Talk:Haplogroup F-M89

message: The article contains a lot of confusing claims. First, Y-haplogroup F (and its female counterpart, mtDNA haplogroup N) probably didn't leave Africa earlier than 50 000 years ago, because they bear Upper Paleolithic technologies that got to East Africa as late as at that time. By 47 000 years BP, maternal lineages UK coming from N are present in the Levant and shortly after radiate to North Africa, Europe and South-Western Asia. However, their presence in the Levant may rather be a result of a secondary migration. This can be indirectly supported by the fact that the maternal N-lineages present in the Near East mostly belong to one lineage (R: UK, JT, HV) that is only a subset of many lineages stemming from N. Moreover, a later expansion of F+N that started 45 000 years BP and headed to Central Asia and India/South-Eastern Asia, is accompanied by far more diverse composition of N-lineages and suggests that the original migration center of the whole F+N group may have been somewhere in the Middle East (Iran?). In general, the course of F+N's migration rather followed the Arabian coast, similarly like in the case C+M.
The origin of Afro-Asiatic languages lies almost certainly in the Horn of Africa 8000 years BP. The African lineage of R1 has nothing to do with it, because it is present only in few West African groups. J1 is a signature of the spread of Semitic tribes. K2 got to East Africa through Arabia probably as early as during the Paleolithic. Centrum99 82.100.61.114 17:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So the "Babel haplogroup" confuses others too ,-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.186.118.115 (talk) 05:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Technically people in G, I etc are all in F. But I can see what you mean. Can the wording be tweaked in order to remove ambiguity?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: confusing claims

message: Hi Maulucioni, I see you made a new map. This means the article now has two quite similar but conflicting maps. One effectively implies that F originated in the Middle East, and the other implies it originated in India. Both maps show no source for these implied assertions. I am thinking some people might argue concerning yours that it more controversial because:
* by using clear rather than fuzzy colours, implies more strongly?
* India as a point of origin for F is probably harder to source than the Middle East?
Anyway can I suggest you consider the following source as probably the most recent to do anything equivalent (it contains a sort of map which implies migration routes in a way):-
Let me know what you think? I certainly do not want to discourage people making maps for genetics articles because we could do with some more, but we do have to be careful not to make maps say things which can not be sourced. In a genetics context a map can be WP:OR.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Andrew. OK, I take the source you're giving me. Chiaroni et al 2009 literally says: ...The F* and P* haplogroups are paraphyletic and often rare, except for F* in India, which codistributes with H,.. And we know that H mainly distributes in Indian subcontinent. That's only an example, there are many of them and they are sourced in the article itself. I will try to support my map with several of the references I based on. --Maulucioni (talk) 05:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Just trying to foresee possible controversy. I do see why your point also of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maps 

message: *central india?the origin of haplogroup f is the northern middle east in south caucasus  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.114.193.206 (talk) 05:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Serious contributions would be welcome. Do you have a source?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: lol

message: I'm not trying to dismiss any theories but it seems evident that Haplogroup F orginated in India. Why then is there so much focus on the Out of Africa theory. At least help people distinguish between what are facts and theories because this article doesn't show any evidence for an African origin of Haplogroup. I understand this is the mainstream view but it doesn't really fit in with this article. All i'm just asking for is a simple explanation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.139.56 (talk) 01:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Modern humans have an African origin, we know, but past year user Wapondaponda said to us that the whole region between Africa and India has not revealed any ancestral lineages that could be associated with the Out of Africa migration. The Arabian peninsula and the Middle East would be expected to have a very high level of genetic diversity being in proximity to Africa, but instead India has the second highest level of genetic diversity. There seems to have been a major extinction of lineages in the Arabian peninsula because even y-chromosome haplogroup DE has a disjointed distribution, being found in Africa and East Asia but not in between. Also in human mitochondrial DNA haplogroups, we see that between Africa and India has not revealed any ancestral lineages, as indicated by Abu-Amero 2008. --Maulucioni (talk) 05:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

text: I think I am saying the same thing another way if I say that there is no necessary conflict between an F "out of India" theory and a more general out of Africa theory. All the haplogroups start in Africa if you go back far enough. It is just a question of how they dispersed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confused 

message: Especially in the F* section I have my doubts about whether all these article cited actually tested for all known sub-clades of F and therefore whether they are all using the same definition of F*.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the same doubts. Especially the sentence that "A 2004 study showed that 92% of Svans tested had it, as well as 58% of Rutuls, 58% of Lezgins in Azerbaijan..."  is really shameful. Everybody with some idea about population genetics just knows that these "F*s" are "Gs"!!!Centrum99 (talk) 01:13, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think so. I'd believe that these "F*s" are J1s. Gs are M201 in this source. Maybe we can see this: Yunusbayev 2006, it says that by Al-Zahery et al. (2003) and Cinnioglu et al. (2004) showed that haplogroups frequently found in Iraq and Anatolia-namely, J, E, G, together with haplogroup J (xM172), are also common in the Caucasus. --Mauricio (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's quite irrelevat. F*s in Georgians are Gs, F*s in Dagestanis are J1s. Anyway, they are not F*s. 89.235.44.18 (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I was confused about that, but I added just what was in the source to avoid SYNTH. In the case of Lezgins, F* may have been actually J1 (I think? I'm not sure how exactly we would know...), but in other populations, that's much less likely... like, it's not really believable that Svans would be 92% J1. As for corresponding to G, that is impassable also, because F* appears next to G for the Georgian genotype in the 2004 study (Georgians appeared 31% G and 14% F*). Is there any way to tell which one (G, J1, or nothing at all) they are mistaking for "F*"...? I would say, for right now, we should keep it in but with a note of some sort saying that its doubtful that it is actually F* rather than another subgroup of Haplogroup F. --Yalens (talk) 22:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: One could also note that according to the page, at least one of the places Nasidze found F*, Armenia, has had F* detected in it in at least one other unaffiliated study as well...--Yalens (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is not a problem to distinguish real F*s from fake F*s. It must be listed in the article. By listing these "fake" data, you devalue the whole Wikipedia article. Centrum99 (talk) 19:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends what you mean. It is not easy to tell which ones are real F*s, but it is easy to list which critical mutations were tested in each article, and I'd suggest doing that.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:13, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, here is Nasidze's data... http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Y-STR_paper.pdf --Yalens (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  has someone checked to see if apples are being compared with apples? 

message: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/
On the basis of a broad distribution—involving all social and linguistic categories in India—and relatively high diversification patterns, it can be concluded that representatives of HGs C5-M356 H-M69*, F*, L1, and R2 have ancestry indigenous to the Asian subcontinent.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1380230/table/TB11/
F*-M89	28.9±4.4=24.5-33.3
Am J Hum Genet. 2006 February; 78(2): 202–221.
Published online 2005 December 16.
Copyright © 2005 by The American Society of Human Genetics. All rights reserved.
Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists
Sanghamitra Sengupta,1 Lev A. Zhivotovsky,2 Roy King,3 S. Q. Mehdi,4 Christopher A. Edmonds,3 Cheryl-Emiliane T. Chow,3 Alice A. Lin,3 Mitashree Mitra,5 Samir K. Sil,6 A. Ramesh,7 M. V. Usha Rani,8 Chitra M. Thakur,9 L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza,3 Partha P. Majumder,1 and Peter A. Underhill
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Concerning the Karafet article see table 2. Concerning the Sengupta ref you have copy pasted here, it is about India specifically, so it is not surprising if it gives a much younger age.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Your point is not clear. Are you saying the origin place in the infobox should be changed, or the map? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Sorry for being so thick. LOL. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not "my construct". I asked you what you suggest and you've not really answered.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible time of origin not supported by citation given; F*-M89	28.9±4.4' =24.5-33.3' is' 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: To explain to people what this latest dumping of cut and paste material is, the above has been posted by the editor of this page who is responsible for claiming copyright infringement on the image file, User:JohnLloydScharf. He claims the file is from a commercial website http://www.familytreedna.com/public/F-YDNA/default.aspx, however if you go to that commercial website and check the mark up, it is using the image from the Wikimedia website and not claiming it as their original work. (Theoretically, the website involved should have a more clear statement about the source.) I have posted on the file image webpage. It was inappropriate to paste anything about this here really, because the file is not even being used in this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not according to the person who deleted your tag on the file. And yet you have now started the same process for the equivalent IJ file. You are sure are keen to keep people busy.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Haplogroup F (Y-DNA).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: According to: Culture creates genetic structure in the Caucasus: Autosomal,mitochondrial,and Y-chromosomal variation in Daghestan. Elizabeth E Marchani, W Scott Watkins, Kazima Bulayeva, Henry C Harpending and Lynn B Jorde (2008) among Caucasian Avars in Daghestan Haplogroup F(F*xH,I,J2) 0.61. This haplogroup F among Iranians 0.40,Anatolian Turks 0.20. Also Haplogroup G among Avars 0.06 and J2 0.33 --81.163.42.167 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Haplogroup F among Caucasian Avars 

message: I noticed that HIJK was included as a descendant in the info box but not mentioned elsewhere in the article.  The new grouping appears to come from here but hasn't been incorporated anywhere else as of yet.  So just a heads up on this potential new SNP and grouping. Low-Pass DNA Sequencing of 1200 Sardinians Reconstructs European Y-Chromosome Phylogeny  --66.162.252.10 (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  HIJK-M578 

message: Andrew says Athey is cited by experts, but who is L. David Roper? Shouldn't we have a peer reviewed source for something as important as possible place of origin?
And the Armenian project at Family Tree DNA? Sorry, but I really think groups like this are subject to nationalistic influences so shouldn't be used. Dougweller (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Doug. I do not recognize the name of Roper, and looking at the revert I did, he was added back in by me. Please feel free to remove that. Please note that I did not want to defend everything in the article. There were a lot of edits lately, and not towards the direction of stronger sources. Some of the best sources were recently deleted, and the phylotree.org website was added in a few places.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: Just to clarify:
"According to the phylogeographic distribution of haplotypes observed among South Asian populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, the possibility arose of Y-DNA  haplogroup F and mtDNA  Haplogroup M might have originated in South Asia." is copyvio from the source with a possible pov change: "On the basis of the combined phylogeographic distributions of haplotypes observed among populations defined by social and linguistic criteria, candidate HGs that most plausibly arose in situ within the boundaries of present-day India include C5-M356, F*-M89, H-M69*"
Second sentence: "The presence of several haplogroup F, Haplogroup M and K that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that a coastal of early human migration out of Africa carried ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of the Indian subcontinent, or that some of them originated there" cf with "The presence of several subclusters of F and K (H, L, R2, and F*) that are largely restricted to the Indian subcontinent is consistent with the scenario that the coastal (southern route) migration(s) from Africa carried the ancestral Eurasian lineages first to the coast of Indian subcontinent (or that some of them originated there)." Doug Weller (talk) 15:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyvio 

message: " (L132.1, M89/PF2746). F* is found at: 10% in southern India; 8% in central India; in northern and western India about 1%; in Pakistan at 5%; in Sri Lanka at 10%; in Nepal (Tamang) at >4%; in Borneo and Java at 2%; Sulawesi and Lembata 4-5%.[18" is in part, not sure which part, sourced to gentis.ru, which IMHO fails WP:RS. Doug Weller (talk) 10:04, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ISOGG tree source gentis.ru 

message: Your map is misleading ! Have a look on Haplogroup I - see : there are many I all over the Bosnia, Serbia,  Sardinia...  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.244.217 (talk) 13:35, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Haplogroup I was already in Europe

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Haplogroup F-M89. 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/20110726093154/https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my033 to https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my033
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) 20:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Haplogroup F-M89. 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/20130526225204/http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=92331011 to http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=92331011
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) 00:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: Indo-European languages come from India... y-DNA haplogroup F comes from India... is there a theory that h. sapiens comes from India too?
This map gives a different origin for F-M89, but I'm not sure if it would be usable on WP:
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/f-ydna/about/background Tewdar (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  OIT v2.0 

message: I can't seem to find the source for the 90% of the male population in the world has f haplogroup as this is a major claim and has 0 citations  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2402:E280:3D03:7D:8509:A729:798:7C00 (talk) 16:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for the 90% statistics?