Talk:Haplogroup R1b/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Deletion of R1b1b2-ish groups starting 23 March 2011?

Noticed this when I came to review R1b1b2a1a2f2 specifically, and found the section seemingly wiped out. Just wondering if it was intentional, and if so, why? I assume it's not related to talk last year about separating into sub articles, because I don't see a link-out from the main body. Also looks like there was talk about vandalism and repair around that time, so I'm unsure which editor to ask directly. Thanks! --Markzero (talk) 01:31, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you'll find the content you are looking for under R1b1a2a1a1b4b the subclade names keep changing but the mutation number is the same.Jembana (talk) 04:04, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah, thanks very much! I don't know much about this at all and haven't kept up with any changes; I guess 23andMe hasn't either, since they're still listing it with the old name in their subscription content. Would be nice if there was a bit more standardization in the testing industry, perhaps ☺ --Markzero (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone else had a similar question, an external confirming source is http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html which (as I read it today, anyway) details major changes as of 21 March 2011. And 23andMe has now responded (reference https://twitter.com/#!/23andMe/status/56456635228487680 ) as to why they haven't updated yet: "@markzero There is no reg schedule for updating our haplogroup nomenclature, but we are aware of changes. Depends on resources to implement" Hope this helps others! --Markzero (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I think it would have been better if all our haplogroup articles were done using the stable mutational names. Unfortunately however most of those names are not yet commonly used, and not recognizable either. Eventually they will be because the names we now use, the phylogenetic names are not even intended to be stable. Every time a new branching is discovered, the phylogenetic "names" change.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 03:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree - things would be much simpler if we could just use stable mutation names like "R-L21" instead of the forever-changing clade symbols. At any rate, as soon as things settle down, we're going to have to go through the article and change all the old mentions. For example, the lede to this article makes mention of M269, saying:

"dominated by the R1b1b2 (R-M269) branch"

but M269 is now R1b1a2. So as soon as it all settles down, we can go through and change that stuff in line with the latest tree. Miracle Pen (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

By definition it will not settle down. It will keep changing more and more quickly and the names will get more complex. That is the aim of the naming system we are currently unfortunately using. There will be a moment where we just have to make a break with the system we are now using.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

R-M269 frequency table

Someone keeps updating (many, many times now) the value for "Italy North-East (Ladin) 79 60.8% Balaresque et al. (2009)" to 50.8% and is unwilling to source the change. I am giving this person a chance to justify their persistant change to the value (60.8%) sourced from Table 1 of the source. Please reply with your source.Jembana (talk) 01:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I also noticed this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes and other seemingly unsourced random changes from same IP address in last edit and no explanation as yet.Jembana (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Again it happens - no explanation or counter-source given.Jembana (talk) 02:00, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Again the bogus 50.8% for Italy North-East (Ladin) instead of the 60.8% from the cited source is introduced by an editor - this time using an image of the table with the erroneous value.Jembana (talk) 00:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

At a certain point we might need to ask an admin to restrict editing on this article, so that IPs can not edit. That is done quite often when something like this keeps happening.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:56, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like we have to, the purpose appears to be the sabotage of Wiki content and integrity.Jembana (talk) 11:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll see if I can find someone "on duty".--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:55, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

For better or worse, this article is now "semi-protected". I guess this comes down to one person who has now made it harder for all people without a registered Wikipedia ID to edit on this article. But I would implore good faith editors to not give up: registering as an editor is not difficult, and you can still post here on the talk page.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes indeed - concur with your sentiments and invitation to good faith editors.Jembana (talk) 12:41, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

BAD MAP

THE R1B MAP IS BAD. IN SPAIN IT IS MOST COMMON IN THE MEDITERRANEAN REGION, WITH MORE THAN 70 PER CENT, AND LESS COMMON IN ITS WESTERN HALF. THE FUNNY THING IS THAT IN THE TABLE AT THE END OF THE VERY SAME ARTICLE IT CLEARLY STATES THAT IT IS MORE THAN 80 PER CENT IN CATALONIA (NORTH EASTERN, MEDITERRANEAN, SPAIN) AND MORE THAN 70 PER CENT IN EASTERN ANDALUCIA (SOUTHEASTERN, MEDITERRANEAN, SPAIN) WHILE IT IS LESS THAN 60 PER CENT BOTH IN EASTERN, ATLANTIC, ANDALUSIA AND IN NORTH ATLANTIC GALICIA (SOUTH AND NORTH WESTERN SPAIN). THESE CONTRADICTIONS AND THESE BAD MAPS DO A LOT OF DAMAGE TO WIKI. WITH THE EXPECTION OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY, DISTRIBUTION IN SPAIN IS MORE A EASTERN WESTERN THING RATHER THAN A NORTH SOUTH THING. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pepefe (talk • contribs) 17:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Tha date of that map is 2008. I put other version more updated but it was reverted. I'll try again.--Maulucioni (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

R1b1a2a1a1b4f

" * R1b1a2a1a1b4f (R-L159.2). This subclade within R-L21 is defined by the presence of the marker L159 and is known as L159.2 because of a parallel mutation that also exists inside haplogroup I2a1 (L159.1). L159.2 appears to be associated with the Kings of Leinster and Diarmait Mac Murchada. It can also be found in the coastal areas of the Irish Sea including the Isle of Man and the Hebrides, as well as Norway, western and southern Scotland, northern and southern England, northeast France, and northern Denmark. " Does the author mean "North-West France" and had been mistaken ? R1b1a2a1a1b4f seems to be typical from the Bristish Isles , rare on the Continent. So, common sense could be to imagine it on the North West of france, nearby the Channel, in Brittany for instance... What's your opinion ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldwolf (talk • contribs) 12:30, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

R1b1a2a1a1b4c

On the left hand, some searchers declare that R1b1a2a1a1b4c could be the Celts / Gaulish from Northern Italy ( Gallia Cisalpina ) haplogroup On the other one, some people say that R1b1a2a1a1b4c is typical from the British Isles and seems to be rare on the Continent. Who's right ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heraldwolf (talk • contribs) 12:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

R1b1a2a1a1b4e

• R1b1a2a1a1b4e (R-L144). This subclade within R-L21 is defined by the presence of the marker L144, which also has an official dbSNP id of rs9306842 . It is also known as S175 and associated with the marker L195. According to Thomas Krahn, Technical Laboratory Manager of FTDNA's Genomics Research Center, "L144 and L195 are probably caused by one and the same mutation event. The only DNA sequence that doesn't fit into this theory is the HUGO reference sequence itself. A sample with exactly the HUGO sequence hasn't been observed in our laboratory yet. I believe that this was a sequencing error those days. However to describe these three states we need to define those two mutations separately." Surnames with this marker are associated geographically with Ireland and the United Kingdom

Jbrazile (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

image is not correct (File_Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA).jpg)

Could someone explain why is the haplogroup I not presented on this image in central, southern and western Europe? From the image it might appear that the R1b's were the first inhabitants of the Europe. However the DNA research shown that haplogroup I was on the European soil at least 20.000 years prior the arrival of the haplogroup R1b. Please edit this image to include this fact, otherwise I'll be forced to do it myself. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.93.202.43 (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The maps showing the frequency of occurrence for each haplogroup only show that haplogroup otherwise the maps become to confusing - see the maps showing the frequency for haplogroup I on the page for haplogroup I. You are therefore not justified in changing the map on this page for the reasons you stated.Jembana (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

External links

this looks like link spam of familytreedna.com ? 78.35.205.56 (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 31 July 2012

Chnge the heading of the table with the frequencies in Africa. The V69 mutations is labelled as R1b1a4, when it should be R1b1c4. As sources you can take the page itself and Cruciani's paper on this matter. 128.196.193.69 (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

 Done--Canoe1967 (talk) 08:37, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 August 2012 for R-L371

The R-L371 designation is outdated!

Correct shoud be: Also known as: R1b1a2a1a1b3a8; R1b-L371; S300; rs17165864; 17-14-10

Photo Historian (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. FloBo A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

R1b and Celts

Am I the only one who sees a correlation between the distribution of R1b (R1b in general) and the historic territory of the Celts in antiquity? When you compare maps they match up like exactly, excluding Scandinavia. If there are such opinions in the scientific community could someone include them in the article? Zantorzi (talk) 02:21, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

You are one of thousands just waiting for the proper articles to materialize, and they will soon, so don't worry. There is also an ever more glaring association with the Beaker culture, which is now seen as intrusive in Western Europe, and which appears right around the same time geneticists are coming to believe R1b1b2 appeared. This was probably an early centum-speaking culture and included the hypothetical Proto-Italo-Celtic and other now extinct languages. The ancestor of Basque may or may not have tagged along. DinDraithou (talk) 17:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

and even in the Balkans, shows some local R1b peaks in Bugaria (Thrace) and northern Greeks, areas known to have been raided by Celts. This connection has been made by a recently published article (also conecting it to those mischef causing 'Latins' in the middle ages). However, its presence there is associated iwth the so-called Anatolian modal haplotype, not the Atlantic M.H. Hxseek (talk) 09:04, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

DinDraithou, centum-speaking? I wasn't aware that Centum was still considered a language. I thought that theory had been abandoned many years ago (like, early 20th century). Can you list some respected linguists from the last 30 years who still support it? Linmer (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Well aren't you nice? No, I can't help you. Obviously I am referring to the C-S isogloss. Centum is just one of a number of this-and-that shared by Celtic and Italic. Sometimes these are described as archaic or peripheral dialects which did not share in the so-called core or central region innovations. For example, Italic and Celtic share the r-passive (medio-passive) with Anatolian and Tocharian. DinDraithou (talk) 17:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey, no offence intended. Your phrasing was a bit confusing, I was wondering if you had come across something I missed. Thanks for clarifying.Linmer (talk) 06:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes I second your observation about the territory of the ancient Celts, What it looks like to me, is they either came over land north or the black sea or through Anatolia, or possibly by sea (or by all three routes), and went up the Danube from there settled and moved further up the Danube, over many centuries, spilling out, and founding Hallstadt, and later La Tene, civilizations, and spreading into Iberia and British isles, if we trace back R1b1 to the mouth of the Danube then across the black sea we find small pockets of R1b1 remnants, and ultimately leads us the R1a1 (Slavs) so the Area of the Scythians/Sarmatians/Cimmerians this vast area (The sea of grass)could well be were the Celtic ancestors came from by indeed another name, R1b1 went in other directions too such as they Chinese Mummy s, these even had the typical trade mark Tartan clothing. 10/10/12 - Stephen C Grant-Davies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.243.166.218 (talk) 14:31, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Break article into smaller articles

Most of the haplogroup articles break down into smaller articles as they grow. This article is now very long and it seems to me that haplogroups R-M269, R-U106 and R-P312 each deserve their own page. Any arguments or issues can then be isolated to their own pages rather than involving potentially unrelated entries. I could create those pages now but feel that entries need to be moved from this page to the newly created pages.

This will also allow for simplification of some of the designations that are becoming so long that they are no longer easily overseen. For example the designation R1b1a2a1a1b4a can simply be given as R-P312-4a going back to the last major founding SNP P312, in a new article on Haplogroup R-P312. --Whatever2009 (talk) 03:30, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding this here for interest sake. I notice the discussion on R1B origin and outliers, and the large Bashkortostan R1b1 population sample, and that no one seems to realise there is an actual reason for it.

Bashkortostan, Orenburg and Orsk. During the 1700's and 1800's several million germans were encouraged to move there, Orenburg, all 3 of them were started by Germans.

In 1935 it was esitmated that 3.1 million germans lived in and around the extended Oren area making the largest group of all peoples. And of course stalin fixed that during 1940's with many killed and over 1 million moved into Kazahstan. Hence the 2.2 million germans there now that speak russian.

So hardly surprising that there is a large R1b1 population sample in the area. Large scale german settlers moved into Russian steppes at the invitation of the Russian Government from about mid 1600's until late 1800's.

John 122.149.41.136 (talk) 13:08, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Suggested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No move. Rough consensus that this is premature. Cúchullain ^t/c 16:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

---

---

Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) → Haplogroup R-M343 (Y-DNA) – I'm proposing this "requested move" since the article names for all other Y-DNA haplogroups have now been changed to refer to the defining mutation, rather than the phylogenetic branch names. This is because the phylogenetic names have become increasingly unwieldy and unstable as new information has allowed phylogenetic branches to be repeatedly split and re-split. This article should not be the only one which does not conform to the new overall pattern, to instead use names based on the defining mutation; but for some reason (perhaps some long-ago edit war), renaming of the article is currently blocked, therefore this formal move request. --Relisted Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Jheald (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support. As proposer, for the rationale given above. Jheald (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. The move is not fully justified. I also disagree with the move of the other articles, because it has been done in an uncontrollable way. Not all haplogroups should be treated equally. For R1b, since it was named in 2002, it has not been renamed, it has only been more deeply studied. Initially R1b was defined with the P25 marker, then M343, M343/PF6242 now, then new mutations and new clades may be discovered, but from 2002 until now R1b remains the same: the characteristic HG of Western Europe that is also present in other continents. Renaming this HG would only confuse the reader and make it just another clade of R. The name R1b itself shows a clear phylogenetic position. Instead, I would agree with the transfer of Haplogroup R1b1b2a1a2c (Y-DNA) to Haplogroup R-M167 (Y-DNA), a more stable name. Sources like Myres 2010, Niederstätter 2008, Campbell 2007, and webs, and many more, they talk about R1b before R-M343. --Maulucioni (talk) 04:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I see the reason, but I do want to say that experiencing the change it makes the whole haplogroup structure confusing and difficult to understand. Without the long hand I look at a list of SNPs and can't tell how they relate or if they should be of interest to me. Longform had too much info but shorthand has too little. If only there was a nice middle ground. 00:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC)~ Si

• Not yet. The basic idea is ok, but I would like some discussion first about what other changes it will entail. For example will this article then be split? I have been a proposer and supporter of such moves but Maulucioni is right that the changes have in practice been done badly and introduced a lot of problems in many articles. R1b is a particularly widely used term, and it has "fuzzy definitions" in terms of SNPs.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map

The Subclade V88 is very far linked to other Subclades could the map demonstrate it with blue coloring? 77.3.65.76 (talk) 21:29, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

If You mean this map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA).PNG than the answer to Your question is "NO". Because this map shows frequencies, not subclades. There are, by the way, a lot of much "further" subclades. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Map problem

In India there is R1b, for example it is specially high in Sri Lanka (I don't remember, but between 10 and 30%).

It is needed to check it and change the map

--2001:4C50:21D:F400:1A3:A744:90A5:B717 (talk) 19:05, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

R1b, non-IE agglutinative languages, IE-Centum & Germanic/Italic connections?

1. The first idea that the hp R1b is connected with non-IE agglutinative languages was initialized a few months ago.

EDIT:

• "Additionally, a 2013 paper by A. Klyosov et al suggested that the haplogroup R1b might be also attributed to non-Indo-European and agglutinative languages, i.e. Proto-Turkic, Dené-Caucasian or even Sino-Tibetan."

This idea is solely based on DNA-genealogical assumptions, but in the revision history there was some protest from an archaeological and linguistic perspective, and there are a lot of reasons to underline the protests. Sounds like new theories which possibly lie under WP:SPECULATION. Discuss!

2. The second idea that the hp R1b is connected with IE-Centum (Germanic/Italic etc.) languages was also initialized half a year ago.

EDIT-1:

• "It has thus been suggested that the arrival of Y Haplogroup R1b coincided with the arrival of the Centum branch of the Indo-European languages in Western Europe."

EDIT-2:

• "At least one source now identifies haplogroup R1b with the western Indo-Europeans (Celtic and Italic/Romance), with a chalcolithic or early bronze age arrival time."

I suppose these two things lie under unsourced WP:SPECULATION, so only the sources are required. Weftsbuddy (talk) 00:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

R1b origins

R = ~ Iranian plateau .R1 = ~ Central Asia ...R1a = Central Asia ~ Black Sea ...R1b = Anatolia ~ Western Europe .R2 = ~ Indian subcontinent

R1 (M173) the ancestor of R1a & R1b should have its own article, so we end this confusion. Cadenas2008 (talk) 17:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

This section needs to be revised to focus on the topic of where R1b first appeared. Currently it barely touches on the origins of R1b and instead seems to be focused on its history in Western Europe. In my opinion, only the third paragraph is relevant to the topic, the first two paragraphs should be moved to the article 'Genetic history of Europe' and the last paragraph belongs in this article but under 'Distribution'.

I. Dupandunlop argued in 2002 that Basque alleles and hence haplogroup R1b1b2 were the most representative of Paleolithic European population. In this she followed previous research done fundamentally on mitochondrial DNA. Many other authors have followed her conclusions for further research, assuming thereafter that R1b1b2 is of Paleolithic origin.

Based on R1b frequency and variability, most researchers considered the genetic pool of western European countries - Belgium, France, Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands, north Italy, Portugal, Spain and United Kingdom - to date back to Paleolithic times, noticing the overlap between R1b previously estimated age (about 25,000 to 30,000 years ago) and the European Upper Paleolithic. The hypothesis met apparent confirmation in the fact that the Basques, who traditionally have been considered descendants of the European Paleolithic strata, have one of the highest frequencies of R1b in the world.

By 2008, T. Karefet et al., based on the latest discoveries on polymorphisms, rearranged the human paternal phylogenetic tree by adding one new haplogroup and altering some of the estimated ages of previously known haplogroups, including the parent haplogroup to R1b, R1, now considered to have originated 18,500 BP..

Studies from Volga-Urals on the border of Europe and Asia have revealed high frequencies of R1b1b2 in Bashkirs, although the genetic diversity is low, suggesting a founder effect.

This is what I propose:

R1b was originally assumed to originate in western Europe where it reaches its highest frequencies. However, research now shows that R1b's variance increases as one moves east, leading to the competing view that R1b likely originated further east than previously thought. Geneticists now generally believe that R1b had its origin in Central Asia or Southwest Asia.

By 2008, T. Karefet et al., based on the latest discoveries on polymorphisms, rearranged the human paternal phylogenetic tree by adding one new haplogroup and altering some of the estimated ages of previously known haplogroups, including the parent haplogroup to R1b, R1, now considered to have originated 18,500 BP..

Thoughts? Onrswan (talk) 08:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Disagree completly. It should be left as it was. Wad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.39.43.243 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

No, the responsability of Wikipedia is to provide the most accurate information possible and not propagate outdated and incorrect theories. Look at the date of your source. It's from 2002. Genetic research has progressed a lot over the last six years and it has been shown that a Western Europe origin is highly unlikely because variance declines as one moves from east to west. This research has been accepted by ISOGG which is a respected genetics source with up-to-date research information. Onrswan (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

You are using marginal opinions drawn from commercial sources, not serious institutions. You are putting marginal opinions first to delete mainstream opinions. Wad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.190.132 (talk) 09:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not true. ISOGG is not a commercial site and it's used by many Wikipedia articles for up to date research information. I notice that you didn't delete the R1b tree which is also provided by ISOGG. If you truly believe that ISOGG is a commercial site why didn't you delete that as well? Karafet is not a commercial source either.Onrswan (talk) 18:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

BTW: What on earth have the Kurds to do with Kazachstan, as the article mistakenly says??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.199.28.80 (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

New source

This is big news for this subject. http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/02/10/013433 --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 May 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 04:18, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

---

Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) → Haplogroup R1b – Per WP:CONCISE. "(Y-DNA)" is a redundant parenthetical disambiguation, because "Haplogroup R1b" is already a redirect to this main page.--Relisted. George Ho (talk) 23:01, 23 May 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Mdann52 (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC) Khestwol (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

• Support per above. Khestwol (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
• Against, the so called long designations (like R1b) are subject to being moved around in the phylotree (for example see inside this very article how R-V88 was R1b1a, and then it became R1b1c). R-M343 is the proper designation that defines a subclade. If the article is to be moved, it should be moved to Haplogroup R-M343. R1b could be a short article with the explanation of the nomenclature issues and a pointer to R-M343. R1a article could be treated in the similar manner. Absolwent (talk) 22:32, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment, no, "R-M343" has extremely low recognizability. It is used rarely. The article won't be searchable under that title. On Wikipedia it is preferable to use a WP:COMMONNAME like "R1b", not a rare name with extremely low recognizability like "R-M343". Also on this talk page, the consensus was to not move this article to "Haplogroup R-M343" in 2013 in the section #Suggested move above. See that section for more info. Khestwol (talk) 09:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

• Note, the request by Absolwent has already been rejected by consensus in the section #Suggested move above. No other user opposed removing the parenthetic disambiguator from this article's title. Khestwol (talk) 13:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, remove the redundancy; the only "against" argument (see above) offers no reason why removing the redundancy would create a problem. Jbeans (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support, per nom and Jbeans. The objection that this could be (in the real world) reclassified at some point is irrelevant to the redundant disambiguation matter. If this haplogroup is renamed by "being moved around" in the phylotree, our article will be too renamed, when a preponderance of reliable sources tell us the name has changed. Re: the Haplogroup R-M343 counter-proposal – It's a fact of life for Wikipedia as a tertiary source that it will not be on the bleeding edge of nomenclature. I'm sympathetic to, and understand, the view that a more precise, but more technical and infrequently used, name is available; but it doesn't get past COMMONNAME and WP:RECOGNIZABLE policy. WP:PRECISION is policy, too, but it doesn't trump all other concerns, and we generally give COMMONNAME the most weight because this is a general-audience encyclopedia, not a specialized work. See also WP:NOT#JOURNAL: We don't have to mirror every preference of particular journals, and I don't see any evidence presented here that journals in genetics and physical anthropology prefer the SNPs, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Note about move discussions

• Similar move discussions are open at Haplogroup R-M420's talk page, Haplogroup R-M207's talk page, and Haplogroup R-M17's talk page. Khestwol (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Iran has more R1b than R1a. Who is writing this crap.

http://postimg.org/image/tlv7j1pi5/ http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html This is taken from Iran's own website for DNA. Notice the small amounts of R1a and equal amount of R1b. Your history is wrong. Language has no effect on DNA. https://www.docdroid.net/Whu2X9Q/scn-0004.pdf.html German/Czech/Iranian DNA Haplogroup ratios. Germans in this DNA haplogroup test had R1a1 M-17 and showed 38.9% out of 1215 people. Please tell me because from what I know Germany does not have a DNA project. Would you be trying to change history?. So many British people do claim Germanic ancestry but most have no evidence, maybe when you say Saxon you mean the little town called Saxon north of the opening of the river Elbe and the ocean taken from Ptolemaeus map 2nd century AD. See Manga Germania, Germania Slavica http://www.cs-magazin.com/index.php?a=a2011021048. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Ptolemaeus_Magna_Germania.jpg . Your mass migration theory is far exaggerated as people of the British Isles average 85% and have R1b ( See stephen oppenheimer dna). Quote me but don't the 95% of the Spanish Basque people have R1b. I do also know that all people have many different types of Haplogroups and not just one. https://www.docdroid.net/Whu2X9Q/scn-0004.pdf.html German/Czech/Iranian DNA Haplogroup ratios. https://www.docdroid.net/5yJP41W/428-443.pdf.html Erasmus University medicial Centre Rotterdam https://www.docdroid.net/Il3qmAy/journalpone0041252pdf-plosoneorg-p1.pdf.html R1b-M269 shows its highest frequency in the Assyrians (29.2%, averaged on Tehran and Azerbaijan Gharbi groups amd in Lorestan 24%. Note R1b not R1a http://docdro.id/Il3qmAy http://postimg.org/image/vskfk1k5l/ R1a in Europe http://postimg.org/image/qnvxukqed/ R1b in Europe http://postimg.org/image/bq0i2lvzh/ Germany R1a1 (M17) Average 38.9% http://postimg.org/image/wgha45x3b/ Gugarat Bhils Brahmins India R1a1.png http://postimg.org/image/tlv7j1pi5/ http://iranian.com/main/blog/iraniandnaadmin/iranian-y-dna-project.html http://postimg.org/image/66kafwjax/ Iranian DNA Project as above http://postimg.org/image/a0fxec1ul/ Iran has more R1b than R1a "History is wrong?. http://postimg.org/image/m8mewd8kr/ Lichtenstein cave "Germany Hapogroup findings from 3000 years ago. Show twice as much R1a than R1b.

http://postimg.org/image/66tgipqup/ R1a 27% R1b11.1% Uzbeks, Afghanistan. Chuvash Russia R1a 27.9% R1b 2.3%

http://postimg.org/image/72ocenohx/ Kazakhstan R1a 15% R1b 7% http://postimg.org/image/7uh2tx3h3/ Tuymazinsky Tatars Russia Note R1b 16%, R1a 14%. Kazan Tatars Tatarstan Russia R1a 20.%, R1b 1.9% http://postimg.org/image/adn65ad15/ Lithuanian Tatars R1a 54%. Hazara Afghanistan R1a 6.6% https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_C-M217 Mongolians have highest C-M217 not R1a http://www.welcome2mongolia.com/archives/matching-genghis-khan/ Haplogroup C3 Mongolian http://anthropogenesis.kinshipstudies.org/2013/11/ancient-dna-from-malta-and-afontova-gora-a-full-account/ Prior to as in before R1a/r1b just maybe there was the Ma-1 an ancestral haplogroup of the R. Malta boy in Russia carbon dated 24,000 years http://mehriran.tv/article_read.php?a=481 Haplogroup R* originated in North Asia just before the Last Glacial Maximum (26,500-19,000 years before present). This haplogroup has been identified in the 24,000 year-old remains of the so-called "Mal'ta boy" from the Altai region, in south-central Siberia (Raghavan et al. 2013) http://www.donsmaps.com/dolnivi.html Note Dolni Vestonice Carbon datings in artical. Also at least one piece of irovy that was hand carved was also dated in America 1988 at 26,0000+years same as Czech number and note they found two isotopes carbon C-14 and local uranium was also found and this very hard to fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.191.133.244 (talk) 09:28, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

R-P25 in Neolithic Spain

It is now clear that that R1b-P25 from Els Trocs is R1b-V88.

It was tested for V88 equivalent PF6376 and resulted positive.

See: http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/europeanneolithicdna.shtml — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.54.93.54 (talk) 07:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Is this published ? All I can find is pers comm in Jean Manco's blog. Need a reliable source. This is a controversial area: a very sensitive result.Askatuga (talk) 01:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Maps

Some maps would be better than tables of figures I think, to make the article more readable and interesting. However I struggle to find online existing maps that could legally be included. Anyone know of a map that could be used. Maps of U106, P312 and L21 would be the most important I feel, to show the different branches of R1b in Europe. --ABMvanHelsdingen (talk) 19:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

R1b1

It remains a riddle, for which alternatives the examples from " Cruciani" onwards are meant. HJJHolm (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Haplogroup R1b. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110721204711/http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=93774&ProduktNr=224250&filename=93774.pdf to http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Aktion=ShowPDF&ArtikelNr=93774&ProduktNr=224250&filename=93774.pdf
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080626010918/http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/publications/Wood_2005_EUR.pdf to http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/publications/Wood_2005_EUR.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

R1b* "now virtually restricted to Iran"?

That is completely wrong and no source is given. The R1b* samples are mostly found on the Arabian Peninsula, where the origins of this haplogroup lie (source: ISOGG). Recently a North African Arab was also tested postivie for R1b*. The article is a mess. V1636 was not only found in the Mediterranean but also in Mesopotamian Arabs and again on the Arabian Peninsula. This article seems more wish orientated, than facts orientated. A real mess..--Najdiarabian (talk) 20:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)