Talk:Haplogroup BT

message: Haplogroup BR split off from haplogroup A 55,000 years bp? What a nonsense! The haplogroups diverged more than 100 000 years ago! Centrum99 82.100.61.114 17:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: the article says "Haplogroup BT split off from haplogroup A 70,000 years bp". is it actually known which group diverged from the other? are there samples of A that predate samples of BT? is the haplogroup of Y-chromosomal Adam known? this is not my area of expertise (at all), but i found the language used somewhat surprising; it feels like it should read as "Haplogroups BT and A diverged 70 kya" or somesuch. is this a change to the text that should be made, or am i completely off base? someone clue me in here. pauli133 (talk) 14:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I figured it out, and added some text to the article to resolve my confusion as to why I can find no literature on the BT haplogroup. Qed (talk) 17:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  who walked out on whom? was it a mutual thing? 

message: I think this page may have become screwed up as part of a heroic effort at fixing the nomenclature problem in late 2012/ early 2013. It seems this effort was ill-timed, as the academic community seems to have been cleaning up its terminology just at about the same time, and things remained in flux for another year or two. The "M42" in this page may have been a mistake even at the time, I am not sure. 
If we decide to stick with "ISOGG" nomenclature, this haplogroup has been known as "BT" since July 2012, so I wonder why the page was moved away from "BT" in December 2012.
I am also not sure if "ISOGG" is the source to treat as authoritative, as it itself a community effort, but it seems it is well-maintained and already makes the effort of absorbing current research, which if we ignore ISOGG we would just have to repeat for Wikipedia, duplicating effort.
I am not an expert on this in any way, I have last tried to keep up with maintaining haplogroup articles in the late 2000s, and at some point gave up in despair as the situation kept getting worse instead of better, but it seems that since 2012, some kind of stability has been emerging, so it might make sense to follow ISOGG (2015) now, just as long as we make very sure that each reference is scrupulously dated to make future maintenance easier. --dab (𒁳) 10:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: page name? current terminology? ISOGG?

message: It is often confusing when cases of haplogroup BT are reported and it isn't made clear which member haplogroups of BT the sample is known *not* to belong to. For instance the ancient Malawian BT samples are reported not to be CT, but are not excluded from B, which is common in Africa. (They are very likely to belong specifically to B2b-M112. An amateur blogger who has analyzed the publicly-available data files for these samples has found that they belong to subclades of B2b, which is to be expected since B2b is found at high frequency among Pygmies, Hadza, and Khoisan, who are thought to descend largely from ancient local populations of Central, Eastern, and Southern Africa. But this is OR.) 70.77.37.23 (talk) 20:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  BT includes everything but A