Jump to content

Talk:Haplogroup R (Y-DNA)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Haplogroup R-M207)

Old Stuff

[edit]

I change north america for parts of the americas in places were the r1b halogroup is common are you forgetting that Argentina and Uruguay are 90% Galician (nothern spanish) basques, italian and british??? which means that most of the population come from the paces where this halogroup is almost exclusive.

For such reasons, distributions should be taken from and named after ethnic gruops and NOT REGIONS. HJJHolm (talk) 06:46, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm rolling back the merger.

Putting R1a1 and R1b and R2 all in this article makes it too long and unwieldy.

The previous structure was better. -- Jheald 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

feel free to branch back out per WP:SS, but that's no reason to revert; I merged a couple of stubs, it is better to discuss them centrally. The only article developed enough for branching out so far is R1a1. dab (ᛏ) 21:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is substantially different genetic history associated with R1a1, R1b and R2. I don't see what your problem is with separate articles, nor why you want to force the whole lot in here.
WP gains, where appropriate, from having short articles focussed on different subjects. Jheald 21:38, 28 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

So, you want to scramble together all the links and external references which were separately relevant for the individual subgroups, all together into one heap? Why???

I appreciate the good material and edits you've been adding to Wikipedia. But, why not contribute the material you want to contribute to the separate R1a1 R1b and R2 pages? Jheald 21:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


You see, I am not just merging here, I am sifting through the material for inaccuracies and mistakes. I don't want to do that on four articles simultaneously. I have no objection to keeping separate {{main}} articles for the subclades, but apart from R1a1, there is just not enough material so far to warrant that. There is no point in having a Haplogroup R1b1c1 (Y-DNA) telling us that this is a subclade of Haplogroup R1b1c (Y-DNA) and nothing else. I admit, again, that we seem to have enough material on R1a1 to warrant its own article. Possibly also R1b. I have no objection to keeping those. That doesn't mean that this article should be bombed back to stub status. Scattered sub-articles make a comparative discussion impossible. dab (ᛏ) 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


no, no, I don't want to throw the references into one heap. I am working on it, ok? {{inuse}}? Again, I don't object to the re-creation of the sub-articles, just leave me in peace on this central one for a minute. dab (ᛏ) 21:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am done for now; I do not find the article unwieldy, to the contrary, it has the perfect size for an overview of the group. I have no idea what "many within the of the sept associated with Niall of the Nine Hostages" is supposed to mean, and whatever it is, it is unsourced, but I left it standing for now. dab (ᛏ) 22:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proto indo-europeans are persons of J haplotype linked via the Nostratic languages family!??

[edit]

We know that: 

You know nothing. Wiki talk is not the place to list half books of half understood theories. HJJHolm (talk) 06:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all forgive your brother for my bad english and thank you for this article


-R1 haplogroup are "paleolithic"haplotypes(0)

-The originel language of persons of R1 haplogroup is linked with Basque and dont has any link with indo-european languages(1)

-Semitic and indo-european languages are linked via the nostratic(2)languages theory and are all languages of neolithic timed origin(3)

-The haplogroup J is very present among Indians,Persians,Greeks,Indians(4)

-The linguistic aryanisation of india for example is only a linguistic process,in fact we have aryanic speaking populations as much racially different as Sindhis and Danish(5)

-Carleton Coon says: Linguistically, Indo-European is probably a relatively recent phenomenon, which arose after animals had been tamed and plants cultivated. The latest researches find it to be a derivative of an initially mixed language, whose principal elements were Uralic, called element A, and some undesignated element B which was probably one of the eastern Mediterranean or Caucasic languages.5 The plants and animals on which the economy of the early Indo-European speakers was based were referred to in words derived mainly from element B. Copper and gold were known, and the words for these commodities come from Mesopotamia.(6)

The sources are below

(0) http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/8432/europemaptreeta1.jpg

(1) http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v13/n12/full/5201482a.html

(2) Please note that these words are not borrowings but commun nostratic roots

Semitic/Indo-european

men/manne

hala/hola,hello

kassara/casser

ardh/earth

sahar/soir

ente/tu

me/mai

barr/bur

omm/madar

ab/badar

seb3a/septa

sitta/sesta

al/le

qata3/cut

batr/obturer

maridh/malade

haql/agro

thawr/taureau

qarn/corne

sarab/sarabas

keme/comme

silah/sird

yaafukh/fuukhir

wetr/water

lugha/lingua

qalb/lobos,cor

mawt/mort

rajol/ragazzo

lobb/lobos

bard/freddo

ward/rodos

wajh/visage

anf/nez

dawra/tour

dwaran/tourner


Greek/Arabic

Emena/Minni

Alla/Illa

Odhi/Hedhe


Arabic/English

Ma3na/Mean

Jorm/Crime

3eyn/Eye

Hu/His

Ha/Her

Dhak/That

Hedhi/This

Fatasha/Fetch

Qit/Cat



Arabic/French

Nahnu/Nous

Masha/Marche

Turab/Terre

Sama/Ciel


Jam3=>Gam

Somme=>Gam

Sound change o=>a et j=>g

Eardh=>ardh

Eye=>3ayn

Taureau=>thawr

Corne=>qarn

Ble=>Burr

Agro=>Haql

g=>q et l=>r

Agro=>Haql (g<=>q)(r<=<l)

Ble=>Burr (r<=>l)

(3) http://free.of.pl/g/grzegorj/lingwen/afil.html

The scheme on The Tower of Babel shows yet another approach to both genetic relations and dating of particular language families and protolanguages. According to its author, Proto-Indo-European was in use ca. 5000 BC, Eurasiatic ca. 9000 BC, and Proto-Afro-Asiatic ca. 10000 BC. The Nostratic language, which existed ca. 13000 BC, is said to have given birth to Eurasiatic and Afro-Asiatic.


(4) File:Haplotype middle east.jpg http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Haplogroup_J_(Y-DNA)

(5) http://www.algerie-dz.com/forums/showthread.php?t=101980&page=4

(6) http://carnby.altervista.org/troe/06-01.htm (also please take a look at the great J haplogroup concentration in the caucasian Daghestan)

Humanbyrace (talk) 11:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Humanbyrace (talk) 10:53, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]


J is associated with Caucsaus and Semitic groups not Indo Europeans. J is lacking in Indians and Greeks and J2 is present among Iranians. R1 is not a basque gene because R has two mutations that occured separately. R1b originated probably from Turkey which is common among Basques and the Irish while R1a1a rose independently and is associated with the spread of Indo-Euorpean languages and the Aryans who made it happen. J1 and J2 is present among non indo-european speakers. And Carelton Coon? I would take his opinion with a grain of salt since he was an anthropologist, not a geneticist or linguist. Akmal94 (talk) 05:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Basques are more related to IE languages than anyone else up to the point that there is group of linguists that consider Basque as one of IE isolate languages. J in Caucasus is related to Urartian migration - especially Vainakhs, who were present in territory of modern Armenia. Ancient Ur, Dagestani, turcified Azerbaijani, Chechens and Armenians all of them originally were Ur. Ers is ancient tribe of Vainakhs(Eribuni was named after them) and also there are a lot of Vainakh ancient tower homes in western Georgia, that links them to the place of modern location.
R1b could not originate in Turkey or Middle East for that matter - they are invaders, who just like R1a at some very ancient time changed Middle East and left IE speaking population, like original Ur speaking Armenians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.206.144 (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article cloning

[edit]

The principle of cloning the R1a and R1b article into this one is fundamentally flawed as they constantly need to be synchronized. There's very little point in having the full text in several places. I'm going to remove all the text, apart from the intros, for the groups and keep the links to the main articles. --Denoir 22:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Better sourcing, lots of crazy claims

[edit]

I've just removed this absurd sentence from the page:

Ancient European legends often report a Scythian origin for the royal families of Europe, which may be the source of the slight distribution of R1a in western and southern Europe.

This statement is absurdly non-specific (does the author have any idea how many royal families there are in Europe?). Every trace level of some haplogroup in an otherwise largely distinct population can be explained by recourse to some obscure legend, but this doesn't mean we ought to mention it unless there's at least some reason to believe it was true. --Saforrest 06:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the article. For example, the whole passage about R1b1 should start with the notion about the change of nomenclature (R1b3>R1b1]. Each haplotype should get its own paragraph. This article is somewhat messy. 82.100.61.114 13:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image of "sorb national costume"

[edit]

This seems like a bit of a case of misleading vividness to have females of an ethnicity pictured in reference to Y-DNA of that particular people, doesn't it? Nagelfar (talk) 14:24, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Especailly since females don't carry Y-chromosomes. ;)2605:6000:BFC0:1:7515:45F:ACBB:329B (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Migration map

[edit]

The map at the top of this article is highly misleading. As just one example, I1a is shown traveling from Near East straight to Scandinavia, whereas data shows instead that I1a traveled North from a glacial refuge in Western Europe. Jamesdowallen (talk) 05:48, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and of course R1a was carried from Europe to India 4000 years ago by the famous chariot-riding Indo-Europeans, along with the Sanskrit language.
But the leftist political doctrine is "Out of Africa/Out of the Middle East". Nothing is ever allowed to develop in, or leave Europe, prefiguring "racist colonialism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapCritic (talk • contribs) 08:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Place of Origin

[edit]

I notice the place of origin is missing in the infobox

According too Regueiro et all and his studies Iran is likely the origin of this gene.

From: M. Regueiro (2006) "From the disparate M198 frequencies observed for the north and south of Iran, it is possible to envision a movement southward towards India where the lineage may have had an influence on the populations south of the Iranian deserts and where the Dash-e Lut desert would have played a signifi cant role in preventing the expansion of this marker to the north of Iran. The lower frequencies of M198 in the region of Anatolia (11.8% in Greece [27] and 6.9% in Turkey, with a statistically significant longitudinal correlation [2] ) and the Caucasus (10% in Georgia, 6% in Armenia and 7% in Azerbaijan) [24] suggests that population movement was southward towards India and then westward across the Iranian plateau. In addition, the detection of rare R1-M173* and R1a-SRY1532 lineages in Iran at higher frequencies than observed for either Turkey, Pakistan or India suggests the hypothesis that geographic origin of haplogroup R may be nearer Persia." Cyrus111 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is also a recent study that confirms ultra-rare forms of early R through the Iranian plateau, and more interestingly R1b*, the ancestor to the widespread European haplotype. Iran seems to always be left out as a potentioal place of origin, though there seems to be the clearest amount of evidence for this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.16.113.3 (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Origins of R*, just like all the rest of child groups of K2(M N O P Q R S) are in South East Asia and Austronesian islands(Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia). R1* - most probably originated somewhere in Siberia. R1b definitely originated there and R1b is still present in Siberia and earliest R1b spread that went to Europe and also in Middle East, including Iran and also is responsible for R1b migration in Africa where Hausa peopleare more related to western europeans, than to haplogroups of R1b in Middle east(including Iran).
The only rarest R* forms were found in Siberia AND Indonesia. So, not possible, that R* has been found in Iran, because it was populated by G, H or even more - LT people. There is a background noise in spread of R2 from Indonesia up to North east towards Europe across Middle east and Iran and India, but that has nothing to do with R1, which did not venture to India from south, but arrived there from north during much much later Aryan invasions. R1a is a very late development - especially to those groups, who invaded Iran or India and who went to Tarim basin. All of R1a origins points to Eastern Europe steppes, where it spread to north, Balkans, hellenized Greece and is source of all Aryan invasion in south Asia and who also went to Tarim basin. We can still discuss origins of R1 and if it spread to Iran at some point, but not R1a, where earliest of forms were found in Eastern Europe and also in northern Europe, where all the later forms, that are now present in Iran or India developed from R1a, that originally were in east of Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.206.144 (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The cited reference (Hallast ..2021) contains NO WORD about the origin of Haplogroup "R", as noted at "Haplogroups R and Q emerged and diversified in Central Asia and spread across Eurasia in several expansion waves.[7]". The sentence in fact refers to the older Hallas 2014. Please correct. Thanks HJJHolm (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nationalism-Bias

[edit]

In place of Origin, I avoided using nations because they distract from pinpointing the geographic origin & gives a nationalistic flavor to the article. Cadenas2008 (talk) 02:03, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this article to my last edit to remove warring edits over origins. I have also removed Iran from the origins box. There is no way of pinpointing origins to a specific country, or at least not in the current state of knowledge. These warring edits have included adding material about R1b which belongs on the specific page for R1b, which I removed once already for that reason. There is now a short section of origins supported by scholarly references. --Genie (talk) 20:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need for update to haplogroup tree

[edit]

The 2006 ISOGG tree is quite out of date. Haplogroups need to be updated to conform with the 2009 tree at http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR09.html. Crummyusername (talk) 17:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Crummyusername[reply]

New Stuff

[edit]
This article needs a strong focus on paragroup R-M207*. --RebekahThorn (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Subclades Clade Diagram

[edit]

I am putting this here because I do not want to loose it.

Haplogroup R 
 Haplogroup R1

 Paragroup R1*

 Haplogroup R2

 Paragroup R2*

Native Americans

[edit]

Do we know for certain that this haplogroup's presence in North America is because of "European admixture"? I just saw on the page for "R M17" that there are a sizable percentage of Itelman and Chukchi people who belong to this haplogroup as well.

Yes, it is certain, that R1b arrived in Americas with colonists. At some point there was a theory(it seems, that anything, that is not based on data, but phantasized is theory nowadays, if published in science journals, so H. G. Wells by that definition should have been greatest scientist of time, but not writer...), that earliest Europeans in Ice Age could have crossed ice to west into America and that might have been possible, though there is a small problem in that R1b arrived in late Ice Age and most probably there was plenty of ice to cross, but then there is another - bigger problem: there seems to be lack of American indians with earliest Europeans - I or G haplogroups. Many of Europeans initially took wives among natives and most of Metis were not considered white, so that is the main source of R1b - same as in modern Western Europe populations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.147.206.144 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not certain. Nobody disputes the presence of European Y-DNA in northeast native Americans, but that doesn't rule out the existence of indigenous R1 at all especially when considering the presence of R* in ANE. In fact it's way more likely that both possibilities are true at the same time than literally all R1 in NA being from Europe. That line of reasoning is radically exclusionary and wrong headed logically.
I cancelled that nonsense, "Some authorities have also suggested, more controversially, that R-M207 has long been present among Native Americans in North America – a theory that has not yet been widely accepted." We either have attestations - then it is no theory, or we have not - then it is phantasy.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E50E:9333:F8D2:485A (talk) 07:53, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 May 2015

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

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Haplogroup R-M207 → Haplogroup R1 – Per WP:COMMONNAME. "Haplogroup R-M207" is used rarely. Google Books search gets about 100 results for "Haplogroup R1", but only about 6 results for "Haplogroup R-M207". Per WP:RECOGNIZABILITY of "Haplogroup R1" due to its common usage. Per WP:CONCISE. Per WP:CONSISTENCY. "Haplogroup R1" is more consistent with the title pattern used for its closely associated article, "Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)". --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Mdann52 (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Khestwol (talk) 20:10, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per above. Khestwol (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against, the so called long designations (like R1) are subject to being moved around in the phylotree. R-M207 is the proper designation that defines a subclade. Since the move to using only SNPs when defining subclades (and not designations like R1) is a fairly recent one, most (if not all) of the currently published material includes R1 designation in addition to R-M207 designation, while the older publications would only include R1 designation = vote by Google should be avoided. The same argument for keeping Haplogroup R-M17 and Haplogroup R-M420. R1b article should be renamed instead. Absolwent (talk) 22:37, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, few sources even mention "R-M207". The article won't be searchable under that title. On Wikipedia it is preferable to use a WP:COMMONNAME like "R1", not a rare name with extremely low recognizability like "R-M207". As for your proposal about renaming Haplogroup R1b, that proposal has been already rejected by a consensus on Haplogroup R1b's talk page here.
  • Support, per nom. The objection that this could be (in the real world) reclassified at some point is irrelevant to the WP:COMMONNAME analysis. If this haplogroup is renamed by "being moved around" in the phylotree, our article will be too renamed, when a preponderance of reliable sources tell us the name has changed. It's a fact of life for Wikipedia as a tertiary source that it will not be on the bleeding edge of nomenclature. I'm sympathetic to, and understand, the view that a more precise, but more technical and infrequently used, name is available; but it doesn't get past COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE policy. WP:PRECISION is policy, too, but it doesn't trump all other concerns, and we generally give COMMONNAME the most weight because this is a general-audience encyclopedia, not a specialized work. See also WP:NOT#JOURNAL: We don't have to mirror every preference of particular journals, and I don't see any evidence presented here that journals in genetics and physical anthropology prefer the SNPs, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  01:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom and per SMcCandlish. Jbeans (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Note about move discussions

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

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Haplogroup R-M173 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:14, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haplogroup R (Y-DNA). 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 05:27, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Haplogroup R (Y-DNA). 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 08:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haplogroup_R_(Y-DNA)&oldid=1207543582"