Talk:Haplogroup E-M215/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Mediator comments

My apologies if anything finds these comments a bit lacking, as I have no desire to rehash some of the fine points of a dispute that (even by Wikipedia standards) is overly concerned with semantics and hypercorrectness.

Before I begin, I want to reiterate some facts about genetic genealogy:

1. This is a very young field. The "state of the art" in the field changes very rapidly, which means that nomenclature and prevailing opinion also changes very rapidly, and it means that scholarly articles can have a very short shelf life before their methods and analysis become outdated.
2. Much of the raw data and, for that matter, some of the advances in the field have been made by private industry and the hobbyist community. This presents a problem that does not affect most of Wikipedia; much of the data out there has not been subject to any form of verification (i.e., time and place of origin of the ancestral line has not been verified, analysis and interpretation hasn't been updated to reflect new information, etc.)
3. The relative dominance or absence of a haplogroup in a given area does little to indicate its age or whether or not it is indigenous to an area; to the extent that we can currently measure these things, this sort of information is usually inferred from haplotype diversity and by the presence or absence of parent and/or sibling haplogroups. Until SNP and STR analysis of exhumed bodies becomes commonplace, this is the best approach we have.
4. Any information in the article other than listing the location and prevalence of a haplogroup invariably leads to speculation that will someday be challenged by other editors, precisely because of the first three facts listed. Therefore, it's probably better to err on the side of being vague (but less likely to be disproved) than being "precise" (but very likely to be contested).

Finding common ground

I'm sure we can find some common ground here, as what we all want is a better article, and there doesn't seem to be a substantive disagreement on the content of the article. What are things everyone can agree on? I'll start with a few things:

• The mutation M215 defines the haplogroup that is the subject of this page.
• It is found in varying levels in Africa and Eurasia.

Suggested course of action

1. Many of the discussion points here pertain to similar articles; I ask that interested parties take up their concerns at WikiProject Human Genetic History so that a consensus and guidelines can be developed for all human haplogroup articles in order to avoid future disputes.
2. Encourage everyone to read (or revisit) the following Wikipedia guidelines: WP:OWN, WP:NAM, WP:PSTS and WP:COOL.
3. Encourage the editors at the heart of this dispute to take a cool-down period; this would be helpful for those editors to find a sense of perspective (To be blunt - Ask yourself: do you REALLY have nothing more important in your life right now than to argue with strangers about something very trivial on the Internet?) and this would give other editors a period of time to take a look at the article without being drawn into an edit war themselves.

I see no reason why an amicable solution cannot be found; all I ask is that everyone involved check their hostility at the door and are willing to reconsider their own views and opinions. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 21:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

A few points as a first response from Andrew Lancaster:

Concerning WikiProject Human Genetic History see [1]. I would like as many editors as possible, including any editors who have worked on this article or similar ones before, and I have contacted potential editors wherever I see them but I think, from messages I have had, that many potential editors with a lot of knowledge in this area are put off from entering the discussion.

I personally think this has a lot to do with what you mention above: the discussion being "overly concerned with semantics and hypercorrectness" and more specifically the way in which edits are reverted and deleted in the style of the above "silly" reverts as I described it in a section, with "hypercorrect" criticisms being used as an explanation. As can be seen there, I got angry responses about even pointing to the details of the silly revert, even though the reverter admitted that at least most of the reverts were just a result of not looking at what he deleted. I would add that many of the seemingly "hypercorrect" concerns seem artificial and/or superficial, and all with a tendency towards one editor, Causteau, trying to avoid too many changes being made by another editor, me. For a flavour of this you should really look at the discussion in more detail, including the debates in May which included, for example, a long debate and many reverts concerning the "controversy" of including mention of the parent clade in E1b1b in this article. And you might want to look at [2] , [3] , [4] , [5].

I believe that concerning matters of fact there is indeed no reason to think that this subject should be so difficult. To the extent that editors are allowed to work on this article, it can be improved further in ways which are pretty non-controversial, or at least should be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You may get the wrong point, so perhaps it is better to refer to your suggestion about finding common ground and ask why we don't just do that better. The problem is not finding common ground. For example...

• There is no debate about what Cruciani's 2004 and 2006 articles, clearly the primary and up-to-date reference for everyone, describe as the likely homeland of E1b1b and E1b1b1. The "problem" comes from the fact that although both Causteau and I, and I think anyone who reads those articles, can see that the answer is "the Horn of Africa" (and this is what the Wikipedia article says at first) in one paragraph which is currently quoted or paraphrased in the wikipedia article as an explanation about how this conclusion was reached, the words "Eastern Africa" are used. Causteau will not let anyone change that because, as I understand it, he believes that would be "original research". Hence all the reverts. The direction is now pushing for is to pretend that we are not referring to Cruciani 2004 by referring to secondary sources.
• There was no debate in May about what the parent clade was of E1b1b, but it took many reverts and a lot of debate before anyone was allowed to actually mention it in the article. Apparently mentioning the parent clade in an article about a clade, was considered irrelevant by Causteau, and once again it was bad enough in his mind to be the subject of reverts etc. (See Archives 1 for this talk page.)
• There was no debate about the status of M293 in Henn's new article which is where we started last week. And yet also concerning this subject, we had multiple reverts and silliness. I was accused of working for some sort of Afro-centric secret society because I used the word "sub-saharan" just for example. It was argued that writing a clade name for the new SNP as E-M293 was "original research" for another. Causteau edited the article repeatedly to show the name of the clade as E3bf-M293, which does not fit in the more up-to-date nomenclature of the article. He argued long and hard that this was necessary in order to avoid "original research". Finally he backed down when he was forced to read one of the references which was already being referred to that explained how "official" the mutation based nomenclature for clade names is since 2002.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:07, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: A new moderator comes in and correctly indicates that the discussion has moved in a negative, unproductive direction. He also accurately points out that there is too much emphasis on pedantic minutiae that no one gives two hoots about instead of the article itself, as well as absurd levels of ad hominem (viz. the "self-interested fraud" debacle above). As a remedy, he then quite sensibly proposes, like the administrator Elonka before him, that we start afresh, perhaps even take a break from the article before resuming actual discussions. And what does Andrew do? Bring up old discussions from not even days but months ago that were long-resolved and moderated. He also once again engages in the petty finger-pointing and baseless recrimination already visited ad nauseam in the preceding paragraphs -- the very sophomoric behavior both Swid and Elonka specifically instructed us not to engage in! In essence, Andrew was again given the opportunity to demonstrate good faith and a genuine desire to resolve this issue, but chose instead to continue as before, commenting on the contributor rather than the content although Wiki policies expressly discourage this. I'm still trying to figure out how exactly to find an amicable solution to this issue when the other party seems dead-set on avoiding just that. Causteau (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see the best way to show good faith for either of us is to work on the article itself rather than reverting, deleting, wikilawyering etc. But I am being stopped. My finger pointing is not about the past but about problems I am having with editing, and therefore all attempts to "find common ground" or "start afresh" - here and now. Your finger pointing, even in this above scold, is different. You make it very hard to see that you shares the aims of the greater community, especially a good article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

References

This section is so that references will display properly, with WP:POPUPS

3rd biggest haplogroup?

There is (or has been) a sentence in the article as follows...

E1b1b is prevalent throughout Europe and is, in fact, the third most common Y haplogroup there.

It has a footnote which refers or referred to a Genealogical webpage for the study of surnames such as Britton. This Surname project lists the main haplotypes of its participants in the usual way for such projects, at least some years ago, by listing R1b as the most common type, and I1a as the second most common (these are very commonly the most common haplotypes for British surnames, but actually most people now divide R1b up more), and then it lists E3b (which is actually a haplotype which often does not appear at all in British Surname Projects). The project has one haplotype of this type, and notes in a very brief way that "HAPLOGROUP E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe and reaches its highest frequency (about 47%) in the Balkans." There is no source information given.

There is a problem with this way of describing how common E3b is in that there are no logical definitions of "levels" in the phylogeny of Y haplogroups. For example, if you say "apples are the most common fruit in Europe" then the relationship between "apple" and "fruit" as categories is clear: fruit is on a well known level known as "species". So you can in fact compare apples and pears, because both are species, but you would never say apples are more common than fruit.

In Y chromosome phylogeny things are not so clear. All levels of the phylogeny are simply known as haplogroups. So if we can say that E3b is third most common, then we can also say it is second most common, if we decide to lump all the more common haplotypes in a different way. For example you can say that "F is the most common haplogroup in Europe and E is second". You could also name three different subclades of R as being the three most common, and push E down the rankings. So making such comparisons is meaningless without more explanation.

What is true is that E3b is the approximately third most common of the major haplogroups used in recent years by genealogists: R1b, I1a, R1a, E3b etc. (However even this is possibly not correct. As more Eastern European families get studied we may well find that R1a is more common. So there really should be a better citation than a surname project.)

Will all of the above in mind, on this edit on the 1st October I added some words to a footnote as follows...

The comparison in this source is to the more common haplogroups R1b and I1a.

I mention this now on the talkpage because a few hours later this small edit was reverted by Causteau with the following remark:

replaced unnecessary and inaccurate amendment of citation; source quite clearly says "Haplogroup E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe" -- not just in comparison to haplogroups R1b and I1a

...as explained above, this is in fact exactly what the sourced webpage does, and removing this extra comment actually makes the whole footnote and sentence meaningless.

A second change which has also apparently not been understood concerns the wording itself. "Prevalent" implies that something is dominant or most common, and is therefore simply wrong English. Given this as well as my doubts about the fact and the source, I also changed, on 3rd October, from ...From...

E1b1b is prevalent throughout Europe and is, in fact, the third most common Y haplogroup there.

...To...

E1b1b is common in parts of Europe, especially nearer to the Mediterranean.

This was also reverted. Note that all of my edits had explanations attached also, but here are the problems that need to be solved in summary...

1. The formal meaning of haplogroup imples no possibility of comparing sizes. If you name the haplogroups being compared you can do it, but the point of such an exercise is questionable. It is more common an more logical to simply say what % of male lines a haplogroup represents in a particular area or ethnic group, and this is the method already followed in the rest of the article.
2. Even if it were clear which clades were being compared to make this remark (R1b and I1a), the statistics need a better source. It is clear that most surname projects base their remarks upon the traditions within the "genetic genealogy" community which is dominated by British families. R1a is more common than E3b is a very big part of Europe. IF E3b is not clearly bigger I feel the wording should be less "certain sounding". Surely that is not unreasonable?
3. The word "prevalent" is incorrect if you want to say something is the third most common type of some category.
4. It is also worth mentioning that this sentence is in an arguably inappropriate section, concerning a sub-branch of E3b, and not E3b as a whole - albeit a section about a sub-clade which is most common in Europe. There is an earlier discussion about the areas where E3b is found, and surely this comment belongs near there if anywhere.

To be honest, if the text can not be improved (because attempts to edit keep getting reverted) then the article is wrong and the simplest solution is deletion. In my opinion the sentence and footnote add nothing to the article, but if they must be included then they have to be improved. Otherwise, the two changes I have had reverted seem extremely minor and reasonable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing unclear about what the source says. It does not state that "E1b1b is common in parts of Europe, especially nearer to the Mediterranean." as you've written above. It states that "Haplogroup E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe", and not just relative to R1b or I1a either, but to all haplogroups. Moreover, the fact that E3b is the third most common haplogroup in Europe is a fairly well-known fact that other folks in the genetic genealogy community are well aware of (viz. 1, 2). What's more, E3b is common throughout Europe -- not just the Mediterranean. Per Firasat et al. (2007): "E3b is common in Europe". Cruciani et al. 2006 with regard to E-M78: "the human Y chromosome haplogroup E-M78 (E3b1a) occurs commonly and is distributed in northern and eastern Africa, western Asia, and all of Europe". Causteau (talk) 09:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Most importantly, the word prevalent is just being used wrongly, and the word throughout makes the problem worse. Please fix it. The sentence now means that E3b is the most common haplogroup is all parts of Europe. Is that really what you mean to say?? Perhaps you have not really looked carefully at the blocks of edits you are reverting or the explanations being given? It would seem so, because I notice you even reverted punctuation changes etc, which is a frequent characteristic of your edits. Concerning the rest I am surprised by how important you now view "folks in the genetic genealogy community". You've always taken the position that such comments are irrelevant to you. I administer several projects as you know, and am pretty well informed about such things. I really think this type of sourcing is not good enough, but it also seems clear that you normally don't either.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, there is nothing "wrong" with the way the sentence is worded. It clearly states that "E1b1b is prevalent throughout Europe and is, in fact, the third most common Y haplogroup there", which is what the sources say ("E1b1b (old E3b) is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, after R1b and I1") -- they don't say in parts of Europe. I also don't want to have to ask you again not to talk about me. Causteau (talk) 09:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I am clearly talking about the edits, and talking to you about your edits, nothing else. But you clearly are not reading what you edit or respond to. Please instead of rushing to find reasons to get angry, look up "prevalent" in a dictionary. It does not just mean "common". It means "most common" or more exactly it means "dominant". Please read what I wrote. Take your time more. Your source does not say "most common" or "prevalent". It says "third most common". Is it "most common" or "third most common"? Please make your wording consistent.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, please see what I said above about the necessity of naming which haplogroups are being compared if you want to give haplogroups relative rankings in terms of how common they are. (If you don't do that then you can give E3b any ranking you like: 2nd compared to F, or a much lower ranking if you compare to equally valid "haplogroups" such as R-S116, R-S21, etc, or whatever.) Again, your own source does do this. It names R1b and I1a, which is what I tried to mention in the edits I made, but which you reverted. Please read what I wrote, take your time, and explain your reasoning about the points I've made. Maybe you just didn't understand the point I was making.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the word throughout, which is again something you add and that is not in your own source, surely you realize that there are large areas in Europe where E1b1b can hardly be found, and other haplogroups like R1a are very common (sometimes even more common than R1b)? I can't see how you justify this misleading word, which implies a homogeneous "third most common" ranking all over Europe.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, the whole remark is very questionable. In recent times, after your sources were written, many new haplogroup defining SNPs have been discovered, and data about non Western countries has started to become available. So citing old Surname projects is not very convincing at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, you are not at all addressing my request to make sure that we put discussion about ALL of E1b1b into sections which are clearly about ALL of the clade, rather into "asides" within explanations about sub-clades. E1b1b is found in many forms around Europe and amongst Jewish populations. By discussing all E1b1b in Europe under one sub-clade and all Jewish E1b1b under another you are giving a very incorrect impression which could be easily fixed in ways which seem very uncontroversial. Why may no one fix this? You might not think it is important, but then why would you think it important to revert people who try to make the article slightly better unless you think they are actually making the article wrong?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

All that writing, and for what? The sources (1, 2) clearly state that "Haplogroup E3b is the third most common Haplogroup in Europe" and "E1b1b (old E3b) is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, after R1b and I1". They, again, do not state that "E1b1b is common in parts of Europe, especially nearer to the Mediterranean" as you've written above. Heck, there are places in Europe where even R1b doesn't have such a high frequency (e.g. in Finland, Belarus, Bosnia)... but that still doesn't stop it from being the most prevalent haplogroup in Europe. E3b, likewise, is the third most common haplogroup in Europe. There is also I'm afraid nothing wrong, misleading or bizarre about quoting the fact that E1b1b/E3b is the second most prevalent haplogroup among Jews in the very section where Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are actually discussed. Causteau (talk) 10:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more: all that writing for what? Just read it and read what you revert, before you revert, then you'll see. You are defending things which having nothing to do with the edits you are reverting. The words "prevalent" and "throughout" (at least being used together like you do) are not defensible from any of the sources or arguments you are using. The edits, sorry you call them manipulations, which you've been reverting fit your sources and explanations better than the wording you are insisting upon. Your wording and lack of explanation given the contexts in the article, is not something which you get from your sources. Please slow down and stop doing full reverts without first considering what other people are trying to do.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Stop manipulating the source's assertion that "E1b1b (old E3b) is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, after R1b and I1" -- it does not need any additional "qualifying" from you. What's more, the word "prevalent" in terms of frequency in population genetics more often than not is used interchangeably with the words "common" or "frequent". Working geneticists use them interchangeably all the time in their work, including Elise Friedman of the Jewish E3b Project (viz: "The E3b haplogroup has been observed in all Jewish groups world wide. It is considered to be the 2nd most prevalent haplogroup among the Jewish population. "). Causteau (talk) 13:41, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Prevalent without the "second most" means "most common". That would be wrong wouldn't it? So the qualifier is necessary there, just as it in the text I keep trying to change to say things meaning "third most common" instead of "most common". This is simply a point of English. Concerning the other qualification you find so bad, can you now please explain to me how I would be wrong (see above) if I said that E3b is the second most common haplogroup after F in Europe? Or what if I said that it was the lower than third because it less common than R1b-S116, R1b-S21, and several other R clades as well? Of course all of these comments are equally correct and therefore to some extent misleading unless you explain how you are grouping the haplogroups. Just please keep yourself to answering this point of logic and nothing else. I am afraid you simply aren't reading what you think you are replying to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in playing semantic games with you, Lancaster. You've just completely removed an entire sourced paragraph with direct quotes in it from the source, and replaced it instead with a bogus failed verification tag. There's absolutely no justification for that! Causteau (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Please, how can I explain my point about a wording issue if I can't discuss "semantics"?? Concerning the Jewish E1b1b case, I started a new section below. Please address it there. In that case also, you simply are not reading before reverting. Please slow down with the reverts? Please show that you at least read and understand the "semantic" problem I explained above. Maybe I'll learn something from your explanation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So looking at the article as it now stands may I take it there is no argument against adding a couple of words to explain which explain how European lineages are being split up when we say E1b1b is 3rd biggest?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

The direct paraphrase from not one but two sources (1, 2) to the effect that E1b1b/E3b is the third most common (not "biggest") haplogroup in Europe does not need any clarification, especially since direct quotes have been added to the footnotes. Causteau (talk) 15:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

So any attempt to make the wording more clear, even if you have no argument to say it makes the article worse, will be reverted by you, right? And your defense for this revolves only around the fact that you could find (when called upon, in order to defend the article from editing) 2 of the most generic looking surname project webpages I've ever seen which use similar wording? If I refer to more complex sources, real ones, even more substantial genealogical projects, you'll start on about semantics again, which you think you don't have to address, and do your reverts with the same lack of thought and surplus of emotion? Just trying to get things clear before I continue trying to make this article better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Straw man argument. FYI, this "most generic looking surname project" is, in fact, a genetic genealogy company run by actual working geneticists (a designation which the Project Administrators also share), much like Family Tree DNA. And their plainly-stated assertion of the established fact that E1b1b/E3b is the third most common haplogroup in Europe, again, does not need any "clarification" whatsoever, especially since direct quotes from them have been added to the footnotes. This is also the second time I'm asking you not to talk about me, or what you have the temerity to describe as my "lack of thought and surplus of emotion." Mocking or otherwise taunting me in an effort to elicit a negative reaction only does you a disservice. From WP:CIV:

These behaviors can all contribute to an uncivil environment:

• Rudeness
• Insults and name calling
• Judgmental tone in edit summaries (e.g. "snipped rambling crap") or talk-page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen")
• Gross profanity or indecent suggestions directed at another contributor
• Belittling contributors because of their language skills or word choice
• Taunting; deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves
• Ill-considered accusations of impropriety; for instance, calling someone a liar, or accusing him/her of slander or libel
• Lies, including deliberately asserting false information on a discussion page in order to mislead one or more editors
• Quoting another editor out-of-context in order to give the impression that he or she hold views they do not hold, or in order to malign them
• Making personal attacks, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, sexual, and religious slurs
• Using derogatory language towards other contributors or, in general, referring to groups such as social classes, nationalities, ethnic groups, religious groups, or others in a derogatory manner
• Harassment
• Feigned incomprehension, "playing dumb"

Causteau (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

No, genetic genealogy surname projects are NOT run by "working geneticists" -- they are run by volunteers! Most of us are amateur/hobbyist genealogists who use genetic genealogy as a tool for our genealogy research and have taken it upon ourselves to coordinate genetic genealogy studies for surnames, geographical regions and even haplogroups that we're interested in. Many of our projects are hosted on the genetic genealogy companies' websites, but they are not run in any way by the companies or by the geneticists who work for those companies.

Neither the Britton nor the Straub surname projects are authoritative sources for E3b/E1b1b information. Any information on these or other surname project websites regarding any haplogroup was either extracted from a published scientific study, obtained from discussion on genetic genealogy mailing lists or discussion boards, or is original and unofficial research done by the surname project administrator. Whether the information about E3b/E1b1b on these websites happens to be correct or not, I object to these websites being used as sources for this article. Find the original source and quote that instead.

And finally... I am the project administrator for the Jewish E3b Project. I am not a geneticist; just another hobbyist and volunteer. The Jewish E3b Project website is a work in progress. Most of the text on the site was written by the previous project administrator, and I still need to verify and source what he wrote. The text being quoted in this Wikipedia article is certainly not research done by the Jewish E3b Project -- the project website simply attempts to summarize studies for the benefit of project members and any casual researchers who visit the project. The information there is definitely not intended to be quoted in Wikipedia as though the project is the primary source. So again, identify and cite the original source instead.

-- Efweb (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

You know what, Efweb? I will do what you didn't do for me below, and give you the benefit of the doubt. I will assume that you are telling the truth when you profess to be the new project manager of the Jewish E3b Project. I will even take you at your word that the genealogists at DNA Heritage and the folks over at the Straub and Britton Surname Projects don't know what they're talking about when they assert that E3b is the third most common haplogroup in Europe. But what I won't go for is any more unwarranted personal attacks from you (see my response to your charges below). Causteau (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, please understand that no one is saying that those two project admins "don't know what they are talking about" just the same as no-one ever said that ISOGG and the National Genographic don't know what they are talking about. Elise and I were commenting on how such webpages are made, which is now I think shown to be something you had misunderstandings about. So you should be happy this is cleared up. There are projects which try hard to put up "the latest thinking" on their public webpages but most do not come under this category. Anyway, in my opinion you should also feel free to also write to surname project admins if you think they might have something to add to this discussion. Why not? So (if there is any real concern) there's also no need to give Efweb "the benefit of the doubt" about who she is. You can write to the contact address (or mine). Most project's are reasonably easy to contact, as is ISOGG, JOGG, DNA Heritage etc. Finally, I want to say that I see no sign of personal attacks in Efweb's posting. Perhaps that is also a misunderstanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I think Elise's comments on the sourcing question are perfectly correct. Concerning the other question Causteau, I see you still won't address it. What is you objection to naming the haplogroups to which E1b1b is being compared when people make any remarks about it being 2nd or 3rd or 4th most common in a particular area? And you also won't allow me to put in words explaining what type of source you insist on citing. Is it just that you don't think it is necessary because you think it should be obvious and because people can look up the source? If so then what possible objection can you have to someone putting in a few words of explanation in the article??? Adding a few extra words won't make the article worse at least, surely?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

That won't be necessary, Andrew. I've removed the assertions. I also appreciate your attempt at changing your tone. Causteau (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Jewish E1b1b

We have another series of reverts concerning this paragraph:

E1b1b1c (E-M123) is quite common among both Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews. E1b1b as a whole has, in fact, "been observed in all Jewish groups world wide", is "the 2nd most prevalent haplogroup among the Jewish population", and is considered to be the second highest, next to haplogroup J, for "Founding Jewish Lineages" in Europe.

1. I had removed all except the second sentence, based upon the fact that looking up the source shows that Elise Friedman clearly writes "E-M35" and not "E-M34" which is also how I explained myself when removing it. Unless I made an error, which could be explained to me no doubt, there seems no doubt this is wrong. Causteau has not addressed the editing remark which was made. It seems clear he just hasn't looked. His revert was minutes after the edit being reverted.
2. I put in a marker after the first sentence, because the Semino et al article being cited does not contain any words starting with "Jew-", "Ashken-", or "Sephard-" except in the title of one reference it gives. So this sourcing is wrong also, and again it seem the revert which happened within minutes of the edit, was not considered at all.

Does anyone want to tell me if I am missing something here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Rubbish. You removed the ALL the direct quotes from one of the sources, as well as all three of the sources! Then, having gutted the paragraph of all of its direct quotes and sources, you then placed a bogus failed verification tag after it! Furthermore, the Semino source does cite the exact frequencies of E1b1b in Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews; its in Table 1. Causteau (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for taking the enormous effort of telling me to look at Table 1. Next time you can just remove the citation flag and put in a reference to Table 1, which is exactly what these flags are for. If you still have some more energy can you also check the other aspect of this subject? Does your source say E-M35 like I said? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the article as it now stands, a simple question: why is the composition of all E1b1b clades within the Jewish population being discussed in a sub-section concerning a sub-clade? If it is important to discuss Jewish E1b1b separately (which makes some sense given their roots in many places) then why not up in the Introduction near the section which discusses the spread of E1b1b generally? I ask this after having several attempts to do this, or to find other ways of making the article more logical have been reverted, without any explanation other than defenses of the text being moved itself which is of course not the point.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:02, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I've already very clearly explained why: it's to address "the fact that E1b1b/E3b is the second most prevalent haplogroup among Jews in the very section where Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are actually discussed". Causteau (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I should have guessed (you certainly never clearly explained anything unless you count reversions as a form of communication). So the answer to why the subject is discussed in that section is that it is in that section already? OK. Can I ask whether it might be better to give it another section?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not in any way, shape or form "better" or even necessary to ghettoize the Jewish component of E1b1b/E3b in its own section when Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews are already addressed in the M123 section that principally concerns them. Causteau (talk) 04:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I strenuously object to your highly offensive terminology -- and Andrew has done no such thing! You are the one who is trying to pigeonhole the discussion of Jewish E1b1b to only the M123 section, while Jews are in ALL subclades of E1b1b and should be acknowledged as such.

I agree with Andrew that any general discussion about Jewish E1b1b needs to be somewhere at the top of the page before the subclade sections start. Information about Jewish membership in individual E1b1b subclades can be discussed under each subclade section, but you cannot limit the discussion about Jewish E1b1b to only the M123 section. The reason Jews are only mentioned in the M123 section currently is probably because it appears to be the most common subclade of E-M35 among Jews, but it's by no means the only subclade, nor the only one worth mentioning.

Andrew, please propose your edits regarding Jewish E1b1b, keeping in mind that the Jewish E3b project website shouldn't be used as a source for information that was extracted from published studies, as I advised in the section above. Efweb (talk) 08:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

First of all, calm the hell down. I'm not "trying" to do anything and I don't believe I accused Andrew of doing that either or even you for that matter. You, on the other hand, have come out of nowhere and quite literally gone off the deep end, accusing me of trying to pigeonhole the discussion of E1b1b in Jewish groups to only the M123 section... when I was the one that added all of the info on Jews in the article in the first place -- the M-81 section included! Next time you address me, make sure it's civil and in good faith, or don't even bother. Causteau (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

To Causteau: Please cease using inflammatory (and silly) language. Please just explain WHY you think M123 is the section which should "principally concern" Jewish E1b1b haplotypes. There must be a reason you think this is so important? Do you think most E-M123 is Jewish, or that E-M123 is the most common Jewish E1b1b type, or somehow culturally important, or what? If your only argument is that you think the move is not necessary because the current text does not confuse you, then you really shouldn't be reverting people's edits if they are not making the article worse.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Andrew: I admit that the word "ghettoize" was a poor choice of terms. "Pigeonhole" is obviously what I meant. However, if one were to go over my exchanges with you, it's very clear who has relied more often than not on "inflammatory (and silly) language" (viz.: "lack of thought and surplus of emotion"). At any rate, I say E-M123 "principally concerns" Jews because that is the sub-clade with the highest frequencies among Jewish groups. It's not about being "evil" or "mean" -- Ellen Levy-Coffman herself admits as much in her study. Causteau (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

In response to Efweb's proposal to draft a paragraph about Jewish E-M35, here are my comments, which reflect what I have said before, and also the types of edits I've tried to make. First a problem: if we make a section for one ethnic group, does this mean we have to do it for all, and if so is the article not going to get extremely long and repetitive, with all information covered twice? Proposed answer: no, the Introduction already has a quick summary about the geographical spread of E1b1b and E1b1b1 which gives a satisfactory lead-in for most ethnic groups, because the haplogroups of most ethnic groups are very connected to the geographical spread explain in that paragraph. What makes the Jewish lineages a bit different is that they are less easy to understand in terms of geography given the long term movements of the Jewish peoples over history. So to start with we could just add a final paragraph to the Introduction. Here is a first proposal which tries to take Causteau's text, from the M123 section and adapt it to this purpose, this time including (as per your remarks) the removal of citations from the FT DNA webpage for the Jewish E3b project...

A signficant proportion of Jewish male lines are made up of a wide variety of E1b1b1 (E-M35) sub-clades. Behar et al. found only haplogroup J lineages in higher numbers amongst Ashkenazim. E1b1b is observed in over 22.8% of Ashkenazis and 30% of Sephardim.

I also wonder if this quote would be interesting to insert in the E-M123 section...

In fact, the best candidate for possible E3b Israelite ancestry among Jews is E-M123. This sub-clade occurs in almost the same proportions (approximately 10-12%) among both Ashkenazim and Sephardim (Semino et al. 2004). According to Cruciani (2004), E-M123 probably originated in the Middle East, since it is found in a large majority of the populations from that area, and then back migrated to Ethiopia. He further notes that this sub-clade may have been spread to Europe during the Neolithic agricultural expansion out of the Middle East. However, because E-M123 is also found in low percentages (1-3%) in many southern European and Balkan populations, its origin among Jewish groups remains uncertain (Semino et al. 2004). Yet the fact that both Sephardim and Ashkenazim possess this sub-clade in similar high frequency supports an Israelite/Middle Eastern origin.

This is from Ellen's 2005 article on JOGG, which I'll also add to the article references already.

Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The quote is much too lengthy for the article and is more suited to the Y-chromosomal Aaron page, which is exclusively devoted to the study of patrilineal ancestry among Jewish groups. This article is more suited to pithy, cogent assertions about E1b1b sub-clades and the populations that carry them, as already featured in the text. Causteau (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The M123 section is still shorter than some other sections? Please note that this quote is not only about the Jewish component of E-M123, but rather more general. Concerning the pithiness point of principle, I would think that each sub-clade might eventually have a little bit more explanation attached than they currently do. Not that they need to become article length, but I don't think a couple of paragraphs is over-doing surely? Look at the V13 section.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nevermind. LOL I wrote the above quite literally moments before posting and in a hurry. The quote works fine given the importance of E1b1b/E3b as a major founding lineage among Jewish populations. Causteau (talk) 12:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Somalian E1b1b

Sanchez et al. 2005:

E1b1b-M35: 3/201 = 1.5% E1b1b-M78: 156/201 = 77.6% E1b1b-M81: 3/201 = 1.5% E1b1b-M123: 1/201 = 0.5%

Total E1b1b: 81.1%Reviewzy (talk) 02:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the direct quote from Cruciani et al. (2004) that you partially misquoted. I realize you just joined Wikipedia yesterday, but in future, please do not manipulate sourced material. Causteau (talk) 04:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps Reviewzy is trying to include new information from an article not already in the list? If Reviewzy is reading this, can you please explain here on this talk page, so we can sort it out? What is the title of the article, and do you (ideally) know if there is a copy on the internet?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

I think I have it: High frequencies of Y chromosome lineages characterized by E3b1, DYS19-11, DYS392-12 in Somali males. I'll add this into the wiki article references to make it easier to use. Just to make sure it is clear what the problem so far was: the text edited was a direct quote.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime perhaps it is worth considering whether a table of population statistics from academic papers might be a good way to collapse a lot of information on such things one day. Some haplogroup articles already have such tables, but I must point out that they are often messy and hard to edit and as a result sometimes perhaps end up making the article worse?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

It's indeed a messy, bad idea, and completely unnecessary since there is already a page on Wikipedia that lists all of the Y DNA by ethnic group. Causteau (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

But of course there is no such article listing all the sub-clades of E1b1b? Still, I don't see any need to rush to make such a table.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ellen Coffman-Levy (2005)

I just finished reading (2005) A MOSAIC OF PEOPLE: THE JEWISH STORY AND A REASSESSMENT OF THE DNA EVIDENCE Journal of Genetic Genealogy. It seems that Ellen Coffman-Levy agrees with the East African origin of E3b. He disagrees with the blanket term for E3b being "African." The main reason is that their are downstream mutations of M35 that happen outside Africa. Specifically "Certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of Years." - Ellen Coffman-Levy

He then goes on to agree and quote different Cruciani et al. studies repeatedly. He doesn't argue at all about the Origin. I dont really know how wiki works as far as edits, but i have read the long conversations about references regarding this subject. I dont think Ellen Coffman-Levy is a good reference for the Middle Eastern Origin of E3b. He actually agrees with Cruciani. - AkB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.195.227 (talk) 00:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ellen is a "she", actually. Jheald (talk) 09:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the quote twists the meaning of the Levy-Coffman article, in the same way implied by the comment above - i.e. that the original context was all about public comments which oversimplify and make people think that E-M35 in Jews is "African" (i.e. more African than Jewish) whereas indeed the story is more complex even if this clade did technically begin in Africa. The way the quote is made in the current version of the Wikipedia article implies something which I think Ellen would agree is an over-simplification in the other direction, i.e. that Ellen was arguing that it is more Jewish than African so to speak, which is not really the point. But I do not think everyone who edits this article agrees! Perhaps the unsigned writer above thinks there might be a better source for such a point of view, but in fact as I think I've argued I do not think there is. The theory that E1b1b started in North Eastern African is the only really orthodox one in recent years.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:51, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "SHE" That was my mistake. I DO think she was speaking of the oversimplification. The MAIN issue I have with the reference (from reading the comments of 2 main editors) is that the quote from Ellen's article in the ORIGIN section of the WIkI article doesn't really reference nor have an opinion ON THE ORIGIN. She doesn't have an Adverse opinion to the East African Origin of M35 but she DOES does address the generalization of all M35 mutations as "African." Her quote in the "ORIGIN" section of the Wiki Article would be better placed in sections describing the downstream mutations(Where her comment has actual meaning) or removed all together. I am with ALancaster on the issue and I dont think there are any peer reviewed sources anywhere that would advocate a Middle Eastern origin. If there ARE then "Ellen Coffman-Levy" would NOT be one of them.

Main points. -There was an argument on finding a source for Mid East Origin. -The article was recently edited with a reference that attempts to give users the impression that Ellen Coffman-Levy places the origin of M35 in the Middle East. -Ellen Coffman-Levy does NOT put the origin of M35 in the Middle East, but East Africa. -Ellen Coffman-Levy comments that some downstream mutations of M35 have been in the Middle East and Asia for "Thousands of years"

• Ellen Coffman-Levy's Comments should be REMOVED from the origin sections as it gives the impression that She does NOT agree with Cruciani et al. when she actually does.
• The quote from (Coffman 2005) is simply her opinion based on semantics. Regarding the Origin, she actually agrees with Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007)

No information in her article reads contrary to the above geneticists. Her article does not satisfy the request of a source for the Middle Eastern Origin of (M35) E3b. - AkB. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.195.227 (talk) 16:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of suggestions in order to help your opinions count on the crazy democracy that is Wikipedia: 1. Can you please "sign" your comments. When you are editing you will see some buttons above the box and one of them looks loosely like a signature. Just press this when you have your cursor at the end of the comment you are typing. This means everyone will be able to see that various comments all come from the same person. 2. Even better, can you create an editing account in Wikipedia? I think you'll see A "LOG-IN/CREATE ACCOUNT" link up in the top right corner of the page whenever your are in Wikipedia. If you click on this you will see what to do next. This particular option means people will always be able to see at a glance that you are a serious editor (Wikipedia unfortunately has some less serious editors). Your editing name can of course be anonymous. This article and similar ones could certainly do with more interested people to help. Concerning your points above, you know I basically agree, but the question will be how to find a compromise that all editors can accept. There is clearly at least one person out there who thinks there is or might be a Middle East theory concerning the origins of E-M35. The quote from Ellen is technically accurate and only the context changes what you and I read to be the implications. Now that you've raised this though, I think I'll write to her and ask her what she thinks.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone said Coffman-Levy puts the origin of M35 in the Middle East. The E1b1b article certainly does not. What it does say is that:

E1b1b is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup". A lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media."

This is both a quote and a direct paraphrase of what Coffman-Levy herself writes in her study:

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

The Levy-Coffman quote is not at all difficult to understand when one actually reads the rest of the paragraph:

Haplogroup J2, as previously discussed, is often incorrectly equated with J1 and described as “Jewish” or “Semitic,” despite the fact that it is present in a variety of non-Jewish Mediterranean and Northern European populations. And haplogroup G is rarely discussed in depth; its origin and distribution remain poorly understood.

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

This quote is also very relevant to the Origins section because the section states that "concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001), Semino et al. (2004), Cruciani et al. (2004, 2006, and 2007), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both it's parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago", which gives the impression that E1b1b/E3b as a whole is "African" just because its parent clade and defining mutation perhaps have an origin in Africa -- and this despite the wide distribution of E3b amongst populations outside of Africa, the actual size of each of said non-African populations, how those non-African populations acquired E3b in the first place, and the origins of sub-clades of E3b that lie outside of Africa. This is actually the very sort of thing Coffman-Levy is railing against. Causteau (talk) 21:58, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

- Trying to edit this reference so that it is less open to being described (accurately in my opinion) as a quotation that is twisting the meaning of the author has turned out to be quote difficult. Anyone interested in all the details can have a look at the editing history one edit of which was revert number 4 in a 3RR alert I have placed in the appropriate place on Wikipedia. I want to address the situation after the latest revert by Causteau.

The edit which was reverted was in the following context. There are three paragraphs or sentences, which I had changed the sequence of, moving one ("As E1b1b dispersed...") into the middle, with the editing remark of moving the discussions about there being something non African in a complex way, i.e. the sub-clades, which are also what Coffman-Levy is talking about, together...

1. Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.
2. As E1b1b1 dispersed, all major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and Western Asia. E-V13 and E-M123, both found in Europe and amongst Jewish populations, are two major sub-clades of E-M78 which originated outside of Africa, both in the Near East.
3. According to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture.

Please note that the text in bold is text which Causteau has defended tooth and nail. If I don't mention this people will wonder why I did not just take it out.

My change was purely in order to avoid the very wrong impression being given otherwise:

First, there is a very vague remark being sourced from Coffman-Levy without any explanation about what the author was talking about. I believe by the way that it is not an appropriate comment without further explanation: "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media".

A reader following on from this and wondering what misinformation was intended, would have next found a paragraph, which is highly controversial as anyone can confirm by looking at the history of edits and discussions about this article, implying that there is a scientific debate in the literature about whether E1b1b may have originated in the Near East. I believe there is no such debate anywhere. But much worse, the clear implication, as pointed out by another editor also, is that Coffman-Levy is a protagonist in this argument taking the side of the Near East theory. After all, it has just been mentioned that she also wrote that E1b1b is "often incorrectly described as “African.” This is clearly not true, and this possible interpretation of the text must be removed. (I also added a quote to prove this: Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". So note, this was not even there before.)

So what to do with the first paragraph which leaves the reader hanging? What was Coffman-Levy writing about? What is complex and non African about E1b1b? And what do the public and media get wrong? Of course the answer is that lineages of E1b1b moved away from Africa where they founded some quite distinct sub-lineages. That this is what she intended is absolutely clear from reading the article.

Causteau's revert nevertheless states "moved discussion of origin of E1b1b1 sub-clades down and origin of E1b1b1 up; it's still a personal interpretation that Coffman-Levy means that because she never actually mentions E3b's sub-clades".

So let's see what she wrote:

Although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago, certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years (Cruciani et al. 2004). For example...

The Wikipedian public may judge if it is correct to say that Coffman-Levy "never actually mentions E3b's sub-clades".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale for removing this direct paraphrase (viz. that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") of the Coffman-Levy study is that she is strictly referring to the fact that certain sub-clades of E1b1b (e.g. E-V13 and E-M34) arose outside of Africa. You write: "the answer is that lineages of E1b1b moved away from Africa where they founded some quite distinct sub-lineages. That this is what she intended is absolutely clear from reading the article." You also quote from a passage in the Coffman-Levy study where she states that "although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago, certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years (Cruciani et al. 2004). For example...". However, you quote from an entirely separate discussion in the study, a discussion one page removed from the paragraph in question where Coffman-Levy actually discusses the controversy surrounding the treatment of E3b. The actual paragraph in question goes like this:

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

I've already demonstrated above in my close analysis of this complete paragraph what Coffman-Levy is actually talking about. However, I have not attempted to insert into the E1b1b article this personal interpretation of mine, nor have I reduced her actual statements to simply the fact that she is talking about sub-clades of E3b that originated outside of Africa and nothing more (a close reading of the paragraph above does not bear this out; she means a great deal more than that as I've already shown). The notion that people will get the "wrong impression" about where Coffman-Levy believes E3b originated likewise does not hold water since we state point-blank in the E1b1b article that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"". There is therefore still no valid reason for removing that valuable second (or any) part of Coffman-Levy's quote. Causteau (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your rationale for removing this direct paraphrase (viz. that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media") of the Coffman-Levy study is that she is strictly referring to the fact that certain sub-clades of E1b1b (e.g. E-V13 and E-M34) arose outside of Africa. You write: "the answer is that lineages of E1b1b moved away from Africa where they founded some quite distinct sub-lineages. That this is what she intended is absolutely clear from reading the article." You also quote from a passage in the Coffman-Levy study where she states that "although E3b arose in East Africa approximately 25,000 years ago, certain sub-clades appear to have been present in Europe and Asia for thousands of years (Cruciani et al. 2004). For example...".

Actually this is not my rationale for removing the vague accusation that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". As I explained already my rationale for that is that this is a vague accusation. It should be either made clear what the accusation is, or else the accusation should not be included in the Wikipedia article. Furthermore, if the accusation towards the public and media is simply that "Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" then this does not need to be said, because it is already fully quoted. To be honest it looks like the vague accusation is very deliberately being set-up to look like Coffman-Levy supports the paragraph you insist on putting next, in other words that E1b1b originated in the Near East. That whole section should of course be removed and you are still searching for a source. It is your POV. You want to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects. I do not know why yet. Coffman-Levy is not a supporter of this position of yours. If her discussion of E1b1b is spread over a few paragraphs, so what? There is no other way to read her as far as I can tell than the way I explained it, and you certainly have not offered any credible alternative reading. And she certainly does mention sub-clades.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

However, you quote from an entirely separate discussion in the study, a discussion one page removed from the paragraph in question where Coffman-Levy actually discusses the controversy surrounding the treatment of E3b. The actual paragraph in question goes like this:

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

I've already demonstrated above in my close analysis of this complete paragraph what Coffman-Levy is actually talking about.

Close analysis?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually this is not my rationale for removing the vague accusation that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". As I explained already my rationale for that is that this is a vague accusation. It should be either made clear what the accusation is, or else the accusation should not be included in the Wikipedia article.

The accusation cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes. Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, if the accusation towards the public and media is simply that "Haplogroup E3b is often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" then this does not need to be said, because it is already fully quoted.

If Coffman-Levy believed that her assertion that a lot of misinformation about E3b also continues to pervade the public and media did "not need to be said", she simply wouldn't have written it. However, the fact remains that she did write it, and since she did write it, it clearly did need to be said. Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest it looks like the vague accusation is very deliberately being set-up to look like Coffman-Levy supports the paragraph you insist on putting next, in other words that E1b1b originated in the Near East.

Again, the notion that people will get the "wrong impression" about where Coffman-Levy believes E3b originated does not hold water since we state point-blank in the E1b1b article that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"". Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

That whole section should of course be removed and you are still searching for a source.

Since the Coffman-Levy quote is a reliable source, I don't believe you have any choice in the matter as to whether it stays or goes. Again, per WP:VER:

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

Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It is your POV. You want to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects. I do not know why yet.

No... it's Coffman-Levy's view. And you've really lost it this time. Per WP:PA:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will not help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks and may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

Per WP:AGF:

Making accusations of bad faith can be inflammatory and hence these accusations may be unhelpful in a dispute. It can be seen as a personal attack if bad faith motives are alleged without clear evidence that others' editing is actually in bad faith. The result is often accusations of bad faith on your part, which tends to create a nasty cycle.

Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Coffman-Levy is not a supporter of this position of yours. If her discussion of E1b1b is spread over a few paragraphs, so what?

Coffmany-Levy's discussion of the controversy surrounding E3b is not "spread over a few paragraphs". It is discussed in only one paragraph, which I've already quoted for you above. Here it is again, for good measure:

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

Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no other way to read her as far as I can tell than the way I explained it, and you certainly have not offered any credible alternative reading. And she certainly does mention sub-clades.

There is perhaps no other way to read her as far as you can tell. However, my reading of what she writes is infinitely more credible than yours because it actually pertains to the topic at hand i.e. the controversy surrounding E3b -- not to some entirely separate discussion one page removed from the actual paragraph in question. Causteau (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

- I think your extended responses give a good summary of the reasons why the extra words you want to leave in, that you admit can be interpreted different ways, are not needed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello to all. I'm Ellen Coffman. I was contacted by a poster here who I am acquainted with from a genetic discussion list. Please be patient, however, with my postings, as I've never posted to Wikipedia before and am still getting the hang of it. I'd be happy to try to address any questions or concerns about my article. Also, I can try to clarify my thinking as reflected in my article.

Regarding E-M35 among Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jewish groups, I should probably clarify that I was not attempting in my article to contradict Semino or Cruciani regarding the ultimate origins of haplogroup E3b in Africa. I was merely pointing out that to continue to think and write about haplogroup E3b and, in particular, certain sub-clades of E3b as African in origin was simplistic and potentially misleading. It is rather like saying that haplogroup R1b is Middle Eastern/Transcaucasian merely because the haplogroup originated in Anatolia tens of thousands of years ago. And it was clear to me even many years ago when I wrote the article that some clades of E3b did not arise in Africa, but elsewhere in the world. Thus, to refer to clades like E-M78 as "African" because the UEP that defines the parental haplogroup originated in Africa gives the wrong impression about the origins, history and distribution of many of the sub-clades, some of which may occur in greater population frequency than the original parental haplogroup itself.

When exploring and writing about Jewish Y DNA results, the ultimate question that people generally want answered is whether the clade among the various Jewish populations originated in the Middle East and thus, a Levantine/Israelite origin is likely or at least a possibility, or whether the group is likely the result of European ancestry. When examining the E3b results between Sephardic and Ashkenazi populations as presented by various researchers like Semino, my analysis was that E-M35 stood a good chance, based on frequency similarity and relative rarity in European populations, of being a candidate for Levantine ancestry among contemporary Jewish groups. However, as E-M35 did occur in very low frequency in southern Europe, I could not completely rule out the possibility of European origins either. Of course, it could also be that the European E-M35 originated primarily with Jewish and Arab E-M35 traders. Not enough was known at that time to really say.11jcc (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)11jcc (Ellen Coffman), 31 October 2008.

- Welcome Ellen! I had better say right up front that no one is saying (in a straight out way) that you would claim to support (in a straight out way) a theory that E1b1b originated in the Near East. Specifically, there is a piece of text in the article which paraphrases you, and there is a dispute about what impression it should give, and indeed whether it should be giving vague impression or just sticking to basics. The section, which I think deserves a general review, is called Origins, and it currently looks like this:

Concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001)[16], Semino et al. (2004)[6][17], Cruciani et al. (2004[1][18], 2006[19], and 2007[20]), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both its parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago.[4] There are different techniques available for such estimates, and a considerable range of possibilities, but the most recent estimates of Cruciani et al. (2007) are around 24,000 years ago for E-M215[21] or E-M35.[22]

Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.[23]

According to the International Society of Genetic Genealogy (ISOGG) and National Geographic's Genographic Project, E1b1b1 may have arisen instead in the Near East or the Middle East and then expanded into the Mediterranean with the spread of agriculture.[3][24]

All major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in the same general area as the parent clade: in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, or the Near East.

As I have discussed here on this discussion page, I believe that this should read something like this...

Concerning the origins of the E1b1b lineage, Bosch et al. (2001)[16], Semino et al. (2004)[6][17], Cruciani et al. (2004[1][18], 2006[19], and 2007[20]), point to evidence that not only E1b1b (E-M215), but also both its parent lineage E1b1 (E-P2), and its dominant sub-clade E1b1b1 (E-M35) probably all first appeared in East Africa between 20,000 and 47,500 years ago.[4] There are different techniques available for such estimates, and a considerable range of possibilities, but the most recent estimates of Cruciani et al. (2007) are around 24,000 years ago for E-M215[21] or E-M35.[22]

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

[Removing a paraphrased unclear accusation about the media which I say needs either making explicit or removal.]

All major sub-branches of E1b1b1 are thought to have originated in the same general area as the parent clade: in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, or the Near East.

[Removing the whole section about a supposed theory in the literature about East African origins; or if it must stay then that earlier in the Origins sections to be directly contrasted with the standard theories of Semino and Cruciani.]

I understand that Causteau's position is that...

1. Because your article is a verifiable and good source, as per all rules and regulations, etc, and you wrote so as to make an unclear accusation, leave it in. This is perhaps more a question of Wiki-rules, although indeed there is none to support such an argument.

2. Following on from the seemingly unclear accusation with discussion of sub-clades is not faithful to your intentions because when you made your unclear accusation you could not have been talking about sub-clades because you only talk about sub-clades on another page of your article.

3. Following on from the unclear accusation with discussion about African origins is more according to the context of your article, even if you state yourself in agreement with the normal theories about an African origin.

Of course Causteau should make his own position clear if he thinks there is any error in my rendition.

The thing is that you are free to re-write this Origins section how you like. Others are also of course - please expect it to change continually - but I think it would be very interesting to see how you think it should look.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

First, let me welcome you to Wikipedia, Ellen. Your presence here is most timely and needed, believe me! LOL

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

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

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

Here is the passage from the study that the paragraph above references:

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

I've very closely analyzed and explained to the other editor the exact meaning of your quote above, which I think is largely corroborated by the post you've just made. Here is how I explained to the other editor the passage in your study:

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

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

Please let me know if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what you have written. Best, Causteau (talk) 19:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is really up to the writers of this article to decide whether they want to reference my assertion regarding bias (or media bias) in the article (or even reference me at all!). As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history.11jcc (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2008 (UTC)11jcc, 31 October 2008 (Ellen Coffman).

Thanks Ellen, so what you were referring to principally at the time were comments which ignored that clades such as the one now known as E-V13 are as European as anything else, so to speak? In other words, the complexity being ignored was concerning sub-clades of E-M78, some of which are certainly not African except in the sense in which all clades are African? Is that a reasonable summary that we can use to guide our judgement on what is intended?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, thanks for the question asking for clarification. Sometimes my thoughts do wander.

I think the motivations and biases was more complicated in the AncestrybyDNA case cited above than simply ignoring origins of sub-clades. I think there was an intentional misuse of genetic information and labels such as "African" to mislead the public. They attempted to create a particular picture of genetic ancestry and misused labels like "African" and DNA studies on E3b to do so.

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

On a completely different note, I'd be interested in what the E3b Wikipedia article has to say about V12, a group of E3b's that in my opinion generally receive very scant attention in DNA studies, particularly as the group exists among European populations. 11jcc (talk) 18:21, 1 November 2008 (UTC)11jcc, 1 November 2008 (Ellen Coffman)

Thank you for sharing your experience and insight, Ellen. It certainly helps shed light on the matter. Needless to say, I agree with everything you've written, particularly the fact that, while the public is indeed much better informed on genetic groups than it was in the past, there is still unfortunately much lingering misinformation that needs to be redressed one way or another. I think disseminators of information continue to play a large role in this, especially Wikipedia. For instance, if one Googles the terms "E1b1b" or "E3b", the first entry to appear at the top of the page is invariably this very article. It's therefore imperative that we "get it right", so to speak. In that spirit, I think it would be terrific if you were to regularly check back in just to make sure that all the facts here are accurately presented. This article could certainly benefit from your expertise in the field. For my part, I'll see what I can come up with regarding the distribution of V12 among European populations. Please feel free to share other areas of concern that you feel perhaps haven't been addressed enough or have otherwise been neglected. Kind regards, Causteau (talk) 18:54, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

So everyone, what should the sentence say? I do not think I disagree with any of the above, but my only point still is that the present sentence does not give all of the above explanation, and to insert it all would be a major digression. We currently have...

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

Personally, though I'd be happy to try to understand and find a way to word any other content that needs to be in the article, I think that "this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup"" already covers "that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" - which was apparently intended to convey a similar idea, but now can imply just about anything. My question is really: what will a reader who does not know the history understand? What is it we are trying to get across?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

The paraphrase that "this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" does not already cover the same ground as the assertion that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". The first part identifies the problem, and the second part identifies who among others is behind the problem. I've already thoroughly explained this and more in my close analysis above (dated 19:51, 31 October 2008), a post which Ellen has said is precisely what she was trying to convey. Ellen likewise has provided concrete examples in her two previous posts of the issue at hand (e.g.: "But in a larger context, I not convinced that it is accurate and not overly simplistic to designate a group "African" because the parental UEP occurred in Africa... By labeling E3b "African," we risk ignoring the very historical and genetic complexity, diversity and unusual population distribution of the E3b group as a whole."). Causteau (talk) 17:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that you've tried to explain this before, but let's try to move on. What I now understand you to be saying is that the second part of the sentence is about the exact same misunderstanding, but what it adds is information about how the misunderstanding was spread? OK. This is not clear in the wording though, and I think we could make it so. How about (taking Ellen's other comments into account):

Referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) agreed that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa" but expressed concern that the media and some other public sources of information had come to describe E1b1b, a very large and diverse clade, as simply “African” - a designation which could technically be applied to any Y clade.

Is this getting the point across better? By the way I can agree that this would be a good point to make. I just don't think we were doing it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

No, that does not get the point across better. It reduces the potency of Ellen's argument to a hugely understated "a designation which could technically be applied to any Y clade", when Ellen has already made it clear in her own posts (and in her assertion that my analysis of her quote fully captures what it is she was trying to convey) that she means a great deal more than that. What does get the point across is the direct paraphrase and quote from Ellen's study that is already featured in the article:

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

The statement above does not need any rewriting of any kind since it already fully captures (and largely in her own words) what it is Ellen is actually talking about. And what she is talking about I've already explained in my post dated 19:51, 31 October 2008; Ellen likewise has done the same and more in her own two posts. Causteau (talk) 22:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your longer summary made on the talk page, but the only question being discussed is whether that is what the present text says. You have already admitted that the present text does not explain all this at all. Indeed despite your frequent claim to have made a close analysis of this, you've never once gone beyond saying that the text should not be changed - you even stated that it should not be made clear (15:17, 29 October 2008) - because it is based on what the original article says, which is of course not an argument at all. You are simply not willing to discuss it, it seems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:22, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not disagree with your longer summary made on the talk page, but the only question being discussed is whether that is what the present text says.

Firstly, I have not made a "longer summary" on the talk page. In my post dated 19:51, 31 October 2008, I have recapitulated for Ellen the situation at hand, including my close analysis of the paragraph in her study. She in turn has indicated that this close analysis fully captures what it is she was trying to convey. Secondly, of course the text that's in the E1b1b article represents what Ellen actually means since it is a direct paraphrase and quote of what she herself has written. Causteau (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You have already admitted that the present text does not explain all this at all.

Not quite. What I have done is explain to you in my post dated 15:17, 29 October 2008 that we cannot insert into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Ellen actually means because that personal interpretation is just that: an unsourced, personal interpretation not explicity asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes. And since your personal interpretation of what Ellen actually means has already been demonstrated by her as inaccurate and mine as accurate, this makes the forgoing all the more poignant. Causteau (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Indeed despite your frequent claim to have made a close analysis of this, you've never once gone beyond saying that the text should not be changed - you even stated that it should not be made clear (15:17, 29 October 2008) - because it is based on what the original article says, which is of course not an argument at all.

That's not true. I never stated in my posted dated 15:17, 29 October 2008 that "it should not be made clear" or anything of the sort. I stated that the statement in the E1b1b article "cannot be "made clear" because that would entail inserting into the E1b1b article our own personal interpretation of what Coffman-Levy means, a personal interpretation which of course is not explicitly asserted by her. What is actually asserted by her is what's already included in the E1b1b article as both a direct paraphrase in the article's body, and as a direct quote in the article's footnotes."

Just a point of logic:- X can not be done, because doing so would cause a bad thing Y = X should not be done. Your argument was/is quite clearly concerning whether the text should be changed or not, in order to make it more clear; not whether it could be changed or not.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

I've also never "claimed" to have made a close analysis of the paragraph in Ellen's study. I have made one, period. And Ellen herself has indicated that this close analysis -- which you've ridiculed and described as my "POV" -- actually fully captures what it is she was trying to convey. Here's an especially pertinent section of it:

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

Note how it parallels what Ellen herself has indicated in her posts:

• Thus, to refer to clades like E-M78 as "African" because the UEP that defines the parental haplogroup originated in Africa gives the wrong impression about the origins, history and distribution of many of the sub-clades, some of which may occur in greater population frequency than the original parental haplogroup itself.

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

  Causteau (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

None of what you have written attempts to discuss the wording of the article, which is the only thing you need to address. The vague accusation as it stands in the article now does not include any of the extra explanation above, and is not helped by it, because it is on the talk page. (You also don't succeed in showing what your real point is. You say that there is a difference between our interpretations. What? That comment only made sense when you insisted that Ellen did not have sub-clades in mind, which was clearly wrong. You seem to be exaggerating differences rather than seeking to do anything constructive.) Anyway, the wording in the article needs to have a clear meaning, which is additional to what other wording in the article already says, or else if it "can not be made more clear" then it should be removed, shouldn't it? Just address that subject, please.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

None of what you have written attempts to discuss the wording of the article, which is the only thing you need to address.

Your post above presupposes that there is something inherently "wrong" with the wording of the article that warrants discussion. However, this notion doesn't hold water since the wording of the paragraph in question is comprised almost entirely of words taken directly from Ellen's study i.e. the reliable source's own words -- not the personal interpretations of lowly Wiki editors, which aren't even allowed anyway per WP:OR:

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, or arguments. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Please remember that we are only talking about your wording in the Wikipedia article:- not the original article, but the way it is paraphrased in the context of the Wikipedia article. It has been said, that your wording, looking also at the context, gives a new implied meaning that is not in the original article. It is a not a response to this to argue that you know what you are talking about or that you made a citation. This is a wording question. Please treat it that way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Since the first part of the statement in question is made up of direct quotes from Ellen herself, you are obviously only referring to the second part of the assertion:

...a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

However, note that the "wording" of this second part does not and, in fact, cannot give "a new implied meaning that is not in the original article", when it is a virtual word-for-word copy of what Ellen herself writes in her study:

Unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media.

As can quite clearly be seen above, the statements above mean the exact same thing -- the only difference is that Ellen pluralizes "haplogroup" in her study because she believes that haplogroup J2 is likewise also mishandled by the media and public institutions. That's it. Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The vague accusation as it stands in the article now does not include any of the extra explanation above, and is not helped by it, because it is on the talk page.

Of course the E1b1b article does not include my/Ellen's explanations cited above because those explanations are not sourced, and Wikipedia goes on reliable sources only (which Ellen's study definitely qualifies as). It is also strictly your own opinion that the statement that "misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" is vague. It's certainly not my view nor is it Ellen's, the actual author of the passage the statement both directly paraphrases and quotes from. Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

The author did not take a position concerning the wording in the Wikipedia article. Also, I am not saying we should replace sourced with unsourced material. I am saying the wording should be improved. You may recall that this is not just my opinion, but that this whole discussion was actually started by another editor. In any case, if readers who know this subject matter find the wording vague and misleading, that is a good reason to look at the wording, not "just someone's opinion". But you refuse to discuss it, just covering yourself in the flag of having quoted from an article. No one is saying we should not quote from the article. People are telling you that the way you (just you) demand that the paraphrase should be worded, twists the meaning. If you have no response to that except to say that the sentence does not confuse you, then let people who do see a problem try to remove any ambiguity please. On what basis can you refuse that request?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I didn't write that Ellen took "a position concerning the wording in the Wikipedia article." I wrote that "it's certainly not my view nor is it Ellen's" that "the statement that "misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" is vague". I know this from a) Ellen's own explanation of her position in her posts on this talk page, b) her approval of my own close analysis of her writing (including the phrase above), and c) the fact that the assertion in the E1b1b article is identical to the one in Ellen's study except for a one word adjustment for plurality, as I've already explained. Furthermore, the anonymous IP that started this whole discussion repeatedly complained that "Ellen Coffman-Levy's Comments should be REMOVED from the origin sections as it gives the impression that She does NOT agree with Cruciani et al. when she actually does" -- a position which has no substance or relevance, especially now since we state point blank in the E1b1b article that "citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"." He also suggested that Coffman-Levy isn't even talking about the origin of E3b in the quote above so it therefore shouldn't be included: "The MAIN issue I have with the reference (from reading the comments of 2 main editors) is that the quote from Ellen's article in the ORIGIN section of the WIkI article doesn't really reference nor have an opinion ON THE ORIGIN." This of course absurd and has been proven completely wrong by Ellen's own posts, which show that she's actually specifically talking about the origin of E3b (as I've already explained in my close analysis, which Ellen also fully agrees with). So that's the other reader who finds "the wording vague and misleading": someone whose initial concerns have since been completely invalidated and by no less than the study's author herself. This leaves just you that somehow sees "ambiguity" in that direct paraphrase of Coffman-Levy's study (which, again, differs only in a one word adjustment for plurality, as I've explained in my previous post above). Funny how Ellen herself didn't see any such ambiguity or anything approaching it in her response to my post (dated 19:51, 31 October 2008) where I asked her outright "if I have missed anything or if I am perhaps in some way misinterpreting what [she has] written". Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You also don't succeed in showing what your real point is. You say that there is a difference between our interpretations. What?

Well, for one thing, you've stated that placing the phrase in question in the Origins section of the article suggests that "Coffman-Levy is a protagonist in this argument taking the side of the Near East theory", which is of course absurd since we state point-blank in the article that "referencing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"". You also wrote to Ellen in your post dated 17:40, 1 November 2008 that:

...so what you were referring to principally at the time were comments which ignored that clades such as the one now known as E-V13 are as European as anything else, so to speak? In other words, the complexity being ignored was concerning sub-clades of E-M78, some of which are certainly not African except in the sense in which all clades are African? Is that a reasonable summary that we can use to guide our judgement on what is intended?.

However, in her response to that post, she made it clear that she actually meant a great deal more than that:

I think the motivations and biases was more complicated in the AncestrybyDNA case cited above than simply ignoring origins of sub-clades. I think there was an intentional misuse of genetic information and labels such as "African" to mislead the public. They attempted to create a particular picture of genetic ancestry and misused labels like "African" and DNA studies on E3b to do so.

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

Further, you quite clearly labeled my close analysis of the quote from Ellen's study as "POV", suggested that I wanted "to de-emphasize E1b1b's African aspects", and that "Coffman-Levy is not a supporter of this position of [mine]" -- all of which is ironic in that Ellen herself has intimated that my close analysis "is precisely what [she] was trying to convey". Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

We should be talking about the text in the Wikipedia article and not you or me. Does the current wording say all of the above? No, it certainly does not. Would it even be relevant to a general article to include such specific material? I don't think so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This point, as with every other one, has already been thoroughly addressed elsewhere. For one thing, my previous post isn't about you or me. It's entirely about your posts and Ellen's response to one of the latter. Secondly, your question asking whether it would "even be relevant to a general article to include such specific material" harkens back to the old argument as to whether the passage from Ellen's study should even be included at all in the E1b1b article -- an argument which has been entirely invalidated by my close analysis of the passage in question, and by Ellen's complete agreement with and subsequent echoing of that close analysis:

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

Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

On one occasion, she said that a summary you made on this discussion page was correct. The impression giving by the current wording in the Wikipedia article (vague accusation, followed - you insisted by reverts - by comments implying that there is a Middle Eastern Origins theory somewhere in the literature) is perhaps debatable, but I am not the only one on this discussion page who has mentioned that it looks like a vague way of implying something which would be incorrect. Why not just get rid of that vagueness then if you are not trying to create an impression?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In her post dated (06:04, 1 November 2008), Ellen stated outright that my close analysis "is precisely what [she] was trying to convey". In the rest of that post and all of her posts since, she has further demonstrated through concrete explanations and examples that we share the exact same view -- it's not just a case of "on one occasion, she said that a summary [I] made on this discussion was correct." Every part of her posts agree with what I've written. Furthermore, the anonymous IP's main gripe with the paragraph in the E1b1b article taken from Ellen's study didn't have to do with any hypothetical vagueness in the wording. It principally had to do with his mistaken belief that the passage "gives the impression that She does NOT agree with Cruciani et al. when she actually does" -- a concern which, again, does not hold water (especially now) since the E1b1b article states outright that "citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"." Nothing vague about that. Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That comment only made sense when you insisted that Ellen did not have sub-clades in mind, which was clearly wrong.

I never insisted that Ellen did not have sub-clades in mind. What I quite clearly wrote was that "I have not attempted to insert into the E1b1b article this personal interpretation of mine, nor have I reduced her actual statements to simply the fact that she is talking about sub-clades of E3b that originated outside of Africa and nothing more (a close reading of the paragraph above does not bear this out; she means a great deal more than that as I've already shown)." Kindly stop quoting me out of context; it's very annoying and verboten per WP:CIV. Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be exaggerating differences rather than seeking to do anything constructive.

Nothing exaggerated about the above, I'm afraid. If constructive is what you're after, then perhaps you should stop attributing statements to me that I have not made. Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I honestly disagree with you about this. I tried to clarify the sentence mentioning sub-clades, and you reverted it saying that there was no mention of sub-clades in the original context of the article. Both the article and the author's explanation on this discussion page make it clear you were wrong about that. If I misunderstand you, please explain it to me, but the misunderstanding is based on my understanding of all the correspondence. One thing which I think makes discussion very difficult with you is that you never try to explain what you are thinking, but instead you rather answer in a legalistic way by accusing people of poor form for having questioned you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you have misunderstood what I've written. In this edit summary, I wrote that "it's still a personal interpretation that Coffman-Levy means that because she never actually mentions E3b's sub-clades". However, this was strictly a reference to the paragraph in question where Ellen actually discusses the controversy surrounding the treatment of E3b -- not to a separate discussion one page removed from it -- and where she indeed never explicitly mention's E3b's sub-clades:

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

Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Characteristics of problem editors. You find that nobody will assume good faith, no matter how often you remind them. Warning others to assume good faith is something which should be done with great care, if at all... You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people. You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors.

— WP:TE

Anyway, the wording in the article needs to have a clear meaning, which is additional to what other wording in the article already says, or else if it "can not be made more clear" then it should be removed, shouldn't it? Just address that subject, please.

This subject has already been discussed to death. There's nothing even remotely unclear about the wording. If there were, Ellen would've indicated as much when I asked her if I was misinterpreting what she had written. But of course she indicated the exact opposite of that i.e. that I was spot on. You also have no right to remove this sourced statement since it is easily verifiable and properly attributed to a reliable source -- a reliable source whose own author has already indicated that her words are not being misinterpreted. From WP:VER:

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

A direct quote of the entire paragraph in question from the Coffman-Levy study was also provided in the E1b1b article's footnotes so that readers may verify the information for themselves. From WP:PROVEIT:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Ellen agreed with a summary you made on this discussion page, which is not the subject under discussion. She went to lengths to avoid making a comment on the wording question, but mentioned that the media/public misinformation she had in mind were very specific cases at a specific time. The wording currently in the Wikipedia article gives a very different impression.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

That's, again, an understatement. In her post dated 06:04, 1 November 2008, Ellen did not just agree with a summary I made on this discussion page; she also agreed with my close analysis that was included in that summary. And all of her posts since have demonstrated through vivid explanations and examples that we share the exact same view (as can readily be seen, for example, in the juxtaposition of some of our previous posts in my own post dated 01:06, 4 November 2008). Ellen also did not go "to lengths to avoid making a comment on the wording question". To state that is to suggest that she is somehow "dodging" the non-issue of whether "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" means the same thing as "misinformation about these haplogroups [E3b and J] continues to pervade the public and media". Of course they do (afore-explained plurality issue notwithstanding), and she ought to know since she wrote the study to begin with. Moreover, while Ellen did indeed cite as an example specific cases of media/public misinformation from the time when she was writing the study (e.g. AncestrybyDNA), she still made it clear that:

As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history.

Lastly, the wording gives the exact impression its author intended, which is why she never took exception to it when it was specifically presented before her by me for appraisal (in my post dated 19:51, 31 October 2008). Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In the spririt of assuming good faith, may I ask you to take a different direction and just explain the difference in meaning which the disputed words give to the article, which are not already given by other words, and which can not be worded less ambiguously. Such an approach must surely be more effective.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

No, such an approach is not more effective because there was nothing ambiguous about the direct paraphrase of and quote from the Coffman-Levy study to begin with. The different direction you propose we take likewise is actually a 180 degree turn backwards since I've already explained this very point in my post dated 17:00, 2 November 2008:

The paraphrase that "this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" does not already cover the same ground as the assertion that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". The first part identifies the problem, and the second part identifies who among others is behind the problem.

Causteau (talk) 23:28, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I am a reader myself, and so if I say that I do not see the meaning, how can you possibly just keep over-ruling me about that? The second part of the sentence does not make it clear whether the misinformation being spread is the same misinformation discussed in the first part. Can you at least make that more clear? Please remember that readers of this article should be able to understand this sentence without having to look up the article or this talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not over-ruling you about the fact that you do not see the meaning in the assertion that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media." I am simply stating that this is your opinion, not fact. Both Ellen -- who wrote the original assertion to begin with (viz. "unfortunately, misinformation about these haplogroups continues to pervade the public and media") -- and I have no trouble understanding it. If there were something unclear about what Ellen were writing about, she would've indicated as much in her study, but of course she did not because it is as plain as day for any reader to understand: "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". I've already explained that we can't enumerate all the instances of said misinformation or point fingers at specific "culprits", as it were, because doing so would entail original research on our part since the reliable source in question does not specify these things -- Ellen only went into detail here on this talk page. However, what her study does specify is what is already in the text of the E1b1b article and what readers deserve to know: namely, that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media". Causteau (talk) 12:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for starting a new section, but the size of the old one seems to be straining the upload possibilities. Anyway, here is a fresh start, trying to take a partial step back. Current text...

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

We should only be talking here about something very specific. The defense against my wordiness and vagueness concerns is very specifically that in the words "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" (the vague part, in my opinion) the word "misinformation" can be easily understood to be referring to those "who among others is behind the problem" (Causteau's words) mentioned just before.

In other words, the misinformation being spread is supposed to exactly the same incorrect (actually, given Ellen's own explanation a better word would be "over-simplified") descriptions of E1b1b as “African,” "leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" which was mentioned just before - not that the origin itself isn't Africa, but that this is an inaccurate way to describe it for other reasons. I believe that this is not at all clear, and that any normal reader will look at the next words to try to guess the meaning.

All of this is only a point about clear wording in the paraphrase which is made. (Yes, I have other concerns too.) When it comes to clear wording, having a few well-informed readers say that something is confusing is very important. For example, could the paragraph read as follows, which would give the meaning I think everyone wants, without the possible misinterpretations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup has been often described in the public and media simply as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the complex history of this haplogroup.

Please if possible just limit answers to clearly defining any difference anyone sees in the meaning between the new version, and what Causteau has explained should be the correct interpretation of the current version.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:22, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We should only be talking here about something very specific. The defense against my wordiness and vagueness concerns is very specifically that in the words "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media" (the vague part, in my opinion) the word "misinformation" can be easily understood to be referring to those "who among others is behind the problem" (Causteau's words) mentioned just before.

Your statement that "the word "misinformation" can be easily understood to be referring to those "who among others is behind the problem"" does not make any sense whatsoever. For starters, it misrepresents what I've written. When I wrote (in my post dated 17:00, 2 November 2008) that "the second part identifies who among others is behind the problem", I was obviously referring to the media and the public, among others, as being "behind the problem" -- no different than what the study's actual author has herself stated several times in her own posts on this talk page (e.g. "This is merely one disturbing example of what was happening at that time in the research community, the media and the reporting of DNA results. The misrepresentations were, in my opinion, quite intentional and also very widespread. They were certainly not limited to these companies."). Causteau (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

In other words, the misinformation being spread is supposed to exactly the same incorrect (actually, given Ellen's own explanation a better word would be "over-simplified") descriptions of E1b1b as “African,” "leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup" which was mentioned just before - not that the origin itself isn't Africa, but that this is an inaccurate way to describe it for other reasons. I believe that this is not at all clear, and that any normal reader will look at the next words to try to guess the meaning.

As demonstrated above, your entire argument here is based on an incorrect interpretation of what both Ellen and I have written, so your point is off-base, to put it mildly. Causteau (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

All of this is only a point about clear wording in the paraphrase which is made. (Yes, I have other concerns too.) When it comes to clear wording, having a few well-informed readers say that something is confusing is very important. For example, could the paragraph read as follows, which would give the meaning I think everyone wants, without the possible misinterpretations?

If you want honest opinions from readers, you'll have to start quoting me accurately, or I will just keep doing as I've been doing and continue to correct your misrepresentations of what I've actually written and mean. Causteau (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Please if possible just limit answers to clearly defining any difference anyone sees in the meaning between the new version, and what Causteau has explained should be the correct interpretation of the current version.

Sure. You've removed all reference to the "misimpression regarding the origin" of E3b. You've only retained a reference to the "misimpression regarding... the complex history of this haplogroup" -- only half of what Ellen actually mentions in the paragraph in question. You've also misquoted her as saying that "this haplogroup has been often described in the public and media simply as “African,”" when she has stated in no uncertain terms (in her post dated 06:04, 1 November 2008) that this misinformation plagues a lot more than just the public and the media:

This is merely one disturbing example of what was happening at that time in the research community, the media and the reporting of DNA results. The misrepresentations were, in my opinion, quite intentional and also very widespread. They were certainly not limited to these companies.

So again, kindly stop needlessly distorting Ellen's words when the paragraph that's already in the E1b1b article:

However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

...is already an almost word-for-word paraphrase of and direct quote from what she actually writes in her study:

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

Causteau (talk) 18:12, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This is not a disagreement about whether to paraphrase or not in this case, but as to how to say something clearly without risk of misunderstanding. Next suggestion:

Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup has often been described, for example in the public and media, as simply “African” - leaving a misimpression regarding the complex origins and history of the people in this haplogroup.

Do you still see any misrepresentations? Please feel free to make suggestions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

This new draft is but a less satisfactory and equally unnecessary rephrasing of the direct quotes from Ellen's study that are already featured in the article:

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

However, this time it somehow fails to mention the huge fact that Ellen clearly states that "E3b is often incorrectly described as "African" (your previous draft omitted this sentence-defining term as well; I just never noticed)! The draft also describes the origins of E3b as "complex" when Ellen clearly labels the clade's history as such:

You've also completely done away with the second part of the phrase to the effect that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media," which won't do because this misinformation is still going on (as Ellen has already pointed out in her posts) and readers interested in the clade deserve to know this. Causteau (talk) 20:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You seem to really want bad style as a principle! :) If something is a misimpression, which is a horrible word to begin with, then it is not correct. The version right now has to many mis- words and negatives. Both these style problems come under the category of standard and objective - not just someone's opinion. Next proposal:

Citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa". However, she adds that this haplogroup has often been misleadingly described, for example in the public and media, as simply “African” - giving a wrong impression about the complex origins and history of the peoples in this haplogroup.

Let me know the verdict in terms of meaning differences.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure. This latest draft is yet another unsatisfactory and equally unnecessary rephrasing of the direct quotes from Ellen's study that are already featured in the article:

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

Only this time you replaced the key term "incorrectly described" with "misleadingly described". Ellen did not write that E3b was misleadingly described, but that it was incorrectly described -- a much more powerful statement.

You've also once again completely done away with the second part of the phrase to the effect that "a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media," which still won't do because this misinformation is still going on (as Ellen has already pointed out in her posts) and readers interested in the clade still deserve to know this. Causteau (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think now that you are going in a drection explictly different from Ellen's. [Here] is the diff.

• The misinformation had to do with under-stating complexity, and so calling it purely incorrect is not in the spirit of what she meant, nor something the Wikipedia article can spend as much time explaining or putting in context.
• The text was definitely describing something specific which is probably in the past, even if the temptation to over simplify remains always.

Please from your side propose any way you can which gives impressions which are wrong. We do not want people to get the wrong impression do we?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:35, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Strange post. For starters, I never called the statement "purely incorrect". I quite clearly wrote that "you replaced the key term "incorrectly described" with "misleadingly described". Ellen did not write that E3b was misleadingly described, but that it was incorrectly described -- a much more powerful statement." If one searches this talk page for the term "misleadingly" (or even "misleading"), one quickly sees that Ellen never used it in any of her posts let alone in the relevant paragraph in her study. The term she did actually use was the much more powerful incorrectly because the term "incorrectly" implies that the way that E3b is often described as "African" is not just misleading, but flat-out wrong i.e. not correct.

From my side, I propose you stop misquoting Ellen. Her own words are good enough. They, for a change, fully capture what it is that she is actually talking about and do so better than those of any other person that doesn't happen to be her (though in her post dated 06:04, 1 November 2008, she did seem to think I had a good handle on what she actually meant). If you're genuinely concerned about the reading public, then you will avoid censoring what Ellen has actually written and let people see it for themselves, as it is, without attempting to dilute the potency or, indeed, the breadth of her plainly-stated message. Causteau (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about Ellen's words. We are talking about your very specific paraphrase. Please only discuss that. Ellen has never given any seal of approval to that (and nor has she really directly commented on either your wording or mine). She agreed with a much longer summary you made on this discussion page, and at the same time she never said she disagreed with me which is why it pointless discussing who she agrees with the most. As far as I can tell there is no disagreement about her article between us, only about the wording. If you continue so doggedly trying to imply otherwise then discussion here can't work, and I have to try to edit on the article without your comments. See WP:TE...

• You often find yourself accusing or suspecting other editors of “suppressing information”, “censorship” or “denying facts.”
• Your citations back some of the facts you are adding, but do not explicitly support your interpretation or the inferences you draw.
• You find yourself repeating the same argument over and over again, without persuading people.
• You ignore or refuse to answer good faith questions from other editors.

Please look at the diff I directed you to, then tell me what meaning difference you see in my words versus your words, which is compatible with the explanation in that diff. Remember that that diff was Ellen's main comment about the discussion concerning the question at hand and not whether or not you could write a summary fit for a discussion page. For example if you say that my rewrite is wrong because it implies that the problem was in the past when the article was written, Ellen confirmed this also. (And this is not something we can look to the article itself for help in.) If you say that it is wrong because it implies that what was incorrect in the misinformation was that it was misleading, rather than that E1b1b did not originate in Africa, which is the strong implication of your current wording, then such meaning differences seem quite acceptable because neither you nor Ellen believe otherwise? Is there anything else? Please note that even if Ellen's own wording is the source of the implication that Africa is not the origin place of E1b1b, we know with absolute certainty that such an implication is not her intention. Therefore anything leading to this implication must be removed. How can you argue otherwise? Are you again going to tell me that I am wrong to say that the several people including myself who read this in the current wording do not understand their own thoughts on this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

We are not talking about Ellen's words. We are talking about your very specific paraphrase. Please only discuss that.

No... we are talking about both Ellen's words and my specific direct quote and paraphrase of her words because the two are virtually identical.

Here is my edit that is featured in the E1b1b article:

However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup", and that a lot of misinformation about this haplogroup also continues to pervade the public and media.

The statement above is an almost word-for-word paraphrase of and direct quote from what Ellen actually writes in her study:

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

Ellen has never given any seal of approval to that (and nor has she really directly commented on either your wording or mine). She agreed with a much longer summary you made on this discussion page, and at the same time she never said she disagreed with me which is why it pointless discussing who she agrees with the most.

That's, again, an understatement. In her post dated 06:04, 1 November 2008, Ellen did not just agree with a summary I made on this discussion page; she also agreed with my close analysis that was included in that summary, and tellingly never took exception to my direct quote from and paraphrase of her study when the latter was specifically presented before her by me for appraisal. Ellen may not have explicitly told you "I disagree with you", but she did indicate that my close analysis -- which you've ridiculed and described as my "POV" -- actually fully captures what it is she was trying to convey. Further, all of her posts since have demonstrated through vivid explanations and examples that she and I share the exact same view (as can readily be seen, for example, in the juxtaposition of some of our previous posts in my own post dated 01:06, 4 November 2008), whereas her response to your post dated 17:40, 1 November 2008 shows that you do not fully understand what she has written.

As far as I can tell there is no disagreement about her article between us, only about the wording.

This is about a lot more than "wording"; it's about meaning. For instance, in two of your recent drafts dated you completely ommitted the huge fact that Ellen clearly asserts that "E3b is incorrectly described as "African"". Instead you simply asserted that "this haplogroup has been often described in the public and media simply as “African,”" and that "she adds that this haplogroup has often been described, for example in the public and media, as simply “African”" -- neither of which mention the pivotal fact that describing E3b in such a way is incorrect (not just "misleading" as you later modified it to). In your draft dated 16:22, 7 November 2008, you also removed all reference to the "misimpression regarding the origin" of E3b -- you only retained a reference to the "misimpression regarding... the complex history of this haplogroup", which is only half of what Ellen actually mentions in her study. My point is, with each and everyone of your drafts, there has always been some sort of distortion and/or ommission of information -- this is what I mean by "censoring what Ellen has actually written". It's not opinion; it's empirical, readily observable, and constantly repeated fact.

Please look at the diff I directed you to, then tell me what meaning difference you see in my words versus your words, which is compatible with the explanation in that diff. Remember that that diff was Ellen's main comment about the discussion concerning the question at hand and not whether or not you could write a summary fit for a discussion page. For example if you say that my rewrite is wrong because it implies that the problem was in the past when the article was written, Ellen confirmed this also.

I've already explained to you exactly what was wrong with each and every one your rewrites (which are more properly termed distortions) of the direct paraphrase from and quote of Ellen's own words. Please stop insinuating that I did not do this when a simple glance up the page proves otherwise. Further, Ellen didn't just complain that "the problem was in the past" -- it's still going on! We've already been through this too, remember? My response to you then (as now) was that:

Moreover, while Ellen did indeed cite as an example specific cases of media/public misinformation from the time when she was writing the study (e.g. AncestrybyDNA), she still made it clear that:

As more and more research is conducted and DNA articles are released, perhaps there is less bias and misunderstanding about haplogroups like E3b. Although I think the public today is much better educated about genetic groups, there is still a very strong temptation to attach labels and to simplify what is almost always a very complex genetic history.

If you say that it is wrong because it implies that what was incorrect in the misinformation was that it was misleading, rather than that E1b1b did not originate in Africa, which is the strong implication of your current wording, then such meaning differences seem quite acceptable because neither you nor Ellen believe otherwise?

First of all, the "implication of my current wording" is the exact same implication as that of Ellen herself since this part of the statement consists of a direct quote from Ellen's study -- i.e. her own words:

However, she adds that this haplogroup is "often incorrectly described as “African,” leaving a misimpression regarding the origin and complex history of this haplogroup"

Secondly, Ellen's own words -- which, like it or not, the statement above is -- don't imply that E1b1b did not originate in Africa. This is the same hollow charge you keep leveling, when not one sentence earlier, we state point blank in the E1b1b article that "citing Cruciani et al.'s 2004 study, Coffman-Levy (2005) writes that E1b1b1 (E-M35) "arose in East Africa"!

Please note that even if Ellen's own wording is the source of the implication that Africa is not the origin place of E1b1b, we know with absolute certainty that such an implication is not her intention. Therefore anything leading to this implication must be removed. How can you argue otherwise?

Ellen's own wording is not "the source of the implication that Africa is not the origin place of E1b1b" because she never implies this -- it's you that has, as I've shown above and repeatedly elsewhere. Moreover, since the Coffman-Levy quote is a reliable source, I don't believe you have any choice in the matter as to whether it stays or goes. Again, per WP:VER:

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

A direct quote of the entire paragraph in question from the Coffman-Levy study was also provided in the E1b1b article's footnotes so that readers may verify the information for themselves. From WP:PROVEIT:

The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source cited must clearly support the information as it is presented in the article. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question. Editors should cite sources fully, providing as much publication information as possible, including page numbers when citing books.

I also included this choice paragraph in my close analysis (dated 19:51, 31 October 2008) explaining the importance of this assertion:

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

And Ellen's response (dated 06:04, 1 November 2008) to that post was of course to indicate that what I wrote was "precisely what [she] was trying to convey".

So kindly give it a rest already; stop setting the template to zero as if we haven't already been through all this absurdity before. Causteau (talk) 15:24, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

There is only one question you need to discuss and you are avoiding it studiously. The sentence as it now stands, that which you should be discussing, certainly implies that Ellen Coffman-Levy thinks that E1b1b did not originate in Africa. Whether that is her fault or not (I say it is your choice to put those words in the context of the Wikipedia article) does not even matter because you have stated quite clearly that you agree with me that Ellen Coffman-Levy does not believe this. This is a scientific subject, not a poem, so the original author's wording is less important that the facts and figures she was reciting, and we know those. So how do you therefore defend knowingly making the wording misleading? Just following orders?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2008 (UTC)