Talk:Haplogroup T-M184

Genetic landscape of Europe 7000 YBP
Grant65 is appealing to "removed images/quoteboxes that breach WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and/or are disputed at Wikimedia Commons". But in fact the only disputed is the old version, while this is a totally new version only showing sourced data.Liseranius (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
The most updated scientific sources King07 and Mendez11 have been deleted and replaced by GedalYah adding non-scientific opinions and sources from religious websites.Liseranius (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Grant65 keeps deleting quotes from Thomas Jefferson section appealing to "rem [excessive] quoteboxes from "Thomas Jefferson" section" but in fact there is none mention about the Thomas Jefferson origins but only about unrelated issues not belonging to Haplogroup T. The quotebox is the only mention to haplogroup T and Jefferson's origins. Liseranius (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Recent Migration waves of Haplogroup T into India and East Africa
Two scientific sources are provided on India and East Africa haplogroup T arrivals, Sanchez05 and Negri16. Again GedalYah is repeatedly deleting this information.Liseranius (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC) Liseranius is back and continuing to disregard all the research and facts this range on this topic is limited and not truth. http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_T_Y-DNA.shtml we previously had a editing war and this may have started again.

Article Editors using Eupedia as a scientific source
Eupedia is NOT a Valid Source and is managed by one unique individual who is learning about genetics by its own. Grant65 if you want to add a place of origin use scientific sources and not private websites without links to science. Maciamo's opinion, Eupedia owner, is as valid as can be our own opinion. There is NONE paper talking about the origin of T-M184 (xL206). If anyone don't like good faith predictions using the available data, then, at least, keep out private opinions and wait for scientific sources.Liseranius (talk) 02:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

"Possible time of origin", "Possible place of origin" and Haplogroup T-M184
According to YFULL the time of origin of T-M184 is 39,700-45,500 years BP while TMRCA is 29,300-24,500, TMRCA is not time of origin of T-M184 instead is only the time when T2 and T1 splitted from each other but there is still time between this separation and the Formed time for still unknown live or extinct T branches. Outdated studies when predict places of origin for T haplogroup are not talking about T-M184 but instead are talking about T1-L206 or T1a-M70, these predictions have to be added in all cases in their own sections but not inside the infobox which belong only to T-M184. There is only a published study which find T-M184* (xT1-L206) and this is Hallast2014 finding a T-M184* individual from Bhutan, the place of origin always is predicted using the earliest splitted clades and there is only other three individuals belonging to T-M184* that have been found up to date, one in YFull from Caucasus and two more in the FTDNA public project, one of them from Germany and the other probably from the Flemish Congo. There is none individual from the Near East among the individuals belonging to the most basal branch of T-M184, being only found one belonging to T1-L206. 6 out of 7 individuals belonging to T-M184* and T1*-L206 are found outside the Middle East.Liseranius (talk) 17:52, 01 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for deigning to talk to us, Liseranius.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GedalYah Hello Liseranius but North of the Alp can't not be the origin of these mutation but rather it came to Germany thru migration. Simply one small size test sample can not explain the complex and very informative haplogroup T it will continue to redefined the major framework of the Y chromosome evolution. There is no why to explain the numbers in Somalia Issa (clan) This sample is only 25% E-M215. According to Plaster et al. only have been found two very different lineages, T-M184 and E-M215, among northern Dirs.by way of K- M9 from Melanesia and Australia moving westward the high levels South East India beyond the Hindu Kush as well as L by way of LT.


 * If new branches of T are discovered in the future, then the article will be updated, but obviously the information in the article is only expected to deal with things that are known to exist and not with hypotheticals. Anyway, "Time of origin" is an ambiguous phrase. Even though it appears in all haplogroup infoboxes, I can't find any agreement or even discussion on what it is supposed to mean, and what is actually used is a big mess. From a quick look through the literature the phrase "time of origin" is practically nonexistent in scientific works, which use more precise terms like "coalescence time" or "time of onset of growth" and the like. Whatever is put into the infobox should at least make it clear what the meaning is. We could actually put in both the TMRCA and the time of divergence from L. What do other editors think?


 * I know that Mendez et al didn't have any T(xT1), only T1*. If you can find a better source, please use it. I haven't found anything. Kusuma does refer to T as "West Eurasian", we could use that if "Near East" is too specific. But it needs a *verifiable source*. Liseranius, your opinion, or mine, based on the distribution of T2-PH110 is *not* a verifiable source for Wikipedia, until you have published it in a scientific journal. OK?


 * No T* has been found in a representative sample from anywhere. There is simply far too little data to draw conclusions on this basis. Hallast et al selected samples that would fill out the haplogroup tree and did not do a general survey of Bhutan. All the rest are from self-selected and geographically imbalanced private testing. As you know well there is K*(xL, NO, P, T1a) in the Near East (and elsewhre) which could easily be basal T. FTDNA Haplogroup T project has 3 cases of T-M184(xT1-L206), one confirmed as T2-PH110, the other two with similar haplotypes, and one is a Turk of Armenian origin, one is a Georgian, and one is a German (which one is from the Congo?). 2/3 from the Transcaucasus region, which in the broad sense is *in* the Near East. Where are the other cases of T1* from, BTW? 70.75.29.86 (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Is not needed a wider sampling of Bhutan for this matter, we are not talking about "frequencies" but instead "origin" and is not used "self-selected and geographically imbalanced private" results but all the results available. The "Turk of Armenian origin" is a ethnic Armenian from Nagorno-Karabakh moved to Turkey, the "Georgian" is a Flemish Congo descent living in Georgia. Liseranius (talk) 21:12, 06 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's unexpected, someone from Belgian Congo living in Georgia! Yes, you *do* need frequency data, otherwise you cannot say whether presence or absence of some basal branch *in the sample* is meaningful/comparable to another sample. Many of the available results *are* from private testing which *is* self-selected and geographically imbalanced. In any case, we need a verifiable source for the origin of T, not our own opinions. You seem to have read about every paper on the subject in existence, surely you can suggest something? 70.75.29.86 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2016 (UTC)


 * This individual moved from Kinshasa to Georgia. Meaningful or not, is not found in any other sample up to date. If the frequency is higher or lowest is irrelevant. This sample is as relevant for T-M184 origins as is the sample found in Mendez et al for T1-L206. I don't think that "Eurasian Plate" is actually something subject to opinions but instead cover all possible scenarios. Liseranius (talk) 01:14, 08 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Look, do you know of a scientific paper that discusses the place of origin of haplogroup T and says something about it that is acceptable to you? If so, please cite the paper. 70.75.29.86 (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


 * "Eurasian Plate" have been changed to "North of the Alpide belt". Why "North of the Alpide belt"? All T2-PH110 individuals, the most basally splitted branch of T-M184, are found to the North of the Alpide belt: North European Plain, Kura-Araks basin and Bhutan. There is 0 out of 4 T2-PH110 individuals found to the south of this line. There is no more information available up to date to determine the origin of T-M184. We should wait for more testing on these four individuals to know how they are splitted one with each other. This page is about T-M184 but not about T1a-M70 nor T1-L206. So STOP changing the "possible place of origin" with those possible place for T1a-M70 or T1-L206 found in old papers where none T-M184(xL206) was tested nor used as sample. Also doesn't change for anyplace because a commercial webpage like Genographic Project of Spencer Wells was claiming something for T1a-M70 10 years ago. Liseranius (talk) 01:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ALPIDE SHOW AS A MISSPELLING WIKIPEDIA CAN ALLOW ONE TO SHOW WRONG INFO BUT NO WHERE ELSE WILL EVER SHOW ALPIDE MISINFO — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.179.69.109 (talk • contribs) 23:32 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Several attempts of GedalYah adding "West Asia" as place of origin, non-NPOV, without any scientific source on T-M184 (xL206) origins. The lack of sources for a Possible Place of Origin require a) Neutral and widely accepted geographic range or b) Prediction using the available samples. As "b" have not been well accepted, only "a" is acceptable for wikipedia. Eurasia is a "NPOV" widely enough to cover the possible place of origin.Liseranius (talk) 11:21, 31 January 2017 (UTC)


 * GedalYah under IP 198.179.69.109 again adding "West Asia" as place of origin, non-NPOV, without any scientific source on T-M184 (xL206) origins. Eurasia is a "NPOV" widely enough to cover the possible place of origin.Liseranius (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Germania?
Is someone inserting folklore into articles on genetics? Germania is not a historic country. What is the evidence it came from 'Germania', and not where it is found in highest frequency, East Africa? MrSativa (talk) 04:19, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Germania or any other term defining a geographical space is equally acceptable, not only countries are accepted.Liseranius (talk) 18:09, 01 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Liseranius, native English speakers are telling you that "Germania" and "Eurasian plate" are not correct terms in this context. What makes you believe you know English better than us? 70.75.29.86 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as I can see, "native English speakers" are saying that "Germania is not a historic country". In the same way "Iberian Peninsula", "Arabian Peninsula", "Near East" or "Levant" are not "historic countries". Liseranius (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Germania implies an area at a certain time in the past (Roman Empire Germanic tribes), not just a geographical area like "Central Europe". 70.75.29.86 (talk) 16:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I will change Germania for North European Plain. Liseranius (talk) 23:23, 07 November 2016 (UTC)

Eurasian Plate
"Eurasian Plate" as the place of origin for this haplogroup is spurious. None of the analyses suggest any location as broad or allude to the clade's origin. Indeed, even the dating was wrong. It's not 40,000 years ago for T-M184, but possibly more recent than that. The hypothesized date for LT, haplogroup T's immediate ancestor lineage, alone is younger (23,000-33,000 kya). The infobox date also didn't match YTree's estimate of 26,900-42,200 ybp for T. Moreover, the Karsdorf specimen was largely of Western European Hunter-gatherer descent, not Southwest Asian. I've also fixed the bad grammar, and indicated which actual areas have the highest frequencies of the clade per the distribution tables. Please do not fiddle with this ip or I will ask for page protection. Soupforone (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts with the frequency distribution tables ip. However, kindly stop falsifying the haplogroup date, distribution and place of origin in the infobox and lede. For one thing, your YFull link doesn't point to haplogroup T or to its date. It instead links to haplogroup Q. The correct link points to the haplogroup K (T's immediate ancestral lineage), and the proper dating indicated there is 26,900-42,200 years ago, not 39,300-45,100 years ago. Soupforone (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't know if Y-Full is a Wikipedia reliable source (personally I think it's an good source but I've never seen it quoted in peer-reviewed literature). Anyway, to clarify, the earlier date ("formed") is TMRCA of L and T, that is when pre-T diverged from pre-L, while the later date is the TMRCA of T itself, i.e. when the branches of T diverged. The origin date is the TMRCA of the clade, not of its parent clade, so the Y-Full date would be 24 500-29 300 years ago. 70.75.29.86 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
 * YFull is actually run (and frequently used ) by professional geneticists, including Vladimir Gurianov of the Vavilov Institute of General Genetics . The TMRCA for haplogroup T on YFull is also 26,900 . Soupforone (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see this. I know the guys who run it are pros, if it's used in published work as well then that's perfect. 70.75.29.86 (talk) 18:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Page becoming bloated and unwieldy for users
Dear editors of the T haplogroup wiki entry,

I am concerned that the page is becoming a little bloated with all of the tables, quote boxes and the like. It is becoming very difficult to navigate and make sense of - even for people who are very familiar with this kind of content (in my case an anthropological geneticist with a Y haplogroup within T).

I recommend the content be condensed and streamlined so as to be of more use to users other than dedicated researchers of the T haplogroup and its sub-clades. As it stands, a novice will have barely any chance of making sense of what is being provided.

Thank you for your efforts and for all of the interest in this under-explored haplogroup.

- GreyStrix — Preceding unsigned comment added by GreyStrix (talk • contribs) 01:58, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * To address this and other issues, I have now created Haplogroup T-L206 (Y-DNA) (T1). Grant  &#124;  Talk  12:46, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

User:62.14.247.234
I have just blocked the above IP number from editing for one week, due to to disruptive editing of Haplogroup T-M184.

There are numerous issues with this article – some of which are mentioned by other users above.

For at least 12 months now, an editor using this IP number has introduced many of the issues mentioned. He/she has not, it seems, responded to the above messages.

He/she has also been reverting good faith edits that attempt to deal with these issues, as supposed "Vandalism" etc (see Haplogroup T-M184: Revision history).

To 62.14.247.234 and any associated identities or sockpuppets: please discuss future changes at the article's talk page.

Grant &#124;  Talk  13:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Agree. The factual accuracy of the map is highly disputed. The map making undue claims regarding the origin of haplogroup T1a-according to that map, haplogroup T originated from Northern Alphine belt- and even no source provided for that claim. Unfortunately, the ip(s) and the user prefer edit-warring instead of discussing it. Next, I will invite the admins. 88.254.80.207 (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Article is too colorful
Article is too colorful and distracting. Hope somebody fixes this.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.214.75.56 (talk) 14:49, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

This is nuts
OK, what the heck? Enormous detailed descriptions of the Karsdorf context (with copyvio)? Autosomal components from amateur genetic calculators? Unpublished haplogroup predictions from STR haplotypes? Lists of pretty much every ethnic group in existence which has unclassified K which *might* be T? This is an enormous pile of OR and unnecessary detail. Obviously someone has put a lot of work into this, but it belongs on a personal webpage, not here. 70.75.29.86 (talk) 22:11, 26 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Indeed, not particularly encyclopedic. The frequency tables are useful but unwieldy. As per standard, the haplogroup distribution should be limited to the highest-bearing areas/groups, and they should point to the actual clade frequencies rather than to predicted clade percentages via raw STR haplotypes. The average reader doesn't know how to use haplogroup predictors, so he/she can only take the STR haplotype-derived frequencies on faith. Soupforone (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of changes
To begin with I am putting in the TMRCA and place of origin from Mendez et al 2011. I'm not sure that Y-Full is a Wikipedia reliable source (though I am completely fine with treating it as an RS personally). Though an older source Mendez et al used haplogroup K at 47-48 kya as a calibration point, close to the best available fossil calibration, and the confidence interval overlaps that of Y-Full. To avoid ambiguity noted that it is the TMRCA in the infobox. Hallast et al is a good source but gives two different sets of estimates which is kind of awkward.

Hallast doesn't give a place of origin for T or really deal with it at all. FTDNA project does not speculate on the subject either. The only RS I can find is Mendez et al. 70.75.29.86 (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia: it is a place to report verifiable information from reliable sources, not a place for individual editors to report their own results and conclusions from studying primary sources. Amateur research should go on a personal webpage or blog; Wikipedia is not a free server for editors to post their own views and findings. If you feel that you ought to be a special exception to this rule, please complain to the administrators.

I don't know of any source more recent than Mendez et al 2011 that discusses the place of origin. Of course something more recent would be good. Sources that do not explicitly discuss the subject, but instead are a source of data for original research, are not verifiable sources for the area of origin. FTDNA and Hallast et al reporting where T2-PH110 has been found are not sources for where haplogroup T originated.

There are several sources for time of origin. I have no objection to Y-Full (thanks soupforone). However, IMO we should use the TMRCA of T, since it is the origin of all existing T. Using the TMRCA of LT just tells when the distant ancestor of T was born the brother of the distant ancestor of L, 500 generations prior to the existence of the T clade itself. Liseranius, could you please explain why you favour the TMRCA of LT? 70.75.29.86 (talk) 16:14, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2017
198.179.69.109 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Possible place of origin is wrong first off the word Alpide is red lined on Wikipedia's spell check. Show at least one paper one researcher that makes these claim of Alpide

/ / /
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done User:GedalYah seems to have already addressed this here. Please confirm, thanks. JustBerry (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * JustBerry confirmed thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GedalYah (talk • contribs)

Origin place in infobox

 * "Eurasia" advocates User:62.14.247.234 User:Liseranius, User:MustafaO
 * "West Asia]" advocates User:198.179.69.110, User:198.179.69.109 (probably same person)
 * "Arabian peninsula/West Asia or Northeast Africa" advocates User:GedalYah
 * "South West Eurasia" advocates User:Grant65

If any of you have been conducted this edit war as an IP, you must disclose that.

Please work out the dispute here and stop disrupting the article. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, my "South West Eurasia" was an attempt at a compromise between the other locations.
 * I also think "Eurasia" is unnecessarily broad – so broad as to be meaningless. Conversely, "Northeast Africa" is almost certainly incorrect, despite the high incidence of T-M184 there. That is, the situation is the same in some parts of Eastern India. Both seem to be a "termini" for T-M184, rather than starting points.
 * Grant &#124;  Talk  08:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Massive reversion
In this diff, User:MustafaO reverted the article all the way back to how it stood at their last edit back on Feb 11 (this version), removing all intervening edits, with edit note: "Reverting vandalism. "   Here is the diff showing no difference, and removing 76 intermediate revisions by 21 users. This is not OK. Jytdog (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Haplogroup frequency tables
Grant65, could you please vet the haplogroup frequency tables? Several of the percentages, sample designations and locations in them were inaccurate. For example, Trombetta et al. (2015) was linked to although it didn't analyse haplogroup T (cf. Supplementary Table 7 ), clan particulars were attributed to Plaster (2011) although he does not specify this, and subclan particulars were attributed to Iacovacci et al. (2016) although they likewise don't indicate this. Further, the linked Berti et al. (2016) analysis on haplogroup T does not appear to exist. I've corrected these inaccuracies, but there may be other errors. Soupforone (talk) 02:48, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Soupforone, all I've really ever done here is copyediting and hiving off the T-L206 article.
 * That seems like great research – feel free to delete anything that is clearly bogus.
 * Grant &#124;  Talk  13:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. It turns out that the same nonsense percentages, sample designations and locations were also in the T-L206 haplogroup frequency table. Soupforone (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Soupforone, it says Dir in the research . Now can you stop removing it? (ChiefWanag) 23:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Iacovacci et al. indicate that they analysed Dir clan samples; they don't specify any subclans. Ergo, why I indicated above that no subclans (not clans) are indicated in their haplogroup analysis. Soupforone (talk) 03:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Distribution section
Is it really necessary to emphasize the high frequency of T among certain Somalis in the first sentence of Haplogroup_T-M184#Overview (as of this post)? The extraordinary high T frequency there is due to recent patriarchal practices of the Dir clan and does not have much relevance to the overall history of T globally. It gives off the wrong impression that somehow the high T in that region is relevant. It does little to inform people on the origins of T. Wadaad (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Disclosure: Wadaad asked me to comment on this distribution phrase, which I had just reworded. The phrase does seem rather abrupt. A similar frequency (100%) of haplogroup T was apparently also found in a tiny central Italian sample, so it is not unique in this regard either. Also, many of the percentages, sample designations and locations in the haplogroup frequency table were inaccurate, as explained above. Soupforone (talk) 04:55, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Passing through. Indeed, the large precents of T in northern Somalis isn't particularly significant to other communities. However, I thought the T haplogroup was from back migration. What would do you mean recent practices? AcidSnow (talk) 12:21, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I suspect that the high frequency variant in and around Dire Dawa/Djibouti is just 1 recent variety and has little relevancy to T-M184 research. It won't elucidate the origins of the macro-clade that much.Wadaad (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * 1) "Suspecting" something is not the same thing as being able to prove it. Is the map in the infobox wrong? Because, whether it has occurred as a result of recent migration or not, the fact remains that the Djibouti/Somalia area has both: (i) the densest cluster of T-M184 and (ii) this cluster is spread over a relatively wide area.
 * 2) It's clear from the rest of the article that any local/ethnic minority clusters do not reflect the origins of T-M184 or a particular subclade. I don't see the problem in using specific geographic/ethnic names for these clusters.
 * 3) If we are going to downplay the major cluster worldwide as some kind of recent migration/founder effect, then I don't think we should be making this strange, almost meaningless statement in the introduction: "T-M184 frequencies in Germany range from 3% to 24%, several studies give frequencies in Caucasus from 0% to 12% and the frequency in Bhutan is less than 5%." I would make four points about this sentence. (i.) This appears to refer to the 23.5% in Stilfs, which is a German-speaking minority region in Italy not Germany. (ii.) Some groups in the Caucasus have rates of up to 33% (as shown in the relevant section of the article). (iii.) Why is a rate of 5% in Bhutan so significant, when there are higher rates in neighbouring countries like India and Tibet? (iv.) Given the low national average rates of T-M184 in Europe and the low regional average rate across the Caucasus, I think we should name the specific regions of Europe and the Caucasus with high rates, not to mention Africa, South Asia,  Central Asia etc.
 * Grant &#124;  Talk  10:49, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * To phrase it differently, I think it is similar to the R1b situation in Lake Chad. R1b has a high frequency there but is only one variety (namely R-V88) due to a founder effect and quite remote from its original source. We do not have sufficient evidence for what is going on around Djibouti, but it is highly likely a similar situation.Wadaad (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is that present-day distributions, founder effects or not, are at least as significant as the purported origins (which logic suggests was somewhere in or around Iran).
 * Grant &#124;  Talk  17:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

"Ancient DNA from Karsdorf" section
Regarding this edit to the article by User:37.10.145.243: (i) the edit is described incorrectly in the Edit Summary as "Fixed populations", when it actually includes a lot more than – please see Help:Edit summary and Edit summary dos and don'ts:
 * "Avoid vagueness. While edit summaries can be terse, they should still be specific. Providing an edit summary similar to "I made some changes" is functionally equivalent to not providing a summary at all.
 * "Be clear about what you did, so that other editors can assess it quickly."

(ii) Also, due to Wikipedia's policy on undue emphasis, in September/October 2016 most of the material from Haplogroup_T-M184 was hived off into two new articles: Karsdorf remains and Haplogroup T-L206 (Y-DNA), ''because:
 * the section concerns only two individuals'' and;
 * while the table concerning I0795 KAR6 and I0797 KAR16a is relevant; it is also so large that the addition of other images/quoteboxes renders the section unreadable.
 * More importantly,images and quoteboxes that have nothing directly to do with the two, individual Karsdorf genomes are unwarranted.
 * In addition, the image "Genetic landscape of Europe 7000 YBP" is disputed on several factual grounds, please see the Commons talk page File talk:Genetic landscape of Europe 7000 YBP.png.

Consequently I have again removed the images/quoteboxes from Haplogroup_T-M184. Please discuss the matter here if you have an issue with this.

Grant &#124;  Talk  08:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Use of coloured tables etc will cause issues for some readers
For what it's worth, this is the largest article on a haplogroup, both Y-DNA and mtDNA.

In fact it's one of the 500 longest articles on en.wikipedia.

While it is not as slow to load as it was before its "diet" almost a year ago, the excessive use of coloured tables and quoteboxes does make it slower to load than pages than are heavier in plain text words.

People with slow/intermittent, or otherwise poor quality connections, do find it problematic to download (graphics-heavy) pages like this. Pages with a lot of images, and/or tables often do not display quickly or well for the ever-growing number of m.wikipedia users, e.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_T-M184

More importantly, colours other than monochrome can be virtually unreadable for sight-impaired readers, e.g. people with colour blindness.

Grant &#124;  Talk  09:18, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Genetic landscape of Europe 7000 YBP
Grant65 is appealing to "removed images/quoteboxes that breach WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and/or are disputed at Wikimedia Commons". But in fact the only disputed is the old version, while this is a totally new version only showing sourced data.Liseranius (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said above, I am disputing the current version.
 * I have explained my reasons, in detail, at the relevant Wikimedia Commons page File talk:Genetic landscape of Europe 7000 YBP.png.
 * Grant &#124;  Talk  13:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Jefferson
The most updated scientific sources King07 and Mendez11 have been deleted and replaced by GedalYah adding non-scientific opinions and sources from religious websites.Liseranius (talk) 10:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Grant65 keeps deleting quotes from Thomas Jefferson section appealing to "rem [excessive] quoteboxes from "Thomas Jefferson" section" but in fact there is none mention about the Thomas Jefferson origins but only about unrelated issues not belonging to Haplogroup T. The quotebox is the only mention to haplogroup T and Jefferson's origins. Liseranius (talk) 05:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Jefferson is one individual and his genetics are already the subject of several other articles. They are also more relevant to the T-M206 article.
 * I haven't checked WP:MOS regarding quoteboxes, but IMO the Jefferson section is too short to justify two quoteboxes. This article and its readers are already heavily burdened with coloured graphics.
 * Grant &#124;  Talk  13:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Temporarily hidden material from Genographic Project re "Germany", Caucasus and Bhutan
With regard to the following: "According to the Genographic Project the T-M184 frequencies in Germany goes from 3% to 24%, several studies give frequencies in Caucasus from 0% to 12% and the frequency in Bhutan is less than 5%."

I have hidden this temporarily, pending a move to another point in the article, because the national percentages in these cases are too low to warrant mention in the introduction (as per WP:UNDUE).

Also the reference to "24%" in some part of Germany is not made anywhere else in the article. So the significance is unclear; if it really is 24% somewhere in Germany, then we should specify which region/city. I also note that in the past, Austrians and German-speaking Tyroleans from Italy have been referred to in this article as "Germans", which is not a correct use of the ethnonym.

Grant &#124;  Talk  16:08, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

T-M184 Garhajis dispute
Liseranius and Kzl55 Seeing as you two have been going at it for almost 3 months, editing and counter-editing. I think you two need a third party mediator who is impartial to settle your dispute in regards to the addition of 'Garhajis' on T-M184 tree. GeelJire (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 April 2018
Edited after protection. Return to Protected version "05:07, 11 April 2018‎ Orangemike" before being edited by "14:13, 11 April 2018‎ Kzl55". 62.14.247.236 (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Removed original image contains unpublished content, this is considered original research on Wikipedia and was removed per WP:OI. It is based on self-reported results from commercial sites and not on any published reliable sources. You have been asked numerous times to provide reliable sources supporting the illustration. It can be restored if you can provide published reliable sources supporting it--Kzl55 (talk) 19:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Wrong number
In T2 section, last line of the table:

Europeans 	English (Germanic) 	Australia 	1/1078 	0.9%

I believe 0.9% should be 0.09%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.202.155 (talk) 23:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Haplogroup K*
Reading the distribution section and the sources cited, I have noticed that hg K* has been represented as hg T-M184. It is not totally wrong, as the mentioned K* might be K1b (a.k.a T-M184); but, it is still a misleading OR as K1b or T-M184 are not in the sources overtly. Puduḫepa 13:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 04 November 2022
Different Ip addresses users are vandalizing so many times. So I am requsting for the article to semi protection version in order to prevent from vandalizing of IP and non registered users Nataniyu Raj (talk) 14:27, 4 November 2022 (UTC)