Talk:Afontova Gora

derived allele info[edit]

The information is listed in the supplementary information p.50-51, as I had already added to the source tag. Search for the Chapter header: " Supplementary Note 2: Phenotypically informative markers in hunter-gatherer populations (pages 50-52)". Stop reverting without actually putting effort into checking the source. Anon claimed to have read the entire paper and supp; clearly, this is not true. Fraenir (talk) 11:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The derived allele of the KITLG SNP rs12821256 that is associated with – and likely causal for – blond hair in Europeans 4,5 is present in one hunter-gatherer from each of Samara, Motala and Ukraine (I0124, I0014 and I1763), as well as several later individuals with Steppe\ ancestry. Since the allele is found in populations with EHG but not WHG ancestry, it suggests that its origin is in the Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) population. Consistent with this, we observe that earliest known individual with the derived allele is the ANE individual Afontova Gora 3, 3 which is directly dated to 16130-15749 cal BCE (14710±60 BP, MAMS-27186: a previously unpublished date that we newly report here)

First, WP:AGF. Accusing other editors as being "liars" is a clear violation of WP policies. And stop edit-warring. I have read the source, as i said. I did not see p.50-51, since the source you cited has 30 pages. And i still see nothing in the cited source to support the sentence you added. I even googled it and the results redirected me a forum, anthrogenica. 185.86.150.27 (talk) 11:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Add this "quote" that you mentioned above as footnote at least. 185.86.150.27 (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to Assume good faith yourself. You're the one who first accused me of lying, despite me having linked a source, then having linked a specific page cite, etc. I never called you a liar - just said you didn't check the sources properly. It's in the Supplementary info section, and I've given you the quote directly from the source. You're the one assuming bad faith by thinking that I'm making this all up. Stop wasting other editor's time with your nonsense. There's already a page reference given. There's no need to cite the whole quote. Fraenir (talk) 12:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop personal attack or you will be reported. This is the last time i am warning you. And no one accused you as "liar". Stop distorting my comments. As i said, the source has no p.50-51. And yes, the quote is needed to solve all this mess, since i still can't find those so-called pages. 185.86.150.27 (talk) 12:20, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been following the study @185.86.150, you can find it in Supplementary Information, from a study that came out yesterday. Here is appropriate link http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2017/05/09/135616.DC1/135616-1.pdf (it can be found under Supplementary Note 2 on page 50) I hope this helps. 103.194.27.18 (talk) 12:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. This makes it plain that, the problem here is user Fraenir's "link" which did not support the sentence. The link of the source should be changed. 185.86.150.27 (talk) 12:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Zubova paper is about the Afontova Gora 3 fossil[edit]

1. No, you're clearly wrong - you've linked to the exact same source that I used, which is Zubova 2015.Your source link is "https://plu.mx/plum/a/?doi=10.1016/j.aeae.2016.02.014", which is the exact same DOI in the source that I used in this article "Zubova, A.V.; Chikisheva, T.A. (December 2015). "The Morphology of Human Teeth from Afontova Gora II, Southern Siberia, and Their Status Relative to the Dentition of Other Upper Paleolithic Northern Eurasians". Archaeology, Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia. 43 (4): 135–43. doi:10.1016/j.aeae.2016.02.014"

Here's your version

The Afontova Gora 2 specimen has been found to lack the defining dental characteristics of East Eurasians or the so-called "Mongoloid" race. Yet it also lacked markers of paleolithic Western Eurasians. Indeed, "...the closest parallels are found in the dentition of the Upper Paleolithic child from Listvenka, southern Siberia."

Here's the version that's currently in the article - it's clearly already mentioned, and I paraphased the relevant sections from the paper instead of just block quoting from the paper like you did.

Researchers analyzing the dental morphology of Afontova Gora 3 concluded that the teeth showed distinct characteristics with most similarities to another fossil (the Listvenka child) from the Altai-Sayan region and were not western nor eastern.[17] Afontova Gora 3 and Listvenka showed distinct dental characteristics that were also different from other Siberian fossils, including those from Mal'ta.[18]

2. You're mistaken and confused about the source. Afontova Gora II is the site at the Afontova Gora complex where the fossils were found. There are 2 primary human fossils of interest; Afontova Gora 2 and Afontova Gora 3. The Zubova paper was published in 2015 to discuss the dental morphology of the new Afontova Gora 3 fossil, which is the fossil that includes the mandible and multiple teeth. It is also the fossil that was discovered in 2014, which is what the abstract of Zubova refers to as the fossil specimen being studied in this paper: "The article describes the teeth from a mandible found in 2014 at Afontova Gora II" (from the abstract). You need to read the current article and the paper more carefully - you're clearly mistaken here. Fraenir (talk) 09:02, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple violations of Wikipedia policy on Original Research[edit]

All of your insertions of West Eurasian violate Wikipedia's policy on WP:OR. These are primary sources, so if it's not supported by a direct quote from the primary source, then it violates Wikipedia's policy on WP:OR#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself". None of these sources mention the term "West Eurasian", which you have inserted multiple times into the article. All 3 insertions of Western Eurasian violate Wikipedia's policy on Original Research. We can probably infer that this is true, but if the source doesn't state it directly, especially when it's a primary source, then we cannot use it. It's not our job to interpret and analyze primary sources.

1. your version: "The Afontova Gora 2 specimen has been found to lack the defining dental characteristics of East Eurasians or the so-called "Mongoloid" race. Yet it also lacked markers of paleolithic Western Eurasians." This source never mentions West Eurasians. It only references Mongoloid vs. Caucasoid, but Caucasoid is not the same as Western Eurasians. SOURCE "Eastern markers typical of modern Mongoloids are few in Afontova Gora teeth: ... which are rather rare in both Caucasoids and Mongoloids."

2. your version: "When compared to Mal'ta 1, the Afontova Gora 3 lineage apparently contributed more to modern humans and is genetically closer to West Eurasians and Native Americans. Again, this source never mentions West Eurasians. Here's what's actually stated in the SOURCE "AfontovaGora3 appears to derive from a lineage ... that contributed more to some later human populations than did the lineage leading to Malta1 itself ... and Native Americans share more alleles with AfontovaGora3 than with Malta1." Again there is no mention of West Eurasian in the source.

3. your version: "Afontova Gora 2 also showed more genetic affinity for the Karitiana people and all West Eurasians versus Han Chinese." Your edit summary claims that you "Broadened scope of claim reflected in source cited", but it's clearly untrue. Again, West Eurasians is not mentioned in the relevant sourced line. Here's what's actually stated in the SOURCE "we find that AG-2 shows close similarity to the genetic profile of MA-1 on a PCA and is significantly closer to Karitiana than to Han". It's not surprising that this paper does not mention West Eurasians in this context, since the paper is mostly concerned about the relationship between AG-2 and Native Americans. Fraenir (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that without OR, wiki would shrink to NEARLY NOTHING.2A02:8108:9640:AC3:B4F8:A449:AFD1:1FF6 (talk) 06:01, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Describing population genetics[edit]

It is misleading to write, "AG-2 belongs to a now-rare Y-DNA haplogroup, Q1a1 (also known as Q-F746 and Q-NWT01).", because the SNPs in brackets are the primary results while the tree description might change with every new discovery - see the nearly every year changing trees at ISOGG!!! HJHolm (talk) 06:05, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Confused date corrected[edit]

In the dates cited for AG3 from Mathieson et al. (2018), BP was confused with BC what I corrected.HJJHolm (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]