Jamesdean3295

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 17:35, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Please note that you can not sign by typing [[Jamesdean3295]] as you did on my talkpage. You need to do as explained above.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Your Edits

Suspicious how much your editing, especially under certain contested topics, and under such an odd name. You have NO edit histories...hmmm more likely this is a sock account with the amount of activity it has and such experience out of the block... LOL

Read through the many studies on the R1a frequency tables and studies, like everyone else, and don't present POV and unsourced information as academic opinion.

Right from the study : The R1a lineage forms around 35–45% among ALL THE CASTES in North Indian population (Namita Mukherjee et al. 2001). North India has a population of : 504,196,432....

Soooo....45% of the population in North India in ALL CASTES is R1a1... so that means upto 225,000,000 people have this gene. ALOT OF PEOPLE. (Namita Mukherjee et al. 2001)

Cosmos416 23:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter the population of north India in respect to the rest of the country is relatively small. While the actual number of males in South Asia carrying the r1a lineage is disputable, the fact is that if you factor in the whole geographical area of SouthCentral Asia, Haplogroup R1a only accounts for a small fraction of the population.

Actually it does matter on the academic studies and the size of the populations and the fact it states "ALL CASTES" in North India, and the many studies as I will say again, are listed in the Frequency tables with sources and figures to regions all over India. You keep adding POV views without any sources saying what you say.

Many studies on Pakistan and Indian Tribes/ with Different castes with different figures. But not a few populations or specific. Academic sources on the page say r1a1 is found all over India, and not confined to specific few tribes as you try to make it seem. Disprove all the sources on that page. Cosmos416 00:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You tried to pass of a source with does not match your edit you attached and claimed to. There are several studies which say contrary. North Indian population r1a1 is upto 225,000,000 and that's just one study among the many on that page. Sharma (2009) is another extensive one from all over in all castes. You simply ignore and present un-factual edits because the edits and the source did not match. Cosmos416 01:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

R1a

Despite what you say on my talkpage, sources have been pointed out to you which show that R1a is not restricted to "pockets" in South Asia. It is common all over India, and found in very high frequencies in some very big populations. For example:-

1. Sengupta et al. (2005), "Polarity and Temporality of High-Resolution Y-Chromosome Distributions in India Identify Both Indigenous and Exogenous Expansions and Reveal Minor Genetic Influence of Central Asian Pastoralists", Am. J. Hum. Genet. 78 (2): 202–21, doi:10.1086/499411, PMID 16400607, http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1380230 .
2. Sharma et al. (2007), "The Autochthonous Origin and a Tribal Link of Indian Brahmins: Evaluation Through Molecular Genetic Markers", THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF HUMAN GENETICS 57th Annual Meeting, http://www.ashg.org/genetics/ashg/annmeet/2007/call/abstractbook.pdf
3. Sharma et al. (2009), "The Indian origin of paternal haplogroup R1a1(*)substantiates the autochthonous origin of Brahmins and the caste system", J. Hum.Genet. 54 (1): 47-55, doi:10.1038/jhg.2008.2, PMID: 19158816

The pooled percentage distribution of Y-haplogroups in the overall dataset of 2809 Y-chromosomes (767 Brahmins, 674 schedule castes and 1368 tribals) is summarized in Supplementary Table 2. All together (Brahmins, schedule castes and tribals), 22 Y-haplogroups were observed. The percentages of seven of these haplogroups (with percentage >5%) accounted for 85.5% of the total number of Y-chromosomes (n=2809). The haplogroups with their percentages in descending order were: R1a1* (21.1%), H1 (19.1%), R2 (10.5%), O (10.1%), L (9.5%), J*/J2 (8.3%) and F* (6.9%).

Have you tried to understand the remarks I made on the article talkpage? Please respond there so we can keep all discussion about the article together. Keep in mind that the populations India is often broken into by scientists are far larger than any of the European countries you refer to, and they are not just "isolated tribes". For neutral scientific discussion we should recognize that the accidents of recent history which ended up creating "tribes", "castes", and "countries" are not the key issue. The only thing we should be discussing are "populations". What if another editor would propose saying that European R1a is only common amongst certain "tribes" within the region of the old Austro-Hungarian and Russian Empires??--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

You do not seem to be following my point. This is not a discussion about saying R1a dominates all of India, because no one proposed writing that. It is very widespread and common there though. You are the one who made a controversial proposal that others disagreed with, so please explain how you can possibly justify saying R1a is only present in isolated tribal pockets. What would be your source for that? Is it just based on the one figure for Khazakstan you keep quoting? Your argument seems to be as follows: there is low R1a frequency in Khazakstan, and Khazakstan is in Central Asia. Then you connect India to Khazakstan as part of "Southcentral Asia" which is a term you made up. If this is your approach then it is very unconvincing, and on Wikipedia you need to be able to convince others.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 05:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Sharma is the newest and biggest study: 2809 Y-chromosomes (767 Brahmins, 674 schedule castes and 1368 tribals. They find R1a1* 21.1% in India OVERALL. For Pakistan we have Qamar et al. who tested The 718 unrelated male subjects, belonging to 12 ethnic groups of Pakistan, excluding Punjabis who might be Indian immigrants. Their overall result for all Pakistan was 32.5% OVERALL. Wells et al 2001 found around 30% of Uzbeks to be R1a. They also found high levels in Kyrgyzstan. For all of Khazakstan, which you keep focusing on, I am only aware of about 50 people being tested so far? Please actually read this stuff: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Haplogroup_R1a_%28Y-DNA%29#Asia --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do not use the Wikipedia map as your source. When you post a message, can you try to make it clear what you are proposing in terms of article wording? Originally you were proposing to say that R1a is only found in isolated pockets in Asia. Hopefully you have given up on that?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:11, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I have cited the data table which is in Wikipedia, that is true, but the data table shows exactly which articles all the data comes from and that is what I was pointing to. The map does not show its sources, so when you refer to that you are just referring to a Wikipedian like you and me, and unfortunately it is not easy to confirm which sources were used. Technically speaking it probably should be removed because it is not properly sourced, and it seems to have involved a fair bit of original thinking. Eventually I guess it will be deleted, at least when one of us works out how to make one that satisfies Wikipedia policies.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please lay off these summary percentages. They are not needed for the article and they are against Wikipedia policy and causing edit wars. If you want to talk about what is normal in other genetics article, please first check what is normal. This bit is often skipped, and also most such articles do not have so much detailed data. The reason this article has seemed to need it is precisely because of debates like the one you seem to want, about how to treat countries made up of different populations living with each other, which are particularly important for R1a.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please post you talk page posts once only. If they are about an article put them on the talkpage of the article, and if about me then you can use my page. Do not start a new section for every new message. Look around Wikipedia and see how others do it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Please post on ONE talk page, as described above. This will work best. Believe me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

1. No it is NOT necessary to put percentages of every country in the info box. Why do you say it is necessary? Just give a reason.

I'll remind you once more why other people think it is a bad idea: because this is only an info box. All the details are in the article.

2. No it is not necessary to list by country. Why do you say that it is necessary?

I'll remind you once more why other people think it is a bad idea: because some of these populations are in large diverse countries, like India, and some are in relatively small homogeneous ones, which means we would not be comparing like with like.

Let's be frank: you are not pushing this because of some concern with correct format. You show very little interest or knowledge in that anyway. For whatever reason you want to de-emphasize the presence of R1a in Asia. You want to mention Sorbs, but you want to avoid mentioning the country-sized populations with the highest R1a levels in the world, found in several parts of Asia, by compounding them in with nearby populations with low R1a. This is against Wikipedia's policy of being neutral and other editors won't let you do it, so just give up. As you know, there are other editors who want to emphasize Asia's R1a. They also can't have that, so everyone can be equally unhappy at least.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, concerning being correct, please note what I noted before: "Please post your talk page posts once only. If they are about an article put them on the talkpage of the article, and if about me then you can use my page. Do not start a new section for every new message. Look around Wikipedia and see how others do it." You are making a mess, and this is not helping you get your points across.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)You should virtually always use these. With this [1] you didn't actually revert my edit as you added a source. And avoid making any attacks on other editors in the summaries (or elsewhere of course). You can say 'inaccurate', but not 'false' for instance. Dougweller (talk) 05:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 08:54, 29 August 2009 (UTC)