Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ArtifexMayhem (talk | contribs) at 14:27, 1 August 2015 (→RFC: No RFCs for socks). 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.

Most physical anthropologist...

Kaszycka, Strkalj, Strzałko, "Current views of Anthropologists on Race...". 50% agreed that human race exist. I guess the sentences "most physicial anthropologist.. etc" from the introduction is factually incorrect, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.254.131.24 (talk) 13:32, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

"socio-economic"

I don't think socio-economic status has to do with race. If two biological siblings with the same biological parents grew up and one sibling became more successful in careers and money than her or his sister or brother, I don't think people would claim the siblings to be of different races on that basis. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1196372/ 71.178.82.71 (talk) 19:01, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Newer source

Newer source by one of the previously cited authors: Wikipedians who like to watch TEDx videos may learn something for future editing of this article from Rick Kittle's talk on some of the topics included in this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

You have removed three sources (Long & Kittles, Mountain & Risch, and Pearse & Crandall) on the basis of a newer paper being available from just one (Long & Kittles). When I tried to add the material back, my revert was immediately undone, so I need to ask you to justify this here. You've explained why you want to remove the Long & Kittles source, but what is the justification for removing all three? 192.253.251.16 (talk) 03:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Look, this is very simple. If you're going to remove sources, and especially if you're going to undo my revert when I restore them, you need to be ready to justify the removal on the talk page. If you can't justify it or you don't want to, I intend to add them back. 192.253.251.39 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay, so now the reason the two people removing this material are giving in their edit summaries is that there is "no consensus" for it. I don't understand how that's a reason to revert. The material had been in the article for years, until WeijiBaikeBianji and TheRedPenOfDoom removed it on July 27. No attempt has been made to justify the removal outside of their edit summaries, so a consensus certainly hasn't formed to remove it. In that situation, shouldn't the pre-established version of the article remain until there is a consensus for a change? Misplaced Pages:Reverting#When to revert says, "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns." 192.253.251.94 (talk) 17:51, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Non RFC

Until July 27, the article had a paragraph describing the shortcomings of FST as a measure of genetic distance, but the paragraph was removed recently. The paragraph's sources were:

• Long, J.C. & Kittles, R.A. (2009). "Human genetic diversity and the nonexistence of biological races". Human Biology 81 (5/6): 777–798.
• Mountain, J.L. & Risch, N (2004). "Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among 'racial' and 'ethnic' groups". Nature Genetics 36 (11 Suppl): S48 – S53.
• Pearse, D. E., & Crandall, K. A. "Beyond FST: analysis of population genetic data for conservation". Conservation Genetics 5(5): 585–602.

The editors removing this material haven't replied to my inquiries about why it's being removed, so it hasn't been possible to resolve the disagreement on the talk page. I'm not sure what the correct protocol is in this situation, but apparently the pre-existing version of the article cannot be restored unless there's a consensus for it. Should the shortcomings of FST (as applied to human populations) be covered in this article? 192.253.251.101 (talk) 12:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

To answer the question, I have read more recent publications on the same topic. It happens that Long and Kittles 2009 is a very, very, very good source, but it was not well summarized in that paragraph. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you explain why you removed all three sources? That's what I've been asking you for the past two days. 192.253.251.94 (talk) 00:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think editors who actually read rather than cherry-pick Long and Kittles 2009 and the other, newer sources (which I have at hand near my keyboard as I type this) can come up with a better paragraph about the issue, that better represents what the current sources actually say, in due time. Do you have any current sources to suggest? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Can you please answer my question? If you think the Long and Kittles source can be better summarized, you're welcome to modify the paragraph to make it better. But you haven't tried to do that, you've just removed that source along with the other two. Why are you removing all three sources? 192.253.251.94 (talk) 01:10, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Weiji, your behavior here is pretty evasive. Too evasive, given how contentious and controversial the subject matter is, all edits and the rationale behind them should be made transparent to all editors, if only to avoid unnecessary edit wars and flaming. The information in the paragraph vis-a-vis FST was not worth being removed in my opinion, so why has it been? I'm not challenging the removal as it were, just the rationale behind it, or rather, pointing out that there isn't a rationale at all, it would seem. Wajajad (talk) 02:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Responding to the RFC. Looking back through the edit history, the only reason given for the removal of the paragraph appears to be that, while it's not inaccurate, there might be better/more recent sources for it. Which is certainly grounds for improving the paragraph, but isn't a valid reason for removing it, absent any existing consensus on this Talk page. The sources provided look reliable enough, but if they can be improved on, then great - do that, but don't delete in the meantime. Now, it might be the case that the issues mentioned in the paragraph have since been shown to be wholly wrong, and now regarded as no more than a minority fringe belief given undue prominence in the article, but I haven't seen any evidence to that effect. Until and unless that comes, I'd be inclined to restore and improve, rather than delete. Anaxial (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC

The most recent person to remove the paragraph apparently thinks that I'm a sock puppet, so now the article has been locked so that only registered users can edit it. If you agree the material shouldn't be removed, would you be willing to restore it (and improve it, if it needs to be improved)? Now that I can no longer edit the article, the only way it will be restored is if one of the people commenting from the RFC takes the initiative to restore it. 192.253.251.33 (talk) 06:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the removals. I think it'd be much better that instead of removing it like this, there ought to be some manner of consensus amongst the editors. Preferably while an improvement to the paragraph is being worked out, the paragraph itself can be allowed to stay instead of removed without explanation.Wajajad (talk) 20:30, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's been removed again, this time by Volunteer Marek. I've reverted it, and would prefer the matter to be discussed here before the same action is taken again.Wajajad (talk) 08:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

With you, me and User:Anaxial all arguing the paragraph should be included, and WeijiBaikeBianji not offering a specific rationale for removing it, I think on this talk page there is now a consensus to include it. Until that consensus changes, it shouldn't be removed anymore. 192.253.251.38 (talk) 11:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaken. There is no such consensus. By contrast, please offer a positive rationale based on citation of current, secondary sources for that paragraph reading as it does in the context of the article. I don't think any of you can, because the paragraph misrepresents the sources in the usual way of so many past edits to this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 12:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you please stop evading the question? I've asked you at least four times why you and the others are removing all three of these sources, and every time you've either ignored me or changed the subject. Now you're trying to turn it around and say I have to come up with a rationale for adding them back, even though the paragraph had been in the article for years, and you still haven't explained specifically what you think is wrong with it. As Anaxial and I both said before, if you think these sources can be better summarized or there are better sources available, you're welcome to rewrite the paragraph to make it better. If you could do that, none of us would be objecting. Why can't you do that? 192.253.251.101 (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Go away sock. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 14:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Good new source for this article, a book by a geneticist

It's time to freshen up the sources for this article to update them with current research. And Misplaced Pages's reliable sources content guideline reminds us to prefer secondary sources to primary sources for our summaries of the current research. I have a very readable book by a geneticist to recommend to all of you who volunteer to edit Wkipedia: Fairbanks, Daniel J. (7 April 2015). Everyone Is African: How Science Explodes the Myth of Race. Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-63388-019-1. Retrieved 20 July 2015. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help); Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help) Basically, this whole professionally edited and published book by Professor Fairbanks is a discussion of subtopics closely related to this article's topic, and I have found by reading the book cover-to-cover that it is a good guide to the earlier literature on this article's topic. You should be able to find this book in a library near you (as I did), and it's a good enough book to be worth buying if you are deeply interested in this article's topic. Enjoy; see you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:55, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"Everyone Is African: How Science Explodes the Myth of Race

Scientifically, there are more differences within each race than between races. And that’s because race is an illusion, a social construct, and has little to no basis in scientific reality."

*facepalm* "Scientifically" there are more differences within chimps and humans than between them. What amateur agenda pushing prole fodder. Zhang500 23:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)