Talk:List of haplogroups of historic people

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Genetics (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Human Genetic History (Rated List-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of genetic genealogy, population genetics, and associated theory and methods articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 26/2/2006. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Genghis Khan[edit]

Since Genghis Khan is dead, his remains undiscovered, and his last verifiable descendant around a century dead and never DNA tested, the listing for his DNA can't be anything other than just a guess. It should be removed or clearly labelled as fanciful speculation. siafu 02:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am only reposting from the verifiable sources. I agree that any links that old have to be very difficult to "prove". I agree with adding a caveate. Sandwich Eater 03:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
LOL, what? There is a lot of people from Gengiz khan origin here is Central Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.154.175.230 (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Luke the Evangelist[edit]

This whole section has been removed twice, most recently here. Is there any consensus that we should keep in sections about the DNA from bodies purporting to be legendary people? Bearian (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

there is consensus; the article remains after being proposed for deletion so add any rubbish you feel fit to contribute. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]

The discussion below regarding edits commencing on 3 November 2013 was moved here from my personal talk page:

I think there was some confusion as to the edits I made on list of haplogroups of notable people, particularly the King Tut section. I couldn't fit it all in the edit summary so I've brought the discussion here. Your first edit was in regards to this sentence "After pressure to publish Tutankhamun's full DNA report to confirm his Y-DNA results, the researchers refused to respond." It is known that they purposely left out his Y-DNA results in the final report despite testing his Y-DNA (His Y-DNA results were publicly broadcasted when they were trying to determine if Akhenaten was his father). After the leak the researchers responded by calling it "unscientific" but did not deny the results were accurate (Since it was publicly broadcasted so they couldn't deny it) and also refused to further comment when they were asked to officially report his Y-DNA results.

You made a rv in your second edit, I removed that part because I didn't feel it was relevant to the article.

In your third edit you reverted this additional information I added "In December 2012 according to a genetic study conducted by the same researchers who decoded King Tutankhamun's DNA, found that." I thought this part was relevant because it showed that these particular researchers were willing to publish the Y-DNA results of the mummies, but possibly tried to censor King Tuts DNA results due to him having European ancestry.

In the fourth edit you removed the origin of R1b1a2 (R-M269) and E1b1a for an unknown reason. Let me know how we can settle this, thanks Anarchistdy (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

All my edits are clearly explained in my edit summaries (I broke it down carefully so there could be no confusion). Including the origins of the haplogroups amounts to WP:CONTENTFORKING which is not constructive. If you read the deletion nomination discussions listed on the article's talk page, you may have a better idea where I am coming from. If the article deteriorates further, deletion is a distinct possibility. HelenOnline 09:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"All my edits are clearly explained in my edit summaries (I broke it down carefully so there could be no confusion)" You attempted to explain them but I don't think they were justified.

I disagree that it falls into the contentforking category because it does conform to the Manual of Style for list and the first paragraph states. "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

I read the deletion discussion and the overwhelming opinion was to keep the article, with suggestings to clean it up and remove some of the less notable people. My edit to the King Tut section was to make it more neutral because the entire section was trying to discredit those particular results just because the original researchers didn't publish the YDNA in the final report. As I said before his DNA testing was publicly broadcasted, and the camera showed a close up of the results which were R1b1a2 (R-M269) to 99.9% certainty (For comparison most of the results on this list claiming a certain YDNA are probably only around 80% certainty). The the only way the researchers could deny these results was if contamination occurred, which it clearly didn't since the same sample proved that Akhenaten was his father. Anarchistdy (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Reposting quote here for clarity: "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."
This refers to intentional forking, e.g. in the Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) article editors may decide to split out Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)#R1b1a2_.28R-M269.29 if the main article becomes too long and this section warrants an article of its own. List of haplogroups of notable people is definitely not the place to discuss the origins of a haplogroup (possibly duplicating or contradicting what is posted in the main article where it is already covered in more detail). If someone wants to know more they can click on the R1b1a2 wikilink in the section. HelenOnline 05:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I am moving this discussion across to the article talk page so other editors can contribute to the discussion. HelenOnline 05:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, so you want all mentions of the origin of a halotype removed from the article? Anarchistdy (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes please, I just removed another fork added yesterday. HelenOnline 05:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Re King Tut, I don't think I can be more clear than I was in my edit summaries (and don't see the point in repeating myself), hopefully some other editors will help build consensus here. HelenOnline 05:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This article still needs much better sourcing.[edit]

A good level of sourcing for this article would be the kind of sources enumerated in the content guideline on reliable sources for articles on medical topics on Wikipedia. So far this list article is nowhere close to being well sourced. I'll check the article right now to apply WP:BLP here to remove any poorly sourced statements about living people--but the statements about dead people here really need to be much better sourced too. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is perhaps a bit stringent. The reason med-related material bears this more stringent standard is because of the potential consequences of distributing incorrect or POV-COA medical information, which is not a concern here - nobody is going to die if Wikipedia has Robert Oppenheimer's haplogroup wrong. So, citing Who Do You Think You Are? is probably not WP:MEDRS-compliant, but probably reasonable and valid. I would be satisfied if it just met WP:RS, but the citations to eupedia discussion forums, Family Tree DNA project pages, etc., fall far short. 64.126.162.156 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
(Note: same editor, different IP) I have started removing some of this poorly-referenced material, but there is much more than needs to go if better sources can't be found. 50.37.100.141 (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I1 Y-HG[edit]

Birger jarl, Edmund Rice used to be sourced with references as belonging to Y-HG I1, where'd they go? 66.96.79.217 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge mtDNA and Y-DNA sections[edit]

The way the "mtDNA" and "Y-DNA" sections are separate on the page leads to many duplicate section headings, which makes linking awkward and error-prone. For example, the section about ancient samples of mtDNA would be linked to using List of haplogroups of historic people#Ancient samples, but the corresponding Y-DNA section would be linked to using List of haplogroups of historic people#Ancient samples 2 (a section heading that appears nowhere in the article itself). Similarly, Richard III's subsection under the "mtDNA" section would be linked to using List of haplogroups of historic people#Richard III of England, but his subsection under "Y-DNA" would be linked to using List of haplogroups of historic people#Richard III of England 2 (again, a section heading that appears nowhere on the page).

I therefore propose an "intrapage" merge of the mtDNA and Y-DNA sections, in which each person has a single section on the page, containing whatever mtDNA and Y-DNA information exist for that individual (either mtDNA or Y-DNA, or both). - dcljr (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair warning, I am planning to do this soon. Speak now, or… complain later. [wink] - dcljr (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done. - dcljr (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

King Louis[edit]

Louis XIV had haplogroup R1b and his direct descendant Louis XVI had haplogroup G-M201. How is this possible?

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n5/abs/ejhg2013211a.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3992573/ 68.231.141.199 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of haplogroups of historic people. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)