Talk:List of haplogroups of historic people/Archive 1

Archive 1

Jefferson

Not sure of the Allele nomenclature in the Jefferson article, so I listed the more common nomenclature from the Famous DNA link. If anyone has more background on the Nature article nomenclature it would be a nice addition. Sandwich Eater 00:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Discrepancy in two reports of the values at three alleles of the "Genghis Khan" haplotype

I noticed that the last three allele values given by the report in The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols are different from those for the corresponding genetic loci according to the report by Family Tree DNA. The table for the values from The Genetic Legacy of the Mongols gives DYS 389I = 10, DYS 389II = 26, and DYS 392 = 1, whereas the table for the values from Family Tree DNA gives DYS 389i = 13, DYS 389ii = 29, and DYS 392 = 11. Could anyone clarify the source of this discrepancy? I would appreciate it! Ebizur 00:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Hypothesis

Felt the need to add that these are the result of thousands of tests and probably do indicate the results close to the famous ancestors'. After 10,000 or 100,000 tests the results may be refined or disproved.Stamboul 13:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I recall reading something about Niall being related to a substantial number of irishmen. This is probably proven via haplo*type* not haplo*group*. I think it would be interesting to add a well written summary of such a link to Niall's wikipedia page, then include a link from this page to that page, with approriate citations/sources for the original literature. But the R1b haplogroup is not the link. That is shared by much of Atlantic Europe. The link is probably established by the haplotype and modeling of the mutation rates around that haplotype into the current population. Sandwich Eater 14:25, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Population of R1b in Ireland

I'm not clear on why the Niall haplogroup needs to be elaborated on with regard to the proportion of R1b in Ireland. R1b is common throughout western Europe, and indeed throughout Atlantic europe. The population density of R1b in Ireland has nothing to do with Niall. It is just stated in the article because it is a fact, Nial happened to be R1b. There is no claim that this is a unique haplogroup in Ireland, and there is no claim that all irishmen are related to Nial. R1b is a common haplogroup in western Europe. Sandwich Eater 14:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

• (cur) (last) 14:11, 21 December 2006 Sandwich Eater (Talk | contribs) (revert- See Discussion please contribute to discussion before changing.)
• (cur) (last) 10:50, 21 December 2006 Nasz (Talk | contribs) (the intormation source may be just the link 2 words away.)
• (cur) (last) 04:29, 21 December 2006 Sandwich Eater (Talk | contribs) (→Niall of the Nine Hostages - grammar and no citation for percentage, many irish are R1a and other haplogroups)
• (cur) (last) 02:39, 21 December 2006 Nasz (Talk | contribs) (anyway over 90 % Irishmen have this gen. Thats ok ? Why not ?)
• (cur) (last) 01:47, 21 December 2006 Sandwich Eater (Talk | contribs) (sentence just states R1b haplogroup, does claim it is unique or special)
• (cur) (last) 23:49, 19 December 2006 Nasz (Talk | contribs) (as in wikipage about R1B, so what is unusual in this #4 discovery :) ?)

SD :"I'm not clear on why the Niall haplogroup needs to be elaborated on with regard to the proportion of R1b in Ireland."

N: ok. Nasz 03:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This section is not about Irishmen, it is about Niall. Irishmen don't have "this gene" unless you are referring to the y-chromosome. All men have that gene. R1b is a haplogroup common to all of atlantic europe. Trying to somehow claim that irishmen have some sort of connection to Niall because they are R1b is silly since all of atlantic europe has that haplogroup. The haplogroup includes a huge group of people that sheltered on the iberian peninsula during the las ice age and then populated western Europe. All that the R1b haplogroup indicates is that Niall's ancestors were one of those people, as was much of Atlantic Europe. Indicating that "Niall is R1b as do most of irishmen" is grammatically incorrect, and also factually misleading. It suggests that Irishmen are descended from Niall because they are R1b which is not true. Sandwich Eater 21:08, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it would be made all the more correct if instead of saying R1b they said R1b1c7....and whatever other undiscovered SNP are downstream that haplogroup within the haplotype of Niall. 67.5.156.254 (talk) 09:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

World's richest man: Warren Buffet.

Warren Buffett's ten-page DNA report, which he shared with Fortune, also revealed that his paternal ancestors hail from northern Scandinavia, while his mother's side most likely has roots in Iberia or Estonia.[1]

They're obviously talking about haplogroups here, (which is confirmed at the 23andme site) which paternal line is common in Scandinavia but I1? Unless it is a particular haplotype of R1a or R1b? Was more released in Fortune and does anybody have the information? Nagelfar (talk) 08:34, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Napoleon.

picture caption "nuclear reactor used in the experiment on samples of Napoleon's DNA" Well it seems they've fiddled with Napoleons DNA but didn't extrapolate any genetic genealogical information. Though maybe it exists on file somewhere? Nagelfar (talk) 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

"Famous haplogroup members" article name.

I believe the old article name is more inclusive, that is, "list of genetic results derived from historical and famous figures." - with more testing companies like deCODEme & 23&me focusing on autosomal DNA discoveries, the article would have more provenance if it included such potential results, as if a historic individual was somehow discovered to have the CCR5 deletion via tested lock of hair, or something along those lines. Nagelfar (talk) 05:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC) I believe any male relative can be tested through a lock of hair for haplotype such as hitler etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.241.144 (talk) 04:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

wrong link!

when i click "Ysearch: GF44B" in "Joseph Stalin", i am ending up in "Genghis Khan" in Ysearch page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.122.218.214 (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Validity of sources

These seem shaky, for instance, a blog/thread about ancestry of the Wright Brothers. Hardly valid sources.--Parkwells (talk) 20:36, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

-- Unfortunately, now it's the new science and mostly conducted this way, unofficially. Still, otherwise we would't have had ANY sources.

Alexei Zyryanov, aide to Emir Sergei, the Head of UAE Russian Colony —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.24.106.42 (talk) 03:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

How did they get Hitler's sample exactly?

Probably from the children of some "relative" who married an East African. 184.96.250.190 (talk) 20:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC) Is not real - they say its samples from close relatives - but even that has been questioned (Its guess work at best).Moxy (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No, it's from the direct paternal, they wouldn't be so foolish as to make that mistake. Descendants of his father Alois: William Patrick Stuart-Houston, etc., just because the Y-haplogroup of E is common in East Africa does not mean it is purely such; it broke from HG D, which is found in Japan, for instance. Y HG 'E' is not unknown in Europe including Austria. 74.209.54.156 (talk) 01:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

yes as i said guess work - Alois is not even 1/3 his blood line.Moxy (talk)

How can the anti-white mind rationalize all the inconsistencies it spews forth? If there is only one race (the human race) and black people are just humans with dark skin, then how can Hitler have "black blood"? His skin was white. Where did they get the DNA? Unless it was from Hitler or a brother or sister the findings are worthless. 184.96.205.71 (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Y-DNA passes from father to son. They did tests on a number of relatives and descendants of relatives who would share his Y-DNA.[2] I think that is how they determine the haplogroups of many of the historical figures listed in this article. Guys like Somerled and so forth, who lived in the Middle Ages have no Y-DNA to test, but there are people living today who are considered to be his male-line descendants, so when these people are shown to share the same Y-DNA it makes people believe that Somerled was of the haplogroup. It's the same in Hitler's case; they tested male-line descendants of one of Hitler's male-line ancestors. That's how you dertimine someone's Y-DNA haplogroup if you don't have the person's actually Y-DNA.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 04:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Hitler removed

As per many previous talk Hitler was removed - "newspapers and popular magazines are generally not considered reliable sources for scientific and technical matters" - as per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine

• See previous talks about its removal below as per WP:FRINGE and WP:VERIFY and no consensus - I will wait and let - Brianann MacAmhlaidh revert the additions as per WP:BURDEN.
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 51#Just write what the sources say
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 51#Adolf Hitler's Y DNA haplogroup
• Talk:Adolf Hitler/Archive 51#Hitler's DNA...Moxy (talk) 04:46, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The three discussions were about inclusion in another article. This is a List of haplogroups of historical and famous figures. The WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE cards don't work here like they did in the bio - 'famous DNA' is all that this list is about. The Hitler bit is probably one of the most verifiable bits of this entire list. The sources for most of the people listed here are amateur DNA projects hosted at FamilyTreeDNA. There isn't any consensus to remove all the non peer-reviewed bits from this article.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I've noted at the two genetics projects for input from others.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:42, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes all non peer-reviewed bits should be removed we dont have different levels of inclusion of material for different articles when it comes to scientific data. Dont see how if talks have already determined its "not reliable" in one article it would be allowed in a separate article. Again as per Wikipedia:Reliable source examples#Physical sciences, mathematics and medicine - The scientific consensus can be found in recent, authoritative review articles, textbooks, major up-to-date reference works such as medical dictionaries or scientific encyclopedias - This is not found in news papers. Moxy (talk) 05:54, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that we should raise the bar here. There should be a standard. It'll mean that this list will be a lot shorter, but it'll be a higher quality list IMO. I think at present though, until we can get a clear consensus, that the Hitler stuff should stay in this list with the rest.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Sound good to me lets see what others have to say. I see this has been here for sometime - was not aware of this - I thought it was a new addition I was reverting. My fault!Moxy (talk) 06:23, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Just looking at this article I can see that Brianann is technically right that some of the information on it is sourced from things like blogs, so it is in general not a strongly sourced article. So although I find the published remarks about Hitler to be incredibly dumb, they can be sourced. What I would suggest though, is that someone should try to find other opinions. This idea that it is surprising for an Austrian to be E1b1b is silly, and I am hoping someone qualified has said that in writing somewhere?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:34, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

This is the problem - its sourced from a news paper were its clear the author dose not have any knowledge of the topic at hand. All i can find is the same report over and over. I did find a few laughing at the conclusions and I guess is why this never made it beyond the back pages of the newspaper's and into real study.Moxy (talk) 11:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but if you delete this, even though it is better sourced than a lot of the material on this page, it is hard to avoid controversy and that whole debate about "truth" versus verifiability. Maybe it is sometimes not good to be too logical, but logically we should remove everything more weakly sourced than this, if we remove it. But honestly my opinion is that in most cases like this, even about this subject, ADDING more sources to give balance is normally going to make more people less unhappy, than the alternative of starting to delete stuff.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I think this should be removed, this was not directly Hitler's DNA and it does not name 39 relatives in the article you are just taking their word for it, and the DNA found is not even exclusive to Africans or Jews.--14Adrian (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

List_of_haplogroups_of_historical_and_famous_figures#Yi_Sun-sin

A new editor keeps inserting trivial information in this section, which was originally entitled with honorifics, and which, appeared to me on first glance to be another, non-notable person. Can some neutral editor communicate with this newbie about the trivial matters that he keep inserting into the article? Bearian (talk) 00:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The only source for it is a FamilyTreeDNA project page with one member on it: [3]. Anyone can create a project with FamilyTreeDNA. And obviously anyone can claim to be a 'direct descendant' of whoever they want. The whole entry should be removed until someone comes up with a better source connecting the historical figure with modern DNA.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 06:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Two brand-new editors re-added Soonshin, but changed the FamilyTreeDNA project to [4]. But it's the same problem, the same one guy claiming to be a descendant. I left a note on their talkpages.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Atatürk

any of dna test of Atatürk ? peace 77.3.103.209 (talk) 19:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Bias

The article is obviously biased. The author exhibits an prejudice unbecoming to science and Wikipedia. It seems agenda driven.

There seems to be an author bias against the main haplogroups for Europe: R1b, R1a and I. The principle author favors listing only Middle Eastern haplogroups: E1, and J. J2 are non-Semitic Turkish types, J1 are Semites who followed out of Africa, and Ei is the last of those who came from African into the Mediterranean.

The author gave an embarrassing amount of space to un-notables such as present-day Jewish TV news personalities, sharing space on the list along with true notable such as King Tut. Yet, when King Tut is revealed as R1b, the author reports the result as "unscientific."

When other R1b notables are listed, such as Charles Darwin and President John Quincy Adams, the author holds their R1b in doubt, adding the phrase repeatedly, "assuming paternity being as the family argues." Who's arguing? Their rather recent Puritan and Victorian family pedigrees should have far more certainty than most names on this list. After all it was a grandson tested for Darwin, which is recent and pretty reliable as it only allows for 1 falsely accorded paternity. Yet, the author lists all Jews, J2, and E1 without the phrase, "assuming paternity being as the family argues" even though their sample is known to be in doubt, such as Hitler, whose DNA probably cannot be ascertained as his skull fragment was never verified as it was reported that a body double had been burned instead of Hitler.

Oddly, the author mentions Queen Victoria who is E1 and two J1 kings, but fails to relay the well-known factoid that R1b is the most prevalent haplotype for the royal houses of Europe.

Conspicuously absent are numerous very well-known and publicized R1b results of notable Europeans such as: 1. The Royal House of Hapsburg of the Austro-Hungarian Empire also has well publicized R1b results. The Habsburg Royal line provided all of the Holy Roman Emperors (except one) from the 1440s until Napoleon. Habsburgs ruled over France, Austria, Germany, Austria, Spain, Tuscany, Parma, Milan, etc. 2. King Charles Stuart as well as King James I and James II were R1b of the Stuart Royal line of England and Scotland. James III is U5b. 3. Other English Kings that are known to be R1b include: Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, and George VI. 4. The current royals of England are R1b: Prince Philip (Duke of Edinburgh), Prince Charles, Prince William, Prince Harry and baby Prince George, etc. 5. The line of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia and all in the Romanov dynasty are well-publicized R1b. 6. The Kings of Belgium, Kings of Portugal, Kings of Bulgaria, Kings of Poland, and the Grand Dukes of Lithuania are also R1b. 7. All twenty Kings of Denmark since Christian I (reigned from 1448) belonged to haplogroup R1b. 8. Numerous kings of Norway, Sweden were haplogroup I. 9. The Kings of Greece were R1b. 10. The mtDNA of the kings and queens of Poland were H,T2, and N1b. 11. The Prussian astronomer who discovered the rules for planetary motion, Nicolaus Copernicus is R1b too. 12. James D. Watson who discovered the DNA helix is R1b. Also, biologist Craig Ventor is R1b. etc. 13. There is a long list of US Presidents who are R1b, but the author holds that in doubt. How can that be suspicious or surprising when the U.S. was founded by Protestant Northern Europeans where R1b dominates?

It appears the author is seeking relatives of Middle Eastern origin to find a "Chosen People" and resents notables if they are of European stock. This might account for the odd list of Jewish and J and E European entries and contempt of R and I.

However, as a note to the tribal-minded person who might have compiled this list, 95% of world Jewry today are Ashkenazi of Eastern European ancestry with a founding base of non-European Y-DNA slave traders, and are more correctly characterized as a mostly European blooded people who subscribe to the Hebrew religion due to their Judaized Khazar ancestry, but do not actually descend from ancient Semitic Hebrews. Being Jewish without being of the original tribe, is contrary to the sense of tribe fostered in Jewish teachings, so it is hard to accept, and angers many Jews.

Furthermore, not many famous people, Jews or non-Jews, are to be found in Eastern Europe, where most of our Ashkenazi lived before WW2. Unfortunately, few notable people come from Eastern Europe, as Eastern Europeans were not central participants in Western Civilization or another major Western civilizations. (However, it was Eastern European Jews who are became famous for instigating the Russian Revolution headed by Lenin and Trotsky etc. and the German Ashkenazi also seized Bavaria and claimed it as a communist state.)

The majority of famous Ashkenazi Jews became successful when they lived in Western Civilization, not Eastern Europe, or the Middle East. The best thing that ever happened to the Ashkenazi was living in America, where the American system fostered success that Jews never found in Eastern Europe. Enlightenment and Protestant values, law, science and ethics is the fertile field where Jews could best advance themselves.

Those Jews most likely to descend from the actual tribe are those who remained in Palestine or moved to Rome in the 1st century. Most of our Ashkenazi are not likely to be descended from Abrahamic Hebrews or even Roman Jews. Since many Jews were often converted or enslaved they are thus very mixed. Most Jews today are from European or Turkic non-Semitic haplogoups. Ashkenazi also share no Y-DNA link with Sephardim, who were also converts to Judaism in order to engage in the slave trade of Celts of Spain to sell to Muslims south for 700 years.

This is at odds with our beloved tribal Hebrew mythology and some feel it puts into question the "right of return" to Judea. However, Jews should be proud of their non-Jewish origin in spite of the traditional pressure to identity as a blood tribe.

The centuries of extreme tribalism has only resulted in negative consequences for Jews. Acting "as a tribe", creating Jewish financial and other cartels at the expense of others, and being subversive within a host nation, is what has directly contributed to the expulsion of Jews from every nation they have lived. Let us not repeat that past. In the end our Jewish pursuit of a "we-win, you-lose" tribal identity has proved to be self-destructive for Jewry.

Trying to convince people they descend from Abraham when they do not, enslaves innocent people to a false identity and is the same sort of tribalism that, in excess, has has only wrought "self-destruction upon our houses." A Chosen People agenda brought disaster to Jews who were evicted from nearly every nation they lived for millennia for usury, tribal business cartels and sedition, in the end, to their own detriment. Tribe is the organizing principle of the religion, but also its Achilles heel. So let's not promote further harm to Jews by encouraging a false sense of tribe that resulted in an historical Jewish incapacity to live with non-Jews.

We can all see that DNA has shows that Jews are not a genetically cohesive tribe. Not even close. They are extremely mixed, so the tribe foundation is no longer valid.

I have seen many contorted interpretations of these DNA studies to try to imply a more cohesive Hebrew tribe that no longer exists. It is also bad science. It only earns contempt from everyone except the innocent. It just makes other scientists and people resent and lose respect for "researchers" who massage or interpret data to mislead the public to prove a path to Abraham and the notion of a Chosen People and to discredit Europeans or others from their true lineage or accomplishments in order to make it appear as though Jews are more special than they are.

People are curious as to who they really are, and no one really wants Judaism or any other exaggeration pushed on them. The term Jew today has no more meaning to indicate a tribe who descends from Abraham. They may behave as a tribe, but the blood link is not there; less so perhaps since Jews traveled more, they who slavers, many converted, and they have more variable DNA contributions.

We also see historically that Hebraic Jews who remained in Palestine were mostly forcibly converted to Islam, and Hebraic Jews who moved to Rome often eventually converted to Roman paganism and later, Christianity. The first Christians were blood Jews.

J1 are Semitic, such as Arabs etc. J2 and E1 are not Semitic. Modern Lebanese of E1 see themselves as white and non-Semitic. They see the Semites as J1 Arabs and Hebrews who entered their region.

Because we now see that the vast majority of today's Jews do NOT descend from Semites, renders the phrase anti-Semitic obsolete in reference to today's mostly non-Semtic blooded Jews.

Jews very often have predominantly European DNA. They show non-Semitic J2 Turkic and E1 Mediterranean ancestry too. Few Jews today exhibit J1 Semitic ancestry today, but they can be proud of their non-Semtic and European heritage too. Hebrews built no major civilization, but their European ancestors produced Western Civilization. The Chinese and others, also built amazing civilizations.

Many Jewish writers and organizations are re-defining what it means to be a Jew as a result of the understanding of non-Semitic tribes dominating Jewry today. If the definition remains Semitic of direct Hebrew origin nearly all Jews today would be excluded from the "tribe". — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScienceSense (talk • contribs) 18:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia works. This article is written by many volunteer editors and yes it has multiple issues that need to be fixed by volunteer editors hence the prominent health warning at the top of the page. HelenOnline 18:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Luke the Evangelist

This whole section has been removed twice, most recently here. Is there any consensus that we should keep in sections about the DNA from bodies purporting to be legendary people? Bearian (talk) 17:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

there is consensus; the article remains after being proposed for deletion so add any rubbish you feel fit to contribute. Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

The discussion below regarding edits commencing on 3 November 2013 was moved here from my personal talk page:

I think there was some confusion as to the edits I made on list of haplogroups of notable people, particularly the King Tut section. I couldn't fit it all in the edit summary so I've brought the discussion here. Your first edit was in regards to this sentence "After pressure to publish Tutankhamun's full DNA report to confirm his Y-DNA results, the researchers refused to respond." It is known that they purposely left out his Y-DNA results in the final report despite testing his Y-DNA (His Y-DNA results were publicly broadcasted when they were trying to determine if Akhenaten was his father). After the leak the researchers responded by calling it "unscientific" but did not deny the results were accurate (Since it was publicly broadcasted so they couldn't deny it) and also refused to further comment when they were asked to officially report his Y-DNA results.

You made a rv in your second edit, I removed that part because I didn't feel it was relevant to the article.

In your third edit you reverted this additional information I added "In December 2012 according to a genetic study conducted by the same researchers who decoded King Tutankhamun's DNA, found that." I thought this part was relevant because it showed that these particular researchers were willing to publish the Y-DNA results of the mummies, but possibly tried to censor King Tuts DNA results due to him having European ancestry.

In the fourth edit you removed the origin of R1b1a2 (R-M269) and E1b1a for an unknown reason. Let me know how we can settle this, thanks Anarchistdy (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

All my edits are clearly explained in my edit summaries (I broke it down carefully so there could be no confusion). Including the origins of the haplogroups amounts to WP:CONTENTFORKING which is not constructive. If you read the deletion nomination discussions listed on the article's talk page, you may have a better idea where I am coming from. If the article deteriorates further, deletion is a distinct possibility. HelenOnline 09:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"All my edits are clearly explained in my edit summaries (I broke it down carefully so there could be no confusion)" You attempted to explain them but I don't think they were justified.

I disagree that it falls into the contentforking category because it does conform to the Manual of Style for list and the first paragraph states. "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

I read the deletion discussion and the overwhelming opinion was to keep the article, with suggestings to clean it up and remove some of the less notable people. My edit to the King Tut section was to make it more neutral because the entire section was trying to discredit those particular results just because the original researchers didn't publish the YDNA in the final report. As I said before his DNA testing was publicly broadcasted, and the camera showed a close up of the results which were R1b1a2 (R-M269) to 99.9% certainty (For comparison most of the results on this list claiming a certain YDNA are probably only around 80% certainty). The the only way the researchers could deny these results was if contamination occurred, which it clearly didn't since the same sample proved that Akhenaten was his father. Anarchistdy (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Reposting quote here for clarity: "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

This refers to intentional forking, e.g. in the Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) article editors may decide to split out Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)#R1b1a2_.28R-M269.29 if the main article becomes too long and this section warrants an article of its own. List of haplogroups of notable people is definitely not the place to discuss the origins of a haplogroup (possibly duplicating or contradicting what is posted in the main article where it is already covered in more detail). If someone wants to know more they can click on the R1b1a2 wikilink in the section. HelenOnline 05:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion across to the article talk page so other editors can contribute to the discussion. HelenOnline 05:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Fair point, so you want all mentions of the origin of a halotype removed from the article? Anarchistdy (talk) 05:13, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes please, I just removed another fork added yesterday. HelenOnline 05:20, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Re King Tut, I don't think I can be more clear than I was in my edit summaries (and don't see the point in repeating myself), hopefully some other editors will help build consensus here. HelenOnline 05:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Genghis Khan

Since Genghis Khan is dead, his remains undiscovered, and his last verifiable descendant around a century dead and never DNA tested, the listing for his DNA can't be anything other than just a guess. It should be removed or clearly labelled as fanciful speculation. siafu 02:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I am only reposting from the verifiable sources. I agree that any links that old have to be very difficult to "prove". I agree with adding a caveate. Sandwich Eater 03:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL, what? There is a lot of people from Gengiz khan origin here is Central Asia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.154.175.230 (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I1 Y-HG

Birger jarl, Edmund Rice used to be sourced with references as belonging to Y-HG I1, where'd they go? 66.96.79.217 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

This article still needs much better sourcing.

A good level of sourcing for this article would be the kind of sources enumerated in the content guideline on reliable sources for articles on medical topics on Wikipedia. So far this list article is nowhere close to being well sourced. I'll check the article right now to apply WP:BLP here to remove any poorly sourced statements about living people--but the statements about dead people here really need to be much better sourced too. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS is perhaps a bit stringent. The reason med-related material bears this more stringent standard is because of the potential consequences of distributing incorrect or POV-COA medical information, which is not a concern here - nobody is going to die if Wikipedia has Robert Oppenheimer's haplogroup wrong. So, citing Who Do You Think You Are? is probably not WP:MEDRS-compliant, but probably reasonable and valid. I would be satisfied if it just met WP:RS, but the citations to eupedia discussion forums, Family Tree DNA project pages, etc., fall far short. 64.126.162.156 (talk) 23:22, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

(Note: same editor, different IP) I have started removing some of this poorly-referenced material, but there is much more than needs to go if better sources can't be found. 50.37.100.141 (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

King Louis

Louis XIV had haplogroup R1b and his direct descendant Louis XVI had haplogroup G-M201. How is this possible?

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v22/n5/abs/ejhg2013211a.html https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3992573/ 68.231.141.199 (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of haplogroups of historic people. 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/20120313061401/http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/13/beringia-native-american-02.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/13/beringia-native-american-02.html

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) 17:41, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Merge mtDNA and Y-DNA sections

The way the "mtDNA" and "Y-DNA" sections are separate on the page leads to many duplicate section headings, which makes linking awkward and error-prone. For example, the section about ancient samples of mtDNA would be linked to using List of haplogroups of historic people#Ancient samples, but the corresponding Y-DNA section would be linked to using List of haplogroups of historic people#Ancient samples 2 (a section heading that appears nowhere in the article itself). Similarly, Richard III's subsection under the "mtDNA" section would be linked to using List of haplogroups of historic people#Richard III of England, but his subsection under "Y-DNA" would be linked to using List of haplogroups of historic people#Richard III of England 2 (again, a section heading that appears nowhere on the page).

I therefore propose an "intrapage" merge of the mtDNA and Y-DNA sections, in which each person has a single section on the page, containing whatever mtDNA and Y-DNA information exist for that individual (either mtDNA or Y-DNA, or both). - dcljr (talk) 07:22, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair warning, I am planning to do this soon. Speak now, or… complain later. [wink] - dcljr (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. - dcljr (talk) 01:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Ashina Clan

I removed the Ashina clan subsection for three main reasons. 1) Bad sources. The first source uses antisemitic conspiracy and is clearly not an academic source. 2) There has been conflicting research showing the Ashina clan to be R1a (I can provide a source if needed. Finally, 3), the original (and from my understanding only) addition / contributor to the Ashina section was DragoniteLeopard. Who has a clear bias on things relating to Turkish history and has been banned long ago. Darokrithia (talk) 00:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hitler

It is extremely ridiculous to post such an interesting genetic relation as that of Adolf Hitler without the scientific source... 2A02:8108:9640:AC3:9C61:A929:C546:138F (talk) 15:22, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Catherine the Great of Russia

Why are you deleting Catherine the Great? She is very famous and she is only 11 generations away from queen Victoria. --85.249.40.129 @Materialscientist: (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Luke the Evangelist

If anyone is interested, I found this[5]. The current source is hobbyist's website. Doug Weller talk 14:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

SubSaharan examples

I think the article could benefit from including some subSaharan historical examples. Ealtram (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)