Talk:Caucasus hunter-gatherer

Wow. Another fantastic Wikipedia article created by obviously well-informed, well-educated people with degrees in the field they're writing about. Just out of curiosity, are there any textbooks which discuss "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers", or is this a term the Wikipedia community has simply made-up. You don't need to answer that question. I already know the answer. The majority of this article relies upon a one-page BBC news article written by a reporter who clearly didn't understand the implications of the data with which he was presented. This is the primary source for this article? -some reporters one-page interpretation of a peer-reviewed paper? Seriously? Because that reporter clearly knew what he was talking about, right? And blogs? REALLY? Wikipedia is citing random peoples' blogs now? Because that's definitely a reliable source. Oh, and the answer to the question I posed earlier, is, "no, the term 'Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers' is not in any textbook, because the Wikipedia community did just make the term up". How do I know this? Well, I have a Bachelor of Science in anthropology, minors in Archaeology and GIS, I've been around the world on archaeology digs, contributed to peer-reviewed papers, taught classes, and I'm currently working on my Masters. AND . . . I had never heard of the term "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer" before, until reading it on Wikipedia 2 minutes ago. Congratulations Wikipedia. I've spent the last decade and a half of my life focused exclusively on anthropology and archaeology, and you managed to stump me yet again. Good job Wikipedia. Wikipedia is now creating its own original content based on blogs and random reporters' 1 page summaries of peer-reviewed papers. But teacher, why aren't we allowed to use Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F99A:C427:DADA:EDCF (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just located the paper this entire Wikipedia article is based upon.
1. Don't cite the 1 page BBC News summary of the peer-reviewed paper. Just cite the paper.
2. "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers" is a term originated by the authors of that paper. Outside of that paper, the term doesn't exist. This is not an established idea. The purpose of peer-reviewed work is for the data to gain a wide viewership among the membership of that field, so that a consensus can be made regarding the interpretation of the data presented. The authors of that paper decided, "for the sake of creating a focal, memorable reference, we'll call this group . . ." THE AUTHORS OF THIS PAPER ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE CALLING THIS GROUP BY THAT NAME. The fact that this group of authors created a name for something they've hypothesized and submitted for peer-review does not make it established fact. The authors of this paper created a hypothesis, collected data they believe supports their hypothesis, organized it into a paper they believe draws a correlation between their hypothesis and a conclusion, and submitted it for review among other established professionals in their field. THE NAME IS A NAME MADE-UP SIMPLY AS A REFERENCE POINT WITHIN THE PAPER. There is no widely established agreement or corroboration within the field that there's group which will be widely referred to as "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers", meaning this work hasn't gone beyond the hypothetical stage yet.
3. "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (CHG) is the name of an anatomically modern human genetic lineage . ." - NO, IT'S NOT. ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING? Not only did the authors of this Wikipedia article misunderstand how the peer-review system functions, but they clearly don't understand how genetics functions and the meaning of the term "genetic lineage".
4. This article is just nonsense and should be scrapped. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F99A:C427:DADA:EDCF (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanna say, all caps and bragging about your degree are .... not convincing. Textbooks are WP:TERTIARY, so, actually, we do not like to rely on them. What we are interested in here is WP:SECONDARY sources, which, besides the BBC article (I mean, I'd preferred secondaries from science journals), are what we should be looking at.--Calthinus (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citations to blogs... should be removed however.--Calthinus (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Upon inspection it appears that Eurogenes is just being used as a place of public access to Lazaridis' paper -- which is fine from our perspective since it is actually Lazaridis' paper we are interested in. --Calthinus (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding I have a Bachelor of Science in anthropology, minors in Archaeology and GIS, I've been around the world on archaeology digs, contributed to peer-reviewed papers, taught classes, and I'm currently working on my Masters. AND . . . I had never heard of the term "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer" before, until reading it on Wikipedia 2 minutes ago. - clearly your studies so far weren't about this topic. But I'm glad Wikipedia serves it's function: making scholarly knowledge widely available to a broader audience and enlighten them. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[@Calthinius] Right, except I don't need to be "convincing" because you can verify every single point I made in under 2 minutes, right? Simply find the term "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers" in a source which doesn't directly reference the same paper cited in this article. Right? You clearly missed the point I made. EVERY SECONDARY SOURCE simply reverts back to the same paper. This term has been used in a total of 2 papers, and all the secondary sources either cite those 2 papers, or simply cite one another. What's the purpose of including a secondary source which simply cites your own primary source? You may as well just write your own paper about the primary source, and then just cite yourself. Crxp, you can around any obstacle that way. "Well, as I cited myself in the paper I wrote about this other paper." Great, you're interested in secondary sources. But don't use secondary sources which simply cite your primary source. Thats just using redundant information in an attempt to fatten-up the reference section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk • contribs) 6 february 2020 (UTC)

[@Jj] You absolute freaking nitwit. Literslly, every single reply you've left, would beinterpreted by evey single professionsal inn the field as, "wow, what a complete twit. Is this guy 12 years old?"

And by the way genius, when you say "clearly your studies . . " which degree field do you think this topic falls within? I'm an anthropologist who's spent 18 months out of the last 15 years traveling the world, supervising archaeology digs sponsored by universities. My "studies" weren't about this topic? Do you have a high school diploma? I know this topic so thoroughly that I can guarantee this "topic" doesn't exist. It's nonsense. It's idiocy. Want proof? GO TO GOOGLE SCHOLAR AND FIND A SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED PAPER WITH THIS TERM IN THE TITLE. CITE THIS TERM IN ANY TEXTBOOK. OTHER THAN THE 2 ORIGINAL PAPERS CITED IN THIS WIKI ARTICLE, FIND THE TERM "CAUCASIAN HUNTER-GATHERER" ANYWHERE OTHER THAN INCIDENTALLY (WHERE 'WESTERN' AND 'HUNTER-GATHERER' HAPPEN TO BE JUXTAPOSED) Can't do it, can ya? How do I know? I did all those things. My education is lacking because I'm not familiar with a term the Wiki community read about in a peer-reviewed paper and decided, "know what, let's make this a thing". That makes my education lacking? My man, you'd get laughed out of a classroom. This topic isn't just nonsense, it literally doesn't exist. The fact that you think my expertise in this field is lacking based upon the fact that you've made something up only demonstrates that your degree is pre-school graduation. AND FOR THE LOVE OF GOODNESS, CAN YOU SPEAK LIKE A NORMAL, RATIONAL ADULT. "Clearly your studies . ." Know how I know you don't have a degree? No one with a degree has ever referred to someone else's degree field as "clearly your studies". And I don't have "my studies". ANTHROPOLOGY IS THE STUDY OF HUMANKIND. ARCHAEOLOGY IS THE STUDY OF MAN'S PHYSICAL CULTURE. ARCHAEOLOGY IS ONE OF THE 4 BRANCHES OF ANTHROPOLOGY. My studies? What freaking planet do you live on? You think "my studies" are lacking because I've never heard of this nonsense before? NO ONE HAS EVER HEARD OF THIS NONSENSE BEFORE. The fact that it was submitted in a peer-reviewed paper 5 years ago means NOTHING. HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF PAPERS GET SUBMITTED FOR PEER REVIEW E V E R Y Y E A R. I've contributed to numerous papers. Half the time, I wasn't actually present as the data was being collected. When you go to "Jones et. al", know how many of those listed contributors actually too part in the data collection? Out of the 20 or so names listed, 5 of them actually collected the data. The rest are just people who got paid to sign their name. How do I know this? I've signed my name as a contributor to tons of crxp I had no part in, but read over once, said "yeah, that sounds pretty legit", and deposited the check. It doesn't mean anything. It's something you addend to your CV. Adding "I can do 100 jumping jacks" means just as much. Seriously my man, I didn't think you were a genius to begin with, but if you had any understanding of the peer-review process, you'd know you're naive as all get-out. After the first 3 to 5 listed authors of any peer-reviewed paper, ignore the rest of the names. They didn't participate in the data collection. They're beta contributors getting paid to add their names for the sake of credibility. The fact that I had to explain this to you demonstrates that you clearly don't work in this field (or any other academic field). The fact that this research team created this term as a qualifier in a peer-reviewed paper and you think it's somehow meaningful in the anthropology/archaeology community, SAYS WAY MORE ABOUT YOUR EDUCATION THAN IT DOES MINE.

THE REASON THIS TERM ISN'T IN ANY TEXTBOOKS AND DOESN'T APPEAR IN THE TITLE OF A SINGLE PEER-REVIEWED PAPER AVAILABLE ON GOOGLE SCHOLAR ISN'T BECAUSE THE REST OF US ARE IGNORANT, IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE DELUSIONAL.

ASIDE FROM 2 PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS AND THIS WIKI ARTICLE, THIS TERM IS NON-EXISTENT (NOT BECAUSE YOU DOUBT MY EXPERTISE IN THE FIELD, BUT BECAUSE YOU CAN EASILY VERIFY FOR YOURSELF THAT NO ONE IN THE ACADEMIC/SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY HAS EVER HEARD OF THIS TERM).

THIS TERM WAS INVENTED BY THE AUTHORS OF THE 2 PEER-REVIEWED ARTICLES CITED IN THIS WIKI ARTICLE, AND HAS NO RELEVANCE IN ANTHROPOLOGY OR ARCHAEOLOGY OUTSIDE OF THOSE 2 PAPERS

Obviously the point I was making was that if this information was widely accepted within the anthropology and paleoarchaeology communities, it would be in textbooks. Do you think that deliberately missing the point I was making makes you seem intelligent? Do you think pretending to be unintelligent wins debates? OBVIOUSLY, Wikipedia does not require information to be in textbooks. Are you really trying to say that's the point you thought I was making? Or do you think the point I was making was that if this information was widely accepted, it would probably be in textbooks and included in students' curriculum? Are you simply pretending to be unintelligent, or did you really need me to explain this point to you?

And genius, when someone cites their academic credentials, they're not "bragging". When I cited my credentials, I was stating that I know this field a thousand times better than you do, and I can tell you, as someone who is a virtual expert compared to you, you're talking nonsense, and I can demonstrate where and how. Genius, see how these comments are unsigned and anonymous? To "brag" to someone, you kind of have to have something to gain from it, right? I'm not bragging you shining star of brilliance, I'm telling you that I know this field a million times better than you do, your logic and reasoning is so far beyond flawed that you can't find a single academic source to agree with you beyond the source you originally cited, and you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

"Clearly your studies . . ." As far as you're concerned, I wrote the freaking book on paleoarchaeology. Know how I know thatyou don't have a degree in anything? No one a post-secondary degree (or even a bachelors of . . . anything) has ever uttered the phrase "clearly your studies". Are you in high school? No educated person on the planet has ever said to another educated person "clearly your studies . . " Is this seriously how you think adults speak? "Clearly your studies"? Are you serious? Did you get this from a Charlie Brown Christmas special?

THERE'S NO "CLEARLY YOUR STUDIES". THIS IS WELL ESTABLISHED IN ANTHROPOLOGY/ARCHAEOLOGY. You'll never find a reputable anthropologist/archaeologist to support your idea. IT DOESN'T EXIST.

GO TO GOOGLE SCHOLAR AND SEARCH FOR "CAUCASIAN HUNTER-GATHERER". HOW MANY RESULTS CAME BACK WITH THAT TERM IN THE TITLE? NOT A SINGLE ONE, RIGHT? Why do you think this is? (It's because no one has even conducted a study of "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherers"). If anyone had ever prepared a study of this concept and submitted it for peer-review, do you think they might have included the name of the idea in the title of the paper? And yet, of the literally millions of academic papers submitted for peer-review and available on Google Scholar, NOT A SINGLE ONE HAS THIS TERM IN THE TITLE. Seriously, I'm sorry, but do you all think you sound like the rational perspective in this argument?

It blows me away that someone can sit here and tell you that I'm as close as you're ever going to come to an expert in this field, I can point-out the flagrant flaws in your logic and verification methodology, and I can demonstrate to you in a way that you can easily verify on your own (simply go to Google Scholar and see how many peer-reviewed papers you can find with "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer" in the title), and yet, no matter how rationally and logically I try to explain the ridiculousness of this Wiki article, rather than simply doing the research yourselves, you're going to attack me. Pretty sure I know who all of you voted for in the last election.

You're talking gibberish. You're talking nonsense. And you're too unintelligent to know it. THIS ENTIRE ARTICLE RELIES ON 4 SOURCES, AND 3 OF THE 4 SOURCES REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SOURCE. Are you intellectually disabled? I've spent 15 years plus my college career working in this field. Prior to reading about it on Wikipedia a few hours ago, I HAD NEVER HEARD THIS TERM BEFORE. I guarantee, it's not because my education is lacking. It's because yet again, people with the intellectual capacity of my cat are creating Wikipedia articles based upon scientific data they don't have the education or intellect to understand. I guarantee I am better versed in this field than you and all of your inbred descendants could ever hope to be. "clearly your studies . . "? IT'S NOT "MY STUDIES". I HAVE A DEGREE IN THIS FIELD, HAVE WORKED IN THIS FIELD FOR 15 YEARS, AND AM WORKING A MASTERS. ARE YOU 12? Seriously, are you an adult? When in your life have you ever spoken to another adult and addressed their degree as "your studies"? Seriously, are you developmentally slower? When people point-out clear flaws in your logic and say they know your logic is flawed, it's not because they're bragging. It's because they're demonstrating that they know what they're talking about when you clearly don't.

The singular reason I am not familiar with this term, is because IT DOESN'T EXIST within the scientific or academic fields of anthropology or archaeology. WHEN I LIST MY CREDENTIALS, I'M NOT BRAGGING (if you thought that's what I was doing, it's only more evidence that perhaps your reasoning ability is not what you believe it to be) I'M SAYING THAT IF THIS TERM WAS WIDELY ACCEPTED IN THESE FIELDS, I'D KNOW, BECAUSE THIS IS MY DEGREE FIELD, AND THE FIELD I'VE BEEN WORKING IN FOR 15 YEARS. GET IT? Holy goodness. Know what the Dunning-Kruger Effect is? I bet you don't, but you're going to claim you do regardless.

You found a term that was used in 2 peer-reviewed papers. When I cited the fact that the term is NOT IN ANY TEXYBOOKS, I wasn't suggesting that a term has to be in a textbook to make it eligible for Wikipedia. CLEARLY, I WAS SHOWING THAT THIS IS NOT A WIDELY ACKNOWLEDGED TERM IN THESE FIELDS, EVIDENCED BY THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT INCLUDED IN ANY TEXTBOOKS IN THESE FIELDS. Are you all deliberately being unintelligent?

TO SUMMARIZE: WHAT YOU THINK OF ME IS IRRELEVANT, SO DON'T WASTE YOUR TIME. THIS TERM IS NOT IN ANY TEXTBOOK ON THE PLANET, NOT IN THE TITLE OF ANY PEER-REVIEWED PAPERS OUT OF THE MILLIONS OF PAPERS AVAILABLE ON GOOGLE SCHOLAR, AND HAS ONLY BEEN CITED CORRECTLY TWICE IN THIS ENTIRE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. I KNOW THIS FIELD BETTER THAN ALL OF YOU COMBINED, AND YOU'VE CREATED A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE THAT'S GIBBERISH, AND YOU KNOW IT, AND YOU'RE LYING THROUGH YOUR TEETH IF CLAIM OTHERWISE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:F99A:C427:DADA:EDCF (talk) 07:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IP: To all this nagging and bragging a short answer: if you want to say that "WP is crap", that's fine and we'll take it as the bottomline of your rant. If you care about content quality in WP, then go ahead and participate; if you want to participate, act collegially and don't shout and collectively insult the editors that happen to read your rant. If the page has the above-mentioned issues, we'll take care of it in due time. –Austronesier (talk) 09:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but genius, saying that I know what I'm talking about, isn't bragging. It's supporting my assertion. And how you are going to fix it? You've made-up a topic that doesn't exist. How are you going to fix it? This term isn't in the title of a single peer-reviewed paper (again, you can verify that on Google Scholar). It's not in any textbooks. No one working in the fields of anthropology or archaeology has heard of this term which you've elaborately defined, other than the authors of the 2 papers you cited in which the term is actually used. Wikipedia has invented a topic which doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia and 2 peer-reviewed papers out of millions. How are you going to fix it? All the links to all the other pages you all have created citing all these terms that you've taken directly from those 2 papers, which aren't used anywhere else in these fields, how are you going to fix that? You all have created dozens of paged claiming it's valid anthropological and archaeological information, when it's very obviously not. How are you going to fix all of that? Some student is going to discuss these topics you've created in a paper for his class, and his instructor is going to leave a note on the paper saying, "WTF are you talking about". None of these terms you're all elaborately defining is in the title of a single peer-reviewed paper, meaning no one's ever conducted research in these topics. These terms aren't in textbooks. No one who works in these fields has ever heard of these terms. Know what "junk-science" is? You're creating it. How are you going to fix it? I'm genuinely interested, how are you going to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 18:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Austronesier, and to the IP editor, we welcome participation in Wikipedia, but please could you bear in mind that Wikipedia is a collegiate effort, and with no fixed deadlines. An editor removed your first comments here because of the way they were phrased. I put them back because I believe you have raised valid points, but I would ask you to have a read of this link: WP:AGF before commenting again. It is essential that we understand that everyone here is attempting to make the pages better. We understand, also, that pages can contain errors and they often do. The purpose of these talk pages is to establish a consensus view of what is correct, and you won't build a consensus for your view by ranting at everyone else. I have hidden your latest comment from view and another editor may choose to delete it. I won't reinstate it if they do, because nothing there helps us understand your concerns with the page -- Sirfurboy (talk) 11:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my concern with this page: it's deliberately spreading disinformation about a subject I've dedicated a combined total of almost 2 decades toward. There are literally 2 peer-reviewed papers which actually use this terminology. Otherwise, it doesn't exist. Based-upon those 2 papers, these people have created an elaborate network where each page does nothing but correspond with the linked pages, all supported by the same 2 articles. These terms aren't in the titles of a single peer-reviewed paper. They not in textbooks. They're unknown among actual anthropologists. There are literally dozens of Wikipedia articles citing these 2 lone papers, and other than those 2 papers, these terms don't exist. Here's the problem: the people creating all these pages are either the authors of those 2 papers, or they're students working beneath the authors of those papaers. They're doing this in an attempt to add validity/credibility to those 2 papers. These people are using Wikipedia to further their own personal interest. As I said before, go to Google Scholar and see how many peer-reviewed articles you can find with "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer" in the title. Know how many? ZERO, because this term doesn't exist in academia. It's something the authors of 2 peer-reviewed papers made-up, and now there are dozens of Wikipedia articles about it. They're using Wikipedia to serve their own personal interests while spreading disinformation to students who, unfortunately, often use Wikipedia as a starting point. There are going to be numerous college students out there who use this information in their work, and they're going to have to have their instructors sit them down and explain how the peer-review process works and why you should never trust Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Makes me wonder what you actually did those two decades. The origins of CGH in the steppe-populations is a hot issue at the moment. James Mallory (archaeologist), The Impact of Genetics Research on Archaeology and Linguistics in Eurasia, Russian Journal of Genetics volume 55, pages 1472–1487(2019):

Just as the genetic evidence for a steppe homeland appeared to weaken a popular theory (among archaeologists more than linguists) that the Indo-European languages spread from an Anatolian homeland with the spread of farming and the AF genetic signature, a new complication arose: the steppe signal that is found from Ireland to the Yenisei comprises an admixture of EHG and CHG. Such an admixture would appear to involve two deep sources that should have developed separately over the course of thousands of years; in short, there is no reason to believe that the two components spoke closely related languages or even belonged to the same language families. Such a model suggested that Proto-Indo-European may have originated out of the merger of two very different language families, a theory that had once had been suggested by several linguists but had never attained anything remotely resembling consensus [62]. If one does not accept an “admixture language” then the natural question remains: did Proto-Indo-European evolve out of language spoken by EHG or out of language spoken by CHG? So genetics has pushed the current homeland debate into several camps: those who seek the homeland either in the southern Caucasus or Iran (CHG) and those who locate it in the steppelands north of the Caucasus and Caspian Sea (EHG).

Kristian Kristiansen (archaeologist), proposes that the Maykop served as an intermediary. See Kristiansen, Kristian (2020), "The Archaeology of Proto-Indo-European and Proto-Anatolian: Locating the Split", in Serangeli; Olander (eds.), Dispersals and Diversification: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Early-Stages of Indo-European, BRILL:

The characteristic “steppe” profile is a mixture of EHG and CHG/Iranian ancestry. The Caucasus genetic profile lasted from the Eneolithic until the Late Bronze Age,and is shared by groups belonging to both Maykop and Kura-Axes cultures. Interestingly, they also harbor Iranian Chalcolithic ancestry, which would seem to correspond to the cultural interaction zone leading to the formation of the Maykop culture at the transition between the 5th and 4th millennium BC. Also, the appearance of the “steppe” ancestry could be identified already during the Eneolithic in the Samara steppe.

David Anthony (archaeologist), proposes a CHG-migration from south of the Caspian sea to the steppes. See Anthony, DW (2019), "Archaeology, Genetics, and Language in the Steppes: A Comment on Bomhard", Journal of Indo-European Studies: 1–23:

EHG averaged about 50% of the ancestry of the Yamnaya populations. The other half of Yamnaya genetic ancestry was Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer (CHG). The CHG mating network occupied the Caucasus Mountains, parts of eastern Anatolia, and the western Iranian plateau. How and when a CHG population entered the steppes and came to contribute half of Yamnaya genetic ancestry is an open question, and crucial for Bomhard’s hypothesis [...] The variety of CHG that constituted more than half of Yamnaya ancestry could have been the Mesolithic/Early Neolithic variety, like Hotu Cave or Kotias Cave, not yet admixed with Anatolian Farmer ancestry. If the CHG element in Yamnaya came from a non-admixed CHG population of this kind, they could have walked into the steppes from northwestern Iran/Azerbaijan at any time before about 5000 BC—before admixture with Anatolian Farmers began.

Now, if you don't have any meaningfull contribution to make, please stay away. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you smoking something? The Mallory paper includes a legend because he doesn't expect people to know what those terms mean. The Kristianson paper NEVER USES THE TERM "CAUCASIAN HUNTER-GATHERER" once, in the entire paper, and again, in that paper, THEY VERY CLEARLY DEFINE WHAT THE ABBREVIATIONS MEAN BECAUSE THEY DON'T EXPECT OTHER PROFESSIONALS IN THE FIELD TO BE FAMILIAR WITH THOSE ABBREVATIONS. And the Anthony paper doesn't use the term "caucasian hunter gatherer" anywhere either. Seriously, are you smoking something? Your argument is to post links to 3 papers, 2 of which never use the term "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer", and then argue that in papers where the authors had to explain the abbreviations because no one would have know what they were talking about if they didn't provide the explanation? YOU THINK THIS IS A VALID POINT? In only 1 of those papers was the term "caucasian hunter-gatherer used", and all of the authors had to include explanations of the abbreviations because they're aware that no one currently uses those abbreviations. How do you think this supports your premise? SERIOUSLY, I'm dying to know, what was the point you thought you were making? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 20:09, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, EVERY SINGLE-PEER REVIEWED PAPER CREATES ITS OWN ABBREVIATIONS SO THAT IT'S NOT WASTING ENDLESS TEXT SIMPLY REITERATING THE SAME TERMINOLOGY. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THOSE ABBREVIATIONS ARE WIDELY USED. It means the authors created the term "Eastern Hunter Gatherers" for their paper, knew 99% of the professionals reading their paper wouldn't know what EHG meant, so they explained to their readership that EHG is an abbreviation for Eastern Hunter-Gatherers. THE FACT THAT THEY HAD TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE ABBREVIATION MEANS, SHOULD MAKE IT VERY OBVIOUS TO YOU THAT THESE ARE IN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM TERMS WIDELY USED IN ANTHROPOLOGY OR ARCHAEOLOGY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holy smoke. Also, the Kristianson paper you excerpted, CITES THE ANTHONY PAPER YOU EXCERPTED. It's building on the work of Anthony et. al. And yet, those 2 papers somehow managed to use the exact same terminology. I'm dumbfounded. I just can't imagine how this could be. I guess you must be right. Boy, you sure is smarter than I is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 20:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@IP: First, you claim the concept "HAS NO RELEVANCE IN ANTHROPOLOGY OR ARCHAEOLOGY", but when Joshua Jonathan shows you that it is cited in other peer-reviewed publications, does that diminish its relevance? Some more then: doi:10.1038/s41467-018-08220-8, doi:10.1126/science.aar7711. –Austronesier (talk) 20:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't show anything. How do you all not get this? It's not cited in other peer-reviewed papers. Did you read my comment? The term is only on one of the papers he excerpted, ONE, AND IT'S THE SAME ANTHONY PAPER I MENTIONED BEFORE. Joshua whoever didn't demonstrate anything. In the 3 papers he excerpted, one of the papers simply cites the other paper, and they all had to explain the concepts they discussed because no anthropologist or archaeologist would had any idea what a "Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer" is. Have you read the papers? They have to explain what the terms and the abbreviations mean because otherwise anyone reading the paper would say, "I've never heard of that before and they didn't explain it, so I guess I'm done". And up til now, you've still only cited 2 peer-reviewed papers. Citing a paper that simply references something you've already cited in another paper is not how citation works. THE FACT THAT THAT TERMINOLOGY HAS BEEN USED IN 2 PEER REVIEWED PAPERS MEANS NOTHING. There are millions of peer-reviewed papers in archaeology and anthropology. Having the same terminology show-up twice in half a decade means nothing. Joshua whoever didn't demonstrate anything. He excerpted 3 of the papers already listed in the reference section, and none of those papers supported his premise. This is like having a debate with 6 year-olds. How do you not see the flagrant flaws in your logic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 21:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my God, I can't do this anymore. Did you look at the citation for "EHG" in the link you just posted? IT REFERS BACK TO THE SAME ANTHONY PAPER (Anthony is cited 7 different times in that paper, right?). Seriously? what the hxll is wrong with you all? I can't do this anymore. This has to be one of the least educated groups of people I've ever interacted with. You guys win. Put whatever you want on Wikipedia. Every single article or paper you can find which simply refers back to the same 2 Anthony and Mallory papers- stock-up on 'em geniuses. Go to town. You found a concept discussed in 2 peer-reviewed papers, and then 10 things that simply refer back to those same 2 papers, and now you're off and away. Debating a group of people who have no expertise in this field, no understanding of the peer-review process, proper citation, or anything academic in general. The Dunning-Kruger Effect at its finest. Good luck, and remember boys, keep citing sources which simply refer back to those papers, and eventually, you'll be able to begin simply citing one another. Eventually, maybe Wikipedia can simply your citation exercises. Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:35DA:CF93:BD2A:F686 (talk) 21:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously missed my point: The origins of CGH in the steppe-populations is a hot issue at the moment. There's an actually debate going on about that topic, between renowned scholars. Yet, you even flatly deny that those three publications use the term "CHG/ Caucasus hunter-gatherer," while they are in plain sight. You're not only unfamiliair with a topic debated in recent research, you're also unable to comprehend texts and adequately engage in a discussion, not to mention your manners. It's like talking to a man on a bright sunny day, who says "Where's the sun, I'm getting soaking wet from the rain!" Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: David Anthony (2019), Ancient DNA, Mating Networks, and the Anatolian Split, in: Matilde Serangeli, Thomas Olander (eds.), Dispersals and Diversification: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Early Stages of Indo-European, BRILL, p.29. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:35, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

PS: did our well-informed teacher ever notice that the article is about "Caucasus hunter-gatherer," not"Caucasian hunter-gatherer"? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed this user's lengthy response and blocked them for one week for repeated personal attacks. That behavior is unacceptable and won't be tolerated. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 02:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK guys, look, this is genuinely going to be my last contribution to this topic. Like I said before, I can’t waste any more time on this. So, here are some things which will be advantageous to your understanding of the subjects discussed in this article, all of the related articles, and all future articles you’re involved-in, which rely heavily upon peer-reviewed research in general.

Guys, for the love of goodness, there are no “hot topics of debate among renowned scholars” in anthropology. This is a meaningless, nonsensical phrase. Look, I know that in your minds, you think you’re seeing what you believe to be conflicting data in different peer-reviewed papers. This has nothing to do with any “debates”. There are no debates in peer-reviewed papers. Here is a very simple proof of that: how is funding for research projects obtained? Through grants allocated from Universities and Scientific Institutions (like National geographic). Research teams have to submit what’s called a “grant proposal” which basically says why they think this research will be meaningful, why they think it will be successful, the feasibility of collecting the the desired data, duration estimates, cost estimates, notability estimates (how well this data will integrate with other research) etc. In a grant proposal, you’re trying to convince someone to give you money to fund your research. OK, so, if something like a debate were ongoing within peer-reviewed papers in peer-reviewed journals, if someone wanted to receive a grant to conduct field research which they hope will disprove someone else’s research, what do you think would be the response of grant institutions? “Hasn’t similar research already been performed?” “Yes, but I want to disprove that research.” “OK, but what if you can’t? Then we’ve just given you $100,000 and all you did is spend 5 years collecting redundant data which simply verified the original research.” And even if that weren’t the case, no one’s going to waste years in field research trying to disprove someone else’s research, because if they can’t do it, they’ve just wasted years of their life simply proving that someone else was right. And yes, it literally takes years to produce a single peer-reviewed paper. Peer-reviewed papers don’t debate one another. Period. This is without question. The reality is that many of you simply don’t understand the peer-review process, and honestly, I have serious doubts that many of you even genuinely understand what a “peer-reviewed paper” and a “peer-reviewed journal” are. “This is a hot topic of debate among renowned scholars” is a completely nonsensical statement.

But alright, let’s say that there was such a thing as a “hot topic of debate among renowned scholars”. How would this article qualify? Go to JSTOR and do a search for “Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer”. How many results are there? There are a total of 5 results. Now, exclude “Jones” from those 5 results: i.e., search for “Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer” -Jones. Now how many results are there? Zero, right? What does this tell you? Either Jones is the author of all 5 of those papers, or Jones authored one paper, and then 4 people simply cited Jones (and this is definitely the case, because I guarantee Jones et al. have not authored 5 peer-reviewed papers within the last 5 years- this would be beyond impossible). So, now you have “Jones et al.” who authored a paper, and 4 people who’ve cited Jones. Which of those people are “debating his research”? And let’s say that it actually were the case that all four of those papers were actually “debating” Jones’ research (which in itself is another silly notion), but how would this qualify as a “hot topic of debate in anthropology”? Someone wrote a paper 2 years ago, and 4 people disagreed with it, and that qualifies as a “hot topic of debate in anthropology”? And again, no one’s going to waste the time and money getting funding, conducting research, composing a paper, submitting it, writing the revisions, submitting it again- literally half a million dollars and years of their lives, simply to create a peer-reviewed paper to demonstrate that they believe someone else misinterpreted data. Without question, Jones et al. wrote the original paper, and four other teams have cited his data. So, where’s the debate? Who is debating Jones? Who is Jones debating? There are no debates within peer-reviewed papers and journals. And even if there were, where would the evidence be that there is a debate involving Jones’ paper? Without question, Jones et al, went into the field, conducted research, submitted a paper which was eventually accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and then four other research teams cited Jones’ data. This is, without question, what occurred. Jones et al. themselves, would find any other scenario laughable.

What’s more, there are no “hot topics” in anthropology, period. Again, this is just a nonsensical, meaningless phrase. I’m going to do some simple math for you: how many 4-year colleges and universities are there in the US alone? More than 4,000. How many of them have Anthropology Departments? About 95% How many people are employed in each of those anthropology departments? An average of probably about 10 people. Simply at the university level (not including the private sector: i.e. contract archaeologists, medical anthropologists working for pharma companies, etc.) simply at the university level, how many degreed anthropologists are there working for American universities? 4,000 x .95 x 10 = roughly 38,000 anthropologists employed at the university level. Why is it important that we specify at the university level? Because for 90% of those anthropologists, it’s literally written into their employment contracts that they have to demonstrate progress on projects outside of their teaching curriculum which enhance the esteem of the university and the department. It’s literally part of their job requirement. At any one time, in the US alone, there are 30,000 - 40,000 projects in anthropology taking place at the university-level. Which of these are “hot topics in anthropology”? What is the criteria being used to determine which of these are hot topics? If you were to survey every anthropologist working at the university-level in the US and ask them, “what would you say is a hot topic in anthropology”? The answer, almost to a person, is going to be, “that question doesn’t make sense.”

And let’s extend that same reasoning to the concept of “renowned scholars”, except, let’s make the criteria more stringent. Let’s say that to be considered a “renowned scholar in anthropology”, you have to be employed at the university level, have an advanced in degree in anthropology (Master’s or Doctorate) and have contributed to at least one paper published in a peer-reviewed journal (which is actually a completely redundant requirement, because by the time someone earns an advanced degree, they’ve inevitably been published in multiple peer-reviewed journals. I, myself, am named in 6 peer-reviewed journals as a member of archaeology teams whose data has been published in peer-reviewed journals). In the US alone, how many “renowned scholars in anthropology” would that give us? 4,000 x .95 x 10 x .75 (.75 being the percent of people employed in university anthropology departments who have advanced degrees). So, in the US alone, how many “renowned scholars in anthropology” are there? Roughly 28,500. In the US alone there are roughly 28,500 renowned scholars in anthropology. Literally, you can drop a penny out of an airplane flying anywhere over the US, and odds are it’s going to land within half a mile of a “renowned scholar in anthropology” who works at the university level, has an advanced degree in anthropology, and has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. There are literally millions upon millions of peer-reviewed papers in anthropology. Where do you think they’re all coming from? Again, the idea of there being “renowned scholars is anthropology” is just meaningless nonsense. In the US alone there are 28,500 “renowned scholars in anthropology”. How many are there worldwide? At least 250,000, right?

And now, we’re going to get into the heart of the disconnect that I think we’re all having in this debate- I don’t think many (or even any) of you actually understand what peer-reviewed journals and peer-reviewed papers actually are (or, in big bad scientific terminology, “peer-reviewed data”). Saying that “renowned scholars” are debating a topic, and then citing peer-reviewed papers as your source for this belief, is inherently nonsensical. When you say that “renowned scholars are debating this topic”, and then you simply cite peer-reviewed journals, well, guess what? I’ve been cited as a member of archaeological research which has been published in peer-reviewed papers 6 times. So, I am literally one of the “renowned scholars” about whom you’re referring. Want to know what’s really scary? There are probably more than a million of us “renowned scholars in anthropology” who have had our names included in papers which have been published for peer-review. Seriously, how weird is that? Well, if you have a degree in anthropology, and are pursuing anthropology as a career, if you don’t intend to publish in peer-reviewed journals and make yourself a “renowned scholar” in anthropology, then I would strongly suggest you embark upon another career path, because you’re useless to both universities and within the private sector. If you’re not going to pursue research goals with the intention of eventually being peer-review published, then my man, find another career path, because no one’s going to have any interest in hiring you, in either the educational or private sectors. The idea that simply being published in a peer-reviewed journal makes you a “renowned scholar” in anthropology is ridiculous, because if you’ve been employed by a university for 5 years, and you’ve never had your name added to a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal, my man, your contract is not going to get renewed. There are no “renowned scholars” in anthropology. Quite the opposite. If you don’t create meaningful data, you’re going to be on the unemployment line.

The purpose of a peer-reviewed journal is to verify that data has been collected according to the methodology specified by that journal, and now that journal stands behind the legitimacy of that data. Nothing more, nothing less. That journal is willing to stake its reputation that the data has been collected according to the contemporary standards and protocols within that field. Once a paper meets those standards, the journal may decide to publish it. The purpose of the peer-reviewed paper is to simply make the data public. Here’s where you all have a very distinct misunderstanding. Yes, peer-reviewed papers draw conclusions regarding the results of their data compared to their hypotheses. But peer-reviewed journals in NO WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, endorse the authors’ conclusions regarding that data. This would lead to widespread censorship, lack of faith, and eventual collapse of the journal, BECAUSE THE SOLE PURPOSE OF A PEER-REVIEWED JOURNAL, IS BY DEFINITION, SIMPLY TO MAKE DATA PUBLIC FOR REVIEW BY THE AUTHORS’ PEERS. Hence, there can be no debate within peer-reviewed papers, because peer-reviewed journals simply wouldn’t publish data which may skew biased. If peer-reviewed journals did publish potentially skewed data, they’d lose their credibility almost immediately, and cease to exist within a few months. THIS IS WHY THERE ARE NO “HOT TOPICS OF DEBATE” in peer-reviewed papers published in peer-reviewed journals. Again, this idea is simply nonsensical gibberish.

OK, so look, I’m going to explain to you all exactly how the term “Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer” came into being, and I promise you, without question, what I’m going to tell you, is exactly what occurred:

1)Jones et al. applied for a grant from a scientific institution. It doesn’t matter if the grant proposal originated with Jones, or if the scientific institution asked for research teams to submit grant proposals for a specific subject the scientific institution wanted research conducted in. Either Jones said “we’d like to research this, can you fund us?” Or a scientific institution said, “we’d like someone to conduct research in this area. Send us your grant proposals.” It doesn’t really matter where the idea originated. And often, research is funded by grants from multiple sources.

2)Jones et al. went into the field and conducted data collection intermittently, over the course of many years. And yes, there are many different types of field work. Simply sitting in a lab, typing haplo-groups is considered field work.

3)Jones et al organized the data, and for the sake of defining specific groups within that data, created the term, “Caucasus Hunter-Gather”, as well as many other terms to define various genetic haplo-groups they identified in their research.

4)Jones et al submitted their findings for peer-review to a peer-reviewed journal. The journal sent the paper back for revisions. The revisions were made, and the paper was re-submitted. Eventually, after going through this process enough times, the paper was accepted for publish in a peer-reviewed journal.

5)Once the paper was published, and the data was public, four other research teams thought some of that data would be useful in their own research, and cited Jones et al. Since Jones et al. had named a specific group within their original paper “Caucasus Hunter Gatherers”, this was the name the other research teams used when citing that data.

It’s as simple as that. Without question or argument, this is definitely what happened. There are no “renowned scholars”, there is no ongoing “debate”, this is not a “hot topic”. The process I just described above is exactly what occurred. There are no arguments to be made.

This is not a widely recognized concept. Even in Jones’ paper, this is just one concept alongside many. The term “Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer” is not in the title of a single peer-reviewed paper. In fact, it’s only in 5 peer-reviewed papers total, and those papers simply consist of Jones’ original paper, in which Jones et al. created this term to add definition to a group they were discussing, and then four other research teams who simply cited Jones’ data so they didn’t have to go into the field and collect this data for themselves (and this has been standard practice in every scientific field for about a century. What is the point of wasting years and millions of dollars replicating field research, when you can simply cite someone else’s data? Again, this is the purpose of the peer-review process- to ensure that the data was collected legitimately, so that the lengthy, expensive data-collection processes doesn’t have to be repeated by multiple research teams). And since Jones had already called this data “Caucasus Hunter Gatherers”, that’s the name the other research teams used when citing Jones’ data. And now, you all have turned this into a 1,000 word article on Wikipedia, simply because you have no understanding of the peer-review or academic processes, and you simply aren’t aware that the very sources you’re citing, peer-reviewed journals, would immediately disavow you if they knew how you were using their published peer-reviewed research.

The entirety of research conducted upon “Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers”, consists of a few sentences in a single peer-reviewed paper. If you want to call “Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers” the “Satsurblia Cluster”, unfortunately, the same principal applies. You have the Jones paper, and then 2 papers which simply cites Jones. If you search for “Satsurblia Cluster -Jones”, again, you get zero results.

This statement:

“Caucasus hunter-gatherer (CHG), also called Satsurblia Cluster[1] is an anatomically modern human genetic lineage, first identified in a 2015 study,[2][3] based on the population genetics of several modern Western Eurasian (European, Caucasian and Near Eastern) population.”

-is inherently untrue. This statement is based entirely upon a few mentions in a single peer-reviewed paper, and then 5 or 6 papers which have simply cited that paper. And again, these terms aren’t in the title of a single one of those papers- the Jones paper, or the papers which simply cite Jones- which means that this concept wasn’t even the focus of any of those papers.

Guys, how many degreed anthropologists would you estimate there are worldwide? In the US alone, at the university-level, combined with the private sector, there a probably close to a million people with degrees in anthropology. Worldwide, how many do you think there are? 5 million? More? How many of them do you think have any familiarity with the term “Caucasus Hunter Gatherer”? Maybe a hundred? OK, let’s be extraordinarily generous, and say that there are 1,000 people worldwide who have read Jones’ paper or any of the 5 or 6 papers which cited Jones’ work. Does this meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria? One-fifth of one-one-thousandth of 1 percent of the professionals within a field have ever even heard of this term before, and the odds that the term actually stuck with any of them after they finished reading the paper, are probably close to 0% Does this meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria?

Guys, you’re literally making-up science because you don’t understand the peer-review process or how academic research is collected and processed. And the arguments you’re making in favor of this article literally sound ridiculous to anyone actually involved in academia, especially anyone with a degree in any of the sciences, and certainly anyone with a degree in anthropology.

You’ve taken a couple of blurbs from a single peer-reviewed paper, which weren’t even the focus of that paper, and then the 5 or 6 papers which have simply cited that paper, and written a 1,000 word Wikipedia article about it. And I guarantee, the Wikipedia article is significantly longer that the word-count Jones et al. dedicated toward “Caucasus Hunter Gatherers” in their original peer-reviewed paper from which this data originates.

Guys, look. When I was completing my Master’s classwork, I had a class which focused on dentition (which is actually a significant subject in all four branches of anthropology). Anyway, for the term-paper for that class, know how many non-redundant peer-reviewed sources we were required to cite? 20. For a simple 15-page term paper in a semester-long graduate level class, we were required to cite 20 non-redundant peer-reviewed sources. Know how many non-redundant peer-reviewed sources regarding “Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers” are available on JSTOR? One- the original Jones et. al paper. Every other source with any mention of "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers" simply cites Jones et. al. If you were required to write a 3 page paper about “Caucasus Hunter Gathers” using 5 non-redundant peer-reviewed sources, you couldn’t do it. It would literally be impossible. And here is where a very significant problem lies with regard to this article. You have 5 sources, but only one of them actually contains the term “Caucasus Hunter Gatherer”, which means that Wikipedia authors themselves have drawn the conclusions about how those other four articles are related to “Caucasus Hunter Gatherers”. In effect, Wikipedia authors are now creating their own scientific conclusions. And this is extraordinarily dangerous, because I know for a fact that none of you have degrees at any level in anthropology. In fact, I would be amazed if any of you have degrees in any of the sciences. In fact, I would be surprised if any of you even have a bachelors degree in any field. Yet, you’re on Wikipedia, drawing your own scientific conclusions based upon your perceptions of how peer-reviewed data correlates to this topic, when none of the papers you’re citing, have the term “Caucasus Hunter Gatherer” in them. And this, IS EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. Looking back, this is probably why this article bothered me so much 15 months ago when I first began posting to this talk section. The topic of this Wikipedia article is only mentioned in one of the sources, of all of the five sources listed in the reference section of this article. In this article’s reference section, only the Jones paper makes any mention of “Caucasus Hunter Gatherers”. The rest of the papers in the reference section are papers that you all have decided relate to “CHG”. You all are now officially drawing your own scientific conclusions on Wikipedia. And this is what frightens me. If you feel that you are qualified to draw your own scientific conclusions, why didn’t you simply get a degree? People who have no qualifications to do so, are now publishing their own scientific conclusions on Wikipedia. People who are not qualified to do so, are drawing their own scientific conclusions, and then writing about them extensively in what is supposed to be an online encyclopedia. This is extremely troubling. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C40:4A00:1D00:E1DC:8B65:7A56:3634 (talk) 02:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, everyone: @AnthropologyAye-Whole doesn't have time to edit Wikipedia articles - only the talk pages...Tewdar (talk) 17:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, because during the last 2 months, I've written a total of 10 pages in Wikipedia talk sections which took me about 2 hours total to write. You got me again genius. I've literally spent an average of 1 hour per month writing in Wikipedia talk sections. Man, I just don't know how I can defend myself against someone of your vastly superior intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnthropologyAye-Whole (talk • contribs) 03:39, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]