Talk:Sayyid

Africa section

There should be an Africa section. Hourofglass (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

AI text

Concerns have been raised about AI-generated content in this article. This is a procedural talk page section to discuss it. There is no need to ping me in response. Referenced edit: Special:Diff/1221545435 Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

Paper: Decoding Quraysh Origins

Hi @InfernoHues,

I have restored the content with the paper now properly cited:

• Abrahams, Sheikh (2026). Decoding Quraysh Origins. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20078805

Zenodo is not on the blacklist, and the paper is also indexed on OpenAIRE https://www.unesco.org/en/open-science/inclusive-science/openaire-portal here: https://explore.openaire.eu/search/result?pid=10.5281/zenodo.20078805. The same content is also presented on grokipedia.com here: https://grokipedia.com/page/Sayyid

The earlier removal was because the first version used a clear LLM-generated draft. This version uses the formal published Zenodo paper.

Would you mind taking another look? I'm happy to discuss whether this meets WP:RS / WP:PREPRINTS for the specific claims.

Thanks, ~2026-34474-45 (talk) 22:36, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

See WP:ZENODO. This "paper" has not been published by a proper journal. An index and Grokipedia mention are irrelevant for the WP:Reliable sources policy. The draft and the Zenodo paper are the same with no differences between them.

Also, are you SheikhAbrahams? They are the ones who first added these lines. If so, please remember to log in. InfernoHues (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @InfernoHues,

Thank you for your reply and for explaining your concerns.

I am a separate editor who believes the paper contains useful information.

Regarding the source:

• Yes, I understand it is a preprint on Zenodo and not a peer-reviewed journal article.
• However, Zenodo is not blacklisted, and the paper is indexed on OpenAIRE.
• I have made sure the article text reflects the content of the published paper (doi:10.5281/zenodo.20078805).

Would you be okay with keeping the material with proper attribution and inline citation, possibly with a note that it is a preprint? Or do you think this topic needs a peer-reviewed journal source before it can be included?

I'm happy to adjust the wording or provide additional context if needed. Looking forward to your thoughts.

Thanks, ~2026-34474-45 (talk) 23:53, 10 June 2026 (UTC)

Yes, it needs to be in a peer-reviewed journal first. Also, please don't use an LLM to talk to me. InfernoHues (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Should the "Decoding Quraysh Origins" preprint (Zenodo) be used as a source for claims about Syed Y-DNA?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

This exact matter had already been raised at Talk:Haplogroup R1a#Should the "Decoding Quraysh Origins" preprint (Zenodo) be used as a source for claims about Syed Y-DNA?. Please respect WP:MULTI, and discuss in one place only. Ideally that would be WP:RSN, but as a normal discussion, not as a full-blown thirty-day formal WP:RFC. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:41, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

---

Should the preprint Decoding Quraysh Origins (Abrahams, 2026, Zenodo doi:10.5281/zenodo.20078805) and its associated supplementary materials be considered a reliable source for claims that R1a-Y6 is the most common paternal haplogroup among self-identified Syeds?

Background:

• The paper compiles data from several studies (including Belle et al. 2010) and 23andMe surname statistics.
• It concludes that many Syeds belong to an unbranched Y6 subclade of R1a.
• One editor argues it is not a reliable source because it is a self-published preprint.
• The other side argues that Zenodo is not blacklisted and the paper should be usable with attribution.

Question: Is this preprint acceptable as a source (with clear attribution as a preprint) for genetic claims about Syeds in the Haplogroup R1a and/or Sayyid articles?

~2026-34474-45 (talk) 04:20, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

No - Not only does this "paper" not meet the reliable source policy, at the end it says that it was generated with an LLM. There's also a duplicate RfC at Talk:Haplogroup R1a. InfernoHues (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

Hi @InfernoHues (and others),

I would like to summarize my position clearly in one place:

The Decoding Quraysh Origins paper (Zenodo, doi:10.5281/zenodo.20078805) was formally accepted by Zenodo and is indexed on OpenAIRE. It is not on the blacklist (its status is "No consensus"). The paper compiles data from several existing studies, including Belle et al. (2010), regional Khyber Pakhtunkhwa genetic papers, and 23andMe surname statistics. It argues that R1a-Y6 is the most common paternal lineage among many self-identified Syeds in South Asia.

I acknowledge that it is a preprint and that parts of it involved LLM assistance. However, the author states it was reviewed before final upload, and Zenodo sent an official acceptance email.

I understand concerns about reliability, but I believe the paper can be used with clear attribution as a preprint.

Since discussions are happening on both Talk:Sayyid and Talk:Haplogroup R1a, I suggest we continue in one place. I would appreciate input from other editors.

Thanks, ~2026-34474-45 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal to add Belle et al. (2010) genetic study

Hi everyone,

I would like to add the following information from the peer-reviewed paper: Belle, E. M. S. et al. (2010). "Y chromosomes of self-identified Syeds from the Indian subcontinent show evidence of elevated Arab ancestry but not of a recent common patrilineal origin". Archaeological and Anthropological Sciences, 2(3), 217–224. DOI: 10.1007/s12520-010-0040-1

Proposed text: Genetic studies have found that R1a is one of the most frequent Y-DNA haplogroups among self-identified Syeds in the Indian subcontinent.

This is a reliable peer-reviewed source. Any thoughts or suggestions?

Thanks, DQOsource (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2026 (UTC)

You've been told it's not a reliable source at RSN, so you don't get to assert that it is without evidence.

Your edit was reverted on this basis, you reinstated it then proposed adding it to the article after you'd already reinstated it - that's not how consensus-building or the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle works.

There's also an active and ongoing discussion at the WP:ANI that you started yet seem to be ignoring. Please go back and continue the discussion that you started before editing further, as multiple editors (including myself) have concerns about your editing. In solidarity, Blue-Sonnet (I'm listening) 13:49, 12 June 2026 (UTC)