Talk:Genetic history of Europe/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

sorting out

This article need to sort out historical from current information. Unfortunately mixture of outdated and present may be very confusing for the reader. 76.16.183.158 (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this article has a surprisingly quick cycle of needing someone to clean it up. But please note that one of the biggest problems is the high frequency of new editors who appear, add materials that are already discussed elsewhere in the article, poorly formatted and edited, and then disappear again for long periods. I suggest all editors working on this article take more time to edit more carefully, looking at the full article. In order to repair damage done, what the article needs as a first step right now in some areas is careful pruning. I made a bit of an effort yesterday.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Canary islands

Politically the Canary Islands are part of Europe, so they can be discussed here. The problem that I have with the articles is similar to this present article, and it relates to the narrow minded obsession that some editors have of associating all things sub-saharan with the slave trade. Canary_Islands#Population_genetics and Canarian_people#Population_genetics state "Significant frequencies of sub-Saharan L haplogroups (6.6%) is also consistent with the historical records on introduction of sub-Saharan slave labour in Canary Islands". However this is not what the sources state, for example Rando et al 1999

In our mtDNA sample from the Canary Islands 6±7% of the sequences are ultimately of sub-Saharan African ancestry. This, however, does not necessarily imply that `black' slaves carried the corresponding ancestral mtDNAs to the archipelago. In fact, the present-day Northwest African populations have a small contribution (4%) of sub-Saharan African mtDNAs.

We now know that the small sub-saharan contribution is not that small, comprising up to 48% in some North Africans. Furthermore Fregel 2009 report 7% Sub-Saharan mtDNA from the remains of Aboriginal inhabitants of one Island-La Palma. As the Canary Islands were settled 2500 years ago, the presence of these lineages indicate that L lineages are indeed indigenous to North Africans and are independent of the Slave trade.

Interestingly Rando et al also state.

Although some of this northern input could have originated through rather recent diffusion of Berbers to their southern neighbours, the subclade U6a possibly spread into the Sahel zone much earlier, when the (last)desertifcation of the Sahara began. The most frequent U6 type is not only found in the Fulbe and Senegalese populations, but also in the Songhai, and in the East African Kikuyu (Watson et al. 1997); thus, some U6a sequences have become genuine sub-Saharan African sequences.

On the Y-Chromosome, the article Demographic history of Canary Islands male gene-pool: replacement of native lineages by European Shows a similar pattern, with E1a being associated with the same migration that brought E-M81. Once again this bolsters the position that North Africans are intermediate between Eurasia and Sub-Saharan Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Wapondaponda (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone disputing that North Africans are intermediate between Eurasia and Sub-Saharan Africa?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rather, I would say that some have instinctively associated this intermediacy as only due to the slave trade. This bias is so prevalent on wikipedia. Both sides of the argument were presented in Rando et al, but only the slavery argument was presented in the Canary Island articles. This happens quite often, I have updated the Canary articles to reflect what Rando et al stated and added info on the latest study. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Specific drafts for Autosomal part in Sub Saharan section

I would like to ask PD and others to make concrete proposals, with much more clear explanations. Here are three recent proposals, plus my temporary "compromise"...

1. Muntuwandi (Wapondaponda) [1]

African autosomal admixture tends to mirror the South-to-North cline profiles of Y-chromosome and MtDNA haplogroups. Using a panel of [[Ancestry informative markers]], {{Harvcoltxt|Halder et al.|2007}} were able to detect low levels of West African admixture in Europe in regions where Haplogroup E was present.<ref group="note"><[http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117914842/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 Halder et al] state. "We observed patterns of apportionment similar to those described previously using sex and autosomal markers, such as European admixture for African Americans (14.3%) and Mexicans (43.2%), European (65.5%) and East Asian affiliation (27%) for South Asians, and low levels of African admixture (2.8–10.8%) mirroring the distribution of Y E3b haplogroups among various Eurasian populations.</ref>{{Harvcoltxt|Auton et al.|2009}} detected a South-to-North cline of West African haplotypes in Europe with peak frequencies in Iberia and suggested that this cline is indicative of gene flow directly from West Africa and not necessarily from North Africa.<ref group="note">[http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/02/12/gr.088898.108.abstract Auton et al state]."These two results therefore suggest that while the initial migrations into Europe came via the Middle East, at least some degree of subsequent gene flow has occurred directly from Africa" "Nonetheless, the haplotype sharing between Europe and the YRI are suggestive of gene flow from Africa, albeit from West Africa and not necessarily North Africa."</ref>

2. Small Victory [2]

STRUCTURE data from Rosenberg et al. 2005 showing clusters of Western Eurasians (blue), Sub-Saharan Africans (orange) and East Asians (pink).

Sub-Saharan African autosomal admixture tends to mirror the Southwest-to-Northeast cline profiles of Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups. {{Harvcoltxt|Auton et al.|2009}} state that "haplotype sharing between [South Western] Europe and the YRI (Yoruba) are suggestive of gene flow from Africa, albeit West Africa."<ref group=note>The study also proposes other explanations for the shared haplotypes, such as North African admixture in both groups or the role of Iberia as a population refugium during the last Ice Age. The authors conclude that more research needs to be done to settle the matter.</ref> However, in admixture tests using the STRUCTURE program<ref>Pritchard et al. (2000) [http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/publications/structure.pdf Inference of Population Structure Using Multilocus Genotype Data]. Genetics Society of America; 164(4):1567-87.</ref><ref group=note>[http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070 Rosenberg et al. 2005] provides a concise explanation of how this program works: "We utilized the unsupervised clustering algorithm implemented in STRUCTURE [12,13] to group individuals into genetic clusters in such a way that each individual is given an estimated membership coefficient for each cluster, corresponding to the fraction of his or her genome inferred to have ancestry in the cluster. [...] Each individual is represented by a thin line partitioned into ''K'' colored segments that represent the individual's estimated membership fractions in ''K'' clusters."</ref> from that study and four others, a wide array of European samples, including Iberians, show little to no membership in clusters defined by Sub-Saharan African groups from a number of different regions.<ref>[http://pritch.bsd.uchicago.edu/publications/RosenbergEtAl02.pdf Rosenberg et al. 2002], [http://www.ucl.ac.uk/mace-lab/macepdf/Wilson-NatGen-01-GDR.pdf Wilson et al. 2001], [http://www.anthro.psu.edu/Student/graduate/docs/marc%20bauchet%20Measuring%20European%20Population%20Stratification%20with%20Microarray.pdf Bauchet et al. 2007], [http://genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2009/05/01/gr.088898.108.DC1/Supplementary_Material.pdf Auton et al. 2009],[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/data/1172257/DC1/1 Tishkoff et al.2009]</ref>

3. This minute: [3]

Sub-Saharan African autosomal admixture tends to mirror the Southwest-to-Northeast cline profiles of Y-chromosome and mtDNA haplogroups. {{Harvcoltxt|Auton et al.|2009}} detected a South-to-North cline of West African haplotypes in Europe with peak frequencies in Iberia and suggested that this cline is indicative of gene flow directly from West Africa and not necessarily from North Africa.<ref group="note">[http://genome.cshlp.org/content/early/2009/02/12/gr.088898.108.abstract Auton et al state]."These two results therefore suggest that while the initial migrations into Europe came via the Middle East, at least some degree of subsequent gene flow has occurred directly from Africa" "Nonetheless, the haplotype sharing between Europe and the YRI are suggestive of gene flow from Africa, albeit from West Africa and not necessarily North Africa."</ref>

Comments please, but concrete, not vague. This subject should be possible to make some progress on.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I am open to more summarization in this article and moving much of the content to African admixture in Europe. My only concern right now, is the notion that North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans are distinct populations as is the case in the current article. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Above you said your concern is that people are denying that North Africans are intermediate between Eurasia and Sub-Saharan Africa. That I could understand. But treating large geographical blocks of people as "distinct" seems much more difficult to avoid in any discussion of population genetics. That is after all what it is all about. Could you explain why they should not be treated as two population areas? If this is to be the approach then how can we talk about any differences between populations?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The distinction is mainly geographic, especially for prehistoric periods. I suggest adding a subsection with some caveats to the distinction. Such as

• though lineages are discussed as North African and Sub-Saharan African, due to historic movements between the two regions, their genetic profiles overlap. For example Some lineages, such as U6 and M1 are sometimes described as North African, though some subclades, such as U6a and M1a are known to have dispersed from Sub-Saharan Africa. (Rando et al),
• Some prehistoric North African populations were recent descendents of Sub-Saharan ancestral populations that moved north. (ricaut et al) Wapondaponda (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

This section of the article is still swinging between extremes with no sign of either side seeking a compromise that might be closer to consensus. I continue to propose that a short and simple compromise is the only options, removing anything un-needed and likely to be seen as POV. I do not believe the controversial parts even add much.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Elephant in the room

File:Natufian-pc-analysis.png

PC analsyis demonstrating that the Natufians were more similar to Niger Congo speakers than even recent Northeast Africans(including nubians and somalians)

Yes, the one thing that nobody is willing to discuss, even the scientists who publish most of the related articles, has been the controversial topic of "race". It seems that E1b1b lineages were transferred from dark skinned sub-saharan population to caucasian populations. This obviously involved race mixing or miscegenation at some point. When exactly this occurred, and how many times it occurred remains a mystery, though it is highly probable that significant population mixing took place during the Neolithic. This is because it is only during the Neolithic that we see increased population densities that would support mass migrations and extensive mixing of populations.

Since E1b1b is found in Europe, editors and even some scientists have tried to emphasize that certain E1b1b lineages are "North African" and I feel this is because it may be a little easier to swallow and reconcile with our modern ideas about race, since modern North Africans are predominantly caucasoid. However imposing our modern ideas about race onto prehistoric populations is anachronistic. Fortunately, other scientists have called a spade a spade and stated that E1b1b lineages are originally sub-saharan and were only subsequently transferred into caucasian populations. This miscegenation of "races" is supported by Afroasiatic languages which are spoken by blond blue eyed semitic/Berbers speakers and dark skinned sub-saharans.

This is why I don't understand the hostilities to the studies by Brace et al and Ricaut et al, who have tried to add a morphometric dimension to this debate. Brace has clearly stated the Natufians had sub-saharan element, which is shown in the PC analysis. In this PC analysis, the Natufians are more similar to Niger-Congo people than any other group. Ricaut et al have gone a step further by adding that the most parsimonious explanation for this similarity with Sub-Saharans, is the dispersal of E1b1b lineages. Ricaut et al specifically state. "These results support the hypothesis that some of the Paleolithic–early Holocene populations from northeast Africa were probably descendents of sub-Saharan ancestral populations." So I do propose that in the article, we do make it clear that the distinctions between North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa are geographical but they aren't necessarily anthropological. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:48, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

There are good reasons that we should be careful of the term race. It is a term used by scientists occasionally, sure, in the sense that they are looking for difference and similarity amongst populations and the word sometimes seems to fit. But in normal English the word "race" refers to a fixed level of category in a fixed hierarchical organization (it fits just under "species"), whereas for scientists it is just meant to refer in a rough way to any distinct sub-set of a bigger inter-breeding population. In the same way, the word "species" causes confusion, with scientists since Darwin not seeing species as fixed at all, and not needing the word to be the anchor of all definition, but whereas the problems with the word species are a subject which people can discuss in Op eds as a "scientific" subject, "race" is a word used more in common parlance in the old-fashioned way than it is in any scientific way. I repeat my question of above about what your point is. Who is arguing that North Africans have no connections to sub Saharans? I think you are tilting at windmills, and a big part of the arguments on these articles is tilting at windmills. Small Victory and others also imagine they are seeing more than there is in what your write. You guys should all stop reading between the lines and over-compensating for what is not being discussed.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

None of the Europeans/Mediterraneans in that PC plot show any affinities with Natufians, much less with Sub-Saharan Africans. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess that was Wapondaponda's point?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Brace discusses the lack of affinity between Natufians and modern Europeans, when he says.

At the same time, the failure of the Neolithic and Bronze Age samples in central and

northern Europe to tie to the modern inhabitants supports the suggestion that, while a farming mode of subsistence was spread westward and also north to Crimea and east to Mongolia by actual movement of communities of farmers, the indigenous foragers in each of those areas ultimately absorbed both the agricultural subsistence strategy and also the people who had brought it. The interbreeding of the incoming Neolithic people with the in situ foragers diluted the Sub-Saharan traces that may

have come with the Neolithic spread so that no discoverable element of that remained.

Herein lies the whole controversy. Because Europeans and Africans are divergent in certain traits, the assumption is there is no admixture. But due to microevolution, adaptation, sexual selection etc, traits that affect physical appearance evolve rapidly( see your family may have been a different color). However in traits that don't affect physical appearance, admixture may persist. This is why Europeans have the lightest skin, and Africans the darkest skin, yet by some genetic measures, they are more related to each other than to other populations of intermediate skin color. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

All Europeans/Mediterraneans lack affinities with Natufians and Sub-Saharan Africans in that PC plot, both the modern ones and the ancient ones. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reading between the lines inevitably occurs when there is vagueness. Some studies, in their efforts to avoid directly discussing race, still end up implicitly discussing race, and it gets quite confusing. Take luis et al for example. They state "Oman and Egypt’s NRY frequency distributions appear to be much more similar to those of the Middle East than to any sub-Saharan African population,". They argue that Egyptians are not similar to Sub-Saharan Africans because typical lineages A,B E(xE3b) only account for 9% but Eurasian lineages account for 59%. However they also state that Egyptians had 39.5% haplogroup E, which is the predominant haplogroup in Sub-Saharan Africa. Interestingly, they fail to come up with a classification for E3b(30%) and leave its affinities out altogether. Though acknowledging an East African origin of e3b, they proceed to classify it alongside middle eastern lineages 12f2 and M201. Phylogentically, E3b is allied to Sub-Saharan Africa and not the middle East. So this gets quite confusing, and the reason is simply to do with race. It is evident, that without directly discussing race, the authors have assigned these lineages to racial groups. As E3b crosses racial groups, they have tried to avoid classifying it, but have allied it with Eurasian lineages. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Every population with high levels of E3b is either Caucasoid or mostly Caucasoid. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sanchez et al also cause the same confusion by treating East Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa as different. It would be more appropriate to use linguistic classification, because East Africa is part of sub-saharan Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Guys, is any of the above nonsense relevant to this article? I find equally useless such wording as "allied to Sub-Saharan Africa and not the middle East" and "either Caucasoid or mostly Caucasoid". These wordings are vague for an obvious reason, which is that both of you are being unapologetically argumentative and unconstructive, and you both know that E1b1b is common in both the Middle East and as far south as some parts of South Africa. So what though? What is the point?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

What I did mean to say is that phylogenetically E3b is closer in the branching order to other E hablogroup subclades predominant in Sub-Saharan Africa than it is to middle eastern lineages which descend from haplogroups C and F. My general complaint has been that the studies have associated it with middle eastern lineages when phylogenetically it is closer to other sub-saharan E lineages. This pattern of association has been due to the influence of thinking along racial lines, rather than along phylogenetic lines as phylogenetically it would be correct to link E lineages in Oman and E lineages in Egypt with other E lineages in Sub-Saharan Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Phylogenetically, it would be correct to link all E lineages with D, C and F lineages as descendents of the "Eurasian Adam" M168. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:36, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

No that old speculation is now known to be unlikely to be correct since the publication of Underhill and Kivisild (2007), "Use of Y Chromosome and Mitochondrial DNA Population Structure in Tracing Human Migrations", Annu. Rev. Genet. 41: 539–64, doi:10.1146/annurev.genet.41.110306.130407 . I have proposed that the Eurasian Adam article should be deleted. An article about Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA) continues to exist of course.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you babbling about? It's not "speculation" that C, F, D and E all descend from M168. It's a proven fact. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Some articles of interest perhaps

I noticed these discussed on the Dienekes blog...

• http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08/lactase-persistence-spread-with.html
• http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08/demic-diffusion-of-agriculture-into.html

Maybe they help someone working on this article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes the craniometric study is interesting as it supports a demic diffusion from the Natufian sample. I believe some of the samples were the same as those used by Brace et al, though they have a much large sample size, 12 individuals. It would have been more interesting if they had compared there craniometric data with non-European samples such as from Africa. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not support any such thing. In fact, it says the exact opposite of what you're claiming:

Figure 3 plots the first two principal co-ordinates of the craniometric distance matrix. The OTUs do not group according to any particular geographic or temporal pattern on the first or second principal co-ordinates. However, the first principal co-ordinate separates the archaeologically defined Neolithic OTUs from OTUs designated as Mesolithic plus the Natufian. Therefore, the principal co-ordinate analysis suggests that Neolithic and Mesolithic populations are biologically differentiated.

That's why none of the dispersal models in Figure 1 even consider Natufians as a possible source for the European Neolithic. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

STRUCTURE again

I have nothing against STRUCTURE being quoted in wikipedia, as it is used extensively. However, we cannot engage in original research by associating African admixture, with a visual analysis of STRUCTURE charts. If the authors of the study made any reference to African or SSA admixture based on STRUCTURE, then we can include the information. So far I have not seen a direct discussion. Structure is a Bayesian approach used to probabilistically determine population clusters. Though it does a good job of clustering, it is still an indirect approach. This publication [4] has given a good analysis of how STRUCTURE works. In the absence of a direct discussion of Structure and admixture, its use in the article constitutes Original research. However, I just stumbled upon this article, Human genetic clustering, that deals directly with STRUCTURE and the controversy concerning membership to clusters. I think that is a more appropriate article to discuss results from STRUCTURE analysis. Wapondaponda (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The STRUCTURE program is designed to quantify admixture, and it's become one of the most widely used methods in population genetics. The charts don't require any "analysis" because the studies tell us exactly what they show. Excluding this material because you don't like the results is nothing but information suppression POV. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory, until now you've inserted such materials WITH your own interpretations, hence the concern about OR. However if you would post in a chart WITHOUT interpretation, wouldn't it be meaningless and irrelevant? I think the best way to cite these studies is to quote what peer reviewed authors have interpreted from them in conclusion passage or reviews.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

A chart accompanied by an explanation of what it's showing from the study it comes from is neither meaningless and irrelevant nor original research. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

STRUCTURE, isn't directly designed to measure admixture in the way that Ancestry Informative markers (AIM) are. The only direct discussion between admixture and Structure relates to the Mexican population. In this particular study, Structure measured lower amounts of admixture than AIMs. The exact reason why structure underestimated admixture in the Mexican population has yet to be determined, but for STRUCTURE, to be considered a mainstream method of determining admixture, it should be compared against other methods.

To investigate the level of admixture in the Mexican population, we combined the Mexican samples with a sample of European and East Asian populations. Using structure with K = 3 we estimated an average of 32.5% European ancestry in Mexican individuals (95% 6 3.3% confidence interval [C.I.]; see Fig. 1B), which is lower than some previous estimates based on microsatellite or ‘‘ancestry informative’’ markers (Salari et al. 2005; Price et al. 2007; Tian et al. 2007; Wang et al. 2008). However, it should be noted that the variability between individuals is high, and that the Mexican samples in our study originate from a single location(Guadalajara)

I wouldn't object to Structure being used to discuss admixture in Mexicans, because it is directly discussed in the article. In all the other articles, there is no direct discussion concerning African admixture and structure. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

You're confused. STRUCTURE is a computer program that's applied to genes. AIMs are the genes themselves. According to the program's creators, it can be applied to most types of genetic markers with accurate results. And the passage you quoted does in fact explain why the results are different between that study and previous ones: "However, it should be noted that the variability between individuals is high, and that the Mexican samples in our study originate from a single location (Guadalajara)."

And why do you suppose Mexicans' admixture is discussed in the study while African admixture is not? Because Mexicans are admixed while African admixture in not present in any of the samples. Geneticists discuss admixture that's there, not admixture that isn't, just like recipes contain the ingredients you need and not the ones you don't need. But it's incorrect to say that the issue is not addressed at all. It's addressed visually in the charts, and visual references are just as valid as textual ones, provided what you're seeing is made clear in the text, which it is. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I cannot help the impression that this entire "Sub-Saharan" topic is a red herring that has held the article hostage for too long. The section doesn't tell me anything interesting. "Sub-Saharan admixture in Europe decreases from south to north" -- no shit. Perhaps that is because Africa is to the south of Europe, not to the north. Thee null expectation is that you have admixture everywhere, from everywhere, in frequencies inversely proportional to distance. Information on genetic admixture is only interesting inasmuch they diverge from this null expectation, i.e. surprisingly little, or surprisingly much admixture. I fail to see how the Sub-Saharan paragraph makes any such statement, and consequently what it is supposed to be telling us about the "Genetic history of Europe". --dab (𒁳) 12:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this shouldn't even be controversial. However, the null hypothesis has been that mediterranean and Sahara desert prevented gene flow from Sub-Saharan Africa until the 15th Century. In fact this is essentially what some editors here are trying to propose. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It does not prevent it but it obviously slows things down compared to regions which do not have such impediments between them. But concerning what we should put in the article, what is your point? Are you saying that the article exaggerates this impediment, or that such things should not be mentioned at all?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, that it doesn't prevent but only slows things down. However, some editors support the null hypothesis which would mean that there are "negligible levels of Sub-Saharan admixture" and the only admixture is due to the slave trade. However, isolation by distance applies to the regions separating Africa and Europe. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Small Victory writes,

However, in admixture tests using the STRUCTURE program[96][note 2] from that study and four others, a wide array of European samples, including Iberians, show little to no membership in clusters defined by Sub-Saharan African groups from a number of different regions

However, this is somewhat misleading because the Rosenberg and the other individuals specifically select highly informative microsatellites for structure to process. In other words, they deliberately select markers that are most likely to produce discrete non-overlapping clusters, and attribute any overlap to common ancestry or admixture. In one study [5] only 10 snps are necessary to produce non-overlapping clusters. Given the human genome of 3 billion nucleotides, 10 snp's would be too small to imply no admixture. This basically is what critics of structure and even the authors themselves acknowledge, the results of Structure depend on the methodology and sampling strategy and are not absolute. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your desperation to make STRUCTURE data go away is really getting pathetic. Are 642,690 SNPs still "too small"? Because that's how many were used to produce this chart. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

"North African Admixture"

Why on Earth is E1b1b and in particular E-V13 being associated with "North African Admixture" since it arose most likely in the Balkans and it is already covered in the Neolithic Migrations section? Are we going to be making a "Mesopatamian admixture" section showing for J2 distributions as well?

This is very silly and stupid. We should have 2 sections, The first showing ancient pre-historic migrations such as the Paleolithic, Neolithic, and Bronze age. Then have a "historical admixture" section covering new lineages introduced during historic periods.

The current way makes no sense and will only confuse novices.

Victorius III (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC).

I have sympathy with the idea of deleting all the geographical source sections, as I think I might have been the first to propose, because as you say, it is just leading to redundancies. In any case these sections should be kept brief, much more brief than now. Small Victory has been one of the editors insisting on making them longer. Perhaps he feels this is justified because it is a reaction to the edits of others though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The reason is that Muntuwandi is pushing Afrocentric POV. I agree with your proposal. The article is called "Genetic history of Europe", yet all of a sudden the sections shift from being history-centered (Paleolithic, Neolithic, Bronze Age, Roman period) to being geography-centered (North African, Sub-Saharan African, Central/East Asian), and that's what's causing all the trouble. We should just stick to historical time periods and events, like Uralic migrations, Moorish conquest, Slave trade etc. That's the most logical and neutral way of doing it. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The article's problems in this regard (confusion, structure, redundancy) are caused by several editors who are make absolutely no effort to compromise and understand each other. Small Victory is certainly one of the worst, and has serious civility issues. The end result is that we can have either one controversial version or the other, one revert per day, and attempts to make a minimalist version, which might be what you'd think would make sense, are rejected by both Small Victory and Muntuwandi. I suggest that Small Victory and Muntuwandi both try being the first to stop insisting on the bits they know are considered controversial. If there is only one POV pusher left, then coming to a consensus can be quicker.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to delete the three admixture sections

Currently the three admixture sections do not fit in this article. They have been forced into the end of a sequence which is chronological. At least two of them are also the cause of constant edit warring. Conveniently however, they contain almost nothing of value which is not already in the article where it should be. The relationship of Europeans to outsiders, the "clines" within Europe and what they might mean, and also many of the more interesting or well-known examples such as E1b1b1, are all discussed quite a lot already, in sections where they fit. Let's therefore delete all three of these sections.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed! The Ogre (talk) 14:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

If it is true, that the Neolithic revolution may have had "African roots" to quote Andrew, then I do think that African admixture is valuable information. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

But why discuss this in two (or three or four) places? There is a section on the Neolithic already. There is also a suitably brief section on the approximate relatedness of Europeans to people in other continent sized areas. There is also a section on the major haplogroups, including E1b1b. How much of this stuff do we need? It keep striking me that even you and Small Victory agree on the core material for lots of these articles, and it is the extra stuff put in to emphasize a particular position (or de-emphasize another one) that keeps causing the edit wars. His edits make it clear that Small Victory only wants to put in his Structure stuff to balance what you want to put in, and both of you see "balance" as something other people would see as POV pushing. He wants it to say sub Saharan Africans have almost no relationship to Europeans, and you want the section to say that people underestimate the connections. We should just be saying there are connections, not enormous, but present, and with a certain geographic pattern, full stop. So, as a no brainer, whenever "the extra stuff" is redundant I say we get rid of it, and that we keep doing this in all articles with problems like this. If we don't do it then this type of edit war will lead to constant expansion and de-structuring of articles. This article is trapped in a circular problem right now, and we need to break the circle.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, we can add "see also" links to the appropriate articles. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree with A.L. Hxseek (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

New study on the Neolithic contribution

Genetic Discontinuity Between Local Hunter-Gatherers and Central Europe’s First Farmers . MtDNA from paleolithic hunter gatherers are now rare in modern Europeans, suggesting population discontinuity as a result of Neolithic farmers from the Near East. Unfortunately, no y-chromosome data yet, the y-enthusiasts will be a bit disappointed. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

120 classical polymorphisms

Aren't these things like blood groups that are subject to heavy disease selection and therefore capable of recent change and spread? Yet the section on Cavalli-Sforza's study of these is written as if they are neutral markers reflecting ancient ancestry. --JWB (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

There are no perfect markers. Each one has its biases. The aim for us has to be that we report what scientists really work on. If you think any part of the article over-states the certainty of things, then the best approach is probably just to adjust the wording to a less certain one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC) Does anyone have a listing or description of what the "120 classical polymorphisms" are? --JWB (talk) 08:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

They're in C-S's book. As stated they are blood and protein polymorphisms of the ABO blood system, Rh blood system, HLA loci, other blood group antigens, anti-trypsin isomers, various immunoglobulin chains, etc, etc. You're right they're are prone to natural selection, but of are of an historical interest, and the fact that they still show the reported clines despite the diversity of types and data means that there is some validity in the results Hxseek (talk) 04:06, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

A new map

A new map on the site of DNA Tribes® Europa has appeared: [6] 17 European sub-regions have been identified by DNA Tribes® proprietary analysis of genetic data representing thousands of individuals in all parts of Europe: [7]. Jingby (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

What? This map lables 90% of the French as Spanish? Uhmmm. Do not try French chauvism. June. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.12.152.172 (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

There are more Europeans in Telugu speaking state Andhra Pradesh in India.

Please some body in Europe can take a project to check genetics DNA of Telugu people in North and central part of Andhra Pradesh. They are real European blood people living in India. They are loosing their identity and treated as Dravidians who are not Europeans by Upper Indians. AP is a developing state with Hyderabad as capital with International airports and European Christian institutions and research centers. Some good agency and people should add them to all European articles on Internet and books. And should start with reddy community people in world and check their genetics and them european people. There are millions there and many villages and communities. As you show interest You will understand them and raise their living styles in that part of world. They are living like Non Aryan indians and do not know who they are really. Theses intelligence agencies making the world is not true and reality. I am an Indo-European whose ancestors were lived like hindus from centuries and now christian contacting the real world The European World. Please help us and ourseleves.

This is not a forum, this is a page to discuss improvements to this page. Also, the idea of an Aryan race is pretty discredited. Fences&Windows 20:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD of John D. Hawks

This article was attacked as nonnotable and proposed for deletion. You can comment atWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_D._Hawks#John_D._Hawks. --JWB (talk) 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There was or should be a page called "Genetic Map of Europe"

The genetic map of Europe is really impressive when we see scattered data points (people) landing in the locations where their countries are. Everyone can understand this. Replacing these people by blob smoothing makes sense in this speculative history page, but it is a big step backward in communication with the public. Lucky we can still get the info from Google. Jclaer (talk) 19:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Norman/Germanic - Viking heritage - Language and Culture in Sicily.

My cousin through marriage David Neilson assumed my surname was biological ‘Raciti’. I am biological in fact a Caggegi. He told me that I needed to wait in line before I could consider my Norman/Germanic - Viking heritage.

He believes he is of Danish heritage (through his surname - Neilson). He has brown hair and brown eyes. I personally don't see it at all. My daughter Racheal has blonde hair and blue eyes - and is most likely to be of that area.

I have found the original form of my biological name to be of a 'North Sea Germanic language' of Norse Origin: 'Keggeg', specifically from the Ingaevones, Jastorf and Langobardic cultures that migrated into North Italy in the 6th and 7th centuries.

History tells us that there were significant Lombard (with their Gallo-Italic idiom) settlements in Randazzo, Sicily.

The Langobardi tribe could have been biologically very similar to The Cimbri (Danes) and The Frisii tribes.

The one thing I do know is that The Lombards through The Jastorf culture - were in locations in Sweden - were I find other 'Keggeg's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pre_Migration_Age_Germanic.png

The Normans (of Normandy, France) aren't Vikings, Scandinavians, and in Sicily, they were very few. The Normans of Scandinavian origin are a minority, quickly francized after little more than a century of Francization. In eastern Sicily, the immigrants from northern Italy (whom south Italian sources refer to as "Lombards"), aren't Langobards, Germans. 88.178.38.7 (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Explanation of the contradiction tag

Inside of the section "Origins" it is stated: --millosh (talk (meta:)) 19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Dr Patricia Balaresque, first author of the study, added: "In total, this means that more than 80% of European Y chromosomes descend from incoming farmers. In contrast, most maternal genetic lineages seem to descend from hunter-gatherers. To us, this suggests a reproductive advantage for farming males over indigenous hunter-gatherer males during the switch from hunting and gathering, to farming".

While inside of the subsection "Ancient DNA" it is stated: --millosh (talk (meta:)) 19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

... Levy-Coffman concludes that the genetic profile of Europe has undergone significant transformation over time and that the modern population is not a living fossil of the ancient one. However, the very small sample sizes of the ancient DNA are a problem; more data is needed.

Those two claims are contradictory because the first one states that European genetic pool is fixed from the time of the Neolithic Revolution, while the second one states opposite. While it is possible to speculate that they are not contradictory, two claims as-is are contradictory. Those two claims need to be put together (at one or both places) and explained. --millosh (talk (meta:)) 19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(A note: I'd read the article accidentally and I put the tag just after I'd blamed myself that I am not contributing to Wikipedia even I'd seen a problem. So, this is my contribution, not my arguing about something. If you think that I am wrong, just remove the tag.) --millosh (talk (meta:)) 19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

But thanks for commenting. Sometimes it is good to have an outside view when it comes to making wording clear. Actually it is true that when you read this subject matter too often you start calling the Neolithic "recent". I am quite sure the two comments are not intended in a sense that is contradictory, but I see why that look that way. Thanks again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've moved some of the material around and tried to make the flow of discussion more easy to follow. But I do not think it has yet quite resolved the issue you mention. I think it requires a review of how the Coffman-Elly quote is framed. One main emphasis is that she wanted to point out that even without major migrations the haplogroup makeup of Europe could have drifted a lot.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interesting new discovery.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/neandertal-genetics-study-shows-theres-a-caveman-in-us-all/story-e6frg6n6-1225863446398

It seems that Europeans are a little bit less Homo Sapiens than they thought. Koon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.1.201.247 (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the Neanderthal admixture topic. It isn't limited to Europe in particular, but to all populations outside of Sub-Saharan Africa.

The interbreeding just means that Neanderthals are Homo sapiens too, viz. Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. --dab (𒁳) 20:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it seems to me that at least passing mention of such pre-Anatomically Modern Human contribution is implied in the current structure of the article, part of the state of the art, part of what people want to know, notable etc, and could be made more clear. The article could be a lot better than it is, and it would probably fit easier in a more perfect world.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:21, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually DAB, it would only apply to Europeans and western-most Asia (Near East). That is only where Neanderthals were found Hxseek (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Enormous importance of haplogroup I for European population is not properly addressed

An article with further references and very thorough video presentation can be found at http://www.genebase.com/tutorial/item.php?tuId=12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.141.103.250 (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is addressed as much as it can be. It would be good if the Haplogroup I article which is linked was itself better though. The webpage you cite is not a WP:RS we can use here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Terminology

Since the same letters are used for both, Haplogroups of mtDNA and Y-DNA, it is urgently needed to clearly distinguish between them. In articles only dealing with one of these groups, a marking is not needed, however, in any citation, the source chromosomes must be noted. Anything else is cruelly misleading. HJJHolm (talk) 10:11, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I would have thought the context made it clear, but if you see cases where it is not clear I think it would be uncontroversial to tweak wording and make it clear.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The name

Since the article is only about humans (not plants, animals and so on) the name should be "Genetic history of the people of Europe" or something similar. Aaker (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Agree but people sounds uneducated, perhaps Genetic history of the human population of Europe or Genetic history of the human population of the European continent?Sir. Yorkshire (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess we could lengthen just about any article name based on this type of concern. To me the important prior question is whether the current title is really likely to cause confusion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it doesn't. But if a change is needed, how about Human genetic history of Europe. The Ogre (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't say it needs be an argument against, but it is possibly worth mentioning that there are by now quite a few articles with similar names, for different parts of the world. I guess eventually they should share some sort of standards and categorization.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support "Genetic history of European people" (or "...peoples"). I don't understand how the perfectly good word "people" can sound "uneducated". Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

sorry, but it doesn't get much more uneducated-sounding than "genetic history of the human population of Europe". WP:NAME says, use the most commonly used term. "Genetic history" is the term used for what this article is discussing. Compare Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia. If you want something "more educated-sounding", we could try "Genetics and archaeogenetics of Europe". But what this article needs is frankly more erudition, not more naive attempts to "sound" erudite. We can also try Population genetics of Europe as was suggested above. This would definitely sound "educated", even though the scope would shift somewhat.

As Andrew pointed out, we need some sort of standard for these articles. For one thing, they are all abominably bad, apparently because they get more attention from ethnic pov pushers than from geneticists. Attempts to come up with standardised names should be made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic History, not for each article individually. --dab (𒁳) 07:07, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

This new name is stupid, to put it bluntly. Ofcourse it's about humans, I don't think anyone would write a gentic history of European red daffodils. If a name change is required, perhaps "The molecular anthropology of modern Europe" ? Hxseek (talk) 10:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

My five cents is that we'll never have pretty names for this regional/ethnic genetics articles. Perhaps the style I like best so far is "Genetic studies of", for example Genetic studies on Jews. To me it feels more accurate because really this is a new field and all these articles are is quick summary of what has been learnt so far. Those of us interested in these subjects know that some of the conclusions are still not "stable". In other words, one new paper can change things.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:10, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

BTW, current name here is back to Genetic history of Europe. I am going to start a thread on WP:HGH though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is, to be pedantic, is that "Genetic history" implies that we have travelled back in time and sampled eash European population at thousand or hundred year intervals, and construct a 'historical' progression of this, LOL. That is why I thing 'genetic anthropology' or 'molecular anthropology of modern (or extant) Europeans" is more accurate. Just a suggestion Hxseek (talk) 08:33, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

What about "genetic studies of"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Genetic Studies On . . Hxseek (talk) 02:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

LOL. OK, I am not sure if on or of or about or concerning is best, but what about that basic type of title?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm for this name: Genetic history of European populations. --Maulucioni (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History#Ethnic.2Fregional_studies:_some_issues_and_call_to_consider --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:35, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

moving inserted material here for discussion first

This was all inserted in one edit. I have removed it for now, so that it can be considered first...--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Eupedia.com

Genetic make-up of Europe

File:Predominant ethnic groups by region in Europe.jpg

Here is a map of major ethnic groups in Europe mostly based on Y-DNA. There are three kinds of regions on the map :


1) single ethnicity : over 50% of the Y-DNA matches an ethnic group (e.g. Ireland = Celtic)

2) two dominant ethnicities : at least 20% of Y-DNA from each ethnicity totaling over 50% of the population.

3) three dominant ethnicities : at least 20% of Y-DNA from each ethnicity totaling over 50% of the population.

This map was created based on the latest Y-DNA data combined with physical and historical evidence. Names on the map are not necessarily ethnic groups but culturo-linguistic or historical ones. Colours are more indicative of the ethnic similarities and differences between regions.

Celts

There isn't a homogeneous Celtic ethnicity. Pre-Roman Europe had a strong Celtic culture ranging from Central Europe to the British Isles and Iberia. Celtic people can be divided in these rough categories, each associated with a subclade of R1b-S116+ (subclade markers are in brackets) :

- Rhine-Alpine-Italic Celts (S28)

- Scottish Celts (M222)

- Irish Celts (M37)

- Atlantic Celts* (M167)

- Basques (M65, M153)

• Northern Iberia, Western France, Cornwall, Wales.

Germans

What people call "Germanic ethnicity" is in fact a mixture of northern continental R1b (S116-, S21+) and I haplogroups (I1 + I2b). In Scandinavia and East Germany, the inclusion of a strong Slavic component (R1a) make them a slightly different ethnicity from the English, Dutch, Belgian or West Germans.

Slavs

The original Slavic (or Aryan or Kurgan) people belonged to haplogroup R1a. This haplogroup is also common in Central Asia, Iran and India, thanks to the great Indo-Aryan migrations.

Greco-Romans

The Ancient Greeks were an admixture of European and Near-Eastern people. The paternal side shows a strong Near-Eastern component, making modern Greek Y-DNA closer to Turkish, Syrian, Lebanese and even Iraqi one than to that of Western or Northern Europe. According to Y-DNA frequencies observed in Europe, Southern Italy and the Balkans were heavily settled by the Ancient Greeks, or their Neolithic ancestors that did not yet call themselves "Greeks".

We are still unsure about the original Y-DNA types of the Romans, but due to the proximity of the Greek colonies, and the fact that Etruscans were also of Near Eastern origins, it is likely that the Romans were an admixture of Near-Eastern J2, G2 and E3b with the native Italo-Celtic R1b. As the Romans played a major role in spreading Near-Eastern haplogroups in and north of the Alps, I will refer to the J2-G2-E3b admixture as Greco-Roman, and the Italic R1b just as "Celtic". Haplogroup G2 correlates strongly with the spread of J2 with a ratio of 1 G2 for 3 J2 in average, suggesting that these haplogroups spread together from Anatolia, while the European E3b had a different origin (probably in the Balkans).

My first impression is that some of this is already covered in the existing article, and the most interesting/original stuff is apparently un-sourced original research which Wikipedia can't use. But there may be more to it. What do others think?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

ofc, i want it to stay, 1 vote from me for staying. most sources are from Eupedia.Retroqqq (talk) 13:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Please stop uploading content from random websites. Elaborations like "What people call 'Germanic ethnicity' is in fact a mixture of northern continental R1b (S116-, S21+) and I haplogroups (I1 + I2b). In Scandinavia and East Germany" are clueless to the point of being not even wrong. A haplogroup is not an ethnicity, and an ethnicity is not a haplogroup. Let alone an Y haplogroup, which reflects the male line exclusively (i.e your model assumes there are no women. Way to go.)

Your map was created based on the latest Y-DNA data combined with physical and historical evidence. This is highly subjective synthesis. If you can attribute this synthesis to an eminent geneticist or some Nobel Prize winner, we could cite it, but even then only as an opinion. Hell, if you could attribute it to Lindsay Lohan we could at lest carry it as a pop culture curiosity. As it happens, this is the synthesis of a site called "eupedia.com", and as such is of no interest whatsoever. --dab (𒁳) 13:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Here are the sources if you dont believe:

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml http://www.eupedia.com/forum/showthread.php?t=25106 http://www.eupedia.com/europe/origins_haplogroups_europe.shtml#Sources

Retroqqq (talk) 13:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source for this subject. The map doesn't belong here. Dougweller (talk) 14:03, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Why its not? i gave you all the sources. its very reliable. what else you want?Retroqqq (talk) 14:06, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. There's no reason to think the sources were used correctly, for instance. Find an academic source. Dougweller (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Retroqqq, I am aware of Eupedia as a website. I can personally understand where they get their information and why it is wrong, but my opinion on what is true or false is not actually the main point. On Wikipedia we do not know each other and do not know whether we can trust each other, so what we do with questioned sources like this is show how good sources in a field trust them and cite them as reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking. You can find eupedia being discussed on internet forums, mainly in a negative way. But you won't find it being cited by academics or even by the more well known trusted genetic genealogy sources such as www.isogg.org and www.jogg.info (which are both cited by academics and other media). Also, eupedia's sourcing to other sources is not clear, but if you look into it you'll find that basically eupedia is full of personal speculations, not just basic recitation of known things, and those speculations are often demonstrably misunderstandings. It would be a big improvement if the editors explained the steps in their thinking more clearly. Am I wrong? As far as I know it does not have a reputation for fact checking in the world outside Wikipedia. Can you show otherwise?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Retroqqq, you asked me on my talk page also about how many votes you need. Wikipedia does not work as a democracy. Editors should convince other editors based on Wikipedia policy. Sometimes a group of editors might agree to do a poll, but it is that agreement to decide this way which is most important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:36, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Eupedia.com is not a quotable source. The end. If there are scholarly sources that support the point you want to make, cite those, not urls. Citing urls as "references" is what we Wikipedians refer to as "linkrot", and such things should be removed on sight. --dab (𒁳) 16:25, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Image not complete?

The image with subtitle 'Cavalli-Sforza's 1st Principal Component:A cline of genes with highest frequencies in the Middle East, spreading to lowest levels northwest' doesn't show 'Middle East' (i.e. Western Asia), but only Asia MinorKoakhtzvigad (talk) 07:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

...which is the closest part of Asia to Europe?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

That's becuase it never intended to. Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Updated

The article seemed to suggest that no gene exchange happened with Neanderthals. That was true a year ago, but now we know that 2-5% of the non-African genome could have originated from Neanderthals. Anyways, I corrected that in the Paleolithic era section.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 21:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, but you might want to actually reference the addition. ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 23:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure. It is actually discussed in that same section. I'll be happy to provide a number of sources if you want. All I did though was remove the sentence that was in error.

Cheers!

Λuα ^{(Operibus anteire)} 15:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I see, no probs . Wasn't there also a paper that argued that orange hair in Europeans came from Neanderthals ? 02:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

File:Haplogroup F (Y-DNA).jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

| | An image used in this article, File:Haplogroup F (Y-DNA).jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations

What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

• If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
• If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
• If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC)}

Y- vs. mt-DNA

I urgently suggest to distinguish/mark the DNA symbols according to their belonging, either Y or mt. This is an encyclopedia, and no beginner is able to distinguish these confusing symbols after a long time of experience! This might be done by a prefix, perhaps in Superscript. And people who are so experienced as not to need such help, would not need the article at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HJJHolm (talk • contribs) 16:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

where?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep i think it is marked everywhere satisfactorily Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Name change, cont

I agree with the suggestion that we should consider changing the name. Perhaps "Molecular anthropology of Europeans". This is more inclusive that an alleged 'genetic history' Slovenski Volk (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to name it after a discipline then maybe population genetics is the more common word? BTW as there are a bunch of these types of articles is this something we should discuss at WP:HGH?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, "Population genetics of Europe" will be more appropriative. Jingiby (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

OMG - i agree 100 percent with move and yes we should propose this at the genetics project because we should change all the related articles to such a title. Need to change all like ...North Africa · Americas · British Isles · Europe (African admixture in Europe)  · Italy · Iberian Peninsula · Near East · South Asia- .Moxy (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't disagree with "Population Genetics', although in strictu sensu "population genetics" involves discussion of a broader specturm of issues (eg disease, natural slection) c.f. "genetic anthropology' which is the sub-branch which concerns itself with demographic processes. Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Updates

This article contains interesting links to original articles:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 05:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

name change 2

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 18:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

Genetic history of Europe → Molecular Anthropology of Europeans – Simple because that is what this article is really about - the studying of modern Europeans' genetic patterns. To call it "population history" is presumptive and ambitious, becasue this is (a) a secondary objective (b) an inferred one, at best (insofar as we can reconstruct details about putative ancient demographic events from modern DNA). And this is what this new discipline is called, eg by Colin Renfrew Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2013 (UTC) Slovenski Volk (talk) 05:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: Leaving aside the merits or otherwise of the move from Genetic history to Molecular anthropology, it should at the very least be capitalised correctly. The move would be to Molecular anthropology of Europeans. Skinsmoke (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

• Point taken, thank you for that revolutionary and deeply-insighted suggestion Slovenski Volk (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  There's no reason to be snotty. HandsomeFella (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

  was just tongue-in-cheek Slovenski Volk (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A name change does seem a good idea and this proposal also seems as good as any I can think of. Keep in mind that there are quite a few such articles all with awkward names. So probably we should discuss at wp:hgh also and try to create a lasting standard?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

• Comment, but leaning to oppose. WP:COMMONNAME seems relevant here. To me "Genetic history" seems direct and accessible -- a succinct pointer to what's in the tin, using everyday words. In contrast "Molecular anthropology" seems remote, obscure, and pretentious. Does anybody other than Colin Renfrew use the term? What (if any) phrases are consistently used by papers writing up DNA field studies that we cite? Jheald (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Logically the current name is not clear though, even if we can easily guess what it is about. It does not specify that it is about humanity, and it does not specify that it is not about genetic science itself, just to take two examples of ambiguity. OTOH I can not deny that I have no really nice sounding alternative and I do not have enormous enthusiasm for this proposal as a nice name.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I see Jhead's point However, Genetic history.. is just plain incorrect. For a start, the article incorporates more than just a (hypothetical) 'genetic history', but also extant European sub-structuring and relatedness to other populations. Plus, as mentioned above, the idea that we can unravel some kind of past population history from the genetic profiles of current populations is at best optimist, and at worst, hopelessly misguided. The term genetic or molecular anthropology (meaning study of man from genetic POV) is actually rather widespread [8], [9] [10], [11]..Slovenski Volk (talk) 09:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

• Opppose because of WP:COMMONNAME. I understand immediately what Genetic history of Europe means whereas Molecular Anthropology of Europeans strikes me as some scientific neologism. I am native English-speaking, college lecturer (in history) and I don't readily understand molecular anthropology. When it comes to article titles, clarity should trump exactness. It's actually this sentence above by User talk:Andrew Lancaster that convinced me: Logically the current name is not clear though, even if we can easily guess what it is about. Yes, we can guess what it is about and that is the point of article titles; they should be self-evident and clear, especially to those doing a Google search. We should remember that language is not logical or scientific. It is irrationality -- poetry -- wrapped around a logical framework. Words can have multiple, mutually exclusive or vague meanings. To solve Andrew Lancaster's concern we could rename the article Genetic history of Europeans but we would have to recognize that Europeans have two meanings: those who live in Europe and those who are descendants of those who lived in Europe, though it is unlikely that people will be looking for an article about the genetic history of current Europeans of all races. A hatnote would solve the problem of confusion over whether it is a history of genetics or a history of genes. --Iloilo Wanderer (talk) 02:57, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

Updates

http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2012/03/06/basque-origins-predate-arrival-of-farmers-in-iberian-peninsula-dna-analysis-finds/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.203.72 (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The opening sentence is unbelievably redundant and awkward

"The genetic history of Europe is complicated because European populations have a complicated... genetic history."

Well duh. Can't anyone please do a little better than that? I had a good laugh reading this sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.17.206.73 (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

New interesting article

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v4/n4/full/ncomms2656.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 22:34, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Article needs to be purched.

Still here are some parts of the text:

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2013/04/mtdna-haplogroup-h-and-origin-of.html

Here is just part of the text:

From around 2800 BC, the LNE Bell Beaker culture emerged from the Iberian Peninsula to form one of the first pan-European archaeological complexes. This cultural phenomenon is recognised by a distinctive package of rich grave goods including the eponymous bell-shaped ceramic beakers. The genetic affinities between Central Europe’s Bell Beakers and present-day Iberian populations (Fig. 2) is striking and throws fresh light on long-disputed archaeological models3. We suggest these data indicate a considerable genetic influx from the West during the LNE. These far-Western genetic affinities of Mittelelbe-Saale’s Bell Beaker folk may also have intriguing linguistic implications, as the archaeologically-identified eastward movement of the Bell Beaker culture has recently been linked to the initial spread of the Celtic language family across Western Europe39. This hypothesis suggests that early members of the Celtic language family (for example, Tartessian)40 initially developed from Indo-European precursors in Iberia and subsequently spread throughout the Atlantic Zone; before a period of rapid mobility, reflected by the Beaker phenomenon, carried Celtic languages across much of Western Europe. This idea not only challenges traditional views of a linguistic spread of Celtic westwards from Central Europe during the Iron Age, but also implies that Indo-European languages arrived in Western Europe substantially earlier, presumably with the arrival of farming from the Near East41. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 23:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

The study is all over the news now. Jus google in news: genetics in Europe or something like that. Here is just one link:

http://www.designntrend.com/articles/3958/20130423/dna-ancient-europeans-disappeared-genetic-history.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Pipon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 23:04, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Arab V Islam - Reversion Query

Made a correction to the article since it's historically inaccurate - Islam invaded southern Europe, primarily the Turks (SE Europe) and the Berbers (Iberian Peninsula) neither of whom are Arab. My correction was reverted though since the reference used states in it's summary the Arab conquest of the Iberian Peninsula, which is wrong historically. In the article there is one instance where Arab is equated with Berber - akin to saying all French are German. Anyone able to advise what to do when sources are wrong?

NB: Arabs did participate in the Berber occupation of the peninsula so the basic premise of genetic transfer may be valid my issue is solely with the historical claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.35.25.165 (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Anohter interesting article.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/11/121130151606.htm

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 02:49, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Europeans share common ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago

So I am sure some have seen the news.... we may get a flury of edits... so we need to read over the paper closely before any additions in my opinion. --Moxy (talk) 02:30, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Academic paper...
Received: July 16, 2012; Accepted: March 27, 2013; Published: May 7, 2013
Ralph P, Coop G (2013) Department of Evolution and Ecology & Center for Population Biology, University of California - The Geography of Recent Genetic Ancestry across Europe - PLoS Biol 11(5): e1001555. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555

News article on the topic...
Most Europeans share recent ancestors - by Ewen Callaway - Nature Publishing, ISSN: 0028-0836

Article Reorganization

It might make more sense to merge section 4 ("Genetic studies after Cavalli-Sforza") into sections 2("2 Relation between Europeans and other populations) and 3 (3 European population sub-structure"). Studies before Cavalli-Sforza and after Cavalli-Sforza seems inefficient. "Relation between Europeans and other populations" include non Cavalli-Sforza stuff too. Cavann (talk) 22:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

And an update is needed. I can see right here three new interested articles and they are not in. Sagt — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 13:28, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes updates are eventually needed when someone has the time and ability. Concerning reorganization, maybe as a past editor of this article I should explain why the Cavalli-Sforza thing was so important. Many people coming to this article will have been reading publications which still use Cavalli Sforza as a basic point of reference. This is not just concerning older publications. For example I recently read James Mallory's Origins of the Irish and found it reproduced there. When an out-of-date framework is so widely used, it can be helpful to readers to have that framework explained specially. (In policy terms, one could also argue that especially well-known frameworks require especially clear emphasis/explanation. See WP:DUE.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza is 1990's. It's too old now. There could be one section titled Cavalli-Sforza's work or something tho. However, he shouldn't monopolize 2 sections titled "Relation between Europeans and other populations" and "European population sub-structure." Cavann (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

New interesting article

New interesting article

http://news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/mysterious-minoans-were-european-130514.htm

Pipo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 01:55, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

More articles:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14630012

I am afradi article is in very bad shape right now.

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

What needs updating

I personally do not have much time to focus on the apparent need for updating of this article but perhaps I can at least start with some suggestions:

• I think that concerning the demand to remove mention of Cavalli Sforza this is going too far, because his works still structure a lot of recent published discussion, but it can certainly be de-emphasized.
• By my reading the short summary of Y haplogroups is still pretty valid as a short summary.
• The Ancient DNA section needs filling in.
• The Autosomal section is not good at all. It focuses on some specific articles and a normal reader will get virtually nothing from it.
• Why on earth do we need a special section with the title "Autosomal genetic distances (Fst) based on SNPs (2009)"?
• The attempt to develop a structured chronological discussion of various proposed migrations, starting with older ones and going to newer ones, still seems a good idea for future versions?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

As I said, there should be a Cavalli-Sforza section rather than "Relation between Europeans and other populations" and "European population sub-structure" with 90%+ Cavalli-Sforza. Cavann (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Tables in 'Autosomal genetic distances (Fst) based on SNPs (2009)' section

The three tables in the section 'Autosomal genetic distances (Fst) based on SNPs (2009)' need to be removed or at least explained. Nothing even attempts to give an explanation of the numeric values presented in them. And they are certainly not all FST values. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Haplogroup F?

Why do we start with a map of Asia (Haplogroup_F_(Y-DNA).PNG )? Can't anyone find or generate a similar map for Europe? Kortoso (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Upgrade, cont

Since we all seem to be in the mood for some changes, I will cont from above. I suggest that we include something about genetic studies, so the average reader can understand them more, their limitations and assumptions. This will hence put the rest of the article in a better context, in that nothing is definite. A discussion on European sub-structure, without the ad nauseaum discussion of R1b prevelance in western Europe. Then Progress chronologically about European mirgations, as theorized by genetic data, incl. the so-called 'classic' stuff incoporated into it.

Here is what I have done so far ...

===Genetic studies===

One of the first scholars to perform genetic studies was Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. He used ‘classical genetic markers’, which are an indirect way of analysing DNA. This method studies differences in the frequencies of particular allelic traits, namely polymorphisms from proteins found within human blood (such as the ABO blood groups, Rhesus blood antigens, HLA loci, immunoglobulins, G-6-P-D isoenzymes, amongst others). Subsequently his team calculated genetic distances between populations, based on the principle that two populations that share similar frequencies of a trait are more closely related than populations that have more divergent frequencies of the trait. From this, he constructed phylogenetic trees which showed genetic distances diagrammatically. In addition, they performed principal component analyses on the data, from which they generated ‘synthetic maps’. These maps revealed several clinal patterns. Genetic clines can be generated in several ways: including adaptation to environment (natural selection), continuous gene flow between two initially different populations, or a demographic expansion into a scarcely populated environment with little initial admixture with pre-existing populations (Archaeological Genetics; The peopling of Europe, page 390). Cavalli-Sforza connected these gradients with postulated pre-historic population movements based on known archaeological and linguistic theories. Given that the time depths of such patterns are not known, “associating them with particular demographic events is usually speculative” (Rosser 2000).

Studies using direct DNA evidence are now abundant, and may be utilize mitochondiral DNA, Y-chromosomal DNA or autosomal DNA. The first two are particularly popular. MtDNA and the non-recombining portion of the Y-chromosome (henceforth NRY) share some similar features which have made them useful in genetic anthropology. These properties include the direct, unaltered inheritence of mtDNA and NRY DNA from mother to offspring, and father to son, respectively, without the ‘scrambling’ effects of genetic recombination. We also presume that these genetic loci are not affected by natural selection, and that the major process responsible for changes in base pairs has been mutation (which can calculated) (European Prehistory. Sarunas Milisauskas, page 58). The smaller effective population size of the NRY and mtDNA enhances the consequences of drift and founder effect relative to the autosomes, making NRY and mtDNA variation a potentially sensitive index of population composition (Semino 2000; Rosser 2000, Richards 1998). However, these biologically plausible assumptions are nevertheless not concrete. For example, Rosser suggests that climactic conditions may affect the fertility of certain lineages (Rosser 2000). Even more problematic, however, is the underlying mutation rate used by the geneticists. They often use different mutation rates, and can therefore arrive at vastly different conclusions (as we will see later) (Rosser 2001). Moroever, NRY and mtDNA may be so susceptible to drift that some ancient patterns may have become obscured over time. Another implicit assumption is that population genealogies are approximated by allele genealogies. Barbujani points out that this only holds if population groups develop from a genetically monomorphic set of founders. However, that the populations who colonized Europe throughout pre-history were polymorphic has been deemed likely by Barbujani (Genetics and the population history of Europe Guido Barbujani* and Giorgio BertorellePNAS January 2, 2001 vol. 98 no. 1 22-25. [12]). Moreover, scholars assume that, for example, modern Basques and Near Eastern peoples are proxy representatives for Mesolithic Europeans and Neolithic agriculturalists, respectively. This assumption has, however, been questioned by Levy-Coffman (Levy-Coffman 2005).

Although sharing similarities, there are some observed differences between mitochondrial and NRY DNA. The Y chromosome, which is much larger, is particularly useful because it has many slowly mutating biallelic markers (SNPs) to help resolve genealogical clades as well as rapidly mutating microsatellite markers (STRs) to aid in the dating of very recent events (Y Chromosome Evidence for Anglo-Saxon Mass Migration. Michael E. Weale. [13]. In addition, the NRY and mtDNA haplogroup (Hg henceforth) patterns appear to be different. As it is apparent below, Y haplgroups show a high degree of geographic structuring, whereas mtDNA haplgroups are more uniformly and ubiquitously distributed. This may be due to socio-cultural factors, namely the phenomena of polygyny and patrilocality (Rosser 2000).

Whereas Y-DNA and mtDNA Hgs represent but a small component of a person’s DNA pool, autosomal DNA has the advantage of containing hundreds and thousands of examinable genetic loci, thus giving a more complete picture of genetic composition (eg see Seldin). However, descent relationships can only to be determined on a statistical basis because autosomal DNA undergoes recombination and is liable to the process of natural selection.

Genetic studies operate on numerous assumptions and suffer from usual methodological limitations such as selection bias and confounding. Furthermore, no matter how accurate the methodology, conclusions derived from such studies are complied on the basis of how the authors envisages the data fits with established archaeological or linguistic theories. The relationship between language, archaeology and genetics is a precarious one.

===European population structure===

====Relation to other populations====

From Cavalli-Sforza’s original works, the genetic data found that all non-African populations are more closely related to each other than to Africans; this supports the hypothesis that all non-Africans descend from a single population originating in Africa. The genetic distance from Africa to Europe (16.6) is shorter than the genetic distance from Africa to East Asia (20.6), and much shorter than that from Africa to Australia (24.7). The simplest explanation for this short genetic distance is that substantial gene exchange has taken place between the nearby continents. Cavalli-Sforza suggests that this admixture took place 30,000 years ago.

A later study by Bauchet, which utilised ~ 10 thousand autosomal DNA SNPs arrived at similar results. Principal component analysis clearly identified four widely dispersed groupings corresponding to Europe, South Asia, Central Asia, and Africa. PC1 separated Africans from the other populations, PC2 divided Asians from Europeans and Africans, whilst PC3 split Central Asians apart from South Asians (Bauchet).

====Internal diversity====

Geneticists agree that Europe is the most homogeneous continent in the world (Cavalli-Sforza; Bauchet, Lao). However, some patterns are discernable. Cavalli-Sforza’s principal component analyses revealed five major clinal patterns through out Europe. He also constructed a phylogenetic tree based on genetic distances. He identified major ‘outliers’ such as Basques, Lapps, Finns and Icelanders; a result of genetic drift due to their relative isolation. Greeks and Yugoslavs represented a second group of less extreme outliers. He explained that yugoslavs did not cluster with any of the below groups due to high levels of internal diversity, whilst he did not elaborate upon Greece’s position. The remaining samples clustered into five major groups. The ‘Celts’ (Irish and Scots) grouped together, as did south-western Europeans (Italians, Spanish, Portuguese). Norweigians and Swedes formed a ‘Scandinavian’ cluster. A ‘Germanic group’ was itself composed of two sub-clusters – a northern Germanic (Dutch, Danish, English) and central Germanic (German, Belgian, Austrian) group. Eastern Europeans clustered together (Russians, Poles, Hungarians), with the Czechs laying intermediate between the eastern European cluster and the central Gemanic one. The French clustered with the ‘Germanic’ group, but he clarified that there was appreciable heterogeneity between southern and northern France.

Semino and Rosser independently performed PCA analyses based on NRY data from several European popluations. As noted above, Y haplogroups show high degrees of geographic structuring. Semino’s data showed three distinct clusters. Western Europeans, dominated by the presence of Hg R1b, clustered together (Basques, French, Spanish, northern Italians, German, Dutch); as did eastern Europeans, who are dominated by the presence of R1a and I2 (Polish, Hungarians, Macedonians, Croats, Czechs, Ukrainians). A middle eastern group was characterised by J lineages (Syrians, Lebanese, Turks). Greeks occupied an intermediate position between European and Middle Eastern populations (Rosser 2000). However, later studies looking at genetic diversity on a more micro –regional scale have revealed significant internal heterogeneity existing internally within some countries, cautioning us from assuming that frequencies quoted in pan-continental studies are representative of entire national communities or ethnic groups. This complexity prompts caution in equating similarity in the frequencies of one or more Y chromosomal haplogroups among populations and common descent (Di Giacomo 2003).

Data from mtDNA haplogroups is more homogeneous and lacks clear geographical patterning. Apart from the outlying Saami, all Europeans are characterized by the predominance of haplogroups H, U and T.

Studies using autosomal DNA have showed various patterns. Chikhi’s 1998 study, using only 7 loci, reproduced the southeastern – northwestern cline represented by Cavalli-Sforza’s first principlal component. A later study by Seldin (2006) used over five thousand autosomal SNPs and showed that the only significant population structuring followed a north – south distribution. Hungarians, Poles, Germans, Irish and Ukrainians clustered into the ‘northern group’, whilst Italians, Greeks, Portuguese and Spaniards clustered into the ‘southern group’ (Seldin 2006 * However, this study had a large number of participants who were in fact Americans claiming a particular European origin, as per grandparent’s place of birth). Another study by Bauchet (2006) found a major separation to lie within a northern-southeastern axis (in agreement with abovementioned studies), as well a second west to east axis. Basques and Finns were again found to lie relatively separate from other Europeans.

The latest autosomal DNA study, using the largest number of participants and genetic loci to date (300, 000 SNPs), found that, with the exception of usual isolates such as Basques, Finns and Sardinians, the European population lacked sharp discontinuities (clustering), although there was a discernable south to north gradient. Overall, they found only a low level of genetic differentiation between subpopulations, and differences which did exist were characterized by a strong continent-wide correlation between geographic and genetic distance. In addition, they found that diversity was greatest in southern Europe due a larger effective population size and/or population expansion from southern to northern Europe, as expected (Lao 2008)

Lao’s study corroborated Rosser’s earlier study which found that geography, more than language, is the major determinant of genetic diversity (Rosser 2000). For example, Hungarians speak an Uralic language, but cluster eastern Europeans rather than other Uralic speakers in Asia, corroborating Renfrew’s theory about the role of ‘’Elite Dominance” in language replacement.

I did some moving around, so the article flows more coherently. I had mentioned it before here: Talk:Genetic_history_of_Europe/Archive_4#Article_Reorganization Cavann (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Very recent article

It seems that the Genetic History of Europe is being clarified little by little. It is complicated, though, as could be expected:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24475342

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.97.65 (talk) 04:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes for some time it has been clear that autosomal studies and ancient DNA studies are going to require a major review of this article one day. A challenge, as in the past in covering this field on Wikipedia, is not to write something only based on one research paper.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:00, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://wysinger.homestead.com/portugal.pdf

  Triggered by \bwysinger\.homestead\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 18:17, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

More on Neanderthals

It is indeed an irony of time that Sub-Saharan Africans happen to be the purest Homo Sapiens. Europeans have also manly Homo Sapiens but also with Neanderthal ancestry! We are really Thee Mongrels! and indeed we are! I had always had that suspicion when I looked at the mirror. Well, some humor is always welcome, but these new discoveries are really incredible:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/humans-one-fifth-neanderthal-according-shock-3092118

By the way another interesting discovery:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2546421/Blue-eyed-caveman-7-000-year-old-DNA-reveals-European-African-traits.html

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.26.48.77 (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Strange data regarding Switzerland.

No doubt this is not the place to discuss the validity of data obtained from a reputable source but has anyone else noticed the following about the second chart in section 3.5.2 (autosomal genetic distance based on SNPs): Data from Switzerland suggest a closer Fst between the Swiss samples and Russian samples (1.20) than between the Swiss and their immediate neighbours in Northern Italy (1.36). Also, according to the chart, the Swiss are more 'Russian' than they are Czech (1.36) or Polish (1.46). They are almost as 'Russian' as they are 'Austrian' (1.19). This can not be correct. Either the Swiss are a peculiar isolate group (no chance), or there are errors (whether statistical or typographical) in the data.1812ahill (talk) 20:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Turks

wow a article about europe and no point about turks. 15:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.3.103.156 (talk)

This is an article about the genetic history of Europe. Perhaps a better title would have used pre-history in its title. Since Turks have only been inhabitants of Europe in the last 700 years, it is probably not within the scope of this article. Maybe you need to look at the Turks in Europe article.1812ahill (talk) 20:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

More links of Neanderthal and Europeans.

The contribution of Neanderthals in Europeans is very interesting. It is being suspected that things like clear skin or red and blond hair comes from genes in Neanderthals. Look at this interesting clip. The red hair gene part is in about minute 40: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uRCVyJ7-0c On the other hand, it seems that Southern Europeans have slightly more Neanderthal genes than Northern Europeans. Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.132.74 (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

More: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/01/140129-neanderthal-genes-genetics-migration-africa-eurasian-science/

Pipo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 14:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

European "ancient" people

This article is, in the usual wikiedia style, full of contradictions, old information, wrong information and for the most part plain nonsense. For example it states that European genetic code is quite uniform, and then it contradicts itself by mentioning Basks and Portuguese as distinctly "most ancient" European people. People of the I y-haplogroup are recognised as the ONLY autohtone European people, that meaning that they are the MOST ancient European group of people. So how on earth are Basks and Portuguese older then? Especially when all genetic studies point at their genetic haplogroup being overwhelmingly R1b, which is a younger mutation of Slavic R1a. Which in turn identifies Basks and Portuguese just as old as any of the other European nation with the predominant R1b y-haplogroup - not very "ancient" at all.

Some people are simply hell-bent on promoting their stupid ideas and religious/ethnic delusions. The genes do not lie, only people do. And many of them even sport some sort of "university" degree, sadly. And they seem to be getting away with manipulating the genetic science to their liking. With the changed nomenclature recently, their despicable job is made even easier, as it confuses the hell out of supposed experts, let alone an average Diego trying to make sense of his possible genetic ancestry.

There are many other plain demented statements that should really be deleted, but once everything that is wrong is removed, there would remain very little to justify this article at all. I suggest whoever is the admin to delete this abominable and pseudo-intellectual garbage completely. There are better articles (of little value, of course... this is only wikipedia - the pit for failed wannabe scientists to play and pose as the real ones.) even in wikipedia, so this one is completely unnecessary. Especially as it contradicts those wikipedia articles on the same subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.117.102.60 (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately that isn't enough reason for me to delete it. I disagree with your comment about 'usual Wikipedia style", but I'd say that it does apply to a lot of not most of our articles relating to ethnic groups or nationality and genetics. So, please go ahead and try to fix it. Or bring good sources here, by which I mean peer reviewed sources. Dougweller (talk) 14:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It needs updating , surely. But who cares about who is the oldest people in Europe - noone is the "oldest". All nations are more or less equally new in Europe - from the 18th century onwards. Genes tell a wholly different story which is unrelated to culture, religion or nation-making. And, there are no real autochthons - all lineages came to Europe from either the Near east or central Asia. Slovenski Volk (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Here you have an update. Just off the oven, a study in Spain: Another recent study in Spain: http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/2014/10/10/results-from-asturias-spain-add-to-the-genographic-project-human-family-tree

From there, the following is cut and pasted:

Among the 100 people who participated, most (>80%) of their maternal lineages belonged to one of the seven major European haplogroups (branches on the human family tree). Lineages from the Middle East and North Africa were also present, but in smaller numbers (between 5 and 10% each), and one participant had Native American maternal ancestry, not commonly found among the Spanish.

Maternal haplogroup H was the most common branch among participants, accounting for more than a third of lineages. Interestingly, the ancestral haplogroup HV, with ties to early agriculturalists from the Middle East or possibly Europe’s earliest settlers, was found in eleven Asturians present. Overall, the maternal results showed a high frequency of some of Europe’s oldest lineages, a pattern similar to their Basque neighbors, also from northern Spain.

Haplogroup R1b was the reoccurring lineage for paternal ancestry, accounting for nearly 75% of male participants in this group. R1b is the most common European Y-chromosome branch, and nearly 60% of European men carry this lineage. One interesting finding revealed, however, was that many of the men came from lesser known branches of the R1b, suggesting their exact origin remains a mystery. Among the paternal lineages only one had ties to Europe’s fist modern humans.

Before modern humans arrived in Iberia about 40,000 years ago, Neanderthals ruled Spain. And although most anthropologists agree that humans and Neanderthals mixed, a point of interest among the participants was the unusually low percentage of Neanderthal in their DNA. The people from Asturias on average carried only 1.5% Neanderthal DNA, compared to the 2.5% average observed among most other modern European groups.

National Geographic’s roots in Asturias go deeper than DNA. In 2006, it was awarded the Prince of Asturias Award for Communication in 2006 for its efforts to inspire people to care about the planet. To learn more about National Geographic’s Genographic Project and discover your own ancient ancestry, visit www.genographic.com

Pipo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.221 (talk) 22:53, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Video clip on the genetic history of Europeans, especially the British

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEL7nCM5itg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFQiuGvxMd0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.133.236 (talk) 15:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Another article pointing to the Iberian origins of most Europeans.

http://www.medicaldaily.com/bronze-age-forefathers-genetics-live-out-2-out-every-3-european-men-333996 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:F1B9:C304:51FF:F51 (talk) 16:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Cut and pasted from there: (Bronze Age skeletal remains found in Northern Spain.) Nearly two out of every three modern European men descend from just three Bronze Age forefathers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3498:5EC0:F1B9:C304:51FF:F51 (talk) 16:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

2013 information.

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-22252099

I am sure this will be again of ¨no¨interest. Pipo.

You have guessed correctly, and I can tell you exactly why: Because this is a journalistic article, which is pretty much useless for science articles. Whenever possible, we use academic sources, not journalistic sources, as these are often low quality, dumbed-down summaries for laypeople written by overworked journalists who are out of their depth, whose own understanding of the topic is frequently flawed and who frequently get things wrong. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 04:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Comment moved from article

The following comment was mistakenly added to the article:

[This article is complicated. Why not have a separate page just for the results (and no technical words and few method problems)?]

I have some doubt whether the suggestion is feasible; it's going to be difficult in any case. It sounds more like a project for Simple English Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree the article cannot waste space with pop-science pseudo-explanations. It should give the briefest possible adequate summary of current understanding. The article does have a huge problem though: it was created a decade ago, and during this decade, knowledge has accumulated at a galopping pace. So the article is now an interminal sequence of "howevers" added every time a new study came out. It would probably best to start over and use the existing page as a quarry to rework the article into a presentation of the current state of knowledge, referring to the intricacies of research history only where necessary.

It is especially ludicrous, at this point, to organise the main structure into "work done by Cavalli-Sforza" and "stuff that came later than Cavalli-Sforza". Cavalli-Sforza was the pioneer in this, and deserves due mention, but his this very fact means that his results are ancient history (1993!). They are simply no longer of any but historical interest to an article about the "genetic history of Europe" (as opposed to the "history of research into the genetic history of Europe"). --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Genetic history of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100207194521/https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html to https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060326221905/https://www9.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my050 to https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/atlas.html?card=my050

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Updating the article

I'm trying to update this article so discuss before reverting. A lot can be added to this as much had been discovered since the last time it has been updated. Oranjelo100 (talk) 11:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I will revert and report you if you keep fasifying the sources and make major changes in the sourced text. It is disruptive and has nothing to do with "update". 81.171.7.100 (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not falsifying anything so you make baseless accusations.

This is not in the cited source and those additions conflict with the cited sources. So it is not a baseless accusation. 81.171.7.100 (talk) 12:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jytdog:@Doug Weller:@Iryna Harpy: could you please review the user's changes and the sources he/she added? Thanks. 81.171.7.100 (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Honestly though these changes weren't complete yet. Seriously people it'll be very hard to update anything if that IP or someone else from this I suppose group is going to instantly revert everything before I finish anything. Oranjelo100 (talk) 12:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

In general when working on this kind of population genetics stuff it is best to use reviews or books, not primary sources. Generating good WP content for this kind of topic is hard and its important to clarify what is truly accepted in the field vs various proposals that try to make sense of the data; it is also important to avoid primary sources so that research that has not been widely accepted is not treated as though it is. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I second Jytdog's concerns. The issue of genetic studies has been discussed copiously across articles for years with the same conclusions being drawn: that reputable scientific journals be used as sources in the same manner as demanded of medical articles. There is no concern about Wikipedia falling behind the latest theories being bandied around various internet forums as that is not our function. Breaching WP:NOR should be the primary concern. This is not intended as an accusation against any editor, but it can be difficult to extract oneself from the reading of primary sources and the conclusions one has drawn oneself where there is no reliable source to back up such conclusions. Long story short: leave well enough alone unless there are reliable secondary sources drawing the conclusions. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

• Academic studies are not "primary sources" for Wikipedia's purposes. I can see the problem, but all our (extensive, very extensive) pages on population genetics are based on recent publications. They have to, because the field has advanced so quickly over the past few years. This has nothing to do with "theories being bandied around various internet forums", it should go without saying that only academic publications need be taken into account, but the task is still daunting, and can only be done by an expert. Yes expertise is necessary even when writing encyclopedia articles.
• This article needs to be WP:TNTed because it is no longer possible to just gradually update the state of knowledge of the 1990s. The work of Cavalli-Sforza is now only of historical interest. I commend Oranjelo100 for attempting to update it, and it is not conductive to the page's development if we allow anonymous editors to cry "vandalism" as soon as anybody starts working on the page. But I would encourage Oranjelo100 to first develop a replacement page as a Wikipedia:Workpage before throwing out the unsalvagable tangle the current revision has become. --dab (𒁳) 11:08, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Cavalli-Sforza

the information about the work of Cavalli-Sforza needs to include DATES

not just on "general principles" (although that too!), but because the science is changing so quickly; it is useless to spend all this space talking about the work, without saying WHEN it was done.

Lx 121 (talk) 07:31, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The work was done in the 1990s, and is woefully outdated. This is why the article is taged for cleanup. See above, I would recommend WP:TNT. --dab (𒁳) 11:11, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genetic history of Europe. 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/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 {{dead link}} tag to http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/msm049/DC1?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=cruciani&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT

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) 19:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Path to update

In my understanding, "current" literature on the topic should date from 2015 onwards. This is necessary because major advances were made in 2014/5, and literature published since then has adopted the principal components proposed by Lazaridis et al. (2014).

• Lazaridis, I. et al. "Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europeans." Nature 513, 409-413, doi:10.1038/nature13673 (2014).

It has now become possible to distinguish Paleolithic, Neolithic and post-Neolithic (steppe migrations) components quite reliably, and the entire article should reflect this structure. This is not very difficult to do, because any paper on the topic chosen at random will start by making a brief reference to recent developments and cite the relevant papers, e.g. [14], references 1-6: Lazaridis, I. et al. (2014), Haak, W. et al. (2015), Allentoft, M. E. et al. (2015), Mathieson, I. et al. (2015), Fu, Q. et al. (2016). Lazaridis, I. et al. (2016). There has been a paradigm shift, and a huge increase in both knowledge and confidence, over the past five years or so, and the state of the literature easily allows an encyclopedic treatment here, but it will be a lot of work. --dab (𒁳) 11:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I tried to at least write a coherent lead section based on the current state of research. I would propose we pretty much throw out all the pre-2010s data tables and pileup of unconnected studies from the article body and try to write a shorter but more coherent and up-to-date account. All the patrinlineal/matrilineal haplogroup stuff should probably go to dedicated sub-articles. mtDNA and Y-DNA analyses were important first insights in the 1990s and early 2000s, before large-scale autosomal analysis became possible, but they are little more than a red herring distracting from the overall picture now. --dab (𒁳) 09:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

A good job, thanks. As you say it needs much more work. In particular the confident interpretations of modern patrilines/matrilines are pretty much out of date. To me it would seem reasonable to remove pretty much all of this stuff. How would you feel about moving, approximately, all of it to a new article, possibly called "History of the population history of Europe"? Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Spain (Aryan Magi/Druids and Slavs/Sarmatians of Cantabria)"

What does "Aryan Magi/Druids" even mean? Which group is this? And when were there "Slavs/Sarmatians" in Cantabria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.173.157.142 (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

"Palestinian people"

Should be changed to "Arabs". The name "Palestine" was made by the Roman Empire, by the Italians basically, it got nothing to do with Arabs. Arabs came thousands of years later to the region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:A040:19B:31B4:8C26:9EA6:BA63:E7AF (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Most normal English terminology about peoples and regions has such interesting history. Wikipedia is not the place for such debates. We just use standard terminology.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

OCA2 In Western Hunter Gatherers?

"The HERC2 and OCA2 variations for blue eyes are derived from the WHG lineage were also found in the Yamnaya people.[43][contradictory]". WHG origin of blue eyes everyone can agree with. However WHGs are associated with the ancestral allele of skin pigmentation, and not SLC24A5, SLC45A2 or OCA2. In fact I'd never heard of OCA2 in WHGs. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 21:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion

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

• Europe20000ya.png (discussion)
• Haplogroups europe.png (discussion)
• Percentage of major Y-DNA haplogroups in Europe.png (discussion)

Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Literally everything in the article is completely outdated

Population genetics is a very recent science with a lot of the content of this article having now been completely debunked. It should be written from scratch with a cut-off date for source. Nothing earlier than 2010. Otherwise its just gibberish. Its ridiculous Cavalli Sforza is still being cited here. Its the equivalent of citing Charles Darwin. Php2000 (talk) 12:13, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, we should not fall into WP:Recentism. "Debunked" in most cases simply means that an old hypothesis has been replaced by a more recent hypothesis based on more refined methods, which in turn eventually will fall victim to a subsequent hypothesis. In this volatile field, the "facts" of today are the "errors" of tomorrow (yes, literally tomorrow). IMHO, more important than being most up to date is to retain due weight by not presenting an indiscriminate listing of primary research results (which often has the shortest half-life). –Austronesier (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Some random quotes from the text: "meta-population", "genetically distinct sub-populations", "Ethnogenesis of the modern ethnic groups of Europe in the historical period is associated with numerous admixture events", "Genetically, Europe is relatively homogeneous". All of these transport the idea of biologically distinct human populations, i.e. races. As far as I know, there has been a stable scientific consensus for at least 20 years that "human populations are not — and never have been — biologically discrete, truly isolated, or fixed." AAPA 2019 --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The pseudoscientific idea of "race" is almost irrelevant to the subject of this article, which is the study of gene frequencies in modern and ancient populations. "Race" and racism has no place in this article. But its content will, indeed must, include discussion of genetically distinct sub-populations, genetic admixture events, population movements, and so on. This is the business of genetic science - which gives no support to racist ideas.

The article is also overdue for a re-write. The information produced since about 2010 is so much more copious and more relevant - based on multiple nearly-complete genomes of large numbers of people over thousands of years - that the previous work is nearly irrelevant. It needs a brief historical account of the previous work, but that's it. Austronesier, you are right, we also don't need a poorly-digested list of recent details. We should aim for a good encyclopedic coverage. I suggest that we should start by removing most of the detail about haplogroups and mitochondrial DNA. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:20, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This article is not overdue for a re-write, but for deletion. Everything I have heard from experts in recent years is that race does not exist. This article and the author of the above comment seem to be playing semantic games and shifting the discussion from "race" to "sub-populations". These are different ways of talking around the same subject and the result is still the same: pseudoscientific racism masquerading as science. The human race does not have distinct "sub-populations". We are all one species and we all share this planet together. The idea that Europe consists of a "homogenous sub-population" is ridiculous to anyone who has lived in or visited any major European city. It is a diverse continent and home to many different people, all of whom have every right to be there. The ideas in the article seem like a slightly more palatable version of early 20th century "scientific racism" and theories of social darwinism, and ideas like this are susceptible to weaponization by alt-right and white nationalist propagandists. 2601:603:4C7F:9A40:88DF:5245:77C2:EA4 (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately, actual genetic science offers no support to racist ideas. The science belongs in this article, racism does not. Richard Keatinge (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

I fail to see how Richard Keatinge's comment can be read in the light of scientific racism. There are distinct sub-populations—in the Neolithic. What we observe now are clinal clusterings that eventually go back to much sharper defined clusters in the Neolithic. As long as Europe was sparely settled, there was enough opportunity for long pauses and founder effects. The fallacy goes both ways: even if white (or other) suprematists falsely misuse the results of (paleo-)genetics for their racist agenda, this misuse does not discredit the conclusions we can draw from genetic science about population movements in prehistory.

But I do agree, the way some of the material is presented here is simplistic, and caters to the concept of a taxonomic understanding of human genetics, which is indeed racialism in a new guise. I guess much of it will vanish if we follow Richard Keatinge's suggestion to remove poorly-digested details from primary sources. –Austronesier (talk) 10:38, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your personal opinions and perspective are largely irrelevant. If you fail to see how Richard Keatinge's comment is racist, then that likely reflects your own western cultural biases and white privilege. Moreover, you seem to be misunderstanding my point. The fact that a line of research or inquiry is conducted in a superficially "scientific" manner does not mean that this research is credible, valuable, or morally justifiable. One has to look at and carefully analyze the broader biographical, sociological, historical, and epistemic context. Even if the "scientists" studying these subjects are not presenting explicitly racist interpretations of their work, it is hard to understand what their motives might be. To most people it looks like racism and alt-right politics masquerading as "science". If the people conducting this research are genuinely acting in good faith, then they should be able to state their aims and goals, and explain why they are so interested in topics and concepts that so closely resemble the kind of "science" that was produced in Nazi Germany about the Jews or the kind of "science" that was produced in the US to rationalize slavery and discrimination. I did not major in anthropology, but I did take several anthropology courses as an undergrad at UMD and the one recurring theme was that races do not exist and that the differences between individuals across cultures are entirely the result of cultural and ideological differences that emerge thru the process of enculturation and socialization. Maybe the "scientists" at some second-rate community college in rural Alabama or Mississippi are teaching this kind of 19th century, racially motivated rubbish, but mainstream anthropologists and cultural theorists have long since recognized that these concepts are untenable and that the study of human culture and behavior has almost no connection to the study of human biology or evolution. 2601:603:4C7F:9A40:EC87:8FA6:802A:756C (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

While we welcome contributions by IPs, we also demand that comments be civil and focused on improving the article. Calling somebody or somebody's comment "racist" is "over the line". Discrediting modern science is very popular among racists, we should not follow their lead. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:41, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Rsk6400. I could add, linking "the study of human culture and behavior" (which are not covered at all in this article) to biology is also an integral part of racist ideology, which is the only way one could actually read "the study of human culture and behavior" into "Genetic history of Europe". What Rsk6400 has specifically criticized, is the approach of presenting genetic research here, which—at least in parts of the discussion—resorts to discrete and fixed categories, and to rigid classifications. –Austronesier (talk) 08:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Archaic Terminology

"Six of the European haplogroups (H, I, J, K, T and W) are essentially confined to European populations (Torroni et al. 1994, 1996a), and probably originated after the ancestral Caucasoids became genetically separated from the ancestors of the modern Africans and Asians.[92]"

Ancestral Caucasoids? No one in population genetics uses the terms Caucasoids or Caucasians, if only so it wouldn't be confused with Caucasus Hunter Gatherers. 83.84.100.133 (talk) 13:40, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I deleted the text you quoted, it's really outdated (2000). Additionally, quoting long sections is normally not considered good style. Still, there are other places where the term "Caucasian" occurs (at least once in the text and once in a quote inside a reference). --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2020 (UTC)