Talk:Haplogroup R-M167

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

First subject for new article[edit]

Hello everyone. I noticed this new article. Let's hope it turns out well. Keep in mind that WP does not need an article for every sub-clade but I think it is clear that R1b is getting pretty big. Also I like it that this nice map gets used!

Anyway, I know this may cause groans of annoyance, but I am pretty sure the below, which I've cut from the article and pasted here for discussion, is not from any "reliable source" as per WP standards? See WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOR. This is no criticism of good work done, just a WP thing. So I've pasted it here for discussion. If it does have a reliable source, then my apologies, but then we need to name that source.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey Andrew. I added a source to the modal the best I could. Do you have a suggestion of any better way to source it? – Victar (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Victar. Unfortunately I do not. The modals on ysearch are all "self-published" to put it in wiki jargon. No one wanting to verify them from here can tell whether the person who made them knows what they are talking about. And as you know, ysearch even has DIFFERENT versions posted by different people. No geneticists use the level of accuracy that we genetic genealogists do, so their papers are of no assistance. I am wondering what WP folk would think if the L21 Project posted the modal on its webpage somewhere, perhaps as a conclusion? I can't guarantee it would satisfy everyone but it would satisfy me.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I'll drop the the SRY2627+ Project a line and see what they can do. Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) also has the same sourcing issue btw. – Victar (talk) 10:01, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Sorry yes I named the wrong project.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:16, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Hi I'm the Admin for the R-SRY2627 Project and I think this page will be useful to provide a link on the Project page to all the relevant published sources. Conversely we can put all the "original research" stuff on the Project page and link back to it from the Wikipedia article. Is this a sensible way to proceed?
One other point - the article has embedded in its title the current Haplogroup tree designation which is not a fixed name, in fact it may change very soon if new SNPs upstream of SRY2627 are added to the tree. How will this be managed, can we change the name of the article and still retain all the history, discussion etc? Gazzzz (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
I can not guarantee that WP folk will all accept using a DNA project as a reliable source, but I personally am not against it. Concerning the article name, the phylogenetic names have become the standard here on WP although I have my own doubts about whether this is sustainable in the long run. But most importantly keep in mind that it not hard to move articles to new names, or to set up disambiguation pages and redirects in order to make sure things work when there are multiple possible names. So I'd suggest let's try sticking to the present tradition for now.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. We should probably set forwarders for all previous phylogenetic names along with the SNP name itself. Thanks everyone for joining the discussion and your thoughts. – Victar (talk) 21:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Maybe I should give a bit more advice. My experience tells me that some DNA projects are likely to be more acceptable than others. The more transparent and well run they are the better.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Reference should be made to the Hurles, et el study. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10521311, Arch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeomanoid (talkcontribs) 08:03, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Seems to already be mentioned?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
Though this web page is a bit "dated", it does give some nice references. http://mcewanjc.org/m167.htm YeomanDroid (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Haplotypes[edit]

Modal[edit]

DYS 393 390 19 391 385A 385B 426 388 439 389I 392 389II 458 459A 459B 455 454 447 437 448 449 464A 464B 464C 464D
Alleles 13 24 14 11 11 14 12 12 12 13 13 29 17 9 10 11 11 25 15 19 29 15 15 17 17

The map[edit]

Hi Victar. Can you put a key on the map to make sure it is clear what the different colours mean?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a good idea. I'll put something together. – Victar (talk) 10:03, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have re-done the map, with clearer colours and a key. I used the data from Adams, as in the previous map, but removing the misleading swathe of colour in south-west France. One category in Adams was labelled Gascony, but in fact consisted of a mixed group from the Pyrenees, including a few from the French side of the border. I have added data from Lopez-Para and Ramos-Luis, and stated the sources. --Genie (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

L176.2[edit]

The L176.2 discoveries need to be added to this article, as well as that, some sort of explanation of their relationship to SRY2627. I'm not so sure having subclade specific articles is such a good idea, especially with this subclade. Sam Isaacks88 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I definitely agree that it is difficult to know when it is a good idea to have sub-clade articles, and I have some doubts about this particular one, but not big enough doubts to do something about it. Coming to L176.2, has there been any news about L176.2 actually published in "third party reliable sources with a reputation for fact checking"? Remember that Wikipedia definitely does NOT try to keep up to date with every new discovery. It only makes Wikipedia when it is published in a third party publication. You may have to wait I'm afraid. Perhaps L176.2's position in the R1b tree can be sourced to the ISOGG website though.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:42, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Well Ftdna has made L176.2 official on their tree and they are showing SRY2627 and L165 downstream from it. I don't think we should do away this page altogether, I just think the things that I have mentioned should be added to it. This is a fairly big discovery and definetly changes what we used to know about the subclade. Just last year we didn't know there was link between L165 and SRY2627, so, we need to update the page so it displays this. I also think we need to explain that since the subclade is found most frequently in Iberia, doesn't mean that it originated there. If I didn't see the discussions we have been having at dna-forums and was just going off of this page I would think that the clade was virtually absent in all other European populations and was essentially spanish. This clearly isn't the case and needs to be addressed. Sam Isaacks88 (talk) 04:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the FT DNA tree is never used by any publications as an authority whereas ISOGG is. (I can also say from experience that the ISOGG is better maintained.) Anyway, see http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html which shows L176.2 there as well. So you have a source for its position in the tree, and that can in my opinion therefore be mentioned on Wikipedia. We do not really have a good source for much more than that position on the tree.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

R1b1b2a1a2c[edit]

This is my paternal haplotype. I don't know how it ended up on this Wikipedia article. All I know is that my earliest known patrilineal ancestor was from Angoulême in the 1600s. Currently, the article is very technical, and it could clearly benefit from being put into words that regular people understand. This would help me understand my ancestry a bit more. 70.29.248.145 (talk) 16:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

If all Your 25 markers are identical with the above, it means that You have a modal haplotype of Your haplogroup. However, many people have the modal haplotype. YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 19:17, 13 August 2013 (UTC)