Talk:Haplogroup E-M96

message: Despite having a footnote reference to an article (which by the way can not be read without purchasing it) the following comments about the origin of E3b2 seems highly speculative and inappropriate to me, because not a generally held opinion: 
E3b2 was present in the Maghreb and today it is the most important haplogroup of the Berbers (having arisen among the ancestral population to the Beta Israel, or Ethiopian Jews[1])
--Andrew Lancaster 09:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Wapondaponda is trying to suppress the Asian origin theory of haplogroup E because he's an Afrocentrist with personal objections to it. At first, he made a feeble attempt on the Talk page to justify his actions, but that was shown to comprise original research. So now, he doesn't discuss his edits anymore or even give a reason for them. He simply deletes the evidence he doesn't like. Eight times in the span of five days, as of this writing. He's also guilty of OR and POV pushing in a number of other articles. At least two other editors (Causteau and The Ogre) are in agreement with me on this, and a third (Andrew Lancaster) has criticized his tactics. He needs to be stopped. ---- Small Victory (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. As can be seen in my expose above, Wapondaponda is guilty yet again of some pretty blatant original research. He has been consistently pushing POV across a number of articles that attempts to minimize the extent of non-Sub-Saharan African genetic influence on Asia, Europe & Africa and maximize the Sub-Saharan African influence on the aforementioned regions (even if that means inventing such influence, which is usually the case). His m.o. is basically to insert his POV into the article, feebly and briefly attempt to justify that POV when forced to on said article's talk page, then just knee-jerk revert thereafter once his POV has been exposed, as it invariably will. A more permanent solution to this problem is definitely required. Causteau (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I blocked Wapondaponda, then unblocked him again as he seemed to be cooperative. I haven't read all the discussion, but if Ogre and Andrew can comment here, or if you can direct me to relevant comments of theirs, that would help me recognize what consensus there may be if the edit wars start up again. kwami (talk) 19:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that Wapondaponda is not the only one being a bit tendentious. What's more some of his edits are closer to what I think is consensus in the field than those opposed to him. After some discussion with Wapondaponda we have gone over the Chandrasekar paper together and I see that indeed that paper makes no new contribution to this debate, and only cites out-of-date articles. The E* which the paper supposedly discovered is not presented as such in the paper. The sample was not tested for any sub-clades of E-P96, so it is entirely unremarkable. Everyone in this debate including Wapondaponda should get more back to basics and actually read both the articles they are citing as well as the comments of other editors.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice that anti-Afrocentrism is also advocacy. MrSativa (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wapondaponda should be blocked from editing 

message: To summarize my position, Chandrasekar quotes Hammer's articles when referring to the Asian origin hypothesis. Other studies have neutralized Hammer's articles and Hammer himself has revised his position. This makes all the claims made by Chandrasekar that rest on Hammer's articles obsolete. In this regard it does not qualify as a reliable source. As posted here, I have already looked at the only section of the article which would appear to be independent of Hammer's articles where they state Our findings of the presence of the YAP insertion in northeast Indian tribes and Andaman islanders with haplogroup D indicate that some of the M168 chromosomes have given rise to the YAP insertion and M174 mutation in south Asia. However they have not explained why. They have not addressed the branching order, neither have they discovered any new polymorphisms. In any case, the scenario that follows is totally dependent on Hammer's publications. Since Hammer has revised the age of E from 31,000 years to 55,000 years old, and Chandrasekar references 31,000, Chandrasekar is obsolete. Furthermore, there are no recent publications that support an Asian origin of E that are not based on Hammer. To the contrary, all the most recent publications support an African origin of E, rendering it the mainstream position. These include Underhill 2000,2001, Underhill and Kivisild 2007, Semino 2004, Cruciani 2002,2007 Shi 2008, Stone 2008, Weale 2003, Wells  2002. WP:UNDUE categorically states Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as a majority view.
Wapondaponda (talk) 16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything has already been explained many times. You've just chosen to ignore the explanations because they prove you wrong. Read Causteau's long post above your "section break". That pretty much covers it all. ---- Small Victory (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, everything has already been covered. Wapondaponda has just started a new section to obscure the discussion that has already taken place above, something he regularly does when his arguments get debunked (as they invariably will). Have a look at his user page for more on his modus operandi. Causteau (talk) 04:57, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Chandrasekar section break

message: I propose that Haplogroup E-P147 (Y-DNA) be merged into Haplogroup E-M96 (Y-DNA). I think that the content in the E-P147 article can easily be explained in the context of E-M96, and the E-M96 article is of a reasonable size that the merging of Foo will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. --17:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Is that map for E distribution accurate?
--109.162.136.215 (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map Accuracy 

message: Substituted at 18:02, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Haplogroup E-M96. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110726031920/http://ytree.ftdna.com/ to http://ytree.ftdna.com/
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121205040152/http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/msm049/DC1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cruciani&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT to http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/msm049/DC1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cruciani&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080626054459/http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol22/issue10/images/large/molbiolevolmsi185f04_ht.jpeg to http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/vol22/issue10/images/large/molbiolevolmsi185f04_ht.jpeg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216062418/http://www.genebase.com/tutorial/item.php?tuId=2 to http://www.genebase.com/tutorial/item.php?tuId=2
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:53, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , 
Some of my recent edits were recently reverted and I am not sure why. In the section "origins" I recently made a few changes to a recent edit regarding the haplogroup D0. An editor had added a section concerning the recent discovery of the haplogroup in West Asia (along with Nigeria). There were some statements in the edit that did not accurately affect the source. 
I made the following changes:
The new instances of D0 were found by ftdna, not the Haber team that wrote the paper, as the previous editor had stated. Also, the previous editor had stated that the west Asian branched were all older, but according to the source the branch the Syrian individual's D0 belonged to was more basal/early-branching than the others, but the Saudi Arabian D0 is (as far as is known so far) not more basal (or older) than the Nigerian D0.
The current version contains the statement:
"According to Runfeldt and Sager, D0 is a diverging branch of D and should not be considered as more deeply rooted as D itself."
This does not appear to be in the source. D0 is described in Haber and elsewhere as a deeply rooted branch of the D lineage, but more basal/deep than other D lineages. My other edits to this section reflect the source: the two branches of D0 are one that is found in West Africa and one that is found in the Middle East.
Also, the previous editor (in the version that has now been restored) states that the presence of D0 in West Asia supports an Asian origin of E. This is POV/personal opinion and is nowhere stated in the source. I am not sure that the section on D0 in West Asia is relevant in an article of haplogroup E (it seems not to be), since in the source cited, the origin of E is not discussed (nor is E discussed), and D0 is a haplogroup on the D branch of DE rather than the E branch.
In addition, the the part I added to the section on the Haber paper is not personal opinion/POV but is found in the paper itself: the calculated dates of divergence for haplogroups DE, E, and D0 are determined to predate the out of Africa migration of ancestral Eurasians, and thus are considered to support an African origin for those haplogroups.
On pages 4-5 of the paper the authors write:
“All non-Africans carry around 2% Neanderthal DNA in their genomes (Green et al. 2010), and Neanderthal fossils have only been reported outside Africa. The geographical distribution of Neanderthals thus suggests that the mixing probably occurred outside Africa, and the ubiquitous presence of Neanderthal DNA in present-day non-Africans is most easily explained if the mixing took place once, soon after the migration out. This mixing has been dated with some precision using the length of the introgressed segments in the 45,000-year-old (43,210- 46,880 years) Siberian (Ust’-Ishim) to 232-430 generations before he lived, i.e. 49,900-59,400 years ago assuming a generation time of 29 years (Fu et al. 2014). If this date represented the time of the migration out of Africa, it would exclude the first two scenarios (Figure 2B and 2C) [2B and 2C being the scenarios involving a Eurasian back-migration of E and D0, and 2D being the third, and according to the authors more likely, scenario involving an African origin of E and D0 as well as DE]. Thus the combination of Y phylogenetic structure and dating of the out-of-Africa migration based on the 45,000-year-old Siberian fossil (Fu et al. 2014) favors the third scenario (Figure 2D) involving the migration out of C, D and FT between 50,300 years ago (lower bound of the FT diversification, Table S2) and 59,400 years ago (upper bound of the introgression; see Figure 3) which is in accordance with suggested models incorporating an African origin of the DE lineages…”
Skllagyook (talk)
:Please see the talk page about haplogroup DE. One discussion is enough. Greetings.—AsadalEditor (talk) 08:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origins, haplogroup D0, and the Haber study