Talk:Haplogroup R-M269

Orphaned references in Haplogroup R1b1a1a2
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Haplogroup R1b1a1a2's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Myres2010": From Wales:  From Genetic history of Europe:  From Basques:  From Haplogroup R1b:  

Reference named "balaresque": From Genetic history of Europe:  From Haplogroup R1b:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 08:58, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Haplogroup R-M269. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816193639/http://ftp.anrb.ru/molgen/Lobov_AS.PDF to http://ftp.anrb.ru/molgen/Lobov_AS.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060619105314/http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf to http://hpgl.stanford.edu/publications/HG_2004_v114_p127-148.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160303230502/http://www.jogg.info/22/ONeill.htm to http://www.jogg.info/22/ONeill.htm

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:31, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

facts and views
"No clear consensus has been achieved " - Why on earth can we not start with facts before going into more or less logical interpretations?? Thus, where are the oldest correctly RC-dated finds of M269? HJJHolm (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC) R-L554 is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.61.18.184 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Nomenclature extremely outdated
I have corrected the actual nomenclature after the ISOGG tree of 2019/2020, in the introduction only. The whole paragraph 3 is still wrong.!2A02:8108:9640:AC3:E8C9:38D4:3DF4:C568 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, for unprepared readers, like me, the nomenclature is totally confusing and not in line with the other pages to which the haplotypes refer. The titles of the subclades are contradicted by the content. Therefore, I have put a 'disputed' above both sections.Otto S. Knottnerus (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrator insists on owning the entry despite not understanding the subject
We have known, since Haak 2015, that M269 arrived in Europe in the Bronze Age, through the Postic-Caspian steppe expansion. When I tried to insert this information into the infobox, which inexplicably points to the Neolithic expansion as the point of origin for M269, my edit was reversed by administrator User: Doug Weller, who not only berated me for making an edit without using a reference (ignoring the fact that "Neolithic expansion" in the infobox also lacks sources), but on top of that had the audacity to threaten me.

However, I know, from previous experience, that whoever wins on Wikipedia is not the one who has the best knowledge of the facts exposed in their articles, but who wields most power or who has the best networks, so I give up making edits to this entry. I am no match for an administrator. I am making this thread here to encourage other users to make those changes in my place, as my honest attempt to make these changes on my own has only resulted in hostility and threats by the political elite in this place. — Peleio Aquiles (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at WP:RSN
I started a discussion on sources for this article yesterday. I'd like to find more recent sources for the article. Those I have found seem to confirm a steppe migration but one doesn't rule out the late neolithic. I don't have a lot to say about the diatribe above, which really should be removed. What I will advise is that if an editor disagrees with something in the article, they shouldn't change sourced text (and despite claims by the editor above that neolithic isn't sourced, it is) to add something to the infobox not mentioned in the article - infoboxes should reflect the article. In particular, if that's all you can do on a mobile phone and don't leave an edit summary, don't be surprised to get reverted. WP:VERIFY is always important, never more so than in DNA articles which often suffer from bad sources and pov editing. There's no deadline for improving articles. Doug Weller talk 12:50, 24 October 2020 (UTC)