User talk:Middayexpress/Archive 17

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Middayexpress. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

E1b1b1a1b marker and Somalis

You do not seem to fully comprehend how haplotypes work. Tillmar et al. (2009) did not give percentages, but provided raw data as his main focus was not on haplogroups but forensics. The E1b1b1a1b marker has its own STR values and is characterized by a short and unique DYS19 allele 11 repeats and DYS392 allele 12 repeats (read more about it here (project run by geneticists: http://www.haplozone.net/e3b/project/cluster/9). The study only presented the raw data but V32 Somali men accounted for 113 of the samples if you follow the previous principle (DYS values). Be my guest and check it with excel.

The map gives a visual aid for where groups paternally related to Somalis live. It has been used in the E1b1b1a page for quite some time now. The percentages of other populations in the map you are talking about are an accumulation of several genetic studies.

I have a feeling you do not feel comfortable with the fact that Somalis are paternally largely native to the Horn of Africa and not Arabs.

Mazi99 (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

That's all very well and good. However, the cited source you included ([1]) does not mention any of the material you actually added [2]:

"More recently, Tillmar et al. (2009)^[1] typed 147 males from Somalia for 12 Y-STR loci, and observed that 77% (113/147) had typical E1b1b1a1b haplotypes. This is the highest frequency of E1b1b1a1b found in any single sample population^[2]. The E1b1b1a1b marker strongly correlates with the Cushitic language family due to its distribution in Northeast Africa.^[3]"

The fact remains that the study you cited does not mention either the E1b1b1a1b haplogroup, nor the cited percentage of 77%, nor even the Cushitic languages. That is original research since references must directly and explicitly support edits, so that they are verfiable to a general reading audience (who Wikipedia is actually aimed at). Per WP:NOR:

Wikipedia does not publish original research. The term "original research" refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and stories—not already published by reliable sources. It also refers to any analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material, where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by the sources.

This means that all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable published source, even if not actually attributed. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says a source must be provided for all quotations, and for anything challenged or likely to be challenged—but a source must exist even for material that is never challenged. "Paris is the capital of France" needs no source because no one is likely to object to it, but we know that sources for that sentence exist. If no source exists for something you want to add to Wikipedia, it is what we call original research. To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the material as presented.

As WP:VER also makes clear:

Articles should be based on reliable, third-party (independent), published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy; this avoids plagiarism, copyright violations, and unverifiable claims being added to articles. Sources should directly support the material as it is presented in an article, and should be appropriate to the claims made.

I have therefore again removed the material. If you wish to include it, you'll have to first locate a reliable source that actually directly and explicitly mentions the haplogroup by name, as well as the cited percentage and its affiliation to the language group; you can't just invent it. Middayexpress (talk) 23:59, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You simply do not understand how haplogroups and haplotypes work. It is absolutely clear from your comments. I suggest you to read the following pages before I continue discussing with you:

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Human_Y-chromosome_DNA_haplogroups http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Haplotype http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Modal_haplotype

The study does give us the adequate information to deduce the amount of Somali men with that particular haplotype (V32 mutation). It's pure mathematics, e-mail the author of the study if you don't trust my math: e-mail address: andreas.tillmar@rmv.se (A.O. Tillmar). I have nothing to hide as I know it is fact. The E1b1b1a1b haplogroup is defined by the combination of DYS19 allele 11 repeats and DYS392 allele 12 repeats per the E3b project. Again read: http://www.haplozone.net/e3b/project/cluster/9

I am not the only one using the raw data of Tillmar's study on wiki. On the haplogroup T page a fellow wikipedia user used it as well to deduce the amount of T:

Quote: '8.2% (12/147) of Somali immigrants to Sweden'

http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Haplogroup_T_%28Y-DNA%29#Africa

Source 90 ^ Andreas O. Tillmar et al., "Population data of 12 Y-STR loci from a Somali population (2009)

This fact has been on the haplogroup T page for several months, as it is clearly factual.

E1b1b1a1b (V32 is the mutation name if you didn't get that) haplotypes:

Haplotype	description	YCAIIa	YCAIIb	DYS413a	DYS413b	DYS19	DYS391	DYS393	DYS439	DYS460	DYS461	A10
E-V32	modal	19	21	22	23	11	10	13	12	10	10	13
	min	19	19	20	21	11	9	12	11	9	10	11
	max	20	22	22	24	11	11	13	13	12	11	14
	number	35	35	35	35	35	35	35	35	35	35	35

Again this is based on the numbers, something which you clearly don't understand.

Just because you are not educated enough in this subject doesn't make it unreliable. Please educate yourself.

About the correlation between that particular paternal marker and the Cushitic language family is based on common sense. Just compare the distribution of Cushitic languages to the V32 distribution and you will notice a striking similarity. I could leave this out but I think that's just petty of you.

If you continue to edit my perfectly legitimate findings I am afraid I have to contact the moderators.

Mazi99 (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I politely asked you to contact me here because I had just archived my talk page. Instead, you contact me on my talk page; this is not starting things off on the right foot. Wikipedia policies have already been quoted for you above, but for whatever reason, you have chosen to ignore those too. You also don't seem to understand what material on Wikipedia is actually based on. It is not based on any technical knowledge an editor may or may not personally possess. It is based on reliable sources only. And the fact remains that the cited Tillmar source [3] does not at all mention the haplogroup in question nor the cited percentage or language group. This is known as original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. You can contact any administrator you like, but I guarantee all will tell you the same thing. In fact, I've already contacted an administrator about the material and specifically because he himself ran into a similar situation a while ago when another editor was also attempting to add haplotype-related material to the article (albeit material that wasn't actually stated in the cited reference), and the administrator himself pointed out how that too was original research. So you can keep reverting at your own peril, but I don't recommend it. As I've already explained, the only way the material can stay per actual Wikipedia policy is if you produce a reliable source which directly and explicitly mentions the haplogroup by name, as well as the cited percentage and its affiliation to the language group. This should not be difficult to do if what you are indicating is not a novel argument, but rather a published one. Middayexpress (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just had a closer look at the other source you just cited, and it's a wiki that is open to anyone. Just in case you weren't yet aware, open wikis and other self-published sources for obvious reasons are not at all reliable sources. From WP:SPS:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—including but not limited to books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets—are largely not acceptable.

Middayexpress (talk) 02:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Mazi99 (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)