Talk:Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups

I don't understand...
I think the same, the table is not clear at all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.20.2.116 (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

you can click on the top row to sort by column. "n" means number, the number following "n" is a percentage (self-explanatory, I think). --dab (𒁳) 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, "n" means the Total Sample studed in particular haplo. Sasha l (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Heading
The heading as it was made the table incredibly hard to read --- the best option would be to have a double heading with merged cells, but I don't know if this is possible with the current template. Anyway, I think my edit is less compact, but much easier to interpret. SaintCahier (talk) 15:54, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to clarify if — means 0, almost 0 or N/A. SaintCahier (talk) 15:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "-" in most cases means N/A. "0" ussually means "0" Sasha l (talk) 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Where are haplogroup C, D, or O? And I noticed that major ethnic groups in East Asian, such as Japanese, Korean, Mongolian, Tibetean, Vietnamese, etc., were never mentioned. 3:58, 27 March 2009 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.76.181.192 (talk)


 * Yes. I suppose, it is necessary to add information about the oriental peoples. Лапоть (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

sorting
the sorting is alphabetical, i.e. "8" is listed before "40". Can this be fixed in the table code? Or should we introduce leading zeroes to avoid the effect? dab (𒁳) 17:19, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Sasha l (talk) 17:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Mordvins from Tambets et al. (2004)
Volga-Ural region: n I    R1b  R1a  N3   N2  Q C             Mordvin U-FU 83 19.3 13.3 26.5 16.9 2.4 0 0 Present study

Adding the N2 (now N1b) and N3 (now N1c) data results in a frequency of 19.3% haplogroup N for this sample of Mordvins.

Unfortunately, the authors did not provide detailed information about their Mordvin and other non-Saami samples: Subjects and Methods Population samples

Y-chromosomal markers were also analyzed from 32 different populations. Data from 1,598 of a total of 2,967 individuals reported in table 3 were taken from published sources, whereas the remaining 1,369 DNA samples were extracted and analyzed in the present study. Further details about the populations other than the Saami will be published elsewhere. Blood samples were collected from healthy unrelated individuals after obtaining informed consent. DNA was extracted using the phenol-chloroform method, as used by Sambrook (1989).

Ebizur (talk) 05:10, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Darginians - I or J?
According to Yunusbaev 2006 they are 94.1% J, but according to Nasidze 2004 they are 58.0% I. Sasha l (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Judging from the data of Elizabeth E Marchani, W Scott Watkins, Kazima Bulayeva, Henry C Harpending, and Lynn B Jorde, "Culture creates genetic structure in the Caucasus: Autosomal, mitochondrial, and Y-chromosomal variation in Daghestan," Yunusbaev 2006 was probably correct about the Dargins. Marchani et al. have taken another sample of Dargins, and although their sample includes only eight Dargin males, 8/8 = 100% of them were found to belong to haplogroup J(xJ2).
 * I think it must be said that considerable doubt has been thrown upon the figures of Nasidze 2004. Ebizur (talk) 14:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work!
Great job on this page...keep up the good work. If you can add data on Sephardic populations that you come across it would be highly useful. Also, do you know about the Druze study by Behar, et al? they didn't give specifics on YDNA haplogroup percentages, but maybe you can find something out there in cyberspace 79.182.226.72 (talk) 16:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, the Druze study of Behar only concerns (female) mitochondrial DNA haplogroups. I suppose somebody should have to set up a similar list for mtDNA.Rokus01 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * mtDNA haplogroups by ethnic groups — it is necessary article. Лапоть (talk) 12:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC).

Hard to follow
You need to show a tree organizing the different ethnic groups into different branches based on common descent. Something like this: http://www.amren.com /ar/2000/08/peoples.gifBluescientist (talk) 02:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The link you mention is from the American Renaissance site - a white racist organization. This is unacceptable! The Ogre (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

E1b1b and E1b1a
Just split the E column in the table into the haplogroups E1b1b (E3b) and E1b1a (E3a) per the separation of the haplogroup R into R1b and R1a that's already featured in the table. The E3b and E3a haplgroups reflect completely different lineages, with the former indicating either a Neolithic or a Berber/Islamic influence, while the latter reflects a recent sub-Saharan African influence from the slave trade; so it's important not to confuse the two. All of the studies cited in the article are also careful not to conflate the two, and the overwhelming majority of the ethnic groups already listed in the table carry E1b1b as opposed to E1b1a. Causteau (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !
In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :) DumZiBoT (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * "Tambets2004" :
 * Tambets et al. (2004).
 * Tambets 2004

Dealing with rounded percentages
This comment is mainly directed at Causteau, but everyone should be aware that many of the numbers one will encounter in the data tables of published studies of human genetics have been rounded to the nearest whole number, so one will find figures like 2% instead of 1.8% when the latter is actually more precisely correct.

Please avoid posting arithmetically impossible figures in the table of Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups; this includes figures such as 2% of any haplogroup for a sample of n=57 subjects, as 2% (0.02) is an impossible fraction of 57 under the real-world conditions of population sampling, which require a whole number for the dividend as well as for the divisor.

To put it another way, 1/57 = 0.01754... (approx. 1.8%), 2/57 = 0.03508... (approx. 3.5%), 3/57 = 0.05263... (approx. 5.3%), but it is impossible to have x/57 = 0.02 (2.0%) under the condition that x is required to be a whole number. Ebizur (talk) 07:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

What Ebizur writes above hardly qualifies as a revelation. However well-intentioned it may perhaps be, the fact remains that Wikipedia functions on reliable sources alone, and this specifically refers to official published data. If one, for instance, sees a table in a genetic study which states outright that 2.0% of Ethnic Group X carry Haplogroup Y, it's one's duty to report that finding as it has officially been reported -- not to personally recalculate the figures and then turn around and report that instead simply because the recalculated figure may be more to one's own liking. Just stick with Wiki policies folks, and all will be well. Doing so will ensure that the content in the article is easily verifiable by the average reader, which is clearly a necessity on an encyclopedia such as this where pretty much anyone can edit anything. And I think everyone will agree that it is much easier for others to verify what has officially been published than what one has personally calculated. Causteau (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, let's continue to dumb down Wikipedia. It is very important that we should aim for the lowest common denominator.


 * In all seriousness, however, Causteau seems to have misunderstood the nature of this project. The grouping of subclades such as R1b1*, R1b1a, R1b1b2, etc. together as "R1b," the grouping of N1b, N1c, etc. together as "N," and so forth necessitates that the editors of this table make some simple calculations in order to combine the figures from published studies, which normally present only a tabulation of the percentages of the most precisely resolved (most downstream, terminal) subclades in their samples.
 * It is no more a violation of Wikipedia's reliable sources policy to post more precise percentages that are readily inferrable from the data in a published source than it is to arithmetically combine the data points for several different subclades of a haplogroup in order to produce a figure that will fit into one of the columns in our "Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups" table. Ebizur (talk) 08:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above is unfortunately not true of the particular figures that Ebizur insists on altering, figures which are quoted plain as day in the Rosser et al. 2000 study from which they were drawn as: 2.0% of R1b and 2.0% of E1b1b in the Finnish -- no "combining" required whatsoever. It again does not matter whether Ebizur takes exception to the Wikipedia policies on verifiability and reliable sourcing since his personal calculations of course still do not fall under them. Causteau (talk) 09:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * All right, then, I will take this opportunity to remove from this table all data that has involved violation of Wikipedia's verifiability and realiable sourcing policies through the arithmetic combination of data points, the inference of more precise values of figures that were rounded to the nearest whole number in the original publication, and data that was labeled with different haplogroup names in the original publication; after all, it is "original research" for me to determine the correspondences among the haplogroup labels used in old publications and the system of haplogroup labels that we are using in the columns of the Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups table. Ebizur (talk) 15:38, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So it has come to this now, has it? Back again in third grade, are we? I quite rightly point out that we should be quoting directly from the genetic studies when said studies put forth specific frequencies for specific haplogroups as they did, in fact, do with regard to Ebizur's initial edit -- here is the Rosser et al. 2000 study and here is Ebizur's edit; please see for yourself that the Rosser study does not state 1.8% of R1b (column labeled 1, number in parentheses) and 1.8% E1b1b (column labeled 21, number in parentheses) for the Finnish as he has entered, but rather 2% of R1b and 2% of E1b1b for the Finnish as I have entered -- and Ebizur then uses that unambiguous, reasonable and factual pronouncement to gut the text of all haplogroup frequencies he personally for whatever reason does not like (most being Arab, please notice). Take his removal of the entire genetic frequency data for Syrian and Lebanese Arabs, ostensibly on the basis that (in his own words, not mine) he is somehow conducting "original research" by reproducing them here for the reading public. That is utter baloney folks. The Semino et al. 2000 paper, like the Rosser et al. 2000 paper, shows specific frequencies for specific haplogroups. There is no tabulating or adding required on papers such as this. Just look at Table 1 in the Semino et al. 2000 paper to see if I'm kidding. All that is required of an editor on papers such as this is to report the data as it has been reported by the people that gathered it. The geneticists that conduct and then publish these studies are the reliable sources per Wikipedia policies, not us lowly Wikipedia editors. It is therefore not our duty to personally tabulate genetic information for a haplogroup when that information has already been presented to us by actual reliable sources. It's not rocket science folks; please do not be fooled. Causteau (talk) 01:14, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Haplogroup I
Great job here, I really appreciate your work - but it's absolutely wrong that Germans don't have Y-DNA hg I (0 %). Quite contrary to this: We sure have a pretty high frequency of hg I, it's about 24 %!

Please see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I_(Y-DNA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I1_(Y-DNA)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_I2_(Y-DNA)

This site is a great chance to provide correct, interesting Y-DNA data from around the world, at a glance. Don't let this chance pass up ... --JFritsche (talk) 23:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I noticed this as well. Even in the referenced .pdf file - Rootsi2004
 * (page 3, table 1) It lists of the Germans sampled, 37.5% were of Hg I. (25% of I1a, and 12.5% of I1c)
 * Swapnil 404 (talk) 18:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Relation to chart/Regional Focus
Two things: 1) as it stands now should be moved to "Eurocentered Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnicity"; 2) the relation to the total species tree in the chart is unclear. 72.228.150.44 (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Some new haplogroups!
Let's add the Roma/Tibetan/Pakistani Haplogroup H (Y-DNA) and Malaysian/Oceanian Haplogroup K (Y-DNA) to the table for completeness! The table is to Europe/Africa/Middle East/CIS centric---86.29.136.192 (talk) 10:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Add Haplogroup P (Y-DNA) for Siberia, Indochina and the Native American Indians.--86.29.143.77 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Or even the Melanesian, Indonesian and Papuan Haplogroup S (Y-DNA) to round it off nicely.--86.29.131.6 (talk) 08:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm Googleing it up.--86.29.138.63 (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Haplogroup-A, C1, D1, O2b1a, O3 and Q!
'''Welcome to East Africa's- Haplogroup A (Y-DNA), Japan's Haplogroup C1 (Y-DNA), Japan‘s O2b1a, Nagaland’s Haplogroup O3 (Y-DNA), Siberia's and Alaska's Haplogroup Q (Y-DNA), and Qinghai's Haplogroup D1 (Y-DNA). I think this is providing a fair picture of the world.--86.29.133.153 (talk) 12:58, 16 September 2009 (UTC) ''Listed here are notable ethnic groups by Y-DNA haplogroups based on relevant studies. The data is presented in two columns for each haplogroup with the first being the sample size (n) and the second the percentage in the haplogroup designated by the column header. The samples are taken from individuals identified with the ethnic and linguistic designations in the first two columns.''

Chime?--86.29.133.153 (talk) 13:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) I have done an add-on chart for your interest and post it here, with more sources, for you lot to gossip about! 13:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)''--86.29.135.220 (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The Southern Sudan, Ethiopia and Eritrea are awash with Haplo-A--86.29.138.63 (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Like my chart, sir?--86.29.142.193 (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Note this!
These N.E. Indian tribes are all Y-DNA haplogroup identical and speak Sino-Tibetan languages yet look so different and have different creeds. A 'race' is about physical futures, religion and language.



--86.29.139.108 (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

--86.29.139.108 (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Yet these people are also Orientals, but are Y-DNA- D1.--86.29.139.108 (talk) 13:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)



--86.29.130.79 (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Tanzania
Ethnic Ethiopians are here!--86.29.130.79 (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Aasáx language
The Assa are an ethnic and linguistic group based on the Maasai Steppe of northern Tanzania. In 1999 the Assa population was estimated to number 300, after the eastern Assa became absorbed into the Maasai. The Assa language is a Afro-Asiatic one called Aasáx , though it is often mistakenly labelled Dorobo.--86.29.130.79 (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

My reverts of edits by HP-1740B
(cross-posted from his talk page): In Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups, you are introducing figures which are flat out contradicted by your source. This has been discussed with you (at Talk:Dutch people, where you did the same, and then acknowledged: "Conclusion: I've misread myself on the data on a subject on which I am not an expert, but struggling to comprehend. I concur that the date is incorrect and will in time review the data, to recreate this section in the future; hopefully with a more sound base.HP1740-B (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2009 (UTC)"). A specific example (already given to you in the above discussion and again in the edit summary of my previous revert) is the figure for the Flemish for R1A, which you give as 4.2, based on a sample of 410 persons, while your source has 113 persons and not one instance of R1A. To reintroduce those is vandalism. Stop it now. Fram (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Another source used by HP-1740B,, is not a reliable source at all, but a personal website (using Wikipedia as one of its two sources!). It gives figures for the Dutch for R1A and for I, but for some reason, only the one for R1A was used by HP-1740B. As discussed on Talk:Dutch people, HP-1740B is cherrypicking sources (reliable and unreliable ones), and there seems to be no method in which figures he uses and which ones he discards from the same source. For these reasons, i.e. using unreliable sources, cherrypicking from these sources, and giving figures which are not even supported by the linked source, I have now thrice reverted his changes. I would like some other editors to intervene in this back-and-forth, as it is not productive. Fram (talk) 11:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, this issue has nothing to do with what happened at Dutch people.Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups collects data. In every source I've given is the (a) value stated in that article. The problem with Dutch people is that I combined different surveys, which isn't a problem now because the article individually lists per haplogroup; in which case surveys with more samples should be preferred. You stop it now. If there is a mistake, then it should be removed. Do not remove correct data as well. That's vandalism and you know it. My sources (or at least the information I copied from them, do not use Wikipedia as a source. It is open from everyone to check this. The flemish mistake has been removed. HP1740-B (talk) 11:13, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You use the same sources as there, and introduce the same errors. You finally corrected the one error I used as an example (because it was so blatant), but apparently can't be bothered to check the other data you used, which is also incorrect. I can no longer revert you, because some people would call this is a content dispute even though it is the removal of false information, but your edit is still making the article worse, not better. And if you knwo where your source got the info from, then cite that source, not this unreliable page you use now. Fram (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what Fram, I've had it with you. You're tiring to talk to, you're not listening and you're deconstructive. You can go ahead and revert my edits, I'm not the person who reports people to get my way, and stop bothering me with your 'sabotage'. I'm not going to touch this subject anymore any time soon. HP1740-B (talk) 11:24, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Classification
Shouldn't be only one column n for the number of people and multiple columns fo the percentages? It's repetitive... And if there is multiple reseraches, just take the last one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.80.12.192 (talk) 10:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mission impossible
I definitely admire the effort put in to this article but, in its current form it is mission impossible. There is just too much information to assign a single frequency value of any particular genetic marker to any ethnic group.

A few editors have been trying to compile information on just one subclade of Haplogroup E (Y-DNA), E1b1b and that has proved to be a very difficult task indeed. Applying the same approach on a global scale is even harder. Wapondaponda (talk) 04:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History. Who knows what is possible if we can work out an effective way of doing it. This article certainly fails if it aims to show all major haplogroups of all major ethnic groups. A network of inter-linked articles might work?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Legibility is also a problem, as the table is so large, when one scrolls down, it is difficult to match a percentage with a haplogroup. It is easier to read data from smaller tables that can fit on a screen of a typically sized monitor. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Have only 1 overall "n" colomb, not several.--86.29.136.96 (talk) 15:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposal to create a new WikiPedia Article: Y-DNA Haplogroups by percentage of the World population
Is there any information about this? 77.30.74.47 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Screw-Up...
I noticed that a few of the languages were in the wrong column, which put some numbers that should have been in 'n' columns in the '%' column. I was able to move them, but found out there were still errors with numbers in the wrong column, probably by moving things around. Unfortunately, this page loads extremely slow for me for some reason, and I can't undo, compare revisions or anything, really. Perhaps someone could undo my revision? Does it load slowly for others? Maybe it could be split into separate pages by letter? Thanks... Smarkflea (talk) 04:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Upon further review, it appears this page is really messed up with numbers in the wrong places, according to a sampling of references. I'm guessing it may be d/t adding new haplogroups and not fixing the data in the country section.  I really think we should start this page over, and divide it into sections by first letter of the peoples because it is impossibly huge.  I could take a letter and work on it, provided I have access to the refs. I've created a mock-up that looks like this (see "edit this page" for the code):


 * First column ("n") gives the amount of total Sample Size studied
 * Second column (the haplogroup designation) gives the Percentage of the *particular haplogroup among the Sample Size

Note that I've placed the haplogroups in order. Perhaps we could trim down the letters? Say "Q" and "O" instead of all those sub-groups? What you think...? Thanks Smarkflea (talk) 02:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)


 * See Articles for deletion/Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups. I have been of the opinion, that it is not possible to fit all Y-DNA haplogroup/ethnic group data into one article. It is more reliastic to split the data into haplogroups or ethnic groups. Wapondaponda (talk) 05:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea...such as putting the ethni groups in the haplogroup articles. Smarkflea (talk) 05:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Japan is 22% Haplogroup O2b1a and Indonisia is 58% C2Ht3 --86.29.138.163 (talk) 15:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This table needs to be fixed
There is a very serious flaw that exists in some of the rows of this table, specifically, there have been extra cells added at the beginning of certain rows so that it pushes the remaining cells over to the right of the table, thus effectively placing the data under the wrong columns for the entire row. Specifically, I noticed that this is the case with the Romanian (Constanta) and the Romanian (Ploesti) rows - they've been pushed over by 11 spaces to the right. However, without checking further other than just a quick scan, it appears that there are multiple occurrences of this. This flaw is absolutely critical, and needs to be fixed. Unfortunately, I'm an idiot when it comes to working with tables in HTML, so I beg someone else to do the dirty work of reparing this, and leave my own role as that of the Jeremiah. --Saukkomies talk 07:40, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This thing is in total mess. Is there a way to "hide" it before it's been brought to a normal condition, or at least to restore a somewhat sane former condition??? СЛУЖБА (talk) 23:50, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Adendum!
News on Japan, Maori, Indonisia and Russia.--86.29.138.163 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Add it?--86.29.138.163 (talk) 15:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Bizarre!
I note that there's an 'ethnic group' labeled as 'British'. This seems completely perverse as I'm sure nobody in science would ever recognize such a thing (even given that 'anthropology' is not a science but a political ideology').

Does 'British' include Scottish, Welsh, English and Irish? Does it include Indian-British, Pakistani-British, Jamaican-British and Nigerian-British? Are English speakers and Welsh speakers the same 'ethnic group'. Are British Catholics and British Protestants the same ethnic group?

Britain is one of the world's most influential countries (by GDP, UN security council status, Nato membership, etc). For this article to have made such a fundamental error speaks volumes and discredits wikipedia! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ackees (talk • contribs) 11:02, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Berbers (Morocco)
I noticed the Berber (Morocco) categories list "0%" for both J and E1b1a, but the referenced .pdf, Semino et al. (2004). lists on page 7, table 2 regarding Hg J:

Berber (Morocco) - Of 64 test subjects, 4 were Hg J. (6.25%) Berber (Morocco) - Of 103 test subjects, 11 were of Hg J. (10.7%)

And then of Hg E, from page 6, table 1. Doesn't the clade 2*, fall into E1b1 a ? The rest being E1b1b.

Berber (Morocco) - Of 64 tested, 55 were E. (85.9% total) (with clade 2* = 4.7%) So, seems like it should be E1b1b = 81.2% and E1b1a = 4.7%,. Berber (north-central Morocco) - 63 tested, 55 were E. (87.3% total) (with clade 2* = 9.5%) So, E1b1b = 77.8% and E1b1a = 9.5%. Berber (southern Morocco) - 40 tested, 35 were E. (87.5% total) (with clade 2* = 2.5%)

E1b1b = 85% and E1b1a = 2.5%. "The clade 2* also includes the subhaplogroups classified elsewhere as M116.1, M155 (Underhill et al. 2000), M10, and M149 (Cruciani et al. 2002)."

I figure maybe it was a random "purge".

Swapnil 404 (talk) 06:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have checked the data about Berbers (Morocco) and I put this information in Y-DNA haplogroups by populations of Near East and North Africa article, cause this Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups article is just too long and practically colapsed. It is difficult to edit and to add more data here. --Maulucioni (talk) 03:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

New sections
We have trouble with the length of the article and the lack of coverage of all the main haplogroups. We would go a step ahead if this article were divided in 8 sections or 8 new articles by regions, for example: Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups of...


 * ...Europe with E1b1b, I1, I2, J2, N1c, R1a1, R1b1b and T.
 * Near East, Caucasus and North Africa with E1b1a, E1b1b, G, I, J, L, R1a, R1b and T.
 * Indian Subcontinent with C, F*, G, H, J, L, O, P*, R1a, R1b, R2, T and Q.
 * Central Asia and Siberia with C3, J, N, O, R1a, R1b, T and Q.
 * East and Southeast Asia with C3, D, N, O1, O2, O3 and Q1a1
 * Subsaharian Africa with A, B, E1a, E1b1a, E1b1b, E2, T and R1b1a
 * Oceania with C2, C4, O, K, M and S
 * and Native Americans with C3b, Q1a3a and R1

Trouble is that it is a lot of work to do and I don't know wether there is someone who's willing to start to. --Maulucioni (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Assyrian Study - Please Remove Phantom Study
The Assyrian study, from all indications, is a joke. And by joke, I do not mean in terms of data gathering or analysis. It is a joke in the sense that it does not actually exist. I have access to all scientific papers. It simply does not exist. If it were an actual study, there surely would be a PMID or other publication identifier associated with it somewhere, anywhere. None exist. The name Yonan was likely chosen, by whomever thought it amusing to post the phantom study, because it is the name of one of the FTDNA Assyrian Project administrators. She is a librarian by trade. Please, this has now gone on for many, many months. The last thing we need is for Wiki to continue permitting this fictitious study be presented on this and similar DNA related Wiki pages, thereby lending credence to it. P. Givargidze (Administrator, Family Tree DNA Assyrian Project) http://www.familytreedna.com/public/AssyrianHeritageDNAProject/default.aspx Dok101 (talk) 22:30, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I deleted it. --Maulucioni (talk) 04:03, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ossetians
The numbers for the Ossetians seem to be messed up at the moment. The three biggest haplogroups for these guys are R1b/J/G2; their percentages are given as 42.6/34/60 (this equals 136.6%). The source given is just "Rosser et al. (2000)".--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The percentage of G was taken from another reference. --Maulucioni (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous!
A list of ethnic groups with over 200 entries that somehow manages to miss the single biggest group of all -- over a billion people, comprising about 20% of the human race?! I know the article says "This list is incomplete" but c'mon! TresÁrboles (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Be bold.Moxy (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I wish I could. But unfortunately, I don't have references like the American Journal of Human Genetics lying around.  Also, I don't know enough about the underlying topic to competently add to the table.  Presumably those who did do have this expertise and the relevant sources.  After all, I don't know how to build a house, and I wouldn't just want to take a stab at it, but I can recognize when the roof is missing.  TresÁrboles (talk) 22:21, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

E1b1b of iraqi kurds is 7& because of asimileted kurds ..
yeah iraq kurds so southkurds a lot of these are asimilated ..and southkurds have now 7% E1b1b .. this is really sad.. southkurds should stob to marry arab girls..

greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.191.17 (talk) 00:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Update Serbs
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_groups_in_Europe

Serbs: n=179; R1b=4.5; R1a=14.5; I=48; E=17.3; J=5.6; G=2.2; N=3.3; L=0.6

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_by_groups_in_Europe#cite_note-Mirabal2010-33

91.200.192.10 (talk) 09:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Number Typos
You have typo in Ossetians. What kind of percentage adds up to more than 100? Furthermore, for the DNA Code G, the sample size is missing. There are supposed to be two columns for each DNA code such that the first column is the sample size and the second column is the percentage.

Furthermore, in the DNA Analysis, it says that "In our analyses these individuals were classified as haplogroup F*(M89), although some unknown proportion could be haplogroup G*(M201)." From this, how did the G become 60%? From "some unknown proportion", how did the number 60% come? Shouldn't you just use dash for this like the others? Who messed up the Analysis Chart, and how come no one noticed?

I mean, I am a newb at this place, but it just looks wrong at first glance. The typo was so obvious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ugottypos (talk • contribs) 01:57, 26 April 2012 (UTC)