Jump to content

Talk:Haplogroup I-M438/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Precision

Almost all Bosniaks have this as a dominant haplogroup, but Croats have it only in the south neer Dubrovnik. I checked out the Oxford uni studies on it. 77.78.196.134 (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. I was part of the team that conducted the testing. Most of people tested with this Haplogroup came from Croatian and Serbian ethnic background. Anyway, group consisted of around 50 individuals. I recall around five to ten individuals were Bosniaks. Estimates are at most 40% of people in Herzegovina and 30% on Croatian side had this haplogroup likeliness. Again, this is based on 50 or so individuals. These same individuals had a large rate of R1a1 haplogroup.
Can you provide source for these percentages? You've made changes in the article without references, only this edit here which means nothing. You've replaced numbers taken from the source, not some evaluations! Zenanarh (talk) 13:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My last change can be improved to highlight that this haplogroup can be found in tiny frequencies anywhere where Romans went during their conquests, which is true. Note that Serbs were not there during the Roman conquests, and that's why frequency is not noticable amongst them as sources confirm with numerous maps of spread of the haplogroup. 77.78.196.134 (talk) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote on the editor's talk page, this needs a verifiable source, and if the source has to be interpreted that sounds like original research and thus can't be added. I'm not sure what 'Romans' means in this context, the vast majority of the Legions came from outside Rome and Italy.Doug Weller (talk) 07:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/22/10/1964#TBL1 <<< Sure, this is the text I tried to transfer in to words on the article, if you can find a better way, feel free. Also please find a way to add this to references. And also please note the pictures of the map that the Strongest frequency is in 'Bosniak' areas of Bosnia at the time of research and that it steeply looses frequency as you move away from those areas. Also majority of related articles come to that conclusion, that this haplogroup is unique to Bosniaks and South Croatians. Second part is that We do in deed find this haplogroup in United Kingdom at a increased rate, I am also trying to justify this somehow with words, my only way out was to mention the Roman times, if you can find a better way, please try it. 77.78.198.115 (talk) 16:05, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, a little bit wrong, the highest frequency is in Herzegovina 72% (Croats in Bosnia), then Bosniaks (around 50 or 60% as I can remember), the lowest among Serbs in Bosnia (around 30%). All in all around 40% for all inhabitants in Bosnia. In Croatia it's the highest in Dalmatia (over 50%, on some Dalmatian islands over 75%), Croatian average of 34% is for Croatian mainland (Dalmatia not calculated in) Zenanarh (talk) 13:51, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Too much of the article was unreferenced (in one case there was a reference but the editor clearly didn't know what it was to, he just put a surname and a year!). I'll take a look at it.Doug Weller (talk) 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is another one which underlines the first reference http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1181996 note "It reaches its highest incidences in Croatia (31%) and Bosnia (40%), encompassing almost 80%–90% of I (table 1). In western Europe" 77.78.198.115 (talk) 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Well done, it looks like a very good source. You really should register, you know, with a username and not just an IP address.Doug Weller (talk) 20:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I am hounded down by anti-Bosniak editors, who are a big team who have a Skyscraper in Serbia somewhere and will hunt me down every time I edit something with a nickname, which has a hint that Bosniaks are not originally Serbs. Of course I do not care about who is who, I just try to transfer to Wikipedia from what I find in .gov and such about each subject, but it becomes useless when the "lets exterminate Bosniaks lobby" is so vast. 77.78.198.115 (talk) 21:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I understand completely. But I'm not an Osmanagic fan.Doug Weller (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Who cares about Osmanagic? The Japanese Satelite using thermal and radar technology confirmed that it really is a pyramid shaped man made object down there, Osmanagic just discovered it. There are probably 1000's of pyramids all over.. 77.78.209.109 (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
What does that technology have to do with satellites??? Can You provide a good source? twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

it is written : "Haplogroup I2a1 (P41.2 (M359)) accounts for approximately 40% of all patrilines among the Sardinians" ... In fact 40% of Sardinians have M26 not P41 SNP. You can check the source you cited. (on p.19 I1b2-M26). SNP P41 is very rare in hg I. Medlare (talk) 17:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok I will re-read it all again when I get time Noonien Soong (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Just want to second the above comment. The mutation associated with Sardinians is M26, not M359. This should be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wavereader (talk • contribs) 17:47, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Lichtenstein Cave

Recent archeological evidence combined with on-site Y-DNA extraction from the Lichtenstein Cave has connected haplogroup I2 with urnfield culture. according to source [1]. It's nice, but wrong. According to this sentence added in the article it appears that I2 people were bearers of Urnfield culture, that's how it can be understood by anyone who is not too familiar to agenda.

Source: Thus, the Y-DNA, as was also the case for the mt-DNA, haplogroup distribution of the people in the Lichtenstein cave cannot be considered to be an accurate reflection of the haplogroup distribution of the peoples settling in the vicinity of the Lichtenstein cave in the Urnfield culture time period (1000 to 700 B.C.E.).

Haplos found in that cave are I2, R1a and R1b. Direction of Urnfield culture spread was from the Central Europe to the west and east during the Bronze Age. Direction of I2 spread was from the Western Balkans to the north and sporadically to the west during Neolithic. In fact there are no connections between Urnfield culture expansion and I2 expansion, wrong age, opposite direction. If there would be such investigation made in all Urnfield archeological locations in Europe, result would be probably multiple haplogroups, with the best possibility of R1b predominance, logically, concerning its distribution in comparison to Urnfield culture affected area. In the Western Balkans where I2a is found in the highest frequencies (in some micro-locations more than 75% of population), Urnfield culture appeared only in the peripheries, brought by the Bronze Age migrators from the west (like the Celts - their Balkan settlements and R1b distribution in the Balkans are largely overlapping). The Bronze and Iron Age cultures related to I2a people there would be rather Illyrian and Mediterranean. It's irrelevant to relate the Bronze Age cultures to Y-chrommosome genetic identities of Paleolithic or Neolithic origin/appearance. Zenanarh (talk) 09:37, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The mentioned I2 hg is in fact I2b (formerly I1b2a, I1c or I2), not Dinaric I2a. Just look at STR DYS439=11. I2a has 439=13. And DYS385a,b=13,17 is probably 17,13 if Kittler test has been done. So, the people from Lichtenstein Cave probably had haplogroup I2b which is found among populations of Northwest Europe (Netherland, Germany) and is virtualy absent among Western Balkan population. I agree with you that relating any haplogroup with specific culture is inappropriate. --Medlare (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Oops you're right, didn't check. Whatever, don't you think this information about the cave is useless? Especially written that way, when source strictly draws the line between investigation and conclusions as this one. It's not problem with me, I understand it, but try to imagine reaction of an avarage user (ie "I2 invented Urnfield culture" LOL), there's already a lot of misinterpretation concerning pre-historic genetics. It should be removed or changed to more accurate information, but not in the definition form, as edited here. Maybe there should be an article specialised for genetic-archeological locations and results like this one. It would be very interesting and useful, but distinguished from "definition" articles about haplos like this one. Zenanarh (talk) 06:57, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Other haplogroups were found in the Lichtenstein Cave (R1b, R1a) also, so I definitely consider that connection "Urnfield culture=I2b Hg" is misinterpretation of archeological results. What I found very interesting is that even 3000 years ago, despite many turmoils and migrations, the same haplogroup I2b was found at "right" place. So, it is worth mentioning. On the other side, any hint which could sugest that I2b Hg is Urnfield founder is unplausible and undocumented and, in my opinion, should be removed. --Medlare (talk) 09:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's interesting but nothing new or specifical. The same results were given in some mtDNA analysis: a body of a frozen hunter (Ötzi the Iceman) in the Austrian Alps, 5.000 years old, was genetically similar to the modern population in the same region; remains of Cheddar man in southern England, 9.000 years old - similar results. Genetic science has changed many things in historiography in general. Modern history is compilation of a few disciplines, genetics included. Until 20 years ago everything was explained by massive migrations. New magical word is "assimilation": only small groups were moving, the main part of the population was static, but influenced and assimilated. In some cases it seems the most of the migrators were groups of the warriors, not all tribes or peoples. Distribution of Y-chrommosome haplogroups is much more dynamic than mtDNA one! Of course it doesn't apply to global human migrations through long periods of time that we can read from genetic investigations.
20 years ago? Maybe in the West... In USSR already in 1976 Yulian Bromley writes: "In the PAST, when ethnogenetic problematic was approached mainly on the basis of LINGUISTIC data and was confined to, in fact, the HISTORY OF LANGUAGES, migrations were granted the leading role in forming most ethnicities of the world. NOW this problematic is approached more IN COMPLEX more and more OFTEN. Moreover, expanding use, along with archeological, of anthropological material allowed to challenge TRADITIONAL understandings that the vast majority of migrations of ethnicities carried almost total annihilation or expultion of local aboriginal population". twitter.com/YOMALSIDOROFF (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Lichtenstein Cave already exists, Ancient DNA too. Reference and link replaced to I2b section. Zenanarh (talk) 16:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


As a biochemical doctor, and dealing on a daily basis with genetic material, I read this "discussion" and laugh. It is clear that none of you is actually a professional. My suggestion to you is: leave the science alone and to people who actually studied the subjects you so diletantly debate here. You have no idea what you are talking about and many of your "arguments" are more politically motivated than scientifically. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.51.64 (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

McEvoy and Bradley

I have their chapter summarizing their research in Celtic from the West - they specifically refer to evidence that there was gene flow (migration) from the La Tene origin area into North-East Ireland. Please do not remove this again. If it helps I can put a quote from the paragraph in the book that says just this.Jembana (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this discussion on my talk page, Hans. I have added the full gist of the reference so all can see its import and qualifications. Note that the reference is 2011 so maybe add your findings around it (without deleting my text please) in chronological order (latest last would be good).Jembana (talk) 04:05, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Ken Nordtvedt

Just to clarify, Nordvedt has never worked as a genealogist in an accredited research laboratory or published any of his "findings" in peer-reviewed journals. He is a physicist by training, and a genealogist by interest active for such commercial establishments as FamilyTreeDNA and ancestry.com. Needless to say, he is uncitable until his work has been truly and scientifically verified and reviewed. 90.230.54.125 (talk) 17:23, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Nordtvedt has publications, for example in the Journal of genetic genealogy. Check here and here, please. He is also cited in peer-reviewed journals. Check for example here, please. Thank you. Jingiby (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
The Journal of Genetic Genealogy is not an accredited journal as it has not been assigned an impact factor and neither does the PubMed list any of the publications in question [2]; all it gives are his publications in physics (my case in point). His two publications in the above-mentioned "journal" are furthermore only cited by other non-accredited journals such as the "The Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy" whose website is makeshift (not to be confused with The Russian Journal of Genetics; a recognized journal). As it turns out, your "example" is all there is when it comes to the journals he's published in and it does not prove his efforts as a geneticist to be significant for an encyclopedia. What I am definitely removing from the text regardless of the reliability of his publications is the following: " In 2011 Nordtvedt has confirmed I-L69.2 is not older than 2,800 years.", since he hasn't published any paper on this yet whatsoever (there is merely a claim laid out in an e-mail correspondence), I should not need explain why this cannot be used as a proper source (could obviously not have been peer-reviewed if not published). 90.230.54.125 (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
In addition, if we should deem his arguments regarding I-L69.2 to be worthy better sources will be required. Any scientific arguments will have to be within the framework of a serious peer-reviewed article as opposed to claims of an email correspondence which is close to resembling "hearsay". 90.230.54.125 (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
90.230.54.125, excuse me, but in 2013 it was already very clear that more and more academics were using the mutation rates that were established by amateurs. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 20:02, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII So no problem, you just use peer reviewed sources by those academics, right? To comply with WP:VERIFY. Dougweller (talk) 21:44, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Dougweller, on topics that were covered by academics - yes, we should. Even despite the fact that some amateurs proved to be more professional than academics. However, some topics were not covered by academics at all. --YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 10:53, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
[[User:YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII|YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII] And then we wait until they are. And it's not up to us to say that some amateurs are more professional. Dougweller (talk) 17:40, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Famous people

I've removed these as unsourced. But the real problem is probably that it's a silly idea. Those added included a minor Russian actor living today, Myles Standish, etc. You could probably add the articles of thousands upon thousands of people on Wikipedia. None of them will be noted for having a particular marker though. Dougweller (talk) 10:01, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

The real problem is that some editors seem to think having a haplogroup (which we all do) establishes a relationship with those with whom we share that peculiarity. Very silly idea, but Phrenology was in vogue for a while, and this nonsense will disappear quietly, we would trust. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:27, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I'd lazily funneled the sources through a forum post that listed its sources before, so now I've restored those with linkable sources (all but some of the Russian ones). Most are cousin tests, although most are quite close (a descendant of Crockett's father, etc.), and there are direct descendant tests (Clinton, Turkevitch, presumably Standish) and one direct test (Izzard). Some sources may be more reliable than others, so I'll leave it to others to determine reliability from here on, as long as it's discussed first.
As for the question of whether or not it is "silly" to include them, I think you're looking at it the wrong way. No, these people aren't "noted for having a particular marker." Rather they are examples of carriers of a particular marker. It provides additional information on the marker, not on the people. It's like how articles on noble houses will provide examples of famous members of that house, or how articles on certain ethnicities will provide examples of famous members of that ethnicity. Is Bill Gates noted for being an English American? No, but he is an example of a famous English American. Professorstampede (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Totally agree. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 21:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ukraine.

No I-L69.2 in Ukraine? Really? --Yomal Sidoroff-Biarmskii 20:41, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haplogroup I-M438. 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) 21:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Height non sequitur

The opening paragraph seems to imply that this haplogroup is directly correlated with height (when controlling for other genes/geography), which seems unlikely and isn't mentioned anywhere in the given references. I've removed it, is this alright? Crom daba (talk) 14:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

It is cited at Haplogroup I-M170#Height article, however it is merely a trivial correlation as Y-DNA doesn't have any direct genetic causation for height (which is influenced by autosomal DNA, diet, environment and so on).--Miki Filigranski (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haplogroup_I-M438/Archive_1&oldid=1257211893"