Talk:Haplogroup R1/Archive 1

Archive 1

Tag

Saw the tag and did some work. Did not put in refs etc. The tag deserves to stay for now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

New article, potential source for improvement

See http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982209020697.pdf?intermediate=true Concerning the subject here:

More surprising is the status of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1, which, unlike mtDNA haplogroup I, is not indigenous to West Eurasia but appears to have originated in South Asia, possibly in the early settlements associated with the southern route dispersal [64]. This appears better substantiated than the alternative suggestion of a Central Asian origin [65]. Two major subclades of R1 appear in Europe: R1b in the west and R1a in the north-east.

Note, South Asia seems the most likely origin place but Central Asia is the other alternative worth considering. The references used by this review can be found following:-

• 64. Kivisild, T., Rootsi, S., Metspalu, M., Mastana, S., Kaldma, K., Parik, J., Metspalu, E., Adojaan, M., Tolk, H.-V., Stepanov, V., et al. (2003). The genetic heritage of the earliest settlers persists both in Indian tribal and caste populations. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 72, 313–332.
• 65. Wells, R.S., Yuldasheva, N., Ruzibakiev, R., Underhill, P.A., Evseeva, I., Blue-Smith, J., Jin, L., Su, B., Pitchappan, R., Shanmugalakshmi, S., et al. (2001). The Eurasian heartland: a continental perspective on Y-chromosome diversity. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 98, 10244–10249.

Regards--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:15, 23 February 2010 (UTC)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

King Tut, etc.

I added some material and moved things around for what I think will improve the clarity. I added a Reuters cite about King Tut, who was amember of this haplogroup, along with 50 to 98 % of western Europeans. Odd, huh? Bearian (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I know this story. There was once a news programme which showed pictures of scientists and talked about how scientists were looking at King Tut to see if they could get DNA. Nothing was published, but around the internet, some people analysed the screen shot out of interest. Of course no one knows if the screen show was really King Tut's DNA. There has been no official research announcement, but newspapers eventually picked up the internet originated rumour when a DNA testing company trying to attract business from genealogists mentioned it on a fact on their webpage. Anyway, coming back to Wikipedia, I can not prove all this quickly, but what I can say is that there is an established consensus about being careful about using newspapers when reporting scientific "latest news" like this. Therefore I believe we should attribute the story (..."newspaper reports say"...) and not report it as a certain fact. Readers of Wikipedia should not be given the impression there was a scientific publication about this. BTW, back to random discussion it would not be that surprising. R1b is present in parts of Egypt, for example R-V88 in the Western Desert. It is found scattered all over the Middle East which is not far away. And secondly always keep in mind that Y DNA distributions change quite quickly. Most common Y group found in old European samples is G, which is rare today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Concur on that caution in general (see WP:RS), but in this case I think that's enough doubt to discard the "information" entirely, per "extraordinary claims require extraordinary sourcing".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:35, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 July 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Khestwol please make sure that all the incoming links for both articles are correct. Jenks24 (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• Haplogroup R-M173 → Haplogroup R1
• Haplogroup R1 → Haplogroup R (Y-DNA)

– Revert undiscussed moves to the extremely rarely used terms by user:RebekahThorn here and here. Per WP:CONSISTENCY: after the associated articles Haplogroup R1b, Haplogroup R1a, and Haplogroup R1a1 are moved back to current titles, now "Haplogroup R-M173" must be moved to "Haplogroup R1" too so that these associated articles' titles remain consistent. Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Haplogroup R-M173" is used extremely rarely. Google Books search gets about 125 results for "Haplogroup R1", but only about 4 results for "Haplogroup R-M173". This makes "Haplogroup R-M173" a rare name unrecognizable to readers. --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 22:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Khestwol (talk) 20:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

• Note about the second requested move ("Haplogroup R1" → "Haplogroup R (Y-DNA)"): the article title currently at "Haplogroup R1" is a result of the consensus here, but that move request was a mistake. That move request should have been from "Haplogroup R-M207" → "Haplogroup R (Y-DNA)", because that article's title before user:RebekahThorn's move here was "Haplogroup R (Y-DNA)". Now, with moving "Haplogroup R1" back to the original title "Haplogroup R (Y-DNA)" as it was before the undiscussed move, that mistake will also be fixed. Khestwol (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as nom. Khestwol (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support as nom. Jbeans (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

For input from other editors, ping participants from the last requested move closed discussion: Absolwent, SMcCandlish, Jbeans. Khestwol (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support: Yeah, lets just reset this back to how it was before the mess was created. If people can later demonstrate that "R-M173", etc., have become the WP:COMMONNAMEs, then fine, we can move them to what the names have changed to in a preponderance of the RS. Hasn't happened to date. PS: It's not necessary to add yourself as "support as nom", and least in this case it inspired someone else to "support as nom" instead of "per". LOL.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:33, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.