Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic History/Proposal

Cut and pasted from Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals, on 13 March 2008.

Description

A wikiproject for articles on DNA research into genetic genealogy and genealogical DNA tests; the history and spread of human populations as revealed by eg human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups; and similar. Many such articles can be found in Category:Genetic genealogy and its subcategories, notably the subcategories on human haplogroups.

Interested Wikipedians (please add your name)

1. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
2. Tiamut^talk 18:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC) Much needed project, particularly given the need for expert input to help in deciphering some of the literature. Thanks for thinking of it.
3. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC) (commentary below)
4. Sugaar. I am more interested in human population genetics than in comercial DNA testing, that is often misleading or just sample-biased. But I do think this kind of project is much necesary anyhow. --Sugaar (talk) 16:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
5. Sasha l (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
6. The Ogre (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
7. ClockworkSoul 17:00, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
8. Nagelfar (talk) 05:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
9. Geog1 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

Comments

• My direct motivation for seeking this Wikiproject was a recent run-in at Y-chromosomal Aaron, where I desperately missed the lack of a relevant WikiProject talk page to go to, to attract the input, advice and views of knowledgeable editors in this area.

There's a lot of general public interest in the proposed subject area -- eg the Y-chromosomal Aaron page is apparently getting well over 100 hits a day, and over the last 18 months or so there's been a lot of material added, by a fair number of different editors, mostly editing different pages which are particularly relevant to them. IMO, a central wikiproject would be useful, and also a good place to be able to bring WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:general cluelessness issues for wider informed input.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology do already exist, but their focus is much much broader. With regard to those project's charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those project's normal focus. On the other hand, I believe that there are a number of wikipedia editors (and readers) who are specifically interested in the subject, who would find advantage if there were a specific wikiproject for it. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree – Though I am not a geneticist, I do look for expertise in subjects that I am unfamiliar with or gain more insight into, genetics being one. Typically my first stop is a project page to see who I may look to for advice or to gain better insight into a particular area. As Jheald points out, ancestry investigations has become quite a hot topic over the last several years. This project page would be a great addition, and a wonderful resource for editors in similar positions as mine. Good luck to you. Shoessss |  Chat  14:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
• Though we don't have to, I think it is good practice to create broader projects before more narrow ones. We seriously need a Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics (which I'll start myself in several months if nobody beats me to it), though this is much more specific. Of course, if that's your main interest and you can get enough people to join by all means start such a project; I just think it would be easier to find people interested in genetics in general first. Richard001 (talk) 01:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that covered by the (by your rationale) even broader Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject? I Agree, because I think that the umbrella genetics project is covered in the aforementioned project, and "Genetic history" or 'genetic evolution' has reached a scale all of it's own here on wikipedia. Nagelfar (talk) 10:30, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I've actually been putting some thought into that recently. What I'm considering proposing is an organization within WP:MCB that both (1) organizes the topics in a rational and meaningful way and (2) allows us to maintain our most committed members in single organizational unit. The latter is vital because it allows us all to focus on single vital topics and turn out some very impressive articles. My concern is that is we fragment into several groups, each with a smaller number of committed members there will be less focus on the articles that remain. The result of splintering, in my experience, tends to be discouraged members of the new groups and the eventual abandonment of the new project. Take a look at WP:VIRUS and WP:MICRO as examples of MCB splinter projects that haven't done much at all besides tag articles as being under their domain. My proposal would include the creation of task forces or sub-projects of some kind, but maintain the central point of communication and preserve the resources that encourage broad communication, such as the CotM and soon to be revived newsletter. – ClockworkSoul 17:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Richard: you may be wrong. I suspect that there is more people interested in human genetic history than in genetics in general. I am one of them. Drosophila's and zebrafish' genetics are cool for sure but most of the time they don't interest me as much as human genetics do. I would surely not join the Molecular Biology WikiProject but I will happily join this one. The reason is that I am more interested in history, archaeology and anthropology than in biology or medicine. So I see human genetics as a fascinating tool to improve knowledge in those areas. In brief: it's like arguing that to be interested in archaeology you first need to be interested in mineralogy.

But, through interest in human genetics, it may happen that more people join teh Molecular Biology project after all.

Also, like happens with so many specific ethnic WikiProjects and the WikiProject Ethnic Groups, for instance, bot projects can have a coordination and even a parent-child relation, at least formally. --Sugaar (talk) 04:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

For the proposed Genetic History group, I think it probably has enough novelty to stand on its own without conflicting with any existing groups. A Genetics group, however, might not. – ClockworkSoul 12:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

• Agree The problems here are distinctive in not being biological. and even when biological, there are other techniques than molecular biology that remain relevant here. This should be a separate project--there will be enough people, and enough problems also. DGG (talk) 02:08, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
• Agree/Comment This is a topic that sorely needs a WikiProject. As it currently stands, most of the Wikipedia articles on genetic history/genealogy have at least one of the following shortcomings: woefully incomplete; contradictory information; shilling for testing companies; promoting assorted ethnic/nationalist POV. While these problems can be cleaned up by using peer-reviewed academic sources, doing so will leave out a lot of information that is being generated by the private testing/amateur enthusiasts community, which is, in many cases, several steps ahead of what makes it into published studies. Balancing the (generally) more up-to-date information of this community with the slower, more rigorously analyzed data coming from population geneticists will be the biggest challenge to this WikiProject. In addition, it's very tempting for a lot of people to associate present-day population diversity patterns with (pre)historic migrations and settlement patterns; this is an area that these articles should tread very lightly in until if and when wide-scale testing of ancient DNA becomes commonplace. – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 20:12, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agree/Comment. Agree specially with Swid - but also in general. I also think that the project needs a better more descriptive name like Human genetic history or Human population genetics. Genetic History is way too vague. --Sugaar (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

• • Agree/Comment Whats the delay? Cyrus111 (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
• Agree/Comment This is a much needed project. I, as a complete ignorant on such issues, see more and more the use of genetic data (namely haplogroup frequencies in specific populations) to sustain some historical, archeological, anthropological or ethnic rationale/argumentation (and the risks of nationalist or racialist/racist uses abound!). And I see a lot of manpulation and misuse of the source (even the choice of sources is problematic). A task force on these questions is urgentely needed! The Ogre (talk) 09:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
• Agree/Comment I basically concur w/ Ogre's comment. I think there needs to be a committee or council (???) that oversees and implements guidlines for the use of such info, if possible. Geog1 (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Geog1

Update/Vote

I created a draft version of the WikiProject; feel free to go to it and flesh it out. Also, given that there has been some comments about starting a task force inside of an existing WikiProject vs. a full-blown project, I've started an informal poll below. Please vote! – Swid ^{(talk · edits)} 00:22, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Task Force:

Independent WikiProject:

• Project. Task force would do but the area is wide and attractive enough to justify a WikiProject - and a Portal. --Sugaar (talk) 04:29, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Project. It is such a large field of inquiry widely related to many different disciplines and the interest in it will likely grow as more and more scholarship is produced. It also needs informed members capable of deciphering the scholarship produced and rendering it comprehensible to lay people. A project would better help organize those capabilities than a task force. Tiamut^talk 15:47, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
• Project My comments about splinter projects above was directed at the idea of a Genetics WP. The Genetic History WP is novel enough to stand on its own without conflicting with any existing groups. I say that you should just go and create it! – ClockworkSoul 02:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)