The Y-chromosome genetic structure of the Berber population seems to be mainly Modulated by geography, The Y-DNA Haplogroups E and J, which are so common among the population of North African and the Middle East, Haplogroups E and J, are the most widespread among North African groups especially E1b1b1b (E-M81, formerly E3b1b) which is typical of the indigenous Berbers of North-West Africa. In some parts of Morocco E1b1b1b can peak at 80% of the population, its observe in both Arab and Berber-speakers, Followed by Haplogroup J especially J1 which is typically Middle Eastern, its highest density is Founded in the Southwestern Arabian Peninsula, it's also observe among North African Arab and Berber-speakers. Followed by Haplogroup R1 it has been observed in North African though with lower frequency.
Dear Iadrian yu "" Why Reverted MY edits what's Wrong Please in light "" ???
Hello.Iadrian yu
There are indigenous Berbers i.e. E1b1b1b (E-M81, formerly E3b1b) which is typical of the indigenous Berbers ,and There are culturally Berbers i.e. Haplogroup J especially J1 Followed by Haplogroup R1 .
Haplogroup J especially J1 is Founded in Algeria (35%)[1], Tunisia (31%)[2], its most frequent in the Southwestern Arabian Peninsula especially Yemen(76%)[3]
Haplogroup R1 is also found in North Africa where its frequency surpasses 10% in some parts of Algeria[4].
The data confirm that North Africa has mainly been a recipient of gene flow from African and Asian surroundingareas, thus because of Haplogroup J & Haplogroup R1 The Y-chromosome genetic structure of the Berber population seems to be mainly Modulated by geography. For example in the Berber Kabyle Genetics E1b1b1b (E-M81) is frequently founded (i.e.indigenous),J1 is founded, R1*(xR1a) is founded.
Haplogroups E and J have been detected as the largest haplogroups in North African and the Middle East in ME J is larger Followed by E, in NA E is larger Followed by J.
This Abstract is simple thus ,making it essayer for everyone. The other changes were made because this Abstract is the key for understanding Genetics and the Origin of Berber people.
Note : There is no pure ethnicity only if thy were living in an isolated island and thy also could be mixed.
fore example the Phoenicians (J2 and J1),the Romans,Roman Arabia ,etc... this are all a case in point that shows the historic and significant relation between North African and the Middle East.
Note:the Greek historian Herodotus wrote that the Phoenicians themselves were Arab tribes from the Arabian shores of the Red Sea.
Roman Arabia became the ideological power base for Septemius Severus in the Roman Near East. Arabia became such a symbol of loyalty to Severus and the empire, according to Bowersock , that during his war against Clodius Albinus, in Gaul, Syrian opponents propagated a rumour that the Third Cyrenaica legion controlling Arabia Petraea had defected. That it would matter to an issue in France/Gaul that a single legion in a backwater province on the other side of the empire would rebel indicates the political sway that Arabia had amassed.
Lastly: The Arab conquest of the Middle East, North Africa, and to a lower extent Sicily and southern Spain, spread J1 and J2 in lesser extent far further than Arabia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy symbol (talk • contribs) 21:22, 20 June 2010 (UTC) ("Tommy symbol (talk) 04:20, 21 June 2010 (UTC)")
Thanks for the message - my edit to the Székely page may have been a bit hasty in all truth. I was trying to "soften" the Eberhardt reference for a few reasons, none of which are probably absolutely acceptable under Wikipedia policies. First of all, Eberhardt is a respected expert in Polish history, with other interests in the present-day Russia, Ukraine and Belarus', and his wide-ranging survey, while kind of impressive for its sheer scope, gives some evidence that when it comes to Romania, he's out of his depth. (For example: he claims that Hungarians are in the majority "only" in Miercurea-Ciuc and Tîrgu-Mureş "districts" instead of judeţele Harghita and Mureş, and not only names the Romanian units wrongly, but forgets Covasna entirely). His theory on the genesis of the Székely is not exactly widespread (I cannot recall another serious historian who makes the claim that the Székely are Hungarianized Romanian-Slavs) and is buried in his endnotes, not in his main argument. (He offers no support for his claim, and he doesn't really have to - his book is about populations today, not about ethnogenesis.) He also makes the contentious claim (again without explaining anything) that a "Romanian" population existed in the middle ages (there were of course the vlaşii, but were they conscious of being Romanian yet?) while the Hungarians (who had a kingdom, after all) were merely "Finno-Ugric tribes." Again, he could make a case for that point, but he would need to offer some evidence; as it stands, he's making a kind of explosive claim that runs the risk of putting Hungarians and Romanians on a collision course with each other again over their interpretations of history - this is something we all need to make sure to avoid. On top of all this we have the potential for people getting offended (some elements of the Székely would rather die than consider themselves ethnic-Romanian or Slavic) and, more troubling (since I'm not one to give in to chauvinists like the people I just mentioned), we could wind up with people reading the article, seeing that claim as the best-referenced (from one source), and taking it as authoritative. To sum up: Eberhardt is not a historian of Transylvania/Romania/Hungary, is not very comfortable with the region, makes some contentious points apparently without realizing it (Romanians before Hungarians in Transylvania), and is not even writing about ethnogenesis. Personally I don't think his view belongs in the article, especially since he never gives any references or explanations for it, but if it stays, there should be some kind of warning to readers that he is not an expert on Romania or ethnogenesis, let alone on the Székely - or at least that his opinions are not commonly accepted. Thoughts? Hubacelgrand (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
You make some good points, and just let me be clear: I am not Székely or even Hungarian (although many of the people most important to me are both), and I have no tolerance at all for the kind of ultra-nationalist viewpoints I said I was afraid of offending. Transylvania is multiethnic and I love it for that; I just wish everyone would get along. (For the record I ascribe to the theory that the Székely are descended from Turkic tribes who intermarried with Hungarians from Hungary sent to guard the Carpathians.) As for sources explicitly challenging Eberhardt, I find it unlikely that there are any, simply because Eberhardt isn't "on the radar" of people concerned with these questions (they are Hungarian and Romanian historians, he is a respected Polish demographer who in one book dabbled in the demographics of the Carpathian basin). If, for example, a highly-respected Japanese literary critic mentioned in the endnotes of one of his books (say, on Eminovici/Eminescu) that Romanians are all actually Serbs and Turks who were "Latinized" by the Crusaders (to give a ridiculous example), without explaining anything about how he arrived at that conclusion, I would not expect serious Romanian historians to mention how silly it was - he would simply not be on their radar. The reference seems to be here simply because it's easily found on Google books. Perhaps we could compromise by mentioning that Eberhardt is a Polish demographer (not a specialist in the region) and that he puts forth this (unsubstantiated, but we don't have to mention that) theory in his endnotes. Meanwhile I'll be looking for some explicit references to support the other, more mainstream theories. Thanks for taking this discussion so seriously and being so fair-minded about everything, and for wanting the Székely article to be as professional as possible. Hubacelgrand (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
My my, the page for Domokos hasn't seen this much activity in a long time - my favorite village must be moving up in the world. Wikipedia's page on Székelyföld is apparently at Székely Land (not Szekler), so to keep things consistent let's call it by that strange half-English name. Furthermore, what exactly is your objection to mentioning that people call it Domokos? Hitting it with "original research" might be a bit much - after all, the articles on Cluj-Napoca and Sighetu Marmaţiei mention "Cluj" and "Sighet" without any objections, and, more to the point, there is no tag for Târgu-Mureş being called "Vásárhely" (which it generally is, at least by ethnic Hungarians.) If you are worried about accuracy, I can assure you that it's entirely possible to live in Sândominic for weeks without noticing that the village is called anything but "Domokos." Hubacelgrand (talk) 18:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Good points. Székelyföld doesn't get written about very much in English, but the trend these days is to go with Székely Land rather than Szeklerland ("Szekler" is passing out of fashion in academia and it's a kind of odd hybrid Hungarian-German-English word anyway, so I'm not sorry to see it go. Some writers still use Szekler but it's old-fashioned.) More importantly, the wikipedia article on it is at Székely Land, so I think we should keep using that name. As for the second thing, you're probably right that it sounds a bit tendentious that way - I think a good compromise would be "The name Sândominic is used for most official purposes, but the population usually uses the shortened form 'Domokos'." Hubacelgrand (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Adrian, I left you a message on my own talk page in response to yours from a little while ago. Hubacelgrand (talk) 15:34, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
Thank you for uploading File:Primul Regiment Secuiesc de Infanterie 1762-1851, pozitionarea in teritoriu.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.
If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.
If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
There are two bodies which do mediation at Wikipedia. WP:MEDCAB and WP:RFM are the main pages of both, and both pages contain instructions on how to file a request. There's a neat little wizard you use which walks you through the process. --Jayron32 01:47, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
The request for mediation concerning Lunca de Jos, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer to this resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.
For the Mediation Committee, AGK 18:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.
Hello. Sándor Egeresi is live and was born in Serbia, but he is a Hungarian, so use the Hun. name. (The serbian version of his name equal the Hungarian version, just a transliteration.) When Avram Iancu was born, the official language was a german and latin - previously and later Hungarian - but not Romanian (officialy just from 1918). This is a historically article, so we must use historically names.
Outesticide (talk) 18:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think also we need somebody else to clarify this. Outesticide (talk) 20:46, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
I think that according to the Wikipedia policy, the most used name (which might be or not identical to the name from his identity card) should be used in the title of the article. --Olahus (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Hi, according to the definition found on the main page of the project "WikiProject Hungary is a WikiProject whose aim is to increase the quality of articles related to Hungary and Hungarians." So if an article is related to Hungarians it's considered part of it. Also sometimes articles are related through sub topics, such as being super important to the history of Hungary, sport of Hungary, music of Hungary etc etc. But then it really must be important to that sub-topic, the most important rule is being directly related to Hungary or Hungarians. Hope that answers your question. Hobartimus (talk) 11:33, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello Iadrian yu, I have reported you on ArbCom and I'd sooner you unfolded your standpoint there. --Nmate (talk) 12:43, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
I see with this edit you reverted User:Quadruplum's change with the edit summary (Strubes99), i.e. a banned user.
I'm not convinced the two are the same user. Quadruplum has also been asking a lot for translating fragments of stuff on my user talk page (for Lajos Kossuth, Anyos Jedlik, and now Louis I of Hungary). He doesn't say where he gets the fragments from, so it is very painful for me to translate them out of context, he then slaps them into the article without sources and so on, actually I think he copy-pastes them from the "Read" version so it loses all the markup, and preserves the odd typo or question in the text – I had naively assumed he would read the responses and not just blindly copy-paste them in. He is now (see my talk page) not using his real name but using an IP again. I've warned him there to have a look at WP:SOCK.
As you can imagine, this is kinda frustrating and time consuming for me, but I am not convinced he is the same user as User:Strubes99. I am only guessing from being a somewhat different style. However annoying, I am not convinced the two are the same – but could be convinced by a checkuser or something, which I've been holding off asking for.
So, I'm not sure what to add except to ask your advice. Si Trew (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose, at their own discretion, sanctions on any editor working on pages broadly related to Eastern Europe if the editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. The committee's full decision can be read at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Final decision. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Hello, I have seen you message on my talk page. My I ask why did I received this warning? What did I do to receive this warning on behalf Nmate`s wishes ? I don`t understand why did he reported my in the first place? He deletes my comment and then reports me and I receive a warning for what? I quote from the warning " If you engage in further inappropriate behavior in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban." What inappropriate behavior ? If anyone should receive a warning that is Nmate for deleting my comment and for supporting a vandal. I am sorry, but I fail to see any logic in this so if you can explain it to me please. As I explained, Nmate`s request is false and biased. As such I would like for this warning to be retracted. Thank you. Adrian (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
semino04
was invoked but never defined (see the help page).