Jump to content

Talk:Genetic history of North Africa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Genetic history of North Africa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removed "generic influence of Latin America section"

[edit]
I removed the section "genetic influences on Latin America", because Spanish colonization of Latin America is not a part of the genetic history of North Africa, and there are many problems with the references used to support this strange section in the article. The first reference (one "Robert Tarin's" posts on the haplozone.net forum) is inadmissible by its very nature.
The second reference ([43], Mendizabal et al.) does posit that E3 lineages in Brazil (not "throughout Latin America") are the result of a "Portuguese-mediated influx" (whatever that means), but it's a speculatory statement.
The next reference ([44], Silva et al.), again concerning only Brazil and not "Latin America", states that E lineages are related to the slave trade (this is a far stretch from "Spanish and Portuguese colonization of the Americas.")
Finally, the last reference ([45], Coco et al.) does not make any statements about haplogroup E.
Because this section wasn't relevant, and because of the abundance of low quality references that don't support the wide-reaching claim, compared to the one reference which kind of supports a Portuguese "influx" of E haplogroups in Brazil, as well as one reference ([45]) that is seemingly bogus, I see no reason not to remove it.

Hunan201p (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ancient DNA and Changing Technology

[edit]

"Unlike Sub Saharan Africans, North Africans have a similar level of Neanderthal DNA to South Europeans and West Asians, which is pre Neolithic in origin, rather than via any later admixture with peoples from outside of North Africa during the historical period."

I understand this is what is widely believed, however it is also contradicted by this article:

(PRINCETON EDU) New study identifies Neanderthal ancestry in African populations and describes its origin Aaron Wolf, Lewis-Sigler Institute for Integrative Genomics

https://www.princeton.edu/news/2020/01/30/new-study-identifies-neanderthal-ancestry-african-populations-and-describes-its

Basically: "The Princeton researchers termed IBDmix a “reference free method” because it does not use an African reference population. Instead, IBDmix uses characteristics of the Neanderthal sequence itself, like the frequency of mutations or the length of the IBD segments, to distinguish shared ancestry from recent interbreeding. The researchers were therefore able to identify Neanderthal ancestry in Africans for the first time and make new estimates of Neanderthal ancestry in non-Africans, which showed Europeans and Asians to have more equal levels than previously described."

"Kelley Harris, a population geneticist at the University of Washington who was not involved in the study, noted that the new estimates of Neanderthal ancestry using IBDmix highlight the technical problem in methods reliant on reference panels. “We might have to go back and revisit a bunch of results from the published literature and evaluate whether the same technical issue has been throwing off our understanding of gene flow in other species,” she said." 2001:1C00:1E31:5F00:2D98:BB93:3989:7FEE (talk) 07:57, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The study still finds substantially less Neanderthal DNA in sub-saharan Africans than in Eurasians/North Africans. So the quoted excerpt of the page is not contradicted by the study.Skllagyook (talk) 13:58, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Referenced Genetic Studies, Removed Pictures, & Repeat of Certain Papers in Various Parts

[edit]

Hi, the article has many repeats in various sections, so I moved everything to the appropriate position. Secondly, I did not revert to a previous version, but readded the information that was removed by prior editors. I encourage users to look at the state and structure of the article before the changes I implemented, it reads badly and omits data that was shown prior, and has numerous word for word paragraph repeats which I was fixing. Furthermore, the studies I added were appropriate to the page, all dealing with North African genomes. Not only this, but I actually read the studies included, and the summaries were not exactly accurate so I updated them. There were portions of this entry that were leaning heavily towards anything 'Arab, Middle Eastern and Haplogroup J' which is bad faith as information should be distributed and presented fairly in the appropriate places. I also removed the J1 image as it is already on the main article which is linked and irrelevant here. Thanks, looking forward to coming to agreements, discussing things further and resolving any more issues. 102.217.80.26 (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of PL0TWiSTER and Noname JR)[reply]

Other things is that we can't have verbatim paragraphs in the lead summary also be present in the Genetics section (where it should be) which is why I moved it, I had also added the latest info dealing with Tunisian paternal ancestry from 2021 which gives a different perspective to the previous data shown. The page should not have data dealing with Autosomal DNA in the Y-Chromosome sections or vice versa, and we should keep all relevant information structured together and show both perspectives, instead of being one sided to certain narratives. 102.217.80.26 (talk) 11:56, 15 June 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of PL0TWiSTER and Noname JR)[reply]

Hello, i agree with you, the narration lacks neutrality, i have noticed the addition of duplicates focusing on Arab immigration during the Middle Ages, the creation of a haplogroup J section highlighting only this immigration during this period and a few changes to benefit that.
Therefore, i have removed duplicates, corrected changes with archives, rearranged Y-chromosome and added picture for haplogroup E. Cause @Skitash @Drmies@Dimadick@MathEvo@Treetoes023@WikiUser4020@Hamkim20 PL0TWiSTER (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Noname JR)[reply]
Don't ping me: I'm just the admin who blocked you from editing the article directly. I have no interest in the content discussion. Drmies (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask for its blocking, duplicate additions, modifications and the creation of a section, only to promote Arab immigration is not tolerable. PL0TWiSTER (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Noname JR)[reply]
Firstly, can you stop mass pinging editors multiple times across talk pages? Secondly, you deleted lots of sourced content and added your own unsourced original research, and you have to explain why you did that. [1] Skitash (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The topic has been around for two weeks, I had to ping you for answering, then I only deleted the duplicates that you have added, the sources are still there. The changes in introduction are still not justified, moreover introduction states that: "However, North Africa is connected to Western Asia via the Isthmus of Suez and the Sinai peninsula". The section you created is oriented on Arab immigration during the Middle Ages same for duplicates. What you do is pushing on Arab migration in North Africa, the history is here to justify it. PL0TWiSTER (talk) 23:31, 29 June 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Noname JR)[reply]
There are no duplicates. The same point is just rephrased in the J1 section and the lead where it belongs. As the lead specifies, the population is genetically heterogenous, and therefore the Arab migration part is completely necessary here to enforce that point and to explain how the population became heterogenous.
You have still failed to explain why:[2]
  • You added this original research "The genetic history of North Africa has been heavily influenced by geography"
  • You deleted this sourced content "North Africa is a genetically heterogeneous and diverse region, and is characterized by its diverse ethnic groups, the main ones being the Arabs and Berbers"
  • You deleted the study about the Eu10 chromosome pool in the Maghreb not only being derived from early Neolithic dispersions
  • You added that unreliable and misleading map about predominant haplogroups being defined by modern-day country borders. You even gave a misleading caption. By doing this you are intentionally trying to mislead readers into believing that's a map of the haplogroup's distribution.
Skitash (talk) 23:49, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There shouldn't be any duplicates, the only duplicates are yours. The source (still in haplogroup J section) states: "Our results show that differential admixture patterns with other populations, mainly from Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, and to a lesser extent Europeans, are added to any autochthonous genetic component in North African individuals.", you put Arab immigration forward without taking into account the others and the following writings which specify the divergence of point of view.
I repeat myself but I have only trusted the history. PL0TWiSTER (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Noname JR)[reply]
Yes, the source says that but what does it have to do with my addition? I added the content at the top of the source which specifies that the population is diverse and heterogenous, and that the two main ethnic groups are Arabs and Berbers.
If you believe "The genetic history of North Africa encompasses the genetic history of the people of North Africa" is wrong then you are free to offer suggestions, but your original research "...has been heavily influenced by geography" has no place here. I am unsure about what you mean by "The source (still in haplogroup J section)" and "You accuse without proof."
There is nothing wrong with adding a missing section about J1, especially if it's the second most frequent haplogroup in the region and it's heavily supported by sources.
You have still failed to explain why you have deleted sourced content. You need to look at your own behavior, not to try to turn this around on others. Not only this but you're also abusing multiple accounts and pretending to agree with your own IP.[3][4] Skitash (talk) 11:50, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So you admit that your own source specifies the contribution from Europe and sub-Saharan Africa and that you ignored the other sources to highlight the Arab provenance.
IP specifies the repetition of the study, same writings in haplogroup-J section, pushing duplicate Another one
Besides, why did you remove haplogroup-E (haplogroup majority) picture [5]?
You don't respond to the pushing view on Arab migration.PL0TWiSTER (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Noname JR)[reply]
I don't have to include everything in the source. The only content I used from that source is how North Africa is heterogenous, nothing about Arab migration. And like I said, Arab migration is completely necessary here. If it was the main factor in changing the genetic structure of North Africa, then it must be included here. Same goes for haplogroup J (second most frequent haplogroup in North Africa), and nothing about this is "POV-pushing". The only POV-pushing here is your removal of sourced content and your addition of that over-simplifying and inaccurate Haplogroup E map which intends to mislead readers. Skitash (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources specify major presence of Haplogroup E, a picture represents it, is more relevant than a Haplogroup J picture. Removing Haplogroup E picture is not tolerable. Sources specify genetic isolation and a heterogeneity. Removing this for Arab migration is a pushing [6] PL0TWiSTER (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Noname JR)[reply]
Pushing Arab migration view.PL0TWiSTER (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC) (Blocked sock of Noname JR)[reply]
I already refuted you. Creating a section about something completely relevant while providing tons of sources is not POV-pushing. Though you still did not explain why you removed sourced content or added original research. You're a disruptive editor, you keep repeating yourself and you're most likely a sockpuppet, so I'm done arguing here. Skitash (talk) 14:37, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: PL0TWiSTER has been blocked indefinitely for clearly not being here to build an encyclopedia and for abusing multiple accounts such as Noname JR and 102.217.80.26 (which PL0TWiSTER pretended to agree with above). Skitash (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of 2012 North African Genetic Study" or "Refining Explanation of North African Genetic Findings.

[edit]

Hi all, this is my first edit of this page.

I've made some edits to the section discussing the 2012 genetic study of North African populations. The previous version of the article seemed to suggest a definitive conclusion that there was no ancestral linkage between modern North Africans and inhabitants from 50,000 years ago. However, the paper itself does not make such a firm assertion, and this could mislead readers.

Here are the main reasons for the edits:

-The edit ensures that the language used doesn't suggest a complete disconnect between present-day North Africans and ancient populations from 50,000 years ago, as there is no such evidence or statement to this effect made in the paper. The new wording should promoting a more nuanced understanding.

-The original phrasing in this section might also lead readers to infer that North Africans have only been in the region for 12,000 years. This edit seeks to provide clarity, especially for those unfamiliar with genetic studies and regional history. The edit emphasizes that the presence of a dominant genetic signature from 12,000 years ago doesn't mean there's an absence of earlier genetic contributions.

Please let me know of any feedback on this. Mrmisr (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genetic_history_of_North_Africa&oldid=1252245990"