Talk:Bure kinship

Finnish
Why is the finnish name of Skellefteå mentioned? There were historically no finnish population there. Klementin (talk) 09:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion copied from User talk:Klementin
Hello. Please stop adding improperly sourced material to the articles. Per Wikipedia's rules reliable and verifiable sources are required for all new material added, and blogs, personal websites, reports from amateur geneaology club meetings etc are not reliable sources. In addition to that the only reliable source in the bunch of references you added, DN, doesn't in any way support your claim, and does, in fact, not even mention the DNA thing (for your information both I and several others here are fluent in Swedish, and have no problems reading sources...). Thomas.W talk 11:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * That's not true, it is verifiable sources! Geneaologiska Föreningen is really not an " amateur geneaology club meetings"!Klementin (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Y-chromosome (Y Haplogroup G) is not in any way unique for the Buhre family, but is in fact fairly common even in certain parts of Sweden, and very common in other parts of the world (see Haplogroup G (Y-DNA) by country), and thus can't possibly prove anything, least of all that " the reliability of the family tree, as presented by Johannes Bureus in the 1600s, has been confirmed back to the 1300s" as you claim, no matter what amateur geneaologists say. Judging by larger DNA studies it's much more probable that someone with the Y-chromosome descends from a family in Svealand than from a family in Norrland, or even descends from immigrants from other parts of the world, where the Y-chromosome is very common. So for a claim like the one you made about the reliability of the family tree you need much better sources than you provided, and it cannot be based only on a DNA study made by and for amateurs. Thomas.W talk 14:09, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the contrary,in fact it could be at least quite unique för Bure since decendants moved to Uppland and Västergötland where it is also present. In the article here about the global distribution of G it says that it is not present in Norrland, and the findings about Bure shows that this is wrong, and that's more relevant than who other who has it or not. It isn't amateur geneaologist who says that, Geneaologiska föreningen is far more authorative than that. That's why the reasearch was top headline in dn.se when it was made public 2013.Klementin (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The article in DN does not say that the Y-chromosome is unique for the Buhre family. To prove a connection to the mediaeval Bure family you would also need sources/documents that prove beyond doubt that the claims that the three men who had the Y-chromosome really are "direct descendants of the Buhre family, going back to the 15th century". The only thing such a test would prove is that an individual who doesn't have the chromosome isn't related on the father's side to a person who does have the chromosome. Just like the DN article says ("De tre bröderna Andreas, Jonas och Olof Bure som alla adlades på 1620-talet borde inte heta Bure"). And since the DN article also says that lots of people made false claims about being related to the Bure family during the 17th century, the need for additional evidence when making claims going all the way back to the 14th century, as you do, is even greater. Thomas.W talk 15:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I ever never said it was unique for Bureätten, I am aware of the distribution i other countries. But it seems that G is unique for Bure in Norrland.Klementin (talk) 16:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Note that this says nothing about where Bure comes from before Olof Hersesson showsup in Västerbotten in the 1300s. According to Johannes Bureus, he did come from Skokloster.Klementin (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The entire story about the "Bure kinship" is based on a list of people created in the 17th century, a period in Swedish history when everyone was absolutely obsessed with proving that everything in Sweden was the best and the oldest in the world (even claiming that Sweden was the home of the gods, the "Urheimat" of all major peoples in the world, and the mythical Atlantis, see Olaus Rudbeck), with no proof for anything in the list. A list that was then further embellished by others later in the same century, adding mythical figures that are not supported by any documents or any archaeological evidence, so don't expect anyone here to be as enthusiastic about this as you seem to be. Wikipedia is after all an encyclopaedia, not a blog or a forum for enthusiasts... Thomas.W talk 15:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I agrree with your encyclopedist intention, but you're simply wrong about the status of Geneaologiska föreningen and when you are reading the text in DN, probobly because you yourself aren't aware of the subject in matter. The results from the scientific test was G2a, and that proves Bureus' right.Klementin (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * ... [Bureus' ringht] but not in everything. Klementin (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * No, I'm not wrong about your sources, and the tests don't prove what you claim they prove. I took a look at the article on the Swedish Wikipedia (where I'm not active), BTW, and they seem to accept blogs and just about anything as sources/references, but we don't. So unless you can provide sources that comply with the requirements that we have here, you're not going to get the material into the article. Thomas.W talk 16:15, 17 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is the result från Family Tree DNAKlementin (talk) 16:43, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I know about that company, but they only make the tests, they don't connect the results to any claims, least of all claims going several hundred years back, like the claim made by you. Many if not most of the claims made by Johannes Bureus in the list he compiled back in the early 17th century have been proven wrong, such as all of his claims based on rune stone inscriptions, and, as I have told you in this discussion, the DNA-test you're referring to does not support the claim you made, so why don't you stop trying? Wikipedia isn't a place for myths, at least not the English language Wikipedia, only for facts, proven by reliable sources. So I suggest you read the policies etc that I have already linked to here, WP:Reliable sources and WP:Verifiability, and also WP:No original research and WP:SYNTH. Thomas.W talk 17:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * What is it that you are really trying to accomplish? There are sources for what Klementin did add to the articles and those sources do seem both reliable and verifiable. If they get paid or not is as you know completely unrelevant to their knowledge and if they constitute a reliable or verifiable source. Is this an example of where it is suitable to suggest for you to read WP:Conflict of interest, WP:Verifiability and WP:Other unrelated documents? If not then, to make this a constructive discussion, please state what problems you have with each source (other than that they don't get paid). --Averater (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Que? Where did I mention anything about getting paid? Klementin's edits were reverted because A) the sources provided aren't reliable per the rules that apply here, i.e. on the English language Wikipedia (which has rules that appear to be much stricter than on the Swedish language Wikipedia, and are also more strictly applied), and B), a simple DNA-test showing that a couple of people possibly are related (which is the only conclusion you can draw from such tests) does not in any way support Klementin's claim that " the reliability of the family tree, as presented by Johannes Bureus in the 1600s, has been confirmed back to the 1300s", as I have repeatedly told them. Especially in view of the fact that much of the claimed early history/ancestry of the Bure kinship has been proved to be made up (such as everything that has to do with the two "Fale Bure"...). This is an encyclopaedia, not a fanblog. Thomas.W talk 10:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An amateur is someone not getting paid. And this has nothing to do with Swedish Wikipedia. If you claim about stricter rules is true or not I don't know but to discuss sources just by "not according to our rules" doesn't sound like a trustworthy way of handling sources. So, what specific rules are you referring to? Anyone can say "this is not a reliable source according to our rules" and any other user can say "yes, it is". Not constructive at all, so please be more specific. About your B, there were more sources than just a simple DNA-test, is there any other why to write that you would feel better agree with the sources given? --Averater (talk) 10:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You'll find the main rules that apply here at WP:RS (the en-WP reliable sources policy) and WP:V (the en-WP verifiability policy), both of which have already been linked to multiple times in this discussion. Other interesting links would be WP:SPS (a quick link to info about self-published sources, including blogs, forums, personal websites etc, and why they're allowed only in very special cases, none of which applies here), WP:OR (about "original research") and WP:SYNTH (about "synthesis of published material", i.e. combining info from multiple sources and drawing conclusions from that, which also isn't allowed). And while we're at it, would you mind explaining why you suggested I should read about "conflict of interest"? Thomas.W talk 10:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also linked to WP:Other unrelated documents. Unless you specify why I should read those (I have read most of them) it just seems like a contest of suggesting the most links for the other to read. So again: what specific problems do you see with the sources given? --Averater (talk) 10:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

All right, here we go. Klementin's edit added this text to the article: "In 2013 researchers found that the Bure kinship belongs to Y-haplogroup G (G2a). With genetical testing the reliability of the family tree, as presented by Johannes Bureus in the 1600s, has been confirmed back to the 1300s.", made up of two separate claims, one that the test showed that the "Bure kinship" belongs to Y-DNA Haplogroup G2a, and one that the test confirmed Johannes Bureus' geneaology back to the 14th century, none of which is true, regardless of sources, since they were made on just a very small number of people with claimed connections to the Bure kinship, and only tested for a single genetic marker, a marker that is fairly common even in Sweden, and very common in other countries (see Y-haplogroup G), and thus, even in Sweden, is carried by lots of people who do not belong to the Bure kinship. And the very small number of people belonging to the Bure kinship that were tested (only three AFAIK) is not nearly enough for a claim that everyone in the Bure kinship carries that gene. And even if everyone does carry that gene it does not in any way "confirm Johannes Bureus' geneaology back to the 1300s" (some parts of the geneaology have been confirmed back to the early 16th century, based on documents from 1507/1508 something, but that's as far back as anyone apparently can go...). As for the sources provided (http://www.genealogi.net/filmade-foredrag-om-dna/ - http://lokalhistoriaskelleftea.se/vintermotet-dna-forskning-och-bureslakten-2015-01-28/ - http://www.rotter.se/blog/entry/en-solskenshistoria-tack-vare-dna - http://www.dn.se/nyheter/vetenskap/adlig-brodratrios-400-ariga-bluff/), the first one, Genealogiska Föreningen, is a blog (on Wordpress) operated by an organisation for amateur geneaologists, with a video of a presentation held by Peter Sjölund, who is a self-proclaimed "enthusiast" and not an expert in the field. While the second one, Lokalhistorisk portal, is just a blurb about a presentation that was to be held by said Peter Sjölund, and contains no information at all that supports the claims, the third one, Rötter.se, is a blog entry by the same Peter Sjölund, and the fourth one is an article in Dagens Nyheter that makes no mention at all of Johannes Bureus' geneaology having been confirmed, and also just quotes Peter Sjölund. So we have three blogs (which are not allowed per WP:SPS unless belonging to "established experts in the field", which Sjölund isn't since it would require being a scientist specialising in the medical field of DNA/genetics) and one generally reliable source, DN, all of them reporting the same story by Peter Sjölund. Your link to WP:Other unrelated documents is a redlink, BTW, showing that there is no such page. Thomas.W talk 11:36, 18 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The first part I leave for Klementin (or someone else) to comment. About the second part: I have no knowledge about Sjölunds knowledge or whether he can be used as a source. However he is not required to be a scientist (a very vague title) and certainly not in medicine or genetics as those are fields only neighboring genealogy. If he can be called an expert in his field or not I also leave for Klementin or someone else to comment. Maybe there are other unpaid (amateur) experts within any of the organisations that could be used instead of Sjölund?
 * About my redlink: It was intended as a way of showing that random links doesn't help to get the discussion further. But this last post of yours certainly did. --Averater (talk) 11:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Drawing conclusions from DNA-tests like Sjölund has done is all about DNA/genetics, not about geneaology in general, and would thus require him being an established expert within the field of DNA/genetics, if blog entries by him were to be used as references. I noticed that you chose not to answer my question about your COI comment, but I can assure you that there's no conflict of interest here, just like there's no conflict of interest in any other article that I deal with, this is just a routine case of checking sources and removing unsourced claims, and one of a very large number of pages (~10K) on my watchlist. Thomas.W talk 12:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * There are way too many straw men in the critizism above to continue this discussion. It is for instance not just one single marker that connects the relatives, as you can see in the link från Family Tree DNA, and the findings aren't "fairly common even in Sweden" since it is only in a very small population in Uppland you do. GF and the rest of the world are not a bunch of idiots.Klementin (talk) 15:39, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * According to Y-haplogroup G 1.6% out of a sample of 305 Swedish men carried the Haplogroup G marker in a study in 2006, which would translate to ~76,000 men today, and that's quite a few. And I bet they don't all belong to the Bure kinship. But it doesn't really matter how many men carry the marker, you can't draw conclusions like the one about Bureus' geneaology "being proven back to the 1300s" that you tried to get into the article from only a few DNA samples of people who live today, and no archaeological material to compare it to. And a few blogs, all with the same story based on the words of a geneaology enthusiast, is nowhere near enough to meet the requirements for proper sourcing here. Whether you like it or not. You might want to read Exhumation and reburial of Richard III of England, though, an article that describes the identification of human remains from 1485, but that was done through Mitochondrial DNA, and they had both new and old DNA samples to work with. Which is very different from the test this discussion is about. Thomas.W talk 16:08, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * My last post. "a sample of 305 Swedish men", yes, but including immigrants. Check the facts. Bure belongs to subgroup G-S2808 with the specific markers L769+, L89+, M168+, M201+, M213+, M235+, M294+, M299+, M3453+, M42+, M89+, M94+, P133+, P134+, P135+, P136+, P138+, P139+, P14+, P140+, P141+, P143+, P145+, P146+, P148+, P149+, P15+, P151+, P157+, P158+, P159+, P160+, P161+, P163+, P166+, P187+, P257+, P287+, P303+, P316+, PAGES00026+, PAGES00081+, PAGES00094+, PAGES00098+, PF2591+, PF2608+, PF2611+, PF2615+, PF2747+, PF2748+, PF2749+, PF2770+, PF2844+, PF2857+, PF2858+, PF2859+, PF2860+, PF2861+, PF2865+, PF2866+, PF2867+, PF2868+, PF2869+, PF2871+, PF2872+, PF2876+, PF2877+, PF2878+, PF2879+, PF2880+, PF2881+, PF2884+, PF2888+, PF2889+, PF2891+, PF2894+, PF2898+, PF2918+, PF3007+, PF3050+, PF3052+, PF3053+, PF3054+, PF3056+, PF3060+, PF3061+, PF3063+, PF3066+, PF3068+, PF3069+, PF3073+, PF3075+, PF3076+, PF3119+, PF3123+, PF3125+, PF3254+, PF3276+, PF3278+, PF3281+, PF3329+, PF3330+, PF3331+, PF3337+, PF3339+, PF3342+, PF3345+, PF3346+, PF3561+, PF6464+, PF6469+, PF6470+, PF6477+, PF6479+, PF6520+, PF6850+, PF6852+, S2808+, CTS1013+, CTS10449+, CTS10721+, CTS10834+, CTS11228+, CTS11324+, CTS11331+, CTS11352+, CTS11463+, CTS11529+, CTS11911+, CTS1613+, CTS1899+, CTS2125+, CTS2126+, CTS2251+, CTS2271+, CTS2488+, CTS2624+, CTS282+, CTS3654+, CTS373+, CTS424+, CTS4264+, CTS4437+, CTS4479+, CTS4761+, CTS4803+, CTS5317+, CTS5699+, CTS574+, CTS5884+, CTS623+, CTS6316+, CTS6807+, CTS692+, CTS7111+, CTS7269+, CTS7674+, CTS8717+, CTS9593+, CTS9737+, CTS9763+, CTS9885+, L116+, L1259+, L132+, L154+, L156+, L190+, L269+, L30+, L31+, L32+, L350+, L468+, L470+, L496+, L497+, L498+, L520+, L521+, L522+, L523+, L524+, F1209+, F1496+, F3198+, F3692+, F719+, U21+, V241+, V250+, YSC0000207+, YSC0000227+, L605+, Z1817+, Z726+, S2348-, S4442-, Z2103-, Z2109-, L643-, L667-, YSC0000256-, Z17694-, F720-, L1066-, F3484-, F1694-, L584-, DF41-, CTS6369-, CTS3802-, S4442- Compare with the rest of them in the list of members of subgroup G-S2808.Klementin (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to check all that since it's not needed. A): You haven't provided a single reliable source for the claims you made in your edit, for the simple reason that there are none, and B): DNA-tests of a handfull now living people can't possibly prove claims about family relationships/ancestry during the 14th to 17th centuries, when there's not a single historical document or archaeological evidence supporting it. Especially not since many of the claims made during the 17th century about the Bure kinship have been proven wrong, everything from the myths about the two "Fale Bure" not matching what is known from real historical documents and archaeological evidence, to a number of "family lines" having turned out to not be related to each other at all. This isn't a fanblog or a forum for enthusiasts that publish anything and everything, this is an encyclopaedia where we publish facts supported by reliable sources. Thomas.W talk 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You still claim that enwp publish "facts" supported by reliable sources. Yet the main source here is what a librarian wrote far before any DNA-tests was done. The further research that has been done isn't mentioned by a single word. But it is still better than most articles that have large parts completely unsourced. Lets hope you could instead of simply revert any edits improve that sad article since there are much more to write. Instead of just argue in terms of unreliable ´/reliable you could try to analyse what in each source is reliable an what is not. But please move this thread to the article discussion page as no one can find it here. --Averater (talk) 06:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
 * From what I could gather when doing a search for sources most if not all of the material about the Bure kinship on the 'Net, including the "further research", is pure fiction by enthusiasts for enthusiasts, and not reported in any reliable sources, so it doesn't belong here. (I've copied this discussion to the talk page of the article, in case anyone is interested in reading it). Thomas.W talk 08:52, 19 August 2015 (UTC)