Talk:Genetic history of Europe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Genetic history of Europe was a Natural sciences good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 9, 2012 Good article nominee Not listed

Name changes[edit]

The term "genetic history" strikes me as somewhat unusual. What about "Population genetics of Europe".

Bibliography[edit]

  • The reference included in the section "Bibliography", by Adams et al, on religious intolerance and gentics in the iberian peninsula,from Am J Hum Gen is just terrible. Its title clearly indicates an aim outside the scope of a Journal on Human Genetics, and it contains many imprecissions and unproven judgements. No description of the sampling technique is included in the article, and even the ballot surveys describe how they choosed the sample in their data. From the description of "spaniards rueld by 300'000 visigoths" a negative judgement can be inferred, but the goths never ruled the spaniards, they just started acting as state powers when the Roman authority that hired them to be part of the roman army in exchange of being allowed to have shelter inside the roman empire borders,as some other peoples attacked them, when the roman authority faded goths found themselves as the only organized power,and started acting in acordance with their authorities, the romans allowed the goth's authorities to be preserved inside the roman army, and with their own rules. No imposition at all existed in this. The paper speaks about religious intolerance: goths changed their orginal religion, arrianism, to catholicism, in order not to enter in conflict with the rest of spaniards, but many times the facts linked to other religious groups arriving into Spain, some times forced,as some people of jewish orgin may have arrived to Spain forced by the romans,others as invaders, there were several cases when moslim authorities tryed to force christians to endorse moslim faith, or accept Mohammed as a prophet;some catholics become saints when they were killed because of this, and that probably is against the moslim rules, that stablish for the Islam a respect for "The people of the book", jewish and christians,the book named in this being the Bible. Some cases of jewish being blamed for religious violence existed,for example the case of "Santo Dominguito del Val", the history telling that young was crucified, and the expulsion of jewish in 1492 was founded in a supposed declaration of some of them of trying to "Put down the law of Jesus and stablisihing the rule of Moshes law"; even when the descendants of the kings that made the expulsion were ruling, many jews returned years after the expulsion to Spain, and there's no record of them being bothered again. The article uses the word "pogrom", a word of polish origin, but no records exits of violence in Spain specially focusing on jews, and if it was some, it was never worse than violence from some spaniards against other spaniards. The article in Am J Hum Gen speaks about some 20% of today's spanish males having jewish Y chromosome markers, and if it's taken into account that the same article says that at the time of expulsion, jewish were just 4% of the total population in Spain, the growth of this people from 4% in 1492 to 20% of today clearly speaks about no discrimination, at least. The authors have doubts about why the 20% is maintained all over Spain but in the island of Menorca. This island was for some time an english island, and either people of jewish ancestry moved to the british islands looking for a richer environment, or they were chased by the britons. This article in Am J Hum Gen seems containing a lot of propaganda, but from who,and with which goal ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.22.49.96 (talkcontribs) 14:47, 5 November 2011‎

Good Article Review #1[edit]

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Genetic history of Europe/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Pyrotec (talk · contribs) 19:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I will review. Pyrotec (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Pre-review comments[edit]

This article has a {{update}} flag dated November 2009 in the Genetic studies after Cavalli-Sforza which is sufficient to Quick fail this article without needing a review.
The WP:Lead is also non-compliant with WP:Lead.
I will continue to review this article, but regardless of any other findings, this article will not gain GA-status unless these two items are addressed and the article brought up to standard. Pyrotec (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the article's history page, this nomination was made by an editor who has not edited this article. It appears to be a drive-by nomination, so I'm closing this review. The article is listed as B-class by most WikiProjects and that appears to be an accurate assessment of the article at this time. Pyrotec (talk) 09:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Pyrotec - 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment moved from article[edit]

The following comment was mistakenly added to the article:

[This article is complicated. Why not have a separate page just for the results (and no technical words and few method problems)?]

I have some doubt whether the suggestion is feasible; it's going to be difficult in any case. It sounds more like a project for Simple English Wikipedia. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 02:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree the article cannot waste space with pop-science pseudo-explanations. It should give the briefest possible adequate summary of current understanding. The article does have a huge problem though: it was created a decade ago, and during this decade, knowledge has accumulated at a galopping pace. So the article is now an interminal sequence of "howevers" added every time a new study came out. It would probably best to start over and use the existing page as a quarry to rework the article into a presentation of the current state of knowledge, referring to the intricacies of research history only where necessary.

It is especially ludicrous, at this point, to organise the main structure into "work done by Cavalli-Sforza" and "stuff that came later than Cavalli-Sforza". Cavalli-Sforza was the pioneer in this, and deserves due mention, but his this very fact means that his results are ancient history (1993!). They are simply no longer of any but historical interest to an article about the "genetic history of Europe" (as opposed to the "history of research into the genetic history of Europe"). --dab (𒁳) 09:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Genetic history of Europe. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:48, 19 February 2016 (UTC)