Talk:International Society of Genetic Genealogy

I thought ISOGG is part of wiki

I thought ISOGG is part of wiki

ISOGG has a Wiki which is not related to Wikipedia, although there is some overlap in content. Helen (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to merge ISOGG into Genetic genealogy

Resolved

 – Consensus was not to merge.

Helen (talk) 09:29, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• Strong Merge When we have enough high quality material for a strong article, I will fully support its creation. Until then, the genetic genealogy article is the best place to nurture and grow this topic. Note, disliking the messy state of the genetic genealogy article and others is not a good reason to create new ones. --RebekahThorn (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge. ISOGG's an independent concept. I'm not sure ISOGG is significant enough to the concept of genetic genealogy as a whole to really merit much of a treatment in that article. On the other hand, there are many many references to ISOGG scattered across WP, mostly in connection with the ISOGG tree, so I think at least a stub of an article to who ISOGG might be is probably well justified. I'd have thought what needs to be said is pretty factual, basic and non-contentious, so I don't see why it should be any great difficulty. Essentially it just needs to point out that ISOGG is a group that has been set up be enthusiasts for genetic genealogy, rather than academics. What ISOGG does -- when it meets, what sort of presentations are sometimes given in ISOGG's name, anything it's helped co-ordinate. Publication of JOGG -- when it's published; what sort of assessment/review process the contents are subjected to. Publication of the ISOGG tree -- why there was a need; citations where it's been quoted by the academic community. That should be straightforward enough to put together, may come to little more than 10 lines, but IMO would be a worthwhile self-standing mini-article addition to WP. Jheald (talk) 18:41, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • What does JOGG have to do with ISOGG? --RebekahThorn (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I thought ISOGG published it. No ? My mistake then. Jheald (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Actually, no. Katherine Borges, director of ISOGG, lets the JOGG bunch use her server space for JOGG. However, they are in no way affiliated. I know... it's complicated. --RebekahThorn (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyhow, if you read here, User_talk:Dougweller#ISOGG_article, you will get a better picture of the situation we were dealing with yesterday. --RebekahThorn (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge :I see no good reason for merging the two. Would you merge American Psychological Association with Psychology? American Chemical Society with Chemistry? American Library Association with Library? Instead of tearing down a new article, why don't you build it up? 71.139.152.27 (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
  • User:Dougweller? User:Andrew_Lancaster? Does anyone know how to check this IP from Richardson, TX to see if it is related to any of the other named user accounts of recent edits? I am assuming good will, but I am wondering why someone without a user account is interested enough in this fairly un-notable article? --RebekahThorn (talk) 05:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment. I think a straw poll is a bit early, given that what we basically have is a simple practical question we have to address first: what has been published about ISOGG?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • We have roughly 67 citations of the The ISOGG Y-DNA SNP tree in published papers. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=%22International+Society+of+Genetic+Genealogy%22+-%22journal+of+genetic+genealogy%22 One or two of those refrences are about ISOGG the group and not the ISOGG tree. A good example is Wagner et al. 2012. None of these are a substantial paper about ISOGG, this would bring us really close to doing original research. --RebekahThorn (talk) 11:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There are a few articles in the NYT that again mention ISOGG but are not about ISOGG. http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch/#/%22international+society+of+genetic+genealogy%22/ --RebekahThorn (talk) 11:22, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)**Comment - yes, let's first see what's been published about ISOGG - or to put it another way, if we don't find anything to show notability as per WP:ORG someone is sure to take it to AfD. As for the IP, only a handful of editors, known as Checkusers, can make such checks. But the blocked editor Valentino2013 has used 174.20.254.101 (talk · contribs) which geolocates to Minneapolis, so given that and the fact that the IP is writing in grammatically correct English I don't think they are related. (note after the edit conflict - so far apparently nothing to show notability. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks RT for collating that. I think it shows notability at least, so that narrows our problem down to one of not having much to say. So to me the question of whether to have a stub or a redirect does not see a big one for now. The stub as it now stands is acceptable as a stub, and can be defended as the starting point for an article which one day, or it can be argued against as unnecessary for now. I would suggest leaving it but also making sure that there is a remark about ISOGG in the genetic genealogy article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

AL, please kindly have a look at the genetic genealogy article. We have been working to clean it up because it had become an advertisement for Colleen M. Fitzpatrick and her newest book. Yesterday, I did more heavy pruning of unsourced material than I think I have ever done before. I am now working on a list of credible sources to mix into the citizen science/ISOGG sections. I do need copy editing help... --RebekahThorn (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose merge. Sufficient notability and content has been established. Helen (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose merge - Don't confuse an international organization of citizen scientists with procedures that uses genetics in genealogy. While ISOGG supports genetic genealogy principals, genetic genealogy is not ISOGG. Jrcrin001 (talk) 00:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification required

I was asked by Andrew Lancaster to help improve this article. One of my edits was reverted by Dougweller with the edit summary "we can't just use anyone's comments about ISOGG". Can someone please explain what is wrong with Chris Pomeroy so I don't waste any more time on this article? Helen (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Who is he? He was quoted as saying ""well ahead of the published work of the academics" but that is a very bold statement and unless he's a senior academic himself with loads of peer reviewed publcations, I can't see how we could use whoever he is. Does that explain what I meant? Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

He's a genetic genealogist (some details here) and Y-DNA project administrator who has authored two books on the subject. The article I cited was published in a reputable genealogy journal. Helen (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no professional qualifications or peer reviewed papers. I don't see how we can use a quote by someone who isn't qualified to comment on what is ahead of academic work. His Amazon page describes him as an author and a journalist, and his books on genetics are about tracing your family tree. He doesn't seem to be properly published outside the US either, although that's a minor issue compared to the others. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Helen, a classic (but sometimes abused) way of summarising the dilemma we sometimes face on WP is that we aim to summarise what we can show to be verifiable, and not what is what we believe to be true. See WP:V I would say it more crudely: we summarise the best publications, and we try to avoid adding any original thoughts, either from ourselves or anyone we know who is not published. Are website's reliable publications? See WP:RS. For a website to be considered such a reliable publication, we need to be able to show such things as:

• Do experts cite that website as a reliable source.
• Does the website have a clear editing team that does quality control on what appears on it.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Do the experts also belong to ISOGG? Yes, this can become something like saying only non-Americans can be dispassionate about writing about the United States.--RebekahThorn (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The other point about Pomeroy is that he's an ISOGG member. So, what we have is "a member of ISOGG with no qualifications in genetics said ISOGG is "a few steps ahead of the professionals and the tenured." Can you see why we can't do that? Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

If he were an un-doubted RS author published in an undoubted RS publication, then the solution to an RS having a POV or COI is clear attribution and explanation of context. So I think this is mixing up different problems. COI is a concern that applies to WP editors, not sources themselves. It is a frequent confusion on WP:RSN that sources are claimed to be unreliable because they have a POV. But all sources have a POV and so our aim is not to remove POV, but to balance it according to WP:NEUTRAL. (Of course there is a statistical correlation between extreme POV publications and concerns about reliability, but these are still two different things. See the various discussions which keep coming up about whether Fox News is reliable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

On that note, is it appropriate for an ISOGG member to be editing this article (see User talk:Dougweller#ISOGG article)? Helen (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

That's going to be a problem. I'm sure we are going to have a growing number of people with conflict of interest editing this and related articles. I'm not sure. When someone has declared they are a member we at least know where they are coming from. If someone is actually an official, that would definitely be a problem. Our WP:COI guidelines help but don't always solve such problems. What does definitely help is making sure we are using sources that are both independent of ISOGG and meet our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY for most of the article - obviously we can use ISOGG a bit, but not for the bulk of the article. Indeed, to show it meets our criteria for an article at WP:ORG we need such sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I am personally avoiding editing it, but OTOH I think "being practical" if the article is a stub consisting of a few direct quotes, then COI issues are not really something people should get overly panicky about. Membership does not say much in an organization like this. (No fees, no specific rights or privileges or elections etc etc.) There is a limit to the logic of some rules. Can Americans edit articles about America for example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. I am a FTDNA Project administrator. I am an Ancestry.com, FTDNA, and 23andMe Customer. I have done paid controntract work for National Geographic. I am a member of ISOGG. I am very aware of all of these things when I edit.

I am aware of which other WP editors are ISOGG members, but some of them do not have as transparent IDs here as myself and present company. Thus, I have and shall continue to point out that the author or authors of source material are members or have a non-neutral connection. I do try not to out people though.--RebekahThorn (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Katherine Borges, Director is the only ISOGG official. She would not (I think) edit WP herself, but she might send someone to edit. It is an issue of a group that does not have strict membership lists, does not hold elections, and does not have a board to speak of. --RebekahThorn (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: From Citizen science partly edited by me ...

In recent years, citizen science projects have become increasingly focused providing benefits to scientific research.This includes supporting, organization and dissemination of personal DNA (genetic) testing. Like Amateur astronomy, citizen scientists encouraged by volunteer organizations like ISOGG - the International Society of Genetic Genealogy, have provided valuable information and research to the professional scientific community.

Bonnie Schrack, cited in the AJHG reference above, and Chris Pomeroy are citizen scientists. But, they do not have a professional degree in that field. By the volume of material found on line, they are better qualified than Michelle Obama who advocates for poverty awareness, nutrition, and healthy eating. Our First Lady can also be called a citizen scientist of the social variety. The first two are genetic genealogists. Can anyone show me where you can get a bachelor, master or doctorate degree in Genetic Genealogy? If not, then people like Bonnie Schrack and Chris Pomeroy - whose work are often accepted and used by members of the scientific community - are some of the founding citizen scientists of Genetic Genealogy. I would use them as references because they are professional in what they do and they are documented in this field. Jrcrin001 (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

The footnote

Can that long footnote not perhaps be turned into a paragraph for the body of the article? It is has good sourcing and the "call" made seems notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

That was the idea when I posted it. I will try when I have more time if nobody else has done it. Helen (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest in Sources authored by Debbie Kennett

Please note that Debbie Kennett is a member of ISOGG. Articles by her that are used as sources may not be unbiased. That is not to say don't use them, but please be aware as you use them that the COI diminishes their NPOV credibility. --RebekahThorn (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest in Sources authored by Dr. T. King

Dr. King has a relationship with JOGG as the editor. Because JOGG received free hosting from ISOGG, this might indicate a conflict of interest and/or biased opinions. That again is not to say don't use the sources, just maintain absolute NPOV when using works she has authored or co-authored. --RebekahThorn (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not know she had taken up that position yet, although I knew it was being discussed? Anyway certainly nothing she wrote in the past could come under this reasoning. (But has she ever written anything about ISOGG anyway?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

BTW just to repeat a point made above WP:COI applies to wp editors, not published sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I should say close to the source? I am pretty sure she accepted the position before the article used as a source came out.--RebekahThorn (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Disclosure for the record

I am a member of the ISOGG Facebook group. I am not a formal member of ISOGG and am not involved in any of their projects personally. Please also note I won't necessarily know whether authors of sources are ISOGG members. Helen (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

That is about as formal as ISOGG membership gets.--RebekahThorn (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

If that were true, I don't see how there could be any reason for talk of COI in respect of either sources or WP editors. Helen (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

suggestions

Currently we have:

ISOGG hosts the regularly updated ISOGG Y-chromosome phylogenetic tree,[5] although it does not endorse it for any specific utility.[14] The tree has elsewhere been described as using the accepted nomenclature for human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups and subclades in that it follows the Y Chromosome Consortium nomenclature as described in Karafet et al. 2008.[15]

I think:

• What endorsements ISOGG makes, it is notable that it is widely cited in peer reviewed literature.
• While the tree follows YCC norms, it is much more up to date. Our wording could be seen as saying otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have only made cosmetic changes to this section (except for my reverted addition) and this really is not my area of expertise, so I will leave it up to others. Helen (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

RebekahThorn added it here with edit summary "Removing subjective promotional terminology". Helen (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I added back "regularly updated" here. Helen (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Is this source usable (note there is a misunderstanding re JOGG being ISOGG's journal)?: Redmonds, George (2011). Surnames, DNA, and family history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 196. ISBN 9780199582648. The growth of interest in genetic genealogy has inspired a group of individuals outside the academic area who are passionate about the subject and who have an impressive grasp of the research issues. Two focal points for this group are the International Society of Genetic Genealogy and the Journal of Genetic Genealogy. The ISOGG is a non-profit, non-commercial organization that provides resources and maintains one of the most up-to-date, if not completely academically verified, phylogenetic trees of Y chromosome haplogroups. The Journal of Genetic Genealogy is its online journal, and while it does not abide by the standard system of scientific peer-review, it has attracted contributions from academic geneticists and will no doubt go on to become an important forum through which academics and the public can interact. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Helen (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Why not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Amy Harmon's articles in the New York Times

Please note that the New York Times is a highly reputable newspaper. Further, Amy Harmon is a reputable journalist who happens to have won a Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for exactly the coverage HO says is not acceptable under Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight. Do you see my concern DW? --RebekahThorn (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that belongs in this article. Besides being pretty old news now (an incident over 5 years ago), to put it in this article makes it look as though ISOGG condones this sort of behavior. I wouldn't use it here, I'm not at all sure I'd use it anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I have no problem with the source. As per my edit summary, it would be WP:UNDUE to include the unofficial view of 1 out of 8,000 members without also covering the views of the other 7,999 members including Judy Russell and Roberta Estes who have been very outspoken about ethics (assuming they are ISOGG members). Helen (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from straw man tactics. At no point did I question the source. Helen (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree it is undue. The remarks are almost certainly tongue in cheek and intended to give "colour" to the comment HelenOnline has kept in. Our style is meant to be "encyclopedic", which is a bit different from a newspaper article, and also different to how someone promoting her hobby might talk.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not see where in the article it says that the comment was tongue in cheek? --RebekahThorn (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Tongue in cheek rarely comes with a sign, and you are right it could be dead serious. But when we make comments about a living person we should err on the side of caution about how we interpret something. We should not be making a person looking extreme if there is any doubt. The clear point of the journalists remarks is captured by HO's short citation.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

It is an analogous to anecdotal evidence. That was my point, anyway. Helen (talk) 09:37, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

This quote seems apt here:

In making these statements I have in mind the role of the media and certain written academic opinions that over the past few years have sought to impact this issue. Sensationalistic media articles that relate anecdotal cases should not be used as a basis to regulate. Many of the articles I've read have been biased, reflecting the author's views without presenting voices from both sides of the issue. For example, just last week, a DC area reporter was looking for stories from consumers of DTC testing for an article to be published in anticipation of this meeting. He was contacted by several individuals who had positive testing experiences, but he did not follow up on these contacts. He told another consumer that he was specifically seeking negative experiences.

— Katherine Borges, FDA public meeting on oversight of laboratory developed tests in July 2010

Helen (talk) 09:46, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I do agree that using Roberta Estes and Judy Russell as sources is a good idea. Unfortunately, I am not comfortable doing that myself as they are both my good friends. --RebekahThorn (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how we can include them here unless they are representing ISOGG in an official capacity. They are still only 2 out of 8,000 members. The best solution I have come up with so far is mentioning ISOGG's Wiki page on Ethics which has links to their websites. Helen (talk) 14:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, Dougweller, those articles NYT articles are two of the more notable. We are back to a lack of sources then? It would be nice if we could find something where ISOGG officially condemned such behavior. --RebekahThorn (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Spencer Wells blurb

That's a nice quote (International Society of Genetic Genealogy#Citizen Science) but I think Genetic genealogy#Citizen science and ISOGG (as well as Citizen science) is a better place for it as it is not directly relevant to the ISOGG article. Helen (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I am glad you don't disagree about the rest of the comment. I thought the blurb appropriate for the ISOGG article. For example:

• ISOGG was founded in 2005 & the SW blurb states: since 2005.
• ISOGG tries to engage and involve the public in genetic genealogy. SW wants to: engage and involve the public in the research effort (i.e. genetic genealogy).
• ISOGG provides the guide lines and foundation for those interested in genetic genealogy. We see a portion of them becoming citizen scientists by choice and making a difference as noted above. SW: ...helped to create a new breed of "citizen scientist."
• ISOGG encourages people to communicate, educate and disseminate information (i.e. crowdsourcing) and when seeing the unexplained to ask why. SW: ... harnessing the power of the crowd to discover new details of human population history.

Maybe you misunderstood it? Maybe it is relevant after all to ISOGG article? Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:11, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I was not commenting on the RS issue at all so I created a new section here.

Both the Genographic Project and ISOGG are related to genetic genealogy and citizen science, hence the See also sections and the Genetic genealogy series template and related categories. The Genographic Project launched in 2005. It is a milestone in genetic genealogy but I don't think it had any direct bearing on the formation of ISOGG in the same year and I don't think ISOGG is directly involved in the Genographic Project (if so, we should cover that in the ISOGG article before adding a section which is essentially about the Genographic Project). The only direct relevance I can see to ISOGG here is that they co-sponsored an event where Wells spoke about the Genographic Project, and I don't think that is significant enough to mention in the ISOGG article (see WP:BALASPS). Helen (talk) 09:50, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Helen,
ISOGG Mission Statement

"The mission of the International Society of Genetic Genealogy is to advocate for and educate about the use of genetics as a tool for genealogical research, and promote a supportive network for genetic genealogists."

Yep, you are right. There should be a section on Mission Statement and how ISOGG educates and advocates. This definitely needs to be in the article. Then a mention within the section would be how ISOGG uses and promotes crowdsourcing and Citizen science with referencing to those main articles. The SW blurb then could show that ISOGG by co-sponsoring the Genographic effort by having S. Wells blurb is consistent with the Mission Statement. I should have thought of that first. One should not have the cart before the horse.
Helen, you are probably better at writing a section like that than I. Since I am a recent editor to this article, would you be so kind to add the Mission Statement and how ISOGG supports that statement? This way, no conflict.
Thank you Jrcrin001 (talk) 14:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

ISOGG did not co-sponsor the Genographic effort (just a conference where Wells spoke about it). Is that what you meant above or are there some words missing? HelenOnline 15:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

ISOGG as per its Mission Statement supports and encourages Geneographic and other genetic type programs because they are tools for genealogical and genetic research. No, ISOGG did not co-sponsor Geneographic but encouraged its members and others to volunteer and become involved. ISOGG has been behind the scenes until fairly recently, it is now more recognized and accepted. Thus the recent co-support Jamboree conference with SCGS.

Since ISOGG primarily uses electronic forms of communication (email, mailing lists and e-letters), one needs to review those archives for such support documentation. ISOGG has been able to be supportive and encouraging with all public DNA testing companies. ISOGG not only peer reviews group administrator web pages, but DNA testing companies, suggesting improvements to different areas. A specific example is that ISOGG was concerned and warning about the lack of genetic counselors because some DNA testing was going into medical areas. This was before the recent hearings on the subject. A letter writing encouragement went out to ISOGG members to petition DNA testing companies to provide this service. Some responded positively and some did not. Later ISOGG encouraged and responded to Government hearings on these issues. At an Administrator Conference in Houston Texas (2007?) sponsored by FTDNA, ISOGG and a member of that Government board were able to talk about these issues. This led to the eventual relaxation on genetic testing for genealogical purposes from that board and even the medical community. I was impressed by that. See the ISOGG Wiki on medical issues here.

Again, ISOGG uses and promotes crowdsourcing and Citizen science to support genetic genealogy. Please remember that genetic genealogy is not just within the genealogical period. This period is often referred to as the last 500 or so years. Egyptian pharaohs have been genetically tested linking them into genealogical families. This period after the genealogical time frame is often referred to as Deep ancestry. The Y-DNA Haplogroup charting is deep ancestry and a form of genetic genealogy.

Lastly, please check out the ISOGG Famous DNA pages. You will see living, recent historic and even deep ancestry DNA examples. Those were researched and complied from various research papers and made more understandable by ISOGG. Why? To advocate for and educate. ISOGG is much more complex because of the diversity of its members. Its impact is hard to judge because it is in a supportive roll to genetic research. See also: ISOGG Wiki. Thus an article on ISOGG will be harder to write also because most of what it does in not in traditional hard copy. Jrcrin001 (talk) 16:29, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

". . . it's hard to realize you're living history while it happens . . . . " – quote from private email from Ann P. Turner to Georgia Kinney-Bopp.

I have tried. It is not easy to find reliable sources and the focus of this article should be on ISOGG not individual members or tangential projects such as the Genographic Project. Note that the ISOGG mission and how they accomplish it is already covered to some extent in the lede. Does anyone know if Jack Goins is an ISOGG member? HelenOnline 12:48, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Why is nothing showing below this line?

Why is every thing below not showing on the talk page? What page protection has been done to hide this? Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Someone forgot to close a reference. fixed Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Possible on-line references for ISOGG article

Hello, I went through a Google Search for both ISOGG & International Society of Genetic Genealogy. Not all are eligible for use with the ISOGG article, but many are. Some simply show ISOGG is highly respected and referred to.
Room and common sense tells me not to post it here. It is an rtf file that is 2.27 megabytes in size. If you have a Windows based machine, WordPad will open it or if you have another word processor that will be used. But, you must give it permission. Click on the following link.
Result of Google search for ISOGG & International Society of Genetic Genealogy. Dougweller (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC) (resubmit)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Society of Genetic Genealogy. 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/20130710014353/http://www.scgsgenealogy.com/Jamboree/2013/DNAday.htm to http://www.scgsgenealogy.com/Jamboree/2013/DNAday.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International Society of Genetic Genealogy. 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/20131022165737/http://www.isogg.org/rc.htm to http://www.isogg.org/rc.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 15 November 2017 (UTC)