Talk:Haplogroup R1a/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archiving

I changed the setting of the bot to archive threads after 7 days, instead of 3 days. That extremely aggressive setting was probably due to the epic threads a few months back. I don't think it's needed at this point. Even 7 days may be too quick, in fact. rudra (talk) 22:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems sensible.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Have adjusted to 14 days. Hopefully I did it correctly.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Just increased to 20. I noticed DinDraithou was not happy with the 14 days.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Increased to 30 days because of fewer visits.--Fylindfotberserk (talk) 06:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sharma et al summary of discussion recently

I am guessing that many knowledgeable potential editors of R1a will come to this article in the future, maybe once a month, and wonder why there is no mention of the R1a1* data which appeared in the 2009 article by Sharma et al. I am going to try to make a neutral summary. I hope it will be taken in good faith. It is obvious that such an attempt can go wrong, so if I make errors, these should of course be mentioned, hopefully in a calm way. NOTE: The person writing this is one of the people who argued FOR inclusion of some mention of R1a1* discovered in India. Hopefully people can just keep this in mind and make educated judgements.

• 1. The article until recently contained the following [1]:

Sharma et al. (2009) also found 2/51 amongst Kashmir Pandits and 13/57 people tested from the Saharia tribe of Madhya Pradesh, which is the highest level in one locality found so far.

— Original version, now deleted

• 2. This has been objected to by one editor, who came to this article from a debate about this same source on another article, Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia. See [2], [3]. The basic concern, which I believe is accepted as correct by other editors including me, is that this user noticed that the article's data tables seem to contain errors.
• 3. The original discussion on this talk page is here, although it did not work as a discussion and it might be better to read the discussions on the other article as well as this discussion on the the talkpage of User:Dbachmann, who is an admin who was asked to comment. The exact reason for these errors in the Sharma article is not clear to any of us, but it seems to make the quality appear "low quality".
• 4. At first it was even proposed that all mention of this entire source should be removed, but this was objected to and it is now at least in the bibliography and a few other minor places.
• 5. The current situation leaves open an obvious lack of consensus about how to handle the mention of R1a1* in the article, which is an interesting and well known fact, unlikely to be totally wrongly reported, according to most but not all editors of this article. A compromise which was proposed by me, but is currently NOT in the article was to remove mention of any exact numbers, and simply mentioned that R1a1* was found.[4]

Sharma et al. (2009) also report the presence of this paraclade in India.

— Second deleted proposal

• 6. The Wikipedia policy used to argue for complete removal, and which is apparently still a critical part of the argument for not mentioning the R1a1a* data was WP:UCS on the basis that it was claimed to be common sense that an article with such errors must be a poor quality source overall. The policy which was said to argue against complete removal was WP:Neutral, which is generally speaking a far more important and clear policy in Wikipedia as can be seen by the wording of the policies themselves.

there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution. [...] The principle of the rules is more important than the letter. [...BUT...]When advancing a position or justifying an action, base your argument on existing agreements, community foundation issues and the interests of the encyclopedia, not your own common sense. [...AND...] Be careful about citing this principle too aggressively.

— WP:UCS

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

— WP:Neutral

• 7. It has been objected against applying WP:Neutral that:-

• Significance. The rule above applies when the source article in question is "significant"; this has been discussed here and while no consensus has been achieved. However, I think the following is non controversial:-

• The article is published in a journal which is part of the Nature group, but it is not their top journal or even their second top journal in the field of human genetics.
• The article has been cited since it was published, but not a lot.
• The authors are not "big names" in the field as such, even if this article is known.

• Primary sourcing. Wikipedia policy (WP:Primary, is to be careful of relying upon primary publications. Reading the policy on this however could be interpreted as explicitly demanding caution in ever applying this rule together with WP:UCS as mentioned above. Note the "do not" bits.

Reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about material found in a primary source. Do not base articles entirely on primary sources. Do not add unsourced material from your personal experience, as that would make Wikipedia a primary source of that material.

— WP:Primary

• WP:REDFLAG has been cited, on the basis that the R1a1* has only been reported by this one article so far.The counter argument against this is that there is not really anything surprising about finding R1a1* as this is exactly what the top articles in this field would seem to expect, and it is just a matter of not much data yet existing for India. Furthermore even if this article is not "top" it is certainly not non-mainstream as per the REDFLAG policy wording. Certainly the editor who has expressed most concern about citing Sharma et al originally thought the article was making non mainstream claims, and apparently felt that a critical aspect of what was being sourced here, but he apparently now realizes it is not non mainstream in any exciting way, and so as the discussion has progressed the red flag claim seems to have changed in strength?

Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim: [...] surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources; [...] Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources

— WP:REDFLAG

I hope this helps others at least understand that there has been significant thought about the pros and cons already.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Style

I generally like the direction the article is going, however a few areas of concern are.

1. Several references like Sangupta 2005 can be condensed. There are four instances in the reference list.PB666 ^yap

2. The South Asia distribution section is not encyclopedic. While it may be necessary, when allele frequencies exist in a mosaic pattern to point out individual frequencies, it is not necessary to do so to 4 decimal places. Relative frequencies have an that can be approximate by the number of counts, in general for most of these studies sample sizes are less than 100 for individual groups and a frequencies 17 to 40% the accuracy is at the first digit (i.e +/- 10%).PB666 ^yap

3. I thought someone was going to redo the R1a1a7 map?PB666 ^yap

4. "Eu19" adds unneccesary information for most readers, 99%?. I recommend the relationships betwenn Eu19 and other branch points be relegated to a footnote.PB666 ^yap

5. Relative to the R1a's origin and R1a1, and R1a1a's origin the following paragraph gives undue weight to speculative material.PB666 ^yap 06:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

"Underhill et al. (2009) remark on the "geographic concordance of the R1a1a7-M458 distribution with the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Corded Ware (CW) cultures of Europe". However they also note evidence contrary to a connection: Corded Ware period human remains at Eulau from which Y-DNA was extracted of R1a haplogroup appear to be R1a1a*(xM458) (which they found most similar to the modern German R1a1a* haplotype.) In papers where the Zhivitovsky method is not the only method used, Europe's R1a1a diversity is generally understood to have been shaped more significantly by more recent events, including not only the Bronze Age, but also the spread of Slavic languages. Dupuy et al. (2005) speculated that "R1a [in Norway] might represent the spread of the Corded Ware and Battle-Axe cultures from central and east Europe." Luca et al. (2006), looking at data from the Czech Republic suggested there was evidence for a rapid demographic expansion approximately 1500 years ago. Rebala et al. (2007) also detected Y-STR evidence of a recent Slavic expansion from the area of modern Ukraine."

4 papers here are cited and Underhill sets forth 3 different time frames, late paleolithic, mesolithic, and Neolithic, where as Klyosov suggests a copper early bronze age, that covers about a dozen different cultural periods in Europe, attribution of R1a1a expansion into Europe is a topic for another page, and aside from this the argument is all over the board, it is unlikely any of these are correct assignment to a specific culture. An excessive amount of bandwidth is devoted to this section, but the reality it is a sub-sub-topic, the origin of R1a's R1a1's R1a1a geographic distribution in Europe (as opposed to places like the middle east and South Asia, where its origin is much more ancient and much less attention is devoted to this issue.PB666 ^yap 06:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

6. Klyosov and Underhill give widely contrasting opinions with respect to the relationship between Central Asians and South Asians.

"Such a Steppe origin for all or part R1a1a continues to be argued on the basis of DNA results from ancient remains from several South Siberian late Kurgan sites, including some from the Andronovo culture.[47] However, in recent discussions of this theory it is considered only to apply to a part of R1a1a, making this theory no longer incompatible with other origins theories for R1a more broadly defined.[2][48]"

In fact Underhill present the Indus/West Indian region as a likely source where with little evidence that regional Indian R1a coming from Central Asian stepp cultures (The TMRCA for central asians is less than one half that of for Indus region R1a), and Klyosov present Indians and an admixture of these so-called bronze age steppe migrants and peoples from china of a deeper R1a1a branch. The incompatibility problem is that only a subset, of unknown magnitude is explained by Bronse age migrations, whereas the there is (see above) an undefinable level of contribution of various ancestral South Asian/Middle Eastern R1, R1a, and R1a1 xR1a1a group.PB666 ^yap 06:07, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

PB666, your comments are presumably well intended, but let's be realistic. Your demands on style over recent months focused intensely upon wanting longer introduction and explanatory sections, which I you said was more encyclopedic. You were pretty heavy about it. Rudra recently deleted all of that stuff - the biggest part of the changes he made being the removal of precisely the stuff you fought so hard for - and now you say it looks better, which it does. But you do not seem to be a person good at telling others what style changes are required, because your own judgement of the finished results is opposite to your own judgement of what you thought should be attempted.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again folks we have the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. The relative level of explanation needed in certain parts reflected the abundance of information that was present, it appears that some of that information has been eliminated, therefore background explanation is less needed.PB666 ^yap 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Going through your remarks upon matters of substance rather than style:-

1. I see no obvious reason to reduce the references to Sengupta but it is not clear what sort of compression you are suggesting.Andrew Lancaster (talk

Pedantic - Sengupta et al. 2005 appears 4 times in the footnotes list foots 9 , 11, 12 and 16, this means someone isn't using the ref name = "Sengupta05" tag PB666 ^yap 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Without trying to work out what you mean for sure, if you are saying that the ref formatting is sloppy please just fix it. Lots of people edit this article, and things like that happen. If that is not what you are saying then I am not sure what your point is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

2. Again, it is not clear what you are suggesting. There are no references to 4 decimal places, and simply reporting the data in a less accurate way won't make it better. Are you saying that the data is being presented as if more accurate than it is? Please explain.Andrew Lancaster (talk

Pedantic - Relative frequencies are calculated at numbers from 0 to 1 and converted by multiplying by 100 to percent. 72.22 and 48.00 are 4 digit relative proportion. This level of accuracy would be relevant if the sample population size was 1,000,000 individuals, it is not any were close to this.PB666 ^yap 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I just don't get your point. See my question above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

3. I disagree about Eu19. I think a large number of people are reading about these subjects, and coming here after having read an article somewhere, and terminologies are a big real issue for them. Standardization is very recent and still incomplete.Andrew Lancaster (talk

There is a list page for that level of detail.PB666 ^yap 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

5. Concerning origins, this is the main interest in R1a, like it or not, and like it or not, the wide range of theories are the real ones outside Wikipedia and the weighting is currently approximately how it is outside of Wikipedia. Your ideas about a Middle Eastern origin are not unreasonable in my personal opinion but no one is publishing them.Andrew Lancaster

Note - many of these widely held theories have become fodder for the noticeboards, largely because of the speculative nature of that material and also because you can't refrain from writing 10,000 word responses. Theories are not speculative, that fall between the best hypotheses and dogma. If I were to apply Rudra's garbage criteria to all publication prior to 2009, I think we could dispose of most of the references on the page and most of the content, that includes all papers that dealt with Eu19. However I am willing to compromise on these issues, I could support rudra's point of view toward a strictest consensus.PB666 ^yap 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Concerning what is written in published sources there is little to argue about. That there is argument on the internet is not really relevant, although it does show us why some people are interested in this article. Handling that interest is occasionally an elephant in the room, but I believe the article has managed to capture what's in reliable sources, and to make most editors happy on most things. Despite the wikidrama sometimes produced, real debate on matters of substance on this article are actually few and far between.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

6. There is not such a big difference between Underhill and Klyosov as you think, and I believe you are confusing what people say about the earliest periods of R1a with more recent periods. All authors on this subject including Klyosov now see the origins of R1a in any broader sense most likely somewhere somewhere in Asia, and actually it is also now striking that most of them seem to refuse to be pinned to saying "India" in any too certain way, although all of them admit it as being somewhere near the focus of most likely origins in the earliest phases. (By the way, do not forget that within a fairly short period of time Underhill was co-author in several articles touching on this subject, which were all worded slightly differently.) Concerning more recent periods again there is very little debate possible anymore. R1a obviously was in the Steppe cultures and in Europe in some form or another by the Bronze age. It is only a question of which branches were where etc, and on this subject the article is not taking strong positions, which seems appropriate.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:43, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion and nothing more.PB666 ^yap 05:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It can be checked against the reliable sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Pedantic - Sengupta et al. 2005 appears 4 times in the footnotes list foots 9 , 11, 12 and 16, this means someone isn't using the ref name =

Sorted it out. It was a mistake on my part. Sorry about that.

Pedantic - Relative frequencies are calculated at numbers from 0 to 1 and converted by multiplying by 100 to percent. 72.22 and 48.00 are 4 digit relative proportion. This level of accuracy would be relevant if the sample population size was 1,000,000 individuals, it is not any were close to this

Writing 48.00 as 48 only may be OK but for 72.22, it should be written as such otherwise 72% in a sample of 18 will amount to 12.96 samples which can be considered as 13 but with 72.22 the precision level goes to 12.9996. Isn’t higher level of precession better? I understand what you are trying to say, but I have to wonder if you write e.g. 13/17 as 76.471% or 76.5% or 77% for that matter…. --Fylindfotberserk (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

(Loose end)

(This is an orphaned passage by PB666:)

Part of the paper is garbage, it is, however no worse than a wide variety of papers cited in the R1a article. This is the basic problem. I made a great effort last year to extract these references from the article and promote more recent reports. Despite the well documented flaws in Sharma et al. 2009 it is still better than a large number of papers on the subject from earlier in the decade that have now reached mythic values.

(Taken from the middle of one of Andrew Lancaster's posts, where it was inserted by mistake.) rudra (talk) 07:28, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks!--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:55, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

reopen

We need to reopen this articel many of the souces are funny enough from Indians working with Underhill, and there is a strong India nationalist wave, there are figthing for this Hablagropúp to be of Indian origin, they dont like the Kurgan theory, but many other sources say the origin is in Europe. Sp reopen to get a more diverss sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.196.3.206 (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

New study on R1a from China

Shou et al. Journal of Human Genetics (2010) 55, 314–322. Y-chromosome distributions among populations in Northwest China identify significant contribution from Central Asian pastoralists and lesser influence of western Eurasians. Shou et al. doi:10.1038/jhg.2010.30

They type the M207, M173 and M124 mutations for R*, R1* and R2 respectively. The further type the "R1a1a" M17 mutation (using the old nomencalture), M343. Within the R1a1a they type M56, M157 and M87. They did not type M420 or SRY1532.2.

R* was detected in Uygurs, Kazakh, Tajike, R1* (presumbably M420) was detected in the Yugu, Kirghiz and was particularly high in the Yugu (3 of 32, 10%). R1a1a-M17 was found high in the Tataer, Kirghiz, Tajike, Dongxiang, and Salar

No evidence was presented to suggest that the Dongxiang were a center of R, R1, or R1a diversity, contradicting the claims of Klyosov 2009. They present a mean time of divergence of R1a1-M17 7170±2459 which is much less than that presented from the JOGG review as indicating a deep center of diversity in china. I think that all mention of conclusion from Klyosov should be removed from the article, they are particulary speculative. PB666 ^yap 22:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that Klyosov references should go. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Strong disagreement, and I'd like to point out that this has been discussed before and no new argument is being presented here unless that argument is effectively PB's own original research (once again). PB is a Wikipedian and not an outside source. His personal research and personal opinion postings here should be ignored. What's more, there is absolutely nothing in Wikipedia which says we can not mention published speculations, as published speculations, and the idea that we should mention some but not others is strictly against WP:NEUTRAL policies. All age estimates based purely on STR variance are speculative in this field, and Kylosov's are not special or WP:FRINGE in that sense. The techniques he uses are within the realm of what is done and discussed. That is perhaps what is being misunderstood here. In other words, I (and I think others who understand the point) object to ANY attempt to change this type of article so that PARTICULAR age estimates become overly emphasized as simple consensuses. There are no simple consensuses on these techniques. Providing there is agreement that Wikipedia should have articles on these subjects, then the articles should present a mess if there is a mess in the field. It is not the job of Wikipedians to try to pick winners in the field.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, Andrew. This isn't about trying to pick winners. In what professional journal does Klyosov publish? Hasn't most of his work (if not all) been published in what amount to hobbyist journals? He's a chemist (or something along that lines), but he is not a population geneticist. While his age estimates are generally respected, his collection and classification of Southeast Europe R1a haplotypes is seen by some in the field as outliers and misidentified haplotypes. In short, I don't think his research is professional enough to be included here as a source. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

We seem to have a communication problem. In order to try to get past it please do not be offended if I say that the precise way in which you keep coming back to this subject, for example the terms you use, even after this very time consuming RS debate, does make it appear to me that you are not really understanding either the points being made (not just by me, but by others on "your side") nor why they are being made, nor the Wikipedia policies on these things. I'll try coming from another angle...

Please explain why you keep talking about "professionals" and "hobbyists". What do these terms mean in terms of Wikipedia policy? In the right contexts, we can even cite newspaper articles. Wikipedia does not have a policy about professionals and hobbyists. It has policies about due weight, neutrality, and so on.

Rudra did try to explain such things in terms of Wikipedia policy and the only one he could come up with which perhaps comes close to what you want was WP:REDFLAG, but this is quite clearly a "special cases" rule. Is this a special case? Please read WP:REDFLAG...

• Does this article contains "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". Well, not really, it just uses a bit of haplotype data that no one else had used yet, and a different age estimation technique than SOME population geneticists. Is this a special enough case to warrant over-ruling basic policies like WP:Neutral? Let's consider:

Klyosov is not just a chemist, but also someone working specifically in the maths of dynamic systems, which is what we are dealing with here. Age estimates have nothing to do with knowing how DNA works. It could be argued that population geneticists themselves are often under-qualified in this particular area that their work touches upon.

...So, if you would be trying to think in terms of Wikipedia policy, a lot seems to be weighing upon the fact that you need to give a reference for your remark "While his age estimates are generally respected, his collection and classification of Southeast Europe R1a haplotypes is seen by some in the field as outliers and misidentified haplotypes". If Klysov's work is debated in the field then it can hardly be completely outside the ball park and WP:Fringe can it?

You also write that there are age estimates published by academic population geneticists which would disagree with Kylosov, but this is where you misunderstand the importance of WP:Neutral. As you seem to know, there are different methods of doing age estimates. That is part of this field. So why would there not be such disagreement, and why, more to the point, should Wikipedians try to re-write reality and pretend that there is no debate?

If someone disagrees with mainstream opinion, but in a way which is not shockingly new or outside the realm of what people can agree with in a field as a whole, then this is not "redflag" material, it is just normal variation of opinion in a field.

I also want to point something out to you which you have apparently missed in all the smoke screen coming from the interested parties: I am the only person who has had a position on this subject who is actually arguing a case which goes AGAINST my own personal point of view, and arguing purely in terms of basic WP policies such as WP:Neutral. PD has a theory which he wants pushed, and Rudra's entry into discussion also clearly came from concerns he had before he even found the article. I on the other hand do not even agree with the sources I am defending. I actually tend to agree as a person with PD about R1a probably having originated in the Middle East. But we have no source for that, and I am fighting against it being inserted or implied. Please think about that. In other words, I think you make remarks above which also show a pretty big misunderstanding about motivations. My motivation is that I have seen what happens when neutrality, which is a critical Wikipedia policy, gets demoted and ignored in favour of people's personal "common sense".

The true argument is between using personal common sense, or trying to be neutral. I do of course have sympathy for the frustration we all have when we have to summarize a field where there are things we disagree with.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Let me cut to the chase, Andrew. As far as I can tell, most (if not all) of Klyosov's work [5] appears on this site[6]. The site describes itself as "organized and upheld by enthusiasts and bearers of the haplogroup R1a1. Our vision is to restore the history of the R1a1 clade, by using methods of genetic genealogy."

I find that not exactly a scientific, unbiased point-of-view. I am very hesitant about accepting articles from such as reliable sources. This isn't unbiased work: it explicitly states that the works are designed as some sort of mission. Where exactly is the oversight in such a publication, and who reviews its 'publications' to assert neutrality and lack of bias? While I may share a haplogroup with these folks, I would like to see the information here presented in as unbiased and objective a fashion as possible. I don't find such websites conducive to that sort of objectivity. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Hesitancy is fine by me, but the question is whether to go beyond hesitancy and invoke Wikipedia's rules concerning exceptional cases in a way which, if wrongly used, will bias the sourcing of the article, thus breaking the most fundamental policies of Wikipedia. Have you made a case for that yet?

You need an argument which goes beyond incriminating by association? The site you mention is NOT being cited in Wikipedia. What is being cited managed to get published in a more mainstream journal, which does have over-sight quite independent of the people who concern you. Furthermore, the words you choose to accuse the site of "mission" do not clearly go beyond wanting to know and explain more? That does not at first glance sound too worrying.

But let's compare this to your own presentation. This section of the talk page was started by someone who was openly saying that he wanted to remove a source because of no other reason than his own opinions on the matter. You agreed with him. That's the way you have presented the case so far, and that shows a clear disregard for Wikipedia policy. It seems pretty clear that you are looking around for a reason to remove a source BECAUSE you disagree with it personally. I also disagree with some of what that source says, but removing it because I disagree with it (even if I try to find Wikipedia rules to achieve my aim) is not the correct approach.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is the type of Klyosov work that concerns me.[7] In it we find this statement: " We identified the Old Scandinavian (4100 ybp) and Young Scandinavian (1900 ybp), the Gaelic and perhaps the Danish 'Dark Stranger' clansmen lineages all with a common ancestor from the Russian Plains about 5000 years ago. This analysis ended with us defining the ancestral ethnicity of the R1a1 clansmen who gave Scotland her name and her culture." Such assertions smack of fringe to me. I don't know where this 'paper' was published, but it's not something I'd want to see used as a reference in an encyclopedia. And, fortunately, when it was posted to the Somerled piece, another user wisely removed it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:22, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately (my personal unciteable opinion) this type of language is not uncommon amongst population geneticists. In my experience they tend to defend the flowery language by arguments such as "you know what I mean" and indeed they have a point: flowery language can mislead ignorant readers but it is not proof that people who use it are ignorant. In any case, to the extent that we can understand what is intended by flowery passages written by scientists, we can certainly avoid using misleading language on Wikipedia. If you see any such cases I'd certainly be interested to improve the wording.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Note

Just a quick note. The picture given doesn't match the information. The picture contradicts a South Asian orgin. It might be best to remove it to avoid any confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.164.139.56 (talk) 02:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Which picture? The maps are not all great, but actually frequency maps are not the key thing in trying to see where a Y haplogroup started.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:33, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Remove map if it contradicts "South Asian orgin"??? Really???

It might be best to remove "South Asian orgin"... 95.26.49.182 (talk) 03:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please remember that our basic task here is just to report what is published, not to argue about what we think is true.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the map is faulty, removing it would only serve to improve the article. So I am in agreement, that the picture should be taken down. Gregjackson112 (talk) 23:04, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Please define which map you mean. I have just removed one, but there are two more. OTOH those ones do not appear particularly wrong to me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:28, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I think they mean the very top map which shows R1a dispersing from the Caspian region Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

The one in the infobox? I also do not like it. I would not object to removing it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:55, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

question

Can someone explain what are the genetic expressions (physical characteristic manifestations) of the haplogroup R1a1a, please? Thank you. Leafgreen (talk) 05:45, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe that there are none known. Y chromosomes have very few genes on them which would affect physical characteristics.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

M198 not equivalent to M417

This article states:

"SNP mutations understood to be always occurring with M17 and M198 include M417, M512, M514, M515."

This was believed correct two years ago, but note that as of the latest haplotree, M417 is a very large clade within M198, not equivalent to it. Most "R1a" are now R1a1a1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.76.62 (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Might be that needs to be up-dated. does someone know of any published announcement about who discovered this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:31, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it was Thomas Krahn, engineer at Family Tree DNA, formerly owner of DNA Fingerprint. The draft tree here is tentative, but changes are usually incorporated into the ISOGG tree, which also makes this distinction:

http://ytree.ftdna.com/index.php?name=Draft&parent=root

http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.76.62 (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of those, and I think we can cite ISOGG, but I was hoping there was a paper where the original discovery was announced.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Please add link to external Family Tree DNA Project

Since the article is locked, I cannot do this but will the admin please consider adding a link to the following research site:

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.200.76.62 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Done. It's a good page. --Maulucioni (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Re-open?

We need to reopen this, the pro Indians surely has been busy in proving a Indian origin, now we need to see other sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.91.93 (talk) 12:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

But are there new sources which have been published which propose something else? If you are talking about opening a debate between Wikipedians, then no we do not need one. We are here to report what has been published.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Frequency distribution of R1a1a7, does not conflict with and earlier Indo-European migration to the East.

Hi I think that we need to reopen this, and ad the facts that the Frequency distribution of R1a1a7 (R-M458) is not hight in Eastern Europe as the articel claims, its only in the most western part of R1A in Europe it is in high frequencies (Poland and Slovakia) up to 35% where it started 10.000 years ago, but in European Russia and Ukrania its only found in low frequencies and in large areas in eastern European Russia the frequencies is as low as 0-5%, and in Eastern Europe in South Russia and to the Urals its absent. See link

http://www.google.dk/imgres?q=Frequency+distribution+of+R1a1a7&um=1&hl=da&sa=N&tbm=isch&tbnid=Abq-iIuXLYMYJM:&imgrefurl=http://rafzen.wordpress.com/2011/08/12/scandinavia-to-india/&docid=0OgnqOaqybnZUM&w=836&h=441&ei=lE1aTrKDAs2d-waK3JSzDA&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=346&vpy=111&dur=2517&hovh=163&hovw=309&tx=175&ty=96&page=1&tbnh=108&tbnw=204&start=0&ndsp=9&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0&biw=1093&bih=470

And about the age, the R1a1a7 started 10.000 years ago in Poland and only make its way to Russia 2000 km to the east 5000 years later, by this time the Indo-European-speaking peoples were already on the move to the east, and were not effected by R1a1a7 which even today are in little or non % of the area of the Kurgan hypothesis area. Timeline 6000 years ago the Indo-European-speaking peoples began migrating to the West and East, and alredy 5500 years ago there are a Indo-European culture Afanasevo culture http://s155239215.onlinehome.us/turkic/btn_Archeology/BernstamCh1AfanasievCultureEn.htm in Central Asia in to Xinjiang in Western China 5000 years ago R1a1a7 enters Western Russia, thats 1000 years after the first Indo-European began migrating in southern Russia and 500 years after the Indo-European Afanasevo culture in China.

So lets open this and give some more information about the spread of R1a1a7. in a timeline, the R1a1a7 does not conflict with Indo-Europeans spreading from The Urals to the East. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.73.88 (talk) 16:18, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources we can quote which specifically mention R1a1a7 in this way? (I am thinking that until someone publishes something, we can't really put it on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not the place to announce new ideas.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:05, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that we need to reopen this, its true that the Indo Europeans were on the move long before R1a1a7 came to the western parts of the indo European homeland in southern Russia. The early proto indo European cultures like the Samara culture are from 5th millennium BC, An by the time R1a1a7 came to the western parts of the area the Indo europeans had already moved to China 500 years earlier and maked the Afanasevo culture. At least lets open this so its possible to get some new information on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.52.107.35 (talk • contribs) 29 August 2011

I think no one is opposed to any new information. The only question is whether there is any. Do you have new sources we can use?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:16, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

However it should be noted also that R1a have its origin in south asia where its time depth reaches 16kyb and it goes against the academic view of any hypothetical migration.Nirjhara (talk) 07:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

That it likely has an origin in South Asia is mentioned, because we have sources for that. The rest of what you say is non-obvious from any source we have available I think? It is not logically clear that R1a originating in South Asia has any effect at all on "hypothetical migrations".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The anticipated (or hoped-for) resolution to this discussion has been pointed to on Indo-Aryan migration to justify removing some cited statements. Coming here, I'm not seeing new evidence, certainly not new evidence that would justify pushing out the old evidence. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 22:31, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Corded War Culture

I'm more interested in this issue. Why wiki is cititin unconferm obervation. For example: However they also note evidence contrary to a connection: Corded Ware period human remains at Eulau from which Y-DNA was extracted of R1a haplogroup appear to be R1a1a*(xM458) (which they found most similar to the modern German R1a1a* haplotype"

German population has less than 10% R1a1 hoplogroup. Modern german ARE NOT geneteclly similar to Coreded War culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.103.158 (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the passage you refer to does not say what you think it says.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Every once in a while I'll come back to the R1a page and read about the "Corded ware association" and in my opinion its poorly worded. I can't make sense as to whether or not the spread of the lineage is partially attributed to migrations occurring during the time of CWC - is still partially valid or completely invalid based on the state of current research? You really can't tell from the way its worded. Can something be done here? Geog1 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe there is still an association being made. I think it is a vague association. So in other words, the vagueness is in the literature we are reporting. I'll ask User:Genie to read this question, who may be more up-to-date on this than me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:20, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reworded the passage to read: "The remains of a father and his two sons, from an archaeological site discovered in 2005 near Eulau (in Saxony-Anhalt, Germany) and dated to about 2600 BCE, tested positive for the Y-SNP marker SRY10831.2. The R1a1 clade was thus present in Europe at least 4600 years ago, in association with one site of the widespread Corded Ware culture." I hope that clarifies matters. We have so little aDNA from the period. One family from one site does not mean that every single male of the Corded Ware Culture was R1a1a. --Genie (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There was of course the Dupuy et al. study which explicitly made a case for migrations of R1a males coming to Scandinavia during the CWC based on coalescence analysis though that study has gotten axed out of this article for some reason (I know it was included at times prior). I thought there was one other too, (Underhill?) that actually said the distribution of R1a coincides well with the distribution of certain CWC variants and used a map. Regardless, I am writing more out of concern for sake of clarity here as that particular passage has never been quite right.Geog1 (talk) 17:55, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually scratch all that. I see what is going on. The problem with the western Eurasian distribution and trying to understand that passage in relation to all that really stems from the nuanced terminology/classifications of what comprises M-17 today (or how its defined). So the one subclade R1a1a7's modern day distribution coincides with the CWC but the remains at Elau are M-17 males sans subclade R1a1a7. So its contrary to the idea that the entire subclade may not have spread further west to Europe during the time of the CWC. Am I right? Do I have it now?Geog1 (talk) 18:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The remains were not tested for M458, but are wildly unlikely to be positive for it. The study remarked that the haplotype was of the Germanic, not Slavic pattern. --Genie (talk) 11:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no way that the entirety of R1a1a could link to the Corded Ware Culture. Subgroups of it, perhaps. But the L342 (Asian) subgroup is likely linked to the Andronovo Culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crummyusername (talk • contribs) 15:44, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Lack of scholarly consensus on R1a origins

This statement at the beginning of the article should be changed: "The most recent studies indicate that South Asia is the most likely region of origin." That's just not true. It should state that there is no definite consensus on the origins of R1a and the most recent studies indicate no such thing.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, can you please name studies of R1a which say something else and paste some quotes here, so we can check what we need to do. Note: abstracts, or articles which are about other things, do not yet count as recent peer reviewed and published studies of R1a. Other editors please note this discussion started at another article. Bodhidharma believes that academic recent studies of R1a do say that Indian (note, Indian) R1a is a marker of steppe ancestry. One study he mentioned there which I think this article indeed does not currently cover is Zhou et al? I hope other R1a editors are around willing to look at this also.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, I did mention the 2009 Zhao et al. study, which clearly contradicts the aforementioned statement that "The most recent studies indicate that South Asia is the most likely region of origin" Presence of three different paternal lineages among North Indians: A study of 560 Y chromosomes: "Three distinct lineages were revealed based upon 13 haplogroups. The first was a Central Asian lineage harbouring haplogroups R1 and R2. ... The results revealed that a substantial part of today’s North Indian paternal gene pool was contributed by Central Asian lineages who are Indo-European speakers, suggesting that extant Indian caste groups are primarily the descendants of Indo-European migrants. ... The Central Asian or west Eurasian Y-lineages are depicted in terms of presenting a similar high frequency of sibling clades of R haplogroups (R1a1 and R2) in the studied populations. A total of 256 of the 560 individuals (45.7%) in this study belonged to European Y-lineages, i.e. R1a1 (M173/M17), R1b1b2 (M173) and R2 (M124) clades. Similar results were reported in a previous study of the Indian subcontinent (Kivisild et al. 2003). Haplogroup R reflects the impact of expansion and migration of Indo-European pastoralists from Central Asia, thus linking haplogroup frequency to specific historical events ... It has also been suggested that R1a might have an independent origin in the Indian subcontinent (Kivisild et al. 2003). We have observed a low frequency of R1b1b2 (0.5%). An additional signature of the Central Asian lineage is haplogroup R2. Its frequency was 22.0% in our sample. This haplogroup is mainly found in Indian, Iranian, and Central Asian populations and has been postulated to have a Central Asian origin (Quintana-Murci et al. 2001; Wells et al. 2001; Kivisild et al. 2003). However, our results have shown that high incidence of R2 clade was also observed in other North Indian populations, which was similarly reported in other studies (Cordaux et al. 2004; Cavalli-Sforza 2005). Overall, we suggest that Central Asia is the most likely source of North Indian Y lineage considering the historical and genetic background of North India (Karve 1968; Balakrishnan 1978)." I'm not sure what you mean by "articles which are about other things", but I would include anything that had to do with Indo-European migration and the spread of R1a1 as evidence, as all of the articles I have cited are concerned with R1a1 as a marker of Indo-European migration and northern Indians are Indo-European speakers of Indo-European origin. Therefore, I would use the following two articles as evidence, such this one from 2009, entitled Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people.. This is from the abstract: " Our autosomal, Y-chromosomal and mitochondrial DNA analyses reveal that whereas few specimens seem to be related matrilineally or patrilineally, nearly all subjects belong to haplogroup R1a1-M17 which is thought to mark the eastward migration of the early Indo-Europeans. Our results also confirm that at the Bronze and Iron Ages, south Siberia was a region of overwhelmingly predominant European settlement, suggesting an eastward migration of Kurgan people across the Russo-Kazakh steppe." The article further states: "To conclude, in this work we demonstrated that some carriers of the Kurgan culture, believed to be Indo-European speakers, were also carriers of the R1a1 haplogroup. These data lend further support to the idea that R1a1 might be a marker to the migration patterns of the early Indo-Europeans, an idea also supported by the recent article of Haak et al. (2008) in which individuals of the Corded Ware Culture, a culture commonly associated with Indo-European, bore R1a1 Y-chromosome." And this paper from this paper from 2010 in as well, A Western Eurasian Male Is Found in 2000-Year-Old Elite Xiongnu Cemetery in Northeast Mongolia: "Historical records and archaeology attest that Kurgan nomadic groups moved across Eurasia from North of the Black sea through Central and Inner Asia, to northeast Asia in a matter of centuries (Mair, 2005). Carriers of the Kurgan culture, believed to be Indo-European speakers, were also carriers of the R1a1 haplogroup (Keyser-Tracqui et al., 2009). R1a1 has thus been considered a marker of Indo-European contribution (Zerjal et al., 1999; Kharkov et al., 2004). R1a was found in Eulau, Germany of the Corded Ware Culture (Haak et al., 2008). R1a1 was predominant in the Krasnoyarsk area in southern central Siberia with the Andronovo, the Karasuk, the Tagar, and the Tachtyk cultures (Keyser-Tracqui et al., 2009)." They also propose an alternative explanation for the recent findings of Sahoo, Sengupta and Sharma: "The haplogroup R1a1, in the recent study, might have its origin in an Indian upper caste system, Brahmins (Sharma et al., 2009). On the other hand, the high frequency of R1a lineages and haplogroup R1a1 among upper caste Brahmins may reflect an intrusion from the northwest with speakers of Indo-European languages."

Anyway, I think it's important to note that the most recent studies often cited concerning R1a1 in India, Mirabal's 2009 study on northwestern Russia and the 2009 Underhill study are based on the flawed Zhivitovsky method of microsatellite dating. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhidharma7 (talk • contribs) 22:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks! First my apologies for not having time for a detailed discussion and proposal right now, but what I can do quickly is check that the part of the article we want to fix is this one? It looks like the red bits needs re-writing with new mention of that missing article? I also did notice that Zhou et al 2009 is in the bibliography, but not yet being used. Correct?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

excerpt from current article for discussion, do not edit

Origins and hypothesized migrations of R1a1a Most discussions purportedly of R1a origins are actually about the origins of the dominant R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) sub-clade. Data so far collected indicates that there two widely separated areas of high frequency, one in South Asia, around Indo-Gangetic Plain, and the other in Eastern Europe, around Poland and Ukraine. The historical and prehistoric possible reasons for this are the subject of on-going discussion and attention amongst population geneticists and genetic genealogists, and are considered to be of potential interest to linguists and archaeologists also. In 2009, several large studies of both old and new STR data[40] concluded that while these two separate "poles of the expansion" are of similar age, South Asian R1a1a is apparently older than Eastern European R1a1a, suggesting that South Asia is the more likely locus of origin.[41] South Asian origin hypothesis An increasing number of studies have found South Asia to have the highest level of diversity of Y-STR haplotype variation within R1a1a. On this basis, while several studies have concluded that the data is consistent with South Asia as the likely original point of dispersal (for example, Kivisild et al. (2003), Mirabal et al. (2009) and Underhill et al. (2009)) a few have actively argued for this scenario (for example Sengupta et al. (2005), Sahoo et al. (2006), Sharma et al. (2009). A survey study as of December 2009, including a collation of retested Y-DNA from previous studies, makes a South Asian R1a1a origin the strongest proposal amongst the various possibilities.[2]

It's actually this study right here:

Zhao, Zhongming; Khan, Faisal; Borkar, Minal; Herrera, Rene; Agrawal, Suraksha (2009), "Presence of three different paternal lineages among North Indians: A study of 560 Y chromosomes", Annals of Human Biology, 36 (1): 1–14, doi:10.1080/03014460802558522, PMC 2755252, PMID 19058044

It's mentioned in the bibliography, but is nowhere cited or mentioned in the text.

Also, this passage at the beginning of the article should be edited as well:

R1a and R1a1a are believed to have originated somewhere within Eurasia, most likely in the area from Eastern Europe to South Asia. The most recent studies indicate that South Asia is the most likely region of origin.

Thanks.Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at this study from 2006, especially since it was published after the Sengupta study and is neither cited nor mentioned in the R1a article: Genetic affinities among the lower castes and tribal groups of India: inference from Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA. The study seems to indicate that R1a1 in India is both partially autochthonous and a result of Indo-European migration: "The haplogroup R-M17 also has a wide geographic distribution in Europe, West Asia and the Middle East, with highest frequencies in Eastern European populations [23]. It is proposed to be originated in the Eurasian Steppes, north of the Black and Caspian seas, in a population of the Kurgan culture known for the domestication of horse, ~3500 ybp [23], and widely been regarded as a marker for the male-mediated Indo-Aryan invasion of Indian subcontinent. However, these observations were contradicted by the higher STR variations observed in the Indian M17 and M124 samples, compared with the European and Central Asian populations, suggesting a much deeper time depth for the origin of the Indian M17 lineages. In the present study, it was observed that the R lineages were successfully penetrated to high frequencies (0.26) in the South Indian tribal populations, a testimony for its arrival in the peninsula much before the recent migrations of Indo-European pastoralists from Central Asia. In a recent study, Sengupta et al [24] observed higher microsatellite variance, and clustering together of Indian M17 lineages compared with the Middle East and Europe. They proposed that it is an early invasion of M17 during the Holocene expansion that contributed to the tribal gene pool in India, than a recent gene flow from Indo-European nomads. However, we found that its frequency is much higher in upper castes (0.44) compared to that of the lower caste (0.22) and tribal groups (0.26). This uneven distribution pattern shows that the recent immigrations from Central Asia also contributed undoubtedly to a pre-existing gene pool." Bodhidharma7 (talk) 11:42, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks again. And sorry again that I am rushing a bit this week. Concerning those quotes so far, I notice that they talk about Indian R1a possibly being partly of central asian origin, but not that they say R1a in India and more generally is all of central Asian origin? Is there something more definitive? Yes, I should normally look this up myself and I will eventually.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 04:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you've been reading anything I've posted so far, but the 2009 Zhao et al. study clearly states that all of Indian R1a1 is of Central Asian origin. Must I quote from the study again? Presence of three different paternal lineages among North Indians: A study of 560 Y chromosomes: "Three distinct lineages were revealed based upon 13 haplogroups. The first was a Central Asian lineage harbouring haplogroups R1 and R2. ... The results revealed that a substantial part of today’s North Indian paternal gene pool was contributed by Central Asian lineages who are Indo-European speakers, suggesting that extant Indian caste groups are primarily the descendants of Indo-European migrants. ... The Central Asian or west Eurasian Y-lineages are depicted in terms of presenting a similar high frequency of sibling clades of R haplogroups (R1a1 and R2) in the studied populations. A total of 256 of the 560 individuals (45.7%) in this study belonged to European Y-lineages, i.e. R1a1 (M173/M17), R1b1b2 (M173) and R2 (M124) clades. Similar results were reported in a previous study of the Indian subcontinent (Kivisild et al. 2003). Haplogroup R reflects the impact of expansion and migration of Indo-European pastoralists from Central Asia, thus linking haplogroup frequency to specific historical events ... It has also been suggested that R1a might have an independent origin in the Indian subcontinent (Kivisild et al. 2003). We have observed a low frequency of R1b1b2 (0.5%). An additional signature of the Central Asian lineage is haplogroup R2. Its frequency was 22.0% in our sample. This haplogroup is mainly found in Indian, Iranian, and Central Asian populations and has been postulated to have a Central Asian origin (Quintana-Murci et al. 2001; Wells et al. 2001; Kivisild et al. 2003). However, our results have shown that high incidence of R2 clade was also observed in other North Indian populations, which was similarly reported in other studies (Cordaux et al. 2004; Cavalli-Sforza 2005). Overall, we suggest that Central Asia is the most likely source of North Indian Y lineage considering the historical and genetic background of North India (Karve 1968; Balakrishnan 1978)."

It's the 2006 study (Genetic affinities among the lower castes and tribal groups of India: inference from Y chromosome and mitochondrial DNA) quoted above that says Indian R1a1 is partly of Central Asian origin.

Also, for what it's worth, these three studies Ancient DNA provides new insights into the history of south Siberian Kurgan people, A Western Eurasian Male Is Found in 2000-Year-Old Elite Xiongnu Cemetery in Northeast Mongolia and Evidence that a West-East admixed population lived in the Tarim Basin as early as the early Bronze Age indicate that R1a1 is an Indo-European marker and that, by extension, R1a1 in India is of Indo-European origin.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhidharma7 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Bodhi, you seem to have chronologically found all the citations, at the very least can you post what is that you are proposing from what we already have in the article with the citations that support the new phrase. Tahnks Kanatonian (talk) 17:10, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. My apologies for not having time myself, but maybe copy the boxes above and edit them to show what the new version would look like? Just a suggestion. Of course there are other approaches.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:13, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I finally got some time. Maybe this helps move us along:---Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Current	First Tweak Idea (AL)
from lead
R1a and R1a1a are believed to have originated somewhere within Eurasia, most likely in the area from Eastern Europe to South Asia. The most recent studies indicate that South Asia is the most likely region of origin.	R1a and R1a1a are believed to have originated somewhere within Eurasia. There have been various proposals stretching from Eastern Europe to South Asia. Some recent studies propose that South Asia is the most likely region of origin. But on the other hand, proposals that modern Indian R1a is largely due to immigration from the Central Eurasian steppes are also common.
Origins and hypothesized migrations of R1a1a
Most discussions purportedly of R1a origins are actually about the origins of the dominant R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) sub-clade. Data so far collected indicates that there two widely separated areas of high frequency, one in South Asia, around Indo-Gangetic Plain, and the other in Eastern Europe, around Poland and Ukraine. The historical and prehistoric possible reasons for this are the subject of on-going discussion and attention amongst population geneticists and genetic genealogists, and are considered to be of potential interest to linguists and archaeologists also. In 2009, several large studies of both old and new STR data[40] concluded that while these two separate "poles of the expansion" are of similar age, South Asian R1a1a is apparently older than Eastern European R1a1a, suggesting that South Asia is the more likely locus of origin.[41]	Most published discussions of R1a origins are actually about the origins of the R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) sub-clade, which is both numerically dominant, and the most studied part of R1a. Data so far collected indicates that there two widely separated areas of high frequency, one in South Asia, around Indo-Gangetic Plain, and the other in Eastern Europe, around Poland and Ukraine. The historical and prehistoric possible reasons for this are the subject of on-going discussion and attention amongst population geneticists and genetic genealogists, and are considered to be of potential interest to linguists and archaeologists also. In 2009, several large studies of both old and new STR data[40] concluded that while these two separate "poles of the expansion" are of similar age, South Asian R1a1a is apparently older than Eastern European R1a1a, suggesting that South Asia is the more likely locus of origin.[41]
South Asian origin hypothesis
An increasing number of studies have found South Asia to have the highest level of diversity of Y-STR haplotype variation within R1a1a. On this basis, while several studies have concluded that the data is consistent with South Asia as the likely original point of dispersal (for example, Kivisild et al. (2003), Mirabal et al. (2009) and Underhill et al. (2009)) a few have actively argued for this scenario (for example Sengupta et al. (2005), Sahoo et al. (2006), Sharma et al. (2009). A survey study as of December 2009, including a collation of retested Y-DNA from previous studies, makes a South Asian R1a1a origin the strongest proposal amongst the various possibilities.[2]	Several recent studies have found South Asia to have the highest level of diversity of Y-STR haplotype variation within R1a1a. On this basis, while several studies have concluded that the data is consistent with South Asia as the likely original point of dispersal (for example, Kivisild et al. (2003), Mirabal et al. (2009) and Underhill et al. (2009)) a few have actively argued for this scenario (for example Sengupta et al. (2005), Sahoo et al. (2006), Sharma et al. (2009). A survey study as of December 2009, including a collation of retested Y-DNA from previous studies, makes a South Asian R1a1a origin the strongest proposal amongst the various possibilities.[2]

I have also already added the 2006 (Thanseem) study as suggested. But please note that concerning the subject being discussed here it does not really help. It makes not original proposals but only cites the Passarino study of 2001 for the idea that R1a is from the steppes in India.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2011 (UTC) I also note that the Zhou article does not contain any arguments for or against any theory of R1a origins, and, like the Thanseem article, it just cites much older articles as a source for this idea. Nevertheless it is an example of a serious study still willing to accept central asian origins, even though it notes awareness of other theories, and this has guided my tweak proposal above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:33, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I generally agree with your preliminary revision, but I have suggested one major revision at the bottom:

Current	My revisions
from lead
R1a and R1a1a are believed to have originated somewhere within Eurasia, most likely in the area from Eastern Europe to South Asia. The most recent studies indicate that South Asia is the most likely region of origin.	R1a and R1a1a are believed to have originated somewhere within Eurasia. There have been various proposals stretching from Eastern Europe to South Asia. Some recent studies propose that South Asia is the most likely region of origin. But on the other hand, proposals that modern Indian R1a is largely due to immigration from the Central Eurasian steppes are also common.
Origins and hypothesized migrations of R1a1a
Most discussions purportedly of R1a origins are actually about the origins of the dominant R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) sub-clade. Data so far collected indicates that there two widely separated areas of high frequency, one in South Asia, around Indo-Gangetic Plain, and the other in Eastern Europe, around Poland and Ukraine. The historical and prehistoric possible reasons for this are the subject of on-going discussion and attention amongst population geneticists and genetic genealogists, and are considered to be of potential interest to linguists and archaeologists also. In 2009, several large studies of both old and new STR data[40] concluded that while these two separate "poles of the expansion" are of similar age, South Asian R1a1a is apparently older than Eastern European R1a1a, suggesting that South Asia is the more likely locus of origin.[41]	Most published discussions of R1a origins are actually about the origins of the R1a1a (R-M17 or R-M198) sub-clade, which is both numerically dominant, and the most studied part of R1a. Data so far collected indicates that there two widely separated areas of high frequency, one in South Asia, around Indo-Gangetic Plain, and the other in Eastern Europe, around Poland and Ukraine. The historical and prehistoric possible reasons for this are the subject of on-going discussion and attention amongst population geneticists and genetic genealogists, and are considered to be of potential interest to linguists and archaeologists also. In 2009, several large studies of both old and new STR data[40] concluded that while these two separate "poles of the expansion" are of similar age, South Asian R1a1a is apparently older than Eastern European R1a1a, suggesting that South Asia is the more likely locus of origin.[41]
South Asian origin hypothesis
An increasing number of studies have found South Asia to have the highest level of diversity of Y-STR haplotype variation within R1a1a. On this basis, while several studies have concluded that the data is consistent with South Asia as the likely original point of dispersal (for example, Kivisild et al. (2003), Mirabal et al. (2009) and Underhill et al. (2009)) a few have actively argued for this scenario (for example Sengupta et al. (2005), Sahoo et al. (2006), Sharma et al. (2009). A survey study as of December 2009, including a collation of retested Y-DNA from previous studies, makes a South Asian R1a1a origin the strongest proposal amongst the various possibilities.[2]	Several recent studies have found South Asia to have the highest level of diversity of Y-STR haplotype variation within R1a1a. On this basis, while several studies have concluded that the data is consistent with South Asia as the likely original point of dispersal (for example, Kivisild et al. (2003), Mirabal et al. (2009) and Underhill et al. (2009)) a few have actively argued for this scenario (for example Sengupta et al. (2005), Sahoo et al. (2006), Sharma et al. (2009). A survey study as of December 2009, including a collation of retested Y-DNA from previous studies, makes a South Asian R1a1 origin the strongest proposal amongst the various possibilities,[2] although a number of other studies have found that the evidence pointing to a South Asian origin of R1a1 is not as well-substantiated as an earlier consensus among geneticists that R1a1 is an Indo-European marker. Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that the majority of recent studies which have argued for an Indian origin of R1a1, such as Sengupta et al. (2005), Mirabal et al. (2009), Sharma et al. (2009), and Underhill et al. (2009), are Y-STR-based estimates, which employ the evolutionary mutation rate proposed by Zhivotovsky et al. (2004) as a means of determining the age of microsatellite variation within Y-chromosomal haplogroups, a controversial method which has been severely criticized by a number of recent studies. Most recent studies which do not use the "Zhivotovsky" method of dating ancient demographic events, still find a West Eurasian or Central Asian origin for R1a1.

Andrew, listen. The two studies I previously cited, Zhao et al. and the Thanseem study are not only based on older publications, but actual genetic evidence uncovered by the researchers during the course of their investigations. For instance, Zhao et al. found a high incidence of haplogroup R2 among North Indians, contradicting the previous research of Sahoo et al. (2006), who argued that the generally low incidence of R2 made an Indo-European hypothesis difficult to substantiate (for IE expansion, one would expect high R1a1 and high R2). Furthermore, R2 is of Central Asian origin and is widespread among Central Asian Turkic-speaking peoples, which means that, in addition to the high frequency of R1a1, the R lineages found in North India are of IE origin. The Thanseem study contradicts the research of Sengupta by stating that: "In a recent study, Sengupta et al [24] observed higher microsatellite variance, and clustering together of Indian M17 lineages compared with the Middle East and Europe. They proposed that it is an early invasion of M17 during the Holocene expansion that contributed to the tribal gene pool in India, than a recent gene flow from Indo-European nomads. However, we found that its frequency is much higher in upper castes (0.44) compared to that of the lower caste (0.22) and tribal groups (0.26). This uneven distribution pattern shows that the recent immigrations from Central Asia also contributed undoubtedly to a pre-existing gene pool."

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 17:47, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, that quote helps, and your proposal is in a reasonable direction in my opinion, although I think that it currently looks very much like a chunk of text someone added in late, so to speak, so if we could compress it a bit and keep the flow of discussion it would be better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

I could maybe cut out the names of the study authors; maybe remove a few words here and there. That would definitely condense the text. I'll produce another version later on today and you can tell me what you think.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 20:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a more condensed version of my final revision:

A survey study as of December 2009, including a collation of retested Y-DNA from previous studies, makes a South Asian R1a1 origin the strongest proposal amongst the various possibilities,[2] although a number of recent studies have found just as equally plausible evidence pointing to a West Eurasian or Central Asian origin for R1a1.

It should be pointed out that the majority of recent studies arguing for an Indian origin of R1a1 use Y-STR-based estimates incorporating the evolutionary mutation rate proposed by Zhivotovsky et al. (2004), a controversial method which has been severely criticized by a number of recent investigators. Most genetic research which does not rely on this method of dating seems to indicate that R1a1 is a marker of Indo-European expansion.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 00:06, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Concerning this one particular bit, in essence it is what we are discussing below. For the other edits, I guess we are going ahead with the changes.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:59, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

In the meantime I put a new proposal into the article, in place of the one you have proposed, which is less focused on the Zhivitovsky method, and based on the quote you have given above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, other recent studies such as Zhao et al. (2009) continue to treat R1a in modern ndia as being at least partly due to immigration from the northwest associated with Indoeuropean languages and culture. One argument for this, as stated for example by Thanseem et al. (2006), is that this is implied by the uneven distribution pattern of R1a between castes and regions. Higher castes and more northerly Indian populations are considered to be more directly descended from the populations who brought Indoeuropean languages to India, and they tend to have higher levels of R1a than lower castes, and more southerly populations, while tribal castes and non Indoeuropean speaking groups tend to have the lowest frequencies of R1a.

Note that the authors themselves mention that "the higher STR variations observed in the Indian M17 and M124 samples, compared with the European and Central Asian populations" suggest "a much deeper time depth for the origin of the Indian M17 lineages". They also say that "In the present study, it was observed that the R lineages were successfully penetrated to high frequencies (0.26) in the South Indian tribal populations, a testimony for its arrival in the peninsula much before the recent migrations of Indo-European pastoralists from Central Asia." You can see how this does not require any use of the Zhivitovsky method.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Just 3 final points. Correct me if I'm wrong:

1st. The vast majority of claims about the indigenous origin of R1a1 are based on the Zhivotovsky method, as seen in the studies of Sharma, Mirabal, Underhill etc. This is why the Zhivotovsky method (and its shortcomings) should be mentioned in connection with those studies using a relative timeframe to substantiate an autochthonous origin of R1a1.

2nd. Without typing any STR markers (as in the Thanseem study), you can see that whatever possible inferences that can be drawn as to the actual time depth of the R lineages are quite limited, meaning that other explanations for the observed patterns cannot be ruled out with any high degree of probability (greater STR variance easily explained by the more prolific patriarchs of sampled populations; presence of R lineages in tribals easily explained by occasional admixture with IE's).

3rd. Because mean Y-STR variance is the result of mutation rate, any Y-STR based dating estimate is problematic, given the enormous variability in average mutation rates between different sets of Y-STRs.

Anyway, apart from this, I think the changes to the article are acceptable.

Bodhidharma7 (talk) 12:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ashkenazi section need revising

The suggestion that R1a1a1 among Ashkenazi Levites represents Eastern European influence is now untenable, since Eastern Europeans are overwhelmingly positive for downstream SNPs including M458 and L365, while Ashkenazi Levites are overwhelmingly positive for the downstream SNP L342. L342 and the Eastern European subclades are mutually exclusive. Apart from Europeans with highly probable recent Asian origin -- such as Szekely in Transylvania and Tatars -- L342 is found almost entirely in people with Asian ancestry: Central Asian (e.g. Uzbek, Kyrgyz), South Asian (Kashmiri, Balochi), West Asian (Kurdish, Anatolian Turkish, Armenian), and Southwest Asian (Saudi, Qatari) origins.

http://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1a/default.aspx?section=yresults

--Crummyusername (talk) 15:36, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

As soon as someone publishes this, we should mention it. But no one has published it yet.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

The new Edit

I have edited the South Asian origin section in the light of this paper and its conclusions on R1a1a in afghanistan and India. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0034288

please talk before making any edit. Have a good time.Nirjhara (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Renaming this article

I have reservations about the renaming of this piece, without any discussion on the talk pages or consensus. While the editor cites Dr. Hammer and the recent conference, if she looks at any page on nearly any genetics discussion board on the internet, she'll see this haplogroup is still referred to by nearly everyone as R1a. While I applaud editors who are bold and those who want to get out in front of events, in this case I consider this move ill-advised. Most of the public (and indeed many genetics hobbyists) don't call this haplogroup by the renamed title here. Not to mention that the page of its twin (R1B) apparently cannot be renamed, which makes for rather an awkward situation. More forethought and discussion for consensus would have been advisable, in my book at least. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:34, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

You have a reasonable point, but some counter points for consideration:

• This is going to have to happen eventually. So your point comes down to timing.
• i think your remark about what is most common, while not unreasonable, is already debateable. Actually the terms R-M17 and R-M198 have been used a lot for a long time and both are titles covered by this article as their mian article.
• Many subjects have multiple names and problems can be avoided by making good redirects.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

With the kindest regards, the page move has a good redirect built in and Wikipedia is very good at getting people who go looking for the old "R1a" to the right place. The topic was raised over a year ago without objections.--RebekahThorn (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The "R1B" article will in due time be addressed.--RebekahThorn (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as per discussion on your talk page I can see that R1b has maybe a slightly bigger claim to the problem Marmaduke mentions.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Let me be completely in line with that MarmadukePercy says. R1a is the most appropriate name and it has not changed since 2002. Initially R1a was defined as R1a (SRY10831.2), then in 2008 R1a (L62, L63), in 2009 M420 appears, and currently its definition is more complex. This means that although knowledge advances, the R1a name has proved much more stable, recognizable, understandable and with a phylogenetic value that R-M420 does not have. Haplogroup R1a remains typical of Eastern Europe and South Asia to date. Also the case with T for example, it was first T (M70), then T (L206) and we won't be surprised that in the future it is found that M184 was just a subclade of T, since there is T*.--Maulucioni (talk) 03:10, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

As an update on my position, I am for phylogenetic naming (but in the case of R1a and R1b I would certainly not insist on it), but the combination of the following combinations of editing tendencies in the recent surge of work of RebekahThorn gives me concern:

• Not only changing the title name, but also often removing mention of the most commonly used names except in esoteric tables embedded far down in the article, which give equal treatment to all kinds of old names. (The R-M17 article basically had no lead at all. What can a non expert reader think of such an article?)
• The splitting up of articles so that clades such as R1a which are discussed using different exact definitions in the literature, are now discussed in different articles. This means even fairly well informed readers now need to flick between two articles to understand how Wikipedia somehow connects to the published literature.
• I fear RebekahThorn is in many cases trying to make WP more up to date than the most important literature, turning WP into a place where the latest news is synthesized in a way that it makes it hard to say we are just summarizing what the most important sources say.

To be clear: I remain supportive of the edits being done in an overall way, but I am a bit neutral about the new name of this particular article, especially given that it has now also been split. In general, the concerns I mention above are not black and white, but rather points to keep in mind. I know RT is taking at least some care on these points and is still at work.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:06, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I personally deplore unsourced material which I am finding throughout the Y-Chromosome related stories. Thus, I find the extrapolation of my intent done by Andrew Lancaster defamatory. I know that the R and some E stories were better managed, but I am looking at all Y-DNA related articles.
• I am concerned that Andrew Lancaster has his own opinion of which academic sources are important WP should have a NPOV toward all publications. In terms of notability, if the Y-Chromosome Consortium felt that they needed to be included in their work, that is enough for me.
• I am also concerned by the harsh tone of Andrew Lancaster's recent comments in edits. I know that he has strong opinions. I usually agree with them or at least enjoy a different strong perspective apart from my own. However, this may come across wrong to tender new editors joining WP.
• Yes, activity is up. I do not think that is me. It is the DTC part of the industry. I am sure that WP is one of the first stops a new DTC tested person makes after receiving results. Some will be thinkers and some will have narrow world views that need hmmmm a slower introduction to the way population history works.--RebekahThorn (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I want to support you for the most part, so with regards to how things might "come across to tender new editors" can I suggest we try to avoid words like deplore and defame? :)

Anyway, I think there is one point to address and this is that in fact it is not correct that WP has a WP:NPOV position about the relative importance of different sources. In fact the WP community can be pretty harsh in the opposite direction and you may not realize how much argument there has been concerning disallowing ISOGG, or even trying to get rid of all articles like this one. WP policy insists that when a position or source is more commonly cited or mentioned it is the one we should prefer and tend to treat as mainstream. Consider my comments for example about E-M35 versus E-M35.1 on the E-M215 page. This is not just policy, but also precisely the point the two other editors who raised concerns here are making. Keep in mind that:

• I am supporting your position, but raising concerns, and suggesting ways to make sure that you can avoid making other editors concerned.
• I have not suggested removing your YCC based tables, only that I am concerned at the removal from leads of very obviously widely used and relatively stable terms such as E1b1b, or R1a or R1b. From your replies to me in the past I understand that this is an oversight, but I think I am still allowed to say that it is a worry, and that trying to avoid problems like that might help convince more people.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:57, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Why has the origins sections on all R1a R1 been erased?

It seems very dubious and very suspicious that the Origins on M17, R1, R1a origins has been erased. Especially considering the implication of Aryan theory is involved. When every other article on DNA has remained the same, i dont know whether its related to the Aryan theory, as not one but many studies have proven the credibility of R1a being from India having far more weight that any central asia, west asian or european proposal. So is there a reason why the whole section has been edited to less than a quarter of what it was? As a person that uses the internet and especially Wikipedia i would like to know what the understanding, and reason was for removing large chunks of the article? Is this a political agenda? IF so, is Wikipedia not meant to be neutral? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndianScience (talk • contribs) 01:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

it has not been erased, but moved to a new article for R-M17 which is in effect the new article about what most publications and people call R1a. That means this article is now mainly about the parent clade of R1a which a subject that has hardly been published about. This split is still new and being discussed. See above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

So what your saying is that, the previous information that was referenced, linked with scholarly material and studies was not good enough? Can you explain why? OR give a reason WHY its gone to a discussion? All the previous edits that you have changed not one was breaking any rules, or guidelines. In fact wikipedia has a rule about deleting large chunks of material. In fact, most if not all articles are more usefell with greater material backed by scholary references, as it was in the previous edits. SO my only understanding and conclusion is that, someone has a personal agenda, maybe you to dilute the information, and the numbers of studies that has concluded that R1a is of South Asian origin. It seems that the greater number of studies proving south asian origins has far less weight that one study that alleges possible central asian, european origins. What is the reason for that? What is the reason for deleting large chunks of information, when such actions are forbidden by most editors? I just dont understand why anyone would delete whole pages, UNLESS its a personal view? Surely as a source of information, wikiepdia should give greater references, links rather than a narrow field of information, which i think is what you are doing. Go over the previous edits, which i have done, i cannot see any reason for such drastic changes. I dont think any editor should be able to blanket erase vast sections without some reason? Its just seems very dubious, especially since the implication for human migration are concerned. It does seem like a political agenda. In the previous edit, there where over six carried out suggesting South Asian origins, far greater evidence against any other proposal, yet you and another have deemed this inaccurate, on what BASIS can you undermine the studies carried out?IndianScience (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Please read again. It is has not been removed. This article has now been split. Most of the material is now at the new article. Some doubts have been raised about the wisdom of this split above (because it can lead to misunderstandings such as yours I think) and it can certainly be discussed. The reasons for the split are on the other hand all straight forward and logical. Please note that I did not do the split and nor have I been strongly opposed or for it. See above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:12, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Supposed Origin of R1a1a from Eurasian Steppe mentioned yet unsubstantiated nor discussed

I'd like to bring the following to the attention of the admins of this article: The following line is presented at the beginning of this article:

But on the other hand, as will be discussed below, some researchers continue to treat modern Indian R-M420 as being largely due to immigration from the Central Eurasian steppes or Southwestern Asia.

Yet the above assertion is not "discussed below" as claimed ("as will be discussed below"). It just left dangling in the introduction. I suggest that this line, in the introduction, regarding the supposed Central Eurasian steppes origin for r1a1a be removed until text discussing this theory is provided later in the article as is being claimed. I.e. where is the supporting explanation? It looks odd and unprofessional to mention something in the introduction that is supposed to be elaborated further in the article and then to find no reference to it at all. In addition, this sentence is poorly written, obtuse or awkward at best. An attempt should be made to explain the point being made here later in the article, but no explanation is provided. An oblique mention of a linkage between M17 in Slavic and Indian men is made yet not clearly identified as being related to the point mentioned in the introduction regarding "immigration from the Central Eurasian steppes". Wikipedia is supposed to be usable by lay and expert readers alike; the lack of clarity of this particular statement does not meet that goal. At a minimum can the phrase "as will be discussed below" either be removed or made more precise by specifying exactly where "below" (i.e. what section) it will be "discussed".

Given the current obtuse way in which this sentence is written one hope's this isn't somebody's attempt to sneak in their own pet theory or nationalist propaganda but rather, just an erroneous or incomplete edit--70.81.66.126 (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)--70.81.66.126 (talk) 03:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is not discussed below, then this is likely due to the recent splitting of the article (discussed above on this talk page), with most of the article now in a new place: R-M17. That split definitely did cause some problems like this that need to be tidied up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:28, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I've done a bit of a patchwork edit to at least explain that this is discussed in another article, but that is not an orthodox Wikipedia format of cross reference. A concern I have always had about splitting this article was and is that actually most published literature on this subject is really about R-M17. Maybe in fact this part of the lead should simply be moved to the new article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have now done what I suggested and changed the leads of both articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, now it's clearer, also I added a minor edit to your change, placing a link R-M17 at the end of the sentence for those who wish to get further info on proposed origins and latest studies.--70.81.66.126 (talk) 00:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Request to move this article to Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA)

I agree with the comments by user:MarmadukePercy, user:Maulucioni and others above who said the most appropriate name for this article is Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA).
Why was the content moved from the original article Haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) to this name without a consensus? Khestwol (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well there were many attempts to get discussion about this type of name change both on article pages and at WP:HGH (because this type of article name is standardized to some extent). Anyway, it would be good if you could give some specific arguments or reasoning about problems with the change. In some cases maybe other solutions can help. My own concern is more with the split of the article into R-M420 and R-M17 (which one should a reader hit if they search for R1a?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Referencing

This must be one of the ugliest and hard to read pages in wikipedia. I have no idea what possess people to use parenthetical referencing, while it is common in scientific literature (although it seems to be used less often now), wikipedia is not a journal or thesis, and is meant to be read by general users. Having so many brackets make it hard to read, especially when there are many citations, and it is confusing. The old page looked and read better. Hzh (talk) 19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I agre, but it will take quite some time to get it back in order without introducing more problems.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Replacement map

Over the last few days, I noticed that one edit replaced the map with an R1a map of Europe, which was already featured later in the article, and maybe not the best choice, then another switched to an R1a map of Eurasia, which I thought seemed fine. Now there is no map there at all. I realize that there is a lot of argument about where the mutation originated, but I don't think that should relate particularly to the map, which is based on evidence rather than theories, and which can never tell us where R1a started, only where it ended up. I'm going to put the (non-redundant) Eurasian map back into place, and if other editors feels that it harms the article in some way, I hope that they'll post their thoughts on that subject here. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Misleading graphic

The map used in this article is of R1a1a, not R1a, which has a very different distribution. Unless consensus is for keeping the map of R1a1a instead of R1a, I will substitute the correct map pretty soon. Poindexter Propellerhead (talk) 02:40, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Poindexter Propellerhead Just how different are R1a and R1a1a distributions? --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 05:31, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

R-SRY1532.2 (R1a1)

it says among other things that is present in greek macedonians. well macedonians from northern greece, and macedonians from republic of macedonia have more or less the same genetic makeup. while E2B2b is predominant among greeks and albanians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.126.129.186 (talk) 11:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Find in Karelia 5500-5000 BCE Oleni Ostrov > "Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe" http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433 Sagi2007 (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

New source

This is big news for this subject. http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433 . By the way, I believe that the re-merging of R-M420 and R-M17 should also be considered, for example if it is found that the two are still nearly always being referred to in the same discussions in the same sources (which I think they are).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

How important is it? Most people can only read the abstract. Khazar (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 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. Jenks24 (talk) 20:12, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Haplogroup R-M420 → Haplogroup R1a – Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Haplogroup R-M420" is used extremely rarely. Google Books search gets about 277 results for "Haplogroup R1a", but only about 4 results for "Haplogroup R-M420". Per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY of "Haplogroup R1a" due to its common usage. Per WP:CONCISE. Per WP:CONSISTENCY. "Haplogroup R1a" is more consistent with the title pattern used for its closely associated article, "Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)".--Relisted. Mdann52 (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Khestwol (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per above. Khestwol (talk) 21:52, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Against, the so called long designations (like R1a) are subject to being moved around in the phylotree. R-M420 is the proper designation that defines a subclade. Since the move to using only SNPs when defining subclades (and not designations like R1a) is a fairly recent one, most (if not all) of the currently published material includes R1a designation in addition to R-M420 designation, while the older publications would only include R1a designation = vote by Google should be avoided. The same argument for keeping Haplogroup R-M17 and Haplogroup R-M207. R1a could be a short article with the explanation of the nomenclature issues and a pointer to R-M420. R1b article could be treated in the similar manner. Absolwent (talk) 22:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment, no, "R-M420" has extremely low recognizability. It is used rarely. The article won't be searchable under that title. On Wikipedia it is preferable to use a WP:COMMONNAME like "R1a", not a rare name with extremely low recognizability like "R-M420". As for your proposal about renaming Haplogroup R1b, that proposal has been already rejected by a consensus on Haplogroup R1b's talk page here. Khestwol (talk) 10:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. The objection that this could be (in the real world) reclassified at some point is irrelevant to the WP:COMMONNAME analysis. If this haplogroup is renamed by "being moved around" in the phylotree, our article will be too renamed, when a preponderance of reliable sources tell us the name has changed. It's a fact of life for Wikipedia as a tertiary source that it will not be on the bleeding edge of nomenclature. I'm sympathetic to, and understand, the view that a more precise, but more technical and infrequently used, name is available; but it doesn't get past COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE policy. WP:PRECISION is policy, too, but it doesn't trump all other concerns, and we generally give COMMONNAME the most weight because this is a general-audience encyclopedia, not a specialized work. See also WP:NOT#JOURNAL: We don't have to mirror every preference of particular journals, and I don't see any evidence presented here that journals in genetics and physical anthropology prefer the SNPs, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, per nom and per SMcCandlish. Jbeans (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Note about move discussions

• Similar move discussions are open at Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)'s talk page, Haplogroup R-M207's talk page, and Haplogroup R-M17's talk page. Khestwol (talk) 21:52, 7 May 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.

Poltavka

Poltavka culture aDNA http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-poltavka-outlier.html --Sagi2007 (talk) 08:51, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

2014 study by Underhill on R1a

I've edited the article to include conclusions from the latest study by Underhill (2014), which has curiously been excluded. http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/full/ejhg201450a.html 2601:882:100:D7B0:965:C8D2:1B3D:3B2C (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do not change edits including the Iranian origin. It is the latest large-scale study which presents a strong case for an origin for R1a. 2601:882:100:D7B0:10B1:A066:9615:D4D1 (talk) 22:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

You're free to add mention of the study, but don't treat it as the new orthodoxy just yet and don't erase any other text or formatting. It's only a single study and cannot overturn the usual thinking on its own, especially before we know the reactions of the scholarly community. Even if its conclusion is correct, it doesn't necessarily have any far-reaching implications especially on the problem of Indo-European origins – in fact I think it does not, because R1a originated many millennia before the likely start of the Indo-European expansion. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is the 'usual thinking' - and more importantly what recent evidence is that based on? There is no need to exclude the conclusions drawn from over 20 authors, in this very recent meta-study. With a sample size of over 16,000, over 126 populations, and extensive haplotypes, it pretty much puts the nail the coffin when it comes to the origin of R1a. This article does not relate to IE orgins, so that point is irrelevant - though in some proper place and time, I certainly would have suggested that Underhill 2014, as well as Grungi 2012, do support an Iranian IE hypothesis. 71.41.122.130 (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say the conclusion should be excluded, I said it can be mentioned, but the result of the study still needs to be reported as fact by textbooks or other authoritative compilation-like sources reflecting the general consensus in the field before Wikipedia can report it as fact. We do not have evidence yet that the conclusion of the study is accepted by the consensus of the experts. There may well be some criticism of the conclusion. Saying "it pretty much puts the nail [in] the coffin" is a premature verdict.

Even if the conclusion of the study that R1a originated in the Iranian Highland is eventually accepted as consensus, that does not mean that it supports an Iranian IE hypothesis. This is like saying the homeland of the Ibero-Romance languages (and the people who spoke Proto-Ibero-Romance) is in Italy – no, the homeland of the Romance languages (and the Proto-Romance-speaking people) is. The Iranian Highland could be the homeland of distant ancestors of Proto-Indo-Europeans. (Where the Proto-Indo-Europeans came from is a bit mysterious partly because Indo-European is not known to have been part of a larger group; at least its affiliations have never been conclusively demonstrated, despite many attempts.) Again, the origins of R1a are deep in the past; it is a very old clade, much older than the Indo-European migrations appear to have been according to the best (linguistic) evidence we have. Nor is the Iranian Highland among the homelands proposed academically; therefore the idea of an Indo-European homeland in the Iranian Highland must be treated as a completely new and marginal hypothesis which needs a lot more evidence for it to be even established as a viable alternative hypothesis (that is accepted in academia, among linguists, not geneticists). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Again, this has nothing to do with the IE hypothesis, which you keep bringing forward in your rebuttals with me. Though I must say you are quite wrong on the assertion that, "the idea of an IE homeland in the Iranian highland must be treated as completely new..." (Vyacheslav Ivanov and Tamaz V. Gamkrelidze urheimat hypothesis included an area spanning between the Lower Caucuses and Lake Urmia, in Iran). Population genetics, like the many other sciences, is about gathering data, which can be used as evidence towards some hypothesis. Newer studies, with more samples, using higher resolution, are naturally going to allow for more accurate inferences - such can be generalized in some way for many scientific inquiries. The purpose of such a meta-study as Underhill, 2014: "The Phylogenetic and Geographic Structure of Y-chromosome Haplogroup R1a" , is to gather more data, from a broader range of samples, to improve on the inferences that have been made in the past. The fact that many older studies, lacking such quality, may have made different conclusions, is therefore, irrelevant. And furthermore, there is no determined body which acts as a decision maker here, which one can conveniently turn to, for an answer. At present, I am not aware of any new studies that propose a serious objection to the conclusions of Underhill, et al, 2014, so it's only proper to leave the Iranian origin hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:882:100:D7B0:F90F:3871:6232:83DF (talk) 00:26, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Ivanov/Gamkrelidze placed the Indo-European Urheimat in the Armenian Highland (aka Eastern Anatolia), not the Iranian Highland; these are quite distinct geographical regions, even if they may overlap at the margins due to not having precisely defined boundaries. As for Underhill (2014) and the assumption of an origin on the Iranian Highland, you say correctly that it's a hypothesis, not a fact, and there is indeed a mechanism to determine scientific consensus for the purposes of Wikipedia, namely secondary and tertiary sources, see WP:SCICON. It is true that meta-studies are better than primary studies, but they still reflect an individual researcher's POV that the expert community at large may not agree with. If you simply revert the article again instead of adding text, I'll have to report you for vandalism. I'll say this for the last time: You're free to add a mention of Underhill (2014). No dumb reverts and no POV-pushing. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

You are quite wrong. Ivanov's "Armenian Highland" definition, in fact, included parts of Northwest Iran, including the area of Lake Urmia. And as for Underhill 2014, it is the more recent comprehensive study of R1a, which happens to support an Iranian origin - a hypothesis, which you are apparently not pleased with. But there is no reason to make changes to this (Iranian) inclusion, especially based on some arbitrary, and outdated hypothesis, which one can easily find scattered around the web. 2601:882:100:D7B0:4885:E49E:FC20:253E (talk) 14:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

That doesn't change that it's still not a fact or widely accepted consensus, just one hypothesis of several. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 14:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Haplogroup R1a/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

--Internal Critique only-- Remaining comments about this page. Info box description in "defining mutations" should be reduced. Articles should be properly represented, neutrality of sections is questionable. PB666 yap 16:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Substituted at 05:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

R1a in Iran who is writing this crap. http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html

http://postimg.org/image/tlv7j1pi5/ http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html This is taken from Iran's own website for DNA. Notice the small amounts of R1a and equal amount of R1b. Your history is wrong. Language has no effect on DNA. https://www.docdroid.net/Whu2X9Q/scn-0004.pdf.html German/Czech/Iranian DNA Haplogroup ratios. Germans in this DNA haplogroup test had R1a1 M-17 and showed 38.9% out of 1215 people. Please tell me because from what I know Germany does not have a DNA project. Would you be trying to change history?. So many British people do claim Germanic ancestry but most have no evidence, maybe when you say Saxon you mean the little town called Saxon north of the opening of the river Elbe and the ocean taken from Ptolemaeus map 2nd century AD. See Manga Germania, Germania Slavica http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Ptolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg . Your mass migration theory is far exaggerated as people of the British Isles average 85% and have R1b ( See stephen oppenheimer dna). Quote me but don't the 95% of the Spanish Basque people have R1b. I do also know that all people have many different types of Haplogroups and not just one. https://www.docdroid.net/Whu2X9Q/scn-0004.pdf.html German/Czech/Iranian DNA Haplogroup ratios. http://dna.scangen.se/index.php?soktyp=include&fnamn_sel=&enamn_sel=&fort_sel=&lan_sel=&fodd_sel=&haplo_sel=r1a&haplospec_sel=&lang=en&show=search Swedish R1a Hapolgroup http://dna.scangen.se/index.php?soktyp=include&fnamn_sel=&enamn_sel=&fort_sel=&lan_sel=&fodd_sel=&haplo_sel=I&haplospec_sel=&lang=en&show=search Hold Swedish have more R1a than Haplogroup I why is that who is telling the truth???. https://sweden.se/society/history-of-sweden/ Swedish history from there own goverment website. What the Vikings went east towards Russia, Ukraine, Turkey. Where is this mas migration to the UK???. Sami https://sweden.se/society/sami-in-sweden/ Read and learn https://www.docdroid.net/5yJP41W/428-443.pdf.html Erasmus University medicial Centre Rotterdam https://www.docdroid.net/Il3qmAy/journalpone0041252pdf-plosoneorg-p1.pdf.html R1b-M269 shows its highest frequency in the Assyrians (29.2%, averaged on Tehran and Azerbaijan Gharbi groups amd in Lorestan 24%. Note R1b not R1a http://docdro.id/Il3qmAy http://postimg.org/image/vskfk1k5l/ R1a in Europe http://postimg.org/image/qnvxukqed/ R1b in Europe http://postimg.org/image/bq0i2lvzh/ Germany R1a1 (M17) Average 38.9% http://postimg.org/image/wgha45x3b/ Gugarat Bhils Brahmins India R1a1.png http://postimg.org/image/tlv7j1pi5/ http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html http://postimg.org/image/66kafwjax/ Iranian DNA Project as above http://postimg.org/image/a0fxec1ul/ Iran has more R1b than R1a "History is wrong?. http://postimg.org/image/m8mewd8kr/ Lichtenstein cave "Germany Hapogroup findings from 3000 years ago. Show twice as much R1a than R1b.

http://postimg.org/image/66tgipqup/ R1a 27% R1b11.1% Uzbeks, Afghanistan. Chuvash Russia R1a 27.9% R1b 2.3%

http://postimg.org/image/72ocenohx/ Kazakhstan R1a 15% R1b 7% http://postimg.org/image/7uh2tx3h3/ Tuymazinsky Tatars Russia Note R1b 16%, R1a 14%. Kazan Tatars Tatarstan Russia R1a 20.%, R1b 1.9% http://postimg.org/image/adn65ad15/ Lithuanian Tatars R1a 54%. Hazara Afghanistan R1a 6.6% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C-M217 Mongolians have highest C-M217 not R1a http://www.welcome2mongolia.com/archives/matching-genghis-khan/ Haplogroup C3 Mongolian http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/11/ancient-dna-from-malta-and-afontova-gora-a-full-account/ Prior to as in before R1a/r1b just maybe there was the Ma-1 an ancestral haplogroup of the R. Malta boy in Russia carbon dated 24,000 years http://mehriran.tv/article_read.php?a=481 Haplogroup R* originated in North Asia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years before present). This haplogroup has been identified in the 24,000 year-old remains of the so-called "Mal'ta boy" from the Altai region, in south-central Siberia (Raghavan et al. 2013) http://www.donsmaps.com/dolnivi.html Note Dolni Vestonice Carbon datings in artical. Also at least one piece of irovy that was hand carved was also dated in America 1988 at 26,0000+years same as Czech number and note they found two isotopes carbon C-14 and local uranium was also found and this very hard to fake.

Very had to understand what the point being made is. There are many comments above which are written as if replies to something in the article, but they don't seem to match anything in the article. Remember Wikipedia only aims to summarize what the best sources are, which for this subject means academic publications (for better or worse), and not amateur DNA projects (no matter how good they are), unless these are somehow moderated or peer reviewed in a strong enough way. So nothing in the article should be anyone's personal theories, so if you present yourself as arguing against Wikipedia editors you'll find none of them will even feel like you are writing to them.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:33, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Read and learn A large, 2014 study by Underhill . An American psychiatrist . this Peter A Underhill who calls his self a false and misleading European agency is no DNA expert,. Note this company is in the news in Australia for posting misleading material. Read this link : https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Macmillan+Publishers+Limited&oq=Macmillan+Publishers+Limited&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8#q=Macmillan+Publishers+Limited+scam+false . Note all Underhill and Macmillan Publishers of these Journals lead back to an Indian company called Imex allegedly * https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=mCecVqrSKsHu8weAyai4Aw&gws_rd=cr&fg=1#q=imex+journal+publishers . * https://www.google.com.au/#q=European+Journal+of+Human+Genetics+(2015)+23%2C+124%E2%80%93131+%26+2015+Macmillan+Publishers+Limited+All+rights+reserved+1018-4813%2F15+www.nature.com%2Fejhg . There * https://www.google.com.au/#q=what+is++phylogeographic+ using phylogeographic resolution to screen an invisible alleged 16,244 individuals from over 126 populations from across Eurasia Where are the facts and figures?? but where is the evidence maybe did he used a teleporter from star trek , concluded there was compelling evidence, that R1a-M420 originated in Iran. The facts are clear is that Iranian.com is an Iranian website and its own DNA project that is very clear and precise and they name and number every Haplogroup and they have M-417 not m-420 so once again fabricated information. Also they claim they have carbon/phylogenetic dated a person DNA and this person is still alive what a load of dishonest Shit!. Also the facts show Iran has an equal amount of R1a and R1b DNA haplogrouping's so this forged thesis is wrong. And in places like Tehran Iran's captial they have more R1b 29.2% than average 8% of R1a, see link below. If all people where dum enough to think a few lone words from farsi iran languages that are simlar to Slavic languages. mean that if you speak a language then you are that race of people. So if you speak English then you must be English, Americians are English is that what your telling the world. What about your really intelligent and speak 5 languages. What are you then you racist piece who needs to go and change there DNA. . Use your favorite search engine for "malta boys siberia dna haplogroup R" as this was found in the permafrost and they Russia have the oldest known host * http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/24000-year-old-boy-from-lake-baikal-is-scientific-sensation/ in the world for the Haplogroup R= R1a= R1b!. * http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html

• http://postimg.org/image/66kafwjax/ Iranian DNA Project as above
• https://www.docdroid.net/Il3qmAy/journalpone0041252pdf-plosoneorg-p1.pdf.html R1b-M269 shows its highest frequency in the Assyrians (29.2%, averaged on Tehran and Azerbaijan Gharbi groups amd in Lorestan 24%. Note R1b not R1a

* http://postimg.org/image/m8mewd8kr/ Lichtenstein cave "Germany Hapogroup findings from 3000 years ago. Show twice as much R1a than R1b *
* https://www.docdroid.net/Whu2X9Q/scn-0004.pdf.html German/Czech/Iranian [1]

Peter A Underhill is a Stanford geneticist. See https://stanfordwho.stanford.edu/SWApp/lookup?search=Peter%20Underhill. The article being cited is a peer reviewed one from a very well known journal. It is not really based on languages or any of the other things you are mentioning, but is mainly a pretty dry DNA survey. Very hard to understand what your point is.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:38, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I am quoting you these journals that your using are fake and fabriacited. Also in your own link: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf " Your fabricated evidence shows 82.5 % of Mongolians have R1a. But I have read your link only one is working out of two, many times but there is noting about Mongolia having R1a Haplogroup are you having delusions?.. Google "Genghis khan had haplogroup C-M217". Stop deleting what I write and removing my links proving you wrong Mr. Your link: http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/pdf/ejhg201450a.pdf Where auote is 82.5 Ria in Mongolia. Peter A Underhill is a Biological Anthropology. biological and behavioral aspects of human beings, their related non-human primates and their extinct human ancestors. Every body knows americans know everything. But I think you should contact this Dr Peter A Underhill if he can verify his name is used willing. He must prove is unseen results. Also Iran's people do not have his named Haplogroup his research is false and therefore wrong. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Peter_Underhill/publications/2 My links are below and prove that this journal is named and shamed in Australia's media. Quote me , www.nature.com , Macmillan Publishers Limited, maybe related to a the Indian company OMICS.

• http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/predatory-publishers-criticised-unethical-unprincipled-tactics/6997120
• https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pgJr7a3BZ6?play=true Full ABC radio story on this Journal OMICS predatory Publishers Limited, fast forward to 10%of program as radio show is almost one hour.
• http://www.nature.com/omics/index.html -Journal Macmillan Publishers Limited
• http://richardpoynder.co.uk/OMICSb.pd MacMillan Publishers and OMICS and Stanford University are all next to each other?. Why we all wonder why.

http://cabbagesofdoom.blogspot.com.au/2013/07/omics-group-conferences-sham-or-scam.html https://www.google.com.au/#q=European+Journal+of+Human+Genetics+predatory+publisher+scam+misleading+OMICS http://retractionwatch.com/2015/09/30/most-predatory-publishing-occurs-in-asia-africa-report/ https://www.yandex.com/search/?msid=20952.13264.1453684355.42029&text=Macmillan%20Publishers%20Limited%20journals%20predatory%20scam%20false Note I have taken a screen shot as I will need this information to report you.

Note: The former, English, French, Spanish and so on colonies. "USA" Your Underhill said I qoute" R1a-M420 originated in Iran" but the worl know Iran hates a nameless country. How did you get there DNA results use magic.

http://dnaarab.com/printthread.php?t=231 note:R1a*-M420 - 2.2% (1/46) Bakhtiari of SW Iran. Look only one person in 259 had the haplogroup you claim from Iran. You can not stop the lies. http://www.dnaarab.com/imgcache/2/350alsh3er.png So people know where to look on Map of Iran. http://www.dnaarab.com/imgcache/2/350alsh3er.png I repeat again. R haplogroup was prior to R1a and R1b and the oldest known carbon dated proof is in Siberia around 24,000 years old malta boy. http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/24000-year-old-boy-from-lake-baikal-is-scientific-sensation/ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.191.134.227 (talk) 23:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Your Underhill said I qoute" R1a-M420 originated in Iran" but the worl know Iran hates a nameless country. How did you get there DNA results use magic.

Or how about using one's brains? LOL! Unless Iran has magically been able to prevent all emigration (I know it has not), geneticists can easily test immigrants from Iran in Western countries. No need to travel to Iran. (Although Westerners travel to Iran all the time, even regular people who aren't scientists or scholars.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:27, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Haber et al. (2012), R1a-M458 and the Indo-European case

Dear users, as Andrew Lancaster has expressed the edit in concern requires a overview. The Ip is already blocked from editing for 1,5 days because of disruptive editing and edit warring with multiple Ip's. We need expert users on this. Do you know some users which can help us in the issue?

Here is what the paper states: "R1a1a-M17 diversity declines toward the Pontic-Caspian steppe where the mid-Holocene R1a1a7-M458 sublineage is dominant [46]. R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India." (Haber et al. (2012), Afghanistan's Ethnic Groups Share a Y-Chromosomal Heritage Structured by Historical Events)

--Gushtasp (talk) 21:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! So what in concrete should we say on the article? Let's try to define whatever disagreement there might be.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The basic objection is to define the R1a-mutation type which was responsible for the introduction of Indo-European languages from the Pontic Steppes to Central Asia and India. Since at least 15 years this mutation was many times called the M17-mutation. But in 2012 the study in concern revealed that the M17 mutation could not be connected with the Indo-European migrations of the R1a-route toward Central Asia and India, resulting from the absence of the M458 mutation in Afghanistan and surrounding populations. This is the basic point. --Gushtasp (talk) 15:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

From the quote given, "could not be" is at least arguably a too strong choice of word? I think what you are saying is that there is evidence pointing in other directions? Anyway a good way to move forward is to propose a new draft wording (if you have any).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:46, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Compared to what the published source says it is a too strong choice, true. In a simple and plainly way the source uses "does not support". The implication is that there must have been other directions of migrations resulting in a Indo-Europeanization of South Asia. But to which haplogroups this Indo-Europeanization is attributed is currently not known. This is the last stand of evidence. --Gushtasp (talk) 20:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe "might have been" is more accurate than "must have been"? I am not even looking at it in detail, but that is how I read it. My impression is that he is saying "we used to be reasonably happy with theory A, and now we have reason to doubt it". Short version: there is uncertainty.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:55, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this. But I have invited user Slovenski Volk to this discussion as representant of a counter argument. Maybe he can tell us more. Sincerly --Gushtasp (talk) 09:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

l overlooked the paragraph mentioned above. ln that case, there is nothing against WP:SYNTH policy here. However, there are still some problems regarding the statement of Haber et al. lt was discussed a few years ago and counter arguments were expressed. See: Talk:Haplogroup R1a1#New source? Haber et al. 176.219.169.59 (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC) PS: l probably won't be active here for a few weeks, since l am busy in real life. Nathless, the source should not be readded before discussing it thoroughly. 176.219.169.59 (talk) 09:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah Ok I see there was a discussion. I will invite the other user (Slevenski Volk) to this discussion board. Maybe we can have then a good constructive conclusion of the matter. See you, bye. --Gushtasp (talk) 16:22, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The more interesting point seems to be the 'Dravidian migration'. The "Ancestral North Indians" seem to have been Dravidian R1a carrying lactose-resistant farmers from Iran/the Levant, who created the Harappan Civilisation, and at ca. 2,200 BCE started to coloinialise southern India, mixing with the local population. A millennium later a new Sanskrit culture, which rose from Harappan people and Indo-European language & religion, added a second wave of admixture. Much more interesting! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. The Indo-European migrations are certainly, whatever model you subscribe to (unless you believe in the extremely fringe Paleolithic Continuity "Theory"), much more recent than the divergence of R1a, which Underhill 2014 dates to ~25,000 years ago, into the last glacial period, even before the Last Glacial Maximum (!) or the settlement of the Americas (or, that said, much of Northern Europe). So Underhill 2014 is just not relevant to Indo-European origins, despite his claim of having dealt a striking blow to the Pontic (i. e., Kurgan) hypothesis. I don't see that the possibility of Bronze Age (!) gene flow from Eastern Europe to South Asia has been impacted in any way by the analysis. Even if it had, there is no necessity for significant gene flow for the Kurgan scenario to capture the prehistoric reality because languages can also be spread by small élites which don't leave much in the way of a genetic footprint, and the Kurgan scenario is entirely compatible with the possibility of spread by élite dominance. Personally, I wouldn't expect that Kurgan immigrants significantly altered the South Asian gene pool; they certainly didn't displace – let alone eradicate – the natives: pre-Indo-European substrata are well-attested in Indic languages as far back as Vedic Sanskrit. I was actually surprised by the suggestion that Kurgan Indo-European migrations could have left such a highly significant genetic signal, especially in South Asia: even I as a staunch supporter of the Kurgan model did not expect that, and I don't think other supporters did, either.

As for the Ancestral North Indians, I'd avoid identifying them with any particular language family. The longstanding suggestion that the language of the Harappan civilisation was Dravidian is highly dubious and I've never seen a compelling case for it. Michael Witzel believes that Dravidian speakers entered South Asia only about 2000 BC, roughly at the same time as Indo-Iranian speakers, and might only have taken part in the Harappan civilisation marginally (in the south, in Sindh), while the main language was prefixal (and remains unidentified – a relationship to Austroasiatic, let alone Munda or Khasic, seems implausible, not least because of the required time-depth: according to Paul Sidwell, Austroasiatic spread from the middle Mekong area not much earlier than 2000 BC). --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke: according to Lazaridis et al. (2016), the Yamna-culture contained a strong (43%) component from Iranian chalcolithis farmers; this group in turn was "a mixture of the Neolithic people of western Iran, the Levant, and Caucasus Hunter Gatherers." According to Jones (2015), the CHG split-off ca. 25,000 years ago. See Indo-European migrations#Root populations and Yamna culture#Origins for references. So, Lazaridis (2016) seems to make perfect sense of Underhill (2014), and of this nice chart of the distribution of R1a. Just one more hypothesis: given the divergence at ~25,000 years ago, why not suppose that R1a originated with the Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:17, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

It's perfectly possible that that is correct, but this has no bearing on the question of the Indo-European homeland. It's about the origins of the people of the Yamna culture itself (which is the prime candidate for the source of the Indo-European languages, remember). The homeland, under the Kurgan hypothesis which even Lazaridis seems to accept, was in Eastern Europe, not Iran, which is frequently confused here. When academics discuss Indo-European origins, they do not (usually) talk about a time 25,000 years ago, because the language family is patently nowhere as old. Similarly, the immediate origins of the Polynesian languages are not in East Asia, only much more remote origins. It's vital to distinguish this, because otherwise you can just state that every language family's origins are ultimately in Africa and be done with it, which is obviously not very interesting. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 12:10, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, so Lazaridis's conclusion is that Chalcolithic farmers from Iran contributed to the Yamna gene pool, so he's not talking about a migration more than 20,000 years ago. However, this admixture could still easily precede the eventual breakup of Indo-European by many centuries at least.

By the way, the Allentoft et al. (2015) study mentioned in Blond#Asia rather seems to indicate an origin of Indo-Europeans (including Indo-Iranians, Greeks and even Anatolians!) in the Bronze-Age Corded Ware culture, which would resurrect the old idea of a northern European homeland – although it is compatible with Gimbutas' original hypothesis as well, as she posited a third and final wave of migration beyond the steppes in the early 3rd millennium that encompassed the Corded Ware culture. Klingenschmitt (mentioned in de:Anatolische Sprachen#Herkunft und Verwandtschaftsbeziehungen) also argues that from a linguistic point of view, such a late date for the breakup of Proto-Indo-European is perfectly reasonable. Gimbutas also dates Kurgan IV, the late Yamna culture, to the first half of the 3rd millennium, and equates it with Late PIE. So it's entirely possible that the beginning of the Indo-European expansion into Central Asia, Central and Southern Europe and Anatolia only took place in 3000–2500 BC, with earlier waves of migration being absorbed linguistically so that all the attested language groups descend from that most recent wave. For a few centuries, an essentially unitary Proto-Indo-European may still have been spoken as a lingua franca throughout the vast region covered by the Corded Ware and late Yamna cultures, and attested dialectal differences may only have appeared from c. 2500 BC, which is already deep in the Bronze Age in the Aegean and at least around the beginning of the Bronze Age in the steppes.

In this case, the Chalcolithic admixture Lazaridis is talking about, even if his dating is correct, is definitely not relevant for the eventual Indo-European expansion far beyond the steppes, which happened near or after the end of the Chalcolithic. In fact, he talks about "a population related to the people of the Iran Chalcolithic", which could be arbitrarily older – he does not precisely date the genetic inflow, so it could have happened anytime between c. 20,000 and c. 3000 BC. Where the Proto-Indo-Europeans and the Yamna and Corded Ware people themselves ultimately came from is still an interesting question, but that's not what the Indo-European homeland discussion is about.

Moreover, while the Yamna themselves may (per Haak et al. 2015) not originally have been fair-haired, Allentoft et al. seems to say that the influx of (presumably non-IE-speaking) hunter-gatherers in the Baltic region, as they were assimilated into the (presumably IE-speaking) Corded Ware culture (or alternatively, the Corded Ware may have been the result of the assimilation of Northern European hunter-gatherers to the incoming steppe culture). If Anatolian, Indo-Iranian, Greek and Italo-Celtic all originate from migrations of fair-haired people from the Baltic region, then they and not the Yamna people from the steppes are effectively the Proto-Indo-Europeans, which explains why fair-haired people eventually (from the Bronze Age on) appear in Greece, Italy and Central Asia too, especially in the upper classes. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Merger proposal - Haplogroup R1a1a and Haplogroup R1a1 into Haplogroup R1a

• WP:FORK
• All three articles have basically the same content
• The emphasis is on R1a1a, c.q. Z282 & Z93, which is repeated in all three articles
• R1a1/R1a1a/R1a1a1 is the main sublineage, and may as well be described within R1a
• R1a is the best-known name

So, let's get rid of all these confusing subarticles, and merge them into R1a.

• Support, as nominee. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support even if they are not same subject, research and researchers have produced same content. Lorstaking (talk) 04:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
• Support I agree with nominator's rationale. --Wario-Man (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

R1a1a = Serbian genes

According to this study there is high level of paleolithic genes in Serbian population: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22310393  ! Why there is no mention in your writings ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.244.217 (talk) 14:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Transcaucasia & IVC

@Joshua Jonathan: It's better to remove it instead of confusing people. These studies are from 2014/15 when they thought Zargos_neolthic would be R1a-Z93. But we know now from recent 2016 studies, Zargos_Neolthic turned out to be Y-dna R2. They found Y-dna R1b1 in Kura-Araxes in 2016 as well. They did not find R1a-z93 or m17 anywhere in Transcaucasia or West Asia. It's better to remove old theories when they are debunked by recent 2016 studies. Steppe origin for R1a-z93 seems more likely now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilber8000 (talk • contribs) 16:25, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Ilber8000: thanks! I've really been twisting my brain on this; it just didn't make sense. I'd like to think it over just a little bit longer, though; they mentioned it, so somehow it seems relevant. Which studie are you referring to? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:34, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan: In the study and Lazaridis said so himself. See, https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/744192603424456704 (also, note the chart & haplogroups someone posted) also http://aramepal.blogspot.in/2016_11_01_archive.html

• (Armenia_EBA) aka Kura-Araxes is R1b1-M415(xM269). (Early Bronze Age Kura-Araxes burial ground.)

So, R1a1-Z93 did not come to South Asia from Transcaucasia/West Asia like Underhill, Mascarenhas and Pozink proposed when we din't have DNA from these regions. We can add it back if they find R1a1 in IVC but it seems unlikely now. Ilber8000 (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Still, that's only one sample from Kura-Araxes? I'm not convinced that we should remove this info. The aim of Wikipedia is to present the relevant info from reliable sources; when multiple sources speculate about such origins, then that's relevant, even if it seems to be incorrect. We better add this additional info, and find out where those speculations come from, I think. NB: I'll check again what Mascarenhas et al wrote exactly; I wrote "the expansion of Z93 from Transcaucasia into South Asia"; I'll check if that's what they wrote. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

One sample, as also noted at this forum, where participants suggest it may have come from the steppe via the Caucasus corridor. NB: what about J2b1 (map b)(I know nothing about that; please explain to me)? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

They're reading along with is, or what?!? You've got a connetion there? Eurogenes blog: "Big deal of 2016: the territory of present-day Iran cannot be the Indo-European homeland." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been looking at all the arguments again, and none of them is definitive:

• Underhill's dating may be too early; while he gives 5,600 ybp, Family Tree DNA gives 4,700 YBP. This dating coincides with the eastward movement between 2800 and 2600 BCE of the Yamna culture into the region of the Poltavka culture, a predecessor of the Sintashta culture, from which the Indo-Iranians originated.
• His map shows the highest concentration of M780 in the Ganges Valley, not the Indus Valley. The Ganges Vally is the area of the classic Vedic society.
• Poznik's "striking expansions" do indeed predate the collapse of the IVC, but this does not mean unambigiously that Z93 originated there.
• Mascarenhas's propose "West Asia" as the area of origin for Z93; thjat's quite broad. Their proposed migration route is quite 'linear', and does not exclude the steppe route.
• Lazaridis' Iran Chalcolithic contribution to the steppe people is pre-Bronze Age. The Iranian contribution to the Indian population seems to be related to the spread of agriculture.

Altogether, when read in one direction, all these suggestions shape a picture of Z93 migration from Iran to India. But when looked upon from a different angle, the picture falls apart... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

• aDNA of Zagros_Iran and Caucasus (CHG) found in those regions does not suggest R1a1 coming from Iran -> India OR R1a1 going from Iran/Aanatolia -> Eastern Europe. Both of these seem inaccurate from aDNA we have now.
• Lazaridis study mentions nothing about R1a1 coming with farmers, because Iran_Neolthic did not carry that Y-DNA. So, they are ruled out.
• High steppe_ancestry in higher caste is in line with higher frequency of R1a1 (73%).
• Europeans should carry Iranian_Neolthic ancestry, which should have arrived with Chl_Iran population through Yamnaya. But, Neither Neolithic_Iran or Chl_Iran seem to have contribute to genetic ancestry of Europeans.
• Y-DNA J seems native to Transcaucasia (CHG) - CHG contributed to genetic ancestry of Europeans and Iran_Neolithic.
• "Indo-Aryan languages originated outside India" - Indo-Aryan languages spoken today did originate & evolve in India, just like Germanic evolved in Northern Europe and Celtic in Central/Western Europe and not the steppes. It should be something like "Indo-Aryans migrated to India" instead. Ilber8000 (talk) 14:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

We should in any case be avoiding using blogs of course. The aim on Wikipedia should be to summarize the "better types" of publications only. (I know it can be frustrating in a fast moving field like this one, because those publications are often behind what well-informed people will know.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

table in section: Historic naming of "R1a"

Concerning this table, I made many of the early versions long ago but it has become very heavy and wide on the screen. I notice the third section more or less covers what is already given above in the topology section, so would it be easier to just remove that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Might be helpfull, if it's not a loss of data. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:04, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

If someone else has a quick look we can make sure I am not missing something.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Lucotte

@Andrew Lancaster: could you please review my latest edit, and give your opinion on Lacotte (2015), [www.omicsonline.org/open-access/the-major-ychromosome-haplotype-xi--haplogroup-r1a-in-eurasia-2161-1041-1000150.pdf The Major Y-Chromosome Haplotype XI – Haplogroup R1a in Eurasia]]. Especially this part:

"TMRCA in Pakistan-India and in the fve European regions Table 5 summarizes TMRCA estimations in populations belonging to the two Z93 and Z280 haplotypes. For Z93, the 192 PakistanoIndians chosen for the estimation give an approximate TMRCA=15,5 Kyears, that is substantially older than that (10,272 ± 2,187 years) estimated by Pamjav et al. [21]; this difference between the two can be partially explained by the fact that these authors included in her sample the Roma population group and the Hungarian Z93 chromosomes that result of Roma admixture.

For Z280 in the fve European regions (based each on a mean of 50 subjects), TMRCA varies between 6,9 Kyears for the population of Northern Europe (that of the lower diversity) to 12,5 Kyears for the populations of Eastern Europe. Tese estimations are in accordance to our previous one [10] about 12 Kyears- concerning the maximum coalescent time in Europe (Northern Europe excepted). In their recent study [22] proposed about 11,7 K years for Europe (of the Z282 haplotype), and about 12,5 Kyears for Siberia (of the Z93 haplotype).

In their two articles [23,24], based on either 67 or 111 STR markers, proposed the following dates : Te haplogroup R1a arose in Central Asia (apparently in South Siberia and/or neighboring regions) around 20 Kyears; not later than 12 Kyears bearers of R1a1 already was in the Hindustan, then went across Anatolia and the rest of Asia Minor apparently between 10 and 9 Kyears, and around 9-8 Kyears they arrived to the Balkans and spread over Eastern Europe to the British Isles."

[23] Rozhanskii IL, Klyosov AA (2012) Haplogroup R1a, its Subclades and Branches in Europe during the Last 9000 Years. Advances in Anthropology 2: 139-156.

[24] Sherratt A (1998) A transformation of Early Agrarian Europe: the Later Neolothic and Copper Ages 4500-2."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh great. The author uses a hotmail-account, and the "Institute of Molecular Anthropology" at Paris was founded by himself to study DNA-traces at the relics of Christ. And yes, he did find DNA of Christ (see French Wikipedia; I don't make this up myself). I know enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:17, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

TMRCA and divergence time

@Andrew Lancaster: As far as I understand, TMRCA is based on microsatellite variance, and may be influenced by population numbers: more people, more variation, seemingly older age, as in this sentence from the Wiki-article:

"Yet, this diversity can also be explained by the historically high population numbers, which increases the likelihood of diversification."

What do you say? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:38, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding TMRCA and divergence time (also for my own understanding):

• James B. Pettengill (2015), The Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor Does Not (Usually) Approximate the Date of Divergence
• TMRCA = Time to Most Recent Common Ancestor: "Do not be fooled by apparent precision in TMRCA calculations. All results derived will be no better than probabilistic estimates, based on the input and the limitations of the method. They have a level of uncertainty which is unstated and sometimes unknown."
• Mark Stoneking (2016), [Time to the Most Recent Common Ancestor. In: An Introduction to Molecular Anthropology, John Wiley & Sons.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the most important thing to say is that yes, I also understand that TMRCA methods differ and can give different results, but on the other hand they are commonly made and cited in the reliable literature. So for example we should be cautious about not mentioning them at all, or seeing them as a sign of a publication being unreliable on their own. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Uhm, okay. I found the Lucotte-publication via this blog, which concluded that the whole idea of Indo-European is nonsense because of Lucotte's datings. Lucotte may be a weirdo, but of course other publications also found older dates for Indian R1a1-bearers than for European groups, so that does pose a problem for the IEmt - or for those datings. I pick the second option. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

High population numbers in northern India as an explanation for high R1a-diversity

The comments "Deleted the statement about STR diversity owing to large population numbers, as there is zero evidence that northern Indian regions had higher population numbers than SW Asians. In fact, the opposite is likely true" and "There's no supporting citation, and it is non-obvious how NW India would've had higher population numbers than SW Asia" are misleading; there is no comparison being made here with SW-Asia. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:18, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

R1a origins

Regarding these edits: Michel Danino's chapter in A Companion to South Asia in the Past is not a reliable source; Michel Danino is a blatantly one-sided revisionist, who believes in Indigenous Aryans. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The sentence "Most studies have found that this group originated in India" is not supported by the source. The reference says "P. 123 On Human Nature: Biology, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, and Religion edited by Michel Tibayrenc, Francisco J. Ayala." P.123 gives an overview of sources for chapter 7 of that book; no way that that page draws any conclusion on what "most studies have found." Pure POV-pushing by the editor. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I think Sith Order of Lord Maul (talk · contribs) is the same user with the user you have mentioned above. 46.221.196.187 (talk) 21:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

They are both blocked. Thanks for this revert. I used rollback; it rolls back only the edits of the latest user, not of two different users at one time. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:00, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Regarding those sources, let's take a closer look:

'It originated ca. 22,000 to 25,000 years ago, "in the vicinity of present-day Iran.""

was changed into

" It originated, according to some sources ca. 22,000 to 25,000 years ago, "in the vicinity of present-day Iran." Other sources pinpoint its origin to the Indian Subcontinent. (Certainly, the oldest strain of R1a is found in Indian DNA samples.)"

References

• "according to some sources": pov-pushing, under-estimating the weight of Underhill;
• "Other sources pinpoint its origin to the Indian Subcontinent" - undue weight.
• P. 216 A Companion to South Asia in the Past By Gwen Robbins Schug, Subhash R. Walimbe - this is Michel Danino, Aryans and the Indus Civilization: Archaeological, Skeletal, and Molecular Evidence. Danino is not WP:RS; in this case, he doesn't even mention Underhill (2015). It is published in A Companion to South Asia in the Past. That book is dedicated to Kenneth A.R. Kennedy, an author who has questioned the Indo-Aryan migrations. Maybe that explains why Danino got a chance to get published by a respectable publisher. oh, and page 216 is not about R1a, but about R1a1...
• P. 43 My Father's Fathers By Barbara Grivna - a biographical account about the author's grandparents. P.43 does not mention R1a; it does mention, though, Wikipedia as a source. P.26, though, says: "R1a arose fiveteen thousand years ago in the vicinity of Ukraine [...] But some studies question these earlier findings and claim that R1a lineages may have their origin in North India."
• "(Certainly, the oldest strain of R1a is found in Indian DNA samples." Source: The Ocean of Churn: How the Indian Ocean Shaped Human History By Sanjeev Sanyal. Which also says that R1a originated ca. 25,000 years ago. According to Sanyal, "There is no evidence of an Iron age invasion or migration from Central Asia." Out of touch with academic reality. Sanyal seems to think that R1a1a migrated "from the south to the north," though the reference he gives, http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/full/ejhg201450a/html, does not lead to an article but to the main page of Nature. He quotes studies which note that DNA-studies do not support "significant patrilineal gene flow from East Europe to Asia." Among others, he is referring to Underhill (2015), indeed stating that "the oldest strains of the R1a-haplogroup are found in the Indian subcontinent (approximately 15,500 years old)." This is indeed what Underhill says. What it not says, though, is that this estimation may be distorted by the larger population, which will lead to more mutations, and hence an older age-estimation. No reliable source for this topic, this Ocean of Churn.

Further, this text was added:

"Most studies have found that this group originated in India."

References

• P. 123 On Human Nature: Biology, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, and Religion edited by Michel Tibayrenc, Francisco J. Ayala - I've already noted that this is a source-list for a book chapter. The statement seems to be the editor's personal conclusion.
• Vimanas and the wars of the gods: The Rediscovery of a Lost Civilization, of By Enrico Baccarini - full title The Rediscovery of a Lost Civilization, of a Forgotten Science and of an Ancient Lore of India and Pakistan. Sounds promising... The only mention of R1a is an article by Klyosov and Rozhanskii, that is, bogus. The book does refer to R1a1, though, stating that this marker appears in India from 12,000 BCE onward.

So, cherry-picking pov-pushing. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

PS: the nature-page does give an interesting link: How to trump group-think in a post-truth world. When opinions are symbols of belonging, our brains work overtime to keep us believing, says Dan Kahan.. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:53, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

You are right that such India claims should not be allowed to dominate. Underhill 2014 is also one of the most important sources of course. But OTOH do we really have enough signs of certainty and consensus to say so exactly that R1a originated "in the vicinity of present-day Iran" (Caucasus border)? In a fast moving field like this, it seems dangerous to use even the research articles to report such a thing? (Normally on WP, we are asked to get a source which specifically reviews other sources, if we want to imply that there is a strong consensus. Of course it is hard to be too strict about that, but avoiding super exact conclusions seems prudent?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You've go a point, though we could attribute the claim. I've removed it from the lead for now. Google scholar gives 43 citations for Underhill (2015). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes attribution would make a difference, because no longer implying a simple consensus.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:57, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Coming in very late as I've just run into someone adding Enrico Baccarini's book elsewhere. It's self-published[8] and he pushes the old "high technology", flying machines, Mohenjo Daro destroyed in a giant explosion, etc. fringe. Doug Weller talk 09:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

R1a to Eastern Europe earlier than noted in the text

"R1a may have migrated from the Anatolian-Iranian area via Central Asia to Eastern Europe, in concreto the Comb Ware culture (4,200 BCE – 2,000 BCE),[22]" Please note that R1a1 has been attested for Karelian hunter-gatherers around 5000 BC (Haak 2015,T2[UzOO74], and attested in Hvalynsk/Samara for ca. 4600 BC (Mathieson 2015). HJJHolm (talk) 08:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Can you add such a sentence with explanation about the other research? It can be tricky to report what is being published in a fast moving field, but perhaps we can add an "according to" to any article which might be superseded (attributing rather than speaking in Wikipedia's voice), and then say "more recent studies...". --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

@HJJHolm: Well, the Karelian one is very-very different. --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 01:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Changes

"R1a occurs as the most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroup among populations representing a wide variety of language groups, such as Slavic, Indo-Iranian, Dravidian, Turkic and Finno-Ugric...".

The mentioned languages are given as the "examples", but the previous wording suggests as if they were the "only" ones (R1a is also frequent among certain Germanic populations in Central and Northern Europe, particularly Z284 and Z283 subclades). It slightly alters the meaning and has been fixed. By the way, there is already a section and even an article on the distribution of R1a. I think it is redundant to repeat similar/same sentences everywhere. We can drop the clause and other off-topic contents in the section and include them on the distribution section. However, as the section is on IE migrations and R1a, the subclades associated with the expansion of certain IE languages-e.g. Z284 & Z283 with Germanics, M458 with Slavics, Z93 with Indo-Iranians- can be specified. 94.79.126.84 (talk) 07:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the sentence. I overlooked that part in the source. However, I believe this sentence can be kept since it is mentioned in the source and is not a synthesis.Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:06, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Haplogroup R1a. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031125151213/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/Science_2000_v290_p1155.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304100323/http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/HG-05-428-Poland-Germany.pdf to http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/HG-05-428-Poland-Germany.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304100322/http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/Kharkov-RJG-2004-40-3-326.pdf to http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/Kharkov-RJG-2004-40-3-326.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090304100321/http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/Kharkov-RJG-2005-41-8-928.pdf to http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/Kharkov-RJG-2005-41-8-928.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090305052142/http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/KingAHG-08-72-205.pdf to http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/KingAHG-08-72-205.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509192022/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2002_v70_p192-206.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2002_v70_p192-206.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041030074136/http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Caucasus_big_paper.pdf to http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Caucasus_big_paper.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823162702/http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Kurds.pdf to http://www.eva.mpg.de/genetics/pdf/Kurds.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080506041100/http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(07)63221-2 to http://www.ajhg.org/AJHG/abstract/S0002-9297(07)63221-2
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708131731/http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982209020697.pdf?intermediate=true to http://download.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/PIIS0960982209020697.pdf?intermediate=true
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://dirkschweitzer.net/E3b-papers/Weale-HG-01-659-Armenia-y-haplogroups.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:33, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

"Latest ISOGG tree as per January 2011"

In the "Latest ISOGG tree as per January 2011", P278.2 is listed for both R1a1a1g2a and R1a1a1g3a.

— Reinyday, 18:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

"(codes [in brackets] non-isogg codes)"

Could someone please clarify "(codes [in brackets] non-isogg codes)"? — Reinyday, 07:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

If you are talking about the phylogenetic haplogroup names, then alternative names are a common problem because none of them are fixed, including the ISOGG versions. They change every year. Probably they are versions from cited sources. It is better to use haplogroup names based on mutations, like R-M105 if you want a fixed name for a haplogroup.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm talking about the fact that the phrase "(codes [in brackets] non-isogg codes)" appears in the article and is unclear. — Reinyday, 18:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

European Scientific Journal

... is not welcome here. Reasons: predatory journal (Beall's list) and its target group are cranks. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Oranjelo100: read the above. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Is it considered generally unreliable on Wikipedia or is it your personal opinion? Oranjelo100 (talk) 21:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Both. It was listed on Beall's list, and therefore fails WP:RS as a predatory journal. Also, it has published the infamous "peer-reviewed scientific article" that 9/11 was an inside job. Its target groups are therefore cranks: only cranks would write and appreciate such article as "science". See especially WP:QUESTIONED. Tgeorgescu (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Nope, that was disinformation. But WP:QUESTIONED still applies, not publishing such information does not suddenly makes it reliable. There are requirements for being reliable which it does not fulfill. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Semenov and Bulat

It is claimed by an anonymous editor that a certain statement is original research [9]. It was referenced[10] suggests the origins of R1a are still being debated, and does refer to a "scarcity of findings." Maybe better wording, but should not be outright removed. Travelmite (talk) 00:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

South Asian or Indian origin need update

See How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate (2017): "The thorniest, most fought-over question in Indian history is slowly but surely getting answered: did Indo-European language speakers, who called themselves Aryans, stream into India sometime around 2,000 BC – 1,500 BC when the Indus Valley civilisation came to an end, bringing with them Sanskrit and a distinctive set of cultural practices? Genetic research based on an avalanche of new DNA evidence is making scientists around the world converge on an unambiguous answer: yes, they did."--78.1.76.158 (talk) 01:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

The URL posted there is from Tony Joseph who has been publishing this half baked article on most Indian newspapers; the bias and underlying agenda is too obvious.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.209.59 (talk • contribs) 6 may 2019 (UTC)

Sure. Not to mention yours. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:02, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

There is an issue with the the paper he quotes. Narshimhan et al can't be a reliable source as its still in pre print i.e not accepted into any journal or conf .... Nautism (talk) 17:25, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Check the policies better (and explain how you come up with this interpretation anyway; you're supposed to be a newbie). Pre-print is not the only criterium for reliability; reliability of the authors is another one. David Reich, co-author, is top of the bill. By the way, Tony Joseph refers to Silva et al. (2017), A Genetic Chronology for the Indian Subcontinent Points to Heavily Sex-biased Dispersals, published in BMC Evolutionary Biology, "a peer-reviewed journal." He quotes Richards, one of the co-authors, who says:

Prof. Richards said the prevalence of R1a in India was “very powerful evidence for a substantial Bronze Age migration from central Asia that most likely brought Indo-European speakers to India.”

Silva et al. (2017) is already mentione din the article. It would help if you try to read this Wiki-article, ot the articles you try to reject, instead of fixating on the fringe talking-points; they won't really help you in understanding scholarly developments. See also Talk:Indigenous Aryans/Archive 3#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:32, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Maciamo Hay and his Eupedia.com is not science source

See in Talk:Yamnaya culture Maciamo Hay and his Eupedia.com is not science source. See also Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_253#Eupedia.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.119.233.20 (talk) 20:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you're right. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:57, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Correct. The reason is that he mixes facts (where he often is well informed!) with views, without distinguishing them.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:D85:A4FA:A699:4C1C (talk) 07:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Geographic distribution of R1a1a

This paragraph appears to be patched up disregarding local or chronological order. Moreover, the sub paragraphs often have nothing to do with the header, which could be healed by widening it to "R1a".2A02:8108:9640:AC3:B097:A996:D994:3964 (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Lucotte (2015)

Lucotte (2015), The Major Y-Chromosome Haplotype XI – Haplogroup R1a in Eurasia, Hereditary Genet 2015, 4:2 (open access), diff, looks not very reliable to me. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, yes, here we are: A.L. Chavda (2017), Propagandizing the Aryan Invasion Debate: A Rebuttal to Tony Joseph, refers to Lucotte. Say no more. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Why does it not look reliable ? Also , the sharma et al ( which is a nature paper ) mentions an Indian subcontinent origin as well .. Why can't that be mentioned ? Nautism (talk) 17:26, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Open access, from a non-notable scholar. No mention at eurogenes; that's a sure sign. But a reference by a nationalistic fringe-writer; that's also a sure sign. And yes, Sharma also mentions India - in 2009. That's a loooooooooong time ago. The scholarly consensus is clear: R1a came to India with the Indo-Aryans, somewehere arond 1500 BCE, not 15,000 years ago. Update your knowledge, and read WP:NOTHERE. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:28, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

D'accord! Moreover, "mentioning" means nothing.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:B097:A996:D994:3964 (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Haplogroups europe.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Is it relevant?

@Joshua Jonathan and Krakkos: Hi, it is regarding this section. Is it relevant to mention R2 in an article about R1a? IMO it should stick with the haplogroups/haplotypes upstream and downstream of R1a. What do you say? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I suspect it is; if I remember correctly, re ent research hasnot supported Underhill's conclusions. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:04, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I have tweaked the sentence in question so that it stays relevant and corresponds to what is written in the source. Krakkos (talk) 12:21, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan and Krakkos: Thanks. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Nobody knows what this remark is about. So "it" is of no use and can be cancelled.

Completely outdated

The seemingly fine comparison of trees is completely outdated, the actual one being of 2019/2020. Without a date, NO SINGLE ENTRY is reliably comparable with any other without cross-checking ISOGG, what is a pity! E.g., Z283 now (2020) is R1a1a1b2. 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:D85:A4FA:A699:4C1C (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Remarkably better now. Thank you.HJJHolm (talk) 06:37, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Indo-Europeans

"The connection between Y-DNA R-M17 and the spread of Indo-European languages was first noted by T. Zerjal and colleagues in 1999." < How should Zerjal know the time and location of the PIEs? In particular regarding that no R1a has been found in Yamnaya proper so far, let alone 1999? (See para "Source of R1a1a1 in Corded Ware culture"). HJJHolm (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Better language would probably be "A potential connection between..." ? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Origins section, OR?

We have this However, the ancient DNA record has shown the first R1a during the Mesolithic in Eastern Hunter-Gatherers,[5][6] and the earliest case of R* among Upper Paleolithic Ancient North Eurasians,[7] from which the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers predominantly derive their ancestry. No early samples of R1a have so far been found in Iran.[8] Given that we are in early days in this science, and also that there is relatively little such research done in Iran, I think we should be careful to avoid citing primary research to imply particular conclusions. Do any of the papers cited actually claim that their evidence contradicts Underhill?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Reliability

https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/how-genetics-is-settling-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19090301.ece

How is this source Reliable It's from a regional newspaper with No evidence Bhima Palavīṉamāṉa (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Tony Joseph is an acceptable source, writing about recent genetical research published in top journals. "No evidence" must be your (mis)perceltion. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 20:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

How is The Hindu a regional newspaper? Dāsānudāsa (talk) 10:13, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Regional is indeed not a good term, but it is still a newspaper. When it comes to human genetics there are concerns on WP even about the types of scientific journals that get used. One thing you could look into is whether the author of the article was a very highly cited scientist or something like that. Another thing to look for is whether the same discussion points have been published elsewhere, apart from in newspapers.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Sredni Stog and R1a

It is not true that Mathieson et al. (2018) has found R1a-Z93 in Sredni Stog. This culture is too early for this haplogroup. The haplogroup found was R1a1a1, that is, R1a-M417, which is ancestral to R1a-Z93 by a few mutations. For those who cannot access the article's content by the Nature website, the uMap website, which is free, contains a page that maps the majority of the aDNA samples published to date and displays basic information about them, including dating and haplogroups. Just write "Sredny Stog" in the blank space to find the sample relevant to this debate.

I understand that Wikipedia privileges secondary sources in composing entries on scientific subjects, but if a secondary source gives distorted information on findings published in primary sources, an exception should be made. Wikipedia's goal should be to provide a synthesis of truthful information about a subject, not merely a synthesis of the information found in a particular type of source. When style and substance clash, it is substance that must prevail. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct: the relevant table is here, and the id is I6561. Looks like Anthony is mistaken. Tewdar (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look into this some more, I am not entirely convinced that I6561 was not Z93+ after all. Mathieson et al. (2018) do not seem to rule this out, in any case. This individual is controversial in any case (outlier, possibly incorrectly dated, etc.) so it's probably best to leave it as it is... Tewdar (talk) 12:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

R1a subclade in Afghanistan

Regarding Habers study, nowhere in the study did it state M458 to be found in Afghanistan let alone it being a subclade of M17. It actually says this;

R1a1a7-M458 was absent in Afghanistan, suggesting that R1a1a-M17 does not support, as previously thought [47], expansions from the Pontic Steppe [3], bringing the Indo-European languages to Central Asia and India. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314501/

So i think that line needs to be corrected. Akmal94 (talk) 06:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out, Akmal. This article, like others of its kind, has a lot of problems. It's appreciated when others speak up about them. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Frequency distribution of R-M458 map is a falsification

Kaliningrad region and former German Prussia with Pomerania were cleaned out of old people in 1945 and resettled with M458 Slavic people, so must have no difference with Poland and Moscow regions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.38.72.121 (talk) 05:29, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

This map may be faulty, but it is better than your own original research about what 'must' have happened based on historical events. Provide a source for Prussia and Pomerania and I'll make a new map for you. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The map by Maulucioni is incorrect in infobox. Distribution of Halpogroup R1a1 in South Asia is incorrect as samples are collected from certain group only. Map showing 20-25% distribution of R1a1 in Jharkhand whereas Bihar and Odisha it is 25-50%. This is because they have only collected samples from austro-asiatic tribes and and not from Indo-Aryan speaking other so called upper caste as anyone can see in Wikipedia page of Y-DNA haplogroups in populations of South Asia. Whereas in Bihari and Odisha they have collected samples from so called caste. So this map is incorrect as they have collected samples from only certain social groups and ignored other groups. (Dev0745 (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC))

I'm inclined to agree with you. The map is faulty and suffers from insufficient regional samples. A broader inclusion of sources would produce drastically different results in certain sub-regions. We should make a new, more accurate map using more studies, preferably more secondary sources. The user-generated maps with regards to population genetics have always bothered me, because this often teeters on the edge of WP:OR. - Hunan201p (talk) 08:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Due update

After over ten years, we urgently need an update!2A02:8108:9640:1A68:C9BF:BF8C:D5CF:1DF6 (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Well, hello. Welcome to Wikipedia. What would you like to update? - Hunan201p (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• R1A map.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:37, 6 May 2023 (UTC)