|
Here’s the Amazon summary for the source material of the “Anthony” book/research: This series offers a new venue for high-quality original studies in Indo-European linguistics, from both a comparative and historical perspective, including relevant works on the prehistory/early history of the oldest descendant languages. It will also welcome studies in poetics and comparative mythology that include a significant linguistic and philological component.” It’s a book about linguistics focusing on oral tradition. There is absolutely no genetic or archaeological component.
- Totally false!Tewdar (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you're simply using avoidance tactics to not answer what you clearly know is the thesis of my argument: the standard for an online encyclopedia should not be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers.
- You caught me in a technicality where I neglected to count abbreviations. Congratulations. And it clearly has nothing to do with the core tenet of my argument. You're just being a nitpicky child who's avoiding the primary question.
- It shows that you are lazy and unscholarly. You don't even read the sources that are given in the article.Tewdar (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Lazaridis et. al. never make any mention of “Western Hunter Gatherers” in their paper. Again, you all have simply claimed that this data is relevant because it suits your interest in self-promotion.
- "WHG" mentioned 37 times! Tewdar (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you're simply using avoidance tactics to not answer what you clearly know is the thesis of my argument: the standard for an online encyclopedia should not be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers.
- You caught me in a technicality where I neglected to count abbreviations. Congratulations. And it clearly has nothing to do with the core tenet of my argument. You're just being a nitpicky child who's avoiding the primary question.
Haak et. al. never make any mention of “Western Hunter Gatherers” in their paper. Again, you all have simply claimed that this data is relevant because it suits your interest in self-promotion.
- "WHG" mentioned 12 times - LOL! Tewdar (talk) 09:25, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you're simply using avoidance tactics to not answer what you clearly know is the thesis of my argument: the standard for an online encyclopedia should not be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers.
- You caught me in a technicality where I neglected to count abbreviations. Congratulations. And it clearly has nothing to do with the core tenet of my argument. You're just being a nitpicky child who's avoiding the primary question.
MATHIESON ACTUALLY DOES USE THE TERM “WESTERN HUNTER GATHERER” IN HIS 2015 PAPER! HALLELUJAH!
- Also "WHG" 18 times! Tewdar (talk) 09:26, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you're simply using avoidance tactics to not answer what you clearly know is the thesis of my argument: the standard for an online encyclopedia should not be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers.
- You caught me in a technicality where I neglected to count abbreviations. Congratulations. And it clearly has nothing to do with the core tenet of my argument. You're just being a nitpicky child who's avoiding the primary question.
Unfortunately, as I’m sure we’re all aware at this point, this is where the term originated, and every other source you all have linked to this topic are either extremely dubious, or simply cite Mathieson. AND, in that entire Mathieson paper, “Western Hunter Gatherers” were mentioned a total of three times, because even in the sole paper in which this term was coined, it was nothing more than a secondary concept among a dozen different terms the authors coined in that paper. The total coverage Mathieson et. al. dedicated toward “Western Hunter Gatherers” in that paper was 3 sentences.
- Significantly more than 3 sentences, and hey, look at them there f-stats! Tewdar (talk) 09:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
“Western Hunter Gatherer” was also mentioned in the Jones et. al. paper as well- a total of one (1) times.
- Don't forget to search for "WHG" too...Tewdar (talk) 09:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you're simply using avoidance tactics to not answer what you clearly know is the thesis of my argument: the standard for an online encyclopedia should not be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers.
- You caught me in a technicality where I neglected to count abbreviations. Congratulations. And it clearly has nothing to do with the core tenet of my argument. You're just being a nitpicky child who's avoiding the primary question.
The problem, is that Jones was attributed as a member of Mathieson’s research team (mentioned immediately above), so I’m gonna guess that I don’t have to explain to you the problem with this citation. Alright, I will anyway: people who have worked on the same research together, cannot be attributed separately as unique citations when they expound upon that research individually. Again, this is redundant citation.
Saag actually mentions “Western Hunter Gatherers” also. Saag et al Mentions "Western Hunter Gatherers" a total of 3 times in their 2,800 word (5 page) paper. Unfortunately, Saag again cites Haak, Lazaridis, Mittnik, Jones, and Gunther. Of the ten sources cited in this Wikipedia article, Saag literally cites half of them. Again, this is called “redundant citation”.
- Also "WHG" 4 times. But hey, Estonia isn't exactly Western Europe so what did you expect?Tewdar (talk) 09:34, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you're simply using avoidance tactics to not answer what you clearly know is the thesis of my argument: the standard for an online encyclopedia should not be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers.
- You caught me in a technicality where I neglected to count abbreviations. Congratulations. And it clearly has nothing to do with the core tenet of my argument. You're just being a nitpiccky child who's avoiding the primary question.
- Yes, we all get it genius. you can stop repeating yourself. Again, this had almost noting to do with what you clearly know is primary premise of my argument. Everyone gets it. I forgot to look for abbreviations. This is a virtually completely extraneous point to what you know is the clear premise of my argument.
Look geniuses, if a bunch of 6 year-olds are in the school yard during recess, and one of them tells you “Billy punched Jimmy!” And then you ask another student, “Did Billy punch Jimmy?” and the student tells you “Yes, Billy punched Jimmy,” and then you ask that student, “How do you know this?” and the student replies, “Suzy told me,” and then you ask 10 more students how they know that Billy punched Jimmy, and they all reply that SUZY TOLD THEM Billy punched Jimmy, does that make the story any more credible? If you have 10 sources who all give you the same original source, “Suzy told me”, does that make the information any more credible? The answer, geniuses, is “no, it does not make the story more credible,” because all of your sources simply rely upon the same original source, and if Suzy is wrong, then all of the other 10 sources who relied upon Suzy are wrong as well. THIS IS WHY YOU CAN’T CITE REDUNDANT SOURCES. They’re all reliant upon the same source material. It bewilders me that you all need to have this explained to you.
- https://www.researchgate.net/figure/PCA-and-ADMIXTURE-analysis-reflecting-three-time-periods-in-Northern-European-prehistory_fig1_322799637
- Looks to me like Billy punched Jimmy. But you're welcome to disagree, of course. Tewdar (talk) 09:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The Gunther paper, again, simply cites multiple sources you’ve already cited, Again, this is called “redundant citation” Any 11 year-old American junior high-school student knows not to do this. If you tried to do this in a paper submitted for a class in an American junior high-school, you’d receive a failing grade. This paper simply cites, Haak, Lazaridis, Jones, Mittnik, and Mathieson, all sources you’ve already cited in this article.
The Mittnik paper is 8,300 words long (17 pages). Know how many times the term “Western Hunter Gatherer” is used during those 17 pages? TWICE.
TWICE. TWICE. TWICE. TWICE. TWICE.
In 17 pages.
- THIRTY! THIRTY! THIRTY! For "WHG", though... Tewdar (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you're simply using avoidance tactics to not answer what you clearly know is the thesis of my argument: the standard for an online encyclopedia should not be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers.
- You caught me in a technicality where I neglected to count abbreviations. Congratulations. And it clearly has nothing to do with the core tenet of my argument. You're just being a nitpiccky child who's avoiding the primary question.
And guess where those mentions originate? Do I even have to write it out for you? Lazaridis, Haak, Mathieson, Jones, Saag, Gunther, and Anthony. This paper literally cites 7 of the 9 other papers cited in this Wikipedia article. Add the author, Mittnik, to that list, and this list of contributors to that paper is almost identical to list of sources for this article.
Know how many times the term “Western Hunter Gatherer” is mentioned in the 2018 Mathieson paper? I’ll give you 3 seconds to think about it . . . 3 . . 2 . . 1 . . ONCE.
- Nope,try counting "WHG" too. Tewdar (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you're simply using avoidance tactics to not answer what you clearly know is the thesis of my argument: the standard for an online encyclopedia should not be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers.
- You caught me in a technicality where I neglected to count abbreviations. Congratulations. And it clearly has nothing to do with the core tenet of my argument. You're just being a nitpicky child who's avoiding the primary question.
Again, in a 6,100 word paper (12 pages) the term “Western Hunter Gatherers” appears a total of one (1) times. And can you guess who the paper cites? Anthony, Haak, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Jones, Saag, and Mittnik. Add this paper’s author’s to that list, Mathieson et. al., and that paper’s citations are almost identical to this article’s source list.
- You're just jealous that the Reich lab at Harvard is at the bleeding edge of all this research.Tewdar (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you're simply using avoidance tactics to not answer what you clearly know is the thesis of my argument: the standard for an online encyclopedia should not be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers.
- You caught me in a technicality where I neglected to count abbreviations. Congratulations. And it clearly has nothing to do with the core tenet of my argument. Tou're just being a nitpiccky child who's avoiding the primary question.
At this point it’s fairly obvious that you all are doing this deliberately. You’re simply citing research teams who have worked with one another and cyclically cite one another in an attempt to add self-promoting credibility to their research, when anyone with any background in this field would immediately recognize what this is.
- Why not leave genetics to the geneticists. I'm sure your shovel misses you. Tewdar (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you're simply using avoidance tactics to not answer what you clearly know is the thesis of my argument: the standard for an online encyclopedia should not be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers.
- You caught me in a technicality where I neglected to count abbreviations. Congratulations. And it clearly has nothing to do with the core tenet of my argument. Tou're just being a nitpiccky child who's avoiding the primary question.
I said before in a comment I left in the talk section of a related Wikipedia article that I wasn’t going to waste time investigating this, but you’re very deliberately misleading people, especially students, in the interest of shameless self-promotion. And yes, it is very obvious that the people creating this series of articles are simply people associated with these papers who want to gain credibility for their work. I am now going to report this series of articles to the Wikipedia admins. Good luck.
- Oh yeah, I'm sure David Reich has his undergrads creating archaeogenetics pages for extra marks... Tewdar (talk) 09:46, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for this. You are describing aspects of a recent field of study, ancient European human DNA, in which there are a limited number of publications and only a moderate number of analyzed specimens. Some terminology is inevitably new. In this context, how would we use your insights to improve the article, or indeed the encyclopedia in general? Richard Keatinge (talk) 16:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
- Richard, c'mon man. This is not a recent field of study. Research into human genetic lineages has been ongoing for decades, and there are not a "limited number of publications". There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of peer-reviewed papers discussing European genetic lineage. The reason there are only a limited number of papers regarding this particular research, is because its not particularly relevant or prescient. It's not new. It's not innovative. The reason there is so little research regarding this particular data, is because this is simply the nature of peer-reviewed data. There are hundreds of thousands of peer-reviewed papers in which research teams have isolated various groupings of genetic and cultural markers and given them unique names in their papers. If Wikipedia is going to create articles about all of them, then Wikipedia is going to be an endless jumble of recitations of peer-reviewed papers which have all created conflicting names for extraordinarily similar data. "This paper discusses this set of 9 genetic and cultural markers which we're calling the "humpa-pumpas". "OK, well our paper discusses a group with 10 of the same genetic and cultural markers, but one different marker, and we're calling this group the hunka-punkas." "Ok, well this paper discusses this set of 14 similar genetic and cultural markers who . . ." My man, this research is no more significant than any of the other hundreds of thousands of similar papers, and honestly, the fact that there's so little available data, should make it immediately obvious that this data is not yet appropriate for publication in an online encyclopedia.
- Richard, go to the "Eastern Hunter Gatherer" Wikipedia page. Near the bottom of the page, there's a section called, "West Siberian Hunter Gatherer". The term "West Siberian Hunter Gatherer" is already demarcated in red as a topic for a future Wikipedia article. Know where the term originates? A single peer-reviewed paper which identified a total of 3 individuals, and decided to call them "West Siberian Hunter Gatherers" for the purposes of that paper. Three individuals, mentioned in a single peer-reviewed paper.
- This is not "new" or "recent" or "innovative" research. There are a million similar peer-reviewed papers in this precise field, but for some reason, Wikipedia contributors have decided to latch onto this specific set of papers, and I can only imagine that the reason they're doing this is because they're associated with the authors of those papers and have a personal interest in promoting this specific bracket of research.
- Richard, go to Google Scholar, and do a search for European Genetic Lineage. There are 323,000 papers in the results. European genetic lineage is in no way, shape, or form, a new or recent area of study. And if Wikipedia is going to write articles about all of the various, endless, obscure papers dedicated to "European Genetic Research", then Wikipedia is going to be an un-navigable maze of seemingly contradictory data.
- This research is no different from anyone else's. Every research team creates its own terminology so that it doesn't have to list endless cultural and numeric genetic markers every single time it wants to mention one of the groups identified in its paper. Look man, if I want to identify a subgroup within a population in a paper, and that subgroup consists of individuals who comprise combinations of the genetic markers "R1b, H51, I1b, H37, J10a . . . etc., etc." Am I going to list every single one of those numeric genetic variations every single time I want to mention the subjects of the paper, or am I just going to create a name to call them in my paper, and call them the "bumba-lumba-pants"?
- Here's the thing: I'd bet a million dollars that within ten years these names won't even exist. They'll simply be rolled into other groups, or forgotten about because no one's even thought about them for a decade. There are literally thousands of similar groupings with unique names research teams have created in similar peer-reviewed papers, and none of them have Wikipedia pages, and most of them will dissolve into obscuria in a couple of years, if they haven't already. Why isn't Wikipedia writing articles about that research citing sources which mention them one or two times over the course of 15 pages?
- That's all this series of Wikipedia articles is: it's either a bunch of people who have no background in anthropology or peer-reviewed research, and have seriously over-estimated the significance of the peer-reviewed data they were reading, or . . . it's a bunch of people who were directly involved in creating the original research, and want to add credence/permanence to their work by having it added to Wikipedia. And, I have to imagine the latter is the case, otherwise, there are some seriously under-educated people creating Wikipedia articles.
- Sorry, in answer to your question- this entire series of Wikipedia articles should simply be deleted, as I'm sure it will be a couple of years from now. Other than that, I don't have any suggestions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk • contribs) 21:00, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
- Perhaps you could add some of the "literally thousands of similar groupings with unique names" from peer-reviewed ancient DNA articles to this page:
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Archaeogenetic_lineages
- Tewdar (talk) 10:10, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sorry man. I know you asked that question in earnestness, and you genuinely thought it was relevant when you wrote it, but the fact that you even asked that question, overwhelmingly suggests that this topic is beyond your educational grasp. I apologize, because I know how condescending that sounds, but look- I know without question that your knowledge of the Cornish language is beyond what I could ever hope to achieve if I dedicated my life toward studying Cornish for the next decade. I would be miles outside my league, and I would never be able to tell you anything about the Cornish language that you wouldn't think sounds stupid. I'm going to leave it at that.
- You know what man, I apologize. I'm an educator, and I shouldn't have dismissed your question in that way. That was not cool on my part, and I apologize.
- So, let's approach this question from a simple logical perspective.
- -When did Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH) enter Europe?
- -When did agriculture enter Europe?
- -When did pastoralism enter Europe?
- The reason it's important to note when agriculture and pastoralism entered Europe is because these dates would be strong indicators of when the hunter-gatherer era ended in Europe.
- First thing's first, I'm not going to cite any papers. I don't have the time for that, not in a response to a stranger on Wikipedia. If you want to look-up any of the time-frames I mention, feel free to do so. This is what I do for a living. I promise that what I say is accurate.
- Alright, so, when did Anatomically Modern Humans (AMH)first expand into Europe? Roughly 40,000YBP (Years Before Present). I'm not going to cite any sources for that date. If you want to look it up, feel free. I promise I'm correct on this.
- When did agriculture spread from the Middle East into Europe? Roughly 10,000-7,000YBP (spreading from southern Europe northerly and westerly in a fairly elliptical progression). Again, I'm not going to cite any sources for that. If you do the peer-reviewed research you can find a million different approximations, but they'll all be roughly within that time-frame.
- When did pastoralism spread into Europe? Not until significantly after agriculture spread into Europe, so, for the purposes of this conversation, pastoralism is effectively irrelevant.
- So, between the 40,000YBP when AMH entered Europe, and the 8,000YBP when agricultural practices spread from the Middle East to Europe, how were AMH in Europe subsisting? For the intervening roughly 32,000 years between when AMH entered Europe and when agriculture was introduced, Europeans were "hunter gatherers".
- Imagine the entire landmass of Europe, and in this sense, this includes Eastern Europe and the Caucasus'. For the better part of 32,000 years, humanity in the western half of the Eurasian landmass consisted of small familial bands of hunter-gatherers.
- I'm not going to go into more detail, because honestly, once I get started, I'll want to write a book. But, without having a degree in anthropology, simply ask yourself, when the authors of these papers coined the term "Western Hunter Gatherer", how accurate, useful, and descriptive was the creation of that term? I'm not going to read the paper again and argue a finite definition of what they claim are "Western Hunter Gatherers". But in western Europe, during the 32,000 years when the inhabitants of western Europe were hunter-gatherers, do you think the term "Western Hunter Gatherer" accurately describes who all of those groups were during those 32,000 years? Do you think that there haven't been a thousand other terms anthropologists (like me) have come up with to describe other specific groups who existed in western Europe during those 32,000 years? Do you think this terminology is widely accepted among degreed anthropologists (like me), even though there are only a total of 10 peer-reviewed papers which make any mention of these terms, and in the case of this specific term, it's only mentioned a total of 10 times in the 100 total pages of those ten papers?
- This statement: "do you think the term "Western Hunter Gatherer" accurately describes who all of those groups were during those 32,000 years?" demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the term "genetic component". Please come back when you have learned why this statement makes you look foolish.Tewdar (talk) 09:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Again, I apologize, because I'm not trying to sound condescending. But if you have to ask me to support my assertion that there are thousands of peer-reviewed papers covering the 32,000 years during which Anatomically Modern Humans were hunter-gatherers in western Europe, I don't really even have a response. There are literally thousands of papers on JSTOR and Google Scholar discussing the myriad groups who were present in western Europe (and all of Europe, and all the world) during this expansive time period. Asking me to cite some of them is like asking me to cite specific Manchester United matches to prove that the Manchester United football club exists. I'm not going to do it. I apologize, but it's just a stupid question. And yes, I know that is condescending. I apologize again.
- Okay man, I just clicked the link you attached. My man, you realize that two thirds of those Wikipedia articles are all linked to one another, and linked to this article, right? Literally, all of the peer-reviewed papers cited in those Wikipedia articles are written by the same 10 research teams, who all cyclically cite one another, which is something I wrote about at length earlier in this talk section. In fact, this entire subsection of the this Wikipedia article's "talk section", which I titled "Concerning Self-Promotion On Wikipedia" is specifically dedicated to the fact that a group of 10 research teams have done nothing but cite one another's work, and write extensively about each other on Wikipedia, simply to promote their own work. Literally, two-thirds of the articles on the list you attached simply cite one-another. You don't think it's strange that every one of those peer-reviewed papers simply cites other papers who simply cite other papers which are in turn also cited by the original peer-reviewed paper? Go through the reference sections of those 10 peer-reviewed papers and see how many times the names Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony come up. Then go through the list of authors for those same peer-reviewed papers, and low and behold, the reference sections for those papers are identical to list of authors of those papers. This doesn't give you a hint that there's something a little f*cked-up going on? And then, none of those papers are older than 2015, and certainly none of those concepts have gained wide acceptance within the anthropology community, yet there are how many Wikipedia articles which simply cite those 10 peer-reviewed papers which all contain a cyclic rotation of the same authors who are all also cyclically rotated through each other's reference sections? Seriously? C'mon man. You don't have to have a degree in anthropology or even be experienced in peer-reviewed research to recognize how sketchy this research is. What? This group of researchers who've all worked closely with one another suddenly published a spate of peer-reviewed papers all within the last half decade and have managed to totally re-organize European pre-history without any actual anthropologists being aware of it? C'mon. Literally, two-thirds of the Wikipedia articles on the list you attached simply cite this group of papers which cyclically cite one another, contain a rotation of the same 10 authors, who also serve as the references for each other's papers. My man, how can you not see how shady that is? I've been working in this field for 20 years. Know where I first heard any of these terms? Wikipedia. Know how many textbooks contain these terms? Zero. Know how many university-level classes teach these concepts? Zero. Know how many 20 year-old college sophomores would recognize the flagrant discrepancies in the peer-reviewed research cited in the reference sections of this series of Wikipedia articles? 100%
Look, my man:
Go to the reference section for the "Ancient North Eurasian" Wikipedia page. How many of the papers in the reference section of that Wikipedia article were written by Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. How many of those papers cite Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony.
Go to the reference section for the "Caucasus Hunter Gatherer" Wikipedia page. How many of the papers in the reference section for that Wikipedia article were written by Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. How many of those papers cite Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony.
Go to the reference section for the "Eastern Hunter Gatherer" Wikipedia page. How many of the papers in the reference section for that Wikipedia article were written by Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. How many of those papers cite Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony.
Look at the reference section for this Wikipedia page (Western Hunter Gatherer). How many of the papers in the reference section for this Wikipedia article were written by Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony. How many of those papers cite Jones, Haak, Saag, Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Mittnik, and Anthony.
The Wikipedia article for "Anatolian Hunter Gatherer" shouldn't even exist because it cites a single source, but guess who's included as an author of that paper? Haak. Guess who that paper cites? Lazaridis, Jones, Mathieson, and an earlier Haak paper.
Go to the reference section for the "Basal Burasian" Wikipedia page. Again, it's just stupid that a page like this is even on Wikipedia. It cites 13 sources, and half of them are simply Lazaridis. Are you kidding me? Someone coins a term in a peer-reviewed paper, and now Wikipedia is presenting it like it's part of the established anthropological canon?
Go to the reference section for the "Early European Farmers" Wikipedia page. Again, the majority of the papers in the reference section were written by Lazaridis, Jones, Haak, Mathieson, and Saag. And gee golly whiz, I wonder who those papers cite?
Go to the Wikipedia page for "Scandinavian Hunter-Gatherer". Who does that article cite? Gunther, Mathieson, Lazaridis, Haak, and Mittnik. And I wonder who those papers cite?
Go to the Wikipedia page for "Western Steppe Herders". Who does that article cite? Haak, Anthony, Jones and Lazaridis. And I wonder who they cite?
Literally, you all have no idea what you're doing. A bunch of research teams have all worked in conjunction with one another, cite another, and have written this insular universe of research which is still brand-new and hasn't gained acceptance anywhere else in the field of anthropology, and now you all have written 9 Wikipedia articles about it. And when I try to point-out how backward your reasoning is, you all literally say, "but look, there are 8 other Wikipedia articles about this."
It literally bewilders me tat you all don't see how off-kilter your reasoning is.
@AnthropologyAye-Whole - sorry, it was supposed to be a joke...Tewdar (talk) 19:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@AnthropologyAye-Whole - did you read David Reich's book "Who We Are and How We Got Here"? It's a very good introduction to the recent archaeogenetics revolution, a field which you appear to be unfamiliar with...Tewdar (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. Clearly, I'm not arguing that the field of archaeogenetics doesn't exist. I'm arguing that you all have no idea how to interpret and weigh peer-reviewed data. How did you not understand this? And for the love of goodness, never write "the (insert any anthropology topic) revolution". There is no revolution. Research into prehistoric human genetics has been ongoing since the 1980's. By writing a sentence like that, you're simply demonstrating your utter lack of a background in anthropology.
- Recently (last decade or so) however, ancient DNA studies has witnessed something of a revolution. If you were up to date on the subject you would know this. Perhaps you should read the book I recommended, before chasing your tail and embarrassing yourself on here. Heck, you could try *reading* the articles you keep mentioning in your incredibly lengthy comments on here instead of just searching them for words and phrases.Tewdar (talk) 08:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you have no idea what you're talking about. And all you're doing is using avoidance tactics. If "I were up-to-date" in this field I would understand that there is a "revolution"? Are you drunk? Do you have any idea how freaking stupid that sounds? I'm embarrassing myself? Dude, you're an infant. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, you've never heard of the peer-review process, have no familiarity with the academic process, and are completely talking out your anus. You literally have no idea what you're talking about. I don't have to "read the book". I know for a fact, and everyone who works in this field knows for a fact, there will never be a single book which re-organizes European prehistory, backed-up by 9 peer-reviewed papers, all written within the last half-decade, which all use one-another as sources. I don't have to read the freaking book. No one does. You can claim I don't know what I'm talking about, but I promise, 99.9999999999% of everyone who works in any branch of anthropology, or any scientific field in general, is going to agree with me, and simply think that you're just some nutjob who doesn't know what he's talking about, doesn't have a degree in any scientific field, any experience in peer-reviewed research, and is simply spouting-off nonsense because he doesn't want to feel stupid.
"The Mittnik paper" might only use the term "Western Hunter-Gatherer" TWICE TWICE TWICE, but it uses "WHG" THIRTY THIRTY THIRTY times. Perhaps you should spend more time reading these articles.Tewdar (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
And ditto, the Mathieson(2018) paper, in which the abbreviation "WHG" appears an incredible TWENTY-FIVE TWENTY-FIVE TWENTY-FIVE times!!!Tewdar (talk) 20:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, of the myriad points I've made in my 10 pages worth of comments, you've demonstrated that in one of my comments, I neglected to count abbreviations. Great. I completely acknowledge I did this. Now, rather than nitpicking details which are pretty extraneous to the major point I was making, why don't you address what you clearly know is the major problem with this entire series of Wikipedia articles.
- Look at your comment on "the Anthony book" by which I presume you mean "Dispersals and Diversification: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Early Stages of Indo-European", to which Anthony contributes a chapter "Ancient DNA, Mating Networks, and the Anatolian Split". And you say "[t]here is absolutely no genetic or archaeological component". Really? A chapter titled "Ancient DNA..." has "absolutely no genetic component"? Why don't you purchase and read the book, instead of relying upon the publisher's blurb?Tewdar (talk) 09:11, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you have no idea what you're talking about. THIS IS ONE BOOK! You're relying on a single source. And no, I'm not going to read the freaking book! You're a child. You have no idea what you're talking about. Anthony can write a million pages of the most thoroughly detailed analysis of the topic. AND IT'S A SINGLE SOURCE. You have no idea what you're doing. You have absolutely no background in peer-reviewed data, and have no idea how to assign value to your sources. And the fact that you don't recognize this, makes it overwhelmingly obvious that you have no background in peer-reviewed research. You literally have no idea what you're talking about, and you don't understand the methodology well-enough to understand that you don't know what you're talking about.
- There are DOZENS of errors in your comments which clearly demonstrate to anyone involved in ancient DNA studies that you have no idea what you are talking about. But, a man has to eat, sleep, and work.Tewdar (talk) 08:52, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
It would take a very long time to point out all the errors in @AnthropologyAye-Whole's hilarious posts (are you guys certain he is being serious?), so I think I'll stop for this evening. Tewdar (talk) 20:44, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
- Well, that was just a giant cop-out, wasn't it? "I'm not going to actually demonstrate my points, because I'm lazy. You just have to trust me." The total amount of errors you pointed-out in all of my posts consists of one response where I neglected to count abbreviations. Geez, that certainly discounts everything I've said. And you still haven't addressed what is very clearly the overwhelmingly significant point I'm making: other than the 9 authors cited by this Wikipedia article, who else has conducted research on "Western Hunter Gatherers"? You have 9 authors, who are the only teams who have conducted research on "Western Hunter Gatherers", and they all cite one another. And you think this is an appropriate concept for a Wikipedia article? You think the term "Western Hunter Gatherer" is widely recognized in anthropology? Based on the 9 research teams which have coined this term within the last 5 years and who all simply cite one another's work? You think that should be the standard for articles in an online encyclopedia? Instead of nitpicking instances where I forgot to count abbreviations, why don't you respond to what is clearly the heart of the point I'm making. Your last response was just a giant cop-out. Explain how, based upon the fact that this article cites a total of 9 research teams, who all conducted their research within the last 5 years, and who all cite one another, you think this concept is appropriate for an article in an online encyclopedia.
- See above. Perhaps I'll come back this evening if I have nothing else to do and explain to you why these "ancestral components" (WHG, EHG, ANE, CHG, etc.) are important, useful, and deserving of Wikipedia articles. In the meantime, I'll just point out that your posts are extremely long-winded and demonstrate a total lack of knowledge of even the fundamentals, which are probably (some of) the reasons why hardly anybody replies to your disproportionately aggressive and ridiculous comments.Tewdar (talk) 09:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- So, you didn't make any counter-arguments or address the primary question I've repeatedly asked. You're response is that maybe you'll reply sometime in the future. Well, thank you for that solid response. Again, if and when you do decide to reply, the question I've asked repeatedly is:
- "You have 9 authors, who are the only teams who have conducted research on "Western Hunter Gatherers", and they all cite one another. And you think this is an appropriate concept for a Wikipedia article? You think the term "Western Hunter Gatherer" is widely recognized in anthropology? Based on the 9 research teams which have coined this term within the last 5 years and who all simply cite one another's work? You think that should be the standard for articles in an online encyclopedia? Instead of nitpicking instances where I forgot to count abbreviations, why don't you respond to what is clearly the heart of the point I'm making. Your last response was just a giant cop-out. Explain how, based upon the fact that this article cites a total of 9 research teams, who all conducted their research within the last 5 years, and who all cite one another, you think this concept is appropriate for an article in an online encyclopedia."
- Please don't waste your time with "maybe I'll reply sometime in the future". Please don't waste your time with nitpicking where I failed to notice abbreviations in these papers. Please don't waste your time with "you don't understand the fundamentals", because bud, I've been doing this on a professional level for 20 years. There's nothing you're ever going to teach me about the fundamentals of peer-reviewed research. Simply answer the question without using avoidance tactics, without nitpicking insignificant details, without saying "maybe you'll address the question later". Simply address the question at hand, that I've asked multiple times.
- (And again man, don't waste your time with how long-winded you think my replies are. Don't waste your time with the fact that I failed to take into account abbreviations. Don't waste your time with how degreed anthropologists have written books- because that's an even less reliable source than peer-reviewed research. Anyone can write whatever they want in a book and it isn't subject to peer-review. Don't waste your time with "Maybe I'll answer that question later." Just be an adult. No avoidance tactics. Just answer the question at hand that I've posed multiple times.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk • contribs) 10:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- You know what - why not just nominate this article and the other ones you don't like for deletion. Then we can all have some fun. Tewdar (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- So, again, you avoided answering the question, right?
- Here you go: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Nominating_article(s)_for_deletion Tewdar (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Now, don't claim you don't have time - nominating is quick and easy, taking a fraction of the time of writing one of your interminable comments. Tewdar (talk) 10:48, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And, so at this point, it's obvious you're not even going to attempt to answer the question. Yo simply want to have the last word. Ask yourself, is this why you began editing Wikipedia? Not because you wanted to present accurate information in an online encyclopedia, but because you wanted to have the last word? Now, not only are you not answering the fundamental question of this series of Wikipedia articles which I've asked you to answer repeatedly, but you interaction has devolved into, "you said you didn't want to be that involved, and now look at you. Nanny-nanny-boo-boo." Is this why you began editing Wikipedia? So that when you couldn't answer a straight-forward question about the validity of a topic, you'd resort to this childishness? Do you respect yourself now? Is this why you began editing Wikipedia? So you could act like a child?
- Nominate the article for deletion. Then, *you* can have the last word, talking at length about how you are one of the world's top anthropologists, and how knowledgable you are about the peer-review process, and, best of all, WHY THIS ARTICLE SHOULD NOT EXIST, except instead of just talking to me, EVERYBODY WITH AN INTEREST GETS TO OPPOSE YOUR NOMINATION. Tewdar (talk) 11:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Seriously, how much have you had to drink tonight? Everyone knows that Wikipedia doesn't delete articles. I nominated "Arabid Race" for deletion, an article in which the talk section actually uses the term "hook-nosed Jews" and I couldn't get that article deleted. Everyone knows that Wikipedia almost never deletes articles. You know this. So again, it's just another one of your tactics to circumvent the question. And "world's top anthropologists?" I said I was better versed in this field than all but maybe 5-15,000 anthropologists. Divide 10,000 by the number of western countries with significant university-level anthropology programs, and I effectively said that within countries like the US, there are probably no more than 20 anthropologists in each state who have a higher level of education or are more experience than me. And again, flagrantly exaggerating only demonstrates your immaturity. You're completely incapable of acting like an adult. I asked you repeatedly to answer a question regarding the validity of this series of Wikipedia articles, and you can't do it, so you're simply in rage-attack mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk • contribs) 11:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Please show me the AfD discussion for "Arabid Race" - or by "nominated" do you mean "blathered on endlessly on the article's talk page"? Tewdar (talk) 14:08, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Can't seem to find any matching AfD discussions... Tewdar (talk) 14:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- How do you maintain self-respect?
Please nominate the article(s) for deletion through the procedure described in the link. Enjoy the rest of your day. Tewdar (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Already been answered. Stop being a child.
- Well, unfortunately, if you want an article deleted on Wikipedia, it has to go through the AfD process. That is what you want, right? Tewdar (talk) 19:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- "As of December 2020, around 250 mainspace articles are deleted from Wikipedia each day" Tewdar (talk) 20:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Already answered. stop being a child.
- You said that "[e]veryone knows that Wikipedia almost never deletes articles" - yet another one of your lies - ;Tewdar (talk) 20:43, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Let's be honest about what this is. You're a pensioner who lives in Cornwall, is lonely, and is using this debate as a substitute for actual human interaction.
- At this point, I think you don't want the article(s) deleted, because then you'd have nothing to whine about... Tewdar (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Simply avoidance and baiting.
Avoidance, me?! You say you want the article deleted, and are literally avoiding the only possible way of doing this! Tewdar (talk) 22:05, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- "You have 9 authors who all worked on each other's research teams, who are the only teams who have conducted any research on "Western Hunter Gatherers", and they all cite one another in every one of their papers. And you think this is an appropriate concept for a Wikipedia article? You think the term "Western Hunter Gatherer" is widely recognized in anthropology? Based on the 9 research teams which coined this term within the last 5 years and who all simply cite one another's work and are attributed as authors in one another's papers? You think that should be the standard for articles in an online encyclopedia? Explain how, based upon the fact that this article cites a total of 9 research teams, who all conducted their research within the last 5 years, and who all cite one another, and worked as members of one another's research teams, you think this concept is appropriate for an article in an online encyclopedia."
- I've asked you to respond to this question 10 times now, and you've simply used 10 avoidance tactics to not answer the question. So, yes, "avoidance" -you.
Like I say, the ****only**** way to delete this article is to nominate it for deletion and attract consensus. Let's say that I can't give you any reason why we should keep this article. You ****still**** need to go through the AfD process. So nominate it for deletion. It's quick, simple, and you can invite all your alleged anthropologist supporters to join in. Tewdar (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- 11th time you haven't answered the question. Avoidance=you.
Hey, you win. You're right. The article doesn't meet notability criteria. The concept comes from amateurs like Reich, Anthony, Mallory, Haak, and Wang, and received coverage from the fringe broadcaster, the BBC. I suggest you nominate it for deletion. Tewdar (talk) 22:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. They published their papers in peer-reviewed journals. The purpose of publishing in peer-reviewed journals is to make the data public and available for scrutiny. This is the entire purpose of publishing in peer-reviewed journals- to make the data available for scrutiny among your peers in that field. The fact that degreed anthropologists have simply published something in peer-reviewed journals "means that data is widely accepted" is something the very authors of those papers would immediately refute. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. The purpose of publishing data in a peer-reviewed journal is to make the data public among your peers so that it can be REVIEWED, tested, refuted, modified, fine-tuned over time until a consensus among the wider community of the professionals within that field can agree upon how the consensus within that field accepts how the data is received. I don't know why you're even making this argument, when you clearly don't even understand what the purpose of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal is.
- There is literally not a single anthropological concept which has been introduced in peer-reviewed data within the last half decade which should be included in an article in an online encyclopedia.
Great. Nominate for deletion, then. Tewdar (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I bet all of them there folks was mingling heaps during that there last glacial maximum, eh what?! Tewdar (talk) 23:27, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Archaeogenetics is the devil's work I 'spect... Tewdar (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Did you contact reich@genetics.med.harvard.edu to ask him if we can have this article yet? Tewdar (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- How do you not think you sound childish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk • contribs) 23:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- And again, why don't you contact Reich and ask him if he thinks his research is appropriate for inclusion in an online encyclopedia , without having gone through the same peer-review process that every peer-reviewed paper has gone through for the last 5 decades.
- My man, you and I are the only two people in this conversation. I know that you know how peer-reviewed data is weighed, so when you say things that you know are incorrect, who are you saying them for? No one else is ever going to waste their time reading this debate. You and I are the only two people here, so when you say things that you know are incorrect, and I know their incorrect, and I know that you're aware that I know they're incorrect, who are you making these statements for? You and I are the only two people who will ever read this, so when you make statements that we both know are wrong, who are you aiming those statements toward?
Article exists! Onus on you! Simple simple removal process! Hooray for Wikipedia!!!! Tewdar (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
- Really? And you feel like an adult after that response. Congratulations. You've convinced yourself that you won on a technicality. You must be proud.
You tell me earlier I have no clue about peer review process?! Tewdar (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Also you tell me I have no science degree, except I have science degree, and you say I is pensioner but I is young WTF?!?! Tewdar (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Aw, c'mon man. My man, I am completely open to a debate. I am exactly as bored as you are during lockdown. But stick to the topic. And not that it really matters, but why did you suddenly lose the ability to speak proper English?
- So, you suddenly lost the ability to speak proper English, and when I asked you about it, after having responded consistently over the course of 24 hours, I suddenly get no response. You wouldn't be students who work under "Fu" would you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk • contribs) 00:48, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- Let's avoid all the other BS, and simply focus on this question: — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk • contribs) 01:15, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- "You have 9 authors who all worked on each other's research teams, who are the only teams who have conducted any research on "Western Hunter Gatherers", and they all cite one another in every one of their papers. And you think this is an appropriate concept for a Wikipedia article? You think the term "Western Hunter Gatherer" is widely recognized in anthropology? Based on the 9 research teams which coined this term within the last 5 years and who all simply cite one another's work and are attributed as authors in one another's papers? You think that should be the standard for articles in an online encyclopedia? Explain how, based upon the fact that this article cites a total of 9 research teams, who all conducted their research within the last 5 years, and who all cite one another, and worked as members of one another's research teams, you think this concept is appropriate for an article in an online encyclopedia."
- I've asked you to respond to this question 13 times now, and you've simply used 13 avoidance tactics to not answer the question.
- Look, before we continue any form of this debate, let's first address your sudden loss of the ability to speak English, and why that might be important to an article like this.
- Seriously, before anything else, let's address your sudden inability to speak English, and how you're not students working for Fu.
I didn't reply because I live in Cornwall and I am in a different timezone to you, so I went to bed. I got bored talking proper English with you. Feel free to have my account investigated for sock puppetry. Did you nominate for deletion yet? I promise to answer your famous question if you do. Tewdar (talk) 09:08, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Me think you has bad paranoid lockdown syndrome. "It's all that Fu's fault! It was Fu all along! Fu students outside my house! In my fridge! Aaargh! Fuuuuuuuuu!!!" Tewdar (talk) 09:14, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The Wiki was rigged! By Fu! And her students! WHG is fake news! I'm a high-IQ very stable genius! Not like that Fu and her students! I teach students in a highly educated university! Someone build a wall! Tewdar (talk) 09:44, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps you might like to read this article, unless of course you don't want to read anything. You can probably access it through the supposed institution that you allegedly teach at:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2
You should probably read the supplementary material too:
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-018-0094-2/MediaObjects/41586_2018_94_MOESM1_ESM.pdf
If you "can't" access it through your "institution" (LOL!), you can probably find it somewhere else.
Remember now, *read* the article. And even more importantly, *read the supplementary material*. Don't just search for "Western hunter-gatherer" or "WHG". Tewdar (talk) 12:41, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
- "You have 9 authors who all worked on each other's research teams, who are the only teams who have conducted any research on "Western Hunter Gatherers", and they all cite one another in every one of their papers. And you think this is an appropriate concept for a Wikipedia article? You think the term "Western Hunter Gatherer" is widely recognized in anthropology? Based on the 9 research teams which coined this term within the last 5 years and who all simply cite one another's work and are attributed as authors in one another's papers? You think that should be the standard for articles in an online encyclopedia? Explain how, based upon the fact that this article cites a total of 9 research teams, who all conducted their research within the last 5 years, and who all cite one another, and worked as members of one another's research teams, you think this concept is appropriate for an article in an online encyclopedia."
- I've asked you to respond to this question 14 times now, and you've simply used 14 avoidance tactics to not answer the question.
- Look, every time I ask this question this question, you use personal attacks, exaggeration, sarcasm, rage, or playing-dumb hoping to distract from what has clearly been the premise of my argument from the beginning. Instead of behaving like a child, why don't just answer the question? When you use these tactics, do you think it makes you seem intelligent? You and I are the only people here. Who are you using these tactics for? Don't ask dumb questions that you know I can answer in heartbeat. Don't use sarcasm. Don't play dumb (obviously you knew the Fu comment was a joke). Don't use personal attacks, calling me whiner, and a liar, and whatever other name-calling you want to do. Don't tell me who I should probably read.
- Just answer the question. If you truly believe anything you're saying, then answer the question. Why don't you simply write, "Yes, I believe the standard for an online encyclopedia should be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers."
- The reason you won't write that is because you know how ridiculous it sounds. If you know how ridiculous that sounds, then why are pursuing this debate? And why has your primary tactic become to attack me, rather than simply addressing the central premise of the debate, which I've asked you to address 13 times now? And again, who are you doing this for? No one is ever going to read this other than you and me. So, when you know that my central premise is correct, and you refuse to address it, and you and I are the only two people who are ever going to read this, then what is your goal? Have you even considered this? What is your objective? You don't need to save face, because no one else is ever going to waste their time reading this silly debate. You know my premise is accurate, and you refuse to address, and instead endlessly attack me. What is your objective? What do you hope to achieve? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk • contribs) 02:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- You now what? I'm gonna make this real easy for ya. Everything I've claimed about myself is a complete lie. I openly admit this. Not only am I not employed at the university level, but I'm a high school drop-out. Every statement I've made about myself prior to this, was a complete lie. Okay? So, you don't have to attack me. I openly admit that everything I've said about myself is a lie, and the reason I dropped-out of high-school is because I was told by the administration that I was simply too stupid to do anything in life other than manual labor. I openly admit this. I am among the lowest-intelligence people on the planet.
- So, reply to this question, without using sarcasm, exaggeration, personal insults, rage, off-site links, or anything which is not a straight-forward reply to this question. I openly admit, I am one of the most unintelligent people on the planet, and I bow before your superior intelligence.
- So, all the diversions you've been forced to endure in the past, having to exaggerate for a person of my low intelligence, having to use sarcasm for a person of my low intelligence, having to use person insults and name-calling, being forced to link to off-site pages, you don't need to do any of that anymore. I completely acknowledge your superior intelligence.
- So, now that I acknowledge your intellectual superiority, and you no longer need to use any of those tactics, please simply copy and paste this statement, so that we can have it on record that you know that what you're saying is accurate, and clearly, I do not:
- "Yes, I believe the standard for an online encyclopedia should be a group of peer-reviewed papers all written within the last 5 years, which are all written by the same core group of 9 authors, who perpetually attribute one another as co-authors in one another's papers, who coined all the terminology introduced in these papers within the last 5 years, and who also serve as the overwhelming majority of the references cited in one another's papers."
- I openly admit that you are vastly more intelligent than me, and everything I've said is a lie. So please, for the mercy of my soul, simply copy and paste that statement, and relieve me from my humiliation. If you do this, I will openly acknowledge that you have won this debate. Please just copy and paste that statement below. Again, I can genuinely see that you truly believe this statement is correct, so simply for verification purposes, please simply copy and paste it below, so that I can acknowledge your intellectual superiority without any further debate.
- You say you are "open to a debate", but you won't read anything! So there is no point providing evidence, because you've already made up your mind. But anyway...
- Well-respected geneticists like Lazaridis, Reich, Haak, Mathieson, etc. have, over the last several years, sequenced the genomes of various ancient individuals. When we do a PCA of the autosomal DNA of these individuals, (which you could even do yourself!), we find that these individuals form distinct clusters that are often very different to modern populations. Geneticists give these clusters names like Western European hunter-gatherers, Ancient North Eurasians, etc. because they are useful abstractions which allow us to talk in simplified terms about populations. These terms are so useful that renowned archaeologists like Mallory, Anthony, Kristiansen, etc. have all started using these terms in their books and articles. Some of these concepts have become so mainstream that even the BBC and the NY Times websites have given them coverage.
- Because you don't understand the peer-review process. There are tens of thousands of "well-respected" geneticists worldwide. The reason they publish in peer-reviewed journals is to make their data public so that it can reviewed, tested, authenticated, adjusted, modified, verified, reconsidered, reworked, and a million other verbs. This is the entire purpose of publishing in a peer-reviewed journal. Again, you say that you have a degree in a scientific field. How can you possibly not know this? This is the core principle of peer-reviewed research. The whole purpose of publishing peer=reviewed data is to add it to a growing consensus so that after enough time and cumulative research a wide consensus among a field's academic community can be achieved. There's no way you can make an argument that you have a degree in a scientific field but you're unaware of this concept. You learn this in year-one of any scientific program at any university in the western world. The first thing you're taught in any curriculum core class is how to weigh and value peer-reviewed research. If you had a degree in any of the sciences, you'd have learned this when you were 19 years old. EVERYONE WHO PUBLISHES IN A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL IS A RESPECTED RESEARCHER IN THAT FIELD. In no way does that indicate that data has been widely reviewed and accepted, much less met with a consensus. If you had a degree in any scientific field, you'd have learned this when you were 19 years old.
- Wikipedia is not a peer review site, though. Basically, some geneticists sequenced some ancient genomes and spotted some clusters and gave them names. Then, other geneticists decided that these cluster names represented a valid concept and used the same names or similar in their own articles and research. Also, experts in other fields like archaeology decided to use these genetic component names in their own books, because they are also useful concepts in archaeology and linguistics. And to top it off, the BBC and NY Times wrote some articles about it. That's definitely good enough for Wikipedia in my opinion, but, like I keep telling you, all you need to do is nominate this series of articles for deletion if you disagree. It's simple and quick to do this.Tewdar (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ok, then why haven't you cited those archaeologists in this article, and if you did, how many total sources would that give you? Let's say you can find 5 archaeologists, which would completely bowl me over, because that's my branch of anthro. I've been working in archaeology for almost 2 decades, and I've never seen or heard "Western Hunter Gatherer" anywhere in archaeology. But, alright, let's say you can find 5 archaeologists who have actually used that term. Then you have what, 14 sources? And let's be honest, you know as well as I do, you're not going to find 5 archaeologists who have cited "Western Hunter Gatherers".
- That is why these concepts are scientifically valid and notable enough to appear in Wikipedia. The article is well sourced. Consequently, you have absolutely no chance of getting any of these articles (WHG, EHG, ANE, CHG, EEF, etc. etc.) removed, though I wish you would try because you deserve to be publicly humiliated for your ridiculous and shameful behaviour on here. - Tewdar (talk) 10:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- And again, I don't know how you can fail to understand this. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE AUTHORS OF THOSE PAPERS, who have published in multiple peer=reviewed journals throughout their careers, would definitely tell you, "no, this is data we just published within the last 5 years, which has only circulated within our core group, and has not yet been confirmed widely within the field, or gained wide acceptance. It's all data we published within the last 5 years." Every single one of those authors would tell you this almost verbatim. Again, the fact that you don't know only demonstrates that you flagrantly have no experience in peer-reviewed data at all. You can claim that this is not how the peer-review process works, and everyone over the age of 18 who had a degree in ANY scientific field, or is simply working toward a degree in a scientific field, is going to tell you that this is without question how the peer-review process works. Again, you simply don't know what you're talking about.
- I just called David Reich, and he said that WHG definitely needs a Wikipedia article.Tewdar (talk) 10:54, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- The authors of those papers who you think you're defending, every single one of them would tell that this is exactly how the peer-review process works, this process is widely acknowledged among hundreds of millions of people, and that they don't think their research has been reviewed and supported by nearly enough people for it to be considered widely validated and accepted.
- At this stage, you probably need to perform the shotgun sequencing on all those ancient individuals at your lab, download the BAM files and all the software tools, perform the analysis, and publish a paper in a respected peer-reviewed journal to show that the Reich lab have been publishing fictitious genome sequences. Tewdar (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- And again, you're just being an infant using sarcasm and avoidance tactics. It's completely beyond you to act like an adult, isn't it? I was very clear, none of the research teams are posting false data. You know I didn't say that. What I very clearly said is that how that data is interpreted and how it relates to prior data and how it will relate to new data collected in an emerging field has yet to be established, as the authors of all of those papers would clearly agree.
- Why can't you respond without acting like such a child? Again, do you think sarcasm, and exaggeration, and personal attacks make you seem witty or intelligent? They don't. You just sound stupid.
- Just reply as though you were an adult.
- Has anyone interpreted the data in such a way as to invalidate the suggestion that WHGs comprise a distict genetic cluster? Tewdar (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- And again, I still can't tell if you're playing dumb of if you're genuinely this inept. For the thousandth time, the point is not whether research has been invalidated. It's whether it's been confirmed widely within the field and accepted within the canon. And every single one of the authors of those papers would tell you, no, this is definitely not the case. Stop playing dumb, stop using sarcasm, stop using exaggeration, stop using personal attacks, and simply be an adult.
- And again, the concept of WHGs is sufficiently well-established for archaeologists like Mallory, Anthony, and Kristiansen. They're not waiting for further peer-reviews or more evidence. They're using these terms, in both scholarly and popular books, because they are already common terms in archaeology, archaeolinguistics, and archaeogenetics.Tewdar (talk) 11:16, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Let's be honest. When you said you're a young person, you meant teenager, right? C'mon. When you wrote that reply, you knew before you even hit "enter" exactly wht my answer was going to be. That was not an intelligent reply. You know it. I know it. And honestly, I'm not going to dignify it with a response, because honestly, I think you're playing dumb now, and I know it's beneath me, and I suspect it may be beneath you. I know you're 100% sure that I'm not an educator, but I actually have to teach an online class in 95 minutes. I'm probably not going to be able to respond until you're already in bed this evening, so you have a lot of time you consider your response. Please don't write something off-the-cuff which you haven't thought about and considered from multiple perspectives. Write something well thought-out that you've gone online and verified, think about any possible counters I could make, and address them before I can make them. PLEASE don't post a response which you know I'm going to think is unintelligent and to which you already know how I'm going to respond. Stop acting beneath yourself.
Earlier, you claimed:
"And let's be honest, you know as well as I do, you're not going to find 5 archaeologists who have cited "Western Hunter Gatherers""
Okay, here's what a random search of my laptop revealed for archaeologists and anthropologists who use the term "Western hunter gatherer" and/or WHG in the same way it is used in modern aDNA studies.If you want help finding out who these people are, just ask:
M Furholt,
S Shennan (FBA!),
D Anthony,
J Mallory,
K Kristiansen,
G Catalano,
DM Fernandes,
DR Brown,
L Cassidy,
A Linderholm,
TJ Booth,
T Ekholm,
RA Mounier,
G Brandt,
S Charlton.
That's FIFTEEN! On my little laptop!
Don't quit the day job. Oh actually, wait a minute, are you an anthropology teacher? Oh dear, those poor students... Tewdar (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Would you like the list of geneticists too? Only it's rather a long list. How about linguists? They're a little behind the times, much like the anthropology department at your university it seems, so the list is shorter... Tewdar (talk) 17:00, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I mean, what is it you want? Do you want the article to delete itself?! If you want the article deleted, someone has to nominate it for deletion. I'm certainly not going to nominate it for you! Tewdar (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
And would you look at that - the terms "Western hunter-gatherer" and "Eastern hunter-gatherer" even appear in the "Handbook Of Forensic Genetics" (Amorim and Budowle). The authors cite Haak, Lazaridis, and Raghavan! LOL LOL LOL!
Chance of this article being removed = 0.000000%
Tewdar (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Here's a list of some of the geneticists who use the term Western hunter-gatherer/WHG in their articles and books (again, as the term is used in modern aDNA studies):
D Reich
W Haak
K Wang
A Templeton
N Kashiba
M Rivollat
S Brunel
A Mittnik
O Balanovsky
Q Fu
M Lipson
M Haber
L Saag
I Mathieson
CB Ruff
A Raveane
J Marcus
K Tambets
D Damgaard
ER Jones
I Lazaridis
I Olalde
ME Allentoft
VJ Schuenemann
M Unterländer
N Rascovan
S Brace
T Günther
V Narasimhan
GM Kilinc
H Malmström
M Raghavan
I really don't know what your problem is with this series of articles. Do we have to wait until your university department starts teaching its students these concepts?
Tewdar (talk) 19:05, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- And again, that was just a terrible answer that you clearly didn't think-out and you knew exactly how I would respond the moment you wrote it. All you've done is copy the lists of authors attributed in the very papers we're discussing. That was literally the least intelligent response you could have given. The fact that you thought that was some sort of checkmate, just bewilders me. That was literally the most pathetic response you could have possibly given. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk • contribs) 19:37, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- How can you possibly be so inept that that you thought was an intelligent and worthwhile response? And moreso, you thught that was some sort of checkmate. How could you possible not have known what my response would be? I'm having difficulty not commenting about your intelligence.
- Again, you immediately resorted to childish tactics. This thing you constantly do where you pretend to laugh in superiority, don't do that. You're just being a child. That doesn't make you seem intelligent.
- No, the terms the terms "Western hunter-gatherer" and "Eastern hunter-gatherer" do not "even appear in the "Handbook Of Forensic Genetics" (Amorim and Budowle). You're being deliberately misleading, and using an invalid citation you don't understand.
- Once, in one sentence in the entire book, do the authors use the sentence, "are thought to be a mixture of eastern and western hunter-gatherers". The terms are not capitalized or separated as unique terms defined according to Haak and Lazaridis. This is an extremely common tactic widely used to plagerize other author's ideas. And the "Handbook Of Forensic Genetics", is not an actual "Handbook Of Forensic Genetics". It's a 55 page cashgrab which was not subject to peer-review. Please tell me you didn't think the "Handbook Of Forensic Genetics" was some sort of handbook people actually carry around which is the authority on forensic genetics. It's a 55 page textbook cashgrab. Look, for books like this, the authors cite every name they can think of within a field, don't contact those people before citing them, and then try to market the work as a textbook adendum to those people's students. This is an extremely common tactic. It's why the book is only 55 pages, and why the authors of the book specifically did not separate or capitalize the terms "Western Hunter Gatherer" and "Eastern Hunter Gatherer".
- Weight of book = 1170 grams. That's some heavy 55 page book LOL LOL ROFL Tewdar (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- A forensic genetics handbook - 55 pages!!! ROFL PMSL! They couldn't even tell you what a nucleic acid is in 55 pages! Tewdar (talk) 20:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- Why are you being so deliberately unintelligent. It's on Google books. The reference section begins on page 53. Everyone can look it up in under 10 seconds.
- And I already told you, thats just the title the authors gave that book so they could market it to the students of the people they cite in the reference section. It's not an official "Handbook of Forensci Genetics". If I title a book "The New Bible Which God Has Declared Invalidates The All Previous Versions", does that mean the title is accurate.
- Again, you just so clearly don't know what you're talking about. The reason the authors of the "Handbook of Forensic Genetics" didn't separate or capitalize "Eastern Hunter Gatherer" and "Western Hunter Gatherer" is the moment those terms were coined by Haak and Lazaridis they were copyrighted, and if the authors of that book had used the specific terminology coined by Haak and Lazaridis in a for-profit publication, they would have been liable to them for royalties. This is why they didn't separate or capitalize those terms.
- You are so far out of your league it's bewildering. You literally have no idea what you're talking about.
- And yes, everyone and anyone can find the book on Google Books and see that it is a total of 53 pages long.
- How did you think that was an intelligent argument?
- And again, you're using these infantile "ROFL" and "LOL" terms in your respopnses, when you just sound like a dolt who hasn't spent 10 seconds simply going to Google Books and looking up the length of the book. You're literally to inept to understand your own ineptitude.AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk) 21:43, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
- https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Handbook_Of_Forensic_Genetics_Biodiversi.html?id=3XwqDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y (652 pages!) - LLLLLOLLLLL! Tewdar (talk) 08:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
- "pages 56 to 631 are not shown in this preview" - double-LOL! Tewdar (talk) 08:50, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I probably won't be responding again, because it is obvious that this article describes a scientifically valid concept, is well sourced, and meets the notability guidelines. Consequently it has no chance of being removed, though it could certainly be improved. Tewdar (talk) 20:20, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Just take the win and let's leave. I can't spend another minute on this. JUST TAKE THE WIN AND LET'S WALK AWAY. PLEASE DELETE EVERY COMMENT i'VE MADE. I CANNOT DO THIS FOR ANOTHER MOMENT. THIS IS DRIVING ME INSANE. PLEASE JUST TAKE THE WIN AND LET'S WALK AWAY AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk) 22:13, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
^ LOL Tewdar (talk) 22:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
|
(talk) 22:27, 13 February 2020 (UTC)