 | This draft does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Bold text== Removing Statistics and Sources == WHAT HAPPEN TO THE PREVIOUS MAP SHOWING 02B KOREAN DNA GENETIC MAP. CURRENT MAP IS VERY CONFUSING WITH PIE CHART FORMAT. PLEASE REPLACE WITH PREVIOUS MAP. I am only copy-editing the O pages, but as a general Wikipedia rule, just removing sourced population frequency data is a no-no.-- RebekahThorn ( talk) 16:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I have requested the page be temporarily locked from editing, until this can be worked out [1]. Continued attempts to remove material should not be made when it is clear that there is no consensus for them. See WP:BRD. When an attempt has been made to make a significant change to an article, and that change has been resisted, the appropriate thing to do is to come here to the talk page and discuss in detail what evidence, sourceable to an external WP:Reliable Source there may be that the material is problematic. Personal views on the matter are not sufficient (see WP:OR). Relevant material that has been published in reputable academic sources should normally be expected to be included in the article. Notes about potential problems with the material might be added, but only if those notes can themselves be supported by credible external sources -- i.e. not just how things seem to you. In any case, the place for further discussion is here, on this talk page. Merely trying to force your way by making the same removals again and again is not acceptable behaviour, and may result in your being blocked temporarily or permanently from further editing of Wikipedia. Consider this a formal warning that further attempts to remove material you personally deem to be incorrect are likely to be considered to be edit warring, and are likely to result in sanctions being applied. Jheald ( talk) 19:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004210 It is mtDNA data It is not related to O2b
O2b is not Southeast Asia O2b is a gene that only appears in Korea, Japan, and some of Manchuria. The highest percentage is the Korean peninsula and Japan.
O2b Why do you claim it is Southeast Asia? There are many subgroups of O2b. Do you know that?
O2b1b1-L682 Korean 21-22% Japanese 7-8%% Manchu 3% Nanai in China 8-12% Udege in Russia 9-10% http://blog.naver.com/rlarladudtnr/221013231190
O2b1a-47z Japanese 25-29% Korean 7-8% Manchu 3% http://blog.naver.com/rlarladudtnr/221010532611
O2b1b2-K3 Manchu 28% Japanese 1% Korean 1% http://blog.naver.com/rlarladudtnr/221010577748
O2b1c-F1813 http://blog.naver.com/rlarladudtnr/221011097907
O2b1c is a very rare gene It is a very low rate in Korea and Japan too And the Mongolian biologist "Chimebayzan" belongs to O2b1c.
And Manchus O2b-M176 34% is O2b1b1-682 3% O2b1a-47 3% O2b1b2-K3 28% It is the (O2b1b1-682/O2b1a-47/O2b1b2-K3) data of Manchus in Liaoning Province. That percentage came from it.
And O3, which is commonly known, originated in all of South China and / or came from Southeast Asia.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0004210
83% Southeast Asia? This seems to be the combined ratio of O3 50%-O2b 30% If you include Japan and China together, China has a higher percentage.
But why is O2b Southeast Asia? Is there any solid evidence that O2b is Southeast Asia? O2b has High frequency only in Korea and Japan. It is very few in Southeast Asia.
Lately, I have heard about this thing from my acquaintance in the Genetics forum. The study was initiated in the year of 2009 by the researchers of Ulsan University. It was 8 years ago.
Let's come to the main subject. This is a very simple matter, which will resolve any misunderstandings.
Haven't I left my writing here before, concerning the respective O2b percentage 20% and 17% in Indonesia and Vietnam, Those two nation members did not make any reactions. Probably they must be confused as well, mustn't they?
Well, Let's talk about it. It is said that O2b genes were not actually found at all in Indonesia and Vietnam, therefore the respective percentage of 20% and 17% are completely wrong. The source must be Jin et al, 2009 material? Probably.
I don't understand why these inaccurate figures should confuse the whole matter, indeed.
The respective percentage 20% and 17% in Indonesia and Vietnam come from the study which conducted on mixed-blood people born into multicultural families living in Korea. That's why these figures were brought up.
By the way, It does not make any sense to me why these percentages are inserted in the map of Indonesia and Vietnam.
There kinda seems to be an error.
If the study had been conducted on mixed-blood people (Korean-Southeastern Asian) in Korea, their genes should have been classified as Korean ones. I cannot understand why their genes were added to the groups of Vietnam and Indonesia.
Otherewise, the study may have been conducted on mixed-blood (Korean-Southeastern Asian) people living in Indonesia and Vietnam.
There are two probabilities.
1. The study targeted at mixed-blood people (Korean-Southeastern Asians) born from multicultural families in Korea 2. The study targeted at mixed-blood people (Korean-Southeastern Asians) or Korean immigrants in Indonesia and Vietnam
I propose that we take the population data out of its current pooled state and set out what groups each paper (source) tested. This will help clear up any confusion about the authenticity of the data.-- RebekahThorn ( talk) 19:39, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Haplogroup O-M176
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Haplogroup O-M176's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Kharkov2012":
- From Haplogroup Q-M242: KHARKOV, Vladimir Nikolaevich, "СТРУКТУРА И ФИЛОГЕОГРАФИЯ ГЕНОФОНДА КОРЕННОГО НАСЕЛЕНИЯ СИБИРИ ПО МАРКЕРАМ Y-ХРОМОСОМЫ," Genetika 03.02.07 and "АВТОРЕФЕРАТ диссертации на соискание учёной степени доктора биологических наук," Tomsk 2012
- From Tungusic peoples: Kharkov, Vladimir Nikolaevich, "????????? ? ????????????? ????????? ????????? ????????? ?????? ?? ???????? Y-?????????," Genetika 03.02.07 and "??????????? ??????????? ?? ????????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ????????????? ????, Tomsk 2012
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 13:36, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
User:鳩山町に住むおじさん (his IP address should be 211.222.9.58, which should be an IP located in Seongnam, Gyeonggi Province, South Korea) has repeatedly vandalized this article ( Haplogroup O-M176) on English Wikipedia as well as ハプログループO1b2 (Y染色体) on Japanese Wikipedia.
Despite his having been requested to do so multiple times, 鳩山町に住むおじさん（Hatoyamamachi ni sumu Ojisan, "Middle-aged Guy Who (Will) Live in Hatoyama Town" -- note that his Wikipedia user name is in the Japanese language despite his apparent use of a South Korean IP address) has never bothered to explain why he has repeatedly removed properly sourced content from these articles. Many of his edit summaries are complete nonsense, by which he accuses me of being someone who I am not or of having done something that I have not done and then claims that as grounds for reverting the page to a rather old version. Even assuming that his delusional accusations were true, they would not be due cause for his removal of properly sourced content.
I ask for a moderator to ban User:鳩山町に住むおじさん from editing Wikipedia (or at least the present article) or for other Wikipedia editors' cooperation in noticing and undoing his vandalism in a timely and regular manner.
Ebizur ( talk) 09:53, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Orphaned references in Haplogroup O-M176
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Haplogroup O-M176's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "DiCristofaro2013":
- From Haplogroup O-M122: Di Cristofaro, J; Pennarun, E; Mazières, S; Myres, NM; Lin, AA; et al. (2013). "Afghan Hindu Kush: Where Eurasian Sub-Continent Gene Flows Converge". PLOS ONE. 8 (10): e76748. Bibcode: 2013PLoSO...876748D. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076748. PMC 3799995. PMID 24204668.
- From Haplogroup O-M175: Di Cristofaro J, Pennarun E, Mazières S, Myres NM, Lin AA, Temori SA, et al. (2013). "Afghan Hindu Kush: where Eurasian sub-continent gene flows converge". PLOS ONE. 8 (10): e76748. Bibcode: 2013PLoSO...876748D. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076748. PMC 3799995. PMID 24204668.
- From Tungusic peoples: Di Cristofaro, J; Pennarun, E; Mazières, S; Myres, NM; Lin, AA; et al. (2013). "Afghan Hindu Kush: Where Eurasian Sub-Continent Gene Flows Converge". PLOS ONE. 8 (10): e76748. Bibcode: 2013PLoSO...876748D. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076748. PMC 3799995. PMID 24204668.
- From Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup: Di Cristofaro, Julie; Pennarun, Erwan; Mazières, Stéphane; Myres, Natalie M.; Lin, Alice A.; Temori, Shah Aga; Metspalu, Mait; Metspalu, Ene; Witzel, Michael; King, Roy J.; Underhill, Peter A.; Villems, Richard; Chiaroni, Jacques (2013). "Afghan Hindu Kush: Where Eurasian Sub-Continent Gene Flows Converge". PLOS ONE. 8 (10): e76748. Bibcode: 2013PLoSO...876748D. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0076748. PMC 3799995. PMID 24204668.
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 12:08, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Like the Haplogroup O-K18 article, this topic has dozens of referencing issues -- not quite as bad here, but still in trouble. @ Bearian:, in the AFD for O-K18 you offered to take the article to draft space and clean it up with your biology students. Would you consider doing that with this topic, as well? If so, I'll move it to draft space. If not, I'll submit it for AfD. -- Mikeblas ( talk) 22:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)