Talk:Eastern Hunter-Gatherer

Sentence not logical

The sentence "constituted one of the three main genetic groups in Holocene Europe.[a]" is not logical because the Holocene is continuing, while the EHGs are assigned to the Mesolithic above. 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:F829:CCA1:CDB2:5E72 (talk) 07:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. I will have to read the sourcing to see what the sources say and then happy to edit this. — Sirfurboy (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Publishers instead of authors?

It is much more informative to note the authors instead of the here chosen publishers! Please alter these useless entries! Thank you. 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:F829:CCA1:CDB2:5E72 (talk) 08:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi, could you tell me what you are looking at, and I will be happy to take a look at this. Thanks. — Sirfurboy (talk) 09:12, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

I have now checked every reference on the page and none of them refer to the publishers. I did fix two references that were wrapped up in explanatory footnotes, so all references on the page now have a consistent format. HTH -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Sirfurboy: The IP editor's observation is correct. It's about the prose, not the refs. In all paragraphs in the section "Research", the opening sentence goes: "In a genetic study published in <Journal>...", except for the first paragraph, which was already fixed by them for illustration. –Austronesier (talk) 11:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah, so its not the publisher but the journal name that is the problem. Okay, still a fair observation. I'll take a look soon if no one else beats me to it. Thanks. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sirfurboy. What a rambling. You obviously never wrote a peer-reviewed scientific paper.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:F518:E6AD:604F:3B95 (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Presentation

I made some copy edits as per the discussion above, and that brought me face to face with how all those Haplogroup numbers read. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia aimed at a general audience. Although it is fine to have this detail in the article, we need to explain what is going on here. As haplogroups are being used to demonstrate affinity or otherwise to various groups, I wonder if there is a way to present this in a table, diagram or chart to demonstrate what is going on. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Research outdated

After Haak et al 2015 we now, 2020, have a lot of newer researches, e.g., for the oldest R1a, Mathieson 2017, [I1819] with R1a-L62 at 8825-8561 BCE (also copied by Olalde et al. 2018). Addition: Haak (2015) also coined the term "Eastern Hunter Gatherers", and not the previously only cited Anthony (2019), whom I kept because of the geographical extension.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:3916:3B97:9ED2:2BB6 (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Howdy

I made a big stink about the ineptitude of this Wikipedia article, and all of the Wikipedia articles derived from the same sources as this article, and linked to this article, about a year ago and was banned from Wikipedia for 6 months. Here's the gist of what I said before: I have a Bachelor's of Science in anthropology with minors in archaeology and GIS, have been around the world working on archaeology digs, have had my name added as a contributor to multiple peer-reviewed papers, and have taught classes as an associate, for the better part of 2 decades (since graduating college). I'm currently working on my masters thesis, which should be completed in about 2 months. I became so annoyed with this Wikipedia article, and the others linked to it and derived from it, that I began treating the other contributors abusively, and was banned from contributing to Wikipedia for 6 months. Understandable. I actually deliberately try to avoid involving myself in Wikipedia, because with regard to anthropology, the Wikipedia research is so flawed and inept, that I have difficulty not becoming angry. So, I make a deliberate effort not to sound off on Wikipedia. That being said, let's just go ahead and calmly review the references for this Wikipedia article:

The citations for the "Kashuba" paper, and the "Mathieson" paper, are the same paper.

The same "Anthony" paper is cited twice (edit: by other papers you've already cited).

The "Lazaridis" paper simply cites two of the other papers referenced, the "Haak" paper and the "Kashuba/Matieson" paper mentioned above.

"Jones" is simply a co-contributor on the "Lazaridis" paper mentioned immediately above.

"Saag" cites "Haak".

"Mittnik" simply cites "Anthony, Lazaridis, Jones, and Saag", all mentioned above.

I'm not even going to try to sort this out. It's cyclic. You have 8 sources, which all cite one another, with only two of them responsible for the original research/data (although, that's not quite accurate, since they were working on the same teams).

You've based this entire series of Wikipedia articles (Eastern Hunter-Gatherers, Western Hunter-Gatherers, Ancient North-Eurasian Hunter-Gatherers, Caucusas Hunter-Gatherers) upon 8 papers, which all cite one another, with only 2 of the papers having actually conducted research, none of which have gained wide acceptance within the anthropology community.

Does it not strike you as odd, that the word count for the Wikipedia articles regarding these topics is about twice the word count of the actual peer-reviewed papers you've cited?

Does it not strike you as odd that almost every one of the papers you've cited cites other papers you've cited?

Does it not strike you as odd that these ideas are not taught in any classroom in the US?

Does it not strike you as odd that these ideas are not included in any textbooks for any anthropology class taught at any university in the US?

You've taken obscure ideas derived from a couple of papers submitted for peer-review, which have not gained wide acceptance anywhere in the field of anthropology, and written more extensively about them than in the few original papers containing the original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:C0CC:A3CF:5BED:62AA (talk) 01:50, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've read your comments in the talk sections of articles similar to this one. Although your communication is eccentric and off-putting to some, I think you nevertheless raise an excellent point here. These articles seem to magnetically collect a lot of misinformation, which cites primary sources that do not corroborate the erroneous claims. The same sources are indeed frequently stacked on top of each other, as if creating layers of forgery. With Haak, Mathieson, Allentoft, and Fu being the recurring theme.

If you're still out there, please create a Wikipedia account and respond. If you can temper your comments with a little bit of restraint I think your insights would be well-received. But first, you need to get a Wiki account. Hunan201p (talk) 08:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I can't help you, man. Because of the Covid pandemic, archaeology season didn't exist last year, and it's probably not going to happen this year, so I'm teaching three online classes this spring. What's more, this debate you're all having about the appearance of "Western Hunter-Gatherers", is something you've all taken from a few peer-reviewed papers, from which even the basic terminology hasn't gained wide acceptance, and now you're debating the nuances of concepts which the vast majority of anthropologists don't even recognize. You all are arguing about the skin pigmentation of "groups" which comprise specific subsets of populations isolated specifically for the purpose of identification in a couple of peer-reviewed papers, which only the authors of those papers, and people who have worked closely with those authors, would recognize. And the truly bizarre thing, is that the authors of those papers, would definitely say, "oh yeah, we just created that terminology to define these groups in our papers, just like everyone else has been doing for decades. It's really weird that on Wikipedia this thing seems to have taken on a life of its own." Yet, no matter how many times, and in no matter how many different ways you try to explain this to Wikipedia editors, they simply don't get it. They'll simply endlessly reply "it's in 2 peer-reviewed papers, and other people have cited those papers in their research". And they have no idea that simply citing someone else's research does not add confirmation to that research. They literally have no idea whatsoever how the peer-review process works. And they have no academic background whatsoever in anthropology, so it doesn't matter how hard you try, you won't be able to explain it to them. As far as they're concerned, if it's in a couple of peer-reviewed papers, and those papers have been cited by other people, then it's established fact, which they fail to understand, completely negates the entire purpose of the peer-review process.

IF SIMPLY BEING ACCEPTED FOR PEER-REVIEW WAS PROOF OF VERIFICATION, THEN WHAT WOULD BE THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING SOMETHING FOR PEER-REVIEW.

The entire purpose of publishing research in a peer-reviewed journal is so that it can be reviewed, tested, and built-upon, by the authors' peers in that field. THIS IS THE POINT OF PUBLISHING PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH, SO THAT IT CAN BE "REVIEWED", TESTED, MODIFIED, REVISED, VERIFIED, ETC, ETC, ETC. But on Wikipedia, if it's been published in 2 peer-reviewed journals, and other people have used that data in their own research, then the research IS VERIFIED, which completely negates the entire purpose of publishing research in a peer-reviewed journal. THE ENTIRE PURPOSE OF PUBLISHING RESEARCH IN A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL IS FOR THAT RESEARCH TO BE REVIEWED AND FINE-TUNED OVER TIME BY NUMEROUS RESEARCHERS WHO CONTRIBUTE TO A CONSENSUS. But on Wikipedia, if it's been published twice, and cited a few times, then it's fact. Which is simply ridiculous, because that's completely contrary to the purpose of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. The entire purpose of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is to make the data public, so that others can contribute to it, and eventually, a consensus can be established. But Wikipedia editors simply don't have the education to understand this, and no matter how many times you try to explain this concept to them, they simply lack the intellectual capacity to understand it (even though this concept is implicitly implied in the name "Peer-Reviewed Journal" ("A Journal Through Which Your Peers Can Review Your Research").

Anyway, I wish I could help man, but have you ever heard the saying, "you can't argue with stupid"? Well, that's where we're at on Wikipedia with regard to anthropology. How do you argue with people who don't even understand the precepts of the materials they're using in their arguments? It's not that their arguments are wrong, it's that they don't even understand the foundations upon which their arguments are based. And you try to tell them, 100 times over, "OK man, but what you're not getting is that I'm not arguing that it's not in a peer-reviewed journal, I'm arguing that you don't even understand what the purpose of a peer-reviewed journal is." And inevitably, their reply will be, "look, this person cited it." It's exasperating, and futile. You'll never teach a chimpanzee calculus. You can tell them over and over and over, "the fact that it was submitted for peer-review by two different teams, who worked in conjunction with one another, and then cited by other teams who thought this was an interesting area of research and wanted to expand upon it" means nothing to them. If it's been in peer-reviewed journals, that means it's verified and widely accepted. They simply have no background in academia, and have no idea what they're talking about, and lack the intellect to understand when they're wrong . . . and there's nothing you're ever going to do to change their minds, because they lack retrospective intellect. It's an open-and-shut case. It's arguing with a brick wall. It's the Dunning-Kruger Effect: you can't convince someone they're wrong, when they're intellectually incapable of understanding why they're wrong.

So, anyway man, I'm sorry, but I'm not going to be able to help you. I'm way too busy this semester, and I can't waste time arguing with people who are intellectually incapable of understanding why they're wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:9844:5E9A:74C3:77C7 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to echo Hunan201p and say that, while I agree with many of your points, if you want to continue editing Wikipedia please use an account and please temper your tone. Remember that you're talking to real people – many Wikipedia editors work in academia, in anthropology, and in genetics, and those that don't are just as valuable for their skills in encyclopaedic writing, source evaluation, and resolving disputes through consensus. Insulting or belittling people is not productive in any collaborative environment and our policy is to block people who do so from further editing. Deciding how to evaluate and weight sources is not a straightforward matter and there is room for multiple perspectives. Like Hunan I think that yours could be helpful here, if you can express it without attacking other contributors. If you don't want to continue editing that's also fine, but posting long talk page comments is not "editing" and if you continue in this vein you're likely to be blocked again. – Joe (talk) 13:06, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I hear ya Joe. And I understand your perspective. The only argument I would make, is that in the instance of these Wikipedia articles, beyond the shadow of a doubt, none of the contributors work in academia. 20 year-old college sophomores would recognize the glaring errors made in the "reporting" of this research. And, like I said man, it's irrelevant anyway, because I'm teaching 3 classes this semester and trying to complete a Master's thesis. Virtually every hour of every day is already spoken-for. There's absolutely no way I'll have hours to contribute each week toward telling people why they're wrong, when if they had any background in research, they'd know why they were wrong to begin with. So, please my man, ban me from Wikipedia. It honestly makes no difference to me. When the ban lifts in 6 months, or a year, or however long the ban lasts, if I see the same ridiculous discrepancies I've pointed-out numerous times in this series of articles, I'll point them out again. And, to be honest, it may be in your best interest to ban me from Wikipedia anyway, because the God's honest truth is that I'm using my interactions in the talk sections of this series of articles as a visual aid to illustrate why students should never use Wikipedia in my "Intro To Archaeology" class at a well-known university in the St. Louis metro-area. So, sorry, but I'm not going to create an account, and other than conversational replies like this, I probably won't be on Wikipedia at all. So, if you want to ban me again, do what you have to do my man. There won't be any hard feelings between us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:7C95:44FA:22B4:5917 (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I cant help but think that the time and energy you've taken to criticize is time and energy you might have spent being helpful to the project. I hope that perhaps someone in a similar position to contribute will read this and decide to help. Matuko (talk) 03:05, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Blöcher essay -- WP:RS, WP:FRINGE

The following content was removed for a variety of reasons, namely failing WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:FRINGE: "In 2020, a large study titled "Genetic variation related to the adaptation of humans to an agriculturalist lifestyle" was carried out by researchers at the University of Mainz. The genomes of over 100 ancient individuals were sequenced and analyzed. Pigmentation analysis of 6 Eastern Hunter-Gatherers was carried out. The EHG individuals were all found to have had a black hair colour, brown eyes and light skin. This was in contrast to Western-Hunter-Gatherers, who were found to have had phenotypic traits such as blonde hair and blue eyes, but had a darker skin colour. The pigmentation analysis concluded: "From the eight samples in the Eastern-European hunter-gatherer group, two did not yield enough data for a prediction (Min5 and Min8). Results for the other samples were uniform: Dark hair-color in combination with brown eyes was estimated to be the most possible phenotype for all samples."

This so-called "large study" is not in fact a study, but a non-reviewed personal dissertation placed in an online library: https://portal.dnb.de/opac.htm;jsessionid=bzaOLWNrWyC2L1zSGFW2DVrQyC3uP1JH0BQC-6K5.prod-fly8?query=+%22Genetic+variation+related+to+the+adaptation+of+humans+&method=simpleSearch

It is also contradicted by academic consensus. I will quote a few sources that are not self-published:

From David Reich, Who We Are and How Ae Got Here: Ancient DNA and the New Science of the Human Past, page 96: Analysis of ancient DNA data shows that Western European hunter-gatherers around eight-thousand years ago had blue eyes but dark skin and dark hair, a combination that is rare today.³³

[...]

The earliest known example of the classic European blond hair mutation is in an Ancient North Eurasian from the Lake Baikal region of eastern Siberia from seventeen thousand years ago.³⁵. The hundreds of millions of copies of this mutation in central and western Europe today likely derive from a massive migrstion of people bearing Ancient North Eurasian ancestry, an event that is related in the next chapter.³⁶.

From Gavin Evans, Skin Deep: Dispelling the Science of Race, page 138:

When it comes to skin color, full genome DNA analysis suggests there were at least three variants in the Europe of 5,000 plus years ago: the dark skins, dark curly hair and blue eyes of the Western European hunter gatherers such as Cheddar Man, the lighter skins, brown eyes and dark hair of the first European farmers who migrated from Anatolia, and the pale skins, brown eyes and mainly dark (but also blond) hair of the pastoralists from the Russian steppe. Continuing on page 139:

Japanese research in 2006 found that the genetic mutation that prompted the evolution of blond hair dates to the ice age that happened around 11,000 years ago. Since then, the 17,000-year-old remains of a blond- haired North Eurasian hunter-gatherer have been found in eastern Siberia, suggesting an earlier origin.

[...]

But whatever the evolutionary causes of blond and red hair, their spread in Europe had little to do with their possible innate attractiveness and much to do with the success of the all-conquering herders from the steppes who carried these genes.

From Carlberg, et al., Skin colour and vitamin D: An update:

Interestingly, ancient North Eurasian derived populations, such as eastern hunter‐gatherers and Yamnayas, carried the blond hair allele rs12821256 of the KITLG gene to Europe.[66]

[...]

Differences in the relative admixture of ancient hunter‐gatherers, Anatolian farmers, Yamnaya pastoralists and Siberians explain the variations in skin and hair pigmentation, eye colour, body stature and many other traits of present Europeans.[60, 74, 78, 79] The rapid increase in population size due to the Neolithic revolution,[64, 80] such as the use of milk products as food source for adults and the rise of agriculture,[81] as well as the massive spread of Yamnaya pastoralists likely caused the rapid selective sweep in European populations towards light skin and hair.

As you can see from the seven quotes, the Blöchar essay flies in the face of the establiahed academic consensus, which is that Western Hunter Gatherers were dark haired, and that it was Eastern Hunter Gatherers (and the related Steppe pastoralists) who spread blond hair genetic material across Europe, rather than an autocthonous "gradual" or "sexual" selection in Western or central Europe. It therefore fails WP:SCIRS, and also WP:RS, since it's not a real study, but an essay in an online repository.Hunan201p (talk) 05:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment The policy that applies here is WP:SCHOLARSHIP. A dissertation is not an essay, but a primary source of scholarship that "can be used but care should be exercised". Don't judge and defame a source because of its simplistic and partially falsified representation in WP. The author has a (small, but growing) track record of peer-reviewed publications, and continues to work in the Palaeogenetics Group of Joachim Burger at Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, which cannot be branded as an institution that supports fringe science.

That said, I agree with the removal of the content the way it was added here. AFAICS, the results of the study were not yet discussed by other scholars in peer-reviewd publications, which means we cannot we present its results in a balanced perspective. Plus, the content was presented in a highly simplistic manner. Have a look at the data in pp. 78ff. But: we should not counter simplism by even more gross simplism. –Austronesier (talk) 09:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There's a catch, because we are talking about biomedical information here. A student dissertation isn't peer-reviewed. This dissertation wasn't peer reviewed. According to WP:MEDRS, biomedical information should come from high quality secondary sources, which are peer reviewed. There seems to be general consensus that even peer-reviewed primary sources unacceptable as sources for topics of this nature. We don't accept pre-print papers from sites like biorxiv no matter who authored them, this is even less glorious. Hunan201p (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

How would Hanel & Carlberg (2020) (not "Carlberg et al.") qualify under WP:MEDRS? –Austronesier (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

It's a secondary source, so quite perfectly. Hunan201p (talk) 19:28, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Oh my God

I just read this sentence:

In a genetic study published in Science in September 2019, a new ancestral component called West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer (WSHG) was discovered. WSHGs were found to be of about 30% EHG ancestry, 50% ANE ancestry, and 20% East Asian ancestry.

I could write a 20 page essay about all of the errors in this statement. This statement is derived from a single peer-reviewed paper. Search JSTOR for "West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer" and there are zero results. Search Google scholar, and there are 7 results, unless you remove "Narasimhan" from the results, and then you get zero results again. This statement, and the upcoming Wikipedia article about "West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer" are based upon a single peer-reviewed paper.

This entire statement is based upon a single peer-reviewed paper, and again, the name "West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer" is simply the name the authors of that paper assigned to a group they wanted to identify within that paper. Nothing more.

The genetic markers used to "identify" this group were not "discovered". They were simply compared to one another using a process of reduction to isolate a group of specific genetic markers which could be used to define a subset within a population.

I don't even have the words to describe the level of incompetence being used to create this series of Wikipedia articles. I literally don't even have the words.

I haven't even read the rest of the article. I just scrolled to the bottom of the article to see how long this article was, and scrolled upward from there. This was the first section I came across.

I'm not even a geneticist. I'm an archaeologist. And even I have enough simple background knowledge of genetics to recognize what this article is.

And undoubtedly, Wikipedia editors are going to create a page called "West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer" (it's already demarcated in red as a topic for a future article) and link numerous peer-reviewed papers to it which don't actually contain the term "West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer", because that's what Wikipedia is now- a place where people who don't have the credentials to draw scientific conclusions, do so anyway, and then post them publicly on what is supposed to be an online encyclopedia.

And the bizarre thing, is that you're simply wrong. I guarantee, if you contact Narasimhan et. al. and ask them "is this the name this group of genetic markers will be identified as uniformly in the future?" Their response will be, "what do you mean? That's just the name we assigned to this group in our paper. Everyone who identifies different combinations of genetic markers which may include some of these genetic markers is going to assign different names to them in their own papers. We just gave this specific group of genetic markers this name so that we weren't listing the numeric name of every single genetic marker every time we wanted to mention them in our paper. This is standard practice."

Oh, and by the way guys, here's the source material for "West Siberian Hunter-Gatherers": WSHG, West Siberian hunter-gatherer–related: A previously undescribed deep source of Eurasian ancestry represented in this study by three individuals from the Forest Zone of Central Russia dated to the sixth millennium BCE

A single peer-reviewed paper used three individuals from "the Forest Zone of Central Russia" and decided to call them "West Siberian Hunter-Gatherers", and now Wikipedia has this demarcated in red as a future article, BASED UPON 3 INDIVIDUALS MENTIONED IN A SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED PAPER. As usual, Wikipedia editors living up to the highest standard.

And hey, coincidentally, guess who that paper cites? Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Haak. I wonder how they came up with the name "West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer"?

Edit: Well, I just read through the introduction of this article. Thank God these terms are so obscure and rarely cited that it's unlikely anyone will ever stumble across this article. And yup, I'm the same jerk from above who was posting comments under an IP address. Since Wikipedia lifted my ban a couple of months ago, I've had around 10 people ask me to create a Wikipedia account. I finally relented and created one yesterday. I'm now going to delete it, because I can't be associated with this nonsense. You all are deliberately posting information which looks very academic and well-informed to the casual observer who has little academic background or familiarity with peer-reviewed research. But anyone who actually understands academic research at the college sophomore level, and looks at the reference section, will immediately recognize this article's glaring inadequacies.

This is it for me guys. I created a Wikipedia account because you all asked me to a dozen times. But I can't be involved in this. Account deleted.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk • contribs) 16:10, 23 March 2021 (UTC) 

I can only agree with that. And before having read this comment, I already changed the criticized sentence to "coined", hoping this comes somewhat closer to reality. Further, it cost me some time to identify in the Haak sentence, whether Y- or mt-dna was meant, and added this essential information, because otherwise the text is ambiguous, wwhich cannot be accepted. And I added the newest form according to ISOGG 2020. I have not the time to check whether informations overlap and thus are double counted, as in many other DNA contributions in en.wikipedia.HJJHolm (talk) 08:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

My man, have you ever heard the saying, "you can't argue with stupid"? That's where you're at with regard to this entire series of Wikipedia articles. You're arguing against a group of people who have absolutely no background in peer-reviewed research, no understanding of the data they're citing, who are simply posting this stuff to fulfill their private fantasies of their own ancestry.

I take a lot of photos. Know how many Wikipedia articles about photography I've posted to? Zero. Know why? Because as much as I like photography, I recognize that there are hundreds of millions of people who understand photography better than I do.

Regarding anthropology. Know how many people are better informed, or understand anthro better than me? Maybe 5,000-15,000 people on the planet. But on Wikipedia, any halfwit who knows how to access JSTOR considers himself better educated in anthro than me, even though I've been doing this for 20 years, and this is how I feed my children.

My man, the simple fact is that the worldwide mean IQ is 100. Couple that with the Dunning-Kruger Effect, in which people simply don't possess the intelligence to understand when they're wrong, and that's where we're at with regard to this series of Wikipedia articles.

There is so much inaccurate information on Wikipedia that trying to fix it is futile. I actually spent a couple of months, a year ago, trying to convince Wikipedia editors to fix it. The response I got was that I didn't know what I was talking about, and when I finally became pixxed-off, I was banned from Wikipedia.

That was when it occurred to me: let the middling IQ people dig their own graves. Let them put whatever they want on Wikipedia. What do I care? The only people who will take any of that seriously are the underreducated Trump supporters who lack the basics of a modern education. Let the halfwits continue to hang themselves. No skin off my back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:804D:55C6:6852:3A9F (talk) 09:01, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I believe only seven Denisovan individuals have been discovered at this stage. Perhaps we should remove the article about them on Wikipedia too, until more skeletons are discovered...Tewdar (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

^ also a joke... Tewdar (talk) 19:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, when you write something which clearly sounds like you believe what you're saying is accurate, and then you write (this is a joke), is that your way of avoiding receiving a response? Anyway, I don't know off-hand how many Denisovans have been identified, but just by doing a simple Google search, I'm going to say 13. But that's irrelevant. Here's why: thousands of peer-reviewed papers have been written about Denisovans. The data has been confirmed, reconfirmed, and reconfirmed again, over and over by thousands of research teams who have all arrived at similar conclusions which largely support previous findings. Again, it's not the number of specimens, it's the amount of research which is important. If you only have one specimen, but a thousand research teams test that specimen and all come to the same conclusion, that is solid and supported data. If you have a total of 9 research teams who all work in conjunction with one another and all simply cite each other in each other's peer-reviewed papers, that research is very obviously, extremely dubious. This should just seem self-explanatory.

"The data has been confirmed, reconfirmed, and reconfirmed again, over and over by thousands of research teams who have all arrived at similar conclusions which largely support previous findings"... LOL LOL LOL... well, here's the BAM files, just in case you want to test them a few more times... http://cdna.eva.mpg.de/denisova/BAM/human/ - don't download them all at once... Tewdar (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

400 peer-reviewed papers on JSTOR. 5,400 results on Google Scholar.

"You have 9 authors who all worked on each other's research teams, who are the only teams who have conducted any research on "Western Hunter Gatherers", and they all cite one another in every one of their papers. And you think this is an appropriate concept for a Wikipedia article? You think the term "Western Hunter Gatherer" is widely recognized in anthropology? Based on the 9 research teams which coined this term within the last 5 years and who all simply cite one another's work and are attributed as authors in one another's papers? You think that should be the standard for articles in an online encyclopedia? Explain how, based upon the fact that this article cites a total of 9 research teams, who all conducted their research within the last 5 years, and who all cite one another, and worked as members of one another's research teams, you think this concept is appropriate for an article in an online encyclopedia."

I've asked you to respond to this question 14 times now, and you've simply used 14 avoidance tactics to not answer the question.

"Research"

The first para cites Haak 2015 for Samara and Karelia. Remark: 1. The R1b contained a typo - corrected. 2. Meant are I0124 and I0061, which both are also treated in Mathieson 2015, however, with different chronologies and SNPs. BTW, the extremely (!) long-winded (!) personal (!) deliberations elsewhere in this talk page are an unreasonable demand to every reader and definitely not wanted in wikipedia.HJHolm (talk) 15:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Weird

Is it just me, or is it really weird that all of the research for this article was published in peer-reviewed papers dated between 2015 and 2018, and all of those peer-reviewed papers were used as the primary sources for the ensuing book concerning these hypotheses, and now that potential book sales have slowed, no new peer-reviewed data has been added to this topic for more than 2 years.

It just seems weird that if this were a genuine topic of anthropological significance, the amount of data available for peer-review would amount to something extremely more significant than a total of 10-15 research projects published between 2015 and 2018, which were all used as the resource materials for a book published for-profit. But as always, Wikipedia contributors are the experts in the articles to which they're contributing, and I have complete faith that this series of articles isn't misleading to students who have faith in Wikipedia as a reliable resource. I have complete faith that Wikipedia contributors have extensive knowledge about the fields in which they're writing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:6199:7CA5:A013:FE0F (talk) 07:55, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Follow the instructions at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion if you think an article ought to be deleted. 😂 Tewdar (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to make (another) account first, though. 😂 Tewdar (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Here, this paper is nice. Looks like the amateurs at Antiquity may agree that this is a "genuine topic of anthropological significance"... Tewdar (talk) 10:01, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

EHG vis-a-vis ANE

@Hunan201p: Wang el at. (2019) indeed have a qpGraph model that gives the 9% / 91%-ratio (ANE-related vs. WHG-related). However, their main objective is not to find the deep relations between Paleolithic and Mesolithic populations, but to measure the contribution of CHG ancestry to European Neolithic populations (like the GAC). So no objections to take this out from the lead.

I will however replace the Anthony-based paragraph with better-sourced material, viz. two secondary review articles written by geneticists; after all, this is an archeogenetic article. His wording is outlandish ("mating network": while technically correct, this is not how geneticists talk), and his figures are based on a handful of older sources that don't display the full range of possibilities for this undersampled area. Austronesier (talk) 22:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Hunan201p: Please can we stop using Anthony as a source for archaeogenetics? Secondary source != good source, especially when the secondary source has no formal training in the subject...  Tewdar  23:17, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

  I don't really want to single out Anthony here (it's just that he gets used a lot) but the same applies to Messrs. Heyd, Furholt, etc. They simply are not reliable sources for this sort of stuff. (btw the new lede is much better in my opinion)  Tewdar  08:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Austronesier : Do you think we should say something like "the relationship between the ANE and EHG components is not yet well understood", thus hedging our bets, instead of stating as fact that ANE contributed ancestry to EHG? I think that would probably be closer to the source...  Tewdar  09:45, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  Anthony, Heyd, Furholt are good for the big picture that brings evidence from archeology, archeogenetics and linguistics together, but not for technical genetic details.

  Admittedly, I have paraphrased the relevant part in Stoneking et al. in a very condensed way. But the preceding sentence goes: "Its [= NE Europe's] early hunter-gatherer inhabitants carried the ANE-related ancestral component that is maximised in Upper Palaeolithic Siberians", so this would support the "bias" towards ANE→EHG (over EHG→ANE or ANE↔EHG) in the text I've added. But, yes, it is SYNTH-ish, so I'll change it as you suggest to be on the safe side. –Austronesier (talk) 11:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

  Anthony, Heyd, Furholt are good for the big picture that brings evidence from archeology, archeogenetics and linguistics together absolutely. My money's on 'ANE→EHG', by the way, which means a new paper disproving this will be published any day now... 😁  Tewdar  13:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Ancestry graph

@Wikiuser1314: You have replaced पाटलिपुत्र's map with a qpGraph diagram from Loosdrecht et al. (2018). I don't think that the map is problematic; the use of "ethnogenesis" in the caption certainly is, but not its actual content which simply visualizes everything stated in the article text. My issue with Loosdrecht et al. (2018) is that the EHG-part is only peripheral to it; the paper itself is about the ancestral relations of the Taforalt cluster. Maybe we can keep the map (with a rephrased caption) and look for a graph from a publication that is closer to the topic of this article. Austronesier (talk) 17:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@Tewdar: Tewdaaaaaaar, are you watching? I know you are even when sitting up a tree (a tree full in bloom in Cornwall spring, I hope) in a huff 😁. Any idea for a better graph? –Austronesier (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm actually under a tree in the middle of a Cornish spring storm in a huff 😁. Perhaps a simplified version of the graph from the Allentoft 2024 supplement might be more suitable? It's possibly too complicated to be used as-is (assuming the licence allows reproduction?), and it's a bit of an unusual representation of EHG formation, but it's recent and has the right focus. Maybe we (or rather ye, since I'm in a huff still) could even do without a graph...  Tewdar  18:14, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi @Austronesier:, I do not have a problem with reincluding the map of पाटलिपुत्र, I will do so and change the term "ethnogenesis" to "formation". Regarding the graph, I thought it fits the data from Posth et al. 2023 quite well, who noted that the EHG share affinity to Tianyuan (UP East or Southeast Asian populations) via their high ANE ancestry. But we may well use another better fitting graph. A simplified version of the Allentoft 2024 graph may be a good alternative, although I am not sure how to 'create' such graph right now (maybe I find some time later to try). Regards–Wikiuser1314 (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2024 (UTC)