Talk:Genealogical DNA test/Archive 1

Archive 1

Advertising

The section on Cohanim ancestry seems to be written in the style of an advert for Oxford Ancestors. --apers0n 18:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. It was just added by an anon user, and I haven't had time to clean it up. It's on my to do list. — Reinyday, 22:16, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the reference to Professor Sykes is an advertisement for Oxford Ancestors, even though he was the founder of that company. He is also a respected scientist and popular writer. But I can remove it and say "one company does this or that." Or I could also discuss the fact that Family Tree DNA suggests a similar timeframe (though only with matching surnames), and another company puts this interpretation of mutation rates up front in its reports. All over the genetics journals and press it's the same story: the roots of the human tree are shallower than anyone guessed before. Bottlenecks in human populations, combined with political developments favoring certain types, are a big contributing factor: most lineages simply do not survive. It's primarily the DNA surname projects who don't agree to the emerging consensus of geneticists and forensic scientists. I don't understand the remark about formality, however. What language is informal in the section? Donpanther 21:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Donpanther, the tone was not so much informal as not in style with the Wikipedia. You have stated one view about the "Cohen Modal Haplotype" as though it was fact, marginalizing the other view point. Wikipedia articles try to be inclusive of differing views. I've just edited the page a bit, particularly removing some of your many references to DNA Consultants. — Reinyday, 06:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Looks good. Thanks! Donpanther 19:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Notes

The links to notes don't work . . . Donpanther 22:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• I've fixed it. — Reinyday, 23:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please put in edit summaries

Some users are tinkering with the text and links to notes without indicating why they are editing things. There used to be a note to "one company" under Hindu testing and I think there were also some things in Melungeon testing that were silently changed. If people don't put in an edit summary with a rationale for their changes the edits could be mistaken for vandalism.

Attempting to contrast the validity of these first two overhyped Melungeon DNA projects. --Emuchick 01:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

What is the definition of the different mtDNA haplogroups ?

I am trying to find the definition to the mtDNA haplogroup as written for the Y Haplogroups in the section Haplogroup prediction. Does any one know where to find it? Thanks maruvkay

• Hi. I'm not sure I understand your question. mtDNA haplogroups are the same as Y-DNA haplogroups in that they are groups of haplotypes (your specific test results). If you want to know about a specific haplogroup, click on its letter below:

Phylogenetic tree of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) haplogroups

Mitochondrial Eve (L)

L0

L1–6

L1

L2

L3

L4

L5

L6

M

N

CZ

D

E

G

Q

O

A

S

R

I

W

X

Y

C

Z

B

F

R0

pre-JT

P

U

HV

JT

K

H

V

J

T

I hope that helps! — Reinyday, 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Cohanim ancestry

I'm moving this whole paragraph on to the talk page. I have to agree with the counter-editor that much of what he criticises is very questionable. But the appropriate response is to cut out such material and take it to the talk page; not to conduct a discussion in the text of the article itself.

Here is the cut paragraph, with the recent counter-editor's comments in italics:

The whole field of Y chromosome DNA testing began with a Canadian doctor's discovery that an overwhelming majority of Jewish males with the surname Cohen (Hebrew for "priest") had the same, or approximately the same set of markers, suggesting they truly descended from an original male founder, but unlikely from Aaron who was in Haplogroup (ancestry) J1

how can anyone make this statement? Do we have Aaron's DNA??

while CMH was recently found it was in J2 not J1 in the Cohens sample

This is false. The 6-marker CMH is found in both J1 and J2 and the expanded 12 marker-defined CMH is found in J1 and in a subgroup of J2 called J2f* or J2a1b. This appearance of the CMH in two different SNP groups is due to convergence, not to a recent common ancestor, as the parent groups J1 and J2 are both much older than the last common ancestor of individuals having the CMH STR haplotype in each group. However, only the 12 marker CMH individuals in J1 have the family tradition of being Cohanim, at least among Ashkenazi Jews; the data on other Jewish groups is not publicly available at this time.

J2 is found recently to be multiple haplogroups representing the ancestries of multiple different nations ( Turks, Georgians, ancient Greeks, Romans, some Somalians, Kurds, India)

J2 is very widespread through the Mediterranean, especially the northern shore; the Middle East, especially the northern part, and on into India; but does not correlate with a particular nation or ethnicity beyond that.

I'm also going to slightly re-balance what is left in the article. Jheald 17:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic tests

Since the section was growing large, I've suggested on Race#The_Marketing_of_Race:_genetic_lineages_as_social_lineages that it be merged with Genealogical_DNA_test#Ethnic_tests. A broad overview would be left in its place. Please discuss. --slakr^\ talk / 12:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tutorial section

I find that the tutorials at Genebase are useful in explaining the basics of genetic genealogy and the testing procedures. Together with other tutorials that are listed on the page, it makes the article more comprehensive. Most tutorial links are not inappropriate, and contain similar levels of promotional content. Hence, if the tutorials from Genebase are deleted, the other tutorials should also be deleted for the same reason.

On the contrary, the link to Family Tree DNA in the tutorial section is inappropriate because it is a Product Description page instead of an actual tutorial. The page itself is definitely used for advertising since all 17 sections in the page end with linking you to the ordering page for their DNA kits.

Thanks, ddsummers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddsummers (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to create a WikiProject: Genetic History

I have put up a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject (or WikiSubProject), WikiProject: Genetic History.

To quote from what I've written there:

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.

Rationale

• 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)

If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.

Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.

Either way, please show what you think, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetic_History

Thanks, Jheald (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

"Drawbacks" section

"There is no usefulness in Maternal DNA because mother displaces the father maternal DNA ( from his mother). Maternal DNA continue only from Mother to daughter. Also a daughter can not transend her father Y DNA to her sons and a son cannot transend his mother maternal DNA to his childrens!"

Besides the horrible English of this whole paragraph, the section needs to be rewritten in a NPOV tone (i.e. "There is no usefulness ... because ...") Nagelfar 18:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Plus 'maternal DNA' would be the DNA of the mother. Seems that they mean mitochondrial DNA.--77.248.90.202 18:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It is wrong to say "the mother displaces the father's maternal DNA (from his mother)... and a son cannot transmit his mother's maternal DNA to his children" because it's not true. Here, "maternal DNA" should be changed into "maternal mitochondrial DNA" --Ecth79 (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Haplogroup N3 or E1b1b ?

In the sub-sub-section Haplogroup prediction, a good example of such predictions is given consisting of 4 bullets, and I changed the 4th bullet so it at least seems correct (ie, something like "one is in the modal haplotype for Hg G"), but also now it fails to be part of a good example. This 4th bullet is now so crummy that it should simply be omitted. The 4th bullet had said "... one is probably a member of haplogroup N3 or E1b1b", excerpted in my title above. And this is not consistent with the values (DYS426=11 and DYS388=12) in the table for the Haplogroup G: Modal STR values just above the 4 bullets.

Will someone who knows this topic enough to make sense of the original 4th bullet please fix this Wikipedia problem? Or at least improve upon my version of the 4th bullet. (I have not had good luck in leaving such requests at their proper location in WP -- it takes me a long time to choose one of the several such places, when I only do this maybe once/year; plus I don't usually get any response at all. This way, on the talk page, I can at least find my request again if I ever want to.) For7thGen (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Removing a garbled sentence

I'm removing the following sentence, which was the 3rd sentence in the section Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) testing: "One exception, which was linked to infertility, has been shown." I can make a guess that it is a poor remnant of the first sentence in the section Medical information, left here by mistake. If this sentence does belong here, then it certainly needs to be coherently or well expressed and probably needs to be sourced as well. For7thGen (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

mtDNA regions

WP editor User talk:Brout8 recently corrected this article's mtDNA regions (i.e., regions of basepair numbers), to the corrected values HVR2 = 00001-00576, coding region = 00577-16023, and HVR1 = 16024-16569, see next paragraph. And using the more readable of his or her two sources for those regions, I have added a source reference to this article, using it three times since WP would like more references rather than less. (The second and third times could be dropped, I don't really care.)

Here, HVR stands for Highly Variable Region (which the source reference itself calls HVS, where the S is for Segment instead of Region).

Both of Brout8's 2 sources are intended only for actual workers in the field, not for WP readers, and I can't do anything about that. WP is fortunate to have Brout8 doing some of its Haplogroup work, although I hope he or she will give source references for this work. So I chose the more readable source and used it. Brout8's other source can be seen by clicking on the link called NC 012920 at the top of source reference I used. The URL for this other source is http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/251831106?report=genbank , "just for the record". For7thGen (talk) 21:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE

There is an update for the table of DNA Tribes, from 2012 here (from the tables in blue at the end, not the ones in orange) :

http://www.dnatribes.com/dnatribes-snp-admixture-2012-03-12.pdf

--Me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.154.255.84 (talk) 16:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleanup?

This article desperately needs some cleanup, some updating, and more citations. --76.173.136.32 (talk) 05:37, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Genetic code

Genetic code has a specific meaning in biology. Also it has a WRONG popular or journalistic meaning which shouldn't be used in wikipedia. The first sentence of the article should be changed ("A genealogical DNA test looks at a person's genetic code at specific locations.").--Miguelferig (talk) 17:43, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Ethnic tests

Resolved

• Geographic origin tests* ia a better description than Ethnic tests for what is described under that heading. Neither ethnicity, nor race and social lineages (proposed for metging) are concepts with a genetic basis, so are a poor fit with the subject under discussion. Mayflies (talk) 21:58, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Race and ethnicity can be proven genetically, actually. Did you read the article?Presidentbalut (talk) 02:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Baseless. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Use in the US Military?

Resolved

Just curious why the US Navy requires genetic ethnicity checks?Presidentbalut (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? - SummerPhD (talk) 03:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not true. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Out Of Africa Map?

Resolved

Why is there a map of the "out of Africa" theory? This theory has been widely disproven. Its presence in the article is counter-productive and deceiving. It should be removed. Presidentbalut (talk) 02:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? "In paleoanthropology, the recent African origin of modern humans, frequently dubbed the "Out of Africa" theory, is the most widely accepted model describing the geographic origin and early migration of anatomically modern humans." Recent African origin of modern humans - SummerPhD (talk) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

The article is correct. - SummerPhD (talk) 14:00, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits of this date

Read one section before noting the far-too-usual long tracts of WP:VERIFY and WP:OR violating content. From the only-one-fact/assertion-sourced-in-three-paragraphs to the "some experts" and removed "users" (and other) vagaraies -- this potentially very important, practical section is just embarassing. Cannot recommend it or the article as a whole. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

No time tonight, but take a look at this[1] - either some of this article is copied from [2] or the other way around. Doug Weller talk 21:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell. Wayback only has a 2015 copy of the website, despite it's saying last modified February 2014, and the text I checked, "they are related within genealogy's time frame." was in our article at least as far back as 2009. Doug Weller talk 11:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genealogical DNA test. 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 User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.smgf.org/pages/yinterpretation.jspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The link to the archived page looks ok. --Pakaraki (talk) 23:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Focus of article is wandering

This article appears to cover general genealogical DNA issues, but has discussions specific to peoples in the United States. While there are obviously indigenous people in Canada, and descendants of African slaves throughout the Americas and Caribbean, I thought the references to Native Americans and African Americans needed to come under a header related to the United States. It seems odd to pick only the Melungeons, as one of the triracial groups, to discuss - perhaps they have had more DNA studies done than other groups. Otherwise it's really undue weight to have a section on them.--Parkwells (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There may be little interest or few resources to develop pages for the above-noted specific topics; even the instant general article appears to have received infrequent updating. One of these specific areas was updated today, balancing accuracy/availability of knowledge against the risk of overweighting the main article.Sumnerafternoon (talk) 22:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Overhaul needed? "Genetic astrology" needs mentioning, as well as legal threats

It's very hard to see the forest for the trees in this article. It's very bitty and possibly has too much detail.

But is also is very lacking in any serious analysis. This BBC radio documentary[3] has Adam Rutherford talking to "to Professor Mark Jobling from the University of Leicester, Professor Mark Thomas from University College London and to Debbie Kennett, author, blogger and member of the International Society of Genetic Genealogy, about the scientific lines they believe some genetic ancestry companies cross, when they provide people with stories about their ancient ancestors and their ancient genetic homelands." Anyone have time to listen to it and use it?

I hadn't run across the term "genetic astrology" before, but see this search.[4] University College London has a website on genetic astrology.[5] which I'll add as an EL until it can be used as a source. One response to the website from a company is at [6]. The whole thing seems to have involved legal threats.[7] [8]

Sense about Science has written about genetic testing and has written a guide.[9] which I've added as a link.

Heres a new link to archived page there b/c I was interested and their new website makes that a broken link, that does not include the "guide" http://archive.senseaboutscience.org/data/files/resources/119/Sense-About-Genetic-Ancestry-Testing.pdf Also http://archive.senseaboutscience.org/pages/genetic-ancestry-testing.html nice quotes from genetic scientists like: "Everybody wants to be related to Genghis Khan or the Vikings (well I actually don't). The good news is that they all probably are" and: “I know it’s only a tiny part of my true ancestry, but I would still love to know whether my male line ancestors were Vikings, or Celts, or both, or neither. Or at least be reasonably certain. Same goes for my female line. It’s a shame there’s no valid way to do that.”Maaarghotbc (talk) 04:25, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

See also a mention about it being big business in the UK Telegraph newspaper.[10] Doug Weller talk 12:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Genealogical DNA test. 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/20110727174043/http://www.phylotree.org/rCRS_annotated.htm to http://www.phylotree.org/rCRS_annotated.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141103225418/http://www.dnacenter.com/blog/dna-tests-prove-that-the-body-found-under-a-parking-lot-belongs-to-king-richard-iii-but-was-he-truly-a-hunchback/ to http://www.dnacenter.com/blog/dna-tests-prove-that-the-body-found-under-a-parking-lot-belongs-to-king-richard-iii-but-was-he-truly-a-hunchback/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101223130414/http://ybase.org/statistics.asp to http://ybase.org/statistics.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707092826/http://www.africanancestry.com/patriclan.html to http://www.africanancestry.com/patriclan.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150506090224/http://dna.xyvy.info:80/ to http://dna.xyvy.info/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 01:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Specific locations

Eh? Does it mean, this can only be done in a specific city or country? Jim.henderson (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

the article needs more explanations and more pictures for understanding the procedure clearly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakmatnujoom (talk • contribs) 17:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Native American Tribes

Because it is not directly relevant and is unsourced, I have removed the following: "The U.S. government relies on recognized tribal organizations to determine their own membership. Consequently, individuals must apply to their American Indian and Alaska Native tribes directly to establish membership and enrolment. As political entities, tribes have established their own requirements for membership, often based on at least one of a person's ancestors having been included on tribal-specific Native American censuses (or final rolls) prepared during treaty-making, relocation to reservations or apportionment of land in the late 19th century and early 20th century. One example is the Dawes Rolls. Tribes are political constructs, not genetic populations." This could probably be used somewhere else and there is perhaps a point to be made in this article that Native American tribes do not use DNA evidence to establish membership. Rjm at sleepers (talk) 06:32, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

Improving / expanding this article

I believe the article currently is strong in the areas of genetics, statistics and procedures. However I believe it is weaker in areas such as how a genealogist actually uses genetic dna tests (ie you have found a 4th cousin twice removed that you didn't know about - so what?). Also it currently doesn't give much emphasis to use of testing by adoptees to identify their ancestry. Finally, I wonder if it should talk more about the potential emotional impact of "surprises". What do others think? Rjm at sleepers (talk) 08:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The "Shared DNA from different relatives" chart appears inaccurate.

The "Shared DNA from different relatives" chart gives a higher minimum shared cM amount for half-nieces/nephews than full nieces/nephews. This surely cannot be accurate.Nogburt (talk) 03:49, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Why has LivingDNA been deleted?

I added LivingDNA as one of the possible DNA home test kit service providers with a reference and it was deleted by Doug Weller. Why? SylviaStanley (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• I got this note on my talk page: "I'm sorry for reverting your edit. It wasn't on purpose. Regards. Cynko (talk) 16:54, 20 May 2018 (UTC)." So I guess I can revert the deletion?
  • I meant article's talk page [11], not the article. Cynko (talk) 17:12, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
    • No problem Cynko. But my question still stands. Why was LivingDNA deleted? SylviaStanley (talk) 17:15, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
      • I don't know. I think Doug Weller should answer that question, beacuse he reverted your edit. Cynko (talk) 17:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• • • • • Because it has no article showing it's a notable organisation. See WP:NORG for the criteria for an article. This is an encyclopedia, so we have certain guidelines for this sort of thing. Otherwise people could add any organisation they want to promote, advertise,or even attack. I'm not suggesting you were doing that User:SylviaStanley. I did say something in my WP:edit summary when I removed it. Doug Weller talk 17:53, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• • • • • • Thanks Doug Weller. You cite WP:NORG as a reason for deleting LivingDNA. But WP:NORG only refers to an article created about the subject. I am not creating an article. I am citing an alternative source for genealogical DNA testing and adding a reference. WP:WHYCITE is surely the criteria that should be used. SylviaStanley (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• • • • • • • No, whycite is about sources. Yes, NORG is about notability for an article about a subject, but as I've said, we need to have some sort of control what organisations get mentioned here. If it doesn't meet our criteria for notability, there's no reason for an encyclopedia to mention it. The same goes for people (although not authors of sources). There are some bad sources in the article, by the way, eg "African Ancestry". Doug Weller talk 18:52, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• • • • • • • • Once again Doug Weller NORG refers to (I quote) "...whether an organization (commercial or otherwise), or any of its products and services, is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article dedicated solely to that organization, product, or service...." I am not creating an article. Nevertheless, from WP:ORG I gather that to be notable there should be significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I presume my one reference was not enough for you. So if I attach more references to LivingDNA that have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject I can put LivingDNA back without you deleting it again? DNA genealogy is a hobby of mine and I find LivingDNA is cited in references as one of the four main sources for genealogical DNA testing (along with Ancestry, 23andMe and FTDNA). LivingDNA's crucial importance is that it the only source that can drill down to local geographical areas in the United Kingdom. None of the others can with any reliability. This Wikipedia article on Genealogical DNA test mentions National Geographic as a typical source for genealogical testing. Not in the references I read. National Geographic concentrates on ancestral ethnicity and does not help with genealogical relationships. SylviaStanley (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Coverage means substantial discussion, not just a mention. What sources would you be using? I know you think it's important but that's not enough for us. I'll delete NG. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm also a (genetic) genealogist and can back this up. Ancestry, 23andMe and MyHeritage would be the biggest companies, followed by LivingDNA and FTDNA. National Geographic gives basic and limited results which are not particularly useful for genealogy. AV85647 (talk) 09:40, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is why I removed National Geographic. The best thing to do is create an article for it using sources meeting WP:RS that discuss it, not just cite it. By the way, I see the Daily Mail mentins it. We don't use the Daily Mail as a source. Doug Weller talk 14:02, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

MyHeritage is only having an analysing service, they are not a company which is doing the testing. DNA tests are the same as of Family Tree DNA i.e. FTDNA/Gene by Gene are doing the testing (official collaboration). As for National Geographic (i.e. Genographic Project), it's also a collaboration with Family Tree DNA and Illumina, currently also Helix, for the testing.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 16:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Gizmodo article advising not to take such tests

See [12]

In a nutshell, "Because they can still be laughingly imprecise, are barely regulated, and most worryingly of all, could expose your identity to people you’d rather not know anything about you." Doug Weller talk 18:39, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

X-Chromosome

I think the article misses a good description on the X-Chromosome-testing. I myself search for good information about that: how X-Chromosome is heredited from parents to children, see here: http://dna-forums.org/index.php?/topic/16302-question-dna-heredity-rules-mtdna-23-chromosomes/page__p__276696#entry276696 --87.8.105.81 (talk) 10:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not an acceptsble source. Needed, best, are texts or review articles. Certainly not blog or other pages from commercially associated sites. Le Prof. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Need to add references to raw dna data analysis tools that focus on the X-chromosome to identify health and traits SNPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott morino (talk • contribs) 16:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Raw DNA Data

Raw DNA data file can be downloaded from genealogy testing services and uploaded to DNA analysis web sites to obtain reports about health and traits.

and offer effective tools to analyze raw DNA data files.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott morino (talk • contribs) 17:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)