either about details irrelevant to what the geneticists are talking about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Speculation tag placed, removed and replaced
- In accordance with the following critique "Actually there are much bigger problems. The list should not be under "Eastern European migration hypothesis" and it looks like the section was put together by people unfamiliar with the Journal of Indo-European Studies, which I spent my junior and senior years on the sixth floor of the university library reading. There were Neolithic cultures which may or may not have been ancestral to the Kurgan culture and they were not in Eastern Europe (and neither was it). DinDraithou (talk) 14:57, 26 November 2009 (UTC)" I asked the person who edited that section of the page to investigate and clarify his writings. He did not.PB666 yap
- Well I sort of did, just not terribly clearly. Plus I was angry with Andrew at the time. Elsewhere I tried to say that the JIES is basically synonymous with the Kurgan hypothesis school. It's their journal. DinDraithou (talk) 21:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Since Andrew is using reversions is a process to WP:OWN the page and since he chose not to investigate this claim, instead he screwed up the lead of the page, I finally investigated this issue.
- I found that the writings of Andrew were merely speculation, either on his account or the accounts of authors writing on the subject.
- I placed the tag, and Andrew removed it without demostrating it wasn't speculation, even admitting that there was a problem with the Kurgan - Bronze Age/IE migration
- I have replaced the tag and will continue to replace the tag until the speculative material is removed from the page. The authors from the papers Andrew is quoting appear not to be authority on the Kurgan and neither is Andrew, I am fairly well read on the Neolithic of Europe and the Neolithic/Mesolithic boundary, ergo I am relatively aware of cultural flow from the East into Europe across many horizons that preceded both the Neolithic and also follow the neolithic, any one of these, according to Underhill could fit the genetic evidence for R1a in Europe. Ergo what is presented is speculation unless direct and supportable (not inconsistent with generally agreed upon horizons for Kurgan culture) evidence can be presented here. IMHO the material should be deleted. For consistencies sake any evidence that deals with Neolithic culture belongs in the Neolithic section (i.e. Klysovo for example migrations are epipaleolithic and mesolithic and speculative itself). If the authors of the R1a publications do not understand the archaeology we have no duty to pass on their speculation, if the editors of the page do not understand the archaeology they are editing and creating WP:SYNTH it does not belong on the page, the tag should remain.PB666 yap 19:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- please do not edit war over tags it is never constructive.-- at the moment the tag is off, so please do not replace it. Incidentally, claims to personal expertise do not usually go very far here. If you are right, you can show it by making an argument that will convince any intelligent person unfamiliar with the subject. (fwiw, I am familiar with several different aspects of the subject a little--some from professional background, some from avocation, but have no fixed opinion on the various hypotheses.) To the extent it is relevant in this article, and I am not convinced anything besides gene flow is relevant, except as a link to related subjects--which seems to be all that is actually in the present version of the article [2] - the normal Wikipedia practice is to present all non-Fringe hypotheses and the arguments for them, if necessary in separate sections, as is being done here in the current version, in my opinion, correctly. ) DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I removed the tag because the tag claimed that the section was speculative in the sense of NOT being based on what articles wrote. PB666 is clearly claiming no such thing. He says that it might reflect what the literature says, but the literature is wrong. At least find another tag. Maybe call it a fringe theory or an out-of-date theory? I am happy to leave the whole problem to others as long as I know the article is not being taken over for conversion into PB666's style. But I have pointed out that it is strictly against Wikipedia neutrality policy to simply censor out a notable and well known theory. My approach concerning this question, when editing on the talk page was not yet the main job, was to make the geneticists claim very simply, put them in context, make sure alternatives are mentioned, etc. I think there is no other option????--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have no intention of playing the tagging game. Of course it is just wikidrama: the section now has two tags, but no one ever argued about the text there needing work. One editor mentioned the section needing work, and PB666 has jumped up to say this was exactly what he was talking about. For so long I have been asking PB666 to allow normal editing to re-commence on this article and now suddenly it is "his priority". But if he allows normal editing and talk to recommence I'll be happy. (That would mean, for example, ceasing to demand non neutral editing based on his OR "or else").--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Fair comment. But wouldn't you then say the problem was "out of date" material, and wouldn't you then need to explain the case for thinking that opinions had changed? That would be an approach I could understand. Of course the article by Klyosov was just published a few days ago, so it is kind of hard to believe that this is what you really had in mind? Indeed, in the comments you posted just above, you have very different reasoning. Anyway, I am happy if it was a misunderstanding. Pardon me for not always being able to follow your thoughts.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:57, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- [To DGG:-]
- The tag is on, I do not need to replace it. I strongly disagree with you on this, the core argument of Kurgan culture is neolithic and only ever so lightly touches the 'copper age' which on the page is improperly named, it states quite clearly on the Kurgan hypothesis page that Bronze age migrations are out of its scope, whereas they might be able to tie the Bronze age migration to IE speakers, the bigger problem is the IE shows a anatolian not Ural/Ukranian origin. This wouldn't be so bad except for that the genetics and diversity measures of the most recent papers that have a wide coverage disagree that the Ural-Ukranian region is an area of great R-M17 diversity. So pretty much on all accounts this hypothesis is undermined and contradicted by what is currently written on the page. I warned Andrew from the get-go that this stuff was speculation, it reeks of speculation, until another editor-DinDraithou came along and pointed out that the whole scheme was in disorder.
"I think you two mavericks have gotten to the right place now with changing the section titles. The Kurgan hypothesis takes us back into the Neolithic. See also the very popular Samara culture and related Dnieper-Donets culture. Eventually we should have DNA from them, if we don't already, and from the Sredny Stog culture, also popular with many. And I am very interested to see about the unrelated but dense Bug-Dniester culture and its possible descendants millennia later (Slavs?). The Kurgan hypothesis has its immediate descendants overrun by Indo-Europeans so I don't understand why it's listed on top. DinDraithou (talk) 20:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC) --- User_talk:DinDraithou#R1a_comments"
- IOW, it looks like there is a concensus among critics that minimally the wording and section heads much be changed, if not some rearrangement.PB666 yap 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Secondarily I also think you are wrong with regard to the analysis placed in the article that makes is speculation: (This popular scenario has in to been linked to the "Kurgan hypothesis" concerning the origin of these languages.) DinDraithou has improved the page by changing the titles removing some of the controversy. PIE-Kurgan may be the source of IE, which is beyond the scope of this article, but IE appears to be sourced in Anatolia, However there is no reason what-so-ever to consider the Kurgan hypothesis as to reasoning on how R1a/IE/Bronze age can be tied together in a migration from Andronovo paleocultural regions into South Asia. Still someone familiar with the Kurgan-PIE hypothesis would be confused by this placement in the article.PB666 yap 21:34, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- PD, first of all the Anatolian part of your above posting is very irrelevant. No one claims that Indo Aryan arrived directly from Anatolia to India in any mainstream theory. Indo Aryan is a later branch of IE. Geneticists proposing an R1a route from the Steppe corner of Europe are not wrong to say that Indo Aryan is often thought to have come via the same path - which is pretty much all they really say, and pretty much all we need to say. Please do not start blogging about fringe theories which have nothing to do with this article. There is enough to be done.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Secondly, your continued comments about the wording for periods are just empty drama. No one is arguing with you. I made the improvement Din mentions above. It was not made in opposition to me. My proposal is to let DinDraithou play with this. I simply never had the time to work on it. You launched yourself into your article (trying to split it, and then the other things) long before I would willfully have stopped working on stuff like this. It just needs a different approach than a bull in a china shop. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- I gave you a review of Klysovo above, he is not doing a broadly scoped study like Underhill, he is cherry picking groups to study, I find his conclusion that R1a spread from the Ural Ukraine region of Russia to China and then to India, very speculative and possibly ethnically motivated. I showed reason within in his own article two closely related gene trees, one group the Irish, archaeological no greater than 9000 years ago had the comparable diversity to a the russian R1a1 clade the he states is 21,000 years old. IOW, I think this work is far to premature and speculative to place in the article at this point. Remember, Wikipedia is not a newspaper, we can wait to see if other authors support or contradict him.PB666 yap 22:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Don't know if you are trying to be provocative, but I have already told you his name is Klyosov.
- As with your last posting, it sounds right in principle but ignores reality. (This is good to see at least.) Geneticists in this field unfortunately do not publish support and contradiction. This gives Wikipedians a lot of problems, or should I say interesting challenges. But the Wikipedia rules are clear, and in these articles I have seen them work all the time: give all theories a chance. You are proposing censoring an article based on speculation about motives which is totally unreasonable. Even if I agreed with you though about Klyosov, and I often do agree with you about weak points in articles, I would still say that we can not simply drop him from the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
Hkseeks remarks and PB666 reply
I am having difficulties following Pdeitiker's concerns, exactly. The Anatolian hypothesis is entirely different to the Kurgan hypothesis. The Anatolian hypothesis is that of Renfrew and his supporters which places the PIE homeland in Anatolia and an earlier (ie Neolithic) period. Currently, however, the Kurgan hypothesis of Gimbutas is most favoured (as favoured as a debated issue can be). Eg Johanna Nichols, who was initially a supporter of a central Asian homeland, has now come to accepting a Pontic steppe origin for PIE. So Anatolia has little to do with the hypotheses of current geneticists who are seeing if there is any genetic back-up for the Kurgan theory. Hxseek (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- The first person who was concerned was DinDraithou. Although I had a problem concerning Kurgan PIE hypothesis more than a month ago, being one of many speculative theories on the page that warranted critical attention. I allowed Andrew to work on removing the quotation and shortening it. After DinDraithou made his critique Andrew, for all intents and purposes blew him off. I urged Andrew to read up on the issue and make corrections, however after a day or so he ignored the problem. Consequently I went over the online literature both here and on the internet. What I found was there were many, many errors in Andrews version. First the Kurgan hypothesis was placed under the Bronze age header, yet everyone entirely agrees that Kurgan hypothesis for PIE origins covers a Neolithic period except in the SW corner of wave 3 culture which intermingled with the protoDacian culture and had a sparse copper age component (not considered part of the Near eastern Chalcolithic culture. DinDraithou has fixed much of the problem by referring to geography rather than age, thus allowing inclusion of Neolithic age migrations however this does not solve the cultural discontinuity problem between Kurgan-PIE hypothesize and credible Bronze-age-IE migration into S. Asia.
- The second issue is that PIE as far as anyone can tell at this point has nothing to do with how Indo-iranian languages reached India. Let me rephrase that given there is a PIE and given that PIE reaches the Southern Black Rea region PIE (from whomever, we don't know and we don't care) has no futher neccesary involvement in how IE reached S. Asia, that is a separate issue. Therefore, given that some unknown PIE age language reached Anatolia, independent PIE migrations cannot explain IE languages in India, that comes much later. In fact, no-one asserts Kurgan hypothesis associated cultures with migrations to India. When I made these distinctions DinDraithou made it clear that the fault of the section had been deduced, while Andrew simply thought it was a 'labeling problem'. As he wrote on his talk page it might be bad science but at least we can place it in a context compatible with the archaeology. The problem is much bigger, Andronovo may have a Kurgan age horizon, but the Bronze-age putative IE culture that spread into India is not of the Kurgan hypothesis age, it is at least 600 years later and both bronze technology and IE language appears to have come from the region of the Anatolia. While that may seem minor, it completely negates the Kurgan hypothesis other than local expansions in the Ural/Ukraine regions and some protrusion east of the Urals. In addition there is a continuity of cultural exchange east-west between Black Sea cultures and Central European cultures from the Late paleolithic, increasing in the mesolithic and much increased in the early neolithic. Some authors believed that during the late Mesolithic NE black sea peoples migrated seasonally into central Europe, and interbred with Western European Mesolithics, but when the Neolithic comes they begin settling and assume LBK within the loess belt. Therefore my point is that the Kurgan hypothesis is neither needed to explain R1a in central Europe either. In fact one of the densities seen in Underhill is that R1a1a7 densities overly the loess belt pretty well. Again this began 2000 years before Kurgan culture. This is not to argue that Kurgan expansion may have left a genetic footprint in the Andronovo region, but for that foot print to reach S. Asia, the process in terms of particular chrono-cultures was indirect. With the western migrations it appears to be completely unneccesary and unwise to make a PIE distinction since the relic language of Europe is not PIE, and the evidence of migration extends over a period almost 1 magnitude greater than PIE with the most likely times of entry much earlier than Kurgan according to Underhill. Therefore while it could have a direct impact, it is unlikely that R1a spread because of PIE or Sredy-Stog horse culture. I have reworded the paragraph now such that if reflects the inapplicability of Kurgan to SE expansions of R1a.
- The third problem concerns Klysovo. I have read two extremely long methods papers in JoGG. What I have found that he does present a techniques that might find future use. He replaces the pairwise diversity analysis with maximum parsimony analysis. This technique may, in many cases offer better resolution of STR diversity. So I am not questioning whether a maximum parsimony STR analysis is superior relative to pairwise diversity estimates. My critique is one of a specific application, in a way the breadth of the study is a wall of words. However, in real father, son combinations reversals have been observed. Therefore one expects patterns of reticulation in parsimony trees, they must exist but these were not presented by Klysovo. The next problem is that he did not do a study comparable to Underhill. Instead he picked some unstudied groups of E. Asians, certain Indians, and came to some rather wild conclusions. I think the conclusions he is drawing the support a Ural -Ukranian origin of R1a1a in Asia, S.Asia and Europe, would be, in any publication I've refereed, premature; however since he is writing a methods paper he is presenting it as an example of the types of situations it might resolve. Ergo, we really need to see this approach applied on a comprehensive dataset like Underhill et al. 2009. I deleted this paragraph, I think being a new technique, cherry-picked comparitor populations, and results contradicting major studies, we need to wait for rebuttals or support from other studies. I sis this because I think we should avoid jump the gun additions to this article, in fact given the contention here we really should have a WP:MEDRS of applying maximum respect to comprehensive articles, such as underhill et al 2009 or reviews of the literature. PB666 yap 07:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
The internal disputes about the Kurgan hypothesis pertains the nitty-gritty which we do not need to concern ourselves with (on this article), especially with genetic articles which look for broad gradients of gene flow generated by directional movement of peoples. It is certain is that the direction of linguistic spread (according to these theories) was northwest to southeast (broadly, Ukraine to south). What has undergone substantial re-evaluation is the manner of spread. Questionable that an Aryan-oid 'indo-European' people spread en masse from a confined homeland. Rather, PIE might have been a lingua franca along trade routes, etc. Ie a convergent vs divergent linguistic model.
This is an abbreviated outline of archaeological progression of cultures in western steppe as envisaged to fit with Kurgan-PIE hypothesis.
- It is of no consequence, meaning or value to the R1a article, yes some authors may have believed that it is a causative factor of spread, I would think that the horse culture in a neolithic context may have been more of a factor. Either way, Kurgan is not the culture that migrated into S. Asia, since bronze technology is middle and near eastern in origin, and IE appears to be Anatolian.
At minimum Central/Near eastern languages and culture were major contributors to whatever post-kurgan culture contributed. PB666 yap 07:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- The Sredy-Stog culture emerged in 4th millennium BC. First evidence of use of horse, Kurgan burials, and pastoralist economy (which might have developed as a modified adaptation of agricultural economy from the neighboring Tripolye-Cucuteni culture (agricultural) by the 'autochthonous', preceding hunter-gatherer Dnieper-Don culture.
- Yamnaya culture in western Eurasian steppe in Bronze Age. First use of wheeled chariot. The afansevo culture in central Asia seen as an extension of western Eurasian artefacts and physical type (ie Europid).
- Andranovo culture appears in 2nd millennium. Linguistically, corresponds to development of distinct Indo-Aryan language group
Ofcourse this is a hotly debated topic. What we should use genetics for is for identifying genetic flow. We should not be tempted to link them with specific historic, archaeologic or linguistic events (as indeed the publishing geneticists tend to have done), for we cannot be exactly sure that the spread of agriculture, or IE was a demographic phenomenon. Genetic studies are too imprecise in their dating to do this. In fact, biological spread could have nothing to do with any noted event on the historical or archaeological record
Hxseek (talk) 23:56, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, exactly, we should on present evidence of cultural/language links when the evidence is so obvious that Dinosaurs would see the KT extinction coming. As I have said, there are finger print links between peoples at the HLA haplotype level that have not been asserted by any migration. There is a haplotype, for instance found in Asia, in Japan, in Siberia, In the Tlinglet and Athabascan and Na-dene which is very long and recent, but it is also found in the highland regions of South America. There are haplotypes in West Africa and the Sahul that are found also in the Baloch, Turkic peoples but in no people in between. Sometimes genetic links are found that precede cultural or archaeological evidence, showing migrations and cultural events that archaeologist never expected. One has to be extremely cautious of the discussion sections of science papers. I singled out this article for improvement because it was top loaded with speculative quotations from the literature, these, IMHO, ruined the article and drove race-based arguments about the page. I feel no obligation to present opinions in papers that have a faulty understanding of archaeological contexts, language associations, or use obsolete identification techniques unless some overwhelming body of concordance suggest that one must not ignore a theory or certain future article problems will result.PB666 yap 07:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
PB666 yap 07:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is just argumentative patent nonsense. PB666 is referring to discussions which never happened, edits which never happened, and words which were never in the articles. But using a lot of words. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
State of the Article
Open forum for critiques, let us have it!PB666 yap 22:14, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
No, this is not a forum. WP:NOT. Discussion needs to be relevant to this article. Long postings about personal theories should NOT be posted because they are irrelevant to what we can cite in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- For critiques of the article, you placed this because the below disagree with what you have written.PB666 yap 18:13, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- In per se article over there and around quack? (What are you talking about please?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Klyosov under or overrepresented
- cont from above. I don't think Klyosov's article should be excluded just because it is new and has different methodolody 9as long as it is pointed out). Different methodological approaches are prevalent throughout all articles, hence the wild fluctuations in TMRCA and conclusions. Kivisilid's or underhill's new articles also have not yet been analyzed by geneticists, so do they need top be excluded also ? Hxseek (talk) 00:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Klyosov's article is not excluded. "Publications in 2009 made major changes in our understanding of R1a.", "In 2009, several large studies of both old and new STR data, including Mirabal et al. (2009), Underhill et al. (2009), and Klyosov (2009) concluded that not only are there are two separate "poles of the expansion" with similar ages, but also that of these two poles, Asian R1a1a is apparently older than European R1a1a.""Recently, looking at Chinese STR data not included in other studies Klyosov (2009) concluded that the common source of Indian and European R1a must be somewhere near the modern Chinese ethnic groups known as the Hui, Bolan, Dongxiang and Sala.""(Other methods, such as used by Klyosov (2009), tend to give much younger estimates for any given set of data.)""Researchers using this estimation method therefore believe any Bronze Age or more recent dispersals affecting modern R1a1a diversity can not involve the clade as a whole, but only some branches.Klyosov (2009), on the other hand, would see this as a period for a very early branching within R1a1a, detectable from STR data rather than SNP data, wherein early European and Indian branches of R1a1a settled into their early positions. The initial homeland of European R1a1a in this scenario was on the very edge of Europe, near the Urals.""Based on analyses of STR diversity within clusters, Klyosov (2009) gives the most recent argument that there was a movement of R1a1a from Eastern Europe to India. He associates part of this gene-flow with Indo-Aryan language and culture, and believes this flow originated in the Pontic-Caspian region." That's a whole lot of coverage to a very speculative paper. If anything, based on the numbers of peoples involved in the study its representation needs to be markedly reduced. Underhill includes bothe SNP and STR results, SNP are consider to be classic markers, and reticulation of SNPs in NRY is extremely rare. Whereas Klysovo does not attempt to find New SNPs, but instead entirely relies on an approached which is know to produce reticulations.PB666 yap 01:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with PB666 and majority of users here..the kurgan linguistic based theory has no place on an article dedicated to a biological codding that is R1a. I would also ask why the Sharma (2009) study has been only been given a word of two of reference in the main text. It's not only the biggest study from all corners in India, but it's published on 2009 as well. Why is this being ignored?? Could someone please kindly explain?? HonestopL 23:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- Dear mysterious stranger I am not sure which consensus you claim to represent, but just concerning Sharma, it is currently one of the most cited sources in the article. It is discussed in several sections. Of course it is discussed less than Underhill et al, which not only has even more data, but also discovered new SNPs etc. The only thing missing is a full run down of all basic R1a1a data which is also the case for every paper. As you will recall, we made a data article especially to make everyone happy: [3]. So what is missing?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Right, and as you will read below, Klyosov states that Russian R-M17 is of Balkan origin, directly, not south Siberian. He claims South Siberian R-M17 migrated to the balkans starting before 11 to 12000 years ago, he find German, Russian and Polish R1a1 are roughly equivilent in Age, 4700 which means no Kurgan migration westward. There goes the PIE theory. He also notes that Andronovo A-DNA has local analogs but these do not align with his 30 Indian haplotypes. There are lots of contradictions about the Indian origins that should be resolved prior to the point that they are ready for this encyclopedia.PB666 yap 04:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- If you wait around 30 minutes the latest theories tend to get blown right out of the water, what responsibilities do we, as conveyors of respectable literature have? I think in the future, before rushing like lightning to add the comments of the latest paper to this or any other Y-DNA we should take the time and let the dust settle so that we can give it a thorough read, the two papers of Klyosov were 69 pages long. That takes a while to digest.PB666 yap 04:59, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- HonestopL appears to be a new account made especially in order to write this post. Sounds familiar.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- And just as in several recent cases, although PB666 responds to a new voice by saying that this is what he was talking about, it clearly has NOTHING to do with what he is talking about. HonestopL is arguing that all mention of the Kurgan linguistic theory should be taken out of the article. Is that what you are arguing for PB666? If so then why have your recent edits done the opposite? [4] Strange!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:58, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Excuse me andrew, but I'm a casual user on wikipedia giving my opinion, which I'am granted privileges to do. I agree with others that a kurgan theory (linguistic based) has no connections on an article dedicated to a biological codding (R1a). I have an interest in genetics from all sides, but I like to point out inconsistencies. You seem to have a hostile attitude and would ask you to please refrain from making baseless accusations. seems you have your hands full of problems with other users here. And I think you should probable take a break from editing.. as you been basically editing between 12-18 hours everyday. I really do find your edits problematic and others have pointed out here. my two cents. HonestopL 14:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
- He stomps on anyone who criticises him. I have a belly full of elbow.PB666 yap 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- So you are saying we should remove ANY reference to hypothesized Kurgan connections? Please be clear. You seem to be very confused.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- PB666, this accusation made on Honestopl's talkpage is terribly inaccurate. I never accused you of using socks, MMagdalene posted on my talkpage about the possibility. And I told her explicitly that I did not think it was you. You should know this, because you then posted another accusation there, claiming I was acting inappropriately by contacting our "ex reviewer" (!), who had however contacted me. This all seems like very poor form to me, but from a practical point of view, if I continue to presume you are not really being dishonest on purpose, it does show once again that you really are not reading the things you are aggressively reacting to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- So you are saying we should remove ANY reference to hypothesized Kurgan connections? Please be clear. You seem to be very confused.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Honestopl, which consensus were you talking about, which other users are you talking about, and which edits are you talking about? Yes people from the public can come and post here, but no one needs to listen to single use accounts unless they have something to say.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:45, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- He stomps on anyone who criticises him. I have a belly full of elbow.PB666 yap 19:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have told you I have a problem with the "kurgan hypothesis" repeatedly, starting more than a month ago. Several others have voiced the same concern. You and one other person have insisted on keeping it, I have tried to work toward a consensus status on how it should be kept, deemphasizing its importance and critiquing it. If by my choice and my choice alone (see old R1a1a page), it goes. You continually confuse my attempts to build consensus with my POV, I have tried to take a Neutral and Critical point of view on everything, you seem not to understand that. As per Sharma et al, I discussed my concerns, but since you want to interject Klyosov's fractured opinion on Indian R-M17 origin we may now need to increase coverage of Sharma et al in south Asian origins section. If you remove that sentence I keep deleting we don't need to do this. In any case, half of the sentence is in the wrong section. You have not been working toward a consensus but simply adding more POV stuff that will cause edit warring in the future.PB666 yap 17:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- My suggestion, if you are honest, is that you leave this talkpage so that the other opinions you are chasing away can speak up. It is not your blog. You came to this article because you could see the progress being made in building a consensus in a difficult subject. Let that continue. Give it a chance again. The article is certainly not going to get any better from these long blog postings you put here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Andrew needs to reference the following paper (Klyosov 2009a, JoGG 5(2):186-216) when mentioning the problem with the Z... approach.:
“ | "As a result, this mutation rate has been widely used in the academic literature qutoe indiscriminantly. often (or always) resulting in time span to common ancestors some 200-300% greater compared to those obtained with genealogical mutation rates. In fact it is east you calculate from Table A that the 0.00069 [(]mut[ations]/marker[)]/gen[eration] mutation rate is appliable for a time span equal to 2560 generations, that is 64,000 years ago. For >64,000 ybp the actual mtuation rate will be lower than 0.00069, for <64,000 ybp the actual mutation rate will be higher. | ” |
— Klyosov, JoGG 5(2):186-216 |
- What this means that by 64,000 years 2 of 3 STR mutations will have reversed themselves at least once. Whereas a between 64000 years they will have reversed between 0 and 66%, Again since underhills estimates are closer to the present the number of reversions will be substantially less, probably on the order of 20% and indicate and overestimate that is likely double, but not triple.
- I have been going over Klysovo with a fine tooth comb, to address whether it is over- or under-represented. I found that Andrew got it wrong. Klyosov does not believe that R-M17 spread from from the Ukraine. He believes that R1a1 spread from South Siberia South Siberia. He states at least three times that R-M17 spread from South Siberia to the Balkans (11,600 years ago), it later dispersed northward, into Germany and the Ukraine about the same time, Poland sightly later and finally reached Scandinavia about 1000 years later, from his perspective there is not Kurgan-Europe R-M17 connection. Its all from SE Europe, even that is exclusive because Anatolian R-M17 is about 4000 years in age. He goes onto state that While R1b1 maybe of Kurgan origin, Kurgan R1a1 is likely of Balkan origin, and Andronovo R-M17 is also of the Balkan lineages. However, I still think his method is under-dating, lets be generous to him, by 30%,at least its not off by a factor of 250%. I am all good with his methods up to this point. Thats the reason why the Irish R1b1 and Russian R1a1 were of similar structure, he is not arguing for an early paleoRussian origin of R1a1.
- He goes on to say the following, which I think we should definitely reference in the article.
“ | The literature frequently refers to a stream that R1a1-M17 originate from a "refuge" in the present Ukraine about 15,000 years ago, following the Last Glacial Maximum. This statement was never substantiate by any actual data related to haplotypes and haplogroups. It is just repeated over and over through a relay of references to reference. [This I love, just my style] The oldest reference is apparently that of Semino et al. (2000) [your bud Andrew] which states that "this scenario is supported by the finding that the maximum variation for microsatellites linked to Eu19 [R1a1] is found in Ukraine" (Satanchirae-Benereecetti, unpublished data). Now we know that this is incorrect [And any reference to this papers or papers that reference this should be removed from the Main]. No calculation were provided in (Semino et al, 200) or elsewhere which would explain the dating of 15,000 years. | ” |
“ | The a paper by Wells et al. (2001) states "M17, a descendant of M173, is apparently much younger, with an inferred age of ~15,00 years." No actual data or calculations are provided. The subsequent sentence in the papers says, "It must be note that these age estimates are dependent on many, possibly, invalid assumptions about mutational processes and population structure." This sentence has turned out to be valid in the sense that the estimate was inaccurate and overestimated by about 300% [ . . . .] | ” |
- However the next step he takes he gets himself into trouble, and I think that the method he is using is going to be most accurate in recent time frames and more problematic with deeper branchings. His Indian studies are a mess however, we should not trust these results, they are too preliminary, his analysis based on his YSearch database yielded 30 haplotypes and a TMRCA of 4050 which he implies is of paleoRussian origin. He then goes onto suggest that the 3600 year old Andronovo specimens match the local population (do not appear to match Indian R1a1 however). However later he admits there is an older branch that entered India. In doing this he is mentioning the work of other researchers of haplotypes he did not test, IOW how is it he tested and only managed to test Indians R1a1 of paleoRussia origin. He gives a solution to the problem which is more or less an approximation. The proper solution would be to ask the authors of these papers for DNA to redress the STR series and repeat his calculations - Thamseem et al (2006), . I think we should avoid his south Siberian conclusion. He uses two few Indian haplotypes. Basically, he does not reference Underhill but is used data from tribes in Andrea Pradesh, South India (which do not show that great of diversity and comes up with a figure to 7125 years (IOW Tribal R-M17 is of a different, east asian, origin than Brahmin R1a1 of Balko-russian origin, which would explain the tribal/Brahmin delimna.). Whereas Underhill looked 181 South asians from across the country, neither looked at Sharma's R1a1. Underhill found that Indian R-M17 was twice as old in West India and S Pakistan relative to Central Asian R1a1, therefore if Klyosov places Central Asia R-M17 at 4100 years then Indian R1a1 is 8100 years. So we shall see. Moreover the the data for the chinese estimates are based on 5 marker haplotypes and there may be a reliability issue in the typing.
- Klyosov is still using R-M17 = R1a1 PB666 yap 04:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
PD,
1. Concerning these types of comment "Andrew needs to reference..." etc, can you please cease and desist? If you see a missing link or a spelling mistake or whatever why on earth would you take the time to note it here and on your weird GA review page [5] instead of just fixing it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
2. What you are writing above is your own review, because as HXseek and I have pointed out, none of the articles we cite in this field have reviews we can cite. There is almost no secondary literature in this field. Problem for you is that (a) your abuse of this talkpage by posting long digression of your personal opinions (as confirmed by admins) [6] is a wasted effort because nothing written on Wikipedia talkpages can be used as a source, and (2) we clearly can not invent rules especially to censor one paper that you personally do not like. If articles need to be old, and to have been mentioned in secondary literature we need to delete nearly everything in the article and insist on theories from 2002. That would be ridiculous.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- And by the way you already tried to use the exact opposite argument, saying that the inclusion of Klyosov in the article might represent material that is too old, and the author might have changed his mind: [7]. Once again, such a ruling, applied to all the sources, would mean what? If we can not use recent or old sources, then this whole R1a article needs to be deleted I'm afraid.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- It is interesting to consider just how many positions you've had in the last few days concerning Klyosov, the Kurgan hypothesis, and any connection between the two - all within the context that there is virtually nothing about these subjects in the article except some very uncontroversial remarks. Just to take a very recent and stunning example of the swings, this is clearly intended to be a misleading edit summary?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:54, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I never referred to Klysovo as being archaic, I was referring to two other articles. I have always contended you exceeded the review process when you inserted klysovo. The specific articles I was refering to regarded the earliest assertions that there was a Kurgan origin for all R1a1. Second I was reacting to your edits targeting specific issues in the article. I did not have the time to sit down and thoroughly read the 70 page article until yesterday, at which point.
- His name is Klyosov, and (a) what on earth does "exceeded the review process" mean in this context and (b) where is there a rule that editors should not edit until PB666 has read their sources and confirmed that they may be used? Are you even thinking about what you write? This makes no sense at all!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
The basic problem is that, as with your attempt to go overboard about the use of the word Bronze Age, when you saw another editor raise it, you are clearly desperately looking for rules to WP:GAME in order to have some sort of impact on this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
3. Here is a great example of why it is a waste of time to try taking you seriously. You write: "I found that Andrew got it wrong. Klyosov does not believe that R-M17 spread from from the Ukraine." Now, as far as I know, in the last few days me and DinDraithou have been making the reference to R1a-Aryan connections more vaguely "from the Steppes". It is you who consistently been re-inserting words like "Pontic Caspian". Now you found out it is wrong, by actually reading the source, and you blame it on other editors. You should read and fully understand first and not use Wikipedia as your notepad.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
4. Just in case it is not clear, there are several ways in which Klyosov's terminology appear to be in error, for example his use of the term "proto Slavic" as a language related to "Aryans". I think there is however no-one here who is arguing that we must re-produce that terminology in the article. It is clear enough that he is referring to whatever language developed into Indo Aryan, which was indeed a close relative of proto Slavic. So this can be handled without drama.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Once again Andrew, you take a constructive approach and turn it into destructive diatribe. The critique of HKseek was completed in 2 steps, the first displaying what the article has, and second displaying what the article exerted and did not have that might be important. When I went to add the second there was an edit conflict, what I wrote, with the exception of a couple of sentences had nothing to do with HoneStopL's comments (notice the indent). If I had specifically directed these for his attention I would have also added that Sharma et al has problems because it did not discriminated R1* and that that there were issues regarding the R1a* they detected. That we agree on a few issues is meerly a coincidence and it had nothing to do with Gaming.
- The problem with Klyosov's analysis of the Steppe/Indo-Aryan connection is that he does not directly link or discriminate with Russia or Anatolian by any attempt to mesh the haplotype trees together. The A-DNA are not indo-aryan ancestors, However the Anatolian R-M17 is exactly the same age as the so-called "Steppe" sourced in India.
- My basic argument is that your edits have been added prematurely without a critical discussion, and these edits reflect errors in your understanding of Klysovo. My original critique does stand Ukraine and Russia are not older sources of R-M17 in Europe, they are equal-aged derivations of an even older source in Europe. Why do you think I kept pointing at the IE diagram? In addition after reviewing the section on India, it appears that he cherry picked studies which he compared. However the two most comprehensive studies of India, Underhill and Sharma were neglected in his analysis. That's a problem.PB666 yap 14:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- You are crossing purposes here, if you really, really want me to go away, I suggest you mellow out (As the folks on the ANI page basically told you), and let the process complete itself in its own way. Had Hkseek not criticized Klysovo's impact, errantly but nonetheless usefully, this process was very, very close to completion. You should take that as advice, not a critique.PB666 yap 14:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I see nothing constructive above. What is apparently annoying to you is that I am entering information before you personally understand it. Have a look at your own description of how you noticed DinDraithou's comments and then went searching for a way to say Andrew was wrong. Your whole approach is just wrong. As has been pointed out to you by Hxseek and me, Anatolian has got nothing to do with Indo-Aryan and Balto-Slavic. Neither does it have anything to do with DinDraithou's concerns. And when did Hxseek criticize Klyosov? I think he questioned your approach? etc. Your remarks are in a complete state of confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- You mean before you personally understand it, I saw no mention of the Balkan origin on the page, and your edits were at expanding the belief of a Stepp origin. Klyosov did nothing that shows he can discriminate a Stepp migration of R-M17 from Russia versus and Bronze-age/IE migration from Anatolia, that dates are compatible with both, he is simply giving an opinion. I cited numerous reasons where there is trouble with his conclusions with India.
- Here is the basic issue Andrew, I am a broken record. The problems with this article have been the repeated use of highly speculative opinions, unsupported opinions, there are hundreds out their and WP cannot possibly represent them all. In reading Klyosov I found that on this issue he and I strongly agree. These are exactly the types of critiques that belong in the article. We cannot prove or disprove what he has recently added, but what we can say with clarity is that the critiques are valid. However new speculations were given undue weight in this article. I am trying to provide a source of resistence to providing undue speculation. It is my opinion that undue speculation is the cause of edit warring in the HGH project and _we_ need to reign it in. I thought you were on this side of the line, but in regard to this page you have been extremely biligerent about cutting back on Undue speculation. I can provide you with just two measures of the problem. Almost everyone agrees now that R-M17 did not originate in Eastern or Western Europe, and yet it is the longest section in origins WP:UNDUE in addition South India has some of the best evidence, it is close to the shortest. The statement you placed that I keep reverting actually belongs in part in the South Asian origin part. "The literature frequently refers to a stream that R1a1-M17 originate from a "refuge" in the present Ukraine about 15,000 years ago, following the Last Glacial Maximum. This statement was never substantiate by any actual data related to haplotypes and haplogroups. It is just repeated over and over through a relay of references to reference. The oldest reference is apparently that of Semino et al. (2000) which states that "this scenario is supported by the finding that the maximum variation for microsatellites linked to Eu19 [R1a1] is found in Ukraine" (Satanchirae-Benereecetti, unpublished data)"
- I maintain that the state of Y-DNA is a shambles, the sloppy thinking in these articles is a reason for much edit-warring. The sloppy state of articles Andrew Lancaster has worked on is also an indication of the sloppy thinking in the Y_DNA field. If you clean up the sloppy conclusions in your head, sit down an write out carefully what can be shown to be true, Articles like E1b1b you can clean the chaff out of articles and start working within the wikiguidelines. Instead every active editor of this project drags in the literature (supportable or otherwise) that favors their POV, inflates it and this is the trigger of edit wars.PB666 yap 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, you are a broken record, but the record is also scratched and jumping around between different songs. Within a few hours you are posting here to say the article is already at a high level and almost GA, and now you are back to calling my work sloppy again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- PB666 is also not very "self critical" about what the admins on ANI said: [8]. The first admin commented that PB666's talkpage editing was described as a "clear series of WP:TALK violations". The second admin who was the one who suggested I take a break was explicitly doing so on the basis that PB666 was deliberately baiting me. (I said I did not think it was true in this case.) The third admin wrote that PB666's "attitude towards [ownership] is indeed quite extreme, and does seem to need some considerable adjustment". So while no-one has taken action, which is common on ANI, the message was clearly very different to how PB666 would like to remember it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I am, if you will stop adding material premature and speculatively to the article, I will stop critiquing the article here. Most of what I have written comes in direct response to issues of he main page, as above I did not initiate these issues, I am simply responding. Everytime I come about creating an overview and critique, you run over to the ANI page and declare bloody murder, and every time you walk away with nothing. If you simply focused on the critique issue, the article would improve and all of this would die down. They also said they had concerns about adding much information about Kurgan hypothesis and that there had been much edit warring on other pages about this highly contentious issue. This article has had a ton of speculation, and it has been a battle all the way to see that it is reduced. When I have pointed out, as above, problems with Y_DNA approaches and validity, you have battled me. One of the clearest statements made in Klyosov was the previous work on R-M17 was top-loaded with unsubstantiated speculation. Your favored source of the day agrees with me, my only point, what of his work that is also premature we should also consider, potentially speculative.PB666 yap 16:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- How are you defining "premature and speculative"? Why are saying I am favouring authors? To remind you, I am just putting in what the literature says, that is not favoring anyone, and that is not speculating. You want me to keep some out. Concerning the Kurgan issue it does not need to be important in this article. It is not critical to any of the theories we are talking about. (I do think we should mention the word as an associated word, because people need to find key words from the articles or books or webpages they read.) Please consider what edits I have really done, not ones you imagine.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- See Klyosov quote above. Because of the precedents of the literature concerning R1a (see DGG's comments below) we have to be more critical of the literature and more careful not to engage in adding new speculation after debunking speculation that was added 2 or more years ago. Klyosov clearly wants to link Indian R-M17 to Eastern Steppe (culture and langauge) but is that (or not) making the same error that other authors make, which he soundly debunks. There is alot of work regarding Indian R-M17, although I still question it, however there is only one paper so far with 5 locus haplotypes from a second hand source which suggest south Siberian origins. Have papers with greater sources of STR data been debunked, if so what are the risks here. That was my issue.
I should add that you added this, but you failed to mention on the page the Balkan origin of European R1a1. Why is the Steppe Indian link great (despite that different results come from different studies) but the Balkan -German/Ukrain link not worthy of mention (Even though Klyosov mentions it over 3 times). Please do not accuse me of baiting the issue unless you have completely read both Klyosov articles carefully.PB666 yap 17:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- The article DOES mention the Balkan origin. If I spent less time defending myself here, and carefully explaining problems with the edits you did before reading the Klyosov article, it would have been done earlier. I did not accuse you of a baiting strategy. An admin on ANI and another editor (Wapondaponda) have suggested it is what you might be or are doing. I disagreed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- By the way, do you want me to work faster, or slower? Do you want me to put more details from Klyosov in, or less? You are entirely inconsistent!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:36, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- You did accuse me. And I could care less what you do. I will give you one last pointer, you resisted me in increasing the size of the lead and here however here is the lede for Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)#Origins_and_hypothesized_migrations_of_R1a1a and this subsection Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)#Eastern_European_migration_hypotheses. And yet you don't see a problem with the imbalance, and that somehow I am the bad guy for critiquing this. WP suggests editors use their editorial judgement, if you based your judgement on nothing more that klyosov's critiques you would have more than enough reason for trimming these two section ledes and the subsections within Eastern_European_migration_hypotheses. I repeat I originally had only the chance to skim these 2 very long articles based on what you stated and what you wrote. Since you are exhibiting WP:OWN over your editions it now becomes your full responsibility to read the article carefully and determine what in it is speculative and what is not. I have clearly stated my interpretation based on Hkseeks critique. The South Siberian groups which may be fragile if it subsequently proven not to be true by other methods it deserves to have its own section. Again if we apply his critical sword to things that are fragile that interpretation should be eliminated. Remember he is critiquing others published results for most of the 2009a, but with regard to India (30 European' haplotypes) and South Siberia he is presenting new and unpublished results.PB666 yap 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Give a diff for the accusation. You read things which are not there.
- I see you also went to MMagdalene's talkpage [9], and in response to a posting of me telling her that, no, I do not think you are using sock puppets, you have attacked me for trying to besmirch you name in front of the "ex reviewer"! Look up what tilting at windmills means.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- You did accuse me. And I could care less what you do. I will give you one last pointer, you resisted me in increasing the size of the lead and here however here is the lede for Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)#Origins_and_hypothesized_migrations_of_R1a1a and this subsection Haplogroup_R1a_(Y-DNA)#Eastern_European_migration_hypotheses. And yet you don't see a problem with the imbalance, and that somehow I am the bad guy for critiquing this. WP suggests editors use their editorial judgement, if you based your judgement on nothing more that klyosov's critiques you would have more than enough reason for trimming these two section ledes and the subsections within Eastern_European_migration_hypotheses. I repeat I originally had only the chance to skim these 2 very long articles based on what you stated and what you wrote. Since you are exhibiting WP:OWN over your editions it now becomes your full responsibility to read the article carefully and determine what in it is speculative and what is not. I have clearly stated my interpretation based on Hkseeks critique. The South Siberian groups which may be fragile if it subsequently proven not to be true by other methods it deserves to have its own section. Again if we apply his critical sword to things that are fragile that interpretation should be eliminated. Remember he is critiquing others published results for most of the 2009a, but with regard to India (30 European' haplotypes) and South Siberia he is presenting new and unpublished results.PB666 yap 19:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Other concerns
Are there any other concerns about the Main, please read it first and look for errors.PB666 yap 05:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- To repeat this is not a "forum" where one person gets to post long opinion pieces and then others can comment. That would be a blog. You can get a blog and then direct us to it. But of course you know no one would read it. You are getting an audience using Wikipedia's talkspace here, and that is a violation of Wikipedia policy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:02, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- What?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
GAN
PB666, a GAN is not an appropriate way to solicit comments on the content for improvement - that's what a peer-review is for. You should only submit an article for GA consideration if you believe it to be ready (barring minor changes) for the status. If you look at the criteria for a GA, you should be able to see clearly that it's not. Also, I don't think that transcluding comments from the GAN discussion page is appropriate, nor is turning this talk page into a "forum" for comments. The talk page is meant to discuss, and obtain consensus for, edits to the article. I highly suggest that you submit this article for peer-review to get some outside opinion before you go any further. Also, get an assessment from someone in the Cellular and Molecular Biology project; according to that project, this article is still Start-Class. MMagdalene722talk to me 15:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I think that classification was given by PB666 himself, as was the one for WP:HGH?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I believe this article is ready barring minor changes. See above, I was asking for any critiques, I had not major critiques of this article, all that remained were minor issues.PB666 yap 16:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Actually you have switched between calling the article nearly good enough, and calling it disturbing, crap, etc. Anyway, if you are going to ask for any review I certainly want to repeat my honest advice that you first fix minor problems - at least if they are not controversial items. If you spelling errors, or missing links, or extra commas, just fix them. Also please do not make use of any such nomination as a diversion from talkpage discussion, which is the most important way to get consensus. You've heard from others now that I was correct in asking for this before. If you start asking reviewers to take sides, they will just leave.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:10, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Andrew, I have a right to change my mind as the page changes, you have no right to critique my reevaluation. I thought in posting the request for critique that the article was GA ready, I did not realize that there was still critiques out their and I welcome their critique. If Hkseek had not I probably not read the 69 page Klyosov articles. You can disrespect the critique process, that is your prerogative, but I embrace it.PB666 yap 17:01, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- What critique process have I shown disrespect for? By the way you were accusing Klyosov of fraud, and editing what the article said about him, before hxseek made any remark. Very interesting to hear that at this stage you had not even read the thing. It sure shows how carefully you consider the positions you take.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- This is clearly a baiting tactic, WP advised editors to use good judgement. I was using good editorial judgement in removing a statement I considered: 1. Speculative, 2. Belonging in part to another section of the Main. 3. Increasing the wordiness of a section unnecessarily. Ergo I had more than adequate wiki-guided reasons for removing it. The fact you keep replacing it is a clear indication that you thwart the guidelines. You are the most recent source of speculation entering this article, this is not MW, SV or Soph, its you and only you.PB666 yap 19:07, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- What critique process have I shown disrespect for? By the way you were accusing Klyosov of fraud, and editing what the article said about him, before hxseek made any remark. Very interesting to hear that at this stage you had not even read the thing. It sure shows how carefully you consider the positions you take.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would like to know which speculation you say I introduced. Are you talking about me citing articles?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- "It should be noted that according to this particular new variant of the scenario, Indian R1a1a is made up of two components, one which came from the direction of Europe, and one which arrived in India much earlier. Klyosov proposes that both these old branches have their common ancestor in or near southern Siberia." Indeed he does say this but the European branch has an ancestor in SE Europe, and the Source of neither this, or the fact another branch came through China has nothing to do with the section in which it is placed. If you must have this as part of the article, I would discuss it with everyone here before adding back the section on East Asian origins, because previously there was not compelling evidence what-so-ever. This particular passage clutters the section with information that should be considered speculative and as-to-point uncontested. Does a general reader really need to know this information while reading about Steppe migration hypothesis. At least in part, no, but if in part very carefully worded.PB666 yap 19:41, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please be clear. Who do you accuse of speculating? Me or Klyosov?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion
You will never make a perfect article. On this particular topic, the way the discussion has been going, you may never even make a stable GA, because you will need to deal with future work as it is published, and each time you do, there will be apparently be a debate on its significance and how much space to devote to it. What might be productive is the following dual strategy:
- 1. to let this article be a presentation on the actual population genetics of the locus, with a paragraph or two on each major theory, but keeping the focus closely on the genetics. Clearly, people study this sort of genetics not just for its abstract fascination, but because they are interested in the implications for the history of human populations, and their more or less closely associated cultures. If they study this for its overall interest, for truly academic purposes, excellent; if they study it to prove a particular cultural or political point, generally not quite so likely to give valid results, and very much less likely to give valid interpretations. In any case, the details and disputes over the interpretation, and the relationship of the genetic to the linguistic and archeological and historical data, belongs in other articles. This article can not realistically be expanded to present all of human pre- and proto-history.
- 2. to write articles on all the related topics about human civilization and biology that are missing or inadequately handled in Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 16:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- DGG this sounds more or less like the approach I have been proposing when it comes to subjects like controversy about the Kurgan hypothesis: keeping the linguistics, archaeology etc as simple as possible but giving enough key words that people looking this up will find the links they need. So for example I have argued that we should de-emphasis Kurgans, but at least keep mention of the word. (They are not a key part of the genetics related argument. For geneticists the key thing is just that they know there is a theory about people bringing Indo Aryan languages along the same route some people say R1a traveled.) To be honest, I am not sure that PB666 will really disagree with what you describe if he thinks about it, but in practice his edits and talk page comments seem to show him being opposed to it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- DGG, you clearly have read and understand the issue here. That is the problem. We don't even explain the jargon well, like STR diversity dating, but we bend over backwards to insert speculation-links outside of the genetic field, when this upgrade page began there were 4 theories (not hypothesis but theories) to explain the same phenomena. If we could just sit down and agree to this point DGG, that we will work toward reducing speculation in that arena alone much of this issue would subside. Andrew, my edits were based on what you wrote, I was trying to improve your writing (concensus building, without doing an all-out delete), if it was by my choice I would cut the European origins section in half. I should point out that if you read Klyosov he very strongly links a Eastern Steppe-Indian migration to IE and Bronze age, that is the statement we have been 'warring' over. Again, he does nothing to prove this since Anatolian (source of bronze age culture and IE langauge fits the same criteria). IOW he had debunked other authors but then he asserts his own speculation. I am not critical of some, I am critical of all, even if they realize the faults in others they may not realize thier own faults. I should point out that I provided Andrew a reference from the first Klyosov, for his benefit, such that he can critique Underhills dating method without the widely agreed but potentially WP:OR statements made.(Even though a support Underhills work and conclusions). I am trying to help Andrew improve this article. PB666 yap 16:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- DGG. The GA reviewer asks for a dis-interested third party, would you mind going over the page and making critiques.PB666 yap 16:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- PD, You seem to read every critical remark as agreeing with you. DGG suggests "focus closely on the genetics" and not "the details and disputes over the interpretation".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Doctor heal thyself: "if they study it to prove a particular cultural or political point, generally not quite so likely to give valid results, and very much less likely to give valid interpretations." The problem is you do not realize that you are adding this form of questionable interpretation to the page. You think, that as long as an Author speculates this, its good for you to speculate this, but this is exactly what has trashed up the page. Klyosov clearly identifies the source and the reason for past invalid speculation. We need to apply the same logic to him. If multiple sources can explain a given phenomena and he has not gone about the careful process of eliminating these other sources, why should we abide by his speculation? You still don't get it, the speculation of today that looks solid, will be disproven tomorrow, for the exact reason DGG stated, linking genetics to culture or language is a necessarily troubled way of conducting molecular genetics.PB666 yap 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- In medical science articles there is now a standard of WP:MEDRS developed just to deal with this issue, we may need to request the same standard be implimented here, wait for the review, not pummel articles with the latest interpretations with the latest papers.PB666 yap 18:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I would think that criticizing the literature is indeed a job for someone getting published in a peer reviewed journal, not us. Your personal thoughts on the matter should cease to be posted here please. This is not your blog.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- Andrew, peer review does not stop many things from happening, If peer review were great how did the statements of Semino and Wells make it past peer-review, how about Underhills dating technique. In science if something lies within a two fold range of confidence we consider it to be of reasonable error, if its distribution is over a 3 to 4 range it is considered speculative. Where is the critique in Underhill of his dating method, why were not diversity statistics given in the tables as opposed the TMRCA? And why are you criticizing his dates.PB666 yap 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Folks, enough is enough, Andrew has clearly tried to thwart the GA process by obstructing article improvement out of line with WP:MOS, he creates these fantastic impressions of me harming the page, when he is doing most of the editing and I am providing mostly critique of what is on the page that will attract future problems. I was trying to bow out this process yesterday but I did not realize there is still an overhanging critique of speculative material. Andrew has engaged in edit warring on the page based on his misunderstandings of definitions, did not understand the point of a lede, did not understand the point of explaining things carefully to outsiders, etc. I have directed my critiques at NPOV page edits in an effort to weed out the source of past problems, and I have recieved critique all the way. The point that he is arguing with me about agreeing with an outside review on the source of problems I have pointing to for more than a month, and that he has repeatedly obstructed in my attempts to reduce this type of material. The fact that the European Origins section is clearly WP:UNDUE relative to the South Asian section because of the addition of speculation proves my position. The GA process has failed, for whatever reason this will never be a good article, because of the edit-warring manner and the lack of desire to at least genuflect at the wiki-guides. The fact that the two major battlers in the HGH wiki-wars (AL and MW) agree that these types of articles should never be brought to GA review shows everyone their desire to place their own standards above that of the encyclopedia, to not make a great effort in accessibility and to propogate jargon and speculation. In the future, when you guys are involved in edit wars, please do not get me involved, it is clear that neither of you are working toward improving the encyclopedia you just want a place to insert your content. DGG, if you think I am this bad editor, just, please, stay here awhile and critique these folks and watch what happens.PB666 yap 18:32, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/75/Don_Quixote_6.jpg/300px-Don_Quixote_6.jpg)
- Deitiker, with all due respect you SCREWED the GA process up YOURSELF, and I even tried to warn you in good faith. What you say that AL and MW "agreed" is purely false. You are tilting at windmills.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:16, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- You already did it before, and it did not work. The reasons were explained politely to you at the time [10]. It would be a POV fork, as shown by the posting you have just made which explains that this is the intention. So it would be deleted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- BTW just in case there in any slight chance you read anything you reply to, your response "if that is the way..." shows that you did not read the post you were replying to. It does not fit. It is like you read something else.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
With the whole Kurgan thing, eg, if a connection is mentioned by the authors, then we may mention it. This does not represent Andrew's personal view. However, we can then add a sentence of caution by stating that geneticists aren't linguists or archaeologists, their dating varies widely, and that their theories are largely speculative as they are representations of how they 'envisage' their data fits with their (often sub-optimal) knowledge of linguistics and archaeology. There are plenty of historians and archaeologists who have critiqued anthropology (physical and genetic), and its utility in explaining linguistic and archaeological spreads. So, if need be, this can be added
As a suggestion for layout, if this is going to be an issue (an I am happy with the current state of the article); one approach might be presenting the data in in the chronology of publication. Eg we can start with the year 2000 studies of Semino, Rosser, Wells (2001) and spell out how later studies have elaborated/ contradicted/ supported such findings. Hxseek (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
And AL and PD, you both need to cool down. It is apparent that what is going on here has transformed into a personal antagonism tather than constructive discussion about the article. Perhaps some time off would be an idea Hxseek (talk) 22:57, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
- I have no problem with what you say, the problem I have is de-emphasizing as a whole a section which by everyones account gives too much account to speculation. I also want to thank you for bringing up Klyosov, I had so rushed through the piece that I missed key points. Here is the basic problem, there is no simple way to go through this without going into excessive detail. I will try to keep it brief. Molecular clocking is the key issue, I am familiar with this because I have done molecular clocking. What happens with the best molecular clocks is some are very accurate in real time (current generations) and some are very accurate over species-length times (such as chimpanzee-human last common ancestor) very few models are accurate or can be verified in intermediate time frames. Even Klyosov admits that many STR variant lineages will be lost after 64,000 years (2/3rds). Here is the basic problem, there is a binomial probability distribution that can account for lineage length variation. This creates a confidence interval as things evolve, but it only works well if things always evolve away from shared points. If they evolve back to shared points then the confidence interval broadens greatly. When an author says he can correct for this like Zhivotovsky and Feldman, what they are talking about is an average correction. Lets take an example, Klysovo indicated that insertions were generally unitary (single steps) but deletions often occurred in pairs or triplicates. For a reversion to occur then one forward insertion, followed by a pair loss, and a forward insertion. That is three events lost to revert. In the case of a triplet loss, its four events. Those types of events marked shorten trees. In very, very bushy trees it is relatively easy to detect these, but in trees with long unbranching branches, these will be lost and undetectable. Therefore it is difficult to correct in some instances you cannot see. Correction in different trees requires different levels of corrections, and each attempt to correct widens the confidence interval.
- The primary issue here is that authors, for example Klysovo says he can confidently estimate migration times to +/-2 to 20% depending on the clade (klysovo p.198). Whenever these types of tight confidence intervals have been stated in the literature, they have been subsequently refuted. Molecular clocking is a problem and over-confidence is another problem. So that people like myself that have studied molecular anthropology for a long time are dubious about such claims. Therefore we are also dubious about authors who assert with confidence that a certain gene was associated with a certain migration without some other form of evidence. It is true that Andronovo A-DNA sequences are ~4000 years old, however R-M17 in that general local could have been 2000 to 3000 years or older, not 15,000 years old, but maybe 8000. In addition even though the MRCA of R-M17 in Ural region is 4300 years in age, older than the 'Euro' grouping in India, the A-DNA did not fall into Indian clusters, but into local clusters, indicating that at least some inhabitants stayed behind. In addition tucked into klysovo 2009a, page 237 well away from other Europeans you will find that the Anatolian branch is also 4500 years and age, and even the Armenian branch at 3700 years is old enough to be the parent clades of Indian R1a1. But the author of the paper does not mention that the source of IE langauge and bronze age culture could also have given rise to Indian 'Euro' R-M17. That illustrates the key danger of placing these types of opinions into the Main page, because If I noticed this, (and particularly if _I_ notice) chances are that 10 other researchers will notice the same, and in 6 months we will have another paper refuting Klyosov's speculation with a new brand of speculation. And all the edit warring will start anew. The Kurgen/R-M17 association is based some authors estimation of the TMRCA and their particular desire to study nested haplotypes over a broad set of individual (or not). But there is no confidence in the TMRCA that allow us to confidently do this. And so the next author says it is LGM migration, then a third says it was a slavic migration, and then we battle it out because we don't understand the core nature of the variance issue. Wikipedia should not become a vessel of war-starting speculation, OTOH, we can mention a claim, cite that claim and cite the critique. New claims should then be reserved, waiting an amount of time such that the critical counter claims can be voiced.PB666 yap 02:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- A preliminary step to dealing with this is to stop blaming each other. It is clear that think that what the other one is adding is the wrong type of material. It is possible that each of you is right to some extent, though probably not equally--based on hundred of other such conflicts here. I don't want to try and analyze it. I never would want to: even if I were to take in hand revising the page, I would do it without reference to who it was that added any particular material. I don't want to see who;s wrong, I don't even really care. The sort of discussion you have been getting into is never helpful. There are four words you should not be using: "Deitiker", "Andrew" , "you" , and "I". I do not now have time to rewrite it though & I do not see why i should, for each of you probably knows more about it than I do. Stop focusing on the Wikipedia designation "Good article" and just try to make a good article in the ordinary sense of the term. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The way we handle disputed scientific points is to give all the non-fringe views in appropriate proportion. We sometimes do use research articles, not reviews, in order to keep up with the pace of knowledge. We can't rely totally for objectivity on finding support in a review--the interpretation of topics like this tend to go by camps, and each camp usually writes their own review articles. It's not even unknown that they cite only their own group's publications. (I'm sure both of you know this ) The textbook consensus we say we try to rely on is usually many years away--and in rapidly moving fields, it will almost necessarily be wrong by the time it is published. There is no automatic way of writing an article--it relies upon judgment. The practical approach for doing this is to keep the conflict contained. A reasonably sure sign of trying to propagate a POV is to try to express the view in as many articles as possible. Keep the interpretation to a minim. The goal is to provide enough information about the actual genetics to make the genetics part of the various theories intelligible. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- DGG, I am not looking for critiques in the content, although the critique you have given has been very useful, you actually have a better feel for the problem than you let on. My problem concerns readability and understandability. There are articles concerning Y-DNA that literally drop the reader in a blender of jargon and expect them to figure it all out. This article was like that 6 weeks ago, lots of Jargon and many quotations on speculative material. Very few mainstream reviewers from wikipedia ever drop by and ask questions. The GA process was about shining some outside light on the situation so that we could get feedback about style and understandability, because, frankly its a problem that plagues the entire HGH project.PB666 yap 04:26, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- If you can read the entire article, from beginning to end and not be forced into endless searches on WP or the WWW for definitions and explanations, please tell us, and if not please tell us where the stumbling areas are.PB666 yap 04:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that's right, and DGG made an understandable mistake. You are not making substantial points about content, but you are presenting it that way. Your real aim, as you have said many times, is to completely change the style of the article, and at the same time to educate other wikipedians about how to think critically, because you believe this kind of article, and the people who work on them, are not according to WP:MOS. But, as you have mentioned yourself [11], everyone seems to disagree with you and be opposed to this aim of yours. In any case, it is hard to see how these long postings about no subject in particular are helping either the content discussion, or the style.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
You're right, but this is not the appropriate article to clarify the basic tenets of genetic anthropology, haplogroup definitions, etc. Ideally, links would direct the reader to what an STR is (in terms of genetic geneaology), haplotype, haplogroup, etc.I believe these already exist. Hxseek (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The pages are not so good, we need to work on these fundemental pages much more. I have undertaken to do the page on the chimp-human last common ancestor. I am going to leave the STR page to the Y-folks, hopefully if we can get some good outside critique on this page they will be motivated to improve those pages.PB666 yap 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- General subjects should be discussed at WP:HGH. You admit yourself you are over-loading this article and its webpage. There is enough work to do here given all the new articles which are being integrated.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
What we need to do is standardise nomenclature on this page, with others. This has already been done (as far as this article is concerned). As for sourcing, not to labour on about Klyosov, but any new article that has yet to be reviewed is still worthwhile. We as editors can reach a consensus on it by analyzing it in a manner anyone would appraise a scientific article. I do not think it has been given undue weight more than Kivisilids, or Underhill's. Your points about his methodology are interesting, and probably valid, but your personal disagreement with them do not warrant exclusion. Hxseek (talk) 04:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- So DGGs point is that if an article has other papers which mention similar things is better, and from my point of view if they use a different (or combine) study sets or different techniques, it is also better. If we look at Klyosov Chinese STR, no-one else has done this, and Sharma and Underhill have looked at Indian STRs and come up with different ages with different techniques, but between Sharman and Underhill their sample set is far more comprehensive, but they come to a different conclusion. So these two areas are stand-alone for Klyosov. As for Kurgan, Andronovo may have been the source of Indian R1a1, but the problem is what is the source of Andronovo, we assume this links ot Kurgan, but the bronze age technology and the language are from Anatolia, and likewise Anatolia just like Russia has older R1a1 than Andronovo, so why would we favor a Russian origin over an Anatolian origin. That is an oversight or minimally something Klyosov tested but did not elaborate upon (an oversight). If these things are added ad-libertum do not be surprised if 2 months down the road an edit war erupts over them.PB666 yap 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Couple of other points:
- The page has grown by 10 kb just in the last week, its now becoming a hard read. I fell asleep in the origins section.
- Some areas are becoming increasingly difficult to read, in and of themselves.PB666 yap 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe one of the most important criteria for GA status is a stable consensus on an articles content. If Pdeitiker you would like this article to be rated positively then you should be working to achieve consensus. This is something that you have not done, as I see little compromise with other parties involved.
- One thing I agree with you is that there needs to be work on more of the fundamental pages. This is why it is quite difficult to solicit outside help on HGH articles because the technical detail tends to scare off many would-be editors. In an ideal world, one could read Wikipedia articles, and would have access to all relevant information without having to leave Wikipedia to understand a concept or find information. Unfortunately, this is still not the case for HGH articles, one still has to read external sources to understand Wikipedia articles.
- I am not against any article in HGH being brought for review, but I am more concerned with the principle of a good article, than the actual GA rating which is a temporary anyway. If an article with a GA rating changes significantly, then it looses its GA rating, and would have to be go for a fresh GA review. Change is something we expect for R1a and Window dressing an article for GA review is likely to have short term effects only. My own opinion, which may not correct, is that taking R1a for GA review is like learning to run before learning to walk. If the article for R1a's parent haplogroup, R1 isn't in great shape, then how can R1a be. The same goes for R1. R1a is relatively young haplogroup, and therefore if the demographic events related to older haplogroups aren't clear on wikipedia, then it makes it much harder understand the younger ones. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:32, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- PB666, as has been explained several times by hxseek and myself, there is no mainstream theory which proposes that Indo-Aryan comes directly from Anatolia. According to both the Anatolian and Steppe theories of IE origins, Indo Aryan is a later branch which has a steppe origin. I think the only person to ever propose what you are talking about was Robert Drews, maybe 20 years ago. You are confusing this with the Anatolian theory of Renfrew and others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- MW, I don't think your critique is valid, and BTW, if the R1 page is not in shape WP:SOFIXIT, where are you exactly in all these page improvements. Ah, that's right you create more of these disasters that need to be fixed. You gripe about this page, you gripe about ME page, lets see the genetic history or Europe with its quicksand first few sections, improve. Why don't you see if you can bring any one of these genetic histories of la-la land pages up for some kind of review. I did not create a single Y-DNA page, but somehow without my help we have these spawn running around the project that are encyclopedic bottomless pits of jargon. Second issue, why are you so afraid of self-improvement MW, why should we not be getting more external coverage an review. You guys have lots of excuses, but all are avoiding a basic and simple issue, these little pearls of wisdom should eventually _improve_. As for the claim of Andrew, I am simply pointing out that Klyosov's data had several possible interpretations, he is not a cultural or paleoanthropologist, and yet he is asserting just such a conclusion. In statistics there is a tradition, that all things should be treated as equal unless proven different. He does show similarities between E.European and the major subset of Western And S.E European, and he does show similarity between Ural and Russian, but where in the paper did he compare Anatolian R1a1 with anything by his STR analysis? Genetics may see things archaeology does not see, so that is not an excuse. But he draws heavily that Ural STRs (both modern and old) are of Russian descent, and that Indian subset called 'IndoEuropean' are of Russian desent, which is fine if no other sample groups out there, but there are.PB666 yap 14:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- It is Klyosov. That data can be interpreted in different ways is currently mentioned in the article. I think there is also a hint given that some key bits of data might be very important for him. As usual, I think it is best to stick what is really in the article, and not criticize things which are not actually in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Noted that you corrected the spelling now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
A constructive proposal
PB666 wrote above:
- Couple of other points:
- The page has grown by 10 kb just in the last week, its now becoming a hard read. I fell asleep in the origins section.
- Some areas are becoming increasingly difficult to read, in and of themselves.
Great! So now there is at least a consensus that communication is not functioning on this talkpage, and this is blocking constructive work on the article, which was by the way not too bad according to nearly everyone. (Many of the places PB666 points to in his latest load of rem notes are places he has recently had changed.) No other consensus is clear, because the discussions are confused and too long, and most editors are staying away. PB666 of course accepts no blame for this, and there's no point trying one more time to point out the obvious WP:TALK violations which, if stopped, would automatically improve everything. I would therefore like to propose something much more simple. PB666 and I should voluntarily limit ourselves to 200 words per day on this talkpage. This paragraph is a bit over 150 words. Do you accept PB666? I believe an answer can be written in less than 5.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The proposal here is about the talk page, which everyone agrees has big problems. What do you think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The word count on this page is currently dominated by you, so it is all up to you. Are you saying you will reduce what you write here or not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- My proposal involves two. What is your answer to the proposal?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Another constructive proposal
I would also like to kindly request that PB666 purge the comments boxes on this talkpage. They are currently very obviously filled with personal notes, mostly out of date, and mostly in a form which only he would be able to follow. (I think most of it is just copied from what he pasted in various other places previously including the GA review page when he accidentally made himself the reviewer.) Of course I have no problem that people would do such personal note keeping but this would surely be more appropriate on PB666's User space somewhere? I believe these comment boxes, and indeed the gradings this article has been given, should not normally be filled in by someone currently busy with it? For example short and simple points could eventually be extracted, once PB666 has got his point clear in his own mind, and discussed here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. Both proposals?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
OK, I see you reduced to three points only. Why not mention them here? These are actual understandable points now with real relevance to the article. Remaining comments about this page.
- The map on the top of the page, and the text contradict each other, the origin map shows R1a and R1b coming from areas where neither have a strong presence. If this is true, then why is it not explained. For example Underhill said 'Origin of R1a remains elusive, Origin or R1a1 is probably close to R1a, but spread into South Asia also. What about R1* in Asia.
- The map is a variation of the standard one someone made for Y haplogroups. Better to talk to the map maker, or else simply remove it or replace it. I think it is no big issue. On the other hand, it would be easy to defend this map:-
- It is obviously a simple "artistic" abstract representation.
- Nothing in genetics says that areas of low frequency can not be a point of origin.
- Actually, though I am not sure the starting point is a low frequency point. The northern Caucasus has areas of high R1a and high R1b?
- You say that the diagram contradicts the map, but actually this is also not clear. The starting point coming out of the Caucasus, is coming from the direction of "Asia".
- But for R1a* the higher density areas is to the south. Its relatively broad, and as for spread, according to Klysovo, at least one branch must have spread to china or India, first.
- I have no big problem with the map because I understand the complexities and its hard to really say anything specific, but other readers might note the inconsistency.PB666 yap
- I am going to remove this issue from the comments, but we should be working toward generating a more representative picture, has anyone contact the editor who added this yet?PB666 yap 16:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- As far as I know this is something only you have raised any issue about.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am going to remove this issue from the comments, but we should be working toward generating a more representative picture, has anyone contact the editor who added this yet?PB666 yap 16:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The map is a variation of the standard one someone made for Y haplogroups. Better to talk to the map maker, or else simply remove it or replace it. I think it is no big issue. On the other hand, it would be easy to defend this map:-
- Info box description in "defining mutations" should be reduced.
-
- The issue is not taste, the issue is to simplify and make more readable. Is it necessary to present all the branch-points in the section, most pages only identify the basal node. This is a minor point, however.PB666 yap 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- As discussed in the body, for this haplogroup we can quite literally say that "R1a" (the articles name) has different meanings out there in the real world, meaning people coming to this article (perhaps after having tried to read a genetics article for the first time, such as the ones Family Tree DNA has on its website for its customers) will need help to find an initial anchor point. This is a complexity out there in the real world which we need to handle somehow. The infobox is a place especially designed for finding those initial eye-brain-anchors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Ah, that problem, how about then R1a and R1a1 only. Since most papers apply R1a as either R-M420 and or SRY1532.2.PB666 yap 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) We do discuss R1a1a and R-M17 in the Lede.
- How about deleting this: "3. M17 and M198 (equivalent to one another) define R1a1a, which is by far the most common type of R1a."?PB666 yap
- Remember when you split the article and one of the problems was that a lot of what you thought was about R1a was about R1a1a? That's because this is how the article used to be - completely mixed up. And that in turn is because that is how a lot of reading matter out there is written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- As a matter of fact, no, I knew it was mixed up, it was going to take time to separate the old from the new studies and old usages from new, I worked on that article for a few hours or so. Secondarily I though you wanted to limit talk page size. If you look at this page it is generally you always making the last comment in a hierarchy. The issue of discriminating R1a has nothing to do with R1a1a, Klyosov interchanges R1a with R1a1 several times in his paper. But that doesn't make a difference here, because most of the literature that is of relevance has R1a = R-M420 or R-SRY1532.2 no-one in recent literature calls R-M17 basal R1a, and if they do, that's a different issue. I think it looks cluttered, if I think it looks cluttered then at least 40% of the audiance will feel the same. So stop arguing about the issue.PB666 yap 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Good on you for picking me up on that missing signature. In the above paragraph "most of the recent literature" really only concerns a couple of very recent articles, which are the ones that you know about this subject. And this is part of the reason you do not know what 40% of people will understand or want.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- As a matter of fact, no, I knew it was mixed up, it was going to take time to separate the old from the new studies and old usages from new, I worked on that article for a few hours or so. Secondarily I though you wanted to limit talk page size. If you look at this page it is generally you always making the last comment in a hierarchy. The issue of discriminating R1a has nothing to do with R1a1a, Klyosov interchanges R1a with R1a1 several times in his paper. But that doesn't make a difference here, because most of the literature that is of relevance has R1a = R-M420 or R-SRY1532.2 no-one in recent literature calls R-M17 basal R1a, and if they do, that's a different issue. I think it looks cluttered, if I think it looks cluttered then at least 40% of the audiance will feel the same. So stop arguing about the issue.PB666 yap 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Remember when you split the article and one of the problems was that a lot of what you thought was about R1a was about R1a1a? That's because this is how the article used to be - completely mixed up. And that in turn is because that is how a lot of reading matter out there is written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
- How about deleting this: "3. M17 and M198 (equivalent to one another) define R1a1a, which is by far the most common type of R1a."?PB666 yap
- Ah, that problem, how about then R1a and R1a1 only. Since most papers apply R1a as either R-M420 and or SRY1532.2.PB666 yap 16:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC) We do discuss R1a1a and R-M17 in the Lede.
- As discussed in the body, for this haplogroup we can quite literally say that "R1a" (the articles name) has different meanings out there in the real world, meaning people coming to this article (perhaps after having tried to read a genetics article for the first time, such as the ones Family Tree DNA has on its website for its customers) will need help to find an initial anchor point. This is a complexity out there in the real world which we need to handle somehow. The infobox is a place especially designed for finding those initial eye-brain-anchors?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The issue is not taste, the issue is to simplify and make more readable. Is it necessary to present all the branch-points in the section, most pages only identify the basal node. This is a minor point, however.PB666 yap 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- I am looking at the infobox and its presentability, I noticed that other info boxes use the class="infobox vcard" style="width: 22em; font-size: 88%; line-height: 1.5em; text-align:left" as the table format. However in our infobox the tabled information is <small>text</small> this is difficult to read as it is, but by adding alot of text you are creating an unreadable wall of words, which those reader are not likely to look at.PB666 yap 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do not really see what the problem is which is why I mentioned taste. It seems like just a matter of taste?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Improving quality also means improving appearance. I notice that the infobox page for this box has two unanswered critiques. Maybe it was an impromptu template that was never refined. In any case it what was meant to be a few loci, not 3 sentences, and it looks cluttered.PB666 yap 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Of course we should improve appearance. But whose taste is the right taste? How do you think people handle questions like that normally on Wikipedia?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Improving quality also means improving appearance. I notice that the infobox page for this box has two unanswered critiques. Maybe it was an impromptu template that was never refined. In any case it what was meant to be a few loci, not 3 sentences, and it looks cluttered.PB666 yap 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I do not really see what the problem is which is why I mentioned taste. It seems like just a matter of taste?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I am looking at the infobox and its presentability, I noticed that other info boxes use the class="infobox vcard" style="width: 22em; font-size: 88%; line-height: 1.5em; text-align:left" as the table format. However in our infobox the tabled information is <small>text</small> this is difficult to read as it is, but by adding alot of text you are creating an unreadable wall of words, which those reader are not likely to look at.PB666 yap 17:28, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- "Studies which have argued this case most strongly include Sengupta et al. (2005), Sahoo et al. (2006), and Sharma et al. (2009). Studies which have concluded that the data is at least consistent with this scenario include Kivisild et al. (2003), Mirabal et al. (2009) and Underhill et all. (2009)." cannot statements like these be simplified?
- The sentences are grammatically very simple. So what I guess you mean is that this looks like excessive detail? I can say that nevertheless it was controversial that I stripped it down to this basic summary, leading to a certain editor User:Cosmos416 (who has since tried sock puppetry) being blocked. I think, based on the history of this article, that it is really necessary to make sure we are super neutral, and that we avoid creating edit wars.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but is there not a better way to do this that is more simple.PB666 yap
- You mean without deleting those names of articles? I do not see it, but there might be a way. As mentioned, the grammatical structure of the sentences is actually very simple.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, but is there not a better way to do this that is more simple.PB666 yap
Confidence of molecular clocking using STR
[I added this section break as this section is oversized, I am limiting my responses to Andrew who has become WP:ARGUMENTATIVE and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on this issue].PB666 yap 18:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC) Adding one more point
- "With enough STR markers to compare, the chances of falsely identifying relative relatedness because of coincidentally similar haplotypes becomes trivial."' This sentence has recently appeared, I appreciate the effort to explain STR but the problem with the sentence is that it is opinion.
- Reversions within a single STR cannot be detected without adequate branching. Reading Klyosov, about 2/3rds of STRs will have lost definition within 64,000 years. Errors at the surface, for example within 500 years and within very bushy trees will be 'trivial' however errors deeper in the tree and in regions were exclusion has occurred (exclusion = genetic drift and population size acting on and reducing allelic diversity) may have significant losses. For example Klyosov mentions that the first wave of Europeans were spread thinly from Bulgaria to Germany for 1000s of years, these are the types of situations were STR diversity can be lost. It is only through intense study of local clusters (around each R-M17 find) that this loss of STR can be detected. Ergo it may or may not be trivial. Without clear branching analysis correct estimation of diversity may be crippled. Reverse mutations at this level are rare, but when they occur, at this level they have profound effects. Klyosov specifically mentions the reverse mutation problem (not only reverse mutations however, also repeated homoplasies can cause the same problem).
- In addition to this source of variation, Klyosov mentions and I concur, that basal clades and entry diversity is a problem, basal clades that were generated prior to migration but are not obviously entry clades may make younger populations look older, where as genetic drift may make older populations look younger. The problem with most studies is that there are sources of variation (such as random rates of change) that can be accounted for, but there are other sources of variation cannot be accounted for. Rich trees and large haplotypes are ideal situations, but most of the time, particularly intercomparing groups, this is not available, and therefore the confidence of assigning entry level diversity to a modal clads is also not trivial. I should also note that other authors (for example the website you referenced) suggest the rates have changed, looking at Klyosov he points out in the first paper a range of rates from 0.14 to 0.28 for different STR, it is unknown how much of this is STR specific variance, random variance, or clade specific variance.PB666 yap 16:46, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please consider my proposal in the above section about word limits? Will you tango with me? You still have not answered, and this post is again quite problematic. The first sentence shows that you did not even read the first words of the sentence you are commenting on. So this mass of words (360 words, significantly more than my proposed daily limit) is all irrelevant, all off on a tangent, discouraging and ruining all possible discussion. Holding yourself to shorter remarks would force us to read what you are responding to and what you are writing. The sentence above is not just opinion because "enough" is a relative word. It might be nice to find a citation, eventually.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your writing is pretty much a distraction from the critique "the chances of falsely identifying relative relatedness" to me this "false" and "coincidentally" is translated into the consequence of either two things, reversions or homoplasies. So that in mentioning this, which is defined as a problem, not just by me, but by Soares et al, Klyosov, and a whole bunch of other folks who study rapidly evolving loci, that the issue is not trivial. In fact it is unpredictable, often invisible without adequate sampling, and its triviality is unattestable to. Second, since you are modifying the page, and inserting words that could be considered opinion, you have to also deal with the critique. Trivial is not applicable in this situation. Practically speaking, there is not going to be any other person critiquing this except me. I marked off this sentence in-situ some time ago and it was not reworded (see main edit page) and therefore the issue gets critiqued with all these words because it was unattended to. PB666 yap 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Too many words, but I still did read. You are not correct in any meaningful sense. The sentence does not say how many that enough would be but we are sometimes now seeing papers with >60 STR markers. The chances of these problems, especially if we consider that we are here not talking about one individual's test, but a whole population, can be ignored. Not good enough for you, then let "enough" be 300 STR markers. The sentence only says that "enough is enough" and that is by definition correct, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, this is not always true and the fact that you don't understand why makes the word "trivial" all the more problematic. You could use 1000 STR, however if you are selecting haplotypes from an area in which only one derivative lineage is detected, then a number of these STR could have undergone reversion undetected
- The only thing that would improve with 60 versus 25 is the confidence interval would reduce because the Poisson distribution of reversions would collapse, the collapse = k / (#STR)^0.5 . But here again, no-one is doing 60 STR reliably yet, most of Klyosov is 17 to 25. Lets take an example. Suppose we have 25 sites all identical rates. Now suppose we have 10 mutations. We throw out the mutations 1 by 1, the state can be + or -. We seed the analysis by premising a branch a mutation, the other branch is very bushy and therefore can be resolved back to the seqMRCA. The first 1 thrown out will not revert anything, the second that is thrown out has a 1/50 chance of reverting the first, the third that is thrown out has a ~2/50 risk of the first or the second and so on in a Markov chain. There is good chance of a reversion that follows a Poisson distribution, and only by developing a Markov chain one can assess at the end of 10 selections the possible range of variants observed. In some cases you may observe 4 and in others 10. Then add a mixture of rate possibilities for each site, and repeat. At any point in the Markov chain, insert a branch(s), and continue on a 2nd Markov chain. In addition mid stream begin altering the mutation rate as observed. This is the way in which one determines the probability of missing a mutation. Adding to these sources of mutations, simply stated are binomial issues, rate errors, etc.
- If you want to understand more about this read Endicott, P; Ho, SY; Metspalu, M; Stringer, C (September 2009), "Evaluating the mitochondrial timescale of human evolution", Trends Ecol. Evol. (Amst.) 24 (9): 515–21, doi:10.1016/j.tree.2009.04.006, PMID 19682765. There are a few others.
- This has nothing to do with the tiny probability of a COINCIDENCE of identical or near identical repeat results on STR markers, in a population. Surely you realize this? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. 363 words. 50 would have done it?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:41, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- The coincidence is immeasurable because these lines have reversed, Klysovo p.228 36 R1a1 covering 18 countries, that is 2 samples per country. 015 is a standalone chain, 012 has two basal branches and is stand-alone. Balkans has 4 standalone trees all of which are shorter. Klyosov claims there are no anomolies in the trees, just as Ingman et al 2000 stated he observed no signs of selection, 7 years later is a different story, people see what they look for, if they don't look for abnormalities in their work because it makes analysis easier, then, of course, they won't see it. You can argue with me all you want, but the precedences in molecular anthropology is that tight confidence windows are invariably overstated. Comments stay, you are not objective about Klyosov. Now go waste 2 hours counting letters.PB666 yap 02:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- The sentence you are complaining about has nothing to do with Klyosov. It just says that with enough markers, the chance of coincidence goes down a lot, and this is true. You have spent about a thousand words trying to argue against a tautology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- The coincidence is immeasurable because these lines have reversed, Klysovo p.228 36 R1a1 covering 18 countries, that is 2 samples per country. 015 is a standalone chain, 012 has two basal branches and is stand-alone. Balkans has 4 standalone trees all of which are shorter. Klyosov claims there are no anomolies in the trees, just as Ingman et al 2000 stated he observed no signs of selection, 7 years later is a different story, people see what they look for, if they don't look for abnormalities in their work because it makes analysis easier, then, of course, they won't see it. You can argue with me all you want, but the precedences in molecular anthropology is that tight confidence windows are invariably overstated. Comments stay, you are not objective about Klyosov. Now go waste 2 hours counting letters.PB666 yap 02:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Too many words, but I still did read. You are not correct in any meaningful sense. The sentence does not say how many that enough would be but we are sometimes now seeing papers with >60 STR markers. The chances of these problems, especially if we consider that we are here not talking about one individual's test, but a whole population, can be ignored. Not good enough for you, then let "enough" be 300 STR markers. The sentence only says that "enough is enough" and that is by definition correct, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Your writing is pretty much a distraction from the critique "the chances of falsely identifying relative relatedness" to me this "false" and "coincidentally" is translated into the consequence of either two things, reversions or homoplasies. So that in mentioning this, which is defined as a problem, not just by me, but by Soares et al, Klyosov, and a whole bunch of other folks who study rapidly evolving loci, that the issue is not trivial. In fact it is unpredictable, often invisible without adequate sampling, and its triviality is unattestable to. Second, since you are modifying the page, and inserting words that could be considered opinion, you have to also deal with the critique. Trivial is not applicable in this situation. Practically speaking, there is not going to be any other person critiquing this except me. I marked off this sentence in-situ some time ago and it was not reworded (see main edit page) and therefore the issue gets critiqued with all these words because it was unattended to. PB666 yap 20:19, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- Can you please consider my proposal in the above section about word limits? Will you tango with me? You still have not answered, and this post is again quite problematic. The first sentence shows that you did not even read the first words of the sentence you are commenting on. So this mass of words (360 words, significantly more than my proposed daily limit) is all irrelevant, all off on a tangent, discouraging and ruining all possible discussion. Holding yourself to shorter remarks would force us to read what you are responding to and what you are writing. The sentence above is not just opinion because "enough" is a relative word. It might be nice to find a citation, eventually.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
Correctly assessing variation is not "Trivial"
If man could build a rocket with enough rocket fuel we could easily go to alpha-centuari. Of to simplify to 16th century wisodm: If wishes were horses, beggars would ride. The problem is that no such rocket exists. Name one instance where 60 STR have been used in a global population survey.WP:CRYSTAL.PB666 yap 12:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I believe there are now a few, and I just started to go looking but stopped myself. What am I doing? The number 60 has absolutely no relevance here. There is no discussion here about how much is enough, not in the article and not coming from you or me. The sentence only says "enough would be enough". By definition, this is true. "How long is a piece of string?" If you are claiming that researchers NEVER have enough STRs then the burden of proof is on your side because clearly the whole field disagrees with you. In any case, to make a general attack upon the use of STR markers in clustering, if that is your intention, would simply be WP:FRINGE (and just plain wrong), and in any case it is not something which should expounding upon here on this article talk page. You have used this url quite enough for your experimental "stream of consciousness" writing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- You could have responded in five words "I did not hear that", or "I am not going to change this no matter what evidence you present, and then I am going to grand stand for 200 words". The number of 60 is important because you brought it up, what I was reading they used 5, 6, 10, 17, and 25, back and forth. If you are not going to defend your statement you need to rewrite the sentence anyway it contained grammatica errors. Second I can site numerous paper after paper in molecular anthropology where one moron comes and says I attach this genetic change to this event +/- few percent error, and the next author comes along and blows his behind out of the water. I have blown a few of these out of the water, myself. Confidence is about what we know, what we want to know and what we want to assess. Independent sources variation are cross multiplied to form a product variation, if the distributions are normal (unskewed; almost never true in molecular anthropology) then variation (SD) = (RV12 + RV22 + ..... RVN2)0.5. where RV = relative variance (SDi/Averagei) created by a single source of variation. Relative confidence (95.4%) is a range centered about the mean and 4SD wide. In the case of most molecular studies data has to be coded as natural logs and handled differently. In the vast majority of cases where all sources of variation have been calculated the relative confidence ranges are typically -0.5 to +0.75 relative to the mean. With extremely bushy trees, and very large number of events covering many different evolving sites this improves, but in tree that are a single lineage, such as are common in certain subpopulations with R1a1 those optimal conditions are not provided. Ergo it is misleading to single out a single source and say it is "trivial" particularly when you cannot step up to the plate and prove it, what really matters is the product of all sources of variation. And if you don't believe there are many sources of variation in estimating Y-DNA TMRCAs then place your references defending your point of view and I will bring forth mine and we shall see what is trivial and what is not.
- This is particularly relevant since Underhill (the biggest review this year with a large number of authors) uses a different dating technique, no-one really knows within +/-60% relative range when the Y-chromosomal MRCA is, and so on, and here you are sitting here saying that "clearly the whole field disagrees with you", OK so put-up or . . . . .PB666 yap 18:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- You wanna know why the Y-DNA pages are in such bad shape, one simple reason, all the worshipers at the alter of the Y-chromosome (Male divinity) that edit these pages are so blinded by the latest saying of their favorite pundit that they never sit down to check the facts and the history. That is the whole reason of the Kurgan edit-war, outsiders to Y-DNA have a whole different take (as we have seen). If going by precedences of accuracy alone, we should be 99% skeptical of everything in the field that is published. And why this fixation to begin with, even under non-selective conditions Y correlates with 33% of the rest of the genomes evolution, with cultural selection (hegemony of male surnames) that can go down to 0%, if you were to look at HLA looking in Northern Ireland, with 5000 people typed for genetic evidence of Northwest/central Chinese origin you would find no evidence of migration at all. Idolic genuflectations, nothing more. PB666 yap 18:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to have a grudge.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have 25 years experience in a pattern of mis-assumptions about statistics that never seem to stop repeating itself.PB666 yap 04:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- People with 25 years experience in a vaguely related field can still have grudges, and can still be disruptive editors, and they can even be plain wrong. It is pointless to try to pull rank on Wikipedia, as has been pointed out to you by admins and other editors in the past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- I have 25 years experience in a pattern of mis-assumptions about statistics that never seem to stop repeating itself.PB666 yap 04:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- You seem to have a grudge.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Rest of section
We have reached a point where agreement cannot be reached via consensus. Let's just leave the comments as they are for now and when objectively discussing these becomes a priority I will be happy to discuss them as always. There, that will clean up the talk page for the rest of the day. PB666 yap 20:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I take it this means you do not want to "tango" (as per your words for my proposal above)? It is a shame you could not even bring yourself to answer my proposal in clear and honorable words. Honestly, I find these comments a bit mysterious. What do you mean? You do not get to say that you'll be ignoring consensus on Wikipedia, if that is what you mean. And I believe that if you want to put a line under failed conversations the best way is to let them be archived and try to move forward, for example as per my proposal.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- No Andrew, I am really tired of these discussions where you ask rhetorical questions as a cover for WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issues. All you have to do is look at any other Infoboxes on wikipedia to know that there is a substantive quality difference. You don't need to argue with me. On this one issue I am going to open up a thread in HGH about remodeling the infobox, that is an area of my expertise, anyway, but what goes into these boxes is a garbage in garbage out issue. Apply TLDR ro your infobox.PB666 yap 23:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- It was not a rhetorical question. I made a very simple and concrete proposal on how to work here on this talkpage, which is based on a self-critical listening to the voices of the third parties. That's what you keep telling me to do right? Please answer to the proposal. Can you not live without these long postings which go off-topic and destroy communication? Are you telling the consensus concern to go jump in the lake after having lectured me so many times on its importance?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:39, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- I would argue that you are destroying communication by the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude you are simply disguising the communication strategy to promote POV edits. So enough with this, when you decide you want to be objective, I have a talk page, don't abuse it. I can totally be off this page until you decide to do away with the WP:OWN and WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. You asked me to amend the comments, based on the improvements I did. I didn't ask you to start a novel about the remaining three. I just simply gave you a reason why these critiques will persist. Save the page, look around at the diverse pages on Wikipedia, particularly featured articles, when your in the mood to discuss change, talk to me, otherwise . . . . . . . PB666 yap 02:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Do I make myself clear? I am not limiting my edits, I am going to limit to whom I respond to. That is the better way and the comments stay.PB666 yap 02:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- As usual this is full of references to un-defined things (which POV edit am I supposed to be promoting? what novel did I write?), and it is also clearly very inappropriate to write, as you often do, in terms of "do this or else". By the way I asked your to remove the comments, not just amend them. What was the point of them being in a comment box? Who is meant to read them there? You are not using talk pages correctly, as has been pointed out to you by admins, and also in past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing I need to further respond here.PB666 yap 12:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- It would at least be much more honest of you not to pretend to be responding to people. You are a monologue writer by nature. You do not read what you respond to. You notice a few words and then start writing about your latest thoughts on those words. However, if you are going to quit pretending to be in a discussion I think it is also time that you took my advice and moved your blog to a more appropriate webspace. As announced at the top of this page: This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- There is nothing I need to further respond here.PB666 yap 12:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- As usual this is full of references to un-defined things (which POV edit am I supposed to be promoting? what novel did I write?), and it is also clearly very inappropriate to write, as you often do, in terms of "do this or else". By the way I asked your to remove the comments, not just amend them. What was the point of them being in a comment box? Who is meant to read them there? You are not using talk pages correctly, as has been pointed out to you by admins, and also in past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Andronovo associated w/ Indo-Iranian
I have corrected this from Indo-Aryan. Please look over Indo-Iranians, Indo-Iranian languages, Indo-Aryan migration, in addition to Andronovo culture again. DinDraithou (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Thank you DD, I noticed the same thing.PB666 yap 18:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- I stand corrected. Thanks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Balto-Slavic are not 'closely' related branches to Indo-Aryan. Apart from the satem shift, they are not a sub-branch of a common Indo-Aryan, but rather formed a continuum from Iranic-Balto-Slavic- Germanic. Only thing is, the satem innovation actually reached Slavic and Baltic areas, not Germanic, which is more peripheral. Hxseek (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Germanic is essentially similar to Italo-Celtic in most ways, with some of its own peculiarities and a few things in common with Balto-Slavic. Like Italic and Celtic, it retains a bunch of Early PIE features. AFAIK the Germanic case system is the most conservative in all IE. DinDraithou (talk) 19:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hxseek, that sounds right to me, but hopefully I did not imply that Balto-Slavic developed from Indo-IRANIAN. :) Maybe the wording is a bit weird because I try to be accurate concerning what authors say, silly me, without making them sound dumb, naive me. Klyosov clearly makes at least a near equation between PROTO-Balto-Slavic and PROTO-Indo-Iranian and because that is not really in itself wrong, but it is a strange way to put it, I have tried to explain it in a way consistent with his way, but not using his very unorthodox, and potentially divisive, words. Of course how you and DinDraithou explain it is more conventional. But would a reader looking this up after reading Klyosov get that? Anyway, please change the wording if you see the path.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian are particularly close. Ancient texts like the Rig Veda can be easily translated into Russian but there are substantial difficulties involved getting them to make sense in Western European languages. DinDraithou (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- What is that sentence they do: God gave teeth, god gives bread? Looks even better with Baltic which is presumably close to what they all looked like once.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Folks this is an area of discussion that belongs on another page, DD is right about the phraseology, Indo-Iranian is the more appropriate, Indo-Aryan is more colloquial, that is what the argument should be over. The particular argument above is like saying English is not a Germanic language because is has alot of latin influences or that it is celtic because Gaelic was once lengua franca of the Ilses, systematics has assigned the languages and their names and we should use the proper versions there-of.PB666 yap 21:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- No there is no argument here, phraseology is also the wrong word, and Indo Aryan is a real technical word for a branch of Indo Iranian, not a colloquial term. Furthermore this is one of the first times for a while that several editors are using this tlk page to talk about the article: It is not for another page. Will you allow other editors to work here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:00, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
- But it is also used colliquially to describe Eastern Indo-European languages, supposedly derived from the Aryan race. And I am talking about the article all the time, it simply you don't want to hear the critique. Ergo it was tagged and cn'ed, and your the one with WP:OWN problem.PB666 yap 04:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Nonsense. It was not tagged and cn'ed. It was simply changed and everyone agreed to change it. There is no argument. Please stop posting fantasy accusations on this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Argumentative edits: please stop them
While these things are happening constantly, the future of this article remains a concern:-
1. PB666 removes a reference to Klyosov [12] and then a little while later puts a {{who?}} [13]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
2. PB666 tagging a section as POV, which means that he claims a Wikipedian is pushing his own opinions, when his talk page comments show clearly that he realizes that the POV being questioned is that of a published and notable author in the field: [14],[15]
- WP:OVERTAGGING: If the tag doesn't say what you want it to say, don't use it!
- Also see [16] --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
3. Argumentative citation of wiki guidelines but clearly in opposition to the spirit of those guidelines: "Note:I challenged it. If it isn't referenced I get to remove it." [17]. The guideline being cited is never meant to be used when the fact being questioned is one considered obvious, and the talkpage comments and indeed the edits of PB666 show that he realizes very well that the sentence he tagged is correct. He just preferred a different wording. There is no problem having opinions, and making a case for them like other Wikipedians, but the approach here is clearly aimed at avoiding any such discussion by citing "rules". This is referred to as WP:Wikilawyering, covering senses 2, 3, and 4 in the relevant WP page:
- Wikilawyering (and the related legal term pettifogging) is a pejorative term which describes various questionable ways of judging other Wikipedians' actions. It may refer to certain quasi-legal practices, including:
- 1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy;
- 2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit or underlying principles;
- 3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the underlying principles they express;
- 4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
Can it stop?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Something needs to stop, that's for sure. I'm sure both editors have the article's best interest at heart, however, look at this talk page ! its all from the past week. Seems like excessive, sometimes pointless edits arguing about minute details at best, sometimes arguements posted are tangential and cirumentative (?if that's a word) Hxseek (talk) 11:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, and interestingly enough Andrew is carrying on the war when my addition to the page has dropped markedly, He misses me, feels he needs a sense of closure. While he was working his Maelstorm, however, I have been gathering references for. Go to the ANI, you will see clearly they tell Andrew 1. Take a few days away from editing 2. He has ownership issues, which he argued with one editor about. OTOH, I left a 1 paragraph response. The thing is here, I am the one person he can't deal with. He can deal with Muntawandi, he has the upper hand, he can deal with Small Victory, obviously upper hand, but when it comes to me, I have access to far more literature, basic science literature and critiques than he does. Not only that I have been editing longer made more edits. And I know the difference between an encyclopedia than content like this:"Concerning E-M123* (tested and definitely without E-M34) Cruciani et al. (2004) located one individual in Bulgaria after testing 3401 individuals from five continents, and Underhill et al. (2000) located one individual in Central Asia. In a 568 person study in Iberia, Flores et al. (2004) found 2 E-M123* individuals, both in Northern Portugal out of 109 people tested there. In a 553 person study of Portugal, Gonçalves et al. (2005) also found 2 E-M123* individuals in Northern Portugal, out of 101 people, as well as 2 in Madeira out of 129 people tested there. Flores et al. (2005) found one individual out of 146 Jordanians. Cadenas et al. (2007) found none amongst the significant presence of E-M34 they found in their study of the UAE, Yemen and Qatar. Arredi et al. (2004) found 1 Tunisian in their study of 275 men in Northern Africa. Zalloua et al. (2008) found 26 E-M123 cases in Cyprus, out of 164 men tested; and 27 Palestinians out of 291 tested[28]".
- He does not have the upper hand. And shortly I am going to bring several more references into the fray that really question why he carried on about by critique of 'trivial' errors. This is not a wall of words and what Andrew is going to do next is say I wasn't talking about this I was talking about that and your not on-topic. Watch.PB666 yap 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Of course this talkpage should not be about individuals, but I think at this stage I need to summarize the problem in order to avoid misunderstandings. (I have no way of communicating with PB666 which works. See his talk page.) On the basis that there is a clear consensus on the problem you mention now, I have proposed (above [18]) to PB666 that he and I agree to limit our talk postings on this page. He has characteristically managed to take >1000 words to refuse, without any actual relevant explanation.
- There are two reasons that just ignoring his posts is a questionable approach:-
- 1. They are enormous, and their unnecessary size (they are filled with irrelevant chatter) is in itself very disruptive. This needs to stop in and of itself.
- 2. They are filled with disruptive accusations and misstatements about what other editors are saying and doing, and he increasingly seems to be dedicated to deliberately trying to create disputes between other editors and me personally. [19], [20], [21], [22]
- Other editors might also want to keep in mind that PB666 has stated quite openly since he arrived at this article that putting me personally through a "painful" self improvement process as an editor is his main goal in what he is doing here. (Because he says then I can handle more Y haplogroup articles the same way as he is teaching me.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- You are doing that all by yourself. For example getting all peeved about the 3 remaining comments, and then going biserk about a new added comment. You could have just sat down and tried to see if there was a better way to word it, considered that to some trivial might be an opinionated word. Nope you pulled the red flag and tossed it in front of the bull, problem is you had movie props as swords. As for the rest of your diatripe below, I not taking your bait, you can wait, and I will defend my comments above and we will see if you actually have literature to back you up. "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears;I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him. The evil that men do lives after them; The good is oft interred with their bones;So let it be with Caesar. The noble Brutus Hath told you Caesar was ambitious:....."PB666 yap 01:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
- Although PB666's behavior here is clearly outside all norms (as several admins have confirmed to him on ANI)
- , and on its own would normally get a block, admins tend not to like to get involved in anything looking like a content dispute between only two people. The very long postings of PB666 make it seem like there is a highly technical content dispute somewhere, but there is none. And he jumps on every third voice that appears, either to chase them away (attacking MarmadukePercy and Wapondaponda, for example, both of which cases spread to other talk pages) or to try to get them confused.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:57, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
The evidence to support the origin of R1a1 is overwhelming....
I think has become clear that R1a1 formed in the regions between Iran, Turkey, and Armenia. Ice age maps, characterize these regions as having cold, but survivable landscapes. There is considerable evidence that Hap R originated in Iran, and there is the inarguable and long-standing, autosomal and craniometric evidence, showing these populations to pole highest in the Caucasoid corner. Additionally, while modern inhabitants of this region pair strongly (in the relative sense) with European populations, they are clearly genetic outliers in the Near East. In fact, all the data together suggests that the phenomena of loose pairing, in this case, is related to the strong genetic relationship of these populations to the theoretical population of 'root' (earliest) Caucasoids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zadeh79 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
- Hi. I think that in a very general way, saying that R1a has ancestry at some point in the Middle East is not controversial. But R1a itself is one specific male line. The question is not whether it was in the Middle East, and to be honest we can hardly say anything about where the mutation happened either, but what we can write about is where it actually spread from. In other words, how were the geographical patterns of today created? This is what the genetics papers write about, and these are the only sources we can use. We can not add our own ideas no matter how reasonable. BTW you deleted some things on the article without explaining why. People coming to Wikipedia want to know what published authors have written. They do not want to know what Wikipedians think. So we can not simply censor any well known and widely discussed ideas no matter what we think of them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I gather you reverted his little unsubstantiated input , Andrew ? Hxseek (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)