The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Keep. There is very substantial and well-argued support for a merge or redirect to Haplogroup CT, and further discussion along these lines can take place on the relevant articles' talk pages; but from an AfD closure point of view, what this debate has established is that Eurasian Adam should not be a redlink on Wikipedia. It should, at minimum, be a redirect.

A closure as "keep" does not prevent a merge or redirect. It merely means that deciding exactly how to proceed from here does not require administrative tools, so the normal talk page procedure is the way forward.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 12:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eurasian Adam

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Eurasian Adam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a (non-notable) term for a subject which already exists: Haplogroup CT Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this editor does not understand the subject. (I have never noticed any editing on this type of subject before?) A haplogroup is a clade, i.e. a lineage with a common ancestor. It is defined by a common ancestry. Eurasian Adam is also only defined by being the common ancestor of the clade. Nothing else. This article simply puts a Biblical name and a continent name together and attaches them to the concept of this CT clade. Adam is a name being chosen to mean "patriarch" or common ancestor, but nothing else is known about this person other than that he was the common ancestor of this clade. This term is not a separate subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are incorrect about my familiarity with this subject and my editing history. If you looked at my user page you would at least be familiar with the articles I started. — Reinyday, 16:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I am sorry if my words came across as over-simplistic, but taken literally they do not say what you think they say. I did not say you are unfamiliar with the subject, only that your statement above shows a misunderstanding upon this particular point. I do not say you never edited similar articles, only that I never came across you doing so before.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article does not put "a Biblical name and a continent name together and attaches them to the concept of this CT clade". That would be original research. This article explains a term used in anthrogenealogy to describe a particular supposed human ancestor. It may be less common than African Eve, but it is still a term used. If a human wants to know what the term "Eurasian Adam" refers to, they should be able to go to the Eurasian Adam article of Wikipedia to find out. You are welcome to use the article to explain the linkage with Haplogroup CT, the reason the phrase is problematic to you, the reason the phrase is less common, etc. as long as you provide valid sources for your contributions. You made this deletion nomination despite not being able to get anyone to agree with you on the talk page. You have tried to discredit me instead of addressing my valid argument. I am working hard to assume good faith here. — Reinyday, 16:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have no problem having a redirect called "Eurasian Adam" nor with mentioning the term on the Haplogroup CT article, if it can be shown that the term is used by more than a couple of people. But there is no reason to have two articles about the same subject. This article is currently a very poor stub, but if its errors were corrected it would basically be an article about Haplogroup CT.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Eurasian" Adam is depicted as CDF near the top right. It includes Africans, Asians and everyone else "outside Africa"

The problem faced here is a case of popular culture meets hard science. The term "Eurasian Adam" appears in a few popular science books, such as The Journey of Man. As I have previously mentioned, biblical analogies sell books, and Eurasian Adam is a catchy phrase that is likely to attract attention. The reality is, there is no mutually exclusive Eurasian Adam. Consequently almost no peer reviewed scientific journal per google scholar uses the term, only a few books. The Y-chromosome family tree is a tangled web that makes a mutually exclusive Eurasian Adam impossible. That is Eurasian Adam is the common ancestor of only Europeans and Asians, but no other population. The so called Eurasian Adam, is actually the Adam of Africans, Australians and Native Americans as well, so it is a misnomer. Basically Eurasian Adam is the common ancestor of the entire world, except for 10-20% of Africans. 80% of Africans and the rest of the world are descendants of "Eurasian Adam". Consequently, I recommend merging it into haplogroup CT and providing the necessary caveats that such a mutually exclusive person does not exist. Wapondaponda (talk) 08:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. The "Eurasian" is a hopelessly misleading adjective. I suppose the authors were trying to show with this word that this is not the original Y Adam but a second "Adam" (not Y-Chromsome Adam himself who has no specific haplogroup), where Adam just means common male line ancestor.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not the term is misleading is totally irrelevant. This is not a discussion of whether or not Eurasian is a good descriptor of human beings. This is discussion of whether or not Wikipedia should have an article explaining what the term "Eurasian Adam" means. You have made it perfectly clear that you don't like the phrase "Eurasian Adam". That does not change the fact that other people should be allowed to read a definition of "Eurasian Adam" if they are seeking one. — Reinyday, 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Whether a particular way of referring to a subject is misleading is relevant, if the subject can be explained in a less misleading way without loosing anything, surely? OTOH I agree that this is less important than the main reason for proposing a delete, which is that this subject is about the same subject as another article which already exists. It only exists as a misunderstanding of the science, as is shown by the woeful way that the term was defined in the stub of its text that I fixed today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There was a delete proposal tag on the article which was removed by User:Small Victory.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where has anyone given proof that this term has any significant level of popular acceptance? In any case this article is about the same subject as the Haplogroup CT article, so the difference between merging and deletion is not important.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the subject matter, being quite technical is not ideal for the afd, and could be addressed on the talk page. It would be very difficult for users who are unfamiliar with the subject to pass meaningful judgment. The default assessment would be to keep because "Eurasian Adam" does have some popular culture appeal. It is a problem that is faced on many genetics articles. My concerns with keeping such an article include:
  • Duplication of information in both articles
  • Creating a perception that Eurasian Adam is real
The only meaningful difference between the content of the two articles is that "Eurasian Adam" has some popular culture appeal. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying there needs to be two articles. You could make Eurasian Adam a redirect to Haplogroup CT (Y-DNA), (I got this backwards in my original note; I've fixed that now) and that article could say whatever is appropriate about how the term Eurasian Adam, while common in the popular press, is not used in the scientific literature. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to make sure I understand, are you confident that this is a term with wide acceptance? If it is then of course it could be mentioned on the Haplogroup CT article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With 8 independent books hits, an additional 2 independent scholar hits, ~350 web hits (excluding Wikipedia and mirrors, not all checked for independence of one another, and 4 apparently independent news hits for the exact phrase "Eurasian Adam" I'd say that the term qualifies for a redirect at the very least. Thryduulf (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. One thing I noticed so far is that at least according to the editors who made this article, different people seem to define the term in different ways, some of which seem to contain pre-suppositions that are wrong. But anyway I have no opposition to including re-direct and section discussions on any notable term even if it is a term involving a misunderstanding.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily 8 independent book hits, two are written by the same author, Spencer Wells. A couple of them are somewhat eccentric. With one book suggesting that biblical Adam and Eve, Noah etc were literally real people and corresponding to the genetic haplogroups. One other book actually refers to "Australasian/Eurasian Adam". In any case all of them mention "Eurasian Adam" alongside M168, which is Haplogroup CT. More hits are available for terms relating to M168 such as [M168 y-chromosome on google books, M168 y-chromosome on google scholar and on the web. Haplogroup CT is the latest YCC nomenclature beginning 2008, so we expect it to gain popularity with time. On the web "Eurasian Adam" is likely to be a hit in the blogosphere, as everyone tries to trump up their own specific ancestry. But it is a misnomer. Eurasian Adam lived in Africa, has African descendants and descendants in all the other continents, not just Eurasia.Wapondaponda (talk) 15:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you (Andrew) mean by different people seem to define the term in different ways. If by, different people, you mean, different editors of this article, then you've got a content dispute which you need to resolve on the article's talk page. If by, different authors in the scientific and/or lay press, then you have an external conflict, in which case the article should probably explore the various definitions used, i.e., Some authors (insert refs) use the term to mean X, while other authors (insert more refs) use it to mean Y. If it truly is a term only used in the lay press and never in the scientific literature, you could say that too. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roy, what I am saying is that the authors of the Wikipedia article as it stands were defining it in several different confused ways at the same time, apparently without realizing it. See below my post in reply to Small Victory's post for an example. But also I only know of this term because of this Wikipedia article. I am not saying that proudly, but only to explain that the term may still require extra discussion to see if the published users of this word use it in a logical and clear way. So if it is a notable term then even though we still certainly need to make a redirect to Haplogroup CT and delete the redundant article, we are going to have to work out where this term sits on the scale between alchemy and pop science. Whatever theories its proponents profess to have, and whatever scientific qualification they have, the term certainly seems chosen to be emotive rather than scientific, so it is already clear enough that it is "pop science". It's been a real problem for Wikipedia articles on these subjects that the scientific literature itself does not have much peer reviewed debate or review, and so pop science, normally 10 or so years old and completely out of date, is often being cited uncritically.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, from what you say, it sounds like you and the other editors of this article have a content dispute. AfD is not a good forum to hash out content disputes. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I asked you several times on the talk page of the article as follows: if this article is just about a term for Haplogroup CT, and nothing else, why then does it deserve a separate article? You have never replied. You always change subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:18, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way as a demonstration of how off track this is, "Eurasian Adam", if this has any connection to M168, is not going to also be defined as "the ancestor of all Eurasians". He will be one of many ancestors of all living people today, and a direct male line ancestor of nearly all Eurasians and most Africans. All human beings, especially all non Africans (which is apparently what Eurasian means in this term), will have many much more recent common ancestors than him. And indeed all M168+ men will even have much more recent direct male line common ancestors. The differences being delineated here are basic to this subject, and the subject can not be seriously handled in any way which confuses these differences.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:34, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further information: [[:Haplogroup_E_(Y-DNA)#Origins,Haplogroup_E_(Y-DNA)#Distribution|Haplogroup_E_(Y-DNA) § Origins,Haplogroup_E_(Y-DNA)#Distribution]]
The basal Haplogroup E* has been found in one South African male.[1] All other members of haplogroup E are subclades. E1a and E2 are found almost exclusively in Africa. IOW, even the proponent of the E backmigration theory now believes E originated close to the CT branch point in Africa, which means that D & CF or D, C & F left Africa with a small probability that CT left Africa and E returned. Which of these theories is the correctly Eurasian Adam? I would add one other thing, instead of wasting time in these style of arguments, why doesn't someone take the time to improve the Haplogroup D, CT, CF, C and F pages?PB666 yap 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Random break

[edit]

Roy, my apologies if I have confused the issue a bit, but I do not see this as a content dispute. I see no real argument about content between those proposing to delete or keep this article, despite having asked for it. Please check the talk pages.

The comments of myself and Muntuwandi about the types of sources are looking ahead to problems that might arise handling this pop science term in the Haplogroup CT article, or any article where it continues to appear, if it has no consistent and clear definition.

For example is Eurasian Adam defined as the most recent common ancestor of all M168+ men, or is he the first person to have had that mutation. There are likely to be millennia between the two definitions. If Eurasian Adam is a meaningful term, and intended to be equivalent to Y-chromosome Adam, then it should be former of the two. The mutation could have happened virtually anywhere and anytime. Population genetics can help understand major dispersals, but not random single events. It deals with clades, i.e. groups of lineages with common ancestry, and not individuals.

The reasoning for an Afd is and was that:

Actually Y-Adam is the root haplogroup, the haplogroup that includes all humans but paraphyletic to Neandertals or Homo erectus. The point about Y-Adam is that all human males must have a common ancestor. But no other type of male (Neandertal or Erectus) has as far as we know a part of the Y-Adam lineages. The can be contrasted with CT, in which other Eurasians, Americans rarely have other lineages (of recent ancestry), however many africans have CT(DE) haplogroup E lineages. By one criteria it may pass the equivilency test, by the other criteria it fails.

Does that make sense?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it makes sense. I think your point (a) above is the key point for this AfD. Does the term Eurasian Adam have sufficient notability to be worth an entry in the encyclopedia? I look at it from the point of view of a non-technical user. Is it likely that somebody will come across the term Eurasian Adam somewhere (read it in the lay press, hear it on TV, or at a cocktail party, or even as part of a homework assignment), want to learn more about the topic, turn to wikipedia for their research, and type it into the search box. It seems we have one of three choices for what will happen when they hit the "Go" button:
  1. They find that no such entry exists in Wikipedia (and get offered a chance to create the page!)
  2. They get to Eurasian Adam, which discusses the topic as a stand-alone article, linking to Haplogroup CT for more information.
  3. They get automatically redirected to Haplogroup CT, which includes a section talking about the term Eurasian Adam, perhaps explaining why professional geneticists do not use the term.

My feeling is that the first alternative is clearly inferior, and I leave it up to the subject matter experts to figure out which of the second two is preferable. My gut feeling is that (and I respect the fact that you will probably disagree with me) is that the second is better than the third. If Eurasian Adam is a term only used in the lay press, then I suspect anybody who searches for it will be lost in the scientific jargon found on [Haplogroup CT]]. There is value in a simplified explanation (with a pointer to the more hard-core stuff for those who want to dig deeper). The hard part is knowing where the dividing line is between simplified and wrong. I'm certainly not asking that we present any information which is wrong, but try to look at it from the point of view of a 5th grade student working on a homework assignment (or an adult with no scientific training but heard the term on a TV show). If you type in Eurasian Adam and get to In human genetics, Haplogroup CT (P9.1, M168, M294) is a Y-chromosome haplogroup., you're not even going to make it past the first sentence. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I would have said that all arguments on this page so far seem to be pushing us to a Merge, your option 3. No one has proposed option 1. You explanation of the case for 2 is the best so far, although I recognize it might be what Reinyday was trying to say on the article talkpage. Thanks for that. I can see that someone coming to Haplogroup CT from a redirect may be a little surprised. I guess this could be helped by making sure "Eurasian Adam" is placed right near the opening. However, as I mentioned there this raises the question of whether this subject can be explained correctly without explaining the science. If the quotes being given are the original source of the term then the people who invented this term did not even know how to define it. For example if we say that M168 is the clade whose ancestor has been referred to as Eurasian or Australasian/Eurasian Adam, then I think that is acceptable. But actually the authors cited wrote a nonsense definition implying that M168 was a mutation that happened first in a man who was the "ancestor of all Eurasians". That is a misunderstanding, and misunderstandings are hard to handle on Wikipedia unless a reviewer has already criticized them somewhere. (OR risk unless other Wikipedians feel the handling is obviously correct.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To keep it distinct, given Roy's posting about avoiding content discussions here, I have started a separate thread on the article's talkpage about the problems Wikipedia will have with this subject independent of the question of whether the subject can be separated from Haplogroup CT. I looked at the sources, and the term does have definition problems, because the various definitions put this concept in definite conflict, apparently out of ignorance, with mainstream science, and therefore the subject can apparently only appear as a notable misconception in this subject area of Haplogroup CT, if at all.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that if any article is to exist, it would be dominated by caveats and misconceptions rather than any real content. This is an interesting problem. We have a catchy title that was promoted as a means to sell books. The term is misleading or wrong, yet it is popular, though mostly in the wrong places such as blogs, or those trying to prove that biblical stories are literally true. Due to the "catchiness" of the title, it is likely to get positive responses from editors unfamiliar with term. Another misconception that has not been addressed is that Eurasian Adam should actually be Y-Chromosomal Eurasian Adam. As it may give the impression that there was only one person in Eurasia, when in fact it just refers to the common ancestor of just one part of the genome, the y-chromosome. From the Identical ancestors point, there were several Eurasian Adams or just Adams and Eves. So it comes down to should we keep a term or a title, even though we know it is misleading, but because it appeared in 8 books and is popular in blogs. Or should we merge it into the article that has all the scientific facts, though with some jargon. Wapondaponda (talk) 20:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For large values of some :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What if we use Y-Chromosomal Eurasian Adam as the new name of the current stub, which then has a well marked link to the main article [Haplogroup CT]]? I tend to think that creating a stub redirect is somehow against a policy somewhere? But I am always thinking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are reaching a concensus here on what to do. Might I propose the following:

  1. The first section beyond the lead should open with who(pl) proposed the idea based on what evidence.
  2. Exact quotes from those authors, and I mean exact, since this is pertinent to 'myth' the story is the story.
  3. This should be laid out author-version of all prominent authors.
  4. The next step is challenging, should each authors opinion should be pointed out independently, or should all the faults, and subsequent correction of science be presented in a section.
  5. In that section link to the relevant pages (And hopefully those pages will improve as recipients of those points)
  6. A Lead, composed of the authors, a synopsis of thier beliefs followed by the critique.

I agree with Roy, I hate articles on wikipedia that have been merged that really make a missense out of the original meaning or are not properly explained.PB666 yap 23:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that the page is getting about 30 hits per day which is not bad for a fairly new page.

This Eurasian Adam was also referred to as "Out of Africa Adam" by Oppenheimer in The Real Eve. I think "out of Africa Adam" is in fact more accurate than Eurasian Adam as it is the common ancestor of all male lineages outside Africa. The term is used several times in the book and for people with an Amazon account snippets can be obtained online with the amazon reader. Wapondaponda (talk) 07:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the wikipedia Admins have a good sense of humour, of late our Afds have become downright novels, lol. To adress MWs issue, we decide which term was more frequently used by experts, consider what is popularly used and then name the page, and give reference in the first sentence of the lead to other names. I looked at media hits on "Eurasia[n] Adam" there were none. Author specific hits on "Out of Africa Adam".

The term appears to be only used by Oppenheimer

Eurasian Adam:

And Many others.PB666 yap 14:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the AfD can be closed as these publications by professionals no matter the errata, is notable. The page needs to be kept and markedly reorganized.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdeitiker (talk • contribs)
Just a few comments on the above books. The Journey of Man was published in 2002 during the height of the controversy concerning the origins of haplogroup DE. If Wells were to write a book today, he probably would avoid using the term Eurasian Adam. The footnote by Wells illustrate that a lot of what is known now wasn't back then, as he decides to ignore any further discussion of the Yap insertion(haplogroup DE). As haplogroup DE was thought to be Eurasian back then, it explains the motivation for the term "Eurasian Adam".
Linda Stone and Cavalli Sforza use Australasian/Eurasian Adam
Darwinian detectives mentions Eurasian Adam alongside M168, only casually
Does DNA Evidence Prove That Humanity Branched from Mt. Ararat? Believes that Bible is literally true and that Y-Chromosomal Adam was actually the "Adam". It reminds me of "Intelligent Design".
Only Oppenheimer uses the term "Out of Africa Adam", but as one can see, the more accurate term is less glamorous than the misleading but blog friendly "Eurasian Adam"Wapondaponda (talk) 20:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In popular culture Many articles have "in popular culture" or "in popular science" sections such as Mitochondrial_Eve#In_popular_science or Haplogroup_K_(mtDNA)#Popular_Culture and Haplogroup_X_(mtDNA)#Popular_Culture. This is a possible option as opposed to a fully fledged article. More guidelines at Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. The advantage of a popular culture section is that we can deal with all the various names including "Eurasian Adam" "Out of Africa Adam" and Australasian/Eurasian Adam all in one place. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitochondrial Eve in popular cultureWapondaponda (talk) 13:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More