User talk:Ebizur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello Ebizur! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! —Khoikhoi 00:17, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting your info out there
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Getting Help
Getting along
Getting technical


Contents

[edit] hello

hello and welcome. I have a few requests:

  • please use edit summaries, so people watching pages can judge what you are up to
  • please cite your sources when adding claims to articles
  • please do not mark edits as "minor" when they change an article's content. "minor" editors are formatting changes, spelling corrections or stylistic edits. this edit for example isn't "minor"
  • try to use the preview button a little bit, so your changes will not be scattered over lots of little edits.

thank you, dab (ᛏ) 12:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

no, please, by all means do fix these articles; I was just asking you to do so in a way that makes it less tedious to figure out what you are doing. dab (ᛏ) 13:27, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Nice to meet you. I see you edit in Jurchen about Jomon and Manchu. By the way, are you Japanese?--Hairwizard91 03:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello! Nice to meet you, too. I have edited several of the articles related to the Manchu people and their traditional language, but I don't recall having edited any articles about the Jōmon Era of the prehistory of the Japanese Archipelago. Perhaps you were referring to my occasional postings to the talk page for Ainu people. I would like to remind you that the Ainu people are only one of the modern peoples who derive some of their ancestry from the Jōmon Era populations of the Japanese Archipelago, and therefore the Ainu should not be implicitly equated with the Jōmon people.

As for my personal background, I am a citizen of the United States of America with primarily English, Jewish, and German ancestry. None of my recent ancestors were Japanese, as far as I know. =)

I guess you are probably Korean. Am I right? 한국사람이겠어요? 저는 한국말을 좀 할 수 있는데 한국말로 메시지를 해 주어도 좋겠습니다. もしくは日本人でしたら、日本語で返事を書いてくれても構いません。中文也可以。Anyway, I'm waiting to hear back from you. Ebizur 05:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your sources

Hi, I noticed you have been adding info to Korean language-related articles. Could you cite your sources, please? Some of it is difficult to believe or fact-check. --Kjoonlee 02:16, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you talking about the information about Korean dialectal diversity? I'm just trying to correct a common misperception that the Korean language and people are somehow less diverse than those of the other countries of the region. The truth is that the Korean language is many, many times more diverse than other so-called "language families" in Asia, such as the Turkic languages or the Japonic languages. The internal diversity of Turkic and Japonic is all very recently derived (except for perhaps the Chuvash language among Turkic languages, although even Chuvash vocabulary is readily relatable to forms in other dialects of Turkic through the application of a few simple sound changes), like the diversity of, say, modern dialects of the French language. French is really just one branch of Vulgar Latin, and it should not be given the status of a "language family" just because it has mutated and diversified into a plethora of weird-sounding dialects over the course of the past millennium. The Korean "language," on the other hand, subsumes many dialects that possess vocabulary that cannot be easily derived from any etymon attested in the Standard Korean dialects of Seoul or Pyeongyang, and much of the rest of the basic vocabulary of these dialects, despite being apparently related to that of Standard Korean, reflects a phonological form that must be extremely ancient, perhaps having diverged from the ancestral form of the word found in Standard Korean as many as 2000 years ago. This means that the Korean language is at least as diverse as the entire Romance language family, and probably more so. Ebizur 02:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Well you're not trying hard enough, I think. ;) The examples of Mongolian loanwords that you had added earlier were entirely unfamiliar to normal speakers of Korean Standard South Korean (unlike 송골매 or 보라매), which got me suspicious. Now you've added another bit about Korean that's unsourced, and it's made me more suspicious. Please add your sources, or I'll have to delete the bit. --Kjoonlee 02:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC) --Kjoonlee 02:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Are you claiming that 오늬 onŭy and 난추니 nānchuni are not loanwords from Mongolian? As far as I know, onŭy is the only word in common use in Korea to indicate specifically the notch of an arrow. Those words are very good examples of loanwords from Mongolian because they are traceable back to the time of the earliest Hangeul documents (in which nānchuni appeared as 나친 nachin, which is even closer to the standard Khalkha form) and their Mongolian origin seems to be certain. 송골매, on the other hand, is probably not even a direct loan from Mongolian; from what I have seen, it appears to have been borrowed into Korean through Chinese. Ebizur 03:20, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
No, I'm claiming that they're not good examples unless you cite sources. --Kjoonlee 03:31, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
This is nothing more than what one could find in any dictionary of the Korean language, such as the Yahoo! online dictionary. There has to be a limit to what we require citation of sources for, or else we will have people adding links to dictionary entries. Such citations are really unnecessary; anyone could go and look up the word in a dictionary for themselves if they wanted to confirm the definition of the word, its etymology, and its history of attestation. Ebizur 03:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
You must have read it somewhere, no? You didn't find it out in a dictionary.. --Kjoonlee 03:49, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

But that's been deleted. In many other cases, the basic vocabulary of various dialects appears to be cognate to words found also in Standard Korean, but with highly divergent phonological form this still remains, and this needs to be cited. --Kjoonlee 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

You are really ridiculous. I've got to go see what you've put in its place. Ebizur 03:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
Citing sources is part of the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and the Wikipedia:Citing sources guideline. There's also the Wikipedia:No original research policy for excluding previously unpublished material from Wikipedia. If your edits can't be justified to stay, they will be challenged and/or deleted. --Kjoonlee 04:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
I hope I don't have to remind you about Wikipedia:No personal attacks. --Kjoonlee 04:00, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, it looks like you just reverted it and left the single sentence, "Words have also occasionally been borrowed from Mongolian, Sanskrit, and other languages." That's really informative.

As for adding citations for 돌, 독, 珍惡, etc., I would have to go back and find the original text in various books that I have read on the subject (e.g. The History of the Korean Language by 李基文 선생님) in the past, but I have just memorized the information itself and I don't have the necessary citation data on hand. You could either wait a while until I have found the book again, or you could revert the page back to its earlier, "lighter" form. I don't really care either way. Ebizur 04:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Transcription

I noticed you wrote “… Standard Korean /to:r/ ‘stone’ …” in Korean language. Single slashes are used for phonemic transcription, which I guess would use /l/ instead of /r/ for the final consonant in 돌.

Morphophonemic transcription, by contrast, is usually done in either of the following ways:

  • |rad|
  • //rad//

Wikipeditor 15:32, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, /r/ is widely accepted as the phonemic transcription of the Korean phoneme that is written in Hangeul as ㄹ (rieul). Some linguists have insisted that this phoneme is "underlyingly" an alveolar tap and should therefore be written as /ɾ/ in phonemic transcription; however, even people who agree with the identification of the alveolar tap as the underlying phoneme in this case generally see no reason to go to the trouble of transcribing it with an /ɾ/ all the time, because there is no other phoneme in the Korean language that reasonably should be transcribed with /r/, which is a much more easily typed and widely recognized glyph.
I have never seen anyone, and I mean anyone, postulate */l/ as the underlying form of the phoneme represented by ㄹ in Korean. Transcribing that jamo as "l" when it occurs in the coda of a syllable is merely a convention of romanization that reflects the allophonic variation expressed in Korean pronunciation. Ebizur 22:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirects

Hello, and thank you for your edit to Japanese people. It makes the article a little better. However, this type of edit is generally frowned upon. Please see WP:Redirects#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken for details. Thanks. Dekimasu 05:22, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europe

hi, i inserted a citation for your addition of material on albanian in southern italy to the Europe article. in future it would be fantastic if you could add material with verifiable sources and proper citations. it goes a long way to improving wikipedia's accuracy and reputation! -- frymaster 17:16, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning/ your personal attack on User:207.202.227.125

This edit summary of yours [1] contains a personal attack. Personal attacks are not allowed on wikipedia. See WP:NPA. HalfOfElement29 04:00, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Additional personal attacks and incivility

Your statement on my talk page: "I don't know who you think you are, but you obviously don't have the knowledge necessary to be making edits to this sort of page on Wikipedia." is uncivil, threatening, and a personal attack. I and others have already warned you to cease such behavior. If you continue such behavior, you may be blocked from editting wikipedia. HalfOfElement29 05:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It would be more constructive for you to respond to my valid criticisms of your edits to the wiki:haplogroup page rather than complaining about my disgust for your pretention to be a Wikipedia administrator. Please quit evading the point. Ebizur 06:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Yet again, your statement "your pretention to be a Wikipedia administrator. Please quit evading the point." is a lie and a personal attack. I have addressed your criticisms. Anyway, it is apparant by your persistent incivility and personal attacks that you have no regard for wikipedia policy. HalfOfElement29 06:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Playing by the rules (and thanks for your contributions)

Ebizur - it's clear from your edits that you are a very knowledgable person in a very technical area, and, as such, an extremely valuable contributor to the encylopedia. Having said that, may I ask you to "play a bit nicer" with the other editors, even the anonymous ones? For example, instead of saying "You must be stupid", perhaps just "That's wrong." Similarly, instead of "you obviously don't have the knowledge necessary to be making edits to this sort of page", perhaps "I question if you have the knowledge necessary ... "

Another suggestion: per Wikipedia:Talk page, discussions about the content of the article should be on the article's talk page, not on a user page. That's because discussions of content that appear on a user page, such as most of what you posted at User talk:HalfOfElement29, are essentially unavailable to future editors or readers of the Haplogroup article, since such editors and readers will have no idea which user talk pages (if any) are relevant to the article. (In short, user talk pages should be about behavior, article talk pages about content, and it's ideal of these boundaries aren't crossed in either direction.)

I'm going to let HalfofElement29 know that he/she should be a bit more thick-skinned; every minor transgression of Wikipedia rules (and there are a lot of rules) does not merit something resembling a warning on a user talk page. And I really hope the two of you can cooperate - despite your doubts over his expertise, I think he brings something valuable to the article (you certainly do), and I it would be great if both of you continued to contribute there and elsewhere.

If I can be of any assistance to you, please let me know. Thanks. -- John Broughton | (♫♫) 19:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haplogroup O3

Some Chinese people have been using the following passage in the Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA) article as a basis to claim that O3 carriers in Korea and Japan have "Han Chinese origins".

"Although Haplogroup O3 appears to be primarily associated with Chinese populations, it also forms a significant component of the Y-chromosome diversity of most modern populations of the East Asian region, perhaps reflecting prehistoric or historic Chinese influences on the various neighboring nations. Haplogroup O3 is found in over 50% of all modern Chinese males (ranging up to over 80% in certain regional subgroups of the Han ethnicity), about 40% of modern sub-Siberian Northeast Asian (i.e., Manchurian and Korean) males, and about 20% of modern Japanese males. Haplogroup O3 is also found with high frequency and diversity values among the males of modern Southeast Asian populations, and its distribution stretches far into Central Asia and Oceania, albeit with reduced frequencies of most subclades."

The above passage was initially added by User:24.21.58.15 as follows:

"This clade of the broader macro-haplogroup O appears to be primarily associated with Chinese populations, but Haplogroup O3 also forms a significant component of the Y-chromosome diversity of most modern populations of the East Asian region, perhaps reflecting prehistoric or historic Chinese influences on the various neighboring nations. Haplogroup O3 is found in over 50% of all modern Chinese males (ranging up to over 80% in certain regional subgroups of the Han ethnicity), about 40% of modern sub-Siberian Northeast Asian (i.e., Manchurian and Korean) males, and about 20% of modern Japanese males. Haplogroup O3 is also found with high frequency and diversity values among the males of modern Southeast Asian populations, and its distribution stretches far into Central Asia and Oceania, albeit with reduced frequencies of most subclades."

I believe you have expressed an opposing view: "Finally, there is Haplogroup O3-M122, which is the most widespread and frequently occurring subclade of Haplogroup O. Haplogroup O3 is without a doubt the "Chinese haplogroup," as it occurs in over half of all Chinese men, and Haplogroup O3 is the modal haplogroup among all Sino-Tibetan-speaking populations excepting the Tibetans proper. (The Tibetans proper contain a very high frequency of Haplogroup D1 Y-chromosomes, thus positioning them as distant patrilineal relatives of the Jomon/Ainu/Japanese/Ryukyuans, Andaman Islanders, and Semites/Berbers/Bantu.) Haplogroup O3 also occurs at moderate frequencies among most other East Asian, Southeast Asian, and Austronesian populations, but the clades of Haplogroup O3 that are found among non-Sino-Tibetan populations generally do not appear to reflect recent admixture. The maximum degree of Chinese admixture present among any non-Sino-Tibetan population appears to be no more than 10%."

To my knowledge, ratio of O3* is higher among non-Sino-Tibetan populations, which casts heavy doubts whether or not O3 carriers in those populations are "Han Chinese" in origin. I believe that particular passage in the Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA) is very misleading, and it has in reality been abused to espouse such claims as "O3 is the result of Han Chinese imperial expansion". Perhaps O3a5 is such a result of Han Chinese immigration, but I think it is highly unlikely and dubious that O3 in general is "Han Chinese". I believe that passage should either be deleted or corrected, so what's your thought on this? Cydevil 02:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I also took the liberty of quoting your rebuttal in the Han Chinese article to argue against the same claim made in Koreans. Cydevil 05:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right on the mark. I originally wrote that paragraph to reflect several genetics papers that had recently been published on the subject, several of which (mostly written by Chinese authors, as I recall) claimed that the appearance of various closely related haplotypes within the O3-M122 clade indicated a recent Neolithic expansion from the Central Plain of China. It was in vogue among population geneticists a few years back to assume very recent "Neolithic" origins for many of these widely dispersed haplogroups, and Haplogroup O3-M122 was one of those that they just loved to claim proved a recent Chinese origin of most East Asian ethnicities. The material I have read more recently has debunked most of those claims, however, and it now seems more likely that Haplogroup O3-M122 has an ancient Paleolithic origin somewhere in East Eurasia, while only O3a5 might be closely connected with recent Chinese expansions. Haplogroup O3* is, for example, one of the haplogroups that has frequently been associated with the Austronesian expansion into Polynesia, and I don't think many people would claim that the Austronesian expansion was effected by "Han Chinese." I had been wavering on whether to rewrite that paragraph in order to reflect these recent discoveries and changes in interpretation of the spread of the less-derived, "backbone" haplogroups (i.e., they are now generally believed to be very ancient genetic markers of Paleolithic origin, affected by genetic drift and subsequent diversification among descendant populations), but I think I will go ahead and change that paragraph now in order to quash the growth of any overly ambitious theories on the behalf of our Chinese colleagues. Ebizur 05:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I should have read your comments more carefully before responding. I mistakenly thought that you were exhorting me to change the Haplogroup O3 wiki because you thought I had contributed to the misconception that this was the "Chinese haplogroup." It is true that Haplogroup O3 is the most frequently occurring haplogroup among modern Han Chinese populations (as well as among Hmong-Mien and most Sino-Tibetan minority groups), but, as you mentioned, it now seems clear that not all (or even most) of Haplogroup O3 can be attributed to recent Chinese influence. I do agree that we should edit the Haplogroup O3 wiki page to reflect this. Ebizur 05:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I find it sort of amusing that National Geographic's website for the Genographic Project is still espousing the view that Haplogroup O3 is a very recent haplogroup that spread throughout East Asia, Southeast Asia, and the Pacific as a result of Neolithic expansions originating in the region of China and associated with the dispersal of rice agriculture. They make no mention of millet agriculture, for example; they choose to popularize the view that Haplogroup O3-M122 is exclusively "Chinese" (Han or otherwise) in origin and intimately associated with the spread of rice agriculture. So, let us keep in mind that even such heavy hitters as National Geographic and the Genographic Project can be fallible, and everyone has his own biases and motives. Ebizur 09:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your efforts. Genetic anthropology is a nascent field of studies where new progress and changes are made every year. It's amazing how theories in genetic anthrpology can be so radically upturned by contrary evidence from new samples and studies. And unfortunately, various sources cannot remain up-to-date. I think National Geographics is a good example. I don't think its fallibility is intentional. They're just not updating the site. I think it's important that at least adaptive sources like Wikipedia should reflect such radical changes in genetic anthropology, as to provide people with a more accurate perspective. Again, thank you for your efforts. Cydevil 00:05, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure the problem with the Genographic Project's website is just that it has not been updated for a while and is thus rather outdated; I strongly doubt that the scientists working on the project have intentionally left the description of Haplogroup O3-M122 as it is.
Whatever they may discover about Haplogroup O3 in the coming months or years, it is interesting to note that it has not been found among European populations, even among those that display Haplogroup N3, Haplogroup C3, or Haplogroup Q Y-chromosomes, which have generally been ascribed to recent prehistorical (Holocene) influence of Uralic peoples and historical influence of Turkic and Mongolic peoples. It is now widely believed that a small part of the Haplogroup R1a1 Y-chromosome diversity of Central and Eastern Europe is also due to historical Hungarian and Altaic influences. I'm starting to doubt the explanation of Haplogroup C3 in Europe as a result of Mongol influence, though, because I have heard that Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes have even been found among some individuals with documented paternal ancestry dating back to the middle ages in Scotland or Sardinia, and it seems that some of the European C3 Y-chromosomes are positive for the M93 mutation that defines the subclade C3a, which was originally defined on the basis of some samples from Japan. The rest of the European examples of C3 appear to be all C3*, and I have not heard of any instances in Europe of the typically Mongol-Tungus Haplogroup C3c-M48. It is beginning to appear to me that Haplogroup C3 in Europe might be a very small trace of ancient Central Asian patrilineal ancestry that is more clearly reflected in the high frequency of Haplogroup R1b1c and Haplogroup R1a1 among modern European populations. After all, Native Americans also share at least two Haplogroup P-M45-derived clades (Q* and Q3) in addition to trace amounts of Haplogroup C3 (except the Na-Dene populations, where C3b accounts for nearly a quarter of the Y-chromosome diversity). The Haplogroup Q* Y-chromosomes found among modern Europeans also appear to be extremely diverse, which might be an argument against ascribing their presence in Europe entirely to recent Asian influence. So, anyway, it might be good for the Korean side of things if it turned out that the Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes found in small quantity in Europe were not due to historical Mongolian influence, because Haplogroup O3 is apparently not found in Europe at all, which would mean that the Haplogroup O3 Y-chromosomes found among the modern Mongolian population might be due in large part or in total to recent Chinese (or Tibetan, Korean, etc.) influence.
On a side note, I think it is interesting that the Haplogroup C3* Y-chromosomes found among Koreans appear to belong to a different cluster from those that are found at extremely high frequencies among Mongols, Kazakhs, and Tungus. I'm eagerly anticipating a study that might shed some light on the origin(s) of the Haplogroup C3* element among Koreans; personally, I have a hunch that the Korean C3* element might be related in large part to the modal haplotype of the Nivkhs, because I think that the ancient proto-Koreans absorbed some sort of Nivkh-like population (a lot of Korean people just look like Nivkhs, and there are many interesting Korean-Nivkh linguistic parallels as well, all of which seem to suggest some sort of Nivkh-related substratum in the Korean language). Another reason for assuming either a recent expansion of C3* among the Koreans or an introduction of C3* into the Korean population from a foreign source (either substratal, e.g. from the proto-Nivkhs, or, less likely, adstratal, e.g. from Mongols or Manchus) is that C3 as a whole is very infrequent among the Japanese and, as far as I know, has not been found at all among samples of Ryukyuans, which suggests that the occurrence of Haplogroup C3 among modern Japanese is probably due mostly to assimilation of either Asian immigrants or Ainus, although the presence of C3a in Japan at a very low frequency suggests that C3 might actually have a long history as a minor haplogroup in Japan. In any case, if there is any truth to the posited proto-historic relationship between (at least a certain segment of) the Japanese and the Koreans, then Haplogroup C3* could not have been a major element among the proto-Korean population of that time, because it is not found among the Ryukyuans and it is only a very minor element in the Japanese population as a whole, whereas it accounts for some one-sixth of the entire Korean population. (Of course, the ratio of C3 in modern Koreans compared to modern Japanese would also make sense if the Japanese were only about 1/6 to 1/5 Korean, and the Ryukyuans basically not Korean at all, as that would be sufficient to produce the frequency of C3 that is found among the modern Japanese. In this case, I would guess that Haplogroup N1, which is found among the populations of some cities in Japan, and probably also some O2b1* and O3* in addition to C3* would be attributable to Korean influence. I think the frequencies of those haplogroups among the Japanese would ultimately add up to approximately 1/5 or 1/6 of the Japanese Y-chromosome distribution, so this actually might be a good working hypothesis for explaining the presence of C3* among the Japanese but apparent absence from the Ryukyuan population.) Ebizur 07:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't know if this could be of any help, but Kim Wook et al recently(Sept. 2006) published a paper focusing on haplogroup C in Korean populations: Jin, H. J., Kwak, K. D., Hong, S. B., Kim, W., 2006. Y-chromosome Haplogroup C Lineages and Implications for Population History of Korea. Korean J. Genetics 28(3): 253-259. I do have access to that particular study and I would like to make it available, but I'm not sure about the copyright rules. Cydevil 02:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I just checked. The study is available here[2]. Cydevil 02:00, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
As for Nivkhs, I do recall some Korean linguists claiming that the Korean language consists of an Altaic superstratum and Paleoasian substratum based on comparisons between the Korean language and the Nivkh language. In fact, I made a thread on thisCydevil 01:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
By the way, some of the Korean C3* Y-chromosomes appear to be very closely related to some C3* Y-chromosomes that have been found among the Burusho in northern Pakistan. I don't know what a good explanation for this might be. Hazaras? But they're supposed to be related to the Mongols, not Koreans. Hmm... Ebizur 08:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Northern Pakistan? Well, there is the legend of a princess supposedly from the Indian subcontinent(conjectured by archaeological remains). I guess that's as close as it can get to anyone from that region, as far as I know. Cydevil 01:42, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I came across one of your posts on a Korean forum(a news article to be more exact) regarding southern origins theory of Koreans. I must say, your proficiency in Korean is very impressive. Cydevil 01:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My Korean is terrible, really; I always forget Sino-Korean words that are not cognate with the semantically equivalent Mandarin Chinese or Japanese words. For example, I always fail to recall that Korean people call Australia hoju rather than àozhōu or oosutoraria. I think that I can successfully communicate my intent, though, if I give it enough effort. In any case, thank you for your compliment!
Don't be so modest! Your Korean is very good, and I know how hard Korean can be for none-native speakers. Cydevil 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I did read that recent report by the Korean geneticists at http://kgenetics.or.kr. Thank you for the link. Their report seemed to confirm what I had heard previously; namely, that the diversity of Haplogroup C3* is actually greatest in the populations located around the Sea of Japan, particularly on the continental side, in Korea and Outer Manchuria. I think that this region might have been populated by peoples carrying Haplogroup Q* and Haplogroup C3* in Paleolithic times; this meta-population was probably descended from the Asian relatives of the people who had crossed over into the Americas over 10,000 years ago to become the ancestors of the Amerindians. I am currently hypothesizing that the Haplogroup Q component eventually dominated in the American descendants of this prehistoric "race," while the Haplogroup C3 component ended up dominating in the East Siberian descendants. I think that the Na-Dene peoples, the Eskimo-Aleuts, and the Yeniseian peoples (Kets, etc.) are all the result of later migrations of the Asian descendants of this "Americanoid Asian" population, with the Na-Dene and Eskimo-Aleuts following their Amerindian predecessors into the American continent, and the Yeniseians accompanying the Altaics (and perhaps some Uralics, such as the Samoyeds) westward into central-western Siberia. I also believe that the Japanese are essentially a remnant branch of these ancient proto-Americanoids; they generally look much more similar to Amerinds than to mainland Asians in my eyes. The idea that the Koreans have a "southern" (e.g. Chinese) origin rather than a "northern" or "western" (e.g. Siberian) one, though, seems probably correct to me. I know the archaeologists would contest this, but frankly, I believe that archaeology can only provide evidence of cultural similarities and differences; it cannot be used to determine whether the similarities or differences were due to genetic origins or to cultural interactions, and I would claim that it also cannot confidently be used to determine the directionality of influence. It seems just as likely to me that the similarities in archaeological finds between certain parts of Siberia and ancient Manchuria/Liaoning/North Korea could be due to a migration from Manchuria/Korea to Siberia rather than the other way around. Population density should be taken seriously in these considerations; I believe that it is more likely for genes from high-density populations (such as those of Korea or China) to flow into low-density populations (such as those of Siberia) rather than the reverse. In any case, the fact remains that two of the major Y-chromosome haplogroups found among the modern Korean population, O2b1* and C3*, have their greatest diversity precisely in the Korean population and not elsewhere; although O3* and O2b* might have entered Korea from somewhere in China in prehistoric times, interacting with the Paleolithic C3* and Q* carriers, the presence of C3* in other populations of northeastern Asia and Central Asia seems more likely to reflect ancient migrations originating from the region of Manchuria/North Korea, perhaps resulting in the dispersal of the "Altaic" languages (which I think might be more accurately termed "Manchurian" or "North Korean" languages). Haplogroup O2b1* probably developed in isolation in the southern parts of the Korean Peninsula for a very long time, or perhaps the population that carried it was even in contact with Jomon-era populations of Kyushu. Ebizur 22:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm.. I think that would depend on what you really mean by "southern" and "China", considering that China's a pretty huge place. If you mean the Yellow Sea region, especially western Manchuria/Hebei, then your claim may not necessarily conflict with archaeological findings. However, further below you go, much less likely. Anyways, the mainstream theory of Korean origin among Korean scholars, as written on a Korean college level history textbook, is that new migrants exterminated indigenous populations of the Korean peninsula and became the ancestors of modern Koreans. This is due to major changes in subsistence patterns(aquatic resources -> agriculture). However, according to the book, a new theory contrary to the mainstream one has been gaining acceptance recently. The new theory is that changes in subsistence patterns may not necessarily mean changes in its consituents, so the people of Jeulmun pottery period, who are perhaps related to those of Hongshan culture, may have culturally evolved to Mumun pottery period. Unfortunately, with China claiming that Hongshan culture is a "Chinese" civilization[3], I believe this will only lead to further controversy. Cydevil 13:23, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
I've always thought that the Hongshan culture was more likely to be a sort of proto-Korean or proto-Japanese (or perhaps proto-Korean-Japanese) culture. Their pig dragons just seem so Korean-Japanesey to me. The Middle Korean word for "pig" (/totʰ/) even seems like it could be cognate with the Japanese word for "dragon" (/tatu/ > "tatsu"), although some might consider the Proto-Turkic word */doŋurʲ/ (swine) to be a better fit to the Korean word. There are several Chinese words related to swine that seem sort of similar as well (e.g. 豚 돼지 돈), but I don't know whether there are any proposed Tibeto-Burman cognates of those Chinese words. Considering how nasty and dangerous the Japanese "inoshishi" (wild boars) are, I can imagine that ancient people might have dreaded the wild boar to the point of deifying it as a magical monster. Japanese people have told me stories about wild boar charging out of the shadows and splitting a person's shin in two, or even killing a person.
Hmm... I've never heard of any pig-worshipping in Korea. Though there's a very old tradition of building poles with bird scultures on top. Most of them are ducks, but there are also ravens, sea gulls, etc. Cydevil 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes, the Korean duck totems. Isn't there some ethnic group in Southeast Asia that makes a big deal about their ancestor who was a bird? As for the Hongshan culture and its pig dragons, it might just be that the association of boars/swine with dangerous magical power died out or was transferred to the reptilian concept of "dragon" after contact with the incipient Chinese ethnic group and their culture. Ebizur 11:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Now that I think of it, aren't the Tuvans also known as Uryankhai? And I have heard that the Sakha were also called Uranghai at some time in the past. These ethnonyms are obviously cognate with Korean 오랑캐 orangkhae, and they all vaguely resemble the Korean word for "duck" (Middle Korean 올히 olhi, Modern Korean 오리 ōri). What do you think about this? Is it just a coincidence? I would like to hear any theories about the etymology of the Uryankhai/Uranghai/Orangkhae ethnonym. Ebizur 11:30, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
If Chinese archaeologists believe Hongshan was a proto-Chinese culture, then which proto-ethnic group do they identify with the Yangshao culture? Personally, I think Hongshan is probably proto-Dongyi, and perhaps related to the early ancestors of the Shang Dynasty.
Well, a lot of Koreans would agree, but unfortunately, some people go the extra step to claim Dongyi as something "Korean" and claim that Shang Dynasty was "Korean". Cydevil 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Haplogroup C3

By the way, I have been doing some calculations based on the reported frequencies of certain haplogroups found among East Asian populations and the total population of those ethnic groups (as reported in the Wikipedia article about each ethnic group), and I have come up with some interesting figures. The total extant Manchu-Tungus population appears to be about 10,987,200, with 10,680,000 or so being Manchu, approximately 188,000 being Sibe, and the remaining 119,200 persons comprising a great number of distinct tribes and accounting for nearly the whole of the diversity of the Tungusic phylum. Actually, more than half of the remaining 119,200 Tungusic tribal people are Evenks, so a great deal of linguistic and cultural diversity is actually preserved by the approximately 50,000 Tungusic people that are not Manchu, nor Sibe, nor Evenk. It is also notable that the large Tungusic populations, namely the Manchu and the Sibe, presently consist almost entirely of individuals who possess very little or no knowledge of their ancestral Tungusic language, which might suggest that cultural barriers against intermixture have already broken down to a significant degree. If one assumes that 50% of the Tungusic population is male and that, on average, 60% of Tungusic males belong to Haplogroup C3, then one finds that there should presently be approximately 3,296,151 Tungusic males that belong to Haplogroup C3. This figure is probably a bit on the high side, because studies seem to have shown that the Manchu have a somewhat lower percentage of C3 males compared to the other Tungusic groups, and the Manchu account for the overwhelming majority of extant Tungusic males.

Performing a similar calculation on the data for the Mongolic peoples, assuming a total Mongolic population of 10,000,000, with 50% being males and 60% of those males belonging to Haplogroup C3, one arrives at the conclusion that there should be approximately 3,000,000 Mongolic males that belong to Haplogroup C3.

For the Koreans, I took the total population to be 79,000,000, with 50% being male and 16% of those males belonging to Haplogroup C3, which produced a figure of 6,320,000 Korean males that belong to Haplogroup C3.

For the Japanese, I took the total population to be 130,000,000, with a C3 frequency of 3.1%, which produced a figure of 2,015,000 Japanese males that belong to Haplogroup C3.

For the Han Chinese, I took the total population to be 1,300,000,000, with a C3 frequency of 0.5%, which produced a figure of 3,250,000 Han Chinese males that belong to Haplogroup C3. The C3 frequency of 0.5% for the Han Chinese is speculative; some studies of Han Chinese males have failed to find even a single individual that belongs to Haplogroup C3, while other studies have reported samples of Han Chinese males in which as many as 8% belong to Haplogroup C3. Because of the enormous population size of the Han Chinese, even a difference of 1% in the frequency of C3 among Han Chinese males would cause the figure for the estimated number of Han Chinese males that belong to Haplogroup C3 to fluctuate greatly.

In order, the estimated number of males that belong to Haplogroup C3 would be:

Koreans: 6,320,000
Manchu-Tungus: 3,296,151
Han Chinese: 3,250,000
Mongolics: 3,000,000
Japanese: 2,015,000

As you can see, the Koreans probably have at least twice the number of C3 males of any other East Asian population, especially when one considers that the estimate of 3,296,151 for Manchu-Tungus is probably too high, as the percentage of modern Manchus that belong to Haplogroup C3 is probably somewhat less than the 60% that I assumed in my calculations. Thus, it does not surprise me at all that researchers have found that the Korean population harbors the greatest diversity of Haplogroup C3-M217 Y-chromosomes. The fact that the runners-up in Haplogroup C3 diversity include the Nivkhs, Koryaks, and Buryats, who have very small raw numbers of Haplogroup C3 males, suggests strongly to me that Haplogroup C3 is probably a Paleo-Siberian (Nivkh, Chukotko-Kamchatkan, Na-Dené, and perhaps also Yeniseian) haplogroup in origin, and it has probably been present in the coastal regions of the Russian Far East and the Korean Peninsula since Paleolithic times. I suspect that the ancestral Paleolithic population in which Haplogroup C3 originated was probably in close contact and interacting with the Paleolithic population in which Haplogroup Q originated, so Haplogroup C3 is probably related somehow to the genesis of the ancestral proto-Americanoid population. Ebizur 08:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I really overused the word "probably" in that last paragraph, didn't I? I need to learn to write with more confidence. Anyway, I just wanted to flesh out the current picture of Haplogroup C3 distribution and diversity. At present, it seems that there are six major clusters of Haplogroup C3:

1) Turco-Mongol C3-M217* (includes the "star cluster" that is presumed to be connected to the patrilineal relatives of Genghis Khan)
2) Manchu-Tungus C3c-M86 (includes the cluster of STR haplotypes that is presumed to be connected to the patrilineal relatives of Nurhaci, the founder of the Qing Dynasty)
3) Southeast Asian C3-M217* (a very diverse group that includes most of the Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes found among Han Chinese, Vietnamese, Malay, and Filipino populations)
4) Korean C3-M217* (another very diverse group that is closely related neither to the Turco-Mongol C3* nor to the Manchu-Tungus C3c)
5) "Japanese" C3-M217* and C3a-M93 (a relatively undiverse group that surprisingly appears to be most closely related to some Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes that are found at very low frequency among Europeans rather than to any of the East Asian C3 clusters)
6) Na-Dené C3b-P39 (a relatively distinct and isolated branch that includes almost all the Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes found among indigenous peoples of the Americas)

So, according to the state of our knowledge of Haplogroup C3 at present, Haplogroup C3 cannot be used to demonstrate a close ethnic relationship between Koreans and any other population. If anything, the high diversity and unique clustering of Korean C3* Y-chromosomes is yet another piece of evidence (in addition to the high frequency of uniquely Korean O2b1* Y-chromosomes) that suggests that the Koreans have a very long history as a separate "race" (or "ethnic group" or whatever you want to call it). Ebizur 22:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, another study that I have just reviewed has found Haplogroup C3 Y-chromosomes in only 17 out of a sample of 101 Manchu males. If this is not a fluke due to regional variation within the Manchu population, then it means that only about 16.8% of Manchu males belong to Haplogroup C3, including approximately 8.9% in C3-M217* and approximately 7.9% in C3c-M48. Haplogroup C3c-M48 appears to be a very recently-expanded "Altaic" haplogroup that is found mainly in Mongolians and Kazakhs. Haplogroup C3c-M48 has not been found in any sample of Koreans as far as I know, and it is also not found among Han Chinese. However, Hammer et al.'s "Dual origins of the Japanese" article reported three Japanese individuals (among their sample of 259) who displayed the M86 mutation, which is believed to be a subclade of C3c that has expanded during historical times, mainly among Siberian Tungusic tribes. I would not be surprised if the sporadic instances of Haplogroup C3c-M86 and Haplogroup N3a-M178 among Japanese (and perhaps also some of the Japanese individuals who belong to the Haplogroup Q-P36, Haplogroup I-P19, and Haplogroup R-M207 clades) were due to the historically recorded invasions of the 肅愼 (Sushen, Suksin) to the Hokuriku and Ezo regions of Japan. In fact, I have read on a Japanese website that Haplogroup N is especially frequent in Japan in the area around the Noto Peninsula on the Japan Sea coast, which is part of the Hokuriku region that was invaded by the so-called "Sushen" (or Mishipase/Ashipase). In any case, Haplogroup C3c Y-chromosomes have not been found even sporadically among Koreans or Han Chinese, which basically precludes any possibility of a major ethnic mixing between Mongolians and either Koreans or Han Chinese during the historical and proto-historical periods. Haplogroup C3* is found at moderate frequency among both Manchus (approx. 8.9%) and Koreans (approx. 16.5% among South Koreans and approx. 12.7% among Korean Chinese) as well as among northern Han Chinese (as much as 9.5% in a sample of 42 Northern Hans), so the possibility of recent intermixture between Northern Hans, proto-Manchus, and proto-Koreans seems much more likely. The proto-Turco-Mongolians were probably isolated (perhaps by the Gobi Desert) from the East Asian groups and more involved with the Indo-European Scythians and Uralic Samoyeds that dwelt to their west. Ebizur 04:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Caps

Hello, please do not type in caps in edit summaries: Han Chinese. It can be viewed as shouting. Your edit summaries don't need to be long sentences, a simple "no evidence of genetic relationship" would be fine. I agree with your edit, by the way. Thanks. Sirrägh 09:31, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] mTDNA of Japanese

Any thoughts on this? Cydevil 09:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

More than anything else, I think this reflects the fact that the population of Japan has not gone through any bottleneck for a very long time. I have read studies that have found 0% of the mtDNA sequences to match in a comparison between samples of Han Chinese and Japanese. Dr. Horai's finding that approximately 25% of Japanese mtDNA sequences were of the "common Han Chinese type" (I believe this is mtDNA Haplogroup D5) does not mean that these female ancestors were historical Chinese immigrants; I think this 25% of mtDNA in Japan that is similar to the common Han Chinese mtDNA type(s) is more likely to reflect the continuation in Japan of a female line that happened to become extremely frequent among the Han Chinese. It seems rather parallel to the approximately 20% of Haplogroup O3-M122 Y-DNA that is found among modern Japanese. I would predict that the approximately 25% of "Han Chinese type" mtDNA to which Dr. Horai refers in that blurb is only related to actual Han Chinese samples at the same level as the approximately 20% of "Han Chinese type" Y-DNA that is found in Japan is related to actual Han Chinese O3-M122 Y-chromosomes. One should keep in mind that a similar or even greater percentage of the Y-DNA of even Polynesian populations is also of that "Han Chinese type." Ebizur 09:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
I think it is fundamentally wrong to try to relate a certain haplogroup to a specific historical or present-day ethnicity. For example, the mtDNA haplogroup that is most common among Han Chinese (D5, I believe) is also the most common mtDNA haplogroup among most Siberian "Altaic" populations. Does that mean that Siberians are also Han Chinese? No, of course not. It just means that most present-day Siberians and Han Chinese are directly descended in the maternal line from a female ancestor who lived more recently than the common matrilineal ancestor of most Siberians or Han Chinese and, say, Iraqis. There is also a great deal of evidence to suggest that mitochondrial DNA is directly subject to evolutionary selection, which makes me strongly favor Y-DNA over mtDNA in comparisons among human populations. Ebizur 09:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Taiwanese aborigines

Re: Closely related to Malays and Indonesians?...

I'm changing the text to the following: "The Taiwanese Aborigines are Austronesian peoples closely related to the people of the Philippines and possibly Melanesia" I have good sources, as listed in the notes. Found no sources for Indonesia/Malaysia. Thanks for pointing this out!!!! --Ling.Nut 18:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goguryeo

Someone broached the subject on genetic anthropology. I don't know if I provided a good answer for it. I think an opinion from someone well-versed in this field might be useful. Please check it out if you're interested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Goguryeo Cydevil38 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] License tagging for Image:China ethnolinguistic 83 edit.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:China ethnolinguistic 83 edit.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:06, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Encyclopedia Britannica

Your edit regarding retention of ancestral characteristics was injected between a citation's content and the citation's source, the Encyclopedia Britannica. Does the content of your edit come from the Encyclopedia Britannica or is it original research? If it is original research, then it shouldn't be on Wikipedia.----DarkTea© 03:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Japanese language

Hi, I noticed you removed a section of text because the reference was not in English, saying "References must be in the English language in your edit summary. I believe this is incorrect. WP:CITE says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal calibre. However, do give references in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." Would you consider restoring the text? Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The critical parts here are "However, do give references in other languages where appropriate" and "If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." The assertion that was being made (i.e., that there is a "systematic correspondence" among the Mongolian, Manchu, and Japanese languages) is not the sort of assertion for which one might appropriately cite a German-language text as a reference in the English-language Wikipedia. In addition, the editor did not provide an English translation of the relevant section of the cited German text as required per the rules you quoted above.
I would be against restoring the text even if an English-language source (or a translation of the previously cited German-language source) were provided, however, because the hypothesis of a common origin of the Mongolian, Manchu, and Japanese languages is extremely controversial. This hypothesis has not been proven to a degree that a majority of Japanese language specialists would accept the deleted claim of a "systematic correspondence" among these three languages. Basically, a claim of that sort does not belong on the Japanese language wiki-page (except in the subsection about classification of the Japanese language); you might post it on the Altaic languages page instead if you desperately want to resurrect the deleted text and citation. Ebizur (talk) 07:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Nations belonging to haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) nominated for deletion

Category:Nations belonging to haplogroup R1a (Y-DNA) has been nominated for deletion. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page. Sasha l (talk) 12:00, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ainu people

Thank you for the alert on the lapse. I corrected Ainu for Jomon now, thanks JennyLen☤ 11:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Y-chromosomal Aaron

Hi. I'm involved in a content disagreement with User:Chriscohen at Y-chromosomal Aaron. Basically, he won't accept that Cohens in J1 and Cohens in J2 can't have had a common ancestor since before Haplogroup J split -- long before Biblical times. And that the evidence of longer STR signatures fully reflects this, despite what may have been asserted back in 1998.

As I see you've actively edited several Y-DNA articles, including Haplogroup J (Y-DNA), can I ask for your mediation? I'd like to try to stop this turning into an edit war. Jheald (talk) 13:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ainu in Honshu

Hi,

Wondering why you want a ref for Ainu in language isolate, but no other language, and then only for certain parts of its range. — kwami (talk) 05:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

It is because I have studied the Ainu language myself, and I have never encountered any record of the language being spoken in Honshuu. Ebizur (talk) 05:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Any history of Japan should have it. Wars with the Ainu as the Japanese moved into Kantō, Ainu place names south nearly to Nagoya, etc. Last time I was in Kinukuniya, I saw a book on one of the display tables claiming the samurai were predominantly of Ainu descent. I don't know if there's anything to that, but it shows that the idea of eastern Honshū being originally Ainu is common knowledge in Japan. — kwami (talk) 06:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
The idea that there was ever any significant number of speakers of the Ainu language in Honshuu is one of those persistent pseudoscientific rumors that belongs in the company of Sasquatch and Aryan supermen. It is not substantiated by historical or ethnographical evidence. Ebizur (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Why do you say that? — kwami (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
What about Race, Ethnicity and Migration in Modern Japan (Weiner 2004)? Or any of the dozens of books you can find on Google by searching Ainu+Honshu? — kwami (talk) 08:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bestowed title of the King of Wa

Hi Ebizur, thanks for your editing the article, Kofun period. I noticed the inaccurate reference misled our misinterpretation about the bestowed title of the King of Wa. Would you comment my note in the talk page of the article? Thanks.--Amagase (talk) 13:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Korean language, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you.--Appletrees (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)