Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Useful sources on human genetic history

Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in human molecular genetics that helps trace the lineage of people living in various places on the earth. I've been reading university textbooks on human genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for improving articles on human genetic history and related articles. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.

The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."

On the topic of human genetic history, a widely cited primary research article is a 1972 article by Richard Lewontin, which I have seen cited in many of the review articles, monographs, and textbooks I have read over the years.

  • Lewontin, Richard (1972). "The Apportionment of Human Diversity". Evolutionary Biology. 6. Springer: 381–398. doi:10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14. ISBN 978-1-4684-9065-7. S2CID 21095796. Archived (PDF) from the original on 25 November 2010. Retrieved 23 November 2013.

As Wikipedians, we can evaluate where the findings in Lewontin's article fit in the current understanding of the topic of human genetic variation by reading current reliable secondary sources in medicine.

Some Wikipedia articles give weighty emphasis to commentary essay published years after Lewontin published his primary research article on human diversity, when his primary research results had been replicated in many other studies and his bottom line conclusion that "about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups" had been taken up by many textbooks on genetics and medicine. In 2003, A. W. F. Edwards wrote a commentary essay in the journal BioEssays

in which Edwards proposes a statistical model for classifying individuals into groupings based on haplotype data. Edwards wrote, "There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification," pointing to his own work with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the author of the book

which I read soon after it was published in 1994. In general, Edwards cites a lot of publications from his collaboration with Cavalli-Sforza, and mentions that collaboration prominently in his subsequent review article

in which he describes their method for tracing ancestry with genes. Edwards even shows a photograph of Cavalli-Sforza with him in 1963 in his 2009 article, emphasizing their scholarly friendship.

So I wanted to look up Cavalli-Sforza's current views as well while I traced citations of the Lewontin 1972 article and the Edwards 2003 article in subsequent secondary sources. Through searches with Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books, both from my home office computer and from a university library computer, I found a number of books and articles that cite both the Lewontin paper and the Edwards paper. Through a specialized set of wide-reaching keyword searches (for example, "Lewontin Edwards") on the university library's vast database subscriptions, I was able to obtain the full text of many of those articles and of whole books that discuss what current science says about grouping individuals of species Homo sapiens into race groups. I also found more up to date discussions by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza of the Human Genome Diversity Project.

Listed here are sources that have the following characteristics: (1) they cite both previous articles by Lewontin and the 2003 article by Edwards, discussing the underlying factual disagreement between those authors, (2) they are Wikipedia reliable sources for medicine (in particular, they are secondary sources such as review articles or textbooks rather than primary research articles), and (3) they are or have been available to me in full text through book-buying, library lending, author sharing of full text on the Internet, or a university library database. They are arranged in approximate chronological order, so that you can see how the newer sources cite and evaluate the previous sources as genetics research continues. The sources listed here are not exhaustive, but they are varied and authoritative, and they cite most of the dozens of primary research articles on the topic, analyzing and summarizing the current scientific consensus.

  • Koenig, Barbara A.; Lee, Sandra Soo-jin; Richardson, Sarah S., eds. (2008). Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press. ISBN 978-0-8135-4324-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

This first book (Koenig, Lee, and Richardson 2008) is useful because it includes a chapter co-authored by Richard Lewontin in which he updates his views.

  • Whitmarsh, Ian; Jones, David S., eds. (2010). What's the Use of Race?: Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51424-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Tattersall, Ian; DeSalle, Rob (1 September 2011). Race?: Debunking a Scientific Myth. Texas A&M University Anthropology series number fifteen. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 978-1-60344-425-5. Retrieved 17 November 2013. Actually, the plant geneticist Jeffry Mitton had made the same observation in 1970, without finding that Lewontin's conclusion was fallacious. And Lewontin himself not long ago pointed out that the 85 percent within-group genetic variability figure has remained remarkably stable as studies and genetic markers have multiplied, whether you define populations on linguistic or physical grounds. What's more, with a hugely larger and more refined database to deal with, D. J. Witherspoon and colleagues concluded in 2007 that although, armed with enough genetic information, you could assign most individuals to 'their' population quite reliably, 'individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own.' {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Barbujani, Guido; Colonna, Vincenza (15 September 2011). "Chapter 6: Genetic Basis of Human Biodiversity: An Update". In Zachos, Frank E.; Habel, Jan Christian (eds.). Biodiversity Hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Conservation Priority Areas. Springer. pp. 97–119. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_6. ISBN 978-3-642-20992-5. Retrieved 23 November 2013. The massive efforts to study the human genome in detail have produced extraordinary amounts of genetic data. Although we still fail to understand the molecular bases of most complex traits, including many common diseases, we now have a clearer idea of the degree of genetic resemblance between humans and other primate species. We also know that humans are genetically very close to each other, indeed more than any other primates, that most of our genetic diversity is accounted for by individual differences within populations, and that only a small fraction of the species' genetic variance falls between populations and geographic groups thereof.

The book chapter by Barbujani and Colonna (2011) above is especially useful for this article as a contrast between biodiversity in other animals and biodiversity in Homo sapiens.

  • Bliss, Catherine (23 May 2012). Race Decoded: The Genomic Fight for Social Justice. Stanford University Press. ISBN 978-0-8047-7408-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)
  • Barbujani, Guido; Ghirotto, S.; Tassi, F. (2013). "Nine things to remember about human genome diversity". Tissue Antigens. 82 (3): 155–164. doi:10.1111/tan.12165. ISSN 0001-2815. PMID 24032721. The small genomic differences between populations and the extensive allele sharing across continents explain why historical attempts to identify, once and for good, major biological groups in humans have always failed. ... We argue that racial labels may not only obscure important differences between patients but also that they have become positively useless now that cheap and reliable methods for genotyping are making it possible to pursue the development of truly personalized medicine.

By the way, the Barbujani, Ghirotto, and Tassi (2013) article has a very interesting discussion of SNP typing overlaps across the entire individual genome among some of the first human beings to have their entire individual genomes sequenced, with an especially interesting Venn diagram that would be a good graphic to add to this article.

An author who is intimately familiar with Edwards's statistical approach, because he has been a collaborator in fieldwork and co-author on primary research articles with Edwards, is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Cavalli-Sforza is a medical doctor who was a student of Ronald Fisher in statistics, who has devoted most of his career to genetic research. In an invited review article for the 2007 Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Cavalli-Sforza joins issue directly with the underlying factual disagreement among previous authors, but cites different previous publications.

GENETIC VARIATION BETWEEN AND WITHIN POPULATIONS, AND THE RACE PROBLEM

In the early 1980s, Lewontin (11) showed that when genetic variation for protein markers is estimated by comparing two or more random individuals from the same populations, or two or more individuals from the whole world, the former is 85% as large as the latter. This means that the variation between populations is the residual 15%, and hence relatively trivial. Later research carried out on a limited number of populations and mostly, though not only, on protein markers has confirmed this analysis. The Rosenberg et al. data actually bring down Lewontin’s estimate to 5%, or even less. Therefore, the variation between populations is even smaller than the original 15%, and we also know that the exact value depends on the choice of populations and markers. But the between-population variation, even if it is very small is certainly enough to reconstruct the genetic history of populations—that is their evolution—but is it enough for distinguishing races in some useful way? The comparison with other mammals shows that humans are almost at the lower extreme of the scale of between-population variation. Even so, subtle statistical methods let us assign individuals to the populations of origin, even distinguishing populations from the same continent, if we use enough genetic markers. But is this enough for distinguishing races? Darwin already had an answer. He gave two reasons for doubting the usefulness of races: (1) most characters show a clear geographic continuity, and (2) taxonomists generated a great variety of race classifications. Darwin lists the numbers of races estimated by his contemporaries, which varied from 2 to 63 races.

Rosenberg et al. (16 and later work) analyzed the relative statistical power of the most efficient subdivisions of the data with a number of clusters varying from 2 to 6, and showed that five clusters have a reasonable statistical power. Note that this result is certainly influenced by the populations chosen for the analysis. The five clusters are not very different from those of a few partitions that had already existed in the literature for some time, and the clusters are: (a) a sub-Saharan African cluster, (b) North Africa–Europe plus a part of western Asia that is approximately bounded eastward by the central Asian desert and mountains, (c) the eastern rest of Asia, (d ) Oceania, and (e) the Americas. But what good is this partition? The Ramachandran et al. (15) analysis of the same data provides a very close prediction of the genetic differences between the same populations by the simplest geographic tool: the geographic distance between the two populations, and two populations from the same continent are on average geographically closer than two from different ones. However, the Rosenberg et al. analysis (16) adds the important conclusion that the standard classification into classical continents must be modified to replace continental boundaries with the real geographic barriers: major oceans, or deserts like the Sahara, or other deserts and major mountains like those of central Asia. These barriers have certainly decreased, but they have not entirely suppressed genetic exchanges across them. Thus, the Rosenberg et al. analysis confirms a pattern of variation based on pseudocontinents that does not eliminate the basic geographic continuity of genetic variation. In fact, the extension by Ramachandran et al. of the original Rosenberg et al. analysis showed that populations that are geographically close have an overwhelming genetic similarity, well beyond that suggested by continental or pseudocontinental partitions.

A year later Cavalli-Sforza joined seventeen other genetics researchers as co-authors of a review article, published as an "open letter" to other scholars, on using racial categories in human genetics.

  • Lee, Sandra; Mountain, Joanna; Koenig, Barbara; Altman, Russ; Brown, Melissa; Camarillo, Albert; Cavalli-Sforza, Luca; Cho, Mildred; Eberhardt, Jennifer; Feldman, Marcus; Ford, Richard; Greely, Henry; King, Roy; Markus, Hazel; Satz, Debra; Snipp, Matthew; Steele, Claude; Underhill, Peter (2008). "The ethics of characterizing difference: guiding principles on using racial categories in human genetics" (PDF). Genome Biology. 9 (7): 404. doi:10.1186/gb-2008-9-7-404. ISSN 1465-6906. PMID 18638359. Retrieved 3 December 2013. We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time Human genetic variation within continents is, for the most part, geographically continuous and clinal, particularly in regions of the world that have not received many immigrants in recent centuries [18]. Genetic data cannot reveal an individual's full geographic ancestry precisely, although emerging research has been used to identify geographic ancestry at the continental and subcontinental levels [3,19]. Genetic clusters, however, are far from being equivalent to sociopolitical racial or ethnic categories. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |display-authors=18 (help)

Other current review articles related to human genetic history include

  • Barbujani, Guido; Pigliucci, Massimo (2013). "Human races" (PDF). Current Biology. 23 (5): R185–R187. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2013.01.024. ISSN 0960-9822. PMID 23473555. Retrieved 2 December 2013. What does this imply for the existence of human races? Basically, that people with similar genetic features can be found in distant places, and that each local population contains a vast array of genotypes. Among the first genomes completely typed were those of James Watson and Craig Venter, two U.S. geneticists of European origin; they share more alleles with Seong-Jin Kim, a Korean scientist (1,824,482 and 1,736,340, respectively) than with each other (1,715,851). This does not mean that two random Europeans are expected to be genetically closer to Koreans than to each other, but certainly highlights the coarseness of racial categorizations.

I look forward to collaborating with many Wikipedians in updating articles in the scope of this project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Statistics: are stubs being expanded?

In a deletion discussion at the Dutch Wikipedia, I stated that an existing article invites improving, much more than a non-existant article invites creation adding that statistics show the truth of this statement. Naturally, people required me to come up with the facts, but I am unable to find the statement I remember to have read.

If I am true, the statement was not in Wikipedia itself, but in a more or less scientific article defending the creation of large numbers of bot stubs about genes, perhaps by someone who was involved in creating the bot articles. All of this has happened a few years ago. Can anyone remember or find this article or stats about improvement in Wikipedia texts? Regards, Bertux (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

B.t.w.: As English is not my native language this text will surely not be spotless. Feel free to correct it. Bertux (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
FYI: I left the same message at Talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. Bertux (talk) 06:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Zhivotovsky method

Let us delete all age estimates based on "Zhivotovsky method". YOMAL SIDOROFF-BIARMSKII (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Requesting community good article review by project members--thanks for your help

Haplogroup E-V38, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:41, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 27/05

Draft:Scladina. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project

There is an RFC that may affect a page in this project at WikiProject Tree of Life. The topic is Confusion over taxonomy of subtribe Panina and taxon homininae (are chimps hominins)?

Please feel free to comment there. SPACKlick (talk) 17:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

ITN candidate Australopithecus deyiremeda

Hello. The article Australopithecus deyiremeda has been proposed on In the news candidates -- Aronzak (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Haplogroup R-M207 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Haplogroup R-M207 to be moved to Haplogroup R1. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 22:46, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Haplogroup R-M420 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Haplogroup R-M420 to be moved to Haplogroup R1a. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) to be moved to Haplogroup R1b. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:04, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The Kalash

Hello there, I hope this project isn't as inactive as it seems. A bit of text has recently been added to Kalash people#Culture that uses some genetic data to make some bold statements. The source looks sensible enough, but the wiki editor's interpretation seems a bit off the mark. Would anyone be able to have a look and set it straight? Many thanks. Uanfala (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

After getting some help from the reference desk it's been resolved now. Uanfala (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

"Forensic Genealogy"

I recently came across the term "Forensic Genealogy" for the first time, meaning loosely the "use of something other than standard records to add to your family history" [1], to encompass scientific/technological methods such as photo enhancement, as well as genetic genealogy. An alternative definition suggests essentially that "forensic genealogy" would be genealogy suitable for use in a court of law (ie applicable to such a use, and carried out to an appropriate standard etc) [2].

Is this term in widespread use?

In particular it was recently added multiple times in this edit to the article Colleen M. Fitzpatrick, by User:CFitzp, the apparent subject of the article, who is styled as "widely regarded as the founder of modern Forensic Genealogy", as well as having authored a book by the name.

I have opened a section at WP:COIN asking for input on the article, but specific input from members of this project might be appropriate on the extent to which "Forensic Genealogy" is indeed a meaningful / well-specifed / common term in widespread use; or whether caution is appropriate in using a neologism which appears to be closely associated with the author. Jheald (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

This term seems rarely used in the academic literature. The individual does get some press, as in this Scientific American article but it seems like a marketing term more than anything. We have articles on DNA profiling for forensic genetics and Genealogical DNA test for genealogical genetics. I'm not sure that Forensic Genealogy adds anything new to these topics from a genetic point of view. --Mark viking (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?

An editor has requested comment on this question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups#RfC: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?

Jheald (talk) 16:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Proto-Indo-European Urheimat hypotheses to be moved to Proto-Indo-European homeland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 12:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Neanderthals of Gibraltar listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Neanderthals of Gibraltar to be moved to Neanderthals in Gibraltar. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:17, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Extension of 'Topic Page' review articles from PLOS Computational Biology to PLOS Genetics

framelss
framelss

The journal group PLOS is extending its 'Topic Page' review format that was spearheaded by PLOS Computational Biology to also include PLOS Genetics. In this format, accepted articles are dual-published both in the journal, and as Wikipedia pages (see Wikipedia category).

Suitable topics must either currently lack a Wikipedia page, or have only stub/start class contents. If you you would like to submit such a review article, see these guidelines. If you have any recommendations for topics to be commissioned, feel free to let any of the involved editors know: T Shafee (PLOS Gen), D Mietchen (PLOS Comp Biol).
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Caucasian race

Caucasian race is in need of attention and improvement, I am discussing how to improve the article with another user particularly regarding the currency of typological views of human races (as opposed to a genomic/population based view). Any input will be appreciated. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Settlement of the Americas listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Settlement of the Americas to be moved to Prehistoric migration and settlement of the Americas from Asia. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

RfC

Please see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#RfC:Genetics_references Jytdog (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Origin of the Romanians

There is currently a Request-for-Comment open about restructuring the Origin of the Romanians article. Any comments or suggestions for improving the article would be greatly appreciated. Borsoka (talk) 11:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Origin of the Albanians listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Origin of the Albanians to be moved to Proto-Albanians. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject Genealogy

If anyone here is interested, we are looking for volunteers at WikiProject Genealogy. Thanks! Tea and crumpets (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Neanderthal genome project listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Neanderthal genome project to be moved to Neanderthal genome. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Haplogroup D-M174 listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Haplogroup D-M174 to be moved to Haplogroup D-CTS3946. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Berbers listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Berbers to be moved to Amazigh people. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:01, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Urheimat listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Urheimat to be moved to Linguistic homeland. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 14:31, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Homo sapiens idaltu listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Homo sapiens idaltu to be moved to Herto Man. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:46, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Dragon Man (archaic human) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Dragon Man (archaic human) to be moved to Homo longi. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 02:05, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Dragon Man (archaic human) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Dragon Man (archaic human) to be moved to Homo longi. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Primitive culture listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Primitive culture to be moved to Primitive Culture. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 04:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Anti-Normanism listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Anti-Normanism to be moved to Normanist Controversy. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Human_Genetic_History/Archive_4&oldid=1225315679"