From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of genetic genealogy, genetics-based population history, and associated theory and methods. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

	Greece Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Archaeogenetics of the Near East, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
???	This article has not yet been prioritized.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked

Discussion page created for: Genetics of the Ancient World by Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Definition of Ancient and Ancient Peoples 2 Format to follow when posting new article summaries 2.1 People group header (placed under appropriate geographic region) 3 Discussions regarding content to this page 3.1 Insert Topic of Discussion here 3.2 WP:MoS issues 3.3 Change to section to Annotated Bibliography 3.4 move

[edit] Definition of Ancient and Ancient Peoples

For the purpose of this article ancient is the period of our past from the beginning of human history until the collapse of the Roman Empire in 410 CE.

An ancient people, are one that are generally believed to have an unbroken continuity with their ancient origins, both in terms of familial lineage and geographic location. Migratory ancient people groups like the Roma, Jewish populations, etc. are more problematic and controversial due to possible discontinuous relationships with their ancient origins, genetic admixture, and genetic drift. But this can be discussed on a case by case basis. If in doubt, post to this discussion page, or be prepared to have your article post subject to review on this page. IF the authors made explicit reference to the ancient origin of a people group in their paper, then this is the page to post it. Articles on CMH, etc. that make explicit arguments, as opposed to implied, to extend back to antiquity should be added here in chronological order and with summary. If in doubt, an article may still may be appropriate. Hkp-avniel (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Some may wish to argue that "ancient" include articles up to the Early Middle Ages such as the article on the "ancient Hungarians" who settled the region of modern Hungary circa 900 - 1000 BCE (see FamilyTreeDNA's library). Make the case below...if there is some consensus to extend the date of ancient to 1000 BCE then that will be fine...otherwise the end of the Romans as above. Hkp-avniel (talk) 19:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format to follow when posting new article summaries

Please follow the below format:

[edit] People group header (placed under appropriate geographic region)

(Indented) Article Title: "Article title goes here," Journal or Media Source | Month Year

(Indented) Summary: data goes here

Format for References:

(ref tag)Journal article title, Journal, Month Year. Available online: http://www.xxxx.com [accessed: Month Day, Year](/ref tag)

[edit] Discussions regarding content to this page

[edit] Insert Topic of Discussion here

[edit] WP:MoS issues

The article is interesting and informative, but has severe concerns with WP:MoS. The section in the article are written like research papers on a science journal. It should be written in a well manner per WP:MoS and should include the sources in the form of inline citations. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. The style of this article is intentional: hybrid between general reader and technical genetics article. I can send you a style example from the European Journal of Genetics which is my "prototype" for the style I am following in this article if you want - not in the public domain. I think adding inline citations will be good for general references to genetics journal articles and footnotes for added information as per common practice. BUT why did you move the original article and create the redirect? If you can reverse this I would appreciate it and add a redirect for "Genetics in the ancient world" which I assume is a typo since there were no genetics in the ancient world. I've also contacted an administrator to help with this since I couldn't figure out how to restore this article to its original state without deleting and reposting. thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 10:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change to section to Annotated Bibliography

Changing the list of articles to an Annotated Bibliography format to avoid any further confusion. The main article is about what Genetics of the Ancient World refers to followed by an annotated bibliography. Hkp-avniel (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea. This is an encyclopedia, not a bibliography. Feel free to cite these articles as references, but don't structure the entire article around commenting on them. Hut 8.5 17:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Bad idea? The article is at the top of the page. Below it is the bibliography (annotated). These aren't journal articles used to write the article, this is a list of suggested readings: see ancient DNA for a regular bibliography (with a lot of articles). Here is a link to an website on annotated bibliographies used in the scholarly world: http://www.library.cornell.edu/olinuris/ref/research/skill28.htm All regular encyclopedias list a bibliography at the end of each article. I made the change before I saw your comment, but I'm guessing you'll understand and this was the original spirit of the composition of this article. This article was already added (not by me) to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic History at Wikipedia and run according to the style of wikipedia genetics articles. See [[Y chromosomal Aaron] or Y-DNA haplogroups by ethnic groups (which doesn't actually have any body text just data. thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

other question...do all Wikipedia articles have to be featured articles? This was intended as an intro to genetics and how it can be used to understand the ancient world and then list articles and summarize them so others could write specific articles about those areas. Of course, if you think this has potential to be a featured article ok...but then how do we create a resource that lists articles for others to write their featured articles? whatever Hkp-avniel (talk) 17:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

one final comment for the night (Israel time)...we can't even begin to refer to "featured article" for Genetics of the Ancient World until we have at least ONE(1) article for each region and respective ancient people group listed under the annotated bibliography. When that happens, then we can synthesize this (the good kind of synthesis) into a potential Featured Article and have it peer reviewed, etc. Until then we have A LOT of work. So please, don't change the format until we've acquired enough source material. This is with the best intentions...good articles take a lot of time to research and write. Hkp-avniel (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not remotely suggesting that this is anything near featured article standard (there are only 2,000 of them and if every article had to be FA standard the encyclopedia would be a thousand times smaller). I merely gave you the link to featured articles to show you the sort of thing that is compliant with the manual of style.

Wikipedia articles are not written in the annotated bibliography style. Ancient DNA has a bibliography at the end of the article, whereas this one is entirely structured around the bibliography - the two are completely different. Y-chromosomal Aaron again is written according to the manual of style, with flowing paragraphs of text rather than a rigid structure around a bibliography. You can move the articles to a seperate bibliography at the end of the article, or cite them using inline citations, just don't structure the entire page around them. You can't just decide that a particular article isn't going to follow the manual of style - ALL articles have to be written this way. Hut 8.5 18:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok no problem, but whoever edited this did so in a manner that isn't even grammatically correct. Are you going to delete all the changes I make to this page? Just so I know in advance. thanks Hkp-avniel (talk) 06:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

No, of course not. The page looks a lot better now. Hut 8.5 09:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

The annotated references in the article dont seem too disruptive. As long as the citations are given clearly first followed by the annotation.Suave24 (talk) 06:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] move

ok, since it turns out that all actual content of this article is about the archaeogenetics of the Near East, I propose a move to Archaeogenetics of the Near East (to parallel Archaeogenetics of Europe, Archaeogenetics of South Asia). dab (𒁳) 18:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

in fact, the article appears to address the Levant exclusively, with Crete thrown in because of interest in the Philistines. dab (𒁳) 18:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)