Talk:Haplogroup E-V38

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Good article nominee
Listed
June 7, 2014Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article
Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

E-M2 should have its own page

While E-V38 may have originated in the Horn, E-M2 is clearly more West African in origin. It's also rather old, over 31,000 years.[1] Wadaad (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.yfull.com/tree/E-M2/

Title

I really dislike the archaeic E-V38 or even worse M2 or E3a-M2. Why not just stick with E1b1a? It also makes it clear that E1b1a is very close to E1b1b. Using E-V38 and E-M215 just obscures that.

expansion

this page needs a huge amount of expansion.

There really isn't much good published research on this haplogroup. The brother haplogroup E1b1b1a seems to be more and better studied. - Brout8 (talk) 01:41, 17 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Gamebela edits

I removed statement that said "Haplogroup E1b1a is mainly restricted to Eastern sub-Saharan Africa". This is not true. The statement also seems to suggest that of e1b1a was the identified haplogroup of 80% of Tutsi and 67% of Nubian Egyptian. No citation was given.

I deleted repeat about African-Americans and Caribbean Africans E1b1a frequency. I failed to see a mention of M2 or "‘‘Broad’’ trend physiognomy" in Lucotte and Mercier's "Brief Communication: Y-Chromosome Haplotypes in Egypt". Nor do I see a citation for Nadia Al-Zahery or her mention of the subject. RFLP TaqI 49a, f variant IV is not explained well enough for a layperson. I deleted all of it until can be explained better in relationship to current reseach on haplogroup E1b1a.

The marker M2 obviously has been found in the middle Nile Valley and I have written small portion mentioning this. Too much of the artcle is a cut and paste of S.O.Y. Keita's "Exploring Northeast African Metric Craniofacial Variation at the Individual Level: A Comparative Study Using Principal Components Analysis". I have written a following blurb that briefly summarize the article; "E1b1a referred to as haplotype IV) was found by Lucotte and G. Mercier at relatively high frequencies in Lower Nubia, Sudan (39.1%) and the upper Egypt region (27.3%) of Nile River Valley. This data raises the possibility that E1b1a has had a greater northern and Saharan range; possibly dating as far as to the Holocene period when the Sahara was less arid."

Keita is original research so we can not quote him using his article "Exploring Northeast African Metric Craniofacial Variation at the Individual Level: A Comparative Study Using Principal Components Analysis". --192.172.8.13 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keita is quoting Lucotte et al. Are they too Original Research? I clearly see "Haplotype V" quoted in the E1b1b article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.228.30 (talk) 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything Better?

Will someone please add something of depth and value to this article? Every time I visit it, either someone is making crazy edits or removing so much it looks to get much smaller before it gets bigger. Can some of the expert editors from E1b1b come over here, set this strait and add some good research? You would never know that E1b1a is the most common haplogroup in Africa from reading this pathetic article. It is hardly even a stub.

It is a little annoying that when researchers explain finding E1b1b deep in southern Africa is as being part of "diffusion of pastoralism from East". After reading this article and its supporting research, you would think that E1b1a is a "restricted" haplogroup, and began with 'Bantu' people, needed slave trade for the E1b1a population to move anywhere north or east and only recently went south because of an inexplicable 'expansion'. What is up with the indifferent and dismissive attitude toward E1b1a on Wikipedia? I would add more but I know mostly about mtDNA not y-dna. --Brout8 (talk) 11:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something Better

I dont know what happened to the OLD artical but something DESPERATELY needs to be dont about the "Distribution section" it seems more effort is made to show populations and frequencies that E-M2 is NOT found in than to actually highlight the MAIN caries of the lineage : Senegal, Benin, Southern Cameroon, Nigeria etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.228.30 (talk) 16:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Too much old Research

I think this article should focus on studies that tested SNP (Single-nucleotide polymorphism) in populations instead of the older and more questionable RFLP (Restriction fragment length polymorphism). They are not the same things. I am open to studies that tested Short tandem repeat (STR) markers but RFLP is unacceptable. No current research support these old studies Haplotype Y-chromosome XI, IV or V etc as equivalent to a SNP marker. It's too old research. In all honesty, new research of M2 put much if not most of Keita and Boyce's Egyptian and Sudanese population numbers in doubt.

Where is the proof that TaqI 49a, f variants is a unique-event polymorphism? -- Brout8 (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why are three different terms used throughout the article for same marker? E1b1a, E-V38, and E3a-M2. I prefer the E1b1a because it is much clearer which markers are related to which. MrSativa (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

E1b1a Rewrite

I have edited the E1b1a article to reflect known data about the haplogroup. I tried to give it an African regional perspective from the written literature. I felt that the article at time talked of the people of Africa as if they were 'out of time'. I corrected some of the disrespectful "pygmy" references and hope they will stay out the article. I also tried to steer the article clear of the 'Sub-Saharan' terminology. It say little and give very little specific about where in Africa we are talking about, other than eliminating the northern part of the continent. Please refer to Africa by its more specific regions. It is a huge continent.

I reworked the distribution so that it would cover three objectives in three paragraphs. The first would be to show how E1b1a is a wide-ranging haplogroup on the continent of Africa and identify African populations that have significant percentages of people who carry the lineage. The second paragraph covers portions of the continent that have not yet shown significant frequencies of the M2 marker. The third distribution paragraph covers populations outside of the home continent that have populations that carry M2. I felt that the article tried to talk too much about African-Americans (from the United States) and then tried to lump other Africans populations from other North and South American countries of with them, when they clearly are not identical. African Americans men, who are positive for M2, make up less than 10% percentage of the total United States population. They are only about two third of self-identifying African-American men. This is why I write, “Outside of Africa, E-M2 has been found at low frequencies”. Of course, it is probable that there are Caribbean islands populations that have M2 but I have not yet found studies for support. If such studies are found, please add them. --Brout8 (talk) 18:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"I corrected some of the disrespectful "pygmy" references and hope they will stay out the article." Sometimes I think Wikipedia is being re-written by a bunch of South Africans and Rhodesians with an apartheid/UDI era understanding of history. MrSativa (talk) 19:26, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is
Talk:Haplogroup E1b1a (Y-DNA)/GA1
. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: WTF? (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

here
for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (
    lists
    )    :
    The article meets the manual of style requirements, but there are some issues with the prose (e.g. in the lead, "It often found..." -- should be "It often IS found..."). There's a few other cases throughout the text where words seem to be missing (e.g. "Populations on the northern fringes of West Africa and central Eastern Africa have BEEN tested...") etc. A good copyedit is needed. Copyedit completed. Looks good. WTF? (talk) 18:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to
    reliable sources): c (OR
    ):
    The references appear to be good, reliable, and for the most part, formatted and placed correctly. Reference #2 seems to contain only the URL and title and year, but no information on the publisher, author, or date URL was retrieved. It may help to use the citation templates for some of these.
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The article is good, and for a geneticist or someone familiar with the topic, I think they would get it. But for someone not familiar with the study of genetics, the average reader will become lost in a lot of the technical details. So the language needs to be brought down a notch. The lead section also needs to better summarize the article (see
    WP:LEAD
    ). I also didn't really get why this particular haplogroup is important? Why is it studied? Are there characteristics or phenotypes commonly associated with individuals with this haplogroup? The only thing that really addresses this (and not really very well) is the sentence in the lead: "Geneticists study these y-chromosomal variants to learn the genetic history of populations." So some more information in a section on common characteristics and the overall significance is definitely needed before this article is made a GA.
  4. It follows the
    neutral point of view
    policy    .
    Fair representation without bias:
    Article meets
    WP:NPOV
    requirements.
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars, etc.:
    Article passes the stability criterion.
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have
    suitable captions
    )    :
    The distribution image is currently tagged that the copyright status from Flickr cannot be verified. Not knowing the source or copyright status of the image, it does not meet
    GA criteria. I can see that the tag has been removed, and I can also confirm that the image is reproduced from the open-access journal, BMC Evolutionary Biology. That is properly cited on the image tag and the CC 2.0 tag is also present, which conforms to the requirements of the Creative Commons 2.0 license, so it's use is fine. WTF? (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail:
    The issues with it are addressed above. The article is on hold for two weeks so these issues may be addressed, after which the article will either be passed or failed. WTF? (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


1. Additional copyediting has been requested for the article.
3. I have tried to expand the lead a little to explain why E1b1a is studied in population genetics. The y-chromosome doesn't affect anything in humans besides being male, so it has nothing to do with any particular phenotypes or characteristics. The article is silent on this because it is not an issue. It is only used to trace men to a common male ancestor.
Genetics is a subject that the more you simplify it the less you understand. I have no idea for simplifying it. I had thought the article lacked enough technical detail.
6. I am not sure how or why there is a Flickr tag. It is clearly cited were the image comes from- Alexandra Rosa (2007) "Y-chromosomal diversity in the population of Guinea-Bissau: a multiethnic perspective". It is given in citation of article and image summary. I’ll remove the image if the citation is not good enough to pass the GA Review.
--Brout8 (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject iconGuild of Copy Editors
WikiProject iconThis article was copy edited by Lfstevens, a member of the Guild of Copy Editors, on December 19, 2010.Guild of Copy EditorsWikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsTemplate:WikiProject Guild of Copy EditorsGuild of Copy Editors articles

It's been over two weeks; have the issues been addressed? Wizardman Operation Big Bear 17:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the delay. I've been traveling a lot due to an upcoming relocation for a new job, which has cut into my Wikipedia volunteer time. Anyway, the article looks good. Many of the issues have been addressed. The concerns remaining are two. First, there seem to be some significant changes to the infobox -- compare with the 12/16/2010 revision. Can you explain your reasoning for removing or changing much of the information?

Second, I think the tables in the distribution section are much easier to read. However, the references added to specific data points in the table make it a bit more difficult to see the actual data (a bit sloppier). I think the preferred way of handling this in Wikipedia is to either put the references for the table in the table caption/header, or in the sentence in the discussion introducing the table. In this case, since there are many citations for the individual items of data, it would be preferable to put the citations in a third column to the right, entitled "references". That would be much easier to read.

I think if these two remaining issues are addressed, the article can be promoted to GA. WTF? (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The highest frequency information in the infobox was redundant as it was covered in the distribution section. I changed the 'defining mutations' because of the new Trombetta research that changed the subclades positioning. There is some uncertainty of the respective positions of some of the SNPs. I made note on the tree. I figured out how to add the reference columns to the boxes. --Brout8 (talk) 18:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's 2 weeks down the line again. I see that Brout8 has addressed the last two points made by WTF? ... Does this mean the review can be closed as passed? --DeVerm (talk) 02:58, 29 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Sorry about the delay. The article now meets GA criteria and will be listed. WTF? (talk) 15:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some modifications for this E-V38 page

I have done some edits to this article by removing some incorrect information and updating others:

  • ” From 2002 to 2008, it was known as Haplogroup E3a.”

This is incorrect, the haplogroup known as E3a referred to E-M2 a subclade of E-V38 not E-V38 itself

  • Rosa (2007) Contour map

The Rosa (2007) contour map is for E-M2 and not for all of E-V38, which also includes E-M329, a lineage that is primarily observed in East Africa only, therefore while the contour map is appropriate for E-M2 only it is not appropriate for the entire E-V38 lineage, I have therefore moved it down to the E-M2 section.

  • ”Possible place of origin West Africa[1]”

Again the reference to Rosa (2007) is for E-M2 and not E-V38. Removed West Africa as a possible source of origin for E-V38

  • proposal on lead modification to better reflect current knowledge and nomenclature,

E-V38 has two basal branches, E-M329 and E-M2, the former is almost exclusively found in Ethiopia, while the latter is the predominant lineage in Western Africa, Central Africa, Southern Africa and the Southern parts of Eastern Africa. E-M2 has several subclades, however many members are included in either E-L485 or E-U175. 138.88.60.165 (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you keep trying to force this East African origin of E1b1a POV. It's utterly ridiculous. The STR diversity of E1b1a is so much higher in West and Central Africa than in East Africa. That is how you pin point a place of a likely point of origin. The minuscule level of basal E1b1a in East Africa is even more proof of a West African origin of E1b1a. The likelihood of V39 originating in East Africa is even less likely than an E-M35 originating in West Africa. E1b1a2 (M329) is nothing more than a early offshoot that left West Africa. Whatever, the University of Arizona and the Y Chromosome Consortium will finally settle this when they publish. -Brout8 (talk) 20:37, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How is it ridiculous? When we are talking about E-V38, currently also called E1b1a, the fact that its most immediate ancestor,
E-P2, has its likely origin in East Africa[1], combined with the fact that one of the basal branches of E-V38, i.e. E-M329, is found only in East Africa, make it much more likely that E-V38 itself had an origin in the East of Africa rather than the West. Now this wouldn't contradict a proposal that E-M2 (formerly known as E1b1a) itself could have had an origin in West Africa, however its immediate ancestor, E-V38, likely did not have an origin in West Africa according to the data we have as of right now. The STR diversity issue that you bring up does not really matter so much in this case because the STR data you are referring to only included haplotypes from the E-M2 lineage and is not inclusive of BOTH E-M2 + E-M329 lineages, which would be the true and most current representation for E-V38.138.88.63.185 (talk) 01:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
]
You clearly don't understand how uncommon E-M329 is. Show me a population where it is over 25%. E-M329 doesn't prove the East African origin of E-V39. It proves nothing other than the fact that there is a minor subclades on E-V38 with the overwhelming majority of old E-V38 subclades being from West and West-Central Africa. There is no data to support V38 is East African. There isn't even a basal sample of it in existence. STR diversity does matter because that means there is an long standing population that carried the lineage. Prove to me with STRs that there is high diversity of M329. There's no data because you can hardly find anyone who is M329. How are you going to have much data if you can even find subjects that are positive? You need a huge leap in logical for V38 to be East African in origin. First, you must believe that the first E1b1a man had very few descendants before leaving East Africa almost without leaving a trance. Second, you must believe that E1b1a originated long after E1b1b, yet was able to become the most widespread subclade of E in Africa. None of it makes sense. Look at the variety of E-M35 in Northeast Africa. There's no question that E-M35 originated there. Why is there even a question about E1b1a? Ludicrous.-Brout8 (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So let me get this correct, You are in agreement that E-P2 is likely of East African origin, and you are also in agreement that E-M215 is likely of East African origin, correct? You also do realize that E-P2 is a 'parent' to E-V38 and that E-M215 is a 'sibling' to E-V38 correct? Then somehow miraculously you expect E-V38 to originate in a region that is outside from where both it's 'parent' and 'sibling' likely originated ? That's Ludicrous if I have ever seen one, the burden of proof is on you to bring the evidence as this train of logic would be in conflict with a parsimonious one.138.88.63.185 (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone can know exactly where E-P2 originated. It is possibly East African but the earliest humans originated in Central and West Africa (YDNA A0 and A1 and mtDNA L1-6 and L0). The majority of E1a and E2 is most common that area too. So there's a high probablity that E1b1 (E-P2) is of Central or West African origin. People have been living in West Africa/Central Africa longer than anywhere else. An East African origin is a big strench for most any subclade of E except E1b1b. There's little doubt that's from East Africa. - Brout8 (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, while it is true that the deepest rooting YDNA lineages have only been recovered in West Africa, nobody has EVER postulated that the deepest rooting mtDNA lineages are of West African origin, matter of fact the consensus is either in East or South Africa[2]. Secondly, finding the deepest rooting YDNA lineages in West Africa is not enough to make a supposition on where in Africa the earliest humans originated, as the archaeological evidence for the genesis of modern humans found in East Africa utterly dwarfs that of anything found in the West. Thirdly, even if we assume that the deepest rooting YDNA lineage had its origin in West Africa, that is almost irrelevant to the discussion here concerning E-V38, which is found several branches down from A1 in the YDNA phylogeny, meaning a lot of time has passed since the origin of A0/A1 and the origin of E-V38, anything could have happened in between. Finally, although I have already cited my source above regarding the likely origin of E-P2 in East Africa, I will site it again here[3], so please refer me to your source citing a 'high probability' of E-P2 originating in West/Central Africa as you are claiming here. 138.88.63.185 (talk) 17:04, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you heard it first here. You're behind. L1b and L1c are two of the most basal nodes of mtDNA phylogeny along with L0. They are from West and Central Africa. But I guess you are going to try to argue that L1b and L1c originated in East Africa because of a few subclades there? I don't care what 6 and 8 year old research you cite. It's wrong. If West and Central Africa kept a dry climate, one could see evidence in the ground of old Africans there. Genetics tends to tromps archeology. The research in autosomal DNA is slowly showing evidence that the oldest populations of humans are in the West and Central portion of Africa not the east. There is a reason why there is a diversity of primates in West and Central Africa and not East Africa. It was/has been a better place for primates to survive.
I’ve discovered 4 new subclades supported by dozens of SNPs in the phylogeny of E-V38. The vast majority of them haven't been published yet but will. These SNPs all points toward E1b1a originating in West or Central Africa in an old population. I don’t expect one SNP to change that. V38 didn’t do it. It merely supported the West Africa proposition. An old East African population with several extensive subclades (and a few basal nodes) would support an East African origin but right now the arguement is too weak with one SNP. The truth is that we don't know where the P2 originated. It's so old and apparently left only two descendants who live in two distant regions. Arguing for V38 being East African is as poor an argument as that mtDNA M* originated in Africa because of the African subclades of M1. That a huge stench of logic but it suffers from same fallacy of the East African V38 argument and makes same basic mistake. I don't have time for it.
Why are you hiding behind an IPO address and not using a user name? What are you hiding from? I know you use computers in Silver Spirings and Rockville. Brout8 (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, an editor with a username is 'hiding' more than an IP user [4], focus on the argument rather than the person, so far, none of your arguments favor a West African rather than an East African origin for E-V38. Egenetics (talk) 01:57, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no source concerning the origins of E-V38, then it is best to leave it blank. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trombetta (2011) does not specify E-V38 directly as it does E-P2, however ,in this sentence below it clearly implies it:
...and that chromosomes E-M2, so frequently observed in sub-Saharan Africa, trace their descent to a common ancestor present in eastern Africa.
So the above sentence coupled with the documented facts that E-V38's parent (E-P2) is of East African origin, its sibling (E-M215) is of East African origin and one of it's two offspring (E-M329) is of East African origin, is enough evidence to state that E-V38 itself is likely of East African origin.138.88.63.185 (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How am I hiding my using a consistent user name? Everyone knows me who I am. I manage the FTDNA E1b1a Project. No one knows exactly where E-P2 originated. Even its subclades' place of origin are merely general geographic hypothesis. I'm not sure how anyone can be so sure of E-V38 being East African when nothing really suggests this unless you MUST believe that E-P2 is East African and won't believe anything else. That person is clearly you. No one can really be certain. With the number of SNPs that new research will produce of the next months and years, I wouldn't be so dogmatic about the opinions of studies did 2 or 3 years ago. These opinions can change. These scholarly journals aren't some kind of religious holy book to live and think by. They are the opinions of scientists at a particular place in time. I try to write these wiki articles with point of view that that can include a general consensus. You try to push POVs that are clearly not general. They are not useful to the article's integrity. -Brout8 (talk) 14:06, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are not talking about E-V39! I am not pushing POVs, unless you consider Phylogeographic Parsimony as a POV, it is very simple, we have sourced material for E-P2 and E-M215 being of East African origin. We have sourced material for E-M329 being exclusively found in East Africa. We have direct sources stating that E-M2 chromosomes trace their descent to a common ancestor in East Africa, if you can not piece these together and come up with the fact that the most CURRENT SOURCES point to East Africa and NOT West Africa for the likely origin of E-V38, frankly, I have no idea what you are doing managing the E1b1a project!!, but then again anybody can manage one of those projects, its not like any special education or knowledge is needed. Opinions can change, that much I can agree with you, but they do so only when the facts on the ground change, and when these changes are documented in a peer-reviewed or other acceptable mediums of publications, only then can we write about them in these articles, until then we stick to what is published. Egenetics (talk) 16:32, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You just don't get it. The sourced material is wrong. It was based mostly on the then prevailing opinion that most early African haplogroups had an origin in East Africa. I can't say it enough. It's just wrong. E1b1a hasn't ever really been extensively studied and most the peer research about its subclades origin is speculative at best. I suggest you go find some new basal East African subclade of E1b1a to prove your theory that E1b1a is East African. I only know of 3 samples that are E-M329 positive. You're really going to base an origin theory on 3 samples? I have plenty of samples from West Africans who are M2-, M180-, M180+ and L485- and L485+ that prove a long, early and diverse history of West African E-V38+ men. V38 has been in West and Central African much longer than in East Africa. Show me your East African E-M329. I haven't anything against the idea that E-M329 is East African but you got to show me more than one opinion you read from a paper to say that entire E-V38 is originating from the same place. There are probably more people who are E-M281+ and V16+ than there are E-M329+. It's a minor subclade. Semino tested 2400 people in the East African region and found only 2 positive subjects. You are trying to build an entire subclade history on them? Looks foolish. - Brout8 (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then take it up with the publishers that they are wrong, when they revise their position according to your new data then we can make a reflection of it on this article, how about that? With respect to observed frequency of E-M329 in East Africa, in addition to Semino (2004), the Authors mentioned above also refer to some unpublished data from Cadenas (2008), there is also some non peer reviewed data with plenty of E-M329 found in East Africa (search for it online), but we obviously can't use that here because we need full publications. Good Luck Egenetics (talk) 14:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cadenas found one person positive M329. Just one. Uno. 1. -Brout8 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Brout8, I am concerned that Egenetics and his/her various admitted IP manifestations appears to have a single purpose on Wikipedia, which is to emphasize East Africa. But if there is a clear published statement on this, as there seems to be, then it is possible that a POV pusher can sometimes be right. What is published can certainly be wrong, and you might be right about the origins of E-V38, but for better or worse, Wikipedia does not seek to be further ahead than whatever is published. Am I missing something?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title

I really dislike the use of E-V38, because it obscures rather than reveals the relationship between E1b1a, E1b1b, E1b1, etc. Why use the even older classifications for this same haplogroup M2 or E3a? Highly confusing. Why can't the title be changed from E-V38 to E1b1a? MrSativa (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to the bottom of the page, please start new topics at the bottom next time, thanks. --  Kethrus |talk to me  11:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@MrSativa: Also, E1b1a redirects here, so nobody will have an issue finding it. Although I don't know what name is more appropriate as I know nothing about the subject. --  Kethrus |talk to me  11:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haplogroup E-V38. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Haplogroup E-V38. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

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: 18 January 2022).

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Haplogroup_E-V38&oldid=1207543693"