User talk:Bathtub Barracuda

Warning about fringe, NPOV, replacement of a 2017 source for genetics with a 1999 source, etc.

I don't think there's any point in going into long detail and I don't have time, but you made a pov/fringe mess. The whole Haplogroup X is completely obsolete and your statement about Kennewick man misrepresents him completely. Why didn't you read our article on him which says "Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide." and gives an uptodate description of his DNA? Doug Weller talk 10:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's article on Kennewick Man:

In June 2015 the study team announced they had concluded their DNA analysis, finding that "Kennewick Man is closer to modern Native Americans than to any other population worldwide." They said that genetic comparisons show "continuity with Native North Americans" The same study confirmed the mitochondrial haplogroup X2a and the Y-chromosome haplogroup Q-M3 of Kennewick Man, both lineages are found almost exclusively among modern Native Americans.

From Wikipedia's article on mtDNA haplogroup X:

Haplogroup X has been found in various other fossils that were analysed for ancient DNA, including specimens associated with the Alföld Linear Pottery (X2b-T226C, Garadna-Elkerülő út site 2, 1/1 or 100%), Linearbandkeramik (X2d1, Halberstadt-Sonntagsfeld, 1/22 or ~5%), and Iberia Chalcolithic (X2b, La Chabola de la Hechicera, 1/3 or 33%; X2b, El Sotillo, 1/3 or 33%; X2b, El Mirador Cave, 1/12 or ~8%) cultures.

Haplogroup X has been found in ancient Egyptian mummies excavated at the Abusir el-Meleq archaeological site in Middle Egypt, which date from the late New Kingdom and Roman periods. Fossils excavated at the Late Neolithic site of Kelif el Boroud (Kehf el Baroud) in Morocco, which have been dated to around 5,000 years old, have also been found to carry the X2 subclade.^[1] This relative absence of haplogroup X2 in Asia is one of the major factors used to support the Solutrean hypothesis during the early 2000s. The Solutrean hypothesis postulates that haplogroup X reached North America with a wave of European migration emerging from the Solutrean culture, roughly 20,000 years ago .^[2] a stone-age culture in south-western France and in Spain, by boat around the southern edge of the Arctic ice pack. Since the later 2000s and during the 2010s, evidence has turned against the Solutrean hypothesis, as no presence of mt-DNA ancestral to X2a has been found in Europe or the Near East. New World lineages X2a and X2g are not derived form the Old World lineages X2b, X2c, X2d, X2e, and X2f, indicating an early origin of the New World lineages "likely at the very beginning of their expansion and spread from the Near East".^[3]

A 2008 study came to the conclusion that the presence of haplogroup X in the Americas does not support migration from Solutrean-period Europe.

Mentions of mtDNA and Y-DNA as an useful tool to reconstruct the genetic history of native americans and discard the absurd belief that persists well into the 21th century that some ancient migration from Europe into the Americas is the source of pre-columbine populations. mtDNA haplogroup X in particular has been used in the past as it's cladistics help us discard such possibility soundly. The sources I provided on my edits were absolutely valid and recent, no one on this website has the potesty of discarding one source over the other due to age unless the source has been contested, even further when later studies replicate the results found and build up a body of data. What this seems to me is the refusal by very "emotionally engaged" people on such absurd beliefs af the Soultrean hypothesis with an agenda to eliminite all desambiguating data on pre-Beringian sources for Native American genetic ancestry. Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

POV and falsification of references

Please stop reverting incorrect information at Ancient North Eurasians. Although I would like to give you the benefit of a doubt, as most of us (myself included) were ignorant of the rules here when we started out as editors, your persistence in falsifying the references leads me to suspect your edits may have a malicious and subversive intent. If you have anything to link ANE ancestry to blond hair genetics in Native Americans, please post it at the talk page so the community can review that. 1800s theological reports are not acceptable references. Please note that very high standards have been set through recent consensus on the placement of genetic studies next to statements about the genetic ancestry of ancient or living human populations. Most genetic studies are not admissable to Wikipedia. Even if you found a link from 1999 or even 2019 suggesting that blond ANE individuals made their way to North America, that does not necessarily mean it will be accepted at Ancient North Eurasians. Go read WP:MEDDATE and WP:SCIRS for a good reminder on how to contribute to Wikipedia.

On another note, please understand that basal haplogroup X and the Altaic/Beringian X2 are East Eurasian haplogroups and that any reference to them as being "Caucasoid" (or Mongoloid, for that matter) will not be being tolerated on this website. Your contributive liberties on Wikipedia may be severely restricted if you continue to use it to brodcast your fantasies as if they were facts. Respectfully, Hunan201p (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

You make yourself look stupid, there is no point in suggesting that Native Americans exhibited at any point blonde hair as this has not been confirmed by the fossil record, the idea of such mention is to uniquely provide an upper limit to the estimates for the origin of such feature, there is no logical process which implies or arrives at the conclusion that native americans themselves have to be blonde for they to reference a feature that was satellital to one of their founding populations. There is no such thing as "high standards" for the article, specially when there is mobb behavior enforced by people sustaining ridiculous beliefs through dogma and selectively and arbitrarily discarding perfectly good evidence by refering to it as "fringe" (the idea of a 2015 study being fringe and that a 2016 source is "not quotable by not being printed" while being published on the journal's reference notes themselves is both hilarious and sets a terrible precedent for.

"please understand that basal haplogroup X and the Altaic/Beringian X2 are East Eurasian haplogroups and that any reference to them as being "Caucasoid" (or Mongoloid, for that matter) will not be being tolerated on this website."

Absurd dogma and completely irrelevant accolate, its irrelevant where X2 haplogroup comes from, it's parent clade is inequivocally West Eurasian and steems from the greater Bosphorus region, its presence in Native Americans must be explained through cladistic reconstruction, its impossible for a subclade to generate itself independently of its pleisomorphy, the idea that this is even debateable shows how uninformed you are on what Population Genetics constitute. Jennifer A. Raff, Iosif Lazaridis and other leading figures in archaeogenetics have already addressed this.

"Removed orginal research by individual who is apparently unaware of genetics research on the East Eurasian basal haplogroups X and X2a."

Hilarious for you to think that you hold some form of authority of judgement, should I remind you that any self percieved authority percieved through dogma doesn't necessarily translate to 1 year old sockpuppets. Thanks for completely destroying an article in which I've been working for months, removing almost half of the text. Should I revoke my common's license over just so that you can finish doing as you please and completely misrepresenting the body of data on Archaeogenetics? Bathtub Barracuda (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)