User talk:Andrew Lancaster/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

R1b1b2a1a2f4

I have included this at Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA). Do you think I should have? While I may be appalled by Wright's lack of background in Irish genealogy and population history, R1b1b2a1a2f4 looks good and relatively well associated with the Dál gCais heartlands. I have even mentioned it under Déisi (Tuisceart). DinDraithou (talk) 20:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

PS. I've just read the OR noticeboard and saw that I was briefly mentioned in the Pdeitiker discussion. In fact no one told me I was mentioned there. While you are correctly aware that we are not the same people, I need to challenge you on your vague suggestion that I am "trying to walk over what the publications say". In which articles? Otherwise please take it back there. Regarding Hans Adler, I nearly filed a report on him for personal attacks elsewhere and have removed a harassing message or two from my talk page, so please don't say anything else to encourage him. DinDraithou (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this character assassination attempt, of which I was of course not notified. Here is a complete list of edits with which DinDraithou removed comments by me on their talk page:

• [1]
• [2]

I think it's abundantly clear that this user is simply unwilling to learn from feedback concerning their unacceptable comportment. This is one of those cases where Wikipedia cannot distinguish between a 14-year-old pretending to be an expert and an actual expert with social deficits, because too few editors have the necessary background to evaluate the "expert"'s opinion on its merits. Hans Adler 22:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

MarmadukePercy (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Macro-hg L

Hi. I entered my opinion about paragroups. --Maulucioni (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Y Hgs

Hi Andrew. Taking things to basics, what proportion of overall genetic diversity would be represented by Y-chromosome haplogroups ? 1/ 26th or 1/3 ? Hxseek (talk) 02:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

That's my point. Aren;t we at risk of focussing too much on Y-Hgs ? The casual reader might be deceived into thinking that human populations cluster in a manner reflective of the clustring evident in Y Hg patterns. however, given that the Y Hg is a very small component of overall genetic diversity, the European population is far more homogeneous than one would be led to believe. Only with continual discovery of subclades and haplotypes can we really determine the Y Hg diversity Hxseek (talk) 10:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

genetic studies on jews - khazar

Dear Andrew Lancaster, I would like to have your opinion about an argument I have with Jayjg about the possibility of some Khazar origin of Ashkenazim Talk:Genetic studies on Jews. We go round in circle and I think we need an external point of view. Could you please help ?--Boutboul (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 04:46, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

R1b

Hey Andrew, long time no hear. Hope you;ve been well. Are you aware if Cruciani et al have finalised that new paper they were writing about R1b Hxseek (talk) 01:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I read it. Keep well buddy

To claridy, if most western European R1b lineages are defined by R1b1b2a1a [L11], which closely corresponds to the Atlantic modal haplotype, does the Armenian/ Anatolian haplotype correspond to an SNP yet ?

Hxseek (talk) 22:58, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Aristotle

I just want to say that I value your response to my ethnocentric/bias hypothesis, and that I restored the discussion and added to it.--John Bessa (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Potentiality and actuality editing

OK, see Talk:Potentiality_and_actuality#Making_some_changes—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 06:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

energeia, dunamis, etc, etc

I agree with everything so far but merging the energeia article away. I would ask that we keep the energeia article.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I was thinking about adding in a good chuck of what is covered in Bradshaw's book.LoveMonkey (talk) 16:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No if we treat the subject energeia as a subset of your article it has the potental to make the article too long. There is also a history of the term that is not strictly Aristotle (i.e. Plotinus for example). Dunamis too is an article that has the word being used in several different ways by several different philosophers outside of Aristotle's actuality and potential. If you included all of this information in the one article you are creating you will have an article that is at least 10 pages long or longer. I can only assume you are creating the actuality and potential article to cover Aristotle. I wonder if you can cover say Polybius' use of energeia or Diodorus or Aristobulus or Galen or Alexander of Aphrodisias. I do not see the article being able to stay focused on the the overview of actuality and potential as Aristotle taught it and then trying to encompass these other uses of the word within the realm of ancient Hellenistic society.LoveMonkey (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That is fantastic news.LoveMonkey (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Your correct I think your draft was an well written and well overdue addition.LoveMonkey (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why did you just delete the energeia article, while I was working on the article? I thought we where keeping the Energeia article.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Why would I want to do that since you did not even read what I posted here on your talkpage. I can't contribute to something that is so time consuming to have it deleted.LoveMonkey (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

For a philosopher...

		The Original Barnstar
		For recent work on some philosophy articles. bodnotbod (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to move this barnstar to your preferred location in your user space. bodnotbod (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		Great job with Human Genetic History articles Moxy (talk) 18:00, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI

Population of Canada by year has the coding your looking for ... <references group="Note" /> ?????and the second one here

References

...Moxy (talk) 14:57, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Potentiality and actuality

I can not help with the article. I just don't have time with the PR war I am engaged in over the Roman Catholic Eastern Orthodox theological differences article and all of the attacks from various directions. Mind you not that such a thing isn't how it is, as it has always been and that is why there is no resolution no one will allow people to even state their case. So anger and frustration rule the day. I have however asked an editor here to look in and hopefully help you (even though you deleted the energeia article). [3] LoveMonkey (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

PS. Let me make a suggestion. The Greeks abandoned philosophy. They did that because of something. They culturally found out that philosophy had limits. Even before Gödel's incompleteness theorems showed the actual limits of human reason or logic. The culture as a whole learned this lesson. It was culturally experienced in the manifestation of hesychasm. Read these they give an overview. [4], [5]. They are a subtle overview. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:20, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. Energeia of Palamas are uncreated. As Lossky says there is no word for supernatural in Greek. Medieval minds made the wrong distinction. They stated physical and metaphysical. They were pagan and mystery religion in this. The Greeks always used created and uncreated and the word uncreated to them culturally is the word for supernatural. Energeia(s) are those uncreated and or supernatural things in existence. This is why Palamas is said to be ontological and partially existential in his theology. Not metaphysical or philosophical. As the energeia are the supernatural (uncreated), all around us right now. This is V Lossky and this is gnosis. Gnosis of the uncreated is not the gnosis of Gnosticism. That gnosis is knowledge of the metaphysical mystery religion systems (the caused and uncaused). As was found out by the Soviet against this and the Orthodox. Uncreated things can not be rationalized. As to the East Atheism is the rejection of the existence of things that can not be rationalized. So if one can not rationalize or reason something it is said to "not exist" as being or ontology in metaphysics is only validated like all things from a philosophical perspective. That perspective is "reason". Since freedom is an energeia and uncreated it can not be reasoned and was found to be a ridiculousness idea (blasphemy to the fates denied by the fatalists, determinists, Necessitarianism) as love to is a uncreated thing, as of course is God. If by reason then all that is outside of reason is not "true" or "real". The Roman Catholic Christians and Western Christians went down the wrong path. As they taught religion as faith on top of agnosticism rather than theoria. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:50, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Libertarianism is a perfect example as it is also now fought for under the title "metaphysical"- Libertarianism (metaphysics). Meaning that if we can not reason freedom then it does not exist. And it is the job of libertarian philosophers to dispense with the irrational components of freedom and therefore make it "rational" or "reasonable" or with reason i.e. philosophical a concept. This is all now transcended by Taleb. If you read him you will see. As Orthodoxy is the libertarianism free will without the metaphysical. Taleb could be used to go beyond N. O. Lossky and Robert Kane. He does this in the chapter in Black Swan on how using quantum physics to validate free will is "idiotic". LoveMonkey (talk) 16:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010

Please do not attack other editors, as you did here. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm rather surprised you don't understand why things might get more serious for an editor who continually violates WP:RS and WP:CIVIL, and removes valid RS tags without any valid rationale. If you wish to post on my Talk: page, please ensure your comments are accurate, and your questions are specific, rather than attacks disguised as questions. Also, there is an outstanding "yes" or "no" question awaiting to which you have not responded. Please ensure that any future posting of yours on my Talk: page is a "yes" or "no" response to that question, nothing else. Thanks! Jayjg ^(talk) 15:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Not an accurate summary of anything, and I note that you've deleted my question from your talk page. [6]--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Second deletion of an attempt by me to ask for explanation: [7] "already responded to, still waiting for your response to my simple question on this page. That will have to come before any other communication."--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

My talk page

Andrew, when I post on my Talk: page without a new header, that's because I don't want there to be a new header there. Please don't re-add such headers, especially after I've already removed them twice. Also, if I remove extraneous personal commentary or snide comments, please don't re-add them. I cannot force you to abide by WP:CIVIL and WP:TALK on article Talk: pages, but I certainly will not put up with further abuses on my own Talk: page. You know what is required - I've told you many times before discuss only the issue at hand, not me in any way. That means any way at all. In the future, if your comments refer to me in any way whatsoever, rather than a straightforward discussion of JOGG, reliable sources, etc. they will simply be removed. You've had multiple fair warnings on this. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, as I've made clear, I'm willing to have a discussion with you on my Talk: page about JOGG etc., but you must abide by WP:CIVIL; you can't keep making comments about me. Please stop adding such comments to my Talk: page, they'll only be immediately removed. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:11, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

NOTE FOR SELF. Refers to attempts to communicate which above user deleted from his talk page [8], [9], [10].--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Impact of migration on HGs

Hi Andrew. I was thinking about analyses on Haplogroups. To date, I think few have looked at the impact of new migrations of existing 'gene pools', except (I think) Currat and Excofier at Neolithic -Palaeolithic models. They concluded that even if only a few Palaeolothic hutner-gatherers remained and absorbed by a lagrer number of "immigrant farmers", their relative contribution to European gene pool would still be rather large. Noone has looked at this further, especially in studies looking at evidence for Anglo-Saxon migration into England (intrusion of I1 into a predominantly R1b environment). Ie looking straightforwardly at relatie proportions does not do justice to the complexity if biological behaviours, interbreeding, sexual dominance, apartheid, etc. Have you come accross anystudies which discuss this ? Hxseek (talk) 04:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

yeah, I;;l check it out. I also found this [Y chromosome diversity, human expansion, drift, and cultural evolution. Jacques Chiaronia, Peter A. Underhillb, and Luca L. Cavalli-Sforzac]which should be good. As an aside, I disagree with your impression that the ajor Migration into Britain was the pre-Roman "Celtic" one. Britain was never really "Celtic" - in the La Tene way. Only sporadic La Tene type finds suggest that it was rather peripheral to the 'real" La Tene world of central Europe. I agree with whats written on wiki, that most of Britain was probably settled by the Bronze Age or Neolithic at earliest Hxseek (talk) 08:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see with HGs is also their strength: many ancient clades might have been completely replaced by new ones, thus what we think we have determined from current HG patterns represents a false or rather incomplete picture. Autosomes, on the other hand, are way to twisted by selection and recombination to unravel. A connundrum Hxseek (talk) 09:26, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Y-DNA tables

Hi. I would like to know your opinion. I did Y-DNA haplogroups by groups in Europe, maybe I will move to Y-DNA haplogroups by European populations, a name more appropriate. Is it OK? I would do an article for Near East&North Africa; or more appropriate name is Middle East? Western Asia? What do you think? --Maulucioni (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding changes done by me

1)I was not deleting Kivisild et al 2003 at all!!! I was just doing a minor edit i.e. moved the reference to the end of the sentence. If you cross check Kivisild PDF, you'll find that the whole sentence : It has also been found in several South India...........widespread in tribal southern Indians.. has been ripped out of that PDF.

2)If you check with the Balti people in Wiki you'll find that they stay in Northern Pakistan(Gilgit-Baltistan) while there are no refernces about Mohanna in Wiki but I found one http://www.egyptsearch.com/forums/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=reply;f=8;t=006151 which shows they stay in Southern Pakistan(Sindh Province)....--Fylindfotberserk (talk) 10:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Initially I put Sindhis alongwith Mohanna sometime in March-april if I remember correctly, but as both these groups are from the same location, I changed Sindhis with Baltis from Northern pakistan sometime later just to diversify. Today I added these 'North' and 'South' identifiers to specifically point to the regions these groups belong to so as to give readers of non-south asian heritage a clearer understanding of the locations of these groups. If you wish, I'll link North Pakistan to Gilgit-Baltistan page and South Pakistan to Sindh province..--Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks....I'd provide wikilinks for these groups for the Greater Good...!!!--Fylindfotberserk (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Andrew Lancaster. You have new messages at Tom Reedy's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Genetic make-up of Europe

how many people must vote for the map to stay?Retroqqq (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Andrew

I would like to work with you on some of the varieties of Greek and Latin metaphysics. But first I would like to cover Orthodox Christian metaphysics (if you could call them that). LoveMonkey (talk) 13:04, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Y genetic data support the Neolithic demic diffusion model (2)

I was reading some Alinei articles where he mentioned some data from genetic studies on European population. I got a little confused there because he maintains that the majority of European population descend from Palaeolithic-Mesolithic hunters and not from Neolithic farmers, (in the terms that no major population movements like IE tribes invasion for eg. took place in Europe). Is that right from the genetic point of view? Regards Aigest (talk) 12:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be a surprise if they would agree on smth:) Anyway do you have any idea which is the most accepted version up to nowadays? P.S. Thank you for the links indeed. Aigest (talk) 14:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I am not sure I understand it clearly. By Neolithic demic model you mean east farmers migrated in Balkans and from those populations there was a demographic boom which later migrated or just a population boom due to new technologies (existing hunters/gatherers Balkans/Central Europe adopted new technology) and subsequent migrations. In the end, which is the share of genes Anatolian farmers vs. Old European hunters in the current European population? Aigest (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

fyi

Hi Andrew, just to let you know; I fixed your Dutch userpage. Silver Spoon 17:32, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Machiavelli

Hello, Andrew Lancaster. You have new messages at P. S. Burton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

P. S. Burton (talk) 10:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

R1a distribution in Germany

Hi Andrew, I was impressed by all of the work that you did on the R1a page. It seems like you really set it up nicely. When I was looking at the data for R1a distribution I realized that the R1a was detailed extremely well detailed in Norway ,England and Scotland. I realized that there was all of this great information on Germany that had not been listed on the page. Germany has one of the largest populations in Europe and I would think that the R1a in Germany would be just as relevant as anywhere else in Europe and especially in Germany since there is such a variation in percentages depending on what city is in question.--Taylor 54321 (talk) 20:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Machiavelli

I'm wondering how sure you are about the fact that Walling doesn't think that Hamilton was influenced by Machiavelli (this edit). I don't recall that article specifically, but in the Review of Politics abstract Walling argues that Hamilton was not simply a Machiavellian, not that he was not influenced by or reacting to him in a significant fashion. RJC ^Talk_Contribs 21:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Andrew Lancaster. You have new messages at Dougweller's talk page.
Message added 13:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RSN comments about Gibraltar international dispute

Hi Andrew,

Thank you very much for your several comments on the source. I'm the one who proposed it. I have added some more info to the discussion at the RSN and would be terribly thankful if you could add some comments taking it into account. Sorry if I disturb you with these details. Cheers! -- Imalbornoz (talk) 00:38, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

A valid source?

Is this a valid source? [11] I can not seem to validate that this book is peer-reviewed nor what degrees or scholarly positions the author has, it looks like his business school is ran out of his home. LoveMonkey (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

The publisher is John Wiley & Sons, a world-class publisher. This is the author's bio on his website. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is Richard answering this? To Andrew thanks and well OK. LoveMonkey (talk) 16:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw Andrew's response on your Talk Page and came here to see the original question. If you need to have a private conversation, use email. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 18:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

No problem with me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

/* Teleology and science */

You seem quite intent on deleting the computer science subsection. Perhaps you could elaborate on why you think teleo-reactive programs are not related to teleology instead of "this is not about teleology". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdongol (talk • contribs) 12:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I have asked for discussion on the talk page. I think the burden of proof is on you because there is no obvious connection between teleo-reactive computer programs and teleology. Just to start with the obvious, these are different words, concerning entirely different areas of discussion. I see no connection apart from the Greek prefix? Should we also include a sub-section on every word beginning with the letters teleo? Please respond on the article talk page?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Reason housekeeping

Yes, I considered shortening the lead myself, but I wanted to prioritize the new information, and then see what was or wasn't relevant to an introduction. It's a sufficiently complex subject that this would need to be done very carefully, but in principle I agree it should be done. I will think about it. Walkinxyz (talk) 22:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate the encouragement and help. I'm competent with Wikipedia, though not an expert. However, reason is a subject that I'm familiar with. Wish everyone were. Walkinxyz (talk) 17:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

New Study

Hi, I've found this very interesting article. Can you take a look and tell me what you think of Albanian populations origins? I mean, I find it hard to believe that they descended from some Carpi tribes which entered in Albania in 10th century AD according to this hypothesis. What do you think Bests Aigest (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am more interested in population origins and differences. I've red this recently and the author is of the opinion that Romanian population originated south of Danube and later migrated North (linguistic and archaeological arguments) expanding and assimilating the existing populations in Carpathian basin which were in low numbers (12th-13th century AD). That is the migration theory of origin of the Romanians. The autocthonous theory of origin of the Romanians maintains that Latin speaking populations were always present in big numbers in Carpathian basin. This theory is supported by Romanian scholars etc. Due to some links with Albanian language (either as substrata or loanwords, opinions differ) Romanians scholars maintain the

1. The Romanians descend from Latinised Dacians
2. The Daco-Romans(ProtoRomanians) have always been in Carpathian basin
3. Links with Albanian language belong to Dacian substrata (this is unprovable hypothesis, since no Dacian words are knwon to us)
4. Albanians belongs to some Dacian tribes, Carpi (this is another hypothesis since we don't know really if Carpi were Dacians, Goths, Slavs or Sarmati) which migrated from Moldova area reaching the territory of Albania in 10th century AD.
5. This supposed Carpi tribe (PriotoAlbanians according to this theory) maintained their old Dacian(?!) language , while other Dacians were romanised. This explains links with Albanian language.

On the other hand other scholars maintain that Romanian language generated south of Danube in the area of Macedonia based on archaeological data, historical data and linguistic data. On that linguistic data they maintain that The Albanians, an ancient population of shepherds of the Balkan peninsula, lived in the region of Mati and adjacent areas, Dukagjin and Merdita, as well as in parts of Dardania and old Serbia before the Roman colonization in the Balkans and to a large extent also after (cf. above, pp. 17B18). Thus, the fact that the substratum of the Rumanian language was Proto-Albanian indicates that the ancestors of the Rumanians essentially lived in the same region, mainly south of Niš (the northernmost area of the Albanians). The many correspondences between Albanian and Rumanian also regarding the Latin elements (cf. above, pp. 56, 60B63) indicate that the two populations lived together during many centuries of Roman domination. The territory they occupied in these centuries must have been adjacent to the territory where Greek was spoken. Considering the territory of the Albanians and that of the Greeks, the Vlachs must have been living in this period in parts of Macedonia, in the region of present day Prizren and Skopje, and towards the north possibly as far as the region of Niš (Naissus).

They add that : Among the Balkan languages, two groups may be distinguished (cf. above, p. 86): there is a CORE AREA, with languages that show most of the typical Balkan features (Balkan languages of the first grade) and another, Randzone, (Balkan languages of the second grade). Bulgarian belongs to those of the first grade, and, within this idiom, the Macedonian dialects are most typical. Thus, the core area was Macedonia, adjacent to the territories of speakers of Greek as well as of Albanian, both Balkan languages of the first grade. Dalmatian, once spoken in the northwest of the Balkan peninsula, is not considered to belong to the Balkan Linguistic Union. One would believe that Serbian belongs to the most typical Balkan languages. Its speakers came to the Balkan peninsula in the same era as the ancestors of the Bulgarians, in the 6th century AD, and have been living there since that time, for about one and a half millennium. In spite of these facts, Serbian, spoken north of Macedonia, shows the features of the Randzone, it is a Balkan language of the second grade. Regarding Rumanian, the situation in the first millennium AD must have been very different from that of today. Considering the present situation, one would not assume many Balkan features in Northern Rumanian. But this would be the case also given the theory that Rumanian was formed on a large territory, both north and south of the Danube, one would, in any case, expect fewer Balkanisms in Rumanian than in Serbian. Moreover, there should be regional differences in the number of typical Balkanisms, for example, such as found in Bulgarian, with most of the Balkanisms in the Macedonian dialects and less towards the northeast. The corresponding situation in Northern Rumanian would be that the southern dialects show more or less pronounced Balkanisms, while Rumanian spoken farther to the north and the northeast, particularly north of the Danube, would contain fewer, if any, of such elements. Such is not the case, however. Instead, in its entire present-day territory from the Timok valley in the south-west to Moldavia in the north-east, Northern Rumanian is uniform regarding its Balkan traits. Moreover, the RUMANIAN LANGUAGE BELONGS TO THE BALKAN LANGUAGES OF THE FIRST GRADE, TO THOSE IN THE CORE AREA, MACEDONIA. IT WAS CONSEQUENTLY FORMED IN (PARTS OF) MACEDONIA AND ADJACENT AREAS, in close contact with the speakers of Albanian, Greek, and Bulgarian. How exact their areas can be traced is a question for future resarch. The ancient Vlachs were a mobile population, and the picture of their territories as shown by the numerous Northen Rumanian placenames and geographical names preserved in the Serbian and Bulgarian toponymy (cf. above, pp. 29B33) in the central and northern parts of the Balkan peninsula is the result of early migrations.

Now how this fits in the general picture of this genetic study? Are Albanians a recent population of Adriatic basin or they can be considered an old mediterranean population? Are Albanians a south Balkan population, or a North balkan population, which has migrated recently (10th century AD) in Albania? If they were in Carpathian area, shouldn't they (Albanians) have more genetic impact from Slav and Goth and even Finnish populations (like some this study evidenced). Regardless of linguistic arguments, seeing those differences in data between different populations and their geographical territory, can we say that Albanians in great part were an autocthoneous (I mean since from Bonze age) population of Albania area? Can you give an opinion on that? Aigest (talk) 17:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I am fully aware of the complexity of the matters, however, the author conclusion is something like Nevertheless, tree reconstruction and principle component analyses allow the distinction between Balkan-Carpathian (Macedonians, Romanians, Moldavians, Ukrainians and Gagauzes) and Eastern Mediterranean (Turks, Greeks and Albanians) population groups. These results are consistent with those from classical and other DNA markers and are compatible with archaeological and paleoanthropological data. or during the study claiming that As is seen, the first principle component, which explains 24% of the variation in allele frequencies, tends to separate the western Mediterranean (Turkish Cypriots, Greek Cypriots, Turks, northeastern Greeks, Albanians, Albanian Aromuns) from the Balkan-Carpathian populations (Macedonians, Macedonian Aromuns, Romanians, Moldavians, Ukrainians), being the first characterized (absolute correlations greater than 0.63) by high frequencies of B65 and FXIIIB Alu insertions. From what I've seen from genetic data of Albanian population and related countries (Greeks, Southern Italians, Lebanon etc, it can be considered as Southern Balkan (EV13) and a Mediterranean (J2B) population, am I right? On the other hand, If the Albanian population was generated from some tribes living in Northeast Balkans up to 5th century AD their genetic composition should have been different, am I right? I want also to ask you about this claim .. the Albanians show considerable genetic distances with all the populations; however, 14 pair of comparisons between the Albanians and the European populations show a high level of identity. This is explained on the basis of the number of mutational differences between nonidentical haplotypes..what does it mean in more clear terms? Why this genetic distance and the same time a high level of identity? Hope you don't get bored from these questions:) Aigest (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, "genetically speaking" can we say that is "not so" probable that the actual Albanian population was generated by some tribes living in Northeastern Balkans up to the first millenium AD which later came to the area of Albania in 10th century AD? Aigest (talk) 21:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Aigest; it is wrong to say that "in pre-Roman times Albanians lived....". Because, Albanians, as an ethnic group, did not exist in pre-Roman times. They formed in the Middle Ages. The 'biological ancestors' of those who became Albanians lived in the Balkans, according to DNA. I am hardly shocked with this finding. The only thing we can further argue is that the particularY-DNA pattern of Albanians is more of a "southern Balkan" type characterizsed by E1b1b and J2 rather than I2 and R1a. But even this is tenuous, becuase Y-DNA data gives false impression of seggregation and well defined Y-DNA territories. As Andrew pointed out, autosomal DNA gives the full picutre; and this picture shows no clear patterns - only that populations next to each other are most similar. Slovenski Volk (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

They definitely were not around in Roman times, that is why they first appear in the 11th century. We are talking about ethnic groups, not biological groupings. See [12] Slovenski Volk (talk) 21:18, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I am aware of ethnic groups. Maybe I was expressed wrong. My curiosity was about the human material in which this identity was formed. The first scenario is these populations lived there in historical times and from that human material later identities were formed (whatever were those in the area Illyrian, Thracian, Macedonian, Roman, Byzantine and in the end Albanian). Or the second one, some Black sea tribes entered Adriatic basin in 10th century AD and assimilated the existing population of the area. Also if we can find out if this population exerted this assimilation through cultural dominance (in this case it shouldn't have changed too much the genetic patrimony of the existing population, but how much?) or through a population boom (in this case they might have changed the the genetic patrimony of the existing population, but how much?). My interest and question is that could we find those answers in genetic material represented nowadays among Albanians? Aigest (talk) 09:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Damn it:). What's the point of making studies with obvious results like, people in the area are similar to their neighbors and blablabla ?:) Some should move on and give some real contribution to the mankind history. Aigest (talk) 09:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah:), but it's been for more than 10 years that they are doing such studies. In the meantime it's sad to grew (more) older but not (more) wiser:). Hopefully something comes up within our lifetime. It is becoming marketing issue now, to leave the best product for the very end. First you get some funds confirming earth is round, than you get some more funds confirming the previous study, this mean some sales on worthless products. Than you keep going like this for years (decades now:)) and hopefully in the end you "find out a result" (the best product) people were waiting from you in the first place. In the meantime you get your "salary" and a good pension in the end:). I am excluding Semino, Pericic, Crucciani, Battaglia et al. these guys do have results, but come on, shouldn't they make other studies? It's 2011 now Aigest (talk) 11:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Intelligences

You added a link to Nous on the Intelligence (disambiguation) page on the basis that "Intelligences" was a concept in medieval cosmology, but the word "Intelligences" isn't in the Nous article. If it's appropriate there, you might like to add that information to that article, and perhaps convert Intelligences from being a redirect to Theory of multiple intelligences into a dab page for the two meanings. I've added a hatnote to the "Theory of ..." article to get people to the dab page, so they'd get to your link eventually at present. PamD (talk) 09:17, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

WP:STALK

Andrew, just because I disagreed with you on a policy talk page, please do not use that as an opportunity to stalk me to an article page and oppose me there, as you have just done at the Khazars article,[13][14] and previously did at WP:RS/N. You never edited the Khazars article until you showed up just now to revert my restoration of the word "German". And, of course, at WP:RS/N, you hadn't edited the page since March 10, 2010 (and then almost exclusively to defend the jogg website), when you got into a conflict with me on my talk page on August 31, and then suddenly and mysteriously showed up at RS/N on September 5, and proceeded to oppose my position in a half dozen threads, while avoiding essentially all others. And before you respond with incredibly lengthy denials about doing either, please realize that the evidence is in the article edit histories; I've gone through them quite carefully. Don't show up at another article you've never edited before to suddenly oppose me. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

No Jayjg, your post on my talk page is nonsensical. Your accusation of stalking is clearly a "clever" case of stalking and abuse in itself. You have been trying to interrupt and distort discussions I am in involved in on policy talkpages and RSN for a long time. I am not going to be pushed out of contributing to Wikipedia by you. I have every right to take part in policy discussions and RSN discussions. You can not claim I have been posting things about you except in cases where you had already posted things about me. I am not as interested in you as you seem to think. I do watch Khazars now because I became I aware of the fact that it is an article where genetics arguments come up, and you know very well I have watched such things for a long time. Obviously I do however watch editing by you on anything to do with genetics articles particularly carefully, because in that type of article you have a clear and known history of disruptive and dishonest POV pushing, and abuse of your position as an experienced editor and admin. (I say "dishonest" because for example you clearly pretended for quite a long time that you had no history of any connection to editing disputes involving the JOGG.) On the other hand, if you are really going to claim that fixing a broken link and correcting the logic of a few sentences was bad for the Khazars article then state your case on the article talkpage. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:18, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, you've made over 50 posts to my talk page, and still haven't gotten the knack of making accurate, non-abusive posts. I don't take this personally or hold it against you; however, it's clear that you are simply unable to make calm and factual posts on my Talk: page. To spare both of us this activity which is obviously distressing for you, please don't post on my Talk: page again. And by that I mean, don't post there, or restore any posts, and then when I remove the post, comment about this fact endlessly, or use it as evidence of some sort of abuse on my part. Rather, just don't edit my Talk: page again, in any way. I really think you'll be happier once you stop doing so. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:03, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Easy to see why my reply has been moved by you off your talk page back here Jayjg. Always thinking of the facts that might come up on the next topic ban. You only have yourself to blame for the inevitable conflicts you get into.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Language and Genetics

Does this sound probable? I have full pdf article if you can't read this. Bests Aigest (talk) 09:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I was more interested in the next pages arguments where that scholar maintains that the first dichotomy of the tree as a branch leading to a trichotomy of Albania, Greece and Armenia, corresponding with what remains of the first spread of farmers from Anatolia, and another branch leading to all the rest, reflecting later farmers expansions starting from the Ukraine, that gave rise to an early split into the Indic-Iranian branch going east and south, and the European branch, with the splitting sequence in time Celtic/Italic-Germanic/ Balto-Slavic.. Now how is this related with EV-13. IMHO in the light of demic fusion model (which will be mainstream very shortly if not is actually as such), if EV-13 originated in Anatolia (where PIE speaking populations were at that time) than it should have been more present in other IE populations (even Indians), but the fact that its highest values are in Albanians and Greeks (("the first (IE speaking) farming migrants" from Anatolia to the Balkans)) and less in other IE speaking populations indicate that this mutation happened in the Balkans. Am I right? Aigest (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but the question is, who introduced it in the Balkans? If (according to those scholars) the first farming migrators to the Balkan were ur-Albanian and ur-Greek speakers which mean IE speaking populations, that EV-13 should have been present in other IE populations in Anatolia at that time (6500 BCE) Logically these populations were far more numerous than proto Albanians and proto Greeks and IMO it is difficult to explain the later absence in these populations. This text "From a linguistic distance matrix whose elements are the fraction of words with the same lexical root for any pair of languages and its transformation to make the matrix elements proportional to time of differentiation, we were able to reconstruct a linguistic tree. The root of the tree separates Albanians from the others, with a reproducibility rate (the error in reconstructing the tree) of 71 percent. The next oldest branch is Armenian. The simplest interpretation is that the language of the first migrant

Anatolian farmers survives today in two direct descendants, Albanian and Armenian, which diverged from the oldest pre-Indo-European languages in different directions but remained relatively close to the point of origin." gives a fair picture of first Anatolian farmer movements. I mean, reassuming the data:

1. PIE speaking populations were in Anatolia region some 9000 YBP
2. Some ur-Albanian and ur-Greek speaking farming populations split that period and entered Balkans(Renfrew) They were the first farmers in Balkan
3. The rest of PIE split in Indo-Iranian and pre-Celtic, pre-Balto-Slavic, pre-Italic, pre- Germanic (grouped together)
4. The later group entered Europe from Ukraine (Gimbutas)
5. Balkan population have highest frequencies among IE speaking populations
6. Greeks and Albanian have highest frequencies among Balkans while its frequencies are low among Armenians
7. according to our data EV13 spread to Europe from the Balkans (Battaglia, Crucciani etc)
8. more you go from the Balkans it becomes more rare.

Assuming the after the first split (Alb, Gre, Arm from the other PIE) the rest of the PIE speaking populations were in greater numbers than those 3 separated tribes it looks more plausible that it generated in Balkans it grew in numbers there, consequently entered Europe and the values in Liban and Palestine are due to East Mediterranean very intensive contacts between those civilizations (Greeks, Minoans, Cretans, Phoenicians, and later) since antiquity until medieval times. That scheme would be more logical and fits linguistic, historical and archaeological arguments. Keep in mind that we are not speaking about a minor component, but a big component of genetics of IE populations and IMO is less prone to "genetic disappearance" jokes:) What do you think? Aigest (talk) 12:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

In your personal opinion, was Ev13 introduced by IE speaking population with the farmer advance, or it was already present there before IE speaking populations entered in the area? Which are the odds? Aigest (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I had to make the guesses:). Anyway why does Battaglia contradict Cruciani? Just looked at it and I found that in his study there are samples of M78* among Albanians in Albania and Albanians in Macedonia. Aigest (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Language Spread and phylogenetics

Interesting article here. I think the guy is right about speaker numbers. While here there is something interesting on phylogenetics. What do you think? Rgds Aigest (talk) 11:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought demic diffusion from Middle east is pretty much mainstream now I mean Most Modern European Males Descend from Farmers Who Migrated from the Near East but even other recent articles on the same topic. Leaving classical linguistic arguments apart (horse and wheel) from genetic and archaeological point of view, which is the argument that you think contradicts Bellwood claims? AFAIK the major population input and boom was in Balkans during Neolithic. Since that up to the beginning of Greek documentary sources we find no major population influx in the Balkans. While in the beginning of XX century an invasion of northern IE tribes was the dominant theory for different ethnos in the Balkans (Illyrians, Thracians, Greeks) that view was challenged and modified. For the Illyrians an autocthonous model was proposed in 1960' and now is mainstream. Greek appeared to have been spoken in Greece before that it was thought (beginning of II millennium) and even for Thracians a slow transition of cultures is proposed. Since none of these latter processes show a major population influx, if Bellwood is right in his argumentations (and I think he has a point on that) some Renfrew scheme for PIE is needed. Aigest (talk) 08:05, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Philosophy

Hello, philosophy; philein=love -- ophi=serpent. It´s not fringe; the Bible inverted the worship of the serpent and she became evil=wisdom. It´s not sophia! The Bible is not fringe; serpent and wisdom only later became synonymous. 64.40.98.123 (talk) 22:32, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

The Bible does not contain any speculation about Greek etymologies, but the Greek writers who first used the word did explain it themselves.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Genetic history of the British Isles

I've been thinking it is a fairly good candidate for deletion, for a number of reasons. To start with the article was created for Oppenheimer and Sykes, not for real studies. Then by including Ireland all these British and English and Welsh and Scottish nationalism issues artificially become Irish problems, discounting the recent local matter of Northern Ireland. Last time I checked the Republic of Ireland belonged to the EU.

Do you think it should be nominated? And if so, how phrased? Ideally the opinions of the best authorities here at Wikipedia should be sought. I don't think we are required to keep articles simply because the material in them has become dear to a few people in shaping their world views. DinDraithou (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

My answer to that is that the very existence of the article is inhibiting. It is called Genetic history of the British Isles, but in order to improve it we have to focus on the Genetic history of Europe. DinDraithou (talk) 17:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give it a chance. But I think it has its future in no more than a template. We have to ask ourselves what does it ultimately say? DinDraithou (talk) 03:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Genetic ancestry in Rio Grande do Sul

Hello, Andrew.

Maybe you will be interested in this issue. In Brazilians of Spanish descent, this paper, by Brazilian geneticist Andrea Rita Marrero, is used as a source for the information that "Gaúchos [...] are mostly descended from Spanish ancestors, and less from Portuguese". As this runs contrary to mainstream knowledge about the region, it would be interesting to understand what exactly are the bases for the paper's conclusions. Another paper by the same scientist (in collaboration with others) gives more details about the subject. Could you please help us with this subject?

Thanks in advance. Ninguém (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

New Study

Hi Andrew. We've had before an interesting discussion at Origin of Albanians article and now you are my kind of guru:) here in wiki regarding genetic problems. Could you please give an opinion (please in a more basic level understandable to us common mortals:) over this new study regarding differences between two main groups of Albanians (Gegh and Tosks). I am interested especially to opinion related to the topic of the origin of Albanians and the genetic section (article of wiki). Please don't give credit to the inserted comments of the blogger. I couldn't find the article free elsewhere and I assume its authentic. Many thanks in advance Aigest (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Y-STR variation in Albanian populations: implications on the match probabilities and the genetic legacy of the minority claiming an Egyptian descent is the name of the study. Aigest (talk) 15:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I've read Dienekens blog but unfortunately people there were more concerned in Macedonia-Greece issue than the actual study. Apart two short comments on the topic (actual differences between Gegh and Tosks while Tosk represent a typical southern Balkan population this was somewhat different for Geghs) the others were useless. Thank you very much anyway. Best regards Aigest (talk) 07:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Potency and actuality

Hi there. You came to the right place all right but I don't know if I'm in the mood right now. My previous philosophic efforts were destroyed by idiots a number of times and had to be rebuilt. It has been VERY difficult to write philosophy on WP. I put it aside for the time being. There's nothing really very hard about potency and actuality. The problem is, it is the foundation of metaphysics and metaphysics is espoused by the Catholic church. Thus the great revolt of science against the dogmas of the mediaeval church were also a revolt against metaphysics. So, to assert anything metaphysical you first of all have to take on science. That being done, you have take on the Protestants and the Jews, both of whom stood in the line of fire in the great wars against the dominance of the Catholic church. So, you don't really know what you are in for. To top it all off, the nostalgia of metaphysics remains. All those people who oppose church metaphysics have decided to write their own metaphysics in the same or similar language. They are very interesting but all mainly in error, which they would immediately see if they entertained for an instant the idea of understanding church metaphysics. In our camp we have only the Catholics (and not all of them) and a few renegade protestants like me. I started by accident with a few metaphysics books used by Bostem College and sold subsequently at yard sales. I did not understand a word. 20 years later it started to make some sense. No Catholics would talk to me about it nor would I have been interested in what they had to say. I did it the hard way. These events lead me to think you may be going to have a difficult time. I'm not saying I've given up. Let me think about it. I'm not in any mood to deal with any more jerks. For the topic, we start with what a thing is right now, whether known by the senses or by the intellect. That is an actual thing. However that is not all there is to it. All things change, you may have heard. Even as you look at the things they are changing. That was embodied in the concept of becoming, to gignesthai, elucidated so aptly by Aristotle (who was not Catholic). A thing somehow becomes something else (big mystery - what exaclty is it?). However, what it becomes is limited. You cannot somehow change other metals into gold (at least you could not). What is it that determines what it can become? Well, in the compositional solution, the object contains two components everywhere interpenetrated, that which determines what it is now (the act) and that which has not act itself but determines what acts it shall have in the future, when it has become. That is the potency. As it turns out, act is mainly form and potency is mainly matter. Science does not believe in form, but then they cannot explain why some molecules grow in the ground and others run around the place. The Greek word for form was energeia. Only actual things have it. Well, that's enough. You're on your own. Let's hope it does not take you 20 years. Metaphysics is not dead, it is not obsolete, it has not been supplanted, it has not been replaced and it does not conflict with science. It all depends on how you put it together. When you get down to quantum physics where things appear out of and disappear into nothing, science is by far more inexplicable than metaphysics. Caution - don't try to do world history in a sentence. You will never have any peace on WP. Treat each of these ideas with the respect it deserves. Let the public make up its own mind, if it may be said to actually have one. This is about that best I can say at this point, and look at how long it took me to say it. I will give it some thought. Can't promise.Dave (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

True WP is full of problems and the difficulties of philosophy should only produce a marginal increase. However, you can't summarize without understanding and you can't understand without philosophizing. It's a question of presentation. What am I summarizing? In order to say, I have to know. Unfortunately there is no one out there to tell me. I have to do it myself. Otherwise I am only learning words by rote. Once you understand you can easily find references to back up what you say. If you don't have understanding you don't even know what to say, so how can you summarize what you don't even know? But, empirically speaking, by experience, I found that people love to attack philosophy articles. I used to have a roommate who was a genius. I got no idea what happened to him. We used struggle over the engineering problems and worry about not having time to do them because we always started with the problems. He would just lay around reading the theory and when he was done do the problems in a few moments even while we were figuring out how to do them. He always said, once you understand, the problems are nothing. We didn't listen to him. We weren't geniuses. I used to know a chemistry student who was learning the general wave equation. Anyone can memorize that stuff. What he had to do was know how to derive it. True as a technical writer I've often had to write about stuff I did not understand but only at the superficial level. I spent a lot of time in libraries trying to understand stuff. I dare say, WP is full of bunk written by persons who did not know what the h. they were talking about but figured they could write credibly about it anyway. I've spent a whole careen here correcting their stuff, and you are not asking their help, but mine. We have to have article rescue committees go around and try to save some of that stuff. I believe what WP means is that you cannot contribute original thought. That is, you can't devise new solution and new concepts to solve old problems. I don't see how you can write anything at all without trying to understand the old problems and their old solutions. If you could we might just as well set the 1000 monkeys down and have them type until it all comes out right at random, but then who on earth could be the judge of that? The WP mandate against original work does not get you out of thinking. Sorry. After Aristotle they had nothing to do really but go over the old problems and offer different minor solutions. St. Thomas was the last great leap forward. Then nothing. The end. To move forward you have to get out of the old box and do something else. Plenty else was done, but again, I'd avoid writing the history of the world in one paragraph, unless you just want to chant, nada, nada, nada, nada .... Let me take another look. I will offer some some trial comments in the discussion. Can't promise.Dave (talk) 02:33, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Genetic history of the British Isles

Per our previous exchanges - I'm delighted that you've been able to make a start on improving this article. As I said before, I'm by no means an expert (or even a well-informed amateur) in this field, but I hope I have quite a lot of expertise in areas that might come in handy as this article develops (such as copy-editing, but hopefully others). Over time (and I can't give any commitment that I'll be able to prioritise work on this article) I will try to develop more specific expertise, and input to the article. For the time being, what I think is important is that the article flags up clearly - and differentiates between - what is now known for (almost) certain about the history, what are the areas of unresolved controversy, and what past hypotheses have now been rejected. Two other initial thoughts. Firstly, should we (or have you) put any of the deleted material on Oppenheimer and Sykes into their biographical articles, or articles on their books? Doing that should help obviate any criticism that relevant referenced material is being deleted. Secondly, what do you think of this blog post as an overview? I'm not suggesting it as a source, obviously, but I'd be interested to know whether you think it gives a fair overall summary, or not. Regards, Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Taleb

For people advanced enough. I would maybe suggest you read Nassim Nicholas Taleb. Stochastics is the future of philosophy. No matter how many people attempt to marginalize him he has science on his side and he is correct, not perfect, not flawless, no saint, but a most brilliant man. This is the future. I think Fooled by Randomness and Black Swan are everything now. Apophaticism is not nihilism no matter how the ignorant will portray it, it is to operate without "knowing" to operate by "pistis". As there is no separation in consciousness (nous) and it's activities (the energeias of noesis or the noetic) faith is of primacy, knowledge what we did and how that is stored in our brain and called memories. It is the most advanced for the most advance it is the science of empirical skepticism. Its science is called stochastics its further study is called gnosiology (i.e. hesychasm).LoveMonkey (talk) 16:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

JOGG Summary

Andrew, I just looked at your summary of the JOGG discussion, and I believe you've mischaracterized my position. I did say that it was a hobbyist journal largely, but I also said that in some instances -- and I named some -- that it would be acceptable. Moreover, you've characterized me as a relatively 'new user,' which is obviously far off the mark. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS

Let me put it this way. If I'm defining the meaning of a Greek New Testament word in an article, should I use a lexicographical WP:RS, or can I use whatever I like?--Taiwan boi (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Greeks in Scotland?

Hi Andrew. It's been a few months. Having seen things change enough to my satisfaction concerning R1b and so on I eventually lost interest. But recently I have found myself researching the lineage of the maternal grandfather of a certain very famous performer and encountered something quite interesting, where your expertise might help. First have a look at Talk:Lady_Gaga#Not_Full_Italian_American. and Clan Bissett. After demolishing the alleged French Canadian origin of the family in West Virginia, who are obviously Scotch-Irish, I looked around a lot and found that the learned tradition in Ireland was that the family were originally Greeks who came over during the Norman conquest. Now see User:DinDraithou/Byset family. I haven't added it yet but one scholar has actually considered this plausible based on their arms and the disputed etymology of the name itself, which may only look superficially French. Possibly they were Byzantines.

Then I discovered this.[15] So they have some E1b1b1. What do you think? I made sure to mention you in the discussion and it is possible millions of people, most of them teenagers and discards of (the) hoi polloi, will eventually view your response. Sorry. After creating the article I will at some point do a section on the genetics of the surname/family and hope you will contribute there as well. Thanks. DinDraithou (talk) 22:27, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Please help

Hello, I'm a Belgian citizen and I found you in the "Belgium" page, I would like to ask you some help concerning a wikipedia article about the artist ben heine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ben_Heine. Please let me know how I can do to improve this article or to have someone do it as I really find it difficult to edit stuff properly on Wikipedia, I can't do it myself unfortunately... (and each time I tried to improve it in a neutral way, someone removed what I added) --Caring-writer (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been following Ben Heine's work for many years, may I mention that the current article is a text that appeared on Wikipedia in 2006 and that reflects what he did in that time only. He has totally changed and evolved. He has made many more things since then. He is a globally appreciated artist and he needs a better bio. There aren't so many criticisms about him. The article isn't fair, it REALLY NEEDS MANY UPDATES and contains strong mistakes defamation against the artist. Many well known national newspapers and magazines have talked about him and his work recently (see a non exhaustive list here below), none of them is even mentioned in the current article. He has stopped making political art since more than 2 years. Please just consider these publications, most of them are a few days/weeks old only... Daily Mail, The Telegraph, El Pais, Repubblica, De Standaard... These AREN'T blogs!!! These are national papers read by millions of people.

Please have a look to the following list of errors in the current article (which I detailed here below, and which I'll mention to several other admins/contributors if needed and if not taken into account).

List of important errors in the current article about Ben Heine:

1) Ben isn't a political artist anymore, it's true he used to make political art accusing Israel of "crimes against humanity", but he stopped making such illustrations in 2009 and wrote an "[[open letter to the Jewish Community]]" in December 2010 apologizing about his past behavior (saying it was the influences of his studies in Journalism. Parts of his final assignment talked about the "limits of freedom of expression in cartoons"). In this letter, he also firmly condemned the infamous Iranian Holocaust cartoon contest and said he was feeling deeply guilty about it. Here is the letter translated in English (Google translator). Ben doesn't deny the Holocaust, he visited Auschwitz Birkenau and feels sincerely sorry about the past suffering of the Jewish community.

2) Ben doesn't contribute to these websites anymore: DonQuichotte, MWC News, Rebelion, Tlaxcala, Irancartoon, Syriacartoon, Arabcartoon, Persiancartoon, Karikaturevi, Azercartoon, Dessin d'humour, National Caricaturist Network (Ben has explicitly asked these sites to remove all his illustrations from their platforms)

3) Ben doesn't collaborate with "La Libre Belgique" Anymore. Only 4 or 5 of his old cartoons have been published in this newspaper (in 2006 and 2007).

4) Pencil Vs Camera is not just a "little detail" in his biography, it is a creative and original series that has generated some huge reactions on the web and in the written press (see a non exhaustive list below). It is such an innovation that several TV channels around the world have also talked about it: Globo - Brazil, TV Brussel - Belgium, and many others). Same for "Digital Circlism"...

5) "Pere Ubu" (one of the main newspapers that clearly accused Heine in Belgium has removed the accusation from their site

6) Most of the links in the "notes" section (expecially the url's linking to images on Ben's blog) do not work...

7) Ben removed from his sites (blog, flickr, Deviantart and official site) all his cartoons accusing Israel or any Israeli person (Avigdor Lieberman...).

8) He didn't participate "recently" to the Kruger Workshop. This event happened in 2006!

So, I really hope you'll aknowledge that 90% of the article is based on inaccurate facts... I would like to see a real neutral article about that artist.

List of recent notable publications with Ben Heine works and biography:

WEB:

- DAILY MAIL (UK - February 2011) - EL PAIS (Spain - February 2011) - THE TELEGRAPH (UK - February 2011) - NEWSLITE (UK : February 2011) - BBC Brazil (Brazil - February 2011) - LA REPUBBLICA (Italy - February 2011) - TV BRUSSEL (Belgium - January 2011) - CNN Turk (Turkey - February 2011) - POP PHOTOGRAPHY: (USA - January 2011) - SHORT NEWS (Germany - February 2011) - ESTADAO (Brazil - January 2011) - HET NIEUWSBLAD (Belgium - February 2011) - DE STANDAARD (Belgium - February 2011) - OBVIOUS MAG (Spain - January 2011) - WEBOVINY (Slovakia - January 2011) - ARTE SPAIN (Spain - January 2011) - Accessible Art Fair (Belgium - 2010) - TrendsNow (France- February 2011) - CHINA DAILY (China - 2010) - DUSHI (China - january 2011) - ABDUZEEDO (Brazil - 2010) - Other publications in 2010

PRINT:

- Pop Photography (USA - January 2011) - Het Nieuwsblad - 1 (Belgium - 2011) - Het Nieuwsblad - 2 (Belgium - 2010) - Ca m'intéresse (France - 2010) - Daily Mirror (Great Britain - 2010) - Bookedi (South Korea - 2010) - Digital Artist 1 - 2 - 3 (China - 2010) - Belgian Embassy in London (February 2011) - Photoeidolo (Greece - 2011) - Šeimininkė (Lithuania - 2010) - View Mag (Germany - 2010) - Shambala Sun (Canada - 2010) - Imagine Demain le Monde (Belgium - 2009) - La Libre Belgique 1 2 (Belgium - 2009) - Moonwalk Through Art (The Netherlands - 2009) - Rolling Stone (USA - 2008) - 3e Millénaire (France - 2011)

My suggestions for a new neutral article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ben_Heine#Article_about_Ben_Heine_needs_many_updates_and_corrections_.28please_read.29 (it would be good to add some of the above references, feel free to add more)

Caring-writer (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Y-chromosome vs Y chromosome

Hi Lancaster,

Well... I was going through the older and more neglected GG related articles and noticed that there were many cases of both Y-chromosome and Y chromosome used in the same article. Often, they are being used in the same paragraph. That is tacky to say the least.

The only reason for Y chromosome seemed to be that someone was linking to the Wikipedia Y chromosome article and did not take the time to do the Y-chromosome code. The trend in published studies from the last year seems to be favoring Y-chromosome, Y-chromosomal, and Y-DNA. So I figured that if it was going to be one or the other (and it should) then Y-chromosome was the way to go.

Rebekah --RebekahThorn (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

If you want to talk about it, send me an e-mail. Last I checked the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:HGH exalted do not own Genetic Genealogy or Wikipedia editing rights. Rebekah --RebekahThorn (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

E1b1b route

Hello! I've noticed your Image:E1b1bRoute.png. I believe it is a good map. But I think that it doesn't indicate well the origin of E1b1b in Ethiopia. The new topology of the tree has important implications concerning the origin of haplogroup E1b1 ( Trombetta 2011). The diversity of E1b1b in Ethiopia is clear, specially in E1b1b2 and also with E1b1b1d, E1b1b1f, E1b1b1g, E1b1b1c1 and E1b1b1a1a2. The map can be updated. Regards --Maulucioni (talk) 15:02, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Trombetta 2011 supports that the origin of E1b1b and E1b1 is in Eastern Africa. Not in North-Eastern Africa (Sudan) as your map shows. As I told you, the most probable origin of E1b1b is Ethiopia, isn't it?. If you don't make any objection, I can fix it. --Maulucioni (talk) 21:58, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

close proximity with Tuscans and Italians generally

Andrew, Since your english and your argumentation are better than mine I would let you argue with Jayg but consider that I fully agree you on this case. If you need my support I will give you as much as I can.Michael Boutboul (talk) 11:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I would like to keep this sentence or to find a compromise sentence.Michael Boutboul (talk) 10:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Theory of Pashtun descent from Israelites

Does the genetic section of this make sense to you? It's been copied over to Pashtun people as well. Thanks Dougweller (talk) 13:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism from IP 41.141.135.21 on E1b1b1b (Y-DNA)

Hi, could you have a look at page E1b1b1b (Y-DNA), there is an ip 41.141.135.21 that does a lot of vandalism on this article. He seems to be the same "Moroccan berberist" that was blocked on the Berber page a few months ago. Galician77 (talk) 19:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

noticeboard protocol

In order to contribute to a discussion (Spanky and Our Gang & sources) on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard which was started a week or so ago and has been archived, may I cut & paste that archived discussion to the top of the current list on that noticeboard and then make my comments, or should I add my comments to the discussion in its archived location. Can you answer this for me on my talk page please? Emhale (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hi Andrew hope you are fine. I've noticed that you have participated many times in WP:RSN so I would like your opinion on an author here. Regards Aigest (talk) 08:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The author Andromaqi Gjergji (female) has studied for history, has a PhD degree in ethnology and is an academic, published (her main topic being popular costumes, Albanian, Illyrian, Romanian)1, she is cited by others 2, used by Illyrian experts on the topic of Illyrian clothings 3, 4 estimated by other scholars 5,6,7, 8 and her methodology is appraised as multidisciplinary and her results as NPOV 9. Does this author fulfill WP:RS requirements according to your opinion? Aigest (talk) 07:43, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hg I

Hi Andrew, I got your emails, and replied to them, but am not sure if you got my replies. Yes, the map is now couple of years old and do not doubt that some new terminologies/ clades might have been found. However, I am not sure what exactly these chaps are referring to in asking in if I am going to 'update' the map. WHat needs to be updated ? And what web forum discussion is this coming from exactly ? Slovenski Volk (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not really followed this up. I'll keep trying to help this person get in contact with you.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Haplogroup J1c3d (Y-DNA)

Andrew, could you help me deal with User:JohnLloydScharf on Haplogroup J1c3d (Y-DNA). We're in an edit war and he won't communicate. --Victar (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The man is simply absurd. He even refutes that L147.1 is downstream to P58. There's no reasoning with him. --Victar (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

You are now engaging in personal attacks. I have not refuted L147.1 is downstream to P58. I have said it is not proven with any resource. In fact, neither of them have been sourced for age. JohnLloydScharf (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks

JohnLloydScharf (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, we could use your input on the subject. --Victar (talk) 05:33, 30 July 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.wikipedia.org/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) 23:37, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Can you tell me what you are arguing to be inadequate, if my comment is requested?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a detailed answer which I gave you a resource to. I have described this example in detail with reference to it.
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) 05:19, 1 August 2011 (UTC)