Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Recent African origin of modern humans

We have a bunch of edits that have completely changed the page Recent African origin of modern humans, Was going to mass revert as its clear that the edits were done to support multiregional origin of modern humans. The whole page has been converted to this theory. Statements after statement have been added to dismiss this pages concept. Ref added for this purpose are old or misunderstood. Before i revert would like a second opinion as we have blanking of refs etc... Moxy (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Citation templates now support more identifiers

Recent changes were made to citations templates (such as {{citation}}, {{cite journal}}, {{cite web}}...). In addition to what was previously supported (bibcode, doi, jstor, isbn, ...), templates now support arXiv, ASIN, JFM, LCCN, MR, OL, OSTI, RFC, SSRN and Zbl. Before, you needed to place |id={{arxiv|0123.4567}} (or worse |url=http://arxiv.org/abs/0123.4567), now you can simply use |arxiv=0123.4567, likewise for |id={{JSTOR|0123456789}} and |url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/0123456789 → |jstor=0123456789.

The full list of supported identifiers is given here (with dummy values):

  • {{cite journal |author=John Smith |year=2000 |title=How to Put Things into Other Things |journal=Journal of Foobar |volume=1 |issue=2 |pages=3–4 |arxiv=0123456789 |asin=0123456789 |bibcode=0123456789 |doi=0123456789 |jfm=0123456789 |jstor=0123456789 |lccn=0123456789 |isbn=0123456789 |issn=0123456789 |mr=0123456789 |oclc=0123456789 |ol=0123456789 |osti=0123456789 |rfc=0123456789 |pmc=0123456789 |pmid=0123456789 |ssrn=0123456789 |zbl=0123456789 |id={{para|id|____}} }}

Obviously not all citations needs all parameters, but this streamlines the most popular ones and gives both better metadata and better appearances when printed. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Talk:List_of_haplogroups_of_historical_and_famous_figures#Hitler_removed

Looking for some opinions from others. An editor wants to remove Adolf Hitler from a list of 'famous DNA'. Maybe some sort of consensus can be reached.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Homo floresiensis for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 13:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Archaeogenetics of the Near East

There's a complaint on my talk page about an IP at this and another article. While looking at this cursorily I noticed the edit-war to a statement sourced from a study by Krings et al [1] and I can't figure out if either version is really backed up by the study (which of course may be obsolete, that's the problem with these articles, you get both pov and amateur edits which either ignore or don't know about later studies. Anyway, if anyone can comment on this or the edits by 67.61.94.83 (talk · contribs) it would be helpful. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Original research

Considerable genetic genealogy research is going on outside of academia. In some cases such research may seem in advance of academic papers, so there may be a temptation to include its conclusions. However Wikipedia policy is clear. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research

Haplogroup_G_(Y-DNA) has been maintained by user RayHBanks, who does not appear to have a user page, and therefore cannot be contacted. I just removed the entire speculative section on historical migrations by Ray Banks, which constitutes his own original work. I have also removed his own speculation that G2a3 today in Europe does not descend from the G2a3 found in a Neolithic skeleton of the LBK, which contradicts the conclusion in the source paper. Mr Banks may be right in all his thinking. He is notable within the genetic genealogy community for his research on haplogroup G. However we all have to be bound by the same rules. I have left a note on the talk page to this effect, but notice that he has previously reverted my changes. --Genie (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree that for better or worse this is how we have to work. Let's hope people like Mr Banks can get themselves published in some sort of publication with fact checking.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:53, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
We do need to step up JOGG publication and start writing letters to the editor when we do not agree with its articles. --RebekahThorn (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Haplogroup O-M176 (Y-DNA)

Hey. Could someone take a look at the edit history for the Haplogroup O-M176 (Y-DNA) article? There is a 'new' editor who is cutting raw frequency data and associated sources out of the article. I have reverted several times. I asked him to post sources for his changes. He replied I should go find the sources. I am 100% on board with the article being 3+ years out of date. I see no need for new material without sources.--RebekahThorn (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Article has now been locked for two weeks and the new editor warned about edit warring, to encourage him to use the talk page rather than pushing the same edit again and again. Would be good if somebody who knows about Haplogroup O could engage with his concerns, and review whether there seems any chance of there being anything to them. Jheald (talk) 09:37, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks James. I will go over the original source papers. In looking at the full edit history for the article, I think this is historically Ebizur's territory.--RebekahThorn (talk) 10:25, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Names of articles about genetic studies of modern peoples and regions

We have a whole bunch of articles, mainly in Category:Modern human genetic history. They have awkward non-standard names, making it hard to even find them all and make a complete list for discussion. All the ones I watch tend to get comments about this on and off, but I think this might need some concerted decision making. Note:

Do people agree or disagree that we should perhaps standardize these articles to "Molecular anthropology of"?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:41, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Would be good to get some opinions on this! Discussion continues at Genetic history of Europe. This should be a matter for this community.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Y haplogroup names

At some point in the next year or so I am thinking we need to start transfering Y haplogroup article names from phylogenic to mutational. Best to start a conversation now. The reason is simply that the mutational names are not only now more standard, but also because the phylogenic names change whenever there is a discovery and (as expected) these are speeding up. Comments?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Big thanks to RebekahThorn (talk · contribs), who's taken this on, and made it a reality.
One question, though. I agree that e.g. Haplogroup J-M267 (Y-DNA) is better than Haplogroup J1, because the article is specifically about the descendency of the M267 mutation, the phylogenetic signature of which may change. (And once you get to any depth, the phylogenetic signatures are now changing very rapidly, and becoming unmemorably complex.
But I wonder if, for the top-level haplogroups, Haplogroup J (Y-DNA) might not be better than Haplogroup J-P209 (Y-DNA) -- because (i) it is shorter, and stable; and (ii) if the mutational definition of Haplogroup J did happen to change (e.g. because a number of previously degenerate mutations were split, so that one was found to be older than the others), we would typically still want an article to survey the whole of haplogroup J, rather than what would have now become a principal subclade of it.
What does anybody else think? Jheald (talk) 21:13, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Well, I agree that there are core A through T mega-haplogroup branches (meta-haplogroups?) that can be summarized in a few sentences. You cannot get much past that with sources though without changing over to tangible and testable branches like J-P209. We could clean up the Y-DNA Haplogroup article to show the cladagram, describe the maga-haplogroups, and link to the current best representatives.--RebekahThorn (talk) 10:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

I understand the initial Andrew’s concern to start transferring the names of the articles to a more stable form. But stable does not mean standard. I think it's a mistake to treat all articles with the same measure, as I say in Talk:Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)#Suggested move and Talk:Haplogroup R-M420 (Y-DNA)#Renaming this article. To choose the name of an article, we must keep in mind the most used, the updated and the most clear name. If for example we see that Haplogroup G-P303 (Y-DNA) was called G2a3b1 in 2009, now is G2a1c2a, and in the future it will have a more complicated name, then the name G-P303 will be fine, simple, stable and easy to use. In this case it is understandable.

But Jheald is completely right to worry about haplogroup J, because since 2002 so far J proved to be a convenient, simple and stable name. In 2002, J was (12f2a), in 2006 (12f2.1, M304, S6, S34, S35), currently (2013) is J(12f2.1, L134/PF4539, M304/Page16/PF4609, P209/PF4584, S6 / L60, S34, S35), then how we call it? Simple, J is the natural name. Calling it J-P209 is absurd. Each letter from A to T, they represent all the main haplogroups. YCC put these names (and then Karafet et al.) in a great moment of inspiration, it works very well and it is important that we respect that. Each letter does not represent a mutation, in any way, but an important point or node in the cladogram of the human family tree. Why call F as F-M89 if other authors use F (P-14)? F has at least 27 mutations, then each author can put 27 names according to his preference. This whole problem would be solved if ISOGG acted as in mitochondrial DNA haplogroups nomenclature, which is much more stable. Many articles are now losing much of its phylogenetic clarity and that is serious. Without the phylogenetic relationships we won’t be able to know the genetic history of peoples.

Don’t forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a manual for specialists. Articles should be as comprehensive, to both, amateur and professional readers. Now it is important to improve the articles, starting with moving main haplogroups to their original names, those from A to T. Also the main subclades with short name and that have shown a stable nomenclature as R1a, R1b, R2, E1a, E1b1a, E1b1b, E2, G1, G2, J1, J2, I1, I2, O1, O2, O3 and others who were justifiably suggested.--Maulucioni (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Recent African origin of modern humans

Could we get a few eyes on the info at Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans#New study about hpalogroup A00. --Moxy (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Variable Mitochondrial Eve?

I'd greatly appreciate it if someone with relevant expertise could take a look at Talk:Mitochondrial_Eve#Variable_Eve?. Does this make sense, or am I missing something here? -- The Anome (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit war

We have an edit war ongoing at African admixture in Europe - could we get a few experienced editors to look over this edits - see what is going on here.Moxy (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Europeans share common ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago

Pls see Talk:Genetic history of Europe#Europeans share common ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago -- Moxy (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

ISOGG article nominated for deletion

Exhumation of Richard III of England: Non-RS and COI edits

I could use some support/oversight on Exhumation of Richard III of England please (diffs: [3], [4], [5]). HelenOnline 08:28, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Prince William's "Indian" ancestry

Note that this dubious information has made its way into Wikipedia, in Prince William's BLP no less (initial entry, latest version) and in Diana, Princess of Wales. HelenOnline 10:40, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, I have edited these articles to make it clear who is making the claims and what they mean (hopefully). I don't believe the Indian claim is far-fetched and I think it would be undue to discuss ethics of DNA testing companies and/or the media in these articles. HelenOnline 07:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Y-chromosome map

Please see Talk:Haplogroup#Haplogroup_map for talk page discussion about the appropriateness of using this map on Wikipedia. I am relying on people who know more than me about this subject to get involved. HelenOnline 06:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Please discuss in File_talk:World_Map_of_Y-DNA_Haplogroups.png, thanks! Chakazul (talk) 08:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Source list helpful for this project

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:01, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Conversion table for Y chromosome haplogroups AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conversion table for Y chromosome haplogroups. Dougweller (talk) 08:05, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Some sources I've found that fail WP:RS

Eupedia.com - see [6] and [7].

Ian Logan's site at [8], see [9]. We need to be using only academic sources. Help needed cleaning up the articles listed. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:27, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a serious problem for many of the articles in the scope of this project. Too many articles are based on preliminary findings that are not replicated, or are generalized in Wikipedia article text far beyond the announced scope of field research studies. I'll post in a new section on this talk page a pointer to more reliable sources. Suggestions for that source list are always welcome. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:58, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Yes those sources are not good enough, although maybe they were in external links sections. WeijiBaikeBianji your edit summary mentions WP:MEDRS, but genetic history is not medical and we have in previous discussions always come to the conclusion that this policy does not apply for the articles this project is watching.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Links, please, to previous discussions concluding that "genetic history is not medical"? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
"The Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy" - this is published by Lulu.com, a major self-publishing outfit. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
"Russian Academy of DNA Genealogy" and its proceedings, also published by lulu.com. Dougweller (talk) 16:13, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
And thus Anatole A. Klyosov[10], it's editor, as well as the ""Academy of DNA Genealogy". Dougweller (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Yes I would be wary of that one, and also Eupedia. I have a lot of respect for Ian Logan's site, but I am not sure if it is ever for example cited by academic articles (which would be evidence for its reputation for accuracy).--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Guidelines desperately needed

During the recent AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of haplogroups of notable people I wrote " I strongly feel we need some tight guidelines on types of sources that can be used and even more, how those sources should be used. With the growth of volunteer DNA projects I think the problem will grow without such guidelines, as is shown by the use of forums, blogs, amateur groups (no disrespect meant here, they have their role, just not normally as sources), eupedia.com, etc. as sources. We also need guidelines on what is suitable for an article. For instance, I tried to redirect a (rubbish) article, L147.1 to Haplogroup J-M267#J-L147.1 but was reverted - was I wrong?"(I've replaced the redirect now - the editor who wrote the article has been blocked for copyvio, pov and general competence issues). Today I removed a lot of material from Genetic history of Italy mainly for sourcing problems (eupedia.com has been used as a source for quite a few articles despite not being a RS). I've also removed multiple instances of familytreedna.com DNA being used as an EL (multiple instances from one article). Is familytreedna.com a suitable source or EL (and should we be naming the project Admins as I've seen in places)? We need guidance as it is being used widely.[11].

Basically we need guidance on: Sources - what sorts of sources should be used and how should these sources be used? Cherry picking from the data in a peer reviewed source is as bad as using a clearly non-RS source at times. External links - ditto Notability of articles - WP:GNG obviously applies, but do we want anything else?

Can we get together some sort of working party? Dougweller (talk) 11:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

In relation to ELs, I don't see a problem with linking to FTDNA haplogroup project sites.
Per WP:EL, "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to ... amount of detail" are appropriate to link, and "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources" should be considered.
It seems to me that typical project sites, that contain reams of haplotype data for people with the said haplogroup, and usually some current-best-effort organisation of those haplotypes into potentially useful groupings, solidly fit the criteria above.
It also seems to me highly appropriate, as a courtesy to readers, to include such links as the principal community sites for people with shared interests in the particular topic. Jheald (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
First, I agree with Jheald about ELs, so I will focus on more controversial stuff. What can we use to source the main body of an article?
I have nothing against discussions about this, and indeed such discussion is necessary every now and then, but I am not convinced there is a "desperate" problem related to sources in the recent examples you mention.
  • In the case of the L147 article example you use I think WP policy gives clear guidance, that was clearly being ignored. There was no "fuzziness" about the policies being violated, and the policies being violated most were not necessarily concerning sources. We can find a source for the existence of J-L147, because it appears on the ISOGG phylogeny website, and so L147 is already mentioned in the J1 article. The ISOGG website is of course not necessarily a good source for everything, but for this particular purpose academic papers use it as a reference point so we can also. I see no controversy there. So the problem with the L147 article was not sourcing, but the fact that it was a classic "POV-Fork" article, trying to get under the radar and cover a subject already covered in another article. (The editor involved tried to edit our J1 article and several others, all about his theory of true Arabs and L147, which appear in no sources, but was reverted by and I and others).
  • Concerning eupedia, it has been discussed twice on WP:RSN. Unless something has changed it does not meet WP requirements because it has no demonstrable reputation for accuracy, and is essentially something like a wiki itself.
  • JOGG is an old subject which has been discussed many times. I have defended its use for non WP:REDFLAG uses many times on WP:RSN and I believe that policy is quite clear and that there is widespread support for cautious use. The journal does have a form of editorial review and has been cited in peer reviewed journals in a positive way. (Indeed the difficulties of getting good review are part of the reason it has had difficulty publishing recently.)
  • Concerning amateur genealogical websites, there have been many debates over the years. Long ago I argued on WP:RSN that surname projects might in some cases be considered reliable, but I received no support from the community for that. The case in point was concerning the DNA of particular well known families, so relevant to one of the examples you mention.
  • I have above given one valid use for the ISOGG website. So now the obvious question is whether the ISOGG "famous people" website is a reliable source. I would argue that because ISOGG is simply collecting references from elsewhere, it is those that needs to be checked. They use a wide variety of sources, and I am not sure if ISOGG follow a review procedure for this information as they do with their phylogeny pages.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:16, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • My understanding is that ISOGG info was copied from here at one stage (with attribution). I definitely wouldn't consider it a reliable source. Helen (talk) 13:42, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
You said: "Concerning amateur genealogical websites, there have been many debates over the years. Long ago I argued on WP:RSN that surname projects might in some cases be considered reliable, but I received no support from the community for that." - IMHO, it's arguably reasonable to use these amateur genealogical sites for summary information of a historical nature - providing they name their sources, etc. If they are 2nd or 3rd party summaries of academic research or primary source material found in places like ancestry.com - then that's not too unreasonable. However, I strongly disagree on using them where DNA evidence is involved. It's just far too easy to screw up that kind of stuff and scientific claims of DNA evidence need to be referenced from scientific sources or we wind up in WP:FRINGE territory - which would be A Very Bad Thing. SteveBaker (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I think Helen and Steve are pointing at an old issue in RS discussions: reliability is relative to what is being sourced. We really should be discussing exact cases of sourcing questions. The saying often said over on WP:RSN is that nearly every source can be reliable for something. For example I believe that by WP norms it would be acceptable to cite ISOGG, or even a surname project, concerning its own aims. (There would then be a question of whether these were notable enough, but that is another question. See WP:NOTE.) Generally I would say that trying to write rules about what is reliable can backfire, and that it is best to go to WP:RSN with cases. As mentioned above I am not sure that the edits which worried Doug were really caused by any lack of clarity about what RS says. I think it was another problem. More below.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
In general, I have been noticing a general increase in the amount of "DNA proves Race" edits and posts over the last few weeks (three to the Science reference desk from seemingly different posters over about 10 days) - and that probably indicates that we're being targeted by people with some kind of racist agenda someplace. There is one very clear scientific fact that we need to keep in mind here - which is that there is no genetic basis for racial distinctions. Our Race (human classification) article (and others) explain this and are well-referenced to scientific sources - and that's enough for Wikipedia. We need to be vigilant about letting people come in and write articles that blur or erase that fact. SteveBaker (talk) 13:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is an old problem which seems to go away for long periods. It almost seems to be seasonal. Maybe it links up with the school year somehow? I believe the edits which triggered Doug's concerns were this type of edit. (Someone posting crazy stuff about how Y haplogroup J1 is connected to being a true Arab and a descendent of Ishmael. At one point he told Doug and I that because of us, someone might commit suicide because our article is not clear enough about the connection he insists on between DYS388 and being a true Arab.) I note Doug posted at WP:RSN several times about this editor but these were not normal questions for that forum, given that the answers were so obvious and the real problems were clearly bigger than just breaches of WP:RS. FWIW I think this type of problem is less today than it was a few years ago, partly because it now gets picked up more quickly, but we have to keep a watch on it for sure.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Almost all genealogical applications are problematic, but we will be seeing it progressively more. Sites like FTDNA and Ancestry.com are emphatically not RS, and the use of them as external links is frequently nothing but an attempt to bring the material into WP through the back door that would never be allowed as directly cited material. A project coordinator (i.e. 'administrator') at FTDNA is simply a person who decided they wanted to have a page on that family and has been coordinating and arranging the personal submissions of anyone who wants to contribute. There is no attempt to evaluate the content - the reliability of the genealogy used to draw the broader patterns, or even that the contributor is really the person who was tested. Further there is no particular reason to give an external link to any one particular hosted group, when every company that offers these testing services has their own such groups. Ancestry.com has this image of being an RS: they are really nothing but a web host for everything from primary documents to out-of-copyright published books to personal contributions by subscribers, and they provide no evaluation that would change or alter these materials from their original status with regard to relative reliability. This applies whether it is haplotype information or just plain old genealogy, and about the only case where a link there would be appropriate is simply in their role as host of some primary document or published book not available at Google or the Internet Archive. Moving on to the use of haplotype material to indicate ethnicity, nationality, race or whatever, I also have strong reservations about the use of external links for this information - either it is enough of an RS and relevant enough to be explicitly summarized and cited in the article, or it isn't. Again, ELs are too frequently used to 'back-door' the otherwise unacceptable information into an article. This is all in existing policy, but perhaps a clear statement would assist in defending these policy-based edits. (Just as a personal aside, I think haplotypes in biographies are in general a bad idea, even if published in a WP:RS - indiscriminate information akin to blood type or astrological sign, unless it has itself become notable in and of itself, as for example in the Jefferson paternity case.) Agricolae (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
In broad terms I agree, but there are some problems in details you might not have considered, and as we have been asked to help the community with guidelines:
  • "FTDNA and Ancestry.com are emphatically not RS". You need to consider what they would be used for. For example company websites can be considered RS for information about those companies. Maybe this is just a fine point, but maybe explaining the fine points helps people understand the WP way of working.
  • Concerning surname project administrators, I think you are correctly describing some, but not all. Many projects are for example connected to clan societies or surname research projects etc. Many of them have a quite independent existence from testing companies and will liase with several of them at once. (So it is not true that each company has different surname administrators, and indeed most of the testing companies do not have well organized surname administration procedures at all. The main one since the closure of DNA Heritage is only FT DNA.) So it is possible that cases will arise where it becomes important to see that not all projects deserve being treated the same way. When that happens we need to go back to the basics of what WP:RS says. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Your first, of course, is correct. As is the case with all company web sites, they are reliable to document what they say about themselves (not necessarily what they really are). I should have specified that they are not reliable sources for genealogy or genetics. As to your second point, I don't know that I do agree. Even these clan societies and family surname groups are no more reliable sources for genealogy, whether their information is presented one place or another, and if a clan society or surname group decides to set something up on FTDNA, they are still just self-appointed arbiters for that family and no more deserve an assumption of reliability than an individual. As with companies, they are reliable for what they say about themselves as an organization, but not for what they say about genealogy or genetics (unless they publish their findings in independent venues with editorial screening for accuracy, in which case the publication is the reliable source, not the organization). I don't see how the fact that it is an organization dropping their information on a non-reviewed site is any different than an individual doing so. Agricolae (talk) 16:31, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Concerning my second point I was not making any case about any specific amateur organization today (unless we count JOGG and ISOGG). But my point is that we can not assume that all such genealogical organizations have (to look at the normal guidelines) no form of fact checking (such as an organized editorial board), no verifiable reputation for accuracy, no history showing recognized expertise amongst experts, and so on. When such a case arises, the general WP guidelines should take precedence and not any broad generalization we make today.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Specifically about external links

(Comment that was inadvertently deleted by a later editor in an edit conflict):
[What Agricolae said -- in relation to appropriateness of ELs] may sometimes be true about the administrators of particular surnames projects, and anyway haplotypes associated with particular surnames will rarely be of real encyclopedic interest. But I think it is grossly unfair about the administrators of large haplogroup projects, who tend to be very clued up indeed, and where the clustering of haplotype patterns is of very considerable relevance to the topic of the genetic haplogroup. Jheald (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is unfair at all, grossly or otherwise. However personally well-informed they have become, however dedicated they are, it doesn't make them experts by Wikipedia standards, any more than a person with extreme dedication and obsessive study making themselves extremely knowledgeable about the Battle of Gettysburg (to be timely) turns them into an 'expert' in the WP:RS sense. There are bloggers that are 'very clued up' about their particular topics, perhaps more so than anyone else on the planet, but their blogs are still just blogs, their personal web sites still just personal web sites. Agricolae (talk) 17:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Note also that a site doesn't necessarily need to qualify as a full WP:RS, for it to still potentially be valuable as an EL. (Per the guidance from WP:EL that I quoted at the top of this thread). Jheald (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
My reading of the rules and guidelines is that:
  1. WP:EL only applies to entries labeled "external links" or "further reading". External links can have a POV, but must be verifiable, and are given a bit more latitude in reliability than are "references" or "notes".
  2. Each and every citation needs to be reasonably reliable -- WP:RS stands for how to identify reliable sources. It is a guideline with gradiations, not black/white. Most, but not all blogs, are unreliable. Ancester.com is generally considered by consensus to be unreliable. Each company or family website, or blog, or source needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Bearian (talk) 16:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
The WP:MEDRS document provides some excellent guidance to what kinds of sources are reliable for claims about medicine or human genetics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment about MEDRS. Quick response about ELs - see [12] - we can discuss whether familytree is a suitable EL, but there were multiple links which is normally seen as not suitable, and I don't understand why Admins names are there which is why I mentioned it. Of course, WP:EL covers this but most project specific guidelines are just more finely tuned general guidelines/policies. I certainly agree about Ancestor.com. As for case by case, I'm hoping we can give some guidelines on how to evaluate. Dougweller (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I do not believe WP:MEDRS has anything to do with genealogy. Just because it uses a "medical" technology does not make it medical. Genetic genealogy does not give advice about health, which is surely the reason for having that special guideline.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Example

I am not sure how much value I can add here, except to provide a real life example which illustrates a different but not insignificant problem, i.e. the publication of (supposed) haplogroups of famous people in order to promote testing companies such as iGENEA and BritainsDNA. I removed the entry for Tutankhamun because among other things the speculative claims are disputed and are not peer reviewed. I had investigated the case after friends with no genetic genealogy expertise were citing this information as fact. My revert was undone and I was told "we dont ahve (sic) room for centrism of any form". I didn't want to get into an edit war so I attempted to clean up the entry. I am somewhat surprised nobody has tried to add Princess Diana's supposed "Indian" mtDNA haplogroup yet. Helen (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that example is a different type of problem in the sense that WP:NOTE forces us to cover it, out-weighing the reliability of the research. I would suggest that such information should be attributed and not reported as fact. I know that a frustration people will feel in such cases is that we can not cite things like blogs which are often excellent at ripping apart weak journalism.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I think the haplogroups of famous people should only be included on Wikipedia if the research has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific or genealogical journal. There is a worrying trend by certain companies who are testing famous people and issuing press releases purely as a PR exercise in an attempt to boost sales of their tests. In the case of Prince William there are also privacy concerns as his permission was not sought to make the details publicly available. See here and here.Dahliarose (talk) 23:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
I also agree. I've no doubt that adding haplogroups of famous people will continue if we have no guidelines because of private companies using them as promotion. Interesting about Prince William. The use of genealogies themselves can be a problem as those are not always accurate. Dougweller (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, this is a problem with genealogy generally and not just genetic genealogy. Genealogy has always been a bit like the internet, and as a result even dignified publications going back to the 19th century can be full of nonsense. This is a sensitive point for some people, for example when it comes to descents from nobility or Mayflower settlers or whatever. On the other hand, once again trying to be balanced, the other side to the problem is that some genealogical publications are very good (better than the dignified ones) but are criticized because not academic. An example which comes up sometimes on WP:RSN is the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. We have to be careful not to set impossibly high barriers to sources which are not academic to begin with. I do not think there is any simple general rule that can tell us what to do. Just saying "be super strict" does not necessarily lead to better sourcing, but actually lead to distorted sourcing.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a difficult issue. If the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy's journal is not considered a reliable source then I wonder what would be? There are very few genealogy publications that offer peer review, and I believe the only ones are in America. While publication satisfies the Wikipedia need for published sources it is no guarantee of accuracy. There have beeen many pedigrees published in book form, especially in America, which are full or errors. With haplogroups of famous people the most critical issue is that the research has been published somewhere rather than issued in a press release and picked up by the newspapers. There also seem to be too many people in the famous haplogroup list where the only source is a surname project or a Y-search ID. Dahliarose (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
At the risk of going off topic here, let's be clear what we are talking about. FMG is a private foundation established by a legacy left by one of the prominent British scholarly genealogists of the 20th century. Foundations, the publication of the FMG, is peer reviewed and while it has only been around for a short while (with the possible exception of the very first issues) it is of the highest quality and should definitely be viewed as a WP:RS. Then there is Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands Database, hosted on the FMG site. This is a project of a single compiler, with no particular standing in the field, and no editorial oversight by the Foundation - they are just serving as web host. While the editor has attempted to attribute all information to reliable sources (or at least indicate when he cannot) some of his conclusions can be arbitrary or even bizarre and show a lack of familiarity with the questions he is addressing. This should not be viewed as a WP:RS. It all becomes more confusing when people cite Med Lands simply as "Foundation for Medieval Genealogy". I actually think we are in more need of a guideline for appropriate use of genealogy on Wikipedia, but that is a discussion for another project page. Agricolae (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes Agricolae you are correct indeed most discussions on WP:RS about FMG have been about the hosting of Medieval Lands (and I think in discussion there we did find a reasonable way to use that also). Maybe the example was not perfect. I guess in a nutshell I am just saying that something like WP:MDRS for genealogy would probably not be helpful, but could very well make WP worse. I am definitely not a fan of proposals to have more field specific rules. I am kind of wondering what is wrong with using WP:RSN like most fields do. As I mentioned right at the top, this discussion seems to be triggered by something which was not WP:RS related as such. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:13, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps part of the problem is that the people editing this page are not experienced WP editors? There may also be a language communication problem. Many people will not be bothered to go to WP:RSN (it is time consuming and confrontational). Perhaps we need to spell out RS etc on the talk page? If we do go to WP:RSN though, it would be helpful to have specific examples documented on the talk page for precedent. Helen (talk) 07:32, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
This is indeed the problem, but it is not easy to replace experience and discussion. The new editor who had Doug so concerned, may well come back one day in a calmer and better informed version, but new and excited editors with theories about what it means to be [place name of ethnic group here] will keep coming to WP with hands over ears. (And in general genealogy, we will keep getting people posting family tree information, who can not see how anyone can dare question it.) Some of them will end up getting blocked from editing. Some of them will listen to advice and gain the right experience. I think we should all do our best to convert as many as we can into the second type, but I think our WP:RS rules are still the right guideline for this.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:56, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Agricolae, thanks for the clarification on the FMG journal. I'm glad that it is considered to be a reliable source after all (I am actually a member of the FMG!). I can see where the confusion could arise if the Med Lands database is cited incorrectly. There is an overlap between genealogy and genetic genealogy. It would be helpful for people to know which genealogy journals are considered by the community as reliable sources. For example, the SOG journal The Genealogist does not have peer-reviewed articles, but it is a scholarly journal and articles are accompanied by extensive footnotes and in my mind would count as a reliable source. All the family history societies publish their own journals and the articles are generally of reasonable quality but there is no third-party fact checking process, and the articles rarely include references. The Journal of Genetic Genealogy (JOGG) is peer reviewed but is currently dormant. The published JOGG articles are of mixed quality. Dahliarose (talk) 09:51, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I too was a member of FMG until I decided to take a break from all of my memberships/subscriptions; right now I am finishing something to submit to them. As to the other journal you mention, I am not sure if you are referring to The Genealogists' Magazine by the SoG or The Genealogist by the ASG, but I would consider either one 'scholarly' and a WP:RS. A problem with JOGG is that the editorial board are a bunch of lawyers and graduate students - last I looked they had neither anyone on the faculty of a biomedical department at a university or college, nor any with a reputation for expertise in genealogy, so the editorial board was not all it should be. It comes off as being 'not quite ready for prime time', and is not accepted as being of the quality of a fully-peer-reviewed journal by scientific librarians. Still, I am sorry to hear that it is dormant, as it could have grown into something better and they did a real service in publishing that detailed Melungeon paper. Agricolae (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that we generate an equivalent of MDRD for genealogy - what makes something reliable is pretty straight-forward, except when you get to the technical details and no policy would help for that anyhow. The biggest issue that arises in genealogy and RS is that while it is similar to broader history and even science in that the way it is approached by scholars has changes significantly over the past century, most of the family histories were published before this watershed and (unlike science and most history) many practitioners are still publishing the old way - name collecting rather than scholarly research. Still, we are more in need of a guideline that clarifies when genealogy is appropriate - a while back I had to remove a completely unnecessary 5-generation pedigree for actor Oliver Platt that someone added just because they could. And yes, there are policies that cover this (e.g. WP:INDISCRIMINATE) but sometimes people just need it stated as it directly relates to what they are doing. I have fought and fought discussed and discussed over the inclusion of random genealogical details in biographical articles (such as a descent from Alfred the Great for an obscure colonial American immigrant, one of only a handful of people in all of Wikipedia so distinguished) but they remain because the article has become a sort of shrine for the favorite ancestor of the compiler and the subject is too obscure for anyone else to notice. Having something to point to that summarizes how these policies are generally viewed to apply to the specific topic could be helpful in educating the editors that don't realize this isn't like (or want to turn it into) Ancestry.com. Agricolae (talk) 13:59, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response but I did not read your last remarks yet I think. I kind of understand your aim, but my approach would still be that I prefer to help explain the standard policies and how they apply to real examples, rather than trying to write special rules for special cases. Some key points (which all just come from our standard policies):
  • Strong claims, and/or controversial claims require stronger sourcing. So we do not always need to be attacking for example use of JOGG for every little thing. It is surely good enough for some types of information. But for some subjects, JOGG is considered to be too weak.
  • A difficult point in this field is the need for more secondary sources. Because there are so few WP articles tend to be summaries of the primary research. This is not ideal. But the other alternative is to get this field out of Wikipedia. So care must be taken to make very neutral summaries of the literature.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Solutrean hypothesis

Both of the maps used to represent the genetics of human migrations, [File:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg] for mtDNA and [File:World Map of Y-DNA Haplogroups.png], give too much play to the decidedly fringe Solutrean hypothesis, attributing the arrival of mtX and Y-R1b in the New World to a direct prehistoric migration from Europe, when the scholarly consensus on the first is that it came via Beringia, and on the second is that it is due to post-colonial gene flow, or if ancient is again via Beringia. These maps (and particularly the first) are used broadly enough that they need some critical evaluation, but at least in the case of the first, the creator seems not to have responded to any feedback on the talk page, and has not participated in Wikipedia in over a year, so the source file may no longer be available for alteration. Agricolae (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

A map based on a fringe hypothesis can be removed on sight. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:34, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
As mentioned in its talk page, I'm aware of the Solutrean hypothesis and its fringe status, but the two matters are actually not quite related, because even if we can confirm that R1b came from Europe via the ocean, it doesn't prove a Solutrean-Clovis connection, the R1b may well be spread by the Vikings or Mesolithic seafarers or other possibilities.
I have uploaded a new version of the map to show both possible paths (from Asia or from the Atlantic ocean), as long as there is still no scientific consensus. Chakazul (talk) 09:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Vikings? Mesolithic seafarers? Do you actually have a scholarly source that suggests either of these possibilities as the source of R1B, or does this represent your own speculation (which has no business being represented)? There is a reason scholars look to the two ends, original peopling or post-colonial. It is a whole lot more difficult to replace the majority type than to populate a virgin area, and we only had that level of population pressure in the post-colonial era. Enough vikings to have that level of Y-chromosome effect would have left a whole lot greater archaeological footprint, or are we now entering Kennsington Rune Stone or Mystery Hill fringe territory? Agricolae (talk) 13:38, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, "Viking" or "Mesolithic" are just tongue-in-cheek examples I made up. You know what I meant was that we simply don't have enough information to decide when/where/how did the R1b came from. Chakazul (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:RS, "simply don't have enough information" seems like a reason not to speculate one way or another on Wikipedia. There may be a reported fact in reliable secondary sources about what is now found in North America, but there does not appear to be a reported fact in reliable secondary sources about how it got there. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:30, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
There are two non-fringe views. One is that it came from Europe post-colonially (and since this is a precolonial map, this is not relevant to the map). The second is that it came in ancient times from Asia. How to portray these competing theories is a problem, but the solution should not be to conjure up a third possibility, a decidedly unlikely pre-colonial European-derived route. Agricolae (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2013 (UTC)
Reasonable. I'm finding if there's any source that suggested a cross-Atlantic route other than the fringe Solutrean Hypothesis. If there's no, I'll remove the arrow. But then I can only adjust my map but not the mtDNA one. Chakazul (talk) 04:09, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
[:File:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg] is completely unacceptable as it shows an 'X' travelling from Europe to North America - this was shown to be simply wrong quite a few years ago. Which probably explains that although it is included in a number of Haplogroup articles, it is not included in Haplogroup X (mtDNA). If it can't be changed it needs to be removed. Dougweller (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, an image not based on reliable sources needs to be deleted wherever found. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

List of haplogroups of notable people

List of haplogroups of notable people needs a lot of improvement and monitoring. I would appreciate more eyes on it. HelenOnline 09:18, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Isn't ISOGG a dubious source? WP:BLP statements without reliable sources should be deleted on sight. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
In the past the main acceptable usage of ISOGG has been their Y phylogeny, which is also cited in academic papers. This does not automatically mean we can use the rest of the website. I think their famous people page might have citations to show which ones have actually come from published sources though?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:41, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't use ISOGG for this article, except as a source of sources. I am also not comfortable with the recent WP:CONTENTFORKING regarding haplogroup origins taking place in it. HelenOnline 13:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help WeijiBaikeBianji. I have moved a content discussion from my personal talk page to the article talk page so others can participate. This article is a popular target for poorly sourced content. If there is not enough interest in improving (or at least maintaining) this article I am going to take it off my watchlist as it is not worth me getting into another edit war over. HelenOnline 05:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History/Archive_3&oldid=1137380334"