Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TransporterMan (talk | contribs) at 14:30, 28 May 2013 (→Dawkins quote.: DRN notice to dynamic IP). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Race and genetics, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included: Pillars: Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. Original research: Misplaced Pages defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. Correct use of sources: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. Advocacy: Misplaced Pages strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Decorum: Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.

	Human Genetic History (inactive)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

This page has archives. Sections older than 100 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

section clean up

I've removed several sections that do not discuss the topic of race and genetics in a meaningful or reliable manner. I did leave the race and medicine section despite the fact that this is not a discussion about race and genetics, but a discussion about genetics and medicine, where racial correlates are used as a proxy for genetics. I'm not sure that it really belongs here though, as the topic of racial/genetic correlation is discussed extensively in the text and the main article is already linked to in the sidebar. aprock (talk) 09:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

If that section discusses how "racial correlates are used as a proxy for genetics" then it is clearly about.... race and genetics. I don't see the problem.

Dawkins quote.

The Dawkin's quote is an example of quote mining, and has been taken out of context. The quote comes from the chapter "The Grasshopper's Tale" from the book "The Ancestor's Tale". From the book:

The Grasshopper's Tale is about races and species, about the difficulty in defining both, and what all this has to say about human races.

The chapter then goes on to make the case that races are not a genetically useful term.

Whatever we may think as observers of superficial appearances, the human species today is, to a geneticist, especially uniform. Taking such genetic variation as the human population does possess, we can measure the fraction that is associated with the regional groupings we call races. And it turns out to be a small percentage of the total: between 6 and 15 percent depending on how you measure it - much smaller than in many other species where races have been distinguished. Geneticists conclude, therefore, that race is not a very important aspect of a person.

And concludes with the genetic significance of superficial traits:

Inter-observer agreement suggest that racial classification is not totally uninformative, but what does it inform about? About no more than the characterisics use by the observers when they agree: things like eye shape and hair curliness - nothing more unless we are given further reasons to believe it.

The paragraph from which the out of context quote is mined starts with the observation that most human variation occurs within a race, not between races. The quote itself is used to refute the very fine point that while races are not genetically important, their taxonomic significance is non-zero. The specific statement being refuted here is that race is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.' Dawkins is saying that while race is not genetically meaningful, it still has some taxonomic utility. aprock (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The Dawkins source is (was) being used improperly. The whole "Lewontin's Fallacy" fallacy is getting a bit old. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"But that doesn't mean that race is of ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. This is Edwards's point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

There was no misuse of the Dawkins quote. Octoink has provided the quote with some of the preceding comments, which clearly indicates the context of the Dawkins quote as being the question of race and genetics. Indeed, it is quite implausible to imagine anyone reading the surrounding pages of material could come away with the impression that his quote did not concern race and genetics.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where any doubt might have come from but Dawkins definitely covers race and genetics in the source. And therein lies the rub... Given the fact that Dawkins is in complete agreement with Lewontin's science, which is highly respected and not in doubt, using a single quote to "debunk" said science without any explanation as to Dawkins reasoning is not appropriate and is, by definition, cherry picking. As Dawkins says: "Some people may find the evidence of biochemical genetics unsatisfying because it seems not to square with their everyday experience. Unlike cheetahs, we don't 'look' uniform. Norwegians, Japanese and Zulus really do look rather dramatically different from one another. With the best will in the world, it is intuitively hard to believe what is in fact the truth: that they are 'really' more alike than three chimpanzees who look, to our eyes, much more similar." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Presenting Dawkins' discussion in The Ancestor's Tale as a refutation of Lewontin is cherry picking at it's worst. To the extent that Dawkins disagrees, it is to say specifically that the visible traits that we use to distinguish race are indicators that can be used to predict the visible traits which we use to distinguish race. aprock (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me from reading the source that Dawkins was saying that racial classification does have genetic significance as it correlates with observed differences in races. The position is that the differences are not particularly extreme, but are still there. As opposed to the position that race is so muddled that it is useless as a genetic classification this is a noteworthy point of disagreement between two mainstream academics on the issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"Dawkins was saying that racial classification does have genetic significance as it correlates with observed differences in races": If the Dawkins source were being used to say that observable characteristics are genetic, there wouldn't be much of an issue. That's not what it's being used for. aprock (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am saying that the source supports presenting Dawkins as disputing Lewontin's claim about the validity of race as a genetic classification.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Dawkins is disputing Lewontin's "inference that race is therefore a meaningless concept" cannot be used to infer Dawkins supports "the validity of race as a genetic classification". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If the experiment were to be done, I do not think Lewontin would expect any other result than the one I have predicted. Yet an opposite prediction would seem to follow from his statement that racial classification has virtually no taxonomic or genetic significance. If there is no taxonomic or genetic significance, the only other way to get a high inter-observer correlation would be a worldwide similarity in cultural bias, and I do not think Lewontin would want to predict that either. In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong. Lewontin did his sums right, of course: he is a brilliant mathematical geneticist. The proportion of the total variation in the human species that falls into the racial partition of variation is, indeed, low. But because the between-race variation, however low a percentage of the total variation, is correlated, it is informative in ways that could surely be demonstrated by measuring the inter-observer concordance of judgement.

We can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes in forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn't mean that race is of ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. This is Edwards's point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.

If Dawkin's position wasn't accurately portrayed, the solution would be to adjust it not delete relevant content. Dawkin's position appears to be that the majority of genetic differences are within population and not between population, and that genetic differences between populations is small. But he clearly states that it doesn't mean that race is not of genetic significance. He makes it repeatedly clear time and time again that race is of genetic significance however small the genetic difference may be. BlackHades (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Aprock or ArtifexMayhem, what would your suggestions be in regards to accurately representing Dawkins. Aprock stated "If the Dawkins source were being used to say that observable characteristics are genetic, there wouldn't be much of an issue." Any suggestions on how you would like to draft this? BlackHades (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of the important bits would be:

1. No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine if any two people are of the same race or not.
2. No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine how many races there are.
3. Racial classification is informative about "no more than the characteristics used by the observers when they agree: things like eye shape and hair curliness — nothing more unless we are given further reasons to believe it. For some reason it seems to be the superficial, external, trivial characteristics that are correlated with race — perhaps especially facial characteristics."
4. The "superficial differences that helped our ancestors to prefer insiders over outsiders have been enhanced out of all proportion to the real genetic differences between us".
5. Individuals are "far more different from other members of their group than their groups are from each other".

It would not be appropriate to infer from Dawkins that "between-race variation" is or might be of genetic significance in relation to any complex trait (e.g., intelligence) or that said variation supports the concept of genetically defined races. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins clearly agrees with Edwards. No argument to the contrary has been presented, so I think the original content should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.165.78 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Aprock previously stated that there would be no issue with the source if it refers to observable characteristics. So I added text that better explained Dawkins' position using the example he gives to why he disagrees with Lewontin based on observable characteristics. BlackHades (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, what I wrote was: "'Presenting Dawkins' discussion in The Ancestor's Tale as a refutation of Lewontin is cherry picking at it's worst.'". It appears that you are now cherry picking my comments as well. aprock (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Explain exactly what am I cherry picking? Not to mention you are completely wrong. Dawkins DOES disagree with Lewontin. This is not a cherry picking. It is a mere fact that he makes repeatedly clear. I don't understand how anyone can misinterpret the line by Dawkins.

"In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong."--Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins also makes this repeatedly clear on his website where he gets into disputes against other readers that do not accept biological races here:

"I was concerned to disprove Lewontin's assertion that there are no racial distinctions in the human species."--Richard Dawkins

"But Lewontin is wrong to suggest that therefore 'race' has no taxonomic meaning because, as Edwards points out, such variation as there is between races is correlated. I gave a simple demonstration of the validity of the concept of race in The Ancestor's Tale."--Richard Dawkins

"OK, but all I need in order to disprove Lewontin, is to show that there are SOME races that are unequivocally distinguishable."--Richard Dawkins

This fact has now been expressed to you by several different editors which you continue to ignore. Your cherry argument fails. Dawkins does agree with Edwards and disagrees with Lewontin and you've provided absolutely zero evidence to the contrary. If the text actually was WP:CHERRY, you should be more than capable to alter the text in accordance with WP:V. But you've been unable to do so despite being encouraged to. Why? Because there is no WP:CHERRY and Dawkins was already being accurately represented in regards to his views on Lewontin. This is a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. BlackHades (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the chapter from which your quoting? All indications are that you have not. If you think that that chapter is relevant to the article, by all means include a discussion of the chapter. Selecting only the short portions of the chapter that you can twist to your own POV isn't going to cut it. Refer to the opening comment in this section if you need help finding the broad theme of the chapter. aprock (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your entire premise is based entirely on straw man arguments that has nothing to do with the underlining fact. That Dawkins agrees with Edwards and disagrees with Lewontin. Difficulty defining races is a straw man argument. When you're quoting Dawkins that he believes in between genetic variation of races is small, this is another straw man argument. This is both Edwards and Dawkins position, which is in agreement with Lewontin, and was clearly stated as such in the article. All this is unrelated to Dawkins' specific criticism of Lewontin's claim that race has 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance' which Dawkins is heavily critical of. When provided repeated evidence that Dawkins disagrees with Lewontin, you ignore it. When given the opportunity to freely edit and represent Dawkins view on Lewontin the way YOU want, you don't use it. Instead you've now made SIX reverts to remove Dawkins from the article entirely simply because it doesn't align with your POV. Do I really have to explain why Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin is relevant in a section titled "Lewontin's argument and criticism"? This should be pretty self evident. BlackHades (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Difficulty defining races is a straw man argument." Actually, it's the thesis of the chapter. If you deem the chapter thesis to be irrelevant, there's nothing left to discuss. aprock (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is straw man argument as the difficulty defining races has absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins' specific criticism of Lewontin. You keep bothering to make points nobody is even disputing. None of which even remotely conflicts with Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin position that race is 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.' While not giving a single shred of evidence to dispute the actual text in question. Do you or do you not realize "difficulty defining races" does not equal "race has no genetic or taxonomic significance"? Because it doesn't seem like you do. BlackHades (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In summary, Dawkins agrees with Edwards and the deleted section should be restored. This particular part of the article is about Lewontin's argument not an attempt to precisely summarize Dawkin's views on race and genetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.181.253 (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@84.61.181.253: You have been added as a party to the dispute resolution case pending at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Race and genetics. This notice is being posted here in addition to your talk page due to the dynamic nature of your IP address. You are not required to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! (If other editors in this dispute have been missed and wish to participate, please feel free to do so as well.) — TransporterMan (TALK) (as DRN volunteer) 14:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 15:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Race and genetics → Human population genetics – Article content is primarily about human population genetics, and not about race. The sections which discuss race are reviewed below. For the most part, the sources tend to focus on population genetics, referring to race as a correlate with clustering techniques applied to genetic data. aprock (talk) 17:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Visible traits, proteins, and genes studied: This section discusses race outside the rubric of genetics, and is presumably included to provide some background.

Race and population genetic structure: This section is an extended discussion of whether or not race can be predicted using genetic markers. I think this is an important topic, and one which deserves discussion in the article. However, this discussion clearly falls out of recent advances in population genetics, which in turn has necessitated a rethinking of whether classical definition of race have any valid meaning. In particular, the discussion makes it clear that insomuch as races "exist" it is to the extent that they mirror the genetics of geographically isolated humans. That is, it's the population genetics which are redefining race.

Race and medicine: only mentions genetics as a correlate of race.

Based on the actual content in the article, and the strong emphasis on population genetics, I think a page move which matches the title with the article content only makes sense. aprock (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

• Oppose The subject is race and genetics, which is clear from reading the material and related sources. Some more tentative language may be used on occasion by academics to avoid the political sensitivity of the term "race", but it is fundamentally the subject of race and genetics.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

How is it a misinterpretation of Templeton's position?

ArtifexMayhem removed Templeton's position from the article stating that it's misinterpreted although hasn't stated in what way. Here is the disputed text:

Alan Templeton (2003) stated that although small genetic differences do exist among human populations that can have evolutionary and genetic significance, they do not define races under any of the definitions currently applied to nonhuman organisms.

Now here is Templeton's exact quote:

"Although human populations do not define races under any of the definitions currently applied to nonhuman organisms, genetic differences do exist among human populations as noted above and quantified by the Fst value of about .15 - a small value but one greater than zero. These modest genetic differences can still have evolutionary and genetic significance. Therefore, the evolutionary significance of genetic differentiation among human populations (not races, since none exist) is a legitimate issue."

"Genetic nature/culture: anthropology and science beyond the two-culture divide". pg 248.

Please show where the misinterpretation is. And again, the solution should be to adjust the text rather than completely remove relevant cited material. BlackHades (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The most glaring would be the inference that human populations and "race" are synonymous and Templeton is simply committing Lewontin's so-called fallacy. It would be helpful if you would explain how you see the material as being relevant to "Lewontin's argument and criticism". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The terms "race" and "human populations" are consistently used interchangeably. Templeton's position that races doesn't exist would be not because "races" (or human populations if you prefer), can't be distinguished genetically but that the difference is short of the threshold that he considers to be Fst .25. BlackHades (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

1. The terms "race" and "human populations" are not interchangeable (emphasis mine)...

The word race is rarely used in the modern, nonhuman evolutionary literature because its meaning is so ambiguous. When it is used, it is generally as a synonym for subspecies(Futuyma 1986: 107–9), but this concept also has no precise definition. All concepts of a subspecies are based on genetic differences between populations living in different geographic areas; but these differences alone are insufficient to define a subspecies because genetic surveys usually reveal so much variation that some combination of characters distinguishes virtually every population from all others (Futuyma 1986). As a consequence, if genetic differentiation alone were required to recognize a subspecies or race, then every local population would become a race, making the category of race superfluous. — (Templeton 2003, pg.237)

2. Your summary of Templeton's position is factually incorrect. Templeton finds human "races" (or subspecies if you prefer) have no biological validity because human genetic variation does not satisfy any of the biological definitions of subspecies (emphasis mine)...

o prevent the term subspecies from being a synonym for local population, it is necessary to add further conditions beyond mere genetic differentiation among populations in order to recognize a race or subspecies. Three main additional criteria are applied: (1) a quantitative threshold of genetic differentiation among populations, (2) a genetic differentiation marking the qualitative state of being an isolate or distinct evolutionary lineage, and (3) genetic differentiation for special "racial" traits. — (Templeton 2003, pg.237)

The genetic data are consistently and strongly informative about human races. Humans show only modest levels of differentiation among populations when compared to other large-bodied mammals (Templeton 1998a), and this level of differentiation is well below the usual threshold used to identify subspecies (races) in nonhuman species. Hence, human races do not exist under the concept of a subspecies defined by a threshold level of genetic differentiation. A more modern definition of race designates it as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. The genetic evidence strongly rejects the existence of distinct evolutionary lineages within humans. The widespread representation of human "races" as branches on an intraspecific population tree is genetically indefensible and biologically misleading, even when the ancestral node is presented as dating to one hundred thousand years ago. Attempts to salvage the idea of human races as evolutionary lineages by presuming that greater racial purity existed in the past and was followed by recent admixture events fail the test. Instead, all the genetic evidence shows that there never was a split, or separation of races, between Africans and Eurasians as postulated by the out-of-Africa replacement hypothesis. Recent human evolution has been characterized by both population range expansions and recurrent genetic interchange among populations. There has been no split between any of the major geographic populations of humanity, with the temporary exception of the split between Native American and Old World populations. — (Templeton 2003, pg.252)

• Templeton, Alan R. (2003). "Human Races in the Context of Recent Human Evolution: A Molecular Genetic Perspective". In Goodman, Alan H.; Heath, Deborah; Lindee, M. Susan (eds.). Genetic nature/culture: anthropology and science beyond the two-culture divide. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 234–257. ISBN 0-520-23792-7.

In other words, Templeton cannot be used to support the fallacy—as believed by Edwards and very few others—that genetic variation alone implies the existence of race. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That isn't Edwards position at all. His position is that random facts about the genome (such as the ratio of genetic variation within and between groups) cannot be used to deny the validity of race, especially when the same facts apply between species. PsychKitten (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Templeton wasn't being used to support Edwards. His position was given in the most neutral and accurate representation of his position. Nothing you cited above contradicts it. He clearly states that human races does not exist per guidelines of non-human organisms but that this doesn't mean that what's being classified as "race", which he refers to as human populations, has no genetic significance. He clearly states it does have genetic significance. BlackHades (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The cherry picked quote does appear to support your beliefs, however the source does not. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:27, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

How is it cherry picked? Are you saying this is not his position? Your quotes are simply Templeton stating repeatedly that there is no races in human. Which we already know. You and I have both acknowledged this is true in regards to Templeton's position. But this is an incomplete statement of Templeton. He clearly states that even though human races do not exist, there can be genetic significance between human populations. Is there a reason why this more complete and accurate presentation of Templeton's position shouldn't be stated? BlackHades (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This article is about race and genetics not human populations and genetics. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This is WP:CHERRY. It's not appropriate to just state "Templeton states that human populations do not define races." and simply omit his full position on the issue which is certainly related and relevant. BlackHades (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Removed Chart

I've removed the cluster tree chart. The source used for that chart is nearly 20 years old, and the presentation of the data appears to be based on editor synthesis, not on a presentation from the book. There is no page number citation, or indication that the authors find this particular presentation of the data to be representative of their conclusions. Current presentations of similar data tend to be multidimensional, and inclusive of more population groups than the ones selected here. However, even those present genetic distance of a subset of the genome, not the entire genome as a whole. It's important that graphical presentations of data be supported, not just by data, but also by high quality secondary sources which give weight to whether such a representation is appropriate for the topic at hand. aprock (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The cluster tree chart is on page 80 of the book. It is not editor synthesis. Such presentation of data is supported by high quality secondary sources. Including:

Jorde, Lynn B., and Stephen P. Wooding. "Genetic variation, classification and'race'." Nature genetics 36 (2004): S28-S33.

Nei, Masatoshi, and Arun K. Roychoudhury. "Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale." Molecular Biology and Evolution 10.5 (1993): 927-943.

Livshits, Gregory, and Masatoshi Nei. "Relationships between intrapopulational and interpopulational genetic diversity in man." Annals of human biology 17.6 (1990): 501-513.

As the chart and data is supported and similar to other high quality secondary sources and the original assertion of "editor synthesis" has been shown to be wrong, I am restoring this cluster tree chart. BlackHades (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The ordering of the population labels by skin-color, African, New Guinean ... European Caucasoid, Non-European Caucasoid, was violently misleading. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't by skin color but by genetic clusters. BlackHades (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? What numeric property of a genetic cluster was used to determine the ordering of the population labels? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's in the source. It's actually quite an extensive amount of genetic data. The formula itself is two pages long. Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes. BlackHades (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You stated the ordering of the population labels "wasn't by skin color but by genetic clusters" and now you've stated that "It's in the source" and now I'm asking you to backup your claims (and yes I do have a copy of the source). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have the source, look through chapter one. You want me to name every piece of the formula used? It consistently mentions polymorphic markers. Where's your evidence that it's by skin color? BlackHades (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

L. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-08750-4. .copy for all.Moxy (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Moxy. Let's all please drop the WP:OR argument now. BlackHades (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Other than the problem that the chart has been re-ordered from the source, there is the problem that this article is specifically about Race and genetics, not Population clusters and genetics. The source is being used to imply population clusters and "race" are equivalent when the source explicitly states that this is not the case (Internal footnotes omitted, emphasis mine)...

And some of the "reasons discussed in the first chapter" are (emphasis mine)...

How do the sources make the chart relevant to the topic of this article? Without sources that make the connection assertions of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH still stand. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The re-ordering is a non issue. It doesn't change the presentation at all and likely was done to avoid any potential copyright conflicts. As far as the graph's relation to the article, the terms 'human population' and 'race' is used interchangeably constantly throughout this entire article as well as in the science community. These population groups are called "races" for those that accept the concept of biological human races, and are called "human population groups" by those that don't accept the concept of biological human races or even by those that accept the concept of biological human races but choose to avoid the politically sensitive term of "race". But regardless of what they are calling it, they are all referring to the same exact population groups.

If little trivial technicalities like this are going to be used to justify removing relevant content then perhaps we should look into renaming this article "Human Population and Genetics" as Aprock as suggested. Because to anyone that doesn't accept the concept of biological races, none of the material in this article is then relevant and your exact same argument can be used to justify removing any and every content of this article. BlackHades (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nearly identical charts and data exists in other published mainstream scientific journals that specifically refer to these population groups as "races" rather than "human population groups". So if this trivial technicality is your only objection, we can simply replace this chart with a similar nearly identical chart by another author that refers to these exact same population groups as "races". BlackHades (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The re-ordering is an issue because it changes the visual perception of the data in a misleading manner.
• As stated very clearly in the source above, "race" and "population" are not synonymous and the scientific community does not use them interchangeably.
• According to reliabale secondary sources scientists are not just being " politically correct" on this issue. Scientists (e.g., most biologists and anthropologists and nearly all geneticists) know for an absolute fact that there is absolutely no biological basis for the belief that humans can be grouped by "race" (other than by trivialities such as skin color and overlapping allele frequencies). Your opinions on what scientists really mean have no place here.
• As currently written the article should be renamed or redirected (I don't know how I missed adding my support to Aprock's proposal above).

A similar chart that is supported by modern mainstream sources would be fine. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please explain specifically how the re-ordering is an issue as the chart is simply a mirror image. What possible misinterpretation are you insinuating could occur? The science community 'does' use the term 'race' and 'human population' interchangeably. The sources I listed above in response to Aprock is a clear example of this. Cavalli-Sforza also does mention that Bateman et al 1990 uses that specific chart for 'racial' meaning.

The big problem with your argument for removal of the chart is that based on your argument, not only would the chart need to be removed, but the entire section of Cavalli-Sforza would need to be removed, as well as likely nearly the entire article. I would advocate a better solution than nuking the entire article to essentially near blank. If renaming the article will prevent the complete nuking of the article, then I will support the renaming as previously stated by Aprock. BlackHades (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and again removed the chart. As noted above there are several problems with the chart:

• It does not refer to races, but population groups.
• It represents cherry picking, failing to summarize Chapter 1.6, Scientific failure of the concept of human races.
• It is very old data for such a fast moving field.

The introduction of the specific content culled from the book, and the chart in particular are precisely the sorts of edits used to push specific POV. As it currently stands, the section should be rewritten based on the books treatment of race and genetics instead of misusing primary source data and images to present a false impression of the books themes. aprock (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on your 1st argument of 'population groups', why not just move the graph to the 'population genetics' subsection of the article? You've previously stated that you feel most of this article is primarily about population groups so this doesn't appear to be a valid argument unless you're arguing for the removal of the primary aspects of the article. If you felt text from Chapter 1.6 should be added for balance, then the solution would be add the text not remove existing data. If 1994 is going to be the cutoff for sources allowed to be on this article, we are going to have to remove a lot of sources and text from the article. Lewontin's argument would have to be removed. When exactly was it established that 1994 is "too old"? BlackHades (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

1994 becomes " too old" for any data or representation of data whenever the mainstream of academia no longer accepts the data of 1994 as accurate or appropriate. Do you have any evidence that the graphic is still representative of current thought of mainstream scholars? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I listed several sources that support the chart or similar charts. Including Jorde, Lynn B., and Stephen P. Wooding. "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'." Nature genetics 36 (2004): S28-S33.. I would be okay with replacing the Cavalli-Sforza graph with the more recent graphs published in Nature Genetics. BlackHades (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that the figures from Jorde/Wooding only bear a superficial resemblance to the removed chart. Similarly, selectively choosing to present charts without proper context is a misuse of sources. If you think any source is worth including in the article, it is up to you to read and use the source properly. For the Jorde/Wooding paper, the high level conclusions is that while race may be sometimes useful for biomedical applications, direct genetic analysis would be more accurate. Presenting the chart in a context which isn't supporting the paper's conclusions is original research. aprock (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to say the chart shouldn't be there stating it is undue but for the Cavalli-Sforza text that directly corresponds to the chart to remain. The chart is an accurate representation of the text that is already in the article under "Ancestral populations". If the argument is that the chart data is undue, how does the text that directly describe the chart data still stay? Is there a reason why the corresponding text should still remain? Or should it be removed? If it is removed should it be moved elsewhere?

The big problem is that there is no consistency to the approach of editing. If the argument is 'population groups', then all the other text attributed to 'population groups' should also be removed. If the argument is 'too old', then all the other text sourced to references older than 1994 should be removed. But it appears the reasons stated for removal of the chart is only applicable to the chart and the same reasons are somehow invalid for anything else in the article. BlackHades (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Any thoughts? We need to establish firmer guidelines on what content should belong in this article or this issue will continue to be a problem. BlackHades (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Our fellow Wikipedian aprock makes a good point here about reading the reliable secondary sources deeply and then owning your edits by being able to communicate a rationale for choosing one source rather than another in a way that is fair to what the sources say and not giving undue weight to obsolete or minority conclusions. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Aprock's reasons for removal remain extremely problematic. If it's because the source refers to 'population groups', then why does the corresponding text remain when it's the exact same source? What sense does that make? He previously stated that most of this article is related to population groups and not race. The question then becomes why isn't he advocating for the removal of all these sections based on his reasoning? His other reasoning of being "too old" also is problematic as there are many references here from before 1994. If we consider Aprock's reasoning for removal valid, then we should be moving to make extremely drastic changes to the article. There's a lot of text and references that needs to be removed if his reasons are valid. If we consider the reasons invalid, then we need to set the proper course going forward. But we simply can't nitpick which text will fall under these rules and which are exempt based completely arbitrarily. This is what's currently going on. Either his reasons are valid and we need to work on stripping the majority of the article or his reasons are invalid and we need to set a proper course going forward. BlackHades (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I can support moving the article as suggested by Aprock above. If it stays here the off-topic material will need to be removed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking over how we should precede with this article and here is my proposal. We could move/merge text relating to human population genetics in this article, such as Cavalli-Sforza above, to Human genetic variation. Then have this article focus primarily on whether human genetic variation constitutes race. This should shorten the article to about half the size or so. Thoughts on this proposal? BlackHades (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. aprock (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)