Jump to content

Talk:International Society of Genetic Genealogy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RebekahThorn (talk | contribs) at 14:34, 8 July 2013 (→‎Amy Harmon's articles in the New York Times). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I thought ISOGG is part of wiki

ISOGG has a Wiki which is not related to Wikipedia, although there is some overlap in content. Helen (talk) 15:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge ISOGG into Genetic genealogy

(edit conflict)**Comment - yes, let's first see what's been published about ISOGG - or to put it another way, if we don't find anything to show notability as per WP:ORG someone is sure to take it to AfD. As for the IP, only a handful of editors, known as Checkusers, can make such checks. But the blocked editor Valentino2013 has used 174.20.254.101 (talk · contribs) which geolocates to Minneapolis, so given that and the fact that the IP is writing in grammatically correct English I don't think they are related. (note after the edit conflict - so far apparently nothing to show notability. Dougweller (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RT for collating that. I think it shows notability at least, so that narrows our problem down to one of not having much to say. So to me the question of whether to have a stub or a redirect does not see a big one for now. The stub as it now stands is acceptable as a stub, and can be defended as the starting point for an article which one day, or it can be argued against as unnecessary for now. I would suggest leaving it but also making sure that there is a remark about ISOGG in the genetic genealogy article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
AL, please kindly have a look at the genetic genealogy article. We have been working to clean it up because it had become an advertisement for Colleen M. Fitzpatrick and her newest book. Yesterday, I did more heavy pruning of unsourced material than I think I have ever done before. I am now working on a list of credible sources to mix into the citizen science/ISOGG sections. I do need copy editing help... --RebekahThorn (talk) 12:52, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification required

I was asked by Andrew Lancaster to help improve this article. One of my edits was reverted by Dougweller with the edit summary "we can't just use anyone's comments about ISOGG". Can someone please explain what is wrong with Chris Pomeroy so I don't waste any more time on this article? Helen (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is he? He was quoted as saying ""well ahead of the published work of the academics" but that is a very bold statement and unless he's a senior academic himself with loads of peer reviewed publcations, I can't see how we could use whoever he is. Does that explain what I meant? Dougweller (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He's a genetic genealogist (some details here) and Y-DNA project administrator who has authored two books on the subject. The article I cited was published in a reputable genealogy journal. Helen (talk) 16:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no professional qualifications or peer reviewed papers. I don't see how we can use a quote by someone who isn't qualified to comment on what is ahead of academic work. His Amazon page describes him as an author and a journalist, and his books on genetics are about tracing your family tree. He doesn't seem to be properly published outside the US either, although that's a minor issue compared to the others. Dougweller (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Helen, a classic (but sometimes abused) way of summarising the dilemma we sometimes face on WP is that we aim to summarise what we can show to be verifiable, and not what is what we believe to be true. See WP:V I would say it more crudely: we summarise the best publications, and we try to avoid adding any original thoughts, either from ourselves or anyone we know who is not published. Are website's reliable publications? See WP:RS. For a website to be considered such a reliable publication, we need to be able to show such things as:
Do the experts also belong to ISOGG? Yes, this can become something like saying only non-Americans can be dispassionate about writing about the United States.--RebekahThorn (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The other point about Pomeroy is that he's an ISOGG member. So, what we have is "a member of ISOGG with no qualifications in genetics said ISOGG is "a few steps ahead of the professionals and the tenured." Can you see why we can't do that? Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If he were an un-doubted RS author published in an undoubted RS publication, then the solution to an RS having a POV or COI is clear attribution and explanation of context. So I think this is mixing up different problems. COI is a concern that applies to WP editors, not sources themselves. It is a frequent confusion on WP:RSN that sources are claimed to be unreliable because they have a POV. But all sources have a POV and so our aim is not to remove POV, but to balance it according to WP:NEUTRAL. (Of course there is a statistical correlation between extreme POV publications and concerns about reliability, but these are still two different things. See the various discussions which keep coming up about whether Fox News is reliable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, is it appropriate for an ISOGG member to be editing this article (see User talk:Dougweller#ISOGG article)? Helen (talk) 08:50, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's going to be a problem. I'm sure we are going to have a growing number of people with conflict of interest editing this and related articles. I'm not sure. When someone has declared they are a member we at least know where they are coming from. If someone is actually an official, that would definitely be a problem. Our WP:COI guidelines help but don't always solve such problems. What does definitely help is making sure we are using sources that are both independent of ISOGG and meet our criteria at WP:RS and WP:VERIFY for most of the article - obviously we can use ISOGG a bit, but not for the bulk of the article. Indeed, to show it meets our criteria for an article at WP:ORG we need such sources. Dougweller (talk) 10:18, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally avoiding editing it, but OTOH I think "being practical" if the article is a stub consisting of a few direct quotes, then COI issues are not really something people should get overly panicky about. Membership does not say much in an organization like this. (No fees, no specific rights or privileges or elections etc etc.) There is a limit to the logic of some rules. Can Americans edit articles about America for example?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:46, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I am a FTDNA Project administrator. I am an Ancestry.com, FTDNA, and 23andMe Customer. I have done paid controntract work for National Geographic. I am a member of ISOGG. I am very aware of all of these things when I edit.
I am aware of which other WP editors are ISOGG members, but some of them do not have as transparent IDs here as myself and present company. Thus, I have and shall continue to point out that the author or authors of source material are members or have a non-neutral connection. I do try not to out people though.--RebekahThorn (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Katherine Borges, Director is the only ISOGG official. She would not (I think) edit WP herself, but she might send someone to edit. It is an issue of a group that does not have strict membership lists, does not hold elections, and does not have a board to speak of. --RebekahThorn (talk) 13:37, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The footnote

Can that long footnote not perhaps be turned into a paragraph for the body of the article? It is has good sourcing and the "call" made seems notable.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:35, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was the idea when I posted it. I will try when I have more time if nobody else has done it. Helen (talk) 08:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest in Sources authored by Debbie Kennett

Please note that Debbie Kennett is a member of ISOGG. Articles by her that are used as sources may not be unbiased. That is not to say don't use them, but please be aware as you use them that the COI diminishes their NPOV credibility. --RebekahThorn (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest in Sources authored by Dr. T. King

Dr. King has a relationship with JOGG as the editor. Because JOGG received free hosting from ISOGG, this might indicate a conflict of interest and/or biased opinions. That again is not to say don't use the sources, just maintain absolute NPOV when using works she has authored or co-authored. --RebekahThorn (talk) 21:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not know she had taken up that position yet, although I knew it was being discussed? Anyway certainly nothing she wrote in the past could come under this reasoning. (But has she ever written anything about ISOGG anyway?)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:04, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW just to repeat a point made above WP:COI applies to wp editors, not published sources.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I should say close to the source? I am pretty sure she accepted the position before the article used as a source came out.--RebekahThorn (talk) 12:43, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disclosure for the record

I am a member of the ISOGG Facebook group. I am not a formal member of ISOGG and am not involved in any of their projects personally. Please also note I won't necessarily know whether authors of sources are ISOGG members. Helen (talk) 09:27, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is about as formal as ISOGG membership gets.--RebekahThorn (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that were true, I don't see how there could be any reason for talk of COI in respect of either sources or WP editors. Helen (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

suggestions

Currently we have:

ISOGG hosts the regularly updated ISOGG Y-chromosome phylogenetic tree,[5] although it does not endorse it for any specific utility.[14] The tree has elsewhere been described as using the accepted nomenclature for human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups and subclades in that it follows the Y Chromosome Consortium nomenclature as described in Karafet et al. 2008.[15]

I think:

  • What endorsements ISOGG makes, it is notable that it is widely cited in peer reviewed literature.
  • While the tree follows YCC norms, it is much more up to date. Our wording could be seen as saying otherwise.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:29, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have only made cosmetic changes to this section (except for my reverted addition) and this really is not my area of expertise, so I will leave it up to others. Helen (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RebekahThorn added it here with edit summary "Removing subjective promotional terminology". Helen (talk) 08:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I added back "regularly updated" here. Helen (talk) 09:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is this source usable (note there is a misunderstanding re JOGG being ISOGG's journal)?: Redmonds, George (2011). Surnames, DNA, and family history. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 196. ISBN 9780199582648. The growth of interest in genetic genealogy has inspired a group of individuals outside the academic area who are passionate about the subject and who have an impressive grasp of the research issues. Two focal points for this group are the International Society of Genetic Genealogy and the Journal of Genetic Genealogy. The ISOGG is a non-profit, non-commercial organization that provides resources and maintains one of the most up-to-date, if not completely academically verified, phylogenetic trees of Y chromosome haplogroups. The Journal of Genetic Genealogy is its online journal, and while it does not abide by the standard system of scientific peer-review, it has attracted contributions from academic geneticists and will no doubt go on to become an important forum through which academics and the public can interact. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Helen (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why not?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Harmon's articles in the New York Times

Please note that the New York Times is a highly reputable newspaper. Further, Amy Harmon is a reputable journalist who happens to have won a Pulitzer Prize for Explanatory Reporting for exactly the coverage HO says is not acceptable under Wikipedia:UNDUE#Due_and_undue_weight. Do you see my concern DW? --RebekahThorn (talk) 13:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that belongs in this article. Besides being pretty old news now (an incident over 5 years ago), to put it in this article makes it look as though ISOGG condones this sort of behavior. I wouldn't use it here, I'm not at all sure I'd use it anywhere. Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with the source. As per my edit summary, it would be WP:UNDUE to include the unofficial view of 1 out of 8,000 members without also covering the views of the other 7,999 members including Judy Russell and Roberta Estes who have been very outspoken about ethics (assuming they are ISOGG members). Helen (talk) 13:36, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from straw man tactics. At no point did I question the source. Helen (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it is undue. The remarks are almost certainly tongue in cheek and intended to give "colour" to the comment HelenOnline has kept in. Our style is meant to be "encyclopedic", which is a bit different from a newspaper article, and also different to how someone promoting her hobby might talk.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:40, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see where in the article it says that the comment was tongue in cheek? --RebekahThorn (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:International_Society_of_Genetic_Genealogy&oldid=563380958"