Talk:Somali people/Archive 3

Front Cover Images

I strongly recommend not to have the "front cover images" only as these people don't represent what the overwhelming population look like and the quality of these images don't reach wikpedia standards. I expect the "front cover images" only to be deleted as i have given suitbale reason. I hope you understand my point view. - Wikiplayer13 (talk)

Your POV is, with all due respect, absurd. Per custom, the info box images are of notable Somalis & are thus by definition representative. To suggest that the first Somali president, the most prominent Somali academic, the most prominent Somali environmentalist, model, etc. are not 'representative' is beyond a stretch. Middayexpress (talk) 22:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have restored my comment above, which, for some odd reason, you have attempted to delete. Deleting another user's comments is expressly forbidden per WP:TPO. Kindly refrain from such tactics in the future. Middayexpress (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Arabs?

It has been proven that somalis Have 40% Arab blood In them so shouldnt arabs be put up on related ethnic groups particulary egyptians share a common relation with somalis Anyways thats all I have too say here, Goodbye. --Amal-x (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I also agree and recommend this. - Wikiplayer13 (talk)

Genetics

I find it strange that this article tries to downplay the African ancestry of the Somali people. I do agree that the paternal ancestry of Somalis is distinctly North African (E1b1b) but to suggest that the Somalis are a “distinct racial bloc“ separate from central Sub-Saharan African people is grossly overstated. According to the study published by Dr. Martin Richards (Extensive Female-Mediated Gene Flow from Sub-Saharan Africa into Near Eastern Arab Populations , “The American Journal of Human Genetics” April, 2003 72(4): 1058–1064,), researchers found that the Haplogroups L1 to L3A make-up 70% of the mtdna of the Somali people. These are the same mtdna haplogroups that compose other Western and Southern African people. It is true that west Eurasian mtdna haplogroups T, J, U, and HV appear with greater frequently (30%) amongst the Somali but they are still generally African people. They are a rather unique ethic group, but hardly a racial group distant from other people on the continent. - Brout8 (talk) 09:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't seek to 'downplay' anything. In reality, the Richards et al. (2003) study you cite above takes its Somali data from this 1997 study from Watson et al. Watson and her colleagues, in turn, utilize the same Somali sample as the one they collected for their earlier 1996 study. The latter study for its part states that "blood samples were collected from unrelated individuals at hospitals and rural medical clinics in Kenya, Nigeria, and Niger." In other words, no samples of actual Somalis from Somalia were collected to represent Somali mtDNA. Instead, samples of self-described Somalis from a comparatively more peaceful and safer adjacent country (Kenya) were used. The problem with this is that it presents a woefully inaccurate picture of the Somali mtDNA profile since many of the so-called "Somalis" in northern Kenya aren't really ethnic Somalis at all, but Somali speakers. The Garre, for instance, although they often class themselves and are often classed as Somalis, are actually Somalized Oromos. According to the Somali linguist Mohamed Diriye Abdullahi, the so-called "dialect" of Somali they also speak is actually not really a dialect of Somali at all, but an altogether separate but related Cushitic language. To make matters worse, these blood samples from self-described "Somalis" in Kenya directly contradict every other mtDNA study of actual Somalis from Somalia. For example, a study from Holden et al. (2005), based on mutually shared considerable frequencies of the Asiatic M1 mtDNA haplogroup, groups Somalis with Libyans and not with the representative Sub-Saharan Africans (Central Africans):

"The general timeline for human occupation of Africa has been studied extensively. However, questions involving Upper Palaeolithic migrations still persist. One remaining question is the presence of the mitochondrial M1 haplogroup in North and East Africa. Some (Quintana-Murci et al. 2004, 1999) argue that the presence of M1 in modern Africans is a remnant of the original M haplogroup that left Africa 60 kya via the Horn of Africa. Others (Forster, 2004) propose that it is instead the result of a back-migration from the Arabian Peninsula from 20 kya. This research aims to test these two competing hypotheses.

We analysed mtDNA variation in ~250 persons from Libya, Somalia, and Congo/Zambia, as representatives of the three regions of interest. Our initial results indicate a sharp cline in M1 frequencies that generally does not extend into sub-Saharan Africa. While our North and especially East African samples contained frequencies of M1 over 20%, our sub-Saharan samples consisted almost entirely of the L1 or L2 haplogroups only. In addition, there existed a significant amount of homogeneity within the M1 haplogroup.

This sharp cline indicates a history of little admixture between these regions. This could imply a more recent ancestry for M1 in Africa, as older lineages are more diverse and widespread by nature, and may be an indication of a back-migration into Africa from the Middle East. Further research on this topic includes more extensive population samples from the Middle East, as well as possible correlations of M1 to the Afro-Asiatic language family."

Another mtDNA study from Comas et al. from 1999 goes one step further and declares outright that "Somali, as a representative East African population, seem to have experienced a detectable amount of Caucasoid maternal influence... the proportion m of Caucasoid lineages in the Somali is m = 0.46". That's 46%; not inconsiderable. The authors also allude to the anomalous results obtained in the Watson study from the blood samples from Kenya with the following:

"Our results agree with the hypothesis of a maternal influence of Caucasoid lineages in East Africa, although its contribution seems to be higher than previously reported in mtDNA studies."

Hardly a surprise considering the forgoing. Middayexpress (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Since there is evidence of the mtdna haplogroup M1 as the primary makeup of Somali’s ancestry, please write a paragraph for the article explaining. There's not a damn thing in the article about M1. I like the idea of Somali’s being part of the mtdna Haplogroup M. It makes good sense because that is the same group that contain the Australians, southern Indians, Bangladesh people, and Melanesian peoples. Somalis bare a striking resemblance to many of these people. However, it raises question of the Somalis’ evolution and historical origins. Did they come to Africa from Arabia? When and why did they move back to Africa? Who lived on the ‘Horn of Africa’ before they did, and what did become these people go? Were they displaced or assimilated?

P.S. Caucasoid is an old pseudoscientific term hardly ever used by anthropologists nowadays. I cringle ever time I hear or read that in old literature. It’s hardly useful to describe anyone.--Brout8 (talk) 21:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I have to disagree that Melanesians and Australians look anything like Somalis. For that to be possible, they would first have to have a similar skeletal structure, among other morphological traits, which they of course do not. Many Indians, on the other hand, do. M1 is also thought to have originated somewhere near India since it's very common there, and that region's haplogroup M sub-clades are apparently very old and diverse. I'm not certain what all this implies for the suggested origins of Somalis in the Horn of Africa, though. Middayexpress (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The haplogroup M1 shares the genetic markers at regions 489, 10400, 14783, and 15043 with Australians and Melanesians who are in the respective Haplogroups M42 and M27-29. This is a close relationship. These people even less African than the Somalis. Africans have none of these markers. Nor are they related to any of the people in Europe.--Brout8 (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Collage redux, October 2009

User:Wikiplayer13 left a message on my talk page, requesting that I add Mohammed Farah and Abdi Bile to the infobox image. I explained that the current image is the result of long discussions (see previous sections) to arrive at a consensus, and that this article talk page would be a better place than my user talk page for such a request. (Furthermore, I did not create the image in question.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

i think it better not to have these images as these people don't represent what the overwhelming population look like and the qulaity of these images don't reach wikepdia standards and unnessary for this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiplayer13 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Map image, redux

The 2002 CIA map in the "Clan and family structure" section had been replaced at some point with File:Somalia ethnic grps 2006.jpg.jpg. The latter is derived from the 2002 CIA map, but does not cite sources for its modifications. I have reverted to the 2002 CIA map (and listed the derivative map at WP:FFD). See previous comments at Talk:Somali people/Archive 1#Map image. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

'Racial Bloc' must go

I will rework the following sentence...

"Overall, the genetic studies conclude that Somalis and their fellow Ethiopian and Eritrean Northeast African groups represent a unique and distinct racial bloc on the continent."

By using the unscientific phrase 'racial bloc', this sentence seems to be a sly attempt at reintroducing the old 'mediterranean european' championed by Carleton S. Coon's 1939 book "The Races of Europe" [1], [2] in which the very first sentence of the chapter "The Mediterranean Race in East Africa' contains the utterly fatuous claim that Somalis are 'white racial stock'.

According to Prof. John P Jackon Jr, the American Coon, "actively aided the segregationist cause in violation of his own standards for scientific objectivity [3]". In plain English, Coon was a racist. As proof of this, his work is also lovingly quoted on this neo-nazi website [http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=554149&page=23], where the 'racial' arguments about Somalis are regurgitated ad nauseum.

I cannot accept the term 'racial bloc' as it has no scientific meaning, furthermore the term is directly contradicted by the supposed references. The first, Risch [4] uses the word race (in my view entirely erroneously), but specifically rules out the suggestion that Somalis constitute a race, describing them as an 'intermediate group' in his (frankly silly) scheme of 'continental' 'races'. To quote in full, "The existence of such intermediate groups should not, however, overshadow the fact that the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level.' Clearly, in this sentence, an 'intermediate group' is posed as something entirely different from what Risch describes as a 'race'. If fellow editors want to quote Risch as a reference, then they must rigorously stick to his definition of Somalis as an 'intermediate group' rather than invent pseudo-scientific terms like 'racial bloc'. However, in doing so, they must be honest enough to admit 'intermediate' between what - Risch claims Somalis are 'intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians'. I should say that I would advise against using Risch entirely as his arguments are self-defeating and fatuous.

The second reference, Tishkoff,[5], does not mention the words 'race' or 'racial'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 19:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The "unique and distinct racial bloc" comes from and is sourced to the footnoted Risch paper [6], which is about race. He explains that most populations cluster into geographic races, but that there are intermediate groups at the boundaries that don't, and he cites Somalis and Ethiopians as two such groups:

"For the purpose of this article, we define racial groups on the basis of the primary continent of origin, as discussed above (with some modifications described below)... Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply. For example, east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians"

The term "race" can be changed, since the author does say that Somalis and Ethiopians do not fit into any of the continental races. However, the biological uniqueness he alludes to has also been identified by Tishkoff ("the most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations"). Middayexpress (talk) 01:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting talk and counter-talk. I seem to remember that there is a greater genetic diversity among Africans than among many other groups of people, but if Somali pseudo-scientists think Somalis are European - or Chinese - well, let them be. In any event, in a few years, there might be more Somalis in Europe and North America than anywhere else - perhaps they are just going home :)

131.203.122.225 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

No Somali scientists, pseudo or otherwise, were referenced nor do any of the papers indicate that Somalis are European or Chinese. They indicate that Somalis and Ethiopians are biologically intermediate between Sub-Saharan African and non-African populations. Middayexpress (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Make your mind up. On the one hand, Somalis in Kenya "are not Somalis, but somali speakers". To support this, you cite a reference that states that people who are the result of Oromo-Somali marriages are common in northern Kenya and parts of Ethiopia. In the statement above, you also claim that "Somalis and Ethiopians are biologically intermediate between..." - so which i which? Oromos are in both Kenya and Ethiopia, right? If Ethiopians are 'intermediate' - itself pseudo-science, for there isn't a "racial scale", a "racial continuum" along which you can place people from one end of the scale to another - but if we were to humour you, then it follows that the results of mixing between two 'intermediate' populations would themselves be intermediate.

In any event, 'Ethiopians' is a national label that groups people as diverse as Anywak and Tigray, and is meaningless as an ethnic identifier. And who is a "real Somali", in your opinion? Somalia itself has (ok, had, before they all went Kalashnikov on each other and moved to Kenya) many populations of non-Somali people that lived there, including Somali Bantu...where do you draw the line, then? Who do you sample and who do you not sample?

Finally, the Holden paper you mention in support of your argument actually groups Libyans and East Africans differently - it has samples from three groupings: North Africa, East Africa, and Congo/Zambia. It goes on to state that "while our North and especially East African samples contained frequencies of M1 over 20%," - note that the East African samples are given emphasis, differentiating them from the North African samples. The thread you are hanging onto here is that both the North African and the East African samples have >20% M1 frequency - which is fine, except that one would probably find an even higher frequency of M1 among African Americans, for example. That wouldnt make them a different race from Africans, would it? And, by the way, how does one know which Somalis Holden sampled? Did they include Somali Bantu, perhaps the odd Ethiopian and Borana even? :) 131.203.122.225 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I have not claimed that all Somalis in Kenya are not ethnically Somali nor was I referring to those that recently immigrated to the country as a consequence of the civil war. Northern Kenya is a traditional stronghold of Somali-speaking people. Some of these folks are indeed ethnically Somali; many others are only culturally Somalized and/or mixed, as that general area is one of several on the fringes of the Somali world [7]. Communities that geographically abut other populations tend to be more mixed than those from the same ethnic group that don't border other populations because people often intermarry with their neighbors; this is human nature [8]. Samples from the region are therefore hardly representative of the Somali ethnic group as a whole, which is why they are not consistent with samples of Somalis from other studies that were actually taken from the country itself, such as the Holden paper. The Holden study also clearly does group the representative North African sample (Libyans) with Somalis based on shared significant frequencies of M1 and the fact that the representative Sub-Saharan sample from Congo/Zambia is, by contrast, made up almost entirely of different haplogroups; it doesn't differentiate them. The study also associates the haplogroup itself with the Afro-Asiatic language family: "Our initial results indicate a sharp cline in M1 frequencies that generally does not extend into sub-Saharan Africa. While our North and especially East African samples contained frequencies of M1 over 20%, our sub-Saharan samples consisted almost entirely of the L1 or L2 haplogroups only. In addition, there existed a significant amount of homogeneity within the M1 haplogroup. This sharp cline indicates a history of little admixture between these regions. This could imply a more recent ancestry for M1 in Africa, as older lineages are more diverse and widespread by nature, and may be an indication of a back-migration into Africa from the Middle East. Further research on this topic includes more extensive population samples from the Middle East, as well as possible correlations of M1 to the Afro-Asiatic language family."

I don't personally claim that Somalis and Ethiopians are biologically intermediate between Sub-Saharan African and non-African populations; the studies themselves (Risch and Tishkoff, for example) quite plainly indicate this, whether or not their respective authors choose to express this observed biological uniqueness via racial terminology. I also highly doubt that M1 could be or has been found at high frequencies in African Americans since it is not characteristic of the West African populations from which the latter peoples primarily descend. But even if it had been, that in itself of course wouldn't make them a different race from Africans since, for one thing, I don't believe there is such a thing as an "African race" nor has this been suggested in this article. The term Somali, moreover, refers to an actual ethnic group, one that this Wikipedia article is about. This ethnic group is the most populous in the territory that is now known as Somalia, an area that was actually named after it. So while you are indeed correct that the term Ethiopians is a national label, only one particular group of Ethiopians, like Somalis, are biologically intermediate between Sub-Saharan African populations and non-African populations i.e. those that are descended from the Out of Africa population, as Tishkoff explains. Bantus, acculturated or otherwise, are relatively recent arrivals to East Africa and have generally different Y DNA and mtDNA, so that obviously does not include them. Middayexpress (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, citation number 40 (which claims Somalis are a 'distinct biological group') in the article is a copy from, and points to the page at, [9] (see citation number 5). This in turn claims to pick up the conclusion from the paper at [10]. Going through this paper, however, the term "Somali" is not even mentioned, much less "Somalia". In contrast, "Ethiopia" and "Ethiopians" are the actual people mentioned in the study (the paper indicates that it is Ethiopians speaking Afro-Asiatic languages natively, which makes it clear which ethnicities are being considered). It appears therefore that either the writer / researcher at [11] does not know the difference between Somalis and Ethiopians, or that this reference in that article is spurious. Either way, the reference is incorrect and misleading, as it is used to provide backing to otherwise unsupported assertions in main article. I have also marked a couple of claims in the main article as requiring citations. In any event, unless proper citations and supporting documents can be found to back up the claims that reference citation number 40, I plan to edit it out of the article altogether, perhaps in another day or so. 131.203.122.225 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stick to using one posting name. The claim in that particular passage that Somalis represent a distinct biological group on the continent is sourced to this paper [12] (i.e. citation number 40), not to that other study you link to. That other paper references Ethiopians only. This is why, for example, this other book [13] indicates that the author of that first study believes that "Ethiopians and Somalis, for instance, are an admixture of Caucasians and Africans." This is also why the author of that study has himself indicated in a separate interview [14] that "Somalis and Ethiopians, on the boundary between Caucasians and Africans, are an admixture of the two" i.e. he has chosen to interpret the observed biological intermediacy of Somalis and Ethiopians as a consequence of admixture whereas Tishkoff views it in terms of ancestral genetic divergence. Either way, the observations of biological distinctness are the same and this is what is cited. Middayexpress (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation 40 is a word-for-word copy of citation 5 on [15], which I have shown to be erroneous, as the claim is not supported in the referenced paper. A claim that is based upon an incorrect or unsupported claim is itself erroneous or unsupported, as the case may be. As there does not seem to be any other source for this claim at the present, I am going to edit it out. RantingMrP 04:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.122.225 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

• 131.203.122.225 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

There - I have edited the offending section to reflect this. RantingMrP 04:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.203.122.225 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC) • 131.203.122.225 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

The sentence you added ("These genetic studies have been interpreted to support the claim that Somalis as well as some Ethiopian and Eritrean populations represent a unique and distinct biological group on the continent") is not what any of the two cited sources indicate. You suggest above that the assertion that "east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians", which was taken from this study [16] (i.e. citation 40), was itself ultimately drawn from another paper [17]. However, at least with regard to Somalis, this is clearly not the case since that other paper does not even mention Somalis; it only mentions Ethiopians. If it had mentioned Somalis, then of course you probably would've been right. As I've already pointed out, the author of that first paper has indicated this thing in a separate interview and has been reported by another author as having indicated this as well. His assertions on Somalis are therefore coming directly from him, certainly not that other paper which doesn't even mention Somalis; those are his own views, not second-hand ones. Whatever the case, the other study I included supports the material as well (i.e. that Somalis and Ethiopian Northeast African populations represent a distinct biological group on the continent) since it clearly indicates that "The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations". I have therefore restored the sentence. Middayexpress (talk) 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional source (46) - since citation 45 refers only to Ethiopians, it is insufficient of and by itself to support this conclusion. I will go check out citation 46. Meanwhile, I think it is vague to state that "Overall, the genetic studies..." - which begs the question, WHICH genetic studies, all of them? I think it makes sense to change this to "THESE" genetic studies, since they are the ones quoted. I have accordingly made the change. 131.203.122.225 (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC) 05:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Citation 45 [18] does not only refer to Ethiopians, but directly and explicitly to Somalis and other Horn populations as well: "east African groups, such as Ethiopians and Somalis, have great genetic resemblance to Caucasians and are clearly intermediate between sub-Saharan Africans and Caucasians". It has also been unambiguously referenced as indicated this in other books. At any rate, the edit looks fine. Middayexpress (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Related groups

I was asked for a third opinion on the matter of whether we should indicate a relation between the Rendille and the Somali. Given the shared linguistic heritage, it seems perfectly reasonable to say the Rendille and Somali groups are related. Why not just specify that in contemporary times the linguistic ties may be closer than genetic ties? You might have a look at the discussion at Template talk:Infobox Ethnic group#Related Ethnic groups?. One caveats: someone actually suggested getting rid of the parameter, since it seems to be a source of annoyance. But the points someone made there seem like a simple, easy (if arbitrary) threshold for inclusion, and as my physician says, why make things harder for ourselves? My $0.02, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Gyrofrog, I agree with this statement: the "related" parameter is a perpetual source of annoyance. Who is to say who is ultimately related? It sounds like something very vague to me. I already showed that the Rendille people share genetic affinities to other Ethiopian Cushites (Oromo, Beta Israel etc) [19], besides this their language is closely related to the Somali language (this alone should be enough to qualify them as 'related'). There is a double standard concerning the Rendille which I don't like.

Mazi99 (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The 'related' parameter pertains to modern ethnic relations, not to linguistic relations. That's why its called 'Related ethnic groups' and not 'Ethnic groups that speak related languages'. While the modern Rendille still speak a Cushitic language, they actually have considerable mixed ancestry due to considerable, longstanding and ongoing intermarriages with Samburu Nilotes ([20], [21]). And genetic studies show this too. At any rate, if the Rendille are added, rest assured, it will be made clear on their page about their symbiotic relationship with neighboring Nilotic groups. Middayexpress (talk) 01:10, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

You are contradicting yourself here. The shared ancestry between groups like Beja and Somalis is very ancient, none of these groups share recent ancestry with Somalis (with the exception of certain Oromos). If it weren't for the Cushitic language family most wouldn't even be up there. It's definitely language what is the most important factor here. I am done talking about the Rendille genetics. The Tishkoff study did not find any significant non-Northeast African admixture in them - fact [22], you can misconstrue her words all you want but that doesn't change this simple fact. Ethnic kinship is not determined by admixture but through language and culture.

I'm going to add the Rendille as a related ethnic group, I hope you respect my and Gyrofrog's opinion. You may alter their page to show their relationship with Nilo Saharans. I don't mind as this doesn't change the fact they are related to Somalis.

Mazi99 (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

No contradictions there, I'm afraid. The Rendille of northern Kenya are indeed mixed. And the Tishkoff study you allude to shows (and states) this too, as they cluster with similarly mixed Nilotic-Cushitic groups, not with Horn populations, including Somalis [23]. Language also doesn't necessarily mean much, as populations mix with others and adopt new tongues all the time. Many modern Oromos, for example, are actually assimilated Omotic peoples (as Ethiopianist scholars among other have pointed out [24]). The Rendille have considerable mixed Nilotic/Bantu ancestry, as their mtDNA and many documented cases of intermarriages with Samburu Nilotes, in particular, clearly show. Repeating that they aren't won't change these basic facts. But be my guest and add that link. I'm confident that things will work out for the best in the long-run anyway. Middayexpress (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I am a non-muslim Somali

This article indicates all somalis are muslim. I am a non-muslim somali, so where do i fit in? I am an apostate agnostic, but i know a few other irreligious somalis, so i am not an isolated case. So have we left the fold of being Somalis? Are we outcasts from the community or what? I also know that a lot of Somalis are simply cultural muslims aren't they? Also, amany non-muslims (like myself) are afraid to be open about our apostasy or non-belief because of fear of stigmatization or persecution.

There has never been a census on religion in somalia, so its pure guesswork on this article. Maybe we could change it to predominately muslim or something else, or even leave that blank. I dont like it how wikipedia seems to label your spiritual beliefs for you; I've noticed the same problem on other ethnic articles. 84.13.30.166 (talk) 01:15, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The article does not indicate that all Somalis are Muslim. It indicates that "with very few exceptions, Somalis are entirely Muslims". This means that, while exceptions do exist, they are very rare. It is also not true that no census was ever conducted on the religious affiliations of Somalia's inhabitants, Somali or otherwise. The 1975 official census did just that and reported few non-Muslims, just about all of whom belonged to other ethnic groups. However, this article is devoted to the Somali ethnic group only, not all of Somalia's inhabitants. And the Somalis, with very few exceptions, are indeed entirely Muslims and have been for a very long time (c.f. [25]). Middayexpress (talk) 21:19, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Winters et al. (2010)

User:Wadaad has just added a rather dubious reference from an Afrocentrist, Dr. Clyde Winters, who also runs an Afrocentric-themed website ([26]). The material purports to show that a certain mtDNA haplogroup M1 that is common in Somalis and whose parent clade is exclusively found in Asia (and who most scholars agree was therefore introduced into Africa) actually originated in Africa. However, per WP:REDFLAG and WP:QS, such partisan and promotional sources are not allowed or reliable, so I've removed it. Middayexpress (talk) 17:49, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

It looks like you haven't read the study ([27]). This is not about the author, but his findings. The distribution of the M1 haplogroup across Sub Saharan Africa (Fig. 4) and the greatest diversity theory support an African origin of M1. M1 isn't found in Asia besides the adjacent African influenced Middle East. The parent clade of M1 which is L3 is commonly found in East Africa. Maxwell Scientific Organization's Research Journal of Biological Sciences is a reliable source, if his findings were false they wouldn't be published. Instead of using ad hominems why don't you show me what's so wrong about this study?

Wadaad (talk) 05:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

The non-Asian origin of haplogroup M1 is hardly anything new, it has been suggested for over a decade now.

"A particular case in question is the origin of haplogroup

M1, which is mainly found in Northeast Africa and the Near East (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999). Due to the fact that M1 bears variant nucleotides, for example, at site 16311 in common with haplogroup M4, at 16129 with M5, and at 16249 with haplogroup M34, it has been proposed that M1 might have some affinity with Indian M haplogroups (Roychoudhury et al. 2001). This inference, however, could not receive support from our complete sequencing information. Indeed, the reconstructed ancestral motifs of all Indian M haplogroups turned out to be devoid of those variations that characterized M1, that is, 6446, 6680, 12403, and 14110 (Maca-Meyer et al. 2001; Herrnstadt

et al. 2002). Therefore, those common mutations in the control region rather reflect random parallel mutations. There is no evidence whatsoever that M1 originated in India. "

[28]

and..

"The mitochondrial haplogroup M, first regarded as an ancient marker of East-Asian origin4, 5, has been found at high frequency in India6 and Ethiopia7, raising the question of its origin. (A haplogroup is a group of haplotypes that share some sequence variations.) Its variation and geographical distribution suggest that Asian haplogroup M separated from eastern-African haplogroup M more than 50,000 years ago. Two other variants (489C and 10873C) also support a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa. These findings, together with the virtual absence of haplogroup M in the Levant and its high frequency in the South-Arabian peninsula, render M the first genetic indicator for the hypothesized exit route from Africa through eastern Africa/western India. This was possibly the only successful early dispersal event of modern humans out of Africa."

[29]

Wadaad (talk) 05:53, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It makes no difference who published the Afrocentrist Clyde Winters' paper, just as it makes no difference who published his previous works on "Teaching Ancient Afrocentric History" ([30]) or "The Black African Foundation of China" ([31]). The author is still very much an Afrocentrist and still advocates/promotes that idealogy, as the name of his own website makes plain: "Afrocentric World - clyde.winters.tripod.com" [32] (my personal favorite is his chapter on "The Black Greeks" [33]). This unfortunately makes his work in no way suitable for Wikipedia's purposes, where only neutral sources are considered reliable.

• Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional, or which rely heavily on rumor and personal opinion. Questionable sources should be used only as sources of material on themselves, especially in articles about themselves; see below. They are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties.

The studies that you have quoted passages from above are also outdated; one is actually from the 1990s. I wrote that most modern scholars agree that the haplogroup M1 (which is common in Somalis and other Northeast Africans) was likely introduced from Asia, as that is where its parent haplogroup M is exclusively found. The following study [34], that you again removed [35] in favor of that Afrocentrist's paper, explains the evolution of the debate and its conclusion:

Mitochondrial M lineages in Ethiopia were first detected by RFLP analyses [51]. To explain its presence in that area the authors suggested two possibilities: 1) the marker was acquired by Ethiopians through interchanges with Asians or 2) it was present in the ancient Ethiopian population and was carried to Asia by groups who migrated out of Africa. Later, the second hypothesis was favored and a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa was suggested, dating the split between Asian and African M branches older than 50,000 ya [22]. Although not completely discarding this last scenario other authors considered that the disjunctive was unsettled. The vast diversity of haplogroup M in Asia compared to Africa pointed to the possibility that M1 is a branch that traces a backflow from Asia to Africa [7,23]. Due to the scarcity of M lineages in the Near East and its richness in India, this region was proposed as the most probable origin of the M1 ancestor [7,52]. However, recent studies based on Indian mtDNA sequences [24,25] have not found any positive evidence that M1 originated in India. Nevertheless, the inclusion of M1 complete mtDNA lineages in the construction of the macrohaplogroup M phylogeny clearly established that the antiquity of Indian lineages, as M2, as compared to Ethiopian M1 lineages support an Asian origin of macrohaplogroup M [24]. Furthermore, the comparison within Africa of eastern and western M1 sequences left the origin of M1 in Africa uncertain [21]. On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent. Even more, as the coalescence ages of the northwestern M1c clade is older than the eastern M1a clade, we think that the most ancient dispersals of M1 occurred in northwestern Africa, reaching also the Iberian Peninsula, instead of Ethiopia.

Also, altering the talk page post(s) of other editors -- something you have twice now done with mine ([36], [37]) -- does not actually serve to conceal anything since all posts are ultimately preserved in the page's history. It is also a fairly obvious breach of WP:TALKO, which stipulates that users should not modify the comments of other editors (as opposed to one's own comments).

I have therefore again removed that paper from the Afrocentrist, Clyde Winters. Please do not attempt to restore it or to add any other similar ideological "works" to this or to any other Wikipedia article. Middayexpress (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Winters whether you like it or not is an actual scientist. Why would a paper full of 'lies' according to your perception of the world be published in a scientific journal Maxwell Scientific Organization's Research Journal of Biological Sciences, (ever heard of peer-review)? Please point out where exactly Winters made any mistakes, you are using ad hominems against him but not presenting any hard facts. This paper is as legit as any other.

Wadaad (talk) 22:38, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what determines whether or not a source is reliable is not just who published it, but also who actually wrote the material.

Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in reliable, published sources are covered (see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view). The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work (The New York Times, Cambridge University Press). All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.

As already shown, Clyde Winters is an Afrocentrist. He is also not an "actual scientist". I looked him up, and he's a professor of linguistics. He apparently has no training at all in genetics. So that's both Afrocentrism and a lack of experience in the relevant field that are working against him (which explains his odd conclusions).

Also, haplogroup M1 is found at high frequencies in Somalia and Ethiopia, not low frequencies [38]. Middayexpress (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

mtDNA

In Ethiopians it represents a minority lineage (17%) [39], while L3 and all the haplogroups nested in it form the majority in Ethiopians. There's is an ambiguous usage of the word 'high frequency', this is from Kisvlid et al. 2004:

"Haplogroup M1 lineages constitute 17% of the Ethiopian mtDNA sequences, consistent with their high frequency in the region (Passarino et al. 1998; Quintana-Murci et al. 1999; Richards et al. 2003)."

The frequency of M1 in Somalis is not even clear, as the link to the Holden study is just an abstract lacking actual data. Although it tells us it has a significant minority in Somalis. Your latest source does not cite frequencies either. 'High frequencies' is all relative. It still is a minority lineage and as such should be reported of being one. Since the Winters paper is causing too much controversy I won't use it anymore.

Wadaad (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your own paper describes the frequency of M1 in Ethiopians (not Somalis) as high, something I have not even done. I've just described it in Somalis conservatively as "a significant proportion".

The Holden paper, moreover, does not tell us that haplogroup M1 is found in a significant minority of Somalis. This is how you personally have chosen to characterize the proportion he indicates. What he actually says is that the frequencies of the haplogroup amongst Libyans and Somalis is both over 20%, but especially in the case of Somalis.

"We analysed mtDNA variation in ~250 persons from Libya, Somalia, and Congo/Zambia, as representatives of the three regions of interest. Our initial results indicate a sharp cline in M1 frequencies that generally does not extend into sub-Saharan Africa. While our North and especially East African samples contained frequencies of M1 over 20%, our sub-Saharan samples consisted almost entirely of the L1 or L2 haplogroups only. In addition, there existed a significant amount of homogeneity within the M1 haplogroup. This sharp cline indicates a history of little admixture between these regions. This could imply a more recent ancestry for M1 in Africa, as older lineages are more diverse and widespread by nature, and may be an indication of a back-migration into Africa from the Middle East."

Similarly, Richards et al. 2006 also indicate that "haplogroup M was present at a high frequency in Ethiopia and Somalia" [40], [41]. You therefore have no legitimate reason at all to change the assertion that "a significant proportion of the maternal lineages of Somalis consists of the M1 haplogroup".

It's also unfortunately not "controversy" that's the problem with the Winters source. It's the fact that the author is an Afrocentrist, and an unqualified one at that (something which should worry every conscientious editor). Middayexpress (talk) 05:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Richards et al. (2006) study you cite on the 'high' (again relative) M1 frequencies got its Somali samples from Watson et al. (1997). who sampled Somalis from Kenya. Watson did not differentiate between L3 and its daughter lineages like M, one is able to deduce the M samples based on the mutations, but that would be original research. However Richards/Watson did find plenty L3 samples and it deserves to be mentioned on the maternal section.

Wadaad (talk) 06:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

The Watson et al. (1997) is an old one and did not resolve many haplogroups Somalis had, so I'm afraid it is not accurate at all and greatly inflates the L3 clades amongst Somalis. Richards et al. (2006) highlight this [42].

"There was a complication. The analysis of Watson et al. (1997) was based largely on control-region sequence data, which fails to resolve many mtDNA haplogroups. By targeting newly identified coding-region variants, Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) distinguished two major clades in non-Africans, within haplogroup L3. One of these had already been identified as the Asian super-haplogroup M (Torroni et al. 1994a); Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) showed that all other non-African L3 lineages fell into a second major clade, later named haplogroup N. Haplogroup M and N appear to be almost identical in age, estimated from complete coding-region sequences to be about 63 000-69 000 ([give or take]5000) years old (Macaulay et al. 2005; see also Forster et al. 2001; Kong et al. 2003; Forster 2004). Moreover, haplogroup M was present at high frequency in Ethiopia and Somalia, in addition to its known distribution from the Near East to East Asia and Asutralia—and amongst Native Americans (Torroni et al. 1993, 1994b).

As can be seen above, it's also not true that the Richards paper references Watson et al. 1997 specifically for its assertion that "haplogroup M was present at high frequency in Ethiopia and Somalia". Middayexpress (talk) 07:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, the Watson study looked only at a specific region of the mitochondria. But it did not inflate the L3 frequency (don't forget that M is part of L3 [43]). It did a poor job at differentiating between L3 lineages (including M), but those L3 mutations haven't changed and are still currently in use. The study is still usable, there's currently a study from the same era Comas et al. from (1999) used in the mtDNA section. The article as it currently stands does not give a complete picture of Somali maternal DNA and is too heavily based on M1 alone, leaving out many other lineages in Somalis.

Wadaad (talk) 07:40, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Again, the Watson et al. 1997 study is misleading. Richards et al. themselves point this out. Watson et al. 1997 mislabels many haplogroups as L3, and this is very significant because L3 in that study represented like 70% of the Somali maternal lineages. That's practically the entire sample set that's distorted. Richards et al. also explain in that link that all non-Africans are descended from L3 clades, so that only makes it that much more significant. We'll just have to be patient until a proper study on the mtDNA of Somalis is published. Middayexpress (talk) 07:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

I've added a small piece about L3, I think it deserves to be mentioned despite the small inaccuracy (I pointed it out). I hope you respect it. I agree we should wait for a more comprehensive study on Somali mtDNA, or you could try to get the Holden et al. (2005) study in full.

Wadaad (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Your latest edit is very helpful. Watson et al.'s so-called L3 haplogroups are unresolved, as Richards et al. (2006) point out:

"There was a complication. The analysis of Watson et al. (1997) was based largely on control-region sequence data, which fails to resolve many mtDNA haplogroups. By targeting newly identified coding-region variants, Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) distinguished two major clades in non-Africans, within haplogroup L3. One of these had already been identified as the Asian super-haplogroup M (Torroni et al. 1994a); Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) showed that all other non-African L3 lineages fell into a second major clade, later named haplogroup N.

This means that they're almost certainly lineages that are located further down the mtDNA haplogroup tree, such as the Eurasian haplogroup M and haplogroup N sub-clades, not the more upstream haplogroup L3. Again, unless your goal is specifically to try and inflate the appearance of L3 lineages among Somalis (which aren't actually L3 lineages, but lineages belonging to haplogroups located further down the mtDNA haplogroup tree), then you'll just have to be patient until a proper study on the mtDNA of Somalis is published. Alternatively, you can try and find a study that challenges Richards et al.'s claim directly; your own assertions that they are not a problem are not good enough or a reliable source.

Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources. However, some scholarly material may be outdated, in competition with alternate theories, or controversial within the relevant field. Try to cite present scholarly consensus when available, recognizing that this is often absent.

Middayexpress (talk) 08:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

M-DNA part 2

The M-DNA section is incomplete.

In the study that concluded that Somalis had between 20-46 percent M1 DNA what was the rest?

The whole study needs to be posted by someone who has access to it so that we can fill in the gaps. There is obviously some L DNA as is found in other people in the HOA region. How much L3 was found how much L2?

Looking at Ethiopian DNA studies its been mainly L2 L3 L0 and M1. That would indicate that these 4 "women are the "mothers" of the region but, I need to know the exact percentages. As it is, the info posted tells us nothing.

I have decide to include the mitochondrial DNA info you excluded. Your reasons make no sense and, it is not the job of wikipedia to criticize peer reviewed journals and pick and choose data. If the paper is from 2003 that means the researched checked out the 1997 data and found it to be legit still..

Medicineman84 (talk)

Infobox Images for Ethnic Groups

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#Infobox Images for Ethnic Groups. Gyrofrog (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}}) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 18:40, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

mtDNA #2

Middayexpress Do not delete a more updated description of the genetics section. What I have posted reflects the genetics better. I am trained and fully understand these things thus do not edit my posts with good updated sources while leaving 11 year old papers as the norm.

I write and update several European ethnic groups and have created the pages for several African Ethnic groups.

The previous article did not Mention the L haplogroups. Various L's are the Majority of the Somali Mitochondrial DNA. Depending on the sample taken M1 is between 20 percent -40 percent. Thus, any curious person will wonder what the remaining 60-80 percent is?

With regard to the Origin, M1 is basically exclusively found in Africa. The other M's are found in India but, M1 is NOT NOT NOT. Read that again if you don't understand it. That is why I rewrote the article to give a better picture. Written as it is, it is deceptive and leads those not educated in genetics to make some wrong conclusions.

Cruzani's paper believes M1 is of North African origin while others believe it to be on East African origin.

to p

With regard to E1b1b it is mainly North and East African DNA. If you remove the Bantu's who recently migrated to the area in the Bantu Migration among the Remaining East Africans, Cushitic and Nilotic, E1b1b and A haplogroup is what defines the Ethnic groups. Thus, the E1b1b in Europe is of African origin and needs to be explained as such. In fact E DNA is African DNA which is had by predominantly all Africans. There was a split b/w E1b1b and E1b1a from E1b1 which diverted to create 2 people but, the origin is still in E.

Thus, the section is certainly biased.

Please settle down and remember to be civil (note that I have also removed my username from the section heading, as that is a violation of WP:TALK's stipulation that one should "never use headings to attack other users").

The edits were already explained in some detail elsewhere on this talk page. Firstly, two studies by Cruciani were cited in this article, and neither mentions haplogroup M1 because both deal with Y DNA, not mtDNA (c.f. [44], [45]).

Secondly, according to the newer Cruciani paper above, the sub-clade of haplogroup E1b1b that Somalis possess (E-V32) is believed to have originated in and was introduced from North Africa, specifically in the Egypt and Libya region. This is what is indicated in the article, so bringing up haplogroup E1b1a (which about 1% of Somalis carry) is irrelevant.

Thirdly, the personal website [46] you quoted from is a self-published source, which are generally not allowed on Wikipedia and are considered less reliable than actual studies. The fact is, most modern scholars agree that the haplogroup M1 (which is common in Somalis and other Northeast Africans) was likely introduced from Asia, as that is where its parent haplogroup M is exclusively found and where all of the other M sub-clades are restricted to. The following study [47], that you again removed in favor of that personal website, explains the evolution of the debate and its conclusion:

Mitochondrial M lineages in Ethiopia were first detected by RFLP analyses [51]. To explain its presence in that area the authors suggested two possibilities: 1) the marker was acquired by Ethiopians through interchanges with Asians or 2) it was present in the ancient Ethiopian population and was carried to Asia by groups who migrated out of Africa. Later, the second hypothesis was favored and a single origin of haplogroup M in Africa was suggested, dating the split between Asian and African M branches older than 50,000 ya [22]. Although not completely discarding this last scenario other authors considered that the disjunctive was unsettled. The vast diversity of haplogroup M in Asia compared to Africa pointed to the possibility that M1 is a branch that traces a backflow from Asia to Africa [7,23]. Due to the scarcity of M lineages in the Near East and its richness in India, this region was proposed as the most probable origin of the M1 ancestor [7,52]. However, recent studies based on Indian mtDNA sequences [24,25] have not found any positive evidence that M1 originated in India. Nevertheless, the inclusion of M1 complete mtDNA lineages in the construction of the macrohaplogroup M phylogeny clearly established that the antiquity of Indian lineages, as M2, as compared to Ethiopian M1 lineages support an Asian origin of macrohaplogroup M [24]. Furthermore, the comparison within Africa of eastern and western M1 sequences left the origin of M1 in Africa uncertain [21]. On the light of our and other authors results, it seems clear that by their respective coalescence ages and diversities, M1 is younger than other Asiatic M lineages. Although it is out of doubt that the L3 ancestor of M had an African origin, macrohaplogroup M radiated outside Africa and M1 should be considered an evolved branch that signals its return to this continent. Even more, as the coalescence ages of the northwestern M1c clade is older than the eastern M1a clade, we think that the most ancient dispersals of M1 occurred in northwestern Africa, reaching also the Iberian Peninsula, instead of Ethiopia.

Fourthly, contrary to what you've claimed, the various L haplogroups do not make up the majority of the Somali mtDNA profile. You are basing this on two old studies from the mid-1990s by Watson et al. that use the same Somali sample. This Somali sample was not taken from Somalia but from Kenya (the study states [48] that "blood samples were collected from unrelated individuals at hospitals and rural medical clinics in Kenya, Nigeria, and Niger"). Many of the Somali-speaking peoples in Kenya, however, are not actually ethnically Somali, but other peoples (mainly from other Cushitic groups, Oromos in particualr) who have simply adopted the Somali language and culture [49]. This includes the Garre, Gabra and Sakuya who inhabit the Somali-Oromo border area in the North Eastern Province:

"There is still a whole series of ethnic groups in the Somali-Oromo border area who now describe themselves as Somali but were formerly considered to belong to the Oromo (the Gurra, Garri, Gabra and Sakuya) and who provide an instructive example of culture transfer and assimilation. today a single family tree unites all Somali with each group having its place within the common genealogy."

To complicate matters further, Watson et al. (1997) did not resolve many haplogroups Somalis had. As Richards et al. (2006) point out [50]:

"There was a complication. The analysis of Watson et al. (1997) was based largely on control-region sequence data, which fails to resolve many mtDNA haplogroups. By targeting newly identified coding-region variants, Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) distinguished two major clades in non-Africans, within haplogroup L3. One of these had already been identified as the Asian super-haplogroup M (Torroni et al. 1994a); Quintana-Murci et al. (1999) showed that all other non-African L3 lineages fell into a second major clade, later named haplogroup N.

In other words, Watson et al. (1997) mislabels many haplogroups as L3, when in reality they're almost certainly lineages that are located further down the mtDNA haplogroup tree (such as the Eurasian haplogroup M and haplogroup N sub-clades, not the more upstream haplogroup L3). This is hugely significant because L3 in Watson's study represented like 70% of the Somali maternal lineages. That's practically the entire sample set that's distorted. Richards et al. also explain in that link that all non-Africans are descended from L3 clades, so that only makes it that much more significant. Unless your goal is specifically to try and inflate the appearance of L3 lineages among Somalis (which aren't actually L3 lineages, but lineages belonging to haplogroups located further down the mtDNA haplogroup tree), then you'll just have to be patient until a proper study on the mtDNA of actual Somalis is published. Attempting to use an old study based on unresolved haplogroups (which was drawn from a sample with many non-ethnically Somali peoples in it to boot) is highly misleading. Middayexpress (talk) 22:23, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The papers I posted were NOT personal papers but, peer reviewed sources that had been posted on someones site. They can all be found on pub med.

I will fix THIS site and add those papers when I have more time. As it is I am busy but, if you are wise you will realize that what you have is wrong and very biased.

Once again, I will post pubmed based sources from 2010 which show M1 originated in North Africa or East Africa. The fact that there is even a genetics section shows that there is an insidious agenda going on here. This research is on going and not definitive thus, to post it in an Ethnic groups page is pretty disrespectful b/c the research changes by the day.

I will be back when I have more time. For now you can keep the bad biased info.

Actually Medicineman84, you did indeed post [51] a personal website i.e. this webpage. And personal websites are still unfortunately self-published sources, which are discouraged per WP:SPS.

Now that I've had a chance to have a closer look at your edit, I see that you've also posted two other links. The first [52] is from over a decade ago, well before Gonzalez et al.'s discoveries from 2007 that are quoted above. The second paper [53] is a questionable source (c.f. WP:QS) from one Dr. Clyde Winters, who appears to be a professor of linguistics, not a geneticist; he also runs an Afrocentric-themed webpage called "Afrocentric World - clyde.winters.tripod.com" [54]. Removing reliable sources in favor of outdated papers, personal websites and articles by lay Afrocentrists is not proper sourcing.

I have also again redacted the talk page heading, as WP:TALKNEW explicitly states that talk page headings should not be used to criticize other editors ("Do not be critical in headings"). It also stipulates that new talk page sections are reserved for actual new topics, not for re-inserting personal attack headings.

Genetic sections are also fairly common in ethnic group articles, so I'm not sure what the issue is. If you have a problem with them as a whole, then you can perhaps try proposing them for deletion. Since these sections are sometimes more trouble than they are worth, you're likely to find quite a bit of support for the proposal.

At any rate, I can see that you are upset, but lashing out at other editors will not solve anything; a more constructive approach is required. Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 20:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

---

This does not change the Data or change the fact that they have the SOMALI V32 at a higher rate than Oromos and Beja's. This section should only refer to V32 and not try to create an expansion to include many groups. V32 that Somalis specifically carry is found in a few select groups. If the Massilit, Massai, and Fur are not included then, the Oromo who only carry it at 30 percent should not be included and, neither should the Beja or other Ethiopians. Including Ethiopia as a broad Homogenous group is a LIE. This is proven by the Hassan Paper. Ethiopia is paternally genetically diverse.

It is not balanced to include Balkans, Mediterranean and, ignore these groups.

Medicineman84 (talk)

You're just repeating yourself now. As already explained, per Wood et al. (2005) the Maasai have E1b1b (not E-M78 for the most part, but E-M35*, which has since been resolved to E-M296; see the E1b1b page) specifically because they acquired the clade in the first place by assimilating Cushitic peoples. This is why the Maasai etc. are known as Nilo-Hamites i.e. because they assimilated Cushitic/Hamitic peoples.

Secondly, the Masalit and the two other Nilotic tribes in Western Sudan have E-V32 at high frequencies of the clade only recently. On page 4 of the study, Hassan and his colleagues state that the presence of E1b1b1a in the Masalit was probably due to a recent population bottleneck event. By referring to a population bottleneck, what they're actually saying is that the Masalit probably had various other haplogroups in the past but something cataclysmic happened to those clade-bearers so that a disproportionately high number of E1b1ba clade bearers were left. In other words, the Masalit until recently did not have high frequencies of the clade, so mentioning them alongside Ethiopians (who do actually have high frequencies of E1b1ba in general) is highly misleading.

Thirdly, it was clearly stated in the text that Somalis are related to certain Ethiopians, not all Ethiopians: "according to Y chromosome studies by Sanchez et al. (2005) and Cruciani et al. (2004), the Somalis are paternally closely related to certain Ethiopian groups, particularly Cushitic speakers". The following quote from Cruciani himself was also added for further clarification:

"The data suggest that the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population − closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya − with predominant E3b1 [E1b1b1] cluster lineages that were introduced into the Somali population 4000−5000 years ago, and that the Somali male population has approximately 15% Y chromosomes from Eurasia and approximately 5% from sub-Saharan Africa."

Your argument is therefore beside the point.

Fourthly, as the E1b1b1a article makes clear in its very first sentence, the haplogroup is indeed common in "North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia and Europe". It is unfortunately not characteristic of Nilotes, who typically have haplogroup A sub-clades, unless they experienced considerable admixture (like the Maasalit, Maasai and Fur have) from North & Horn Africans (remember, E-M78 originated in North Africa, not in Nilotic territory).

I'm asking you again to stop making untrue claims -- a clear violation of WP:TALK -- and removing material under false pretexts. Middayexpress (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

removing block quote

"The most distinct separation is between African and non-African populations. The northeastern-African -- that is, the Ethiopian and Somali -- populations are located centrally between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations... The fact that the Ethiopians and Somalis have a subset of the sub-Saharan African haplotype diversity -- and that the non-African populations have a subset of the diversity present in Ethiopians and Somalis -- makes simple-admixture models less likely; rather, these observations support the hypothesis proposed by other nuclear-genetic studies (Tishkoff et al. 1996a, 1998a, 1998b; Kidd et al. 1998) -- that populations in northeastern Africa may have diverged from those in the rest of sub-Saharan Africa early in the history of modern African populations and that a subset of this northeastern-African population migrated out of Africa and populated the rest of the globe. These conclusions are supported by recent mtDNA analysis (Quintana-Murci et al. 1999)."

This does not make Sense in accordance to modern Research

1) According to this very article the M1 found in somalis is Younger than the one found in Indians. 2) Populated the world with what????

Recent research does not support this.

Looking at the Y DNA tree

E DNA(found in basically all Africans) did not populate the world. If anything, BT did!

The Oldest people in the world are the Khoisan,certain Nilotic people and Ethiopian Jews(carriers of A DNA). This has nothing to do with Somalis. MODERN RESEARCH!

Utterly irrelevant argument. Firstly, M1 is mtDNA, not Y DNA; so there's no point in posting the Y DNA box above. Secondly, that quote from Tishkoff above -- an author you yourself linked to earlier -- has nothing to do with either mtDNA or Y DNA; it refers to overall ancestry. You are at this point literally inventing information as a pretext to remove sourced material. But Wikipedia unfortunately does not work that way. Middayexpress (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Did you read my post??? .

I pointed out that Somalis could not have populated the world both maternally or paternally.

lol

I am enjoying the HLA stuff you posted but, as someone who is very knowledgeable on genetics there are so many holes in the argument. Similar to what Arab populations? Arabs are not a homogeneous group lol.

Medicineman84 (talk)

Still irrelevant. The Tishkoff quote does not say that Somalis “populated the world both maternally or paternally”. It states that Somalis and Ethiopians are biologically intermediate between sub-Saharan African and non-African populations and that they, along with all non-Africans, descended from the Out-of-Africa population that had already diverged from the ancestors of other Africans. Tishkoff re-asserted this fact in a more recent study, where she indicated that later periods of gene flow had also taken place between said populations [55]. As for the HLA paper [56], it refers to non-African Arabic-speaking populations i.e. Middle Easterners (not the Masalit, I’m afraid). Middayexpress (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to include that fact then, you must include the MDNA studies which you have been fighting to exclude because, you don't like the implications. As it is, the write up makes more sense in the context of the way you are trying to present it.

If you revert my edits I will keep reverting them back! We can take this all the way to the top.

I see you have an agenda I have compromised but, you refuse to. Thus, it must be asked, why the obsession?? Medicineman84 (talk)

Fixed Y chromosome section

Note all sources are peer reviewed. I have noticed that you pick and choose the data which meets your agenda. For example looking at the rates of E1b1b in Nilotic and Tanzanian Bantu's I wonder why you did not include it but included Mediterraneans who have it at only 5 percent. While some Nilo-Saharan groups like Darfuri's who have it at 70+ percent were excluded. Or, other Nilotic groups who have it at rates above 70 percent. Even Bantus from Tanzania have E1b1b at 20+ percent. With Kenyan Bantus having it at 15 percent. If one is going to include Mediterraneans and not include these groups it reeks of an agenda.

With regard to the mitochondrial DNA. It is illogical to eliminate some data based on the sample size. Most of this research was done on Somalis living over seas thus, the data source is not perfect. Also, the Study did not look at various Somali clans but, instead looked at Somalis at a homogeneous monolithic group. This may be true but, because of the imperfect nature of these test sample groups no data should be thrown out. Medicineman84 (talk)

Well, for starters, you have added some very misleading assertions claiming that the E1b1b haplogroup that is characteristic of North and Horn Africans is commonly found in Nilo-Saharan and Kenyan Bantu populations. The Hassan et al. (2008) paper [57] that you cite this to says nothing about the haplogroup being common in Nilotes. It states that among Nilotes, it is common in the Masalit. It also explains that the haplogroup was introduced from North Africa into the Masalit population, so it is misleading to claim that it is common among Nilotes, especially when that study reports very low frequencies in all the other Nilotic populations in which the haplogroup was not introduced. The E1b1b1a sub-clade of E1b1b that Somalis possess is very common in Mediterranean populations. In southern Greece, it reaches frequencies of about 40% and the populations there have their own mutation of it to boot (V13), so please don't talk about "agendas". You're neglecting to assume good faith and are trying to force through some blatantly misleading material, even going as far as citing Afrocentric authors. This is unacceptable. Middayexpress (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

________________________

Afrocentric Authors??

In my last Edit??

GIve me a break! I am white! lol

Once again, that was not my only source. Also if you knew a thing about Africa you would know that Nilotic and Nilo-Saharan are not the same...

Where is the source that says Balkan groups generally have E1b1b at rates above 20 percent found in Tanzanian Bantus.

Read all the sources I posted. There were over 4 not just the Hassan paper. Compare the edits carefully before you revert it. We can take it to the higher ups if you want. READ ALL MY SOURCES. Alternatively, if you are Lazy you can read the Nilotic people genetics section... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_people

Or, you can read the Subsaharan Y DNA summary

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_populations_of_Sub-Saharan_Africa#cite_note-Tishkoff_2007-13

you see, the info is there for all who look.

E1b1b is East Africa and E1b1a West African. East Africa also has A DNA which Nilotics and Ethiopian Jews posses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_A_%28Y-DNA%29

Ethiopians are generally more paternally diverse than Somalis.

Medicineman84 (talk)

Afrocentrism is not a race, but an ideology. When I said that you cited an Afrocentric author, I was obviously referring to that paper from one Dr. Clyde Winters that you produced. Your edits are still POV; the E1b1b1a sub-clade of E1b1b that Somalis possess is not common in any of the populations you tried to imply. "Nilo-Saharan" refers to populations that speak Nilo-Saharan languages, and that's many of them -- none of whom the E1b1b1a article indicates the haplogroup is common in. Please stop adding false information. Middayexpress (talk) 23:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The article said E1b1b.

The V32 Somalis have is not common in Egyptians or Libyans. If you read all my sources you would see that. Thus, i am still right.

As far as who is is common in, we don't know because, the research is ongoing but, Every East African group tested has it at a higher rate than MOST Mediterranean samples one would take thus, to include them is EURO CENTRISM. to borrow a word form you.

Re-read what I wrote... I said, Nilo-Saharan groups(PLURAL) such as Massilit and Fur.

The statement is TRUE!

Now if you want to promote another agenda I am willing to rewrite this with you but, as it stands my edit is 100 percent correct and not misleading.

If you are curious to find out how Bantus have E1b1b at such rates then, you may want to familiarize yourself with the

Bantu expansion When they reached East Africa they assimilated Cushites and Nilotics into their tribes. The same way the assimilated the Khoisan in Southern Africa and the Pigmies in Central Africa Medicineman84 (talk)

That is completely untrue. The article clearly stated that "the E1b1b1a (formerly E3b1a) genetic haplogroup also makes up a significant proportion of the paternal DNA of Ethiopians, Sudanese, Egyptians, Berbers, North African Arabs, as well as many Mediterranean and Balkan Europeans." On the other hand, you have inserted some blatantly false synthesis asserting [58] that "the E1b1b1a (formerly E3b1a) genetic haplogroup also makes up a significant proportion of the paternal DNA of Ethiopians, Sudanese, Egyptians, Berbers, North African Arabs, Nilotic peoples, East African Bantu", when a simple glance at the first few lines of the E1b1b1a article shows that this is not the case at all. That's like saying that "haplogroup J is commonly found in South African Bantus" because it was introduced into the Lemba population (one Bantu tribe, not the hundreds of them) by Jewish peoples from the Middle East. It is highly misleading and you do yourself and Wikipedia's readership a huge disservice by trying to force it through. Middayexpress (talk) 23:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Well that is wrong then because, it does NOT make up a significant portion of Berber, North African Arabs etc etc. I must have misread it and interpretited it as E1b1b... I will change that part. But, the Massilit and Fur must be included

No, I'm afraid it is not "wrong"; the very first sentence of the E1b1b1a article makes it clear that "E1b1b1a (or E-M68), is the name of a major Y chromosome haplogroup found in North Africa, the Horn of Africa, Western Asia and Europe." Per that article, many North Africans have the haplogroup. In fact, that is where it is believed to have originated.

It is also not true that Hassan et al. (2008) [59] indicate that E1b1b1a is common in Nilo-Saharan groups in general. The authors clearly state that the haplogroup "might have been brought to Sudan from North Africa", and that most Nilo-Saharan groups didn't actually experience much of this admixture at all; instead, it was focused in a few groups, mainly the Nubians and the Beja:

It seems that gene flow is not only recent (Holocene onward) but also largely of focal nature. Most speakers of Nilo-Saharan languages, the major linguistic family spoken in the country, show very little evidence of gene flow and demonstrate low migration rate, with exception of the Nubians, who appear to have sustained considerable gene flow from Asia and Europe together with the Beja.

On page 4 of the study, Hassan and his colleagues also state that the presence of E1b1b1a in the Masalit was probably due to a recent population bottleneck event. This means that the haplogroup frequencies in that population today are considerably higher than they were in the not-too-distant past, prior to the bottleneck event. Are you going to pretend you don't see this as well? I await with interest your response. Middayexpress (talk) 23:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

---

This does not change the Data or change the fact that they have the SOMALI V32 at a higher rate than Oromos and Beja's This section should only refer to V32 and not try to create an expansion to include many groups. V32 that Somalis specifically carry is found in a few select groups. If the Massilit and Fur are not included then, the Oromo who only carry it at 30 percent should not be included and, neither should the Beja or other Ethiopians.

After all, if we are unsure of how it got to the Massilit and Fur then, we are unsure of how it got to Somalis, Beja and Oromo. Afterall, this research is guess work after the data has been assembled. Either way, it could represents a bottleneck OR a location close to where the mutation happened. Since M78 came from North Africa the Mutation could indeed have occurred in the Darfur area. This is not the reason to include it, the reason to include it is with regard to the fact that EV32 is common in them and the purpose of this site is to give the correct information and not exaggerate.

Medicineman84 (talk)

with

Actually, the author's clearly state that the haplogroup "might have been brought to Sudan from North Africa". On Wikipedia, we go by what the sources actually state, not what we wish they stated. Why are you so threatened by the presence of the Ethiopians (Oromos, Beja, etc.)? You do realize that these are the closest related groups to the Somalis, don't you? Not just ethnically, but culturally and linguistically too? Middayexpress (talk) 23:52, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Threatened???

Write the section properly!!!

Masilit and Fur have it at a higher rate FACT We deal with facts and raw data.Raw data suggests they should be included. The POSSIBLE conclusions can be included too but, the data should be there because, the conclusions are GUESS WORK.

Ethiopians Amhara and tigre speak Semetic languages and have a lot of A DNA as well as Asian Paternal DNA according to that Hassan paper. thus, they are not related. Ethiopia is a diverse country. If you knew anything about Ethiopia you would know that. Only the Omoro share 30 percent of the DNA with Somalis NOT the Amhara and Tigre or Other Ethiopians.

With regard to the genetics, the Beja share 30 percent of their DNA with Somalis but, 30 percent is shared with Arabs J DNA and, the remainder is Other E1b1b's. The Beja language is sometimes considered Cushitic and sometimes not thus, are they really related??

Medicineman84 (talk)

This is starting to look remarkably familiar all of sudden. You have contradicted yourself and don't even appear to realize it. Your whole argument rests on the notion that the Masalit have high frequencies of E-V32, when the authors of that very study you cite clearly state that (a) the haplogroup was introduced into Sudan from North Africa, and (b) the Masalit's high frequencies are specifically due to a recent population bottleneck. By referring to a population bottleneck, what they're actually saying is that the Masalit probably had various other haplogroups in the past but something cataclysmic happened to those clade-bearers so that a disproportionately high number of E1b1ba clade bearers were left. In other words, the Masalit until recently did not have high frequencies of the clade, so mentioning them alongside Ethiopians (who do actually have high frequencies of E1b1ba in general) is highly misleading. Are you willing to compromise or not? Middayexpress (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I notice you have also removed sourced material under false pretexts, claiming that they indicate that Egyptians and Balkan and Mediterranean Europeans have E-V32/E1b1b1a1b ([60], [61]), when the sourced passages clearly state that E1b1b1a is common in these populations. I hope you realize that adding false edit summaries like that is a clear violation of WP:VAND. Middayexpress (talk) 00:26, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

You removed my data w/o reading it . Thus, you are in violation too... Everything I removed was to give a clearer picture.

GOOD NEWS: :) I am willing to compromise.

0) We could do away with the genetics section completely since the research is ongoing and ground breaking changes are found every time comprehensive research is done.

Alternatively 1) Specify the Ethiopian tribes because Ethiopia is a diverse country. Only Oromo since Tigre and Amhara are not really related to Somalis linguistically or genetically(compared to Massai, Masslit and Fur)... 2) Focus on V32 only remove all the stuff about M68 because, one ca keep going back and, if one goes back to E then most Africans are related paternally.

3rd option

Consider adding Nilotics and Nilo-Sahran language speakers It is not only the Masslit and Fur who have M78 the Massai of Kenya have it at 30+ percent...

I think you should read the Nilotic section again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_peoples

In the end That is why I don't like Genetics sections because, people who live in similar regions mix with each other and everything becomes confusing. Prior to the Bantu Migration East Africa was occupied by Nilotic people, Khoisan people and, Other Horn of African groups. Things have changed today but, genetics is helping to tell the new story.

Medicineman84 (talk)

Actually, I already read your data and spotted the untruths instantly. You also never explained your removal of the material until well after having already done so, which does not help matters. Your compromise above is not a compromise at all and here's why:

You mention some Nilotic tribes in Kenya having E1b1b (not E-M78 for the most part, but E-M296; see the E1b1b page), but neglect to mention that they acquired the clade in the first place by assimilating Cushitic peoples. This is why the Maasai etc. are known as Nilo-Hamites (but something tells me you already know that) i.e. because they assimilated Cushitic/Hamitic peoples. This proposal is therefore out of the question.

Mentioning the Masalit and the two other Nilotic tribes in Western Sudan that have E-V32 is also out-of-the question because, as already explained, their high frequencies of the clade are only recent; prior to the bottleneck event that they endured, those same frequencies were much lower.

Removing the genetic section altogether is also not an option, as it is reliably sourced. Moreover, someone will just replace it in short order with another section, so it's a band-aid solution at best.

When I said compromise, I meant a real, honest compromise. I'm still waiting, but not for much longer. Middayexpress (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

---

The Massai have E-M78. FACT. Check the Nilotic page again.

The term Hamites is not used anymore. They are Nilotic/Nilo-Saharns. The Hamitic thinking is no longer used in 2011 Maybe 1911. The mumbo jumbo about recent is just guess work. The raw data supports they should be included. Why include Ethiopians as a broad term(a biologically paternally diverse group) while removing people Somalis share DNA with at rates of up to 70 percent?? It is absurd. The job of this site is to not present only a subset of the data but, the data as it is to allow people to make their own decision. Medicineman84 (talk)

No... the Maasai only have about 15% of E-M78; according to Wood et al. (2005) [62], most of the E1b1b that they have is E-M35* (which has since been resolved to E-M296). And the E1b1b they received in the first place is from assimilating Cushitic peoples, so again, kindly stop making things up. The Maasai also are indeed commonly referred to as "Nilo-Hamitic" for this very reason, including by none other than the Kenyan government (c.f. [63]).

I asked you if you were prepared to compromise, and instead, you have elected to mess up the talk page's layout and tell blatant untruths, both here on the talk page and in the article. For example, you've claimed in the article that "Somalis are paternally closely related to Sudanese Nilo-Saharan groups", when E-V32 was only found at notable frequencies in three Nilo-Saharan speaking groups (not the hundreds of Nilo-Saharan groups like that mendacious quote implies) -- all of whom it was introduced to from North Africa. If this is your way of trying to force me into agreeing with your absurd suggestion that we should remove the genetic section altogether, think again. There is no shortage of genetic-related material out there on Somalis, so you are sorely mistaken if you think that attempting to replace reliable sources with patent untruths solves anything. I'm asking you one last time: are you ready to compromise? I'm all ears. Middayexpress (talk) 21:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Groups = more than 1!

I am willing to take this all the way to the top.

with regard to Nilo-hamites. The term is not used by linguist anymore After Greenburg coined the term Nilo-Saharan. 

I have compromised with you and reworded some sections to make them of more educational value and not lead people to arrive at wrong conclusions.

The sections now seem to all be updated and correct apart from the M-DNA which we have not filled in the gap. We should look into that 1997 and 2006 study to find out how much L2 was there because, that would certainly be a correct fact. One cannot criticize sample sizes because, the sample sizes used are generally small and, we are not in the position to determine which sample size is valid and which is not.

Medicineman84 (talk)

Actually, Figure 2 on page 5 of Wood et al. (2005) [64] makes it clear that E1b1b1a/E-M78 is not characteristic of Nilo-Saharan (not just the Maasai), Niger Congo and Khoisan groups in general; within Africa, the clade is common only amongst Afro-Asiatic groups.

The term "Nilo-Hamitic" unfortunately is not used in the linguistic sense in that Kenyan government paper I linked you to [65], nor is it in the many other areas it appears. At any rate, this is irrelevant since the term is not mentioned in the article.

I also unfortunately did not criticize “sample sizes” (though I easily could have) with regard to the mtDNA studies, but other factors (where and from which peoples the samples were culled, unresolved haplogroups, etc.) citing actual papers that directly address them. The Holden study also does not indicate how much L2 (if any) there was. In fact, the study groups Somalis with Libyans based on their mutually shared significant frequencies of the M1 mtDNA haplogroup versus the representative Sub-Saharan Africans that clustered apart specifically because their mtDNA consisted almost entirely of the L1 or L2 haplogroups only.

The fact remains that the material you have added to the Y DNA section is appallingly misleading. You have attempted to relate Somalis to other biologically unrelated populations by now claiming that “Somalis like a majority of Africans are predominantly of Haplogroup E (Y-DNA) origin paternally”. Firstly, Somalis do not have most mutations in that haplogroup, including the main M2 marker that defines the haplogroup E1b1a that the “majority of Africans” do actually have. Most Somalis – like most North Africans, and many coastal Levantine, Mediterranean and Balkan populations – belong to haplogroup E1b1b, not to any other E clades. Your cited sources (viz. [66], [67]) don’t even mention Somalis. In fact, one of them is a map showing estimated (not actual) frequencies of haplogroup E as a whole, and taken from a commercial genetic firm no less; the map is on the same page as another map [68] showing the estimated frequencies of the E1b1b haplogroup that Somalis do actually belong to – a map that clearly shows that within Africa, it is mainly in the North and the Horn where E1b1b is found (and which you tellingly did not link to). Whatever the case, the forgoing is a clear example of synthesis per WP:SYNTH.

You have also again attempted to related the Nilo-Saharan Masalit and Fur to the Somalis, although the authors of that study [69] themselves do not nor do they even mention Somalis. Instead, they clearly state that:

• E-M78/E1b1b1a was introduced into those Nilo-Saharan populations from its place of origin in North Africa.
• the presence of E1b1b1a in the Masalit was probably due to a recent population bottleneck event. By referring to a population bottleneck, what they're actually saying is that the Masalit probably had various other haplogroups in the past but something cataclysmic happened to those clade-bearers so that a disproportionately high number of E1b1ba clade bearers were left. In other words, the Masalit until recently did not have high frequencies of the clade, contrary to what you’ve insinuated in the article.
• base on their notable frequencies of the haplogroup, linguistic affinities and other factors, the authors relate the Beja of Eastern Sudan with the populations in the Horn, not the Masalit of any other Nilo-Saharan or Nilotic peoples:

"the distribution of M78 subclades (Table 2) indicates that the Beja are perhaps related as well to the Oromo on the basis of the considerable frequencies of E-V32 among Oromo in comparison to Amhara (Cruciani et al., 2007). These findings affirm the historical contact between Ethiopia and eastern Sudan (Hassan, 1968, 1973; Passarino et al., 1998), and the fact that these populations speak languages of the Afro-Asiatic family tree reinforces the strong correlatio between linguistic and genetic diversity"

Your edits here are therefore another example of synthesis.

You have also claimed that “according to Y chromosome studies by Sanchez et al. (2005) and Cruciani et al. (2004), the Somalis are also paternally closely related to the Borana Oromo people and somewhat related to certain Ethiopian groups, particularly Cushitic speakers”. In actuality, Sanchez et al. indicate that Somalis are paternally “closely related to the Oromos in Ethiopia and North Kenya”, not just the Borana Oromo sub-group as you’ve implied and attempted to highlight. They also indicate that “the majority of Y chromosomes found in populations in Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Oromos in Somalia and North Kenya (Boranas) belong to haplogroup E3b1 defined by the Y chromosome marker M78”, that Somalis most belong to “a special branch of E3b1” (i.e. E-V32) which is “almost absent in populations outside the Horn of Africa”, and that therefore “the male Somali population is a branch of the East African population” – not to a massive “African” population as you have attempted to imply.

The forgoing misrepresentations or outright untruths are unacceptable and have been corrected. Middayexpress (talk) 00:35, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

---

Do NOT delete info you don't like which is sourced.

It is PROBABLY DUE TO A BOTTLENECK OR CLOSE TO THE PLACE OF ORIGIN!

The Borana carry EV32 at rates as high as the Maslit and fur other Oromos do not.

The facts were true but, you seem to have an agenda. I accepted you HLA antigens even though it presented Arabs as a homogeneous group.

THE SECTION IS A GENETICS SECTION NOT A ETHNIC GROUP RELATED TO SECTION.

Genetics have to present the facts as it is.

We can do this all year or, we can take it to the top.

Even if it is a bottle neck, a fact not agreed upon, it should be included because it is a true fact today!!!! Read again...

Since EV32 is not found in Egypt It may have originated in Sudan.

Medicineman84 (talk)

Page is done and balanced now

I have included all the info that you excluded and, added the info that you had before but had presented in a biased way. The page is fair now. I will revert any edits which attempt to restore the former biased article. Wikipedia is not a place to promote agendas but, a place to give recent peer reviewed info for people to make fair decisions and learn.

(Medicineman84 (talk) 11:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC))

Autosomal DNA

Added section from Nature paper giving us a full idea of the full DNA of somalis. Peer reviewed article giving us an estimate of Somali DNA as a whole.

Medicineman84 (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2011 (UTC)