Talk:Genetic history of Europe#Auton does say that STRUCTURE shows admixture

should be benefit sources of in wikipedia's arcieve articles of Archaeogenetics of the Near East, DNA history of Egypt and Genetic Studies on Arabs also should be benefit sources of avaible in the wikipedia's archieve: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474783/, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1852743/, http://www.atour.com/health/docs/20000720a.html

{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Florida_Institute_of_Technology/Molecular_Genetics_(Fall_2022) | assignments = Kedens2018 | start_date = 2022-08-22 | end_date = 2022-12-09 }}

— Assignment last updated by Kedens2018 (talk) 00:26, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The article has a very heavy emphasis on outdated methods of analysis -- especially Y chromosome and mtDNA analysis from living individuals. Moreover it provides a sloppy summary of different kinds of approaches with very little coherent synthesis.

Our modern understanding of European genetic prehistory is based mainly analysis of autosomal data from ancient DNA samples. This article would be greatly improved if it could be rewritten to reflect modern approaches and delete outdated approaches to analysis. Tenrec (talk) 00:16, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

:The main problem is that someone needs to work on it. When the article started the academic literature was mainly focused on those out-dated approaches. There was a big restructuring a few years back which made them less dominant, but if anyone has time it could indeed do with a new review. If you don't feel confident about editing yourself can you make any concrete proposals? --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:40, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

::Yes, that makes sense. I think the first and easiest thing to do would be to delete a bunch of material and reorganize what is left to make it more coherent and more steamlined. After that it needs some more up-to-date references. I can try to find time to help with this, but I hesitate to over-promise. Tenrec (talk) 21:41, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

:::Remember you can post newer materials here on the talk page while you are working out how to use it. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll try to explain some of the problems with the current opening sentence. {{tq|The genetic history of Europe includes information around the formation, ethnogenesis, and other DNA-specific information about populations indigenous, or living in Europe.}}

• {{tq|around}} looks to me like something written by a non-native speaker. The meaning is not clear here in English. Should it be "about"? If so, then note that there is another "about" later in the sentence.
• {{tq|formation}} of what? You can't just have formation on its own like this. If it is referring to the formation of ethnic groups or something like that then the wording is clearly a mess.
• {{tq|ethnogenesis, and other DNA-specific information}} Ethnogenesis is clearly not DNA-specific information. Ethnogenesis involves the coming into being of new ethnic identities.

Why not something like this? {{tq|The genetic history of Europe is studied by looking at the available evidence for long-run, large-scale changes in the genetic characteristics of different populations who have lived in Europe.}} Andrew Lancaster (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

The article states: "There is evidence of human settlement in Finland dating back to 8500 BCE, linked with the Kunda culture and its putative ancestor, the Swiderian culture, but the latter is thought to have a European origin." Neither the Kunda culture nor any of the other "Post-Swiderian" cultures (e.g., Butovo) are related to Swiderian; their distinctive lithic technology appears to have originated probably in the Volga-Oka interfluve in Russia while the very different Swiderian technology is found primarily in Poland, Lithuania and Belarus. For this reasno, "Post-Swiderian" as a term has been largely replaced by "Kunda-Butovo interaction sphere". The term "Post-Swiderian" was coined based on the assumption that Kunda tanged points were derived from Swiderian tanged points. In fact, the tang is the only feature that the two share, otherwise the production mode is totally different. Swiderian tanged points are produced from bi-directional cores by the indirect technique and are self-bladed while "Post-Swiderian" points are produced from prismatic blades detached from bullet-shaped unidirectional cores by the pressure method and their point end is formed by reverse intrusive retouch. The whole core reduction sequence is totally different in Swiderian and "Post-Swiderian" and the oldest "Post-Swiderian" technology derives from an area where there was no Swiderian. What the "European origin" in the sentence refers to (as opposed to what?) is unclear; certainly none of the "Post-Swiderian" cultures have an Asian or African origin although the pressure technique in itself probably derives from further east. Jarmo K. (talk) 12:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)