Talk:Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	MCB Portal This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale.
Low	This article is on a subject of Low-importance within molecular and cellular biology.
Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

Archives

/Archive 1

Contents 1 The M78 section 2 The M78 timescale 3 Edit warring 4 Requested move 5 New round of changes 20 May: building on the base 6 Archiving

[edit] The M78 section

Old version, not including the sub-sub-clades:

The most commonly distributed E1b1b sub-branch is E1b1b1a. The flow of E1b1b can be summarized into about four main episodes, based on geographic and quantitative analysis of haplogroup and micro satellite diversity: 1) Sometime in the Upper Paleolithic, between 23.9 and 17.3ky ago, E1b1b (M215) bearing chromosomes first appeared in Eastern Africa [Cruciani et al. 2004]. 2) The E1b1b1a mutation (M78) then occurred in the E1b1b chromosomes distributed in Northeast Africa. Migrants from Northeastern Africa with the M78 mutation then made their way westward to North Africa. 3) Sometime around 13ky ago, these M78 bearing E1b1b chromosomes were introduced into Europe by the migrant community in North Africa. 4) Between 20 and 6.8ky ago, M78 bearing E1b1b chromosomes were introduced into western Asia from Northeast Africa [Cruciani et al. 2007]. This haplogroup arose ca. 18.6 kya after the spread of E1b1b1* (M35) from the Horn of Africa to Egypt, and has been further divided into subclades by Fulvio Cruciani, on the basis of the following SNP mutations:

New version, not including the sub-sub-clades:

Again, estimations of age are difficult and vary greatly, but M78's age has been estimated at about 22 thousand years, though some estimations are significantly more recent. This means it is not necessarily significantly older than M215 itself. It probably originated within the same communities in the Horn of Africa. It has been further divided into subclades by Fulvio Cruciani et. al. (2004, 2006, 2007), on the basis of the following SNP mutations.

The biggest change is the removal of the timescale. I have mentioned already that a timescale might be possible to make, but I could not see how to save the one in the old version. The timescale will be discussed in another section. So looking at the other parts:

• The old version says that "The most commonly distributed E1b1b sub-branch is E1b1b1a". This sentence is not good English, and it is not easy to determine what it means. It absolutely needed to be changed. Secondly most possible interpretations of it seem to me to be at least debatable. Here is surely a case where the author needs to give a source!
• The old version says that M78 "arose ca. 18.6 kya after the spread of E1b1b1* (M35) from the Horn of Africa to Egypt". Giving such specific times and places ignores the level of complexity in the discussions in the supposed references, and this is misleading. I think there are two options: explain all the theories and counter theories in a lot of detail, or give broader statements about time and place which are compatible with all articles.
• Once again the new version has better referencing than the old version!
• The final paragraph of the old version seems to be from a still older version and perhaps originally introduced the whole section? It gives a different foundation date for M78, which is not necessarily wrong. Tidying up is however obviously needed!

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Lancaster's comment that the assertion that "the most commonly distributed E1b1b sub-branch is E1b1b1a" makes no sense and therefore needs a source has no merit. A simple scroll through the upper portions of this page will quickly show that he has already been explained what that quote means. I've also presented him with an authoritative source that's already included in the reference section of the article, which quite plainly states the prevalence of E1b1b1a/M78 (meaning how commonly it is found) among sub-clades of E1b1b/E3b: "Haplogroup E-M78 was observed over a wide area, including eastern (21.5%) and northern (18.5%) Africa, the Near East (5.8%), and Europe (7.2%), where it represents by far the most common E3b subhaplogroup." (Cruciani et al. 2004) Causteau (talk) 05:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I think you can be more constructive than that. As you know, the reason I now what the quote was meant to say, is because you explained it above, in another section of the discussion page. Please keep in mind that just because you were focusing on that part of the discussion page first does not mean that our discussion above happened significantly before the section you are now responding to was written, which is what you are now accusing me of.

Furthermore there are several clarifications which I already made in reply, and which you could already be replying to now...

• The sentence is not good English. If it is not obvious why then I'll spell it out: "most commonly distributed" is not standard English, while "most widely distributed" is. "Commonly distributed" according to my understanding of my mother tongue, would mean something which is distributed often, ie many times, like "they commonly distributed alms on Sundays". Commonly refers to frequency in time, not place.
• The quote you say is the source, simply does not say what you seem to want the article to say. 1. It says that M-M78 was the most common E3b type in Europe only. 2. It says that E-M78 is found "over a wide area" which is obviously not the same as being "most widely distributed", let alone most commonly distributed.

Honestly, I think defending the original text in this case is a lost cause, surely? So if you really have a problem with the new text, why not put in the exact Cruciani quote? (BTW, putting in the quote does not require deleting anything else in my humble opinion. The whole point of the edits I made in this section was to clean up what was obviously a mish mash of old edits, so that it can indeed be built up again with more careful and coherent material.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:38, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The quote works fine and I could insert it, but there is another quote from Cruciani I'd rather insert in another area of the article so I'll pass. I've just looked over your version, and I noticed you included a statement which partly emphasizes the prevalence of M78 but in tandem with M81: "The two best known sub-clades of E1b1b1 are E1b1b1a (E-M78) and E1b1b1b (E-M81), both are associated with the Mediterranean. They are thought to represent the two sub-clades with the largest populations within E-M215 (E1b1b)." This works fine. Causteau (talk) 10:21, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Good to hear. I've been playing with this section with your comments in mind. Please keep an eye on it to see if I do anything wrong. I am trying to cover so many concerns, that I fear I might end up with some redundant explanations of the same things in different parts of the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, I see you've removed all reference to the fact that M215 and M35 seem to have sprung from the same long term population as their parent SNP, P2. Personally I think that the history of E-M215 is interesting to people partly because of what it implies about human migrations coming out of Eastern Africa. That is certainly the focus of quite a lot of the literature on it. But discussing this means discussing more about the context and "family tree" of M-215. I can't justify simply reverting on what is arguably a matter of taste, but I have already asked others to comment. POTOH, prhaps I can at least ask you whether you can understand why I think readers will want to know about this subject, and perhaps you can think of a better way to say it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The M78 timescale

Here is the timescale which was removed:

The flow of E1b1b can be summarized into about four main episodes, based on geographic and quantitative analysis of haplogroup and micro satellite diversity: 1) Sometime in the Upper Paleolithic, between 23.9 and 17.3ky ago, E1b1b (M215) bearing chromosomes first appeared in Eastern Africa [Cruciani et al. 2004]. 2) The E1b1b1a mutation (M78) then occurred in the E1b1b chromosomes distributed in Northeast Africa. Migrants from Northeastern Africa with the M78 mutation then made their way westward to North Africa. 3) Sometime around 13ky ago, these M78 bearing E1b1b chromosomes were introduced into Europe by the migrant community in North Africa. 4) Between 20 and 6.8ky ago, M78 bearing E1b1b chromosomes were introduced into western Asia from Northeast Africa [Cruciani et al. 2007].

First comments:

• Episode 1 is about M215. So it should be in the origins section. What's more it gives the wrong origin date for M215.
• Episode 2 adds nothing to what has already been said in other parts of the article.
• Episode 3 needs a lot more explanation and sourcing. I think it is misleading and arguably wrong. By implication it is describing the arrival of M-V13 in Europe, which it is not.
• Episode 4 logically comes before episode 3. And for anyone not familiar with the literature, it is potentially misleading. What's more, it could like episode 2 simply be dealt with the general text.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Causteau, I see from your note on my talk page that you do not like the fact that the timeline was removed. Please note that we agreed that if it were to be included, it needed a lot of work. I see no problem in principle, and indeed, without checking the full history of this article it might have been me who originally made one. I have been discussing this with others, and I think one of the problems is that when this article was written Cruciani's timeline ideas were simpler and easier to follow. The literature is now more complex. A timeline would therefore require quite a lot of work if it is not going to be confusing and controversial. And even then I fear it will become so complex as to fail as a summary. However, I think it is natural that someone should try to work on it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit warring

Hiya, I'm stopping in as an uninvolved admin, since I see this article has been getting a lot of activity recently. I have no opinion on the content, but if I can help, please let me know. Have recent edits been in accordance with the Wikipedia policies of Verifiability and neutrality? Or is there some other issue? --Elonka 19:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have considered how best to answer, and I decided it was best to be "opiniative". I hope this will not grate, but the intention is to give something that only claims to be one side of the story, and that can not be taken - hopefully - as more than that.

In my opinion, the situation certainly has the potential to be helped by a third party. People looking at this case might be surprised at such an idea, because the esoteric and detailed nature of subject might seem to make that rather a tall order. However closer examination might show that concerning the esoteria, the details and facts, the two sides, of which I am one, are amazingly close. So that is probably not the problem.

We have an article which was long quiet, except for a few occasional subtle reversions on a section involving the Balkans. I have caused a disturbance, by finally spending some time on this article, which I had long planned to do. I think the number of edits has given the impression of arrogance, and a white knight appeared to make sure no large changes could be made any more by reverting any changes without discussion, on the basis of any wikipedia guideline he could find. This is all debatable "perspective" of course!

In any case, yes, we had an edit war in the sense that all changes were being totally reverted for some period. The good news is that we are now not doing reverts, for the time being, and there is discussion on the discussion page. My interlocutor and I both claim that our intentions are good, and we both opine that we doubt the other's are equally good.

A third party would therefore be rather handy in making sure that neither of us now start to allow the discussion to break down.

It is especially useful that both of us have claimed to be working by Wikipedia norms, so a third party experienced in such norms might be able to cut off diversions in that direction. The most obvious dispute so far can be summarized in my opiniative opinion by asking whether total reverts of a serious (but imperfect) and arguably improving edit, are a bigger no-no than making edits which include no better - 'or worse' - sourcing giving "verifiability". But this summary is controversial! To explain my idea about that controversy...

• My interlocutor would presumably emphasize, based upon the comments made, that such sourcing should be more demanded of anybody daring to make large scale changes in a long unchanged article.

• I have stated that I believe that any improvement in an article is a good thing, and weak points in the improvements should be edited bit-by-bit, and not by total reverts. I also feel that if the intention is better sourcing, then the person who wants that should work on it. (we both seem to know the sources.) Note that this article inevitably must be based upon a very small number of academic sources which are extremely consistent in most regards.

I would welcome more readers of the present discussion, because the main aim is to improve this article. I feel that not only the two main protagonists, but also others, might truly desire this, and might be helped through a difficult period to attain something better than we might otherwise have attained.

--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll do my best to help. :) In regards your question about improvement style, could you give me a couple diffs as examples? --Elonka 21:59, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've actually made something of an effort today. If you look in the discussion section above you'll see that there is a debate, which is awkward but better than a revert war, and then a section where I have now summarized every change versus the preferred reversions, with my understanding of what the issues are or might be. I am now waiting to see if there will be any constructive response. Again I hope its clear my interlocutor might describe it otherwise. He/she claims to believe that I am just trying to make bad edits look like they had good intentions, as you can indeed read above. His/her preferred approach in terms of style was full reverts in order to stop any large scale editing. He/she would presumably say, based upon the actions and statements which are clear to see, that it was unfair of me to have made it difficult for him to carry out these reversals. On the other hand if I had improved the quality of citations, he/she might, if I take the comments seriously, have been happy to accept the changes. It just so happens that this was not what I saw as being most urgent. So, optimistically, perhaps we just had different priorities.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:13, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I am glad that things are calmer now. I did spend some time looking at the article history, and here is what seems to be the state of things:

The edit warring has been done by:

• Causteau (talk · contribs)
• Andrew Lancaster (talk · contribs)
• 76.65.182.164 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)
• 80.200.59.250 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log • checkip)

I'm guessing, based on the pattern of edits, that Causteau is 76.65.182.164, and that Andrew is 80.200.59.250. If I am wrong, I apologize.

Regardless of who's whom though, the edit warring must stop. As it is, I would be within my rights to block all four accounts, right now. I'm not going to do that, but if I see another series of reverts (from either side), you can expect blocks and/or page protection, regardless of whether or not you've passed the 3 reverts per 24 hours.

My honest recommendation on how to proceed at this point, is to slow down. Instead of overhauling the entire article at once, pick one paragraph that you want to change. Make an edit, ensure that the edit is linked to a reliable source, and then wait and see how things go. See the Bold, revert, discuss cycle.

In other words:

• If anyone sees edits that they disagree with, don't revert the entire thing. Instead, try to change the page, to try and find a compromise position.
• If anyone sees anything that is unsourced, rather than just deleting it outright, instead, tag it as needing a source, with a {{fact}} tag.
• If something is deleted, that someone feels should not have been deleted, do not just add it back, unless you also include an inline citation which verifies it.

If you have any questions, let me know, --Elonka 03:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance and advice. It's good to have a third party oversee things. Hopefully this matter can now be resolved. Causteau (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think Elonka is correct about the interpretation of what has happened, and about the two incorrectly signed accounts (one of which is mine) and about the best way to work on it - ie without full reverts (as per my numerous requests). I note your reference insertion, which is fine but not necessarily the best reference for the comment being referenced, which is a comment about the history of the name. (And BTW is an unreferenced comment from the old version of the article, the one being defended as if it had better sourcing.) I have raised the question about whether the comment being is even correct, above. In particular, was HG21 the name of this haplogroup specifically only between 2002 and 2008? But perhaps this is best discussed above where I have made a section for it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

If my source was mis-placed, I do apologize. I was intending to give an example of how to do an inline citation. If you do not agree with where I placed the source, then yes, by all means please move it.  :)

I was pleased today to see that both of you may be circling in on a consensus version of the article. I noticed that one disagreement has to do with placement, such as whether to refer to something as "E1b1b1 (M35)" or "M-35 (E1b1b1)". In situations such as these, I find it best to again refer to reliable sources. How do they generally list the symbols? It can be useful to include an actual quote from the source, in one of the <ref> notes on the article. --Elonka 02:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the intention of your example was clear for everyone, and was only helpful. Concerning the terminology questions, they also seem resolved now. E1b1b is the current term for this clade since the very recent Karafet article, but because the terminology has been changing so quickly, more and more researchers are also using terms like E-M215 and E-M35 (just naming the most "downstream" SNP of the population they are talking about). So both these and older designations have to be at least mentioned in the article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand now. We have had this kind of issue in many other topics on Wikipedia, where there is a conflict between "the newest" name, and "the best known" name. In such cases, the consensus is to stick with "best known" name even if it's not 100% accurate, since our target audience is for laypeople, and we want to use the "principle of least astonishment". Article titles too, are generally expected to go with "most common" name. See WP:COMMONNAME. Perhaps there are some popular sources that could be drawn upon, to determine most common usage? Newspapers and mainstream magazines are often useful for this kind of determination. --Elonka 00:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See below where a new discussion has started about this. In this case there are at least 3 reasonable options:

• the most "official" name in recent years which was the most widely used name for a while,
• the new "official name" which is confusing and not yet widely used,
• a name which has been reasonably common for a long time but is now becoming more common, probably most common, and most easy to understand.

The problem also involves the naming method of the 2002 and 2008 articles which are respected as semi-official updates. The method was very clever in 2002. It tries to show a "family tree" within the name. So E is the parent clade of E3 (people with mutation P2), and E3 has "children" E3a and E3b (people with mutation M215), etc. The problem is that many new branches have been found and will continue to be found, meaning that these names are going to start changing more quickly, and getting impractically long. While working on this article I have constantly had to robotically count the number of steps I've put in the new name in order to make sure I get right, and I believe it is the same for others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

To allow wider discussion, I've added a "requested move" template above, to propose the article title should be moved from Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) to Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA).

Both forms are acceptable under the YCC naming conventions. So far the WP haplogroup article titles have all been of the first form, but it seems to me that, as partly outlined above, there seem to be some good reasons for now moving to the second form, at least for the case of this haplogroup, viz:

• The first-form systematic name is likely to become increasingly unstable, as more new SNPs are discovered.
• It is also likely to become increasingly longer, and unmemorable. Arguably, it has already jumped the shark in this respect.
• It is also unfamiliar, in that (until very recently) the haplogroup was designated E3b, and this is a form readers will probably continue to encounter in external documents for some considerable time to come. The dissonance bewtween E3b and E1b1b may be something that many may find confusing; but the duality between E3b and E-M215 should be rather less so.

Therefore, I suggest that the E-M215 name be used in the title of the article; and that further subhaplogroups in the article be primarily referred to using designations following this form, although with the current tree-form names also being mentioned at least on first introduction: so "E-M35 (or E1b1b1)", etc.

What do people think? I'll also post a message at WT:HGH, to let people know about this discussion. Jheald (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support Jheald (talk) 11:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure of the correct procedures, so I'll just post a response. I am slightly in favor of this proposal. I think it has to happen eventually, because I think that all signs are that the naming system currently still slightly more "orthodox" is collapsing. (More SNPs will be found.) In any case, I will start by putting a re-direct on M-215.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bad idea to rename the page to E-M215 because the orthodox E1b1b naming system hasn't collapsed yet, and until it does, we should be presenting what the leaders in the field assert as the primary name for the haplogroup. When the E3b naming convention was still in effect, for example, most studies were titled after it. Another thing to consider is the average Wiki reader. Many recognize the E3b name from various websites, and are now starting to grow accustomed to the new E1b1b nomenclature. Observing the primary naming system makes it easier for these readers to conduct research across different websites and draw parallels between the information they glean from those sites and the latest studies since both are more likely to observe the first form. Most of the popular DNA genealogy testing sites frequented by the general public, including Family Tree DNA, also uphold the new E1b1b nomenclature. In addition, most if not all of the other haplogroup pages on Wikipedia observe the first form. Take J2. This is why I think it's a mistake to force the E1b1b page to be the lone exception to the rule when a simple redirect on M215 could easily solve the problem instead of completly overhauling the prevailing naming system. Causteau (talk) 23:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, which is why I say that my preference for M-215 is slight. E1b1b has some authority right now, because of the recent Karafet article, which is seen by many as the new YCC update. However it is a little more complex than you mention.

The most common name used right now is still E3b. E1b1b is a new proposal that might catch on, but there are also signs that it will not. The very publication of the Karafet article has meant that the E1b1b type of naming system is now being questioned more, understood less, and used less.

Also, E-M215 is actually already being used more, and it was also frequently used in all the original papers going back many years.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose. Unlike what happens with mtDNA clades, ISOGG provides an oficial (or quasi-oficial) nomenclature frame for Y-DNA ones. Sure that, when an upheaval of clade names like this one of 2008 happens, people will hesitate and use older names or the defining SNP names instead but it's a matter of adequation. Certainly all articles when a clade has changed name recently should clearly mention its old name, exactly as the ISOGG site does but using the SNP names is of little help because any given clade may have several known defining SNPs, sometimes more than 20, and certainly most people is even less familiar with such nomenclature, except maybe for their "pet clades".

I strongly recommend following ISOGG nomenclature everywhere and use all warnings necesary until the new names become more familiar to all us, what may take years. --Sugaar (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New round of changes 20 May: building on the base

Causteau at least seems OK with the work today, but there is a contentious point perhaps: Causteau you are very concerned to remove any mention at all of parent clades. I think you are very extreme about it. You have only allowed mention of the immediate parent clade, and this was very shortened, so that we now just mention it's SNPs. However an essential part of your argument for this was that people could and should look this up in the E haplogroup wikipedia article. I have therefore put a mention of the fact that this clade is part of the E haplogroup today. Sounds logical? But you removed it. So how can people look things up in it? Remember, if people already knew that E3b was part of E they might not need the article. It is not self-evident. Can you please put in whatever minimal reference to this important fact about E1b1b being a part of E you can allow? The second thing I think you should feel some responsibility to do is to now make sure that the E haplogroup does not actually mention all the things you deleted from this article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You might like to consider adding a {{Infobox haplogroup}} to the top of the article, which could summarise some of this information. (Compare its use eg at Haplogroup I (Y-DNA)). Some context in the article linking back to Haplogroup E might not be a bad idea. Jheald (talk) 12:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Lancaster, you are being unreasonable again.

Nice "reasonable" opening to a constructive discussion. Do you realize that you are replying to someone else?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you'll be honest with yourself for a minute, you'll admit that the page that exists now is almost 100% of your creation. That, in and of itself, should satisfy you. But yet here you appear to want me of all people to make more concessions, and after today's barrage of edits.

No. I think it is very regrettable. Why do I have to do the work? I think you are confusing yourself with your previous announcement that you think we are similar. I do not want to be the only person editing this article. It just happens that I am. You are clearly highly territorial about this article (look at the words "concessions" and "satisfy"). I just want to make sure there is a good E3b resource on the internet which I am not embarrassed to refer people to.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What I wrote earlier was that most people have read about E3b -- not haplogroup E. It is E3b that brings them to this page, hence, I suggested a page redirect on M215 (E1b1b/E3b). Again, no mention of haplogroup E. I've said it before and I'll say it again, that information is already included where it belongs, on the haplogroup E page. We've already cited what we needed to cite: The population of origin and therefore the place of origin of haplogroup E3b (East Africa), and the clade from which it arose (P2). There's absolutely no need to mention haplogroup E. Anyone that's looking for information on it can simply input "haplogroup E" in the search box on Wikipedia or even on Google, and it takes them straight to the page in question. The forgoing is why I'm removing that edit. Causteau (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So to make it clear, you have made a big point out of removing "withing the E haplogroup" from the following...

In human genetics, Haplogroup E1b1b (formerly known as E3b) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup, within the E haplogroup

So now there is once again no mention of E3b being part of the E haplogroup, which is the name of the next level up in this hierarchy that has a Wikipedia article. Frankly, that's ridiculous. If someone removed any reference to Carnivora on an article about Cats, then that would be the same reasoning. In general, any article where an hierarchical classification is a core part of what is being discussed, should mention the next hierarchy up. I can not agree with your extremist and possessive attitude about this, and I am confident that no-one who thinks about it calmly, including even you, can.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:Build the web. A contextual link to Haplogroup E is useful -- it lets people follow the thought, "so where did E1b1b come from? Who else came from the same ancestry? How did that ancestral population become differentiated?" These are all questions that people reading this article might also be interested in. There is (probably correctly) no article on Haplogroup E-P2, the immediate ancestor; so concisely linking Haplogroup E, where these questions are considered, is a good thing. Jheald (talk) 12:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Haplogroup E page has exactly two lines on P2. This E1b1b page has more information on P2 than it does. Moreover, such a link already exists in the form of the phylogenetic tree at the bottom of the article. It visually illustrates the relationships of the various clades with their ancestors. That's what it's there for. Causteau (talk) 13:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Then that's pretty good evidence that Haplogroup E (Y-DNA), rather than E-P2, is the most immediately important ancestral group for context. Most of our other haplogroup articles have links to the most immediately important ancestral group, either in the lead itself or in the Origins section, where the reader will find the links as they read the article, in addition to the full linked phylogenetic tree at the bottom. Jheald (talk) 13:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Causteau: most people who look this up also need to have the tree explained to them! People use these articles to be informed. We are not supposed to be creating riddles. What's easier - to add a text explaining that tree and how it relates to the article, or to add 2 or 3 words naming the next level up in the tree which has a Wikipedia article? Then people can just click. And anyway, what great problem are you trying to avoid?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nobody's trying to "avoid" anything Lancaster. It's a question of relevance. E3b arose from P2, not directly from E. And this fact is already clearly explained in the text. Causteau (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If your reverts are NOT intended to avoid a problem, then how do you justify them? Or did you not read what you were responding to?

In any case, the point is that if an edit makes an article better, or of equal quality, we should leave it. We do not own this article as individuals. And when we judge what is better or worse, we should be able to explain what pros and cons we were weighing up. Two people are explaining to you that there is a big and basic problem with this article if there is no link up in the hierarchy. So a big problem would have to be justified by something at least equally big - not just a little bit of wasted memory on the Wikipedia server!

Your response which now seemingly diverts attention to P2 is silly, and again if you are serious then please do not just cripple the article, fix it like you imply you would, which would mean making a P2 article. That P2 article should of course link both upwards and downwards within the accepted phylogeny. If you refuse to put in the alternative solution, then your revert is un-justified by the explanation you have given. This is the same as when you previously argued that people could look things up in the E article, but then deleted references to that article.

In the end, the article needs a Wikipedia link up to the article concerning the next level. I am asking you to do it in whatever way you think works.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion seems to be getting a bit tense. If I may, I'd like to make a suggestion: When formulating a post, just as an intellectual exercise, try to avoid using another editor's name, and also try to avoid the words "you" or "your". This can help steer the conversation away from accusations, and more towards what we're here for, which is discussing the actual article. Discussions will (usually) be most effective if they focus on the content, and not the contributors. If it is necessary to refer to a specific edit, use a WP:DIFF, like so.[1] This can both improve communication, and also be of assistance to other editors who may be reviewing this thread, so that they can offer their own opinions. Thanks, --Elonka 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Archiving

This page has been growing very rapidly, and was at over 100K in size. I went ahead and created an archive, and moved the (relatively) inactive threads there. Some of them were only 48 hours old, which is a bit quick for archiving, so if anyone feels that any particular thread is still "active", please feel free to move it back to this talkpage. Otherwise, all of the discussions are still easily viewable in /Archive 1, and if you want to reply to something there, it's probably best to just start a new thread with the same section header, and say "Continuing discussion from archive" or something. Thanks, --Elonka 15:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)