Talk:Haplogroup J1c3d (Y-DNA)

TMRCA

The TMRCA dating up to 6700 BP is kind of interesting I must say as I recall this from Chiaroni's paper: "Proto-Semitic, itself, may have been spoken in a localized linguistic community for millennia before its bifurcation into the East and West Semitic branches."

A part from fitting perfectly with Nicholls and Ryder's date, that's also intriguing since the Bayesian analysis of Semitic languages points to an origin 5750 years ago... And considering P58's age! That's one more point backing a Proto-Semitic association with this clade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.4.104.42 (talk • contribs) 17:43, 18 July 2011

Hmmm... who put this.... Who else would use an analysis of a language to date a haplogroup? Where in that is the age of the haplogroup dated so as to make the claim language and haplogroup are related, much less causal. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:36, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

BOTTOM LINE:There are no facts for J1c3d/L147.1.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Dates

User:JohnLloydScharf, before we alter the date of origin, let's get some citations in. Victar (talk) 04:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Still have not heard from you. --Victar (talk) 00:06, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Claiming the date of origin of the haplogroup is not the same as a date of origin of the language. JohnLloydScharf (talk • contribs) 05:30, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Several papers written on the subject explicitly link the expansion of J1c3 to the expansion of Semitic languages. Instead of deleting information relating to this, perhaps you could instead help me cite the proper paper. --Victar (talk) 06:12, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I better sourced the link between J1c3d and Semitic languages but for some reason User:JohnLloydScharf choose to delete it. Care to explain? --Victar (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

THIS is not supported by any resource you cite: People of the J1c3 haplogroup likely spoke a language similar to Alarodian languages You have not made the case. They do not explicitly claim haplogroup J1c3d is related at all. It may be relevant, but your claim regarding the date of origin for J1c3d is not supported by the resources you cite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLloydScharf (talk • contribs) 06:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I did not add the section on Alarodian languages. As I explained to you, this article is a joint effort of many. Instead of deleting information you find irrelevant, a much more productive use of your time would be to search out sources, if they do exist. As for the connection between J1c3d and Semitic languages, I believe that to be well cited, and explicitly so. -- Victar (talk) 07:10, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your belief is not backed by your sources cited. They say nothing about J1c3d. If it was, it would be quoted by you. The Bayesian Analysis is regarding the age of the language, not the age of any haplogroup. You should actually read the articles you are incorrectly citing. The J1e expansion, which you want to cite and is really J1c3, was based on "J1e and J1* expansion time, from the mean YSTR variance based on DYS19, DYS390, DYS391, DYS392, DYS393, DYS389I, DYS389II and DYS439, linguistic and archeological correlates by population." Not only is it old and outdated, but it is based on only a third of the markers I consider a minimum in determining a haplogroup. As I have pointed out before, there are those just in the ysearch database who are a genetic distance of 50. They are even greater given the examples in other databases. The timeline just does not support the variability of the database for J1c3d tested individuals. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures] comment added by JohnLloydScharf (talk • contribs) 06:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you let me try and find something on the connection between Alarodian and J1c3 before you delete it again? Also, I don't know why this date is such a big issue to you. It says "Possible time of origin". It's just meant to be a ballpark figure. --Victar (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires a verifiable resource. You have none. At this point, I would rather there be NO entry than your misinformation. JohnLloydScharf (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC).

J1c3???? Did you forget this is neither J1c3 NOR J1e? This is J1c3d. You have not had a single source for this. You won this one because I had decided not to report you. My mistake. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

J1 arrived from Anatolia among the South Arabian populations later than the Egyptians. The timeline is:

• Turkish, 15,400 years
• Yemen, 9,700 years
• Qatar, 7,400 years
• Egyptian, 6,400 years
• UAE, 6,400 years
• Oman, 2,300 years

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLloydScharf (talk • contribs) 20:50, 31 July 2011

Modal

I moved the modal here until it can be cited.

• J1c3d Modal Haplotype. Ysearch 9G64V

DYS	393	390	19	391	385A	385B	426	388	439	389I	392	389II	458	459A	459B	455	454	447	437	448	449	464A	464B	464C	464D
Alleles	12	23	14	10	13	18	11	17	11	13	11	30	18	8	9	11	11	26	14	20	25	12	14	16	17

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victar (talk • contribs) 06:28, 28 July 2011

BOTTOM LINE:There are no facts for J1c3d/L147.1.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Edits

I have repeatedly warned Victar not to include data from personal research and making additions that are not verifiable. You have assisted him in violation of Wikipedia policy. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

It is now on you to go through with a fine toothed comb and remove all content that lacks verifiability and/or is personal research rather than a peer reviewed paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLloydScharf (talk • contribs) 05:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

As I stated before, instead of deleting people's work, please help to source information. If no source can be found, add a lacks citation note. --Victar (talk) 05:51, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You started by deleting my haplotype. Your argument has no merit. You know your work was bogus and does not apply to J1c3d. You were warned about this before. There was a call for a citation over a month ago which you ignored. Do you really expect others to back up your assertions and assumptions when you did not and cannot provide them yourself? That is inappropriate and manipulative like an ad ignorantium argument. Do you think it must be true because you cannot be proved wrong? When I deleted the entire origins section, that was not vandalism. That was deleting only the claims that were unsupportable regarding J1c3d.

Your insistence on putting a date and place of origin regardless of the work in the body was what lead to my deleting it all. You are still insisting the work you reference has to do with J1c3d. Even the concept of making claims about "People of J1c3d" is arrogant and in violation of the rule of neutrality. You are not just wrong about the facts and have issues with writing. Your original document reads like propaganda, even if you ignore the run-ons and fragments.

We are beyond mere lack of a citation. Your claims lacked Falsifiability as well as verification. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 11:41, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE:There are no facts for J1c3d/L147.1.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Please explain what the edit war is about

User:Victar posted on my userpage asking for comment here, but looking at this talk page I can see very little discussion about what the dispute has been about. Can someone summarize?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Well basically User:JohnLloydScharf feels that some information is unsubstantiated. That's a valid point, but instead of simply deleting other's contributions, I suggested that he help to properly source the information, which to me, seems a reasonable request. If that can not be done, we should mark it as lacking citation, but only after those steps have been taken should information be completely deleted. --Victar (talk) 08:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a bit late to be claiming information should not be completely deleted, since that was the first thing you did with my haplotype. That was before I found out private research is not allowed by policy. At this point, the claims about J1c3d are completely without verifiability. They may apply to J1c3 and I am not going to argue about J1c3. I emailed Victar about the issue originally. He took an authoritative stance. There is no peer reviewed paper on J1c3d. It is all either speculative or personal research. I have called for it to be deleted until there is. It is better to have no article than to have a biased one.

Enforce the Wikipedia rules which state you are to post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources.. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable, which I pointed out over and over again, if you take the time to see what I posted on the revisions. Quote:The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. I pointed that out on several occasions. I posted this site: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

You need to decide which is more important; the integrity of the information or that we all get along. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 11:13, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Victar, I guess I need to ask why this article should exist, putting aside my interest and sympathy with the subject matter. Is there really anything published which makes the conclusions being put into this article all in one place?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:00, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, most certainly. The problem JohnLloydScharf points out is that the latest journal does not address the subclades of J1c3, as they were not yet discovered, but J1c3d is a child of J1c3 is it not? It also happens to make up the vast majority of the haplogroup. You can infer countless things by that relationship, 1) of course being that J1c3d is younger than J1c3, this providing a ballpark age, and 2) that the migration of J1c3d was set into motion by J1c3. So yes, I do believe there is much to be said in this article. --Victar (talk) 19:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You are making assumptions not proven by documentation. If you want to make statements about J1c3 on the J1c3 page, that would be appropriate rather than attempting to rationalize claims about J1c3d that are not verifiable. Without a peer reviewed paper, Family Tree DNA cannot even claim L147.1 is the "child of J1c3." It may even be ancestral to J1c3's P58. It is a consumer company, not an educational institution. They have Hammer, Walsh, Shurr, Redd, and Behar on their Scientific Advisory Board, yet none of them have written a paper on whether P58 or L147.1 is ancestral or why. Now they are selling L615 and L616. Who else is doing an L147.1 SNP? You cannot assume Family Tree DNA is testing in good faith anymore than you can assume McDonald's is making a good burger. That is why they have health inspectors and the FDA. You have much to say, but not about J1c3d/L147.1. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We can claim L147.1 is ancestral to P58 as we have people who are L147.1- and P58+. We don't need a journal to tell us that. Please read my response again. I believe you also missed my point. --Victar (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Just because we disagree does not mean I am the one ignorant. Who would test for P58 once they showed L147.1+? Who would test for L147.1 once they tested for P58-? This testing is not a substitute for experiment. They do not test randomly for SNPs at Family Tree DNA. You are ignoring whether an issue is verifiable and what Wikipedia's stance on this issue is.

QUOTE:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.

You are engaged in minimizing and justifying material that is not verifiable. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:03, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

And yet there are dozens, if not hundreds of cases that scientifically prove this to be true. Although FTDNA may be a business, ISOGG is not and they have clearly placed L147.1 under P58. --Victar (talk) 21:19, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

By what standard is ISSOG independent of Family Tree DNA. They are accepting the claim of Family Tree DNA rather than using independent sources. They are genealogists who sell their services; not molecular biologists. It is not a peer reviewed journal of molecular biology or population genetics. SEE:

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

That is simply absurd. If you're going to dispute the findings of FTDNA and the ISOGG, you have to you call into question the validity of nearly every article on Wikipedia relating to DNA. --Victar (talk) 22:11, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You are catastrophizing. On P58, there is a paper and J1e is listed in the supplimentry information at http://genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2008/04/02/gr.7172008.DC1/SOM_2.pdf and as a SNP at http://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs34043621(C;C). The fact is the Scientific Advisory Board of FTDNA has many authored works on most SNPs. FTDNA has made no findings on this L147.1 is not one of them. I posted their response above. Any article that cannot offer verifiability needs to be edited until it does. If FTDNA and ISOGG are your source, then list them so I can challenge your verifiability on them. There is no date or place of origin in their documentation for J1c3d/L147.1. I have researched that. Your argument is a logical fallacy. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:08, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Again, by your logic, maybe L147.1 doesn't even exist! Maybe it was just invention by FTDNA to make a buck. What's next, I'll need a cited journal to tell me the sky is blue? My point is there are levels of verifiability and you have taken it to an excessive extreme. Please tell me you can see that. --Victar (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with whether it exists. It has to do with verifiability. You call it extreme to require that you use a citation on J1c3d on an article about J1c3d as a reference. Your logic does not meet the standard for a reasonable man or the protocol for Wikipedia, as outlined.

This is not a claim about the sky being blue, which anyone can confirm by their own observation. This is molecular biology where you cannot view the facts for yourself. Is this that complicated for you to understand the difference?

This is about the age and origin of J1c3d, just to start with, which you have not met the minimum standard for. The fact that it is from a consumer company is a factor worth considering. However, more importantly, L147.1 has not been documented, even as a SNP with NICB, the Genebank. There is not a SNP for it in SNPedia. There is for P58, but not this SNP. JohnLloydScharf (talk)

That discussion in answer to my question built up quickly! :) Let me make some comments:-

*I would tend to avoid using the FT DNA website, not because I claim they are wrong, but because it is a commercial company and it is better to have more independent sources.

*I also would not use Ysearch. The problem is that Ysearch is made up of what WP refers to as "user contributed" material which has not been checked by anyone except the contributors.

*I see nothing wrong using the ISOGG website, if you are just trying to source the positions of SNP defined branchings on the Y phylogeny. ISOGG is sometimes cited by peer reviewed technical journals and it is an independent organization.

*Coming back to the original or more important underlying question, I need to say I have doubts about Victar's argument that we may "infer" things based on putting different sources together. Please consider WP:SYNTH. There is always a bit of grey area for "obvious" inference or synthesis, but this whole article seems to be built on synthesis? Or maybe can I turn it into a question: if we take out the synthesis, what is left?

*Concerning age estimates, I am guessing both interlocutors know enough about this field to realize that this is the most controversial subject in this field, and that individual papers vary widely in what they state, and how they come to their conclusions. I think all we can do is summarize what different sources say, and these would normally need to be from published sources (not for example ISOGG, or any other volunteer run website).

*This field presents a challenge to WP because there is very little WP:SECONDARY literature, and we are effectively trying to summarize bundles of WP:PRIMARY articles. (The ISOGG website, with its scoreboard function, is pretty helpful in this respect.) We should always keep this weakness in mind. Some Wikipedians believe that enthusiasts in this field are trying to hard to make Wikipedia give the latest updates in a scientific field which is quickly changing.

*I can see that there are a few things that can be well sourced and said about J1c3d, but (being Devil's advocate here) couldn't they fit in a few sentences, and wouldn't they therefore best be handled within the J1c3d article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:00, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, thank you for concisely summarizing what has been said.

I'd like first address synthesis and dates. If once can establish the date of origin of J1c3d's parent clade J1c3, regardless of whether that date is agreed upon, as well establish that J1c3d is indeed a subclade of J1c3, can we not logically conclude that the date of origin of J1c3d must be equal or less than that of J1c3? I'd like to also point out, as I have done previously, that the infobox reads, "Possible time of origin". The word "possible" implies flexibility, as I understand it is only intended to represent a ballpark figure.

As for this warranting it's own article, yes, I believe so. It has proven to be a very large subclade, nearly as large as its parent clade. Unfortunately, as John points out, there are no journals to my knowledge that reference J1c3d, as it is defined by a relatively newly-found SNP. That said, the story of J1c3d can still be told through our knowledge of J1c3d. We just need to be clear that we are discussing J1c3 and its subclades, which includes J1c3d. There is bound to be a journal published soon on J1c3d and even without, there is still, in my opinion, enough factual information specifically on this subclade. --Victar (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

1. Hmm. Seems to me that by Wikipedia norms, if there is not agreement about something in a field, then it is not established.

2. We can of course conclude that the age of a sub-clade is equal to or younger than the age of a parent clade I think that logical step on its own is obvious enough, but I think that is not the only logical step being proposed for this article or else it would be a pretty boring article?

3. You are probably right that there is bound to be an article published in the future about this, but if it is not published yet, I guess we might be getting ahead of ourselves by discussing that future article's presumed contents on WP? For the time being don't we have to stick to writing about J1c3 and its sub-clades?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

From my PERSONAL RESEARCH,an inference from having between J1c3d tested individuals with a genetic distance of 50, this J1c3d is older even than the times Victar gives. However, if you are neutral on this issue, J1c3d is far younger. See my reference below entitled: SIMILAR DATE CREEP SITUATION FOR J1/M267 AS EXAMPLE-Origin Date Not the date given in article cited HOWEVER, in order to be consistent with the peer reviewed papers, the Wikipedia claims are all inflated from J1 haplogroup on down to J1c3d2a.
Victar's argument is that we don't know, so we can guess. Reading the J1 haplotypes and subclades, you can see that inferences are being made based on chat forum and bloggers' inbred notions of what the research means. Victar has made up his mind about the facts and then is trying claim the research backs it where it plainly does not.

NOW, if you are going to allow this article to remain as is, then you are reinforcing misinformation as well as stereotypes. If you continue down this road, you turn genealogical genetics from science to pseudo science. It is what astrology is to astronomy. You allow a slide back into measuring bumps on people's head and racist claims. I have already seen it done with regard to R1a and R1b.This is not a slippery slope argument on this case. This case is one of making leaps of logic based on personal assumptions. Everything in this article conjecture except the name of the SNP and who originated it.

The rest of it is unsourced conjecture with a rehash of what has already been said in the articles about the J1 and J1c/J1c3 haplogroups to create a fogged sense of authority and validity it does not rate. At this point, I see no intention or motivation for Victar to make any changes with regard to content or proper referencing. What I see is minimizing, rationalizing, and self justifying about this poorly written article filled with rehashed information at best and, at worst, misinformation and romancization. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 10:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

John, do not use my full name again.

A far better mode of progression would be to deal with issue by issue as Andrew is attempting to do. Instead, all you have done is made baseless attacks and slanderous libel. --Victar (talk) 14:08, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As I've pointed out to John, 95% of this article is not written by me. It's original content was taken from the J1c3 page, expanded upon, and has gone though many revisions by other users. In fact, other than creating the article, most of my influence has been in response to John's call for more verifiability, to which I added more citations and rewrote content closer in line with those cited journals. My point being, I have very little personal opinion on the direction of this article, other than it being informative. My main concern has always been to respect the contributions made by others.

That said, I'm open to mitigation and removal sensational information. My only request throughout this has been that some research be done and discussion made beforehand. The only true issue John and I disagree on is the ability to date J1c3d. --Victar (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

If we were to start from scratch, what information about this subject is sourceable? I think I've already given my opinion that we can source its position in the phylogenetic tree from ISOGG, but after that what?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not going to deal with Victar's claims of libel. I engage in full disclosure just as I do on Facebook and everywhere on the Net. He is not interested in resolving this as he is in perpetuation of his perspective. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you use my full name once more, I will request that Wikipedia take action on your account. --Victar (talk) 19:38, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

If you are going to source ISSOG, then you are just sourcing what FTDNA told ISSOG, but I have said that before. If you see its SNP number listed, like on SNPedia, perhaps that would make sense. Other companies are using this SNP, L147.1, as well as the three SNPs being used for J1c3d1, J1c3d2, and J1c3d. Genebase is using the L147.1 SNP as well as the other source the Saudi's are using. Therefore, I would leave the Subclade and L147.1 sections as is. Other platforms are being used besides that of FTDNA for testing of the same SNPs.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Regarding place and date of origin either those are out and you refer them to J1c3 or you reiterate with the clarity of what I outlined at the bottom of this in the section "Place of Origin for J1c3d." JohnLloydScharf (talk) 04:21, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Can I suggest that you try to focus your discussion a lot more? You are writing bits and pieces in several different sections on this talk page at the same time, and none of them are clear and direct responses. In a section below I have responded just on the relatively small point about ISOGG. In this section I am asking what else can be sourced about the subject apart from that. Please try to limit your answers to the subject or we will never get anywhere.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Let's see if this works on why this edit war started, which is the topic of this section.
Haplotype diversity, not frequency, establishes an origin in time and place. That was what is wrong with the haplotype offered. That is what is wrong with the dates supposed. That is what is wrong with the geographic origins originally claimed.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:51, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Those remarks in isolation sound interesting, but I do not think they are relevant. I asked what, if anything, can be sourced about the subject of this article. What I keep seeing on this talk page looks like two people arguing about what are effectively their own personal theories, neither of which are sourced? That is not what this talk page is for. Does anyone have anything which can be properly sourced about this subject (with the exception, I would say, of the phylogenetic position of the clade, which is something that could be mentioned in the article of the parent clade)?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Your response is not relevant to the topic of "Please explain what the edit war is about." The "phylogenetic position of the clade" is already mentions in the article on the parent clades.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 19:54, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE:There are no facts for J1c3d/L147.1.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Communications with founder of SNP, L147.1, and J1c3d Haplotype Family Tree DNA helpdesk@familytreedna.com

Hello,

No specific information has been published yet on that specific branch, so we are still using the same description as J1. Haplogroup J1 is found at highest frequencies in Middle Eastern and north African populations where it most likely evolved. This marker has been carried by Middle Eastern traders into Europe, central Asia, India, and Pakistan.

As more scientific research is done and more information is published, we will update the descriptions accordingly.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions or need additional assistance. Have a great day.

Ashley Coursey Family Tree DNA http://www.FamilyTreeDNA.com "We Put the Gene in Genealogy"

NOTE: When replying to this email please leave the subject intact.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 11:52, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE:There are no facts for J1c3d/L147.1.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

J1c3d Date of Origin

"Based on genotypes at 12 Y-STRs, we identify an extended CMH on the J-P58* background that predominates in both Ashkenazi and non-Ashkenazi Cohanim and is remarkably absent in non-Jews. The estimated divergence time of this lineage based on 17 STRs is 3,190§ 1,090 years" http://www.springerlink.com/content/357176p177623m41/fulltext.pdf

If J-P58/J1c3 is ancestral to J-L147.1/J1c3d, how can it be ancestral to and be over 2,000 years younger? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnLloydScharf (talk • contribs) 19:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

We are talking about a SNP, not STRs... The latter wouldn't change on a L147.1 (which was not discovered at the time, thus not tested in the study you cited) background among Kohanim, you can check on FTDNA's J DNA Project in the "J1c3d* Cohanim, P58+, L147+, L222-, YCAII=22-22" section: L147.1 positive customers have the very same markers the study tested for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.4.212.6 (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. The SNP is J1e or J1c3 that is referred to The justification for the time of divergence of that P58* SNP is estimated by the 17 STRS. If you dispute that age of 3,190 years for the J-P58, then use a verifiable source to refute it. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Here is a thought. Use ISSOG as a resource. I will challenge it, of course. The only place I see it used on Wikipendia is as an external link rather than a resource. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 22:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

False. I count dozens that do just that. --Victar (talk) 03:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Then you should have no problem if you reference ISSOG. AND, you should have no problem getting a ruling on whether it is a reliable resource. In this case, ISSOG does not have a reference at the bottom of the page that refers to J1c3d. However, you are exaggerating. There are not "dozens." I am not going to challenge every case. I am going to challenge this one. If those are inappropriately referenced, I may deal with them later. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The ISOGG is used as a reference on just the English Wikipedia in at least 46 article, so nearly 4 dozen times. --Victar (talk) 06:57, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The ISOGG website phylogeny pages, their summary of the latest phylogeny, are used on Wikipedia and this has been discussed a lot of times. These webpages are sometimes cited by peer reviewed papers for this purpose also, so that is a pretty good argument that they should be good enough for WP. Using the ISOGG website for anything else might be controversial.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that ISSOG is assumed to be independent and a secondary source due to practices does not mean it is so unless it has been challenged and dealt with. They did it too is not a justification. ISSOG is an attempt to associate professionalism with genealogy. It is not a peer reviewed or printed journal for molecular biologists or population geneticists. It is sparsely documented for SNPs and it has no peer reviewed paper at this point. ISSOG is not a professional organization that can engage in issuing recognized credentials or sanctioning its members in their trade. It is not, as you can see, like the AMA or even your local cosmotologist who cuts and dies hair.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 04:31, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

ISOGG has been discussed as a source many times on WP. The "mere" fact that a source is assumed by experts to be reliable, even experts writing and peer reviewing expert journal articles, is what is important for WP and makes this source fine for WP. WP does not demand that we only use peer reviewed sources. In this case, the source has not only an obvious reputation for reliability, but also independent fact checking and procedures. (It does not just accept any information it receives.)--Andrew Lancaster () 08:04, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Repetition of a mistake does not make it correct. The "experts" in this field are molecular biologists and population geneticists. Peer reviewed articles from journals in those fields accept citations of periodicals from each other. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate where one of them has accepted ISSOG in the bibliography of their works. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Try using Google scholar. I just ran a search and found a few straight away. A memorable example is Myres et al, which is one of the most important articles in this field in the last year or so.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

ISSOG is not listed as a reference in the bibliography of that paper. Zero times. Zip. Nada. Not once. Every one of the journals mentioned is a from a journal which is, and has been, in print for decades. I use Google Scholar several times a day.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC) 1.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 2.Annu Rev Genet 3.Science 4.Ann Hum Biol 5.Nat Rev Genet 6.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 7.Hum Genet 8.Hum Hered 9.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 10.Am J Hum Genet 11.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 12.Eur J Hum Genet 13.Eur J Hum Genet 14.Hum Genet 15.Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press 16.Eur J Hum Genet 17.Eur J Hum Genet 18.Mol Phylogenet Evol 19.Int J Legal Med 20.Am J Hum Genet 21.Science 22.Cambridge University Press 23.PLoS Biol 24.Hum Mutat 25.Croat Med J 26.Science 27.Nat Genet 28.Eur J Hum Genet 29.Genome Res 30.Am J Hum Genet 31.Eur J Hum Genet 32.Int J Hum Genet 33.Mol Biol Evol 34.Oxford University Press: Oxford 35.Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 36.Oxford University Press: Oxford 37.J Arch Sci 38.Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press 39.Cambridge University Press: Cambridge 40.Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 41.Mol Biol Evol 42.Hum Biol 43.Oxford University Press: Oxford 44.Forensic Sci Int
NO ISOGG OR INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF GENETIC GENEOLOGY published paper is cited as a source for that paper.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew Lancaster, it seems like you have made a decision on the content. Am I just wasting my time discussing this with you?
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:36, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

John, I am not even able to understand yet what your position on the content is and what is being argued. Can you help me out by trying to write in a more direct and focused way, sticking to one subject at a time and writing in one section at a time? What are the positions being argued?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:43, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

J1c3d Date of OriginI think I am seeing a pattern here and not one you can be proud of. Have you ever actually had to submit a paper in college for a class in science or statistics while following the accepted format for citations?
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE:There are no facts for J1c3d/L147.1.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

SIMILAR DATE CREEP SITUATION FOR J1/M267 AS EXAMPLE-Origin Date Not the date given in article cited

See references given:

1.^ Semino et al. 2004 Not adequately cited, but: http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/AJHG_2004_v74_p1023-1034.pdf "The shaded area in J-M267* indicates the branch characterized by the YCAIIa-22/YCAIIb-22 motif. For the areas of the circles and the sectors, see figure 3. The expansion time of this branch was calculated using TD (Zhivotovsky 2001), which gives 8.7 and 4.3 ky, respectively, for the earliest and the latest bounds of the expansion time."

2.^ Arburto et al. 2008 Not adequately cited. See: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:CITE#Inline_citations I will give a reasonable time to update the times and then I will be addressing the issue myself. This needs to be addressed in days, not months. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not clear what the point being made here other than "not adequate". I think a lot of problems in this discussion might start to fall away if the points being made would be spelled out more slowly and carefully?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:45, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, find the name of the article for me just based on the researchers'name and date without the title and source.
Read http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources
In #1, the name of the article is "Origin, Diffusion, and Differentiation of Y-Chromosome Haplogroups E and J: Inferences on the Neolithization of Europe and Later Migratory Events in the Mediterranean Area" and it is in Am. J. Hum. Genet. 74:1023–1034, 2004. It was not there, but I had read the article before
In #2, Arburto et al. 2008, I could not find any such article. I know of an Arburto who has been creating haplotypes on ysearch for years and, like myself, tested extensively and had most of the 96 markers a couple of years back. If he has published a paper, I would like to read it.

Not naming the title and the source prevents anyone from looking at the claimed source to see if the interpretation is correct and the source is reliable. Tertiary sources such as compendia, encyclopedias, textbooks, obituaries, and other summarizing sources may be used to give overviews or summaries, but should not be used in place of secondary sources for detailed discussion.

I do not expect every article to have a scientific paper to back every single point, but a reasonable person expects haplogroup information to meet that level of of proof and the stance the article on what is verifiable reiterates that issue several times. No personal research. That is a nice way of saying "I believe.." and "I think.." are not a basis for a claim, particularly without a justifiable logical argument. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:24, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

That is a long answer but not a clear one. Please try to limit your responses. If I read what you've written immediately above, are you saying that the Semino and Arbuto citations simply need to have their format improved? Why not just do that then? WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM. Starting long discussions about a problem you noticed that you can just as easily fix is not the right approach on Wikipedia.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

It is concise and clear. I tried the "just as easily fix" approach and that is how the edit war started. You are a wonderful dragon slayer, but the dragon is just smiling. There is no easy fix and molecular biology is a great deal more complex than you are willing to admit. http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:FIXTHEPROBLEM#Try_to_fix_

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:08, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

How you write here makes it look like you see yourself as being in some contest? Please don't. I just asked you to explain your point about these two sources. Are you saying they do not exist, or that they are not good enough sources? Just please explain.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

No. I see YOU as in a contest. I am not the dragon slayer in this issue. There is not only no contest in this, but no logical argument that can be made from the facts at hand.
BOTTOM LINE:There are no facts for J1c3d/L147.1. This cultural bias is like an infection where the great suppositions are biased by Islamic religious notions of what is "pure." The J1 haplotype is far off the mark and this J1c3d article just amplifies that bias. I know this is difficult for you, but this is not a simplistic issue and my argument against this J1c3d article is complex and is as follows:
In J1 they have promoted the idea that the J1s of the Caucasian area are from Arabic south, which shows a distinct bias.
While percentage of the population does not determine origins, you can see that this center of the Ottoman Empire has high concentrations in certain languages as shown by "Parallel Evolution of Genes and Languages in the Caucasus Region" by Balanovsky et al, http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/13/molbev.msr126.short.
Over and over it can be seen that the origin of J1 was in what was the center of the Ottoman Empire for 100s of years. The origin of a haplogroup is based on its diversity, not raw percentages. See Alicia M Cadenas1, Lev A Zhivotovsky2, Luca L Cavalli-Sforza3, Peter A Underhill3 and Rene J Herrera1, European Journal of Human Genetics (2008) 16, 374–386; doi:10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201934; published online 10 October 2007, Y-chromosome diversity characterizes the Gulf of Oman, http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v16/n3/full/5201934a.html
QUOTE:Median BATWING expansion times based on Y-STR data for the Omani (2.3 ky; 95% CI: 0.6–29.2) J1-M267 chromosomes4 indicate a more recent arrival to the South Arabian populations as compared to the older expansion times obtained for the Egyptian (6.4 ky; 95% CI: 0.6–278.5)4 and Turkish (15.4 ky; 95% CI: 0.4–604.8)12 representatives of this haplogroup. Conversely, in the present study, Y-STR age estimates based on the method described by Zhivotovsky et al46 generated much older values for the J1-M267 haplogroup in Yemen, Qatar and UAE (9.7±2.4, 7.4±2.3 and 6.4±1.4 ky, respectively) than seen in the Omani,4 consistent with an earlier arrival to the region during the Neolithic. The data suggest expansion from the north during the Neolithic (or perhaps more recently), which is also reflected in the lower STR variances in southern Arabia (0.14 for Qatar, 0.15 for UAE, 0.20 for Yemen and 0.27 for Oman4 versus 0.31 in Egypt4 and 0.51 in Turkey12). Subsequently, a series of recent demographic events may account for the high haplogroup frequency of J1-M267 in the populations from the present study.

So, to sum up that:
Turkish__15.4 ky
Yemen___9.7±2.4
Qatar____7.4±2.3
Egyptian_6.4 ky
UAE_____6.4±1.4 ky
Omani___2.3 ky
SO, what part of this study showing a Turkish origin can be refuted? BUT, how can you claim the date of origin goes from 15ky to 24ky??? The article, as was originally written, is a reflection of that bias and misinformation. That it had an undocumented haplotype like the others shows personal research and personal opinion are out of control on these haplogroup articles and this one was way over the edge. Now, this is the reason for the title of this section.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so this is where the conversation is happening now? Can we stay in this sub-section? Your posts are all over the place in more ways than one. As a simple step I would like to ask you very simply whether you think this article should exist or not. to me it seems like it should not exist. Please do not answer this with a long speech about people winning and losing. It should be possible to answer in one word or maybe one short sentence.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

You are off the topic of this section,"SIMILAR DATE CREEP SITUATION FOR J1/M267 AS EXAMPLE-Origin Date Not the date given in article cited," which demonstrates the date creep existing in these claims of origin times, which affects the place of origin. Try to stick with the topic at hand rather than trying to make every subject about one thing, your agenda, which seems to be to leave the article as is.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC
BOTTOM LINE:There are no facts for J1c3d/L147.1.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Place of Origin for J1c3d

Much of the assumptions here are based on the Arab Peninsula, where J1c3d2 and J1c3d2a are most indicated. This is one of the sources of information: The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v18/n3/abs/ejhg2009166a.html
ABSTRACT:

Haplogroup J1 is a prevalent Y-chromosome lineage within the Near East. We report the frequency and YSTR diversity data for its major sub-clade (J1e). The overall expansion time estimated from 453 chromosomes is 10 000 years. Moreover, the previously described J1 (DYS388=13) chromosomes, frequently found in the Caucasus and eastern Anatolian populations, were ancestral to J1e and displayed an expansion time of 9000 years. For J1e, the Zagros/Taurus mountain region displays the highest haplotype diversity, although the J1e frequency increases toward the peripheral Arabian Peninsula. The southerly pattern of decreasing expansion time estimates is consistent with the serial drift and founder effect processes. The first such migration is predicted to have occurred at the onset of the Neolithic, and accordingly J1e parallels the establishment of rain-fed agriculture and semi-nomadic herders throughout the Fertile Crescent. Subsequently, J1e lineages might have been involved in episodes of the expansion of pastoralists into arid habitats coinciding with the spread of Arabic and other Semitic-speaking populations.

That area between the Baltic and Caspian Sea is an ancient trading center with significant transitions in population. This is why haplotype diversity, not frequency, establishes an origin. Those tested in the Arabian Peninsula have a high percentage who are J1e, but they seem to come from a narrow range of haplotypes. The abstract clearly states the J1e from the Caucusus and eastern Anatolian in the Zagros/Taurus Mountain region to the peripheral Arabian Peninsula. The Arab Peninsula is not the origin of J1e, AKA: J1c3.

What you think you know about J1c3d seems just to not be so.

1. 1.If you start making claims about J1c3d, you have to either stick with J-P58 or have a paper that demonstrates otherwise.
   
2. 2.If we start looking at the listing of J1c3d (tested) of ysearch.org, then you see the European and Arab surnames are about evenly matched.
   
3. 3.If you look at ysearch and FTDNA groups, you will see that J1c3d2 and J1c3d2a are nearly complete in their dominance by Arabs, most of which are from the Arab Peninsula.
   

• It looks like J1c3d is likely to have its origin between the Caucasus Mountains in the north, the Black Sea in the west, the Caspian Sea/Zagros Mountains in the east, and the Anatolian high plain/Taurus Mountains in the South.
  
• It looks like J1c3d2 and J1c3d2 are likely to have their origin between Jordan to Yemen on the West, Saudi Arabia on the South, and the UAE to Kuwaite toward the north. Many Kurds are J1, but I have not seen the SNPs/haplotypes from them or Iraq. What we are seeing so far is J1c3d2/a from the highlands at the center of Saudi Arabia. There is a lot them who have come from the largest tribe there interested in genetic genealogy, helping define them genetically/geographically.
  
• SO, in regard to J1c3d, we cannot claim any origin that is verifiable, except that its parent clade is from south of Russia and north of Iraq between the Black and Caspian Seas

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:52, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

I question the usefulness of the above post. I suggest sticking to one discussion in a more straight line, rather than constantly creating new sections about all kinds of ideas. This talk page is not a forum for discussing a subject generally, but a place to discuss what to put, if anything, in the Wikipedia article. Is there any concrete suggestion here?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

• SO, in regard to J1c3d, we cannot claim any origin that is verifiable, except that its parent clade is from south of Russia and north of Iraq between the Black and Caspian Seas I gave a detailed argument for that conclusion. I am sorry you did not take the time to read it.
  

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Fine, but this talk page is not a forum for giving your own personal theories (even if they are right). You go quite a bit further than the abstract you quote, and so your arguments are not relevant to what we should put in a Wikipedia article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Where in all that is there my personal theory? No where. What I did is describe the area in three different ways because the ancient areas used by some and the modern areas used by others are the same place using different names. If you think I went beyond what is written, then you need to justify that remark.
I have made the same points over and over.
First, this clade has nothing that can be referenced about it other than what is already in the parent clade.
Second, that any comments about this clade with regard to the parent clade are irrelevant and not verifiable.
You are asking what should be in an article that has no reason to exist separate from the information elsewhere. What relevant argument are you making for its existance? My argument against the content so far is it is wrong and it is not verifiable. It should be deleted rather than gathering misinformation.
You seem to now have an agenda. Explain what you think should be in it? Why should it exist? If it has a reason to exist, you need to justify it is reasonable and verifiable.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 20:08, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
BOTTOM LINE:There are no facts for J1c3d/L147.1.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not propose that this article should exist at all. I am asking for any arguments that it should exist. I agree that you gave a "detailed argument" above, but that is your detailed argument. It is irrelevant to the question of whether to delete this article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:55, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You are cherry picking where you answer. I reiterate.
BOTTOM LINE:There are no facts for J1c3d/L147.1.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Reasons To Delete J1c3d (Y-DNA)

1. Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles that are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes)
2. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
3. Categories representing overcategorization

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
The hold on editing has been taken off without explanation, to my knowledge, as of this moment, without justification.
JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:42, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The explanation and justification was given by the admin who took that action, as you know. Keeping an article blocked is considered something to be avoided on Wikipedia, so this should be no surprise. Also, in order to discuss the deletion of this article it helps to have the article freed up again in order to put in the right tags etc.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Should this article exist

I have asked the admin who put this page under protection to tag it for deletion/merger. There seems to be no editor willing/able to show that there are reliable sources about this topic separate to the topic already covered at Haplogroup J1c3 (Y-DNA).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:05, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

You are mischaracterizing the issue. There is no end of willingness from any editor. We are more than able. I believe there is personal research that is reliable. The issue is there is nothing verifiable with an acceptable peer reviewed source to cite. Reliable is a very different term, but that it the term used by Wikipedia. By the way, I tagged this for deletion just about the same time as it was locked down for all the reasons I have discussed in detail since.

BOTTOM LINE:There are no facts for J1c3d/L147.1. JohnLloydScharf (talk)

I am using the term reliable in it's Wikipedia sense as per wp:RS. So I think you are kind of agreeing in a very obtuse way that this article should be deleted? If not please advise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Obtuse seems to be a value ridden adjective that appears to be a personal attack to evoke an emotional response, but if that is what is required with you, then so be it. I made this comment long ago before you mentioned deletion. See my comment in bold print before the signature "JohnLloydScharf (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)"

It was in bold print when I constructed it. JohnLloydScharf

(talk) 00:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you did not realize the meaning of obtuse:

1. Annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.

2. Difficult to understand

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 00:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No that is exactly what I mean, especially meaning 2, and it applies to your sentence in bold also, which does not answer in a direct way. "There are no facts for" is not clear. Does it mean there are no reliable sources as per WP policy?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, I still believe this article has a place. Even though there aren't any scientific journals specifically about J1c3d, there's plenty to be said of the migrations of the subclades of it's parent-clade, something that can be elaborated on to a greater extent than in the J1c3 article. As I mentioned before, this is a huge subclade so there is an equally large interest in it. --Victar (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be sources, but perhaps the interesting nature of the subject is driving it rather than actual information. User:Fred Bauder Talk 01:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The sources refer to other haplogroups and not J1c3d.JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Please show a reference to J1c3d or L147.1 in:

1. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/ or http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2987219/pdf/ejhg2009166a.pdf This is about the parent clade, J1c3, J-P58, or the old J1e.
2. http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/276/1668/2703.full.pdf This does not even mention J1 and may be a reference to J2, given its own article references.
3. http://books.google.com/books?id=-AQNAQAAMAAJ, Needs a quote about J1c3d, or L147.1 to even claim it was read.
4. http://wysinger.homestead.com/afroasiatic_-_keita.pdf This is an article about Haplogroup E1b1b

There are no sources for this subclade of this haplogroup. QED, it should be deleted.

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 02:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

John, how about you respond to my comment instead of using the same tired argument over and over again. --Victar (talk) 04:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Victar, you do not have an argument. What you claim is not and cannot be proven by what you claim. It may never have existed until J1e entered Saudi Arabia 11,000+ years ago and then re-entered the Levant. I am not claiming that to be so, but it is an alternative hypothesis which means there is nothing to be said. You have no way of knowing that either way. Why do you keep trying to make this extraneous information apply to J1c3d. I gave up on expecting you to be neutral on this, so this is my last response to your claims. I consider your previous personal attacks on Andrew Lancaster's user page for being neutral, which you called "absurd," to have relinquished me from any necessity to respond further to you. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 06:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Victar, what do you say are the reliable sources we can use for this subject without synthesizing ideas ourselves? That is question.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

The emergence of Y-chromosome haplogroup J1e among Arabic-speaking populations is the latest journal on the migrations of J1c3 (J1e), which even contains mapped trajectories. Plenty to pulled from that. --Victar (talk) 07:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

No doubt that source can be used in Wikipedia and contains some notable information, but:-

• John has a point when he says that this source is according to its own account about J1c3, which has its own Wikipedia article.
• In fact, because it is an interesting J1 subject overall, our J1 article also mentions it, or should. And right now, Wikipedia therefore contains no less than 3 articles which could or should discuss the exact same points from this source as one of the more central sources in each of them.
• The opinion I have developed since you called me to look at this article is that there are too many articles, each not very good, and discussion about improvement is messy and basically the same arguments are re-appearing on all of their talk pages. Focus on to one article might help get one much better article?
• Honestly I think the notable conclusions from this article could fit in a small sub-section of the J1 article?
• I think you'll find that the consensus on Wikipedia is that articles based on only one research article should not normally exist if it can be avoided.

Comments welcome.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Extended Y chromosome haplotypes resolve multiple and unique lineages of the Jewish priesthood is another published journal that covers J1c3 (J-P58). There's also a yet-to-be-published journal tit;ed Origin of the Jews and the Arabs: Date of their Most Recent Common Ancestor is Written in their Y-Chromosomes – However, There Were Two of Them. Those two papers also illustrate there is much published on the J1c3 Kohanim which isn't fully covered in the J1c3 article. --Victar (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, but this is not about J1c3d, and given that to discuss J1c3d sensibly you need to use articles which are actually discussing J1c3, which has its own article, or even J1, which has its own article, (or even J*(xJ2)!) why do we need 3 articles about this and why do we need an article specifically about J1c3d as opposed to J1c3? Isn't this just asking for the mess we currently have? Where should editors work? On all 3 articles at once? Shouldn't we be aiming for now at one good J1 article?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I hear you. I'm willing to merge this article with the one on J1c3. --Victar (talk) 05:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, so I take it we have 3 people will to do that now, and no one has given a strong argument against. As per normal procedures, we'll wait a little before doing it, but let's assume it is going to happen. Editing and talk page attention then needs to turn to the J1c3 article, which has many of the same problems, and personally I think it should also be folded into th J1 article, because most of what has been published, and what is being cited, about J1c3 is concerning J1 or even J*(xJ2). But talk concerning that should be on the talk page of the other article. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2011 (UTC)