Talk:Genetic studies on Serbs

Linguistics and genetics

I am intrigued with the first sentence. It claims that Serbs are linguistically distinct group while their language is almost identical to Bosnian and Croatian... and quite close to some other languages around (especially Macedonian).....

217.162.222.95 (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

You may call it BHS language (Bosnian- Croatian- Serbian). The three nationalities speak three languages that are more similar than English language among the native English speakers in England. The division is purely political, and it is ultimately based on religion. Mike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.148.84.100 (talk) 13:36, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

R1a haplogroup

Until today were genetic patrimonial Y haplo studies confirming around 13-15% of the haplogroup R1a in Serbia. How is possible that suddenly increased this number above 6%, which is written in this article?? The source brings us to this site: http://poreklo.rs/srpski-dnk-projekat/ but it is rather some forum than anything else, where are the results btw? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.143.97.3 (talk)

Y-DNA - problem with sources

We have "I2a-P37.2, with frequencies of 29.20% and 30.90%, respectively. The frequency of this haplogroup peaks in Herzegovina (64%)". The source[1] says " I1b* (xM26) frequency peaks in Herzegovinians (64%) and Bosnians (52%"). Figures are right, but the source says I1b* (xM26) but our article calls it I2a. Then we have "E1b1b1a2-V13, 20.35% and 19.80%. The frequency of this haplogroup peaks in Albania (24%)" sourced to either the article linked above or[2] but neither mentions E1b1b1a2. This needs a particularly good explanation. Doug Weller (talk) 08:32, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It's complicated. Conversion table for Y chromosome haplogroups. There is an annotation regarding nomenclature (article uses 2008). I-P37.2 is called I1b* (2002), I1b (2005), I2a (2008, 2010), I2a1 (2011, 2012). E-V13 = E1b1b1a2. --Zoupan 11:37, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm assuming as much, but it is really necessary to be able to link article text with the source directly. I still can't find "The frequency of this haplogroup peaks in Albania (24%)" in the 2nd article, and I need to ask you where you copied that text from that you added in March as there's no attribution. Doug Weller (talk) 12:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Battaglia et al. 2008, table: Albanians - E1b1b1a2 - 23.6%. That text was made by User:VVVladimir then copied here.--Zoupan 14:40, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Copied from where? I can't see where he's given credit for it.

As for taking material from a table, I've got a big problem with that. I've started a discussion at I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources#Using data from academic papers on genetics. Doug Weller (talk) 15:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Here.--Zoupan 16:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Autosomal DNA

It is important to note that, whilst haploid markers such as mtDNA and Y-DNA can provide clues about past population history, they only represent a single genetic locus, compared to hundreds of thousands present in nuclear, autosomal chromosomes. Analyses of autosomal DNA markers gives the best approximation of overall 'relatedness' between populations, presenting a less skewed genetic picture compared to Y DNA haplogroups. This atDNA data shows that there are no sharp discontinuities or clusters within the European population. Rather there exists a genetic gradient, running mostly in a southeast to northwest direction. Overall, Serbs are closest to Croats, Macedonians, Bulgarians and Romanians; followed by other Balkan populations such as Slovenes, Albanians and Greeks. Serbs are more distantly related to other fellow Slavic-speaking countries such as Russians and Poles. Check the autosomal map from the study of Novembre et al. here: please. 88.203.200.74 (talk) 06:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Genetic studies on Serbs. 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 {{dead link}} tag to http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0861/2014/0350-08611401245T.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151227125254/http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0861/2013/0350-08611301149T.pdf to http://www.doiserbia.nb.rs/img/doi/0350-0861/2013/0350-08611301149T.pdf

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) 05:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Serbian DNA Project Poreklo

Do not add back the tables of the Serbian DNA Project / Poreklo if you cannot provide a working link in which the information can be WP:VERIFY.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 20:09, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

All the added information can be verified. Bozdugan (talk) 10:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Where can be verified? You reverted the tables without providing any source for verification. How this works at all? How much these samples are not related to each other and so on? This is obviously not a scientific sampling nor a scientific study and has serious sample bias. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which primarily relies on "scholarly material" (WP:SOURCETYPES), and if we consider this project's sampling as a "study" (which is not), per WP:SCHOLARSHIP it should be avoided for inclusion if we have other primary and secondary sources that cover the same content, as well "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion". Also, please follow WP:BRD.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

The added frequencies are in the source I provided. Population statistics may not always be published by scientists, but the sources are used in Wikipedia. The frequencies are of unrelated clans. There are some related samples only in Bačka, Vojvodina, for which I listed frequencies including and excluding them. This is the largest genetic study on Serbs, regardless of whether the Serbian DNA project is run by scientists or not, so, please see if anyone agrees with you before removing it. Does should be avoided means that it must be avoided? Bozdugan (talk) 20:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Where are such sources used on Wikipedia? You mean Genetic studies on Bosniaks where you also added such unscientific information, writing WP:OR text without any citation? They also should be removed. Where can be verified that the frequencies are of unrelated clans, and by them you mean families? Sorry, your own word is not evidence for verification. This is not a study neither a scientific study. You obviously don't know how Wikipedia works - you added the content, it was reverted by another editor, hence you need to find rationale and start dispute resolution, ask for WP:THIRDOPINION or other to be included, not me. Wikipedia is WP:NOT some site or blog, a mean of promotion, or collection of information & data because to "provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Stop reverting until the discussion reached a consensus (follow WP:DISENGAGE), I already warned you to follow WP:BRD, if not, you are making an WP:WAR and I will be obligated to report you to the admin's noticeboard.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

There is a name of the clan in each result in the source that I added. I haven't written any "WP:OR text without any citation". There is no "lack of source" in the table I added in this article. Until you lie that there is a lack source in this article(and other ones), it is pointless to discuss. I tried to explain in detail, but yet you claim that you haven't figured out that there is an existing source. The verification is in the source I added and it was done by the revision of the watchlisting users. The study I added is run by a team of scientists, doctors and docents. WP:ONUS claims that editors can sometimes make consensus to remove verified information, but there is no consensus for this yet. There is still no third opinion here on your side. Let's see what would other editors say. But if no other editors join the discission, we won't just get along if you continue with these bizzare statements that a source is lacking. You will have to use actual arguments and HONESTY as I can point out obvious lies to the administrators you would report me to. As I have shown what I added is verified and from reliable source as the previous studies, but the notability and sample sizes are larger. While your argument is only a mere lie(that the source actually doesn't exist), I have justified the inclusion of the study of the Project Poreklo by my substantive complying with all policies and guidelines except your consensus, and you can't just delete it and block any inclusion of it in this article by sending it to dispute resolution because of your lack of consensus on it. See Wikipedia:Status quo stonewalling: Status quo stonewalling is disruptive behavior in opposition to a proposed change when substantive argument based in policy, guidelines and conventions are inadequate to legitimately oppose the change. Bozdugan (talk) 19:18, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

So it's a family, not a clan. Indeed, you added the table without context, while the uncited context was added by another editor ([[3]]). Stop to WP:PERSONAL and focus on content. The project's table has almost 4,000 samples which must be manually checked which is difficult to verify and count for an editor, with a significant possibility of OR mistake, not to mention it is probably constantly updated. The reliability, neutrality, and bias of the table are also disputable. The table is not a scholarly study which is published, had a peer-review and other. The ONUS explicitly says that "The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content" - you need to find consensus, I do not nor need the third opinion, you need it. Read again BRD and DISPUTE. It has nothing to do with WP:Stonewalling.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you misattributed another editor's additions to me. WP:ONUS is clear - consensus may determine to exclude verified information, which you don't have. I already seek consensus and answered all what I was asked for. Despite your figures are inaccurate(it is about 2000 samples), whoever doubts that I had a too difficult task, it is on their behalf to manually check everything; although my edit passed the revision of the watchlisters . And the source is still scholarly and made public, so, you don't have any adequate or legitimate arguments to oppose the change, which is still WP:Stonewalling. It is still that when I showed you that the source corresponds to everything you asked for. If no other editor supports complete removal of the Poreklo, you won't get consensus to remove the verified information but groundless stonewalling an individual opinion. In such case I won't get over this and we both may agree by something else that you may suggest, I can update it or add any notes. I assume adding another scholarly source, which condemns Poreklo as a bad source is necessary to be safe and secure about its complete removal here; but even in such case conflicting views may be added as notes. Bozdugan (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

ONUS is not stating that. That's not how dispute and consensus process work, I already explained and linked you what to read and do above. Where did you seek consensus when your contributions history does not show to have sought it anywhere? How are only 2000 samples when was stated "Serbs (beyond Serbia)=2636" and "Serbians (Serbia)=1110"? If are 2000 samples then you wrongly named these two groups. Your revision did not pass anything, that's so-called WP:SILENCE type of consensus, it's an assumption which is the weakest form, and the consensus is prone to change (WP:CCC) when someone edits or reverts it, when it's up to you to achieve consensus for the inclusion of the content. Editors here don't act like "I won't get over... I can update it", that's WP:OWN.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

We already have multiple reliable sources of scientific papers from peer-reviewed journals. The project's database also possibly has an issue with self-published and independent, most importantly, it's a WP:PRIMARY source with own issues (including that "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so") as well as Wikipedia:Copyrights&WP:NONFREE issues because the "Terms and conditions of use of the Serbian DNA project" explicitly states in "Article 2: It is not allowed to publish results from a Serbian DNA project without obtaining the consent of the Serbian DNA project editorial board", "Article 3: It is not permitted to visualize parts of the project in electronic media (on television and the Internet) without obtaining the consent of the Serbian DNA project editorial board" and "Article 5: It is not allowed to use data from the Serbian DNA project for commercial purposes". Do you have written consent by the project's editorial board? Even if you do, Article 5 is problematic because that basically means "non-commercial use only" license which is not supported on Wikipedia.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 18:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

---

"I2a-P37.2, with frequencies of 29.20% and 30.90%, respectively. The frequency of this haplogroup peaks in "Herzegovina (64%)".. This information in article is from this scientific work and in it is visible that samples for Herzegovina are taken in dominant Croatian and Bosniak areas of Herzegovina ie. Široki Brijeg and Mostar so that information "Herzegovina (64%)" does not fall under "genetics of Serbians". Only scientific work for Serbians from Bosnia and Herzegovina is "PHYLOGENY OF Y-CHROMOSOME HAPLOGROUPS AND THEIR FREQUENCIES IN CROATS, SERBS, AND BOSNIACS 2005 in which it does not write that information.

Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina have this haplotype up to 71% and this is evident in the quoted scientific work. While in southern Croatia this haplotype is up to 54.5% and for local areas "In Croatia the highest frequency is observed in Dalmatia, peaking in cities of Dubrovnik (53%) and Zadar (60%),[8] as well southern islands of Vis (44.6%),[8] Brač and Korčula (~55%), and Hvar (65%)."

31.217.5.47 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)mikola31.217.5.47 (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

References

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA).PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• The approximate frequency and variance of haplogroup I-P37 clusters in Eastern Europe.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Distribution of European Y-chromosome DNA (Y-DNA) haplogroups by country in percentage

On Eupedia there is over 1000 samples for Serbia and the result is as follows

I1 - 8 I2*/I2a - 34 I2b - 0.5 R1a - 18 R1b - 6 G - 2.5 J2 - 9 J*/J1 - 1 E1b1b - 15 T - 0.5 Q - 1 N - (2.5)

You guys should add it.

[4]https://www.eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml Nikola1971 (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Genetic history of Europe/Archive 4#Eupedia.com, Eupedia is popular website, but with many speculations and unclear fact checking reputation. It cannot be considered as a relialbe source and it is not quoted by academic reliable sources, which on the other hand are and must be cited on Wikipedia about the topic.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)