Talk:Race and genetics/Archive 5

Request for comment: Dawkins' position on Lewontin in Race and genetics
Should Dawkins' position on Lewontin's argument be included in the section "Lewontin's argument and criticism" of Race and Genetics? BlackHades (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Introduction
In the chapter "The Grasshopper's Tale" of the book "The Ancestor's Tale", Dawkins mentions Lewontin and the lines by Lewontin that he agrees with and disagrees with. In the paragraph following the lines by Lewontin, Dawkins writes:


 * "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." pg. 407

The following pages, Dawkins goes on to explain his positions on Lewontin.

Instruction for expressing preferences
Please read the following proposals, focusing on the spirit rather than the letter - the wording will be tweaked if needed before the proposal is inserted into the article.

State your preference for a proposal at the bottom of the "Survey" section, for example, followed by your rationale, ending with your signature.

If you have a new proposal you would like to make, add it in a new subsection after the ones already present, provided that it is significantly different from the ones already made and not a minor tweak of one of them.

Proposal A: Support Dawkins' text originally in the section
The following is Dawkins' position on Lewontin that has been in the section "Lewontin's argument and position" since it was added 2 years ago.

"Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

Proposal B: Support Dawkins' revised text
The following is a rewritten version suggested in WP: Dispute Resolution noticeboard.

"Richard Dawkins 2005 agreed with Edwards' view. Dawkins accepted Lewontin's position that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is a biased perception and that human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. But Dawkins disagreed with Lewontin that this means race is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance' and summarized Edwards' point that 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."

Proposal C: Support deletion of Dawkins' position on Lewontin
Deletion of Dawkins' position of Lewontin in the section "Lewontin's argument and criticism" of Race and Genetics.

Survey
Please read the instructions above before posting.


 * Support B - Appears to have more detail which should keep everyone happy, and relying less on knowledge you may have from reading the book - :) -- Nbound (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support B Gives an appropriately nuanced summary of Dawkins's view, which will avoid it being misunderstood. Neljack (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support B That's definitely a more rounded description of his viewpoint on the topic that addresses both sides. And Dawkins' viewpoint is very obviously of equal authority with the others and he should definitely be represented in this article. Silver  seren C 23:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support B Does give more information but I wouod suggest to put the 2005 at the very start of the extract in brackets like in Option A. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support B Dawkins' opinion cannot sensibly be reduced further. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support None If Dawkins' opinions have due weight on the topic then they should be explained fully. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Support C The article's a mess and Dawkins "opinions" only compound the problem. The framing of the article is altogether weird...as if it jumps headlong into a more fundamental debate it doesn't think it needs to bother describing.  Race here is 100% human, which - think about it - underscores the weirdness here.  Humans aren't "special" in taxonomy or genetics.  But here they are. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose As noted on this talk page and WP:DRN, if Dawkin's views are to be included, a fuller treatment of his views is warranted. Selecting a non-representative subset violates WP:UNDUE. aprock (talk) 18:29, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support B Thoroughly explains Dawkins' position. Exclusion of highly relevant content that meets WP:RS would violate WP:DUE. BlackHades (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support B Option A seems to me to be misleading, by omitting some of the context, while Dawkin's opinions seem notable enough that Option C is unjustified. Option B seems to cover all the bases, while not going overboard. Anaxial (talk) 19:07, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Support B Seems reasonably balanced, and hell will approach thermal death before everyone agrees anyway. JonRichfield (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Note
Dawkins' himself clearly holds Lewontin's view as representative of the mainstream consensus:

 Lewontin's view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles. pg. 406, The Ancestor's Tale. aprock (talk) 15:40, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion
Comment: Neither of the proposed versions addresses the issues of WP:UNDUE. What we have here is the promotion of editorial remarks that Dawkins' acknowledges are outside the mainstream, and which only represent Dawkins' view. Dawkins' spends much time going over many of the issues related to the genetics of race which broadly reflect the mainstream understanding of race, and this broader view is not even mentioned in either of the summaries. This is a classic case of cherry picking, and a violation of WP:NPOV. It's difficult to see an RfC overturning core policy. aprock (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment I suggest publicizing this Rfc in order to get a wider range of opinions. See Rfc and Publicising discussions for instructions on how and where to advertise. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No Dawkins does not ever state his position is outside the mainstream. Please try reading it again. You don't seem to understand core policy, in particular WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV states that all significant views, in reliable sources, must be fairly represented. It does not say censor it just because you happen to not like it. Note that you've repeatedly been given the opportunity to edit the proposed text the way you deem fit which you declined every single time. Why? You also declined to participate in Guy Macon's proposal. Why? Your constant refusal to assist toward an edit and your lack of participation of Guy Macon's proposal during WP:Dispute Resolution makes it harder and harder to WP:AGF. BlackHades (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Dawkins clearly states: "Lewontin's view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles." (pg. 406)'. This exact quote was already highlighted on WP:DRN, and you responded directly to it in this comment.  aprock (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I've already explained this. It's very clear what part of Lewontin's statement Dawkins is referring to when he says "view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles." You are still misinterpreting Dawkins' words. BlackHades (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Diff please. aprock (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Please go through our discussions in WP: Dispute Resolution. . Dawkins is not trying to state Lewontin's entire view of race is "near-univeral orthodoxy". BlackHades (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think he clearly is saying that Lewontin's view of race is near universal orthodoxy, and it is. Almost all "race realists" complain about the dominant status of the view they disagree with - they realize that regarding race their views are outside of the mainstream.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes Dawkins is stating Lewontin's view of race is near universal orthodoxy. But this is in regards to the view that between race variation is much smaller than within race variation and that the perception of large differences between races is a biased perception. Lewontin is the one that made this view of race near universal orthodoxy in science today. Dawkins is not stating this about the statement "virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance". Which would be factually incorrect. This view in science today is heavily contested. Note that in the Lieberman survey, the majority of biologists accepted the existence of biological human races with only 16% of biologists stating there is no biological races in humans. This does contrast with the field of anthropology where the majority of anthropologists today do not accept the existence of biological human races. But even with the majority of anthropologists in the field, it's still certainly not 'near universal orthodoxy'. Dawkins was never referring to "virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance" in regards to "near universal orthodoxy". BlackHades (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think you are correct in your interpretation of what Dawkins means here, and the other option strikes me as a much more logical reading. Also the fact that biologists believe there are human races does not equate believeing that they have any taxonomic significance, so your reference to the survey is a non-sequitur.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * If I'm not correct, we would have to update all the race articles of wikipedia since all the race related articles of wikipedia consistently state the use of race as biologically meaningful in science is "contested" or "controversial" or "disputed" etc. (e.g. see Race and medicine) None of the race related articles in wikipedia currently make the claim that it's near universal orthodoxy in science that races is biologically meaningless. So if I'm wrong, that would imply all the articles in wikipedia related to race is wrong. BlackHades (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It is surely both controversial and disputed - but it is also near-universal orthodoxy in the field that Dawkins is criticizing. He very clearly sees himself as a heretic to an established orthodoxy as does Edwards and many other race proponents. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It can't be both controversial and disputed in science, and at the same time, near-universal orthodoxy in science. Near-universal orthodoxy implies there is little to no dispute or controversy. Positions that would fall under this category in science would be evolution, anthropogenic global warming, as well as Lewontin's view that human races are mostly similar with the largest part of variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. I wouldn't even consider Big Freeze near-universal orthodoxy even though it is the overwhelming majority view in science today. Near-universal orthodoxy implies essentially no dispute or controversy. BlackHades (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Then Dawkins must be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I have not had time to fully read and digest this particular discussion but it seems to me that you are torn between two matters of opinions, if this is the case why not just state them both onto the article? Again I have not read this properly, more like scanned over it so I cannot say whether the views are personal interpretation of text or factual. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if hypothetically we accepted Aprock's argument that 'near-universal orthodoxy' is referring to race has 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significant', this doesn't even change anything in regards to the RfC. It certainly doesn't mean Dawkins should now be censored and not mentioned. It seems like this is a distraction from the primary focus of the RfC. But let me attempt to clarify this since there seems to be some confusion on what has near-universal orthodoxy in science and what does not. See below. BlackHades (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins is not wrong. When Dawkins state "near-universal orthodoxy" he is referring to the rejection of the notion of large genetic variation between races or the idea of racial distinctions. Here's another example from a similar debate that occurred in Talk:Race and Intelligence regarding Foster & Sharp 2002. In this paper Foster & Sharp states:

"Debates about race and ethnicity have changed in one important respect—today nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions. Geneticists have abandoned the search for “Indian” or “African” genes, for example, and few if any accept racial typologies."

This is correct and accurately represents the scientific position today but look how it continues:

Even so, although simplistic biological interpretations of race and ethnicity have been discredited for decades, studies in clinical and population genetics continue to associate biological findings with the social identities of research participants. Thus, although the simplistic biological understanding of race and ethnicity associated with the eugenics movement may be dead, the far more subtle presumption that racial and ethnic distinctions nonetheless capture “some” meaningful biological differences is alive and flourishing...Ironically, the sequencing of the human genome has instead renewed and strengthened interest in biological differences between racial and ethnic populations, as genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility (Collins and McKusick 2001), environmental response (Olden and Guthrie 2001), and drug metabolism (Nebert and Menon 2001) are identified, and frequencies of these variants in different populations are reported.

This is where Aprock is constantly confusing what view of race has near-universal orthodoxy in the scientific field and which does not. The view that scientists reject the notion of large genetic variation between races or the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions? Absolutely. This has near-universal orthodoxy and this is exactly what Dawkins was referring to. But the view that scientists hold that race has 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'? Absolutely not. The controversy and dispute of this exists to this very day in science. But Dawkins was never referring to this when he was stating 'near-universal orthodoxy'. I hope this clarifies what view of race has near-universal orthodoxy, what does not, and help understand what Dawkins was actually stating. BlackHades (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think it clarifies your opinion about what Dawkins is saying. I don't think you have any evidence to support the idea that there is not a general consensus that race has virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance. I think there very clearly is such a consensus. I don't know of a single serious paleoanthropologist since Carleton Coon who has argued that race has taxonomic significance, or tried to bring race into a taxonomic genealogy of humans. I know of dozens of genetic paleo-anthropologists who have argued specifically that it is insignificant. Cavalli-Sforza has approached the idea of geo-genetic clusters being kind of similar to race, but still arguing distinctly that it is not in fact race that is genetically significant, but genetic ancestry - and he does not attempt to establish a taxonomy. Haplogroup maps do establish taxonomies of a kind, but again do not correspond to race. And finally the very idea that racial genetic differences can be significant or have taxonomic significance suggests that there the racial categories we make (again - the question is muddled: which racial model of the many different ones we use?) correspond to genetic differences - so if that is what Dawkins means then his view is not internally consistent, and in fact seems to be circular (as most racial thinking is).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't have any evidence? The peer review journal above. Not evidence? How about the fact that every wikipedia article on race states exactly what I just stated? That race as biologically meaningful is "controversial", "disputed", "contested" and all the citations attributed to those text. Not evidence? Or the fact that none of the wikipedia articles currently state what you're claiming that "there is scientific consensus that race has virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance". Not evidence? How about the growth and boom that occurred in the scientific field of Race and medicine since the mapping of the human genome. Not evidence? If this is still not enough evidence, I'd be happy to go through my scientific journals and cite you countless papers from peer review journals claiming race is biologically useful or using race in a biologically meaningful way. Just to be clear, I'm not even claiming one way or another that race is biologically useful. But the assertion that there is scientific consensus that race is biologically useless is absurd. You also acknowledged above that the use of race as biologically useful is "surely both controversial and disputed". The argument that the scientific position on whether race is biologically meaningful, is both in dispute, and also in consensus, is incomprehensible. It's a complete contradiction. Your view is not internally consistent and in fact seems to be circular. BlackHades (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I think your befuddlement stems from your conflation of terminology "biologically meaningful", "genetically significant" and "of taxonomic significance" are not synonyms. It is possible to say that race has a biological basis while rejecting that it is taxonomically significant. It is a question of DEGREE. Most anthropological geneticists agree that certain genetic markers have different frequencies in different selfidentifying racial groups - they just don't agree with Edwards and Dawkins that statistical correlation alone is enough to be significant, unless it has some kind of meaning (e.g. as a clue to evolutionary history). Dawkins' and Edwards' view - which I do believe is a minority - is that ANY identifiable correlation between gene frequencies and populations is automatically significant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You're using your own definition for what the threshold is for "biologically meaningful", "genetically significant" and "of taxonomic significance". Which is okay and understandable. There is no concrete scientific requirements for what qualifies as "biologically meaningful" or "genetically significant". Terms like "meaningful" or "significant" are subjective. The same goes for the definition of "race". Which is why there is such controversy in science whether human races exist or not because so much depends on how you want to define race. If the definition of race is distinct specific genes, then no races do not exist and you would have a scientific consensus that races don't exist. If the definition of race is any distinguishable clustering of genes, then yes races do exist and you would get a scientific consensus that races exist. The problem is that there is no concrete definition for any of these terminologies. Which is why there is no consensus for any of them. Same goes for the definition of species. There is a controversy in science whether Neanderthals are a subspecies of Homo sapiens or a separate species from the same genus. Lastly, I disagree that Dawkins' and Edwards' view is the minority. Their positions have widespread support and there is essentially universal agreement at least regarding the facts that lead to their positions. Such as there is near 100% accuracy in determining geographical ancestry when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. The controversy enters when, once again, we begin to bring in subjective terms such as "significant" or "race" which causes the lack of consensus for the mentioned terminologies. BlackHades (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My point is exactly that it is a question of different definitions for the threshold of what is meaningful and significant. And yes we are all in agreement about the facts - the difference is about whether they have a significant relation to race. And here I must say that I know of no evidence suggesting that Edward's and Dawkins' view (i.e. that the fact that geographical ancestry can be reliably determined means that "race" is biologically "meaningful" and "taxonomically significant") is not in the minority. In facty as I do continue to maintain, even their own writings readily acknowledge - perhaps even relish - their status as a minority view. If it were not we would find genetics textbooks, and textbooks on human evolution stating that race is biologically and or significant, but we don't. The vast majority of the literature distinguishes between "geographic ancestry", "genetically differentiated population" and "race" as different things. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment. I think Aprock has a point. The only reason to include Dawkins' opinion is to lend authority to one view - but his opinion is no more authoritative than either Edwards' or Lewontin's - and the fact that he agrees with Edwards is hardly surprising given that they both share the same approach to biological classification based on correlations of gene-frequencies (which incidentally enables us to classify any randomly chosen three people into two different "races". What is the reasoning behind seeing Dawkins' opinion as notable for inclusion? As far as I know he has never published any research on race or classification of human genetic variation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Including Dawkins' position is not meant to gain authority toward one view. I agree with you that Dawkins' position is no more authoritative than Edwards or Lewontin but neither of the proposed text is trying to give Dawkins more authority than Edwards and Lewontin. This is about giving fair weight to Dawkins in accordance with WP:NPOV. Is there a good reason why Edwards, Lewontin, Risch, Harpending, Sarich and Miele, Brace, Weiss and Fullerton are all in the section and all deserve weight but Dawkins somehow deserve zero weight? What exactly would be the rational behind that? BlackHades (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
 * You also have a point there, I hadn't considered that there is an entire cavalcade of quotes by researchers. Then I would think that B is the more accurate and fair treatment of his view.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * While there is certainly a diversity of opinion on the nuance of the issue, what we have here is an attempt to "teach the controversy" in an attempt to insert race realism into a topic where experts largely agree that race is not a genetically useful concept. The fact that there are genes for blue eyes does make "race" genetic. aprock (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with that Aprock, but the question is on what basis we include some notable opinions and exclude others. Geneticists like Edwards and Dawkins are trying to redefine the word race to mean any distinguishable cluster of allelles. This is obviously a really bad idea because of the social and political implications, and there is no scientific necessity in referring to such allele clusters as "races" - but they don't seem to care more about not being PC. But in any case their view exists and needs to be included - the question is how and how much.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No direct opinion on these proposals I would rather have more discussion in the article of the more directly related sources like the book chapter (Chapter 20) "Genetics and Genomics of Human Population Structure" by Sohini Ramachandran, Hua Tang, Ryan N. Gutenkunst, and Carlos D. Bustamante in the Vogel and Motulsky genetics textbook, fourth edition. That kind of better, more on-point source would do much to improve the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

race before genetics
Can we spell out that before we had modern genetics we had crazy racist ideas? In Darwin's day, some people speculated that the "savages" of distant lands weren't really human. (Darwin disagreed.) Then, still before modern genetics, scientists stack-ranked the races along a supposed evolutionary lineage, with whites on top, followed by Asians, etc. But now that we have modern genetics we see that any apparent racial differences are recent and that no race is "behind" another. That shouldn't be controversial, right? Leadwind (talk) 03:13, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't think this really fits this article as it doesn't relate to genetics. Might be a more appropriate topic of conversation for the Race (human classification) article instead. BlackHades (talk) 05:18, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, it is relevant in a sense as prior to modern genetics there was some understanding of heredity and that was applied to race. It would constitute the history or background to the topic.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 05:50, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I can see that but I still feel it's not relevant enough to the topic of this article and that there are other Race related wikipedia articles where it would be more appropriate. BlackHades (talk) 06:32, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The idea that "Modern genetics changed the way we look at race" would seem to fit in an article about genetics and race. Also, it's something that even Lewontin and Risch could agree on. Partisan editing is what makes this article (and others like it) so hard to read. Maybe we could get some clear, accessible, concise writing if we could agree on something. Leadwind  (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * In what way is it you claim that modern genetics changed the way "we" (who is we by the way) look a race? And what is the source for that claim?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Gee, Maunus, I thought you'd be happy to point out that the old, racist way of seeing races has been overturned by science. Maybe the partisanship on this issue is more tangled than I had anticipated. I guess I mean that the privileged patriarchal elite white scholars no longer hold that "Asian" is a stage of human evolution that "Europeans" have already passed through, for example. (We know the origin of the term "Mongoloid" for children with Down syndrome, right?) It's general knowledge, and I could find sources if we agree that it's relevant. Also, genetics proves that Darwin was right: we're all descended from recent ancestors. So much for the racist idea that Asians and Europeans evolved independently from pre-human ancestors (which would make "them" a different kind of human from "us"). Leadwind  (talk) 14:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It was not genetics that overturned the classical racist view of race. The rejection of the race concept was lead by physical anthropologists such as Boas and Washburn, and also by proto-geneticians such as Dobzhansky. The development of genetics and the modern syntheis provided additional support conclusions already reached simply from the study of anatomy and behavior. Then World War 2 provided the final impetus for getting rid of the concept that had only been kept alive for political reasons.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:11, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, I guess I did underestimate the degree of polarization on this topic. I thought it would be worthwhile to find a point of agreement to work on, but really, who wants to agree? If I have any sense, I'll steer clear of this page. But if I'm sucked back in, I'll probably return with data from Nicholas Wade's Before the Dawn. Wade is a respected science writer, the book is all about what the latest genetic findings tell us about human ancestry, and it has a whole chapter devoted to race. Seems like a valuable source for this page. Leadwind  (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Nicholas Wade has made a career out of misrepresenting anthropology to further a conservative political agenda. He is neither impartial nor an expert. The book can of course be used as any opinionated tertiary source. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd sure appreciate a citation to support your negative opinion of Wade. He's the science editor for the New York Times, so he looks mainstream to me. Leadwind  (talk) 17:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with anything? He is a journalist he doesn't have to follow the mainstream of what he writes about. In this case he quite clearly isn't interested to follow it because he disdains anthropology and very clearly states that he wants to se anthropology entirely subsumed into genetics. He also thinks human sociobiology still has any scientific credibility. I put a link to Jon Marks' blog on your talk where you can see what a geneticist and former president of the American Anthropological Association thinks of his "science".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information, Maunus! Leadwind  (talk) 21:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Suffice it to say that anthropologists do not consider Wade a neutral reporter of their discipline and its findings.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:16, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll let you have the last word on this topic. Leadwind  (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. ;)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:37, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Sarich and Miele
Currently we have the following material in the article (link, fourth paragraph),  Sarich and Miele (2004) have argued that estimates of genetic differences between individuals in different populations fail to take into account human diploidity and that if it is taken into account, the increase in variability in between-population comparisons is 15 percent against the 42.5 percent that is between-individual within-population. Thus, 15/42.5 is 32.5 percent, which they argue is a much more impressive and legitimate value than 15 percent.

Here is the quote from the source,  Lewontin had noted that 85 percent of the genetic variability was among individuals within populations, and only an additional 15 percent was added when individuals in different populations were compared. However, this analysis omits a third level of variability—the within-individual one. The point is that we are diploid organisms, getting one set of chromosomes from one parent and a second from the other. To the extent that your mother and father are not especially closely related, then, those two sets of chromosomes will come close to being a random sample of the chromosomes in your population. And the sets present in some randomly chosen member of yours will also be about as different from your two sets as they are from one another. So how much of the variability will be distributed where?

First is the 15 percent that is interpopulational. The other 85 percent will then split half and half (42.5 percent) between the intra- and interindividual within-population comparisons. The increase in variability in between-population comparisons is thus 15 percent against the 42.5 percent that is between-individual within-population. Thus, 15/42.5 = 32.5 percent, a much more impressive and, more important, more legitimate value than 15 percent. It’s interesting that Henry Harpending noted in an e-mail to us that no one has ever published this calculation. I cannot find any reliable sources that support Sarich and Miele's argument as a valid criticism of the established science. In fact, other than the negative reviews found in American Anthropologist, American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Journal of Clinical Investigation, Transforming Anthropology, and Nature, there are very few sources in the literature that even cite the work. How is the inclusion of Sarich and Miele not WP:UNDUE, etc? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:16, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that this seems to be a case of a fringe view with no wider impact. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see it as fringe. This is a similar argument as put forth by Harpending in a peer review journal. Sarich and Miele specifically attributed the human diploid argument to Harpending. Sarich and Miele is a secondary source for Harpending's argument.


 * Yet the world had to wait until 2002 for someone to explain the basic problems with Lewontin’s famous 15 percent. It was Henry Harpending replying to a question from Frank Salter."--Sarich and Miele.


 * Here's Harpending:


 * The coefficient of kinship between two diploid organisms describes their overall genetic similarity to each other relative to some base population. For example, kinship between parent and offspring of 1/4 describes gene sharing in excess of random sharing in a random mating population. In a subdivided population the statistic Fst describes gene sharing within subdivisions in the same way. Since Fst populations on a world scale is reliably 10 to 15%, kinship between two individuals of the same human population is equivalent to kinship between grandparent and grandchild or between half siblings. The widespread assertion that this is small and insignificant should be reexamined. I may share many genes with, say, an onion, but this gene sharing is not relevant to the evolution of social behavior within humans.  Kinship coefficients in a random mating diploid population are simple and well known. For example, pick a gene from me, then pick another gene from the same locus from me. With probability ½ we picked the same gene, while with probability ½ we picked the other gene at that locus. Therefore the probability that the second gene is the same as the first is just ½ + p/2, and substitution of this conditional frequency in the formula for kinship shows that my kinship with myself is just ½. The same reasoning leads to the well known values of ¼ with my child, 1/8 with my grandchild, my half-sib, or my nephew, and so on.  Many studies agree that Fst in world samples of human populations is between ten and fifteen percent. If small long-isolated populations are included, the figure is usually somewhat higher. A conservative general figure for our species is Fst ≈ 0.125 = 1/8. This number was given by Cavalli-Sforza in 1966, and a widely cited paper by Lewontin (1972) argued at length that this is a small number implying that human population differences are trivial. An alternative perspective is that kinship between grandparent and grandchild, equivalent to kinship within human populations, is not so trivial. For further discussion see Klein and Takahata (2002, pp. 387-390).  The difference between equations 2 and 3 is just Fst, the difference between kinship with an intra-demic relative and a hybrid relative. Notice also that as x becomes large, equation 2 shows that kinship with a random member of the same deme is Fst and kinship with an otherwise unrelated hybrid offspring is 0.  Harpending, H. (2002). Kinship and population subdivision. Population and Environment, 24(2), 141-147.


 * BlackHades (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Publishing an article in a journal which your friends then cite in a book that gets almost universally critical reviews does not make a theory notable. It is basically the definition of fringe science that requires very little weight.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure examination of the entire book by Sarich and Miele is necessary as we're only dealing specifically about diploidy and how Fst figures can be misleading. There's no evidence any of the cited criticism is tied to this specific argument by Sarich and Miele. I'm not arguing for the validation for anything else in Sarich and Miele's book. It could very well be that other aspects of the book is scientifically flawed.


 * But this is specifically about the misleading nature of Fst figures as it's important to note how Fst figures cannot simply be taken at face value as interpretations for variation. The shortcomings of Fst figures are definitely not fringe and there are numerous scientific publications that is critical of the use of Fst figures. This is not to say Fst figures are useless, as it certainly has a scientific purpose, but it's important to mention the shortcomings of Fst figures and that such figures can't only be taken at face value. Perhaps Sarich and Miele isn't the best source to use for this example and I don't necessary object to the removal of Sarich and Miele in replacement of a better source that explains it more proficiently. But there should be some mention of how Fst figures can be misleading. Some other sources to consider:


 * "In this paper, we show that this low value reflects strong biases that result from violating hidden assumptions that define Fst . These limitations on Fst are demonstrated algebraically and in the context of analyzing dinucleotide repeat allele frequencies for a set of eight loci genotyped in eight human groups and in chimpanzees. In our analyses, estimates of Fst fail to identify important variation. For example, when the analysis includes only humans, Fst = 0.119, but adding the chimpanzees increases it only a little, Fst = 0.183" Long, J. C., & Kittles, R. A. (2009). Human genetic diversity and the nonexistence of biological races. Human Biology, 81(5/6), 777-798.


 * "A low average Fst for neutral genetic markers suggests that the power to define phenotypic differences in racial and ethnic categories is not typical of a single neutrally evolving locus. On the other hand, an Fst estimate of 0.10-0.15 does not rule out a genetic basis for phenotypic differences between groups. In fact, a low Fst estimate implies little about the degree to which genes contribute to between-group differences." Mountain, J. L., & Risch, N. (2004). Assessing genetic contributions to phenotypic differences among'racial'and'ethnic'groups. Nature Genetics, 36, S48-S53.


 * “With some theoretical justiﬁcation, Fst has also been used to estimate rates of gene ﬂow. However there are conditions under which Fst is inappropriate for gene ﬂow estimation and can lead to incorrect or even absurd conclusions. These pitfalls have prompted critics to suggest that Fst has failed to deliver what its proponents have promised and should be abandoned.” Neigel, J. E. (2002). Is Fst obsolete?. Conservation Genetics, 3(2), 167-173.


 * “For example, simple values of Fst cannot distinguish between a situation of high migration between populations with a long divergence time, and one of a relatively recent shared history but no ongoing gene flow.” Pearse, D. E., & Crandall, K. A. (2004). Beyond FST: analysis of population genetic data for conservation. Conservation Genetics, 5(5), 585-602.
 * BlackHades (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * The argument from diploidy and the critique of Fst are not the same, and most scholars who critique the use of Fst do not support Sarich and Miele's conclusion that this increases support for racial groupings. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:57, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I never said it was the same. Diploidy is just one factor that argues that Fst figures can be misleading. If the argument is that the diploidy argument isn't mainstream enough, I'm proposing alternative critiques of Fst that you may deem more mainstream or acceptable. Fst isn't perfect and has some flaws in its ability to accurately represent important variation. Would you agree with this? This should be important to note. Again I don't necessary oppose the removal of Sarich and Miele. I just think there should be some critique on Fst for balance. BlackHades (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Source list for improving this article and related articles
Hi, everyone, I see in the busy talk page discussion here, it has been hard to keep track of links to the Anthropology, human biology, and race citations bibliography that I have compiled and kept for several years in Wikipedia user space for all Wikipedians to use in verifying articles. I thought I should draw your attention to the bibliography again as I prepare to update the bibliography (I invite your suggestions of current reliable sources to add to it). I have found by frequent visits to academic libraries that there is a HUGE and ever growing scholarly literature on the topic of this article, so those of us who like to look things up and read carefully written writings on difficult topics should be able to find plenty of sources to make sure that this article does the current literature justice in its encyclopedic treatment of the topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I have been finding new sources, and I have been making and will continue to make updates to the source list from time to time. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Lewontin and Dawkins
Several months after a consensus was reached on a phrasing for this paragraph an editor made changes to the paragraph. However, these changes create a misleading impression of the dispute. That Dawkins generally agrees with Lewontin is not in dispute, but the key point is that Dawkins agreed with Edwards on this specific point. By repeatedly stating how much Dawkins agrees with Lewontin before we even mention his position on Edwards, the changes create an impression that Dawkins agrees much more with Lewontin than he agrees with Edwards. Should think the current wording is not sufficient then he should suggest changes, but I do not think elaborating on how much Dawkins agrees with Lewontin is appropriate or necessary to get the point across.-- The Devil's Advocate  tlk. cntrb. 21:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Much more helpful for actually editing the article to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia would be to look at the many other sources available on race and genetics to make sure that the article reflects what the professional sources say. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I've updated the section title per WP:CSECTION. It's not at all clear to me how Dawkins views are not relevant here.  They explicitly discuss race, genetics, and Lewontin.   Could you please be more clear on why you think certain views of Dawkins' re:race, genetics and Lewontin should be included, and others excluded? aprock (talk) 02:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The issue is the impression it creates when you spend more time talking about him agreeing with Lewontin on general matters rather than his disagreement on the actual point that was the focus of his attention.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 04:37, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by the actual point that was the focus of his attention. The chapter is 17 pages long.  Dawkins only discusses Edwards for three of those pages.  The discussion of taxonomy occurs in the middle of the chapter, and is not discussed in the introductory or concluding paragraphs. aprock (talk) 04:54, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * For the sake of posterity, Dawkins thesis comes on page 399, at the end of the first paragraph:


 * "The Grasshopper's Tale is about races and species, about the difficulties of defining both, and what this all says about human races." -- The Ancestor's Tale, pg 399 That would appear to be the actual point of the chapter, and highly relevant to this article. aprock (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Dawkins begins the discussion of Lewontin's argument and Edwards' response on pg 406. He first mentions Lewontin's position and writes that Lewontin is correct that the perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, compared to the variation within these groups, is biased and wrong. But quickly follows that up with stating that this doesn't mean that race is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance' and that Edwards is right and Lewontin is wrong in this regard. The next several pages is focused on explaining why Edwards is right.
 * The Devil's Advocate is correct that your edit spent way too much time on general matters that Dawkins agreed with Lewontin on, rather than focusing on why Edwards is correct which was what Dawkins' central theme was in these several pages. You handpicked small sections where Dawkins agreed with Lewontin on while ignoring entire blocks of paragraphs where he explains in great detail the reasons why Edwards is right. In the RfC approved text, it gives equal time to both what Dawkins agreed with Lewontin on and what he agreed with Edwards on. Even when Dawkins' focus on those pages was primarily explaining why Edwards is right. This is why tilting even more text regarding general matters on Lewontin that Dawkins agreed with creates NPOV issues. As well as length issues that was mentioned in the RfC.


 * Even this line that you added, I'm assuming for the purpose of balance:
 * "However, Dawkins felt that reasonable conclusions had been tainted by Lewontin, who had a weakness for his inserting political convictions into his science"
 * This just seems like bloat and doesn't need to be there. BlackHades (talk) 05:48, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The entire chapter discusses the relationship between race and genetics. Please explain why only the content on pages 406-410 should be included, but the other pages should not. aprock (talk) 06:05, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are we discussing possible Dawkins content for the article as a whole or for the section "Lewontin's argument and criticism"? As for the specific section "Lewontin's argument and criticism", we would use pages 406-410 because that's the section related to Lewontin. BlackHades (talk) 08:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that if a page does not mention Lewontin by name, it is not related to his views? aprock (talk) 14:51, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * After reviewing the content in the section, I've renamed it to Genetic similarity. Several of the cited sources did not mention Lewontin at all, and the general discussion in the section relates to the extent to which races are genentically similar. aprock (talk) 15:28, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I changed it to between-group differences because I feel that better reflects what is being discussed. They are discussing the significance of genetic differences, or lack thereof, between racial groups.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 18:30, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Aprock, could you be more clear regarding the changes you want? Specifically, what is the issue you had with the RfC approved text? You and Maunus mentioned more context but didn't fully explain what context you were looking for that the RfC approved text wasn't addressing. More detailed explanation of the desired context would be helpful. BlackHades (talk) 20:11, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been quite clear several times. If the Dawkins chapter is to be used as a source, it should be summarized in full. I'll do so in the coming days when I have time, but you're welcome to do it yourself. aprock (talk) 14:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The entire chapter is not directly related to the section in question. Your previous edit didn't even summarize the chapter in full either so you didn't even do what you claim you wanted to do. Your edit used pages 406-410. Presumably because these are the pages that are actually related to the specific section. But then instead of summarizing these pages in full, you cherry picked parts where Dawkins would agree with Lewontin on while ignoring entire blocks of paragraphs where Dawkins explains why Edwards is correct. You made it seem as though Dawkins was siding with Lewontin over Edwards on the issue when that is clearly not the case. If you felt the text could be improved, why wasn't such suggestions brought up during previous discussions in Talk? Or in DRN? Or when the RfC was being created? Or during the discussion in RfC? Why now?


 * I would more than welcome ideas or drafts for improvement and open them for discussion but I would highly recommend not making further changes without consensus as this would be considered a continuation of the edit warring that was expressly forbidden during AE. Per WP:CONSENSUS. "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit.". BlackHades (talk) 03:49, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll be happy to summarize the chapter in full as it relates to the article. You're welcome go ahead if you like. aprock (talk) 07:14, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
 * So when Sandstein wrote during AE..
 * "But since the reverting now seems to continue, I strongly recommend the editors engaging in the incipient edit war to desist, or they may all be sanctioned, because by making even one revert they contribute to the edit war as a whole. Remember, being "right" or having allegeed conensus on ine's side does not justify edit-warring."--Sandstein
 * You decided to ignore Sandstein, revert once again, put all the problematic text back without changes AND on top of that, delete the "Dawkins agreed with Edwards" line that was approved by consensus? You've made absolutely no attempt to gain consensus for your changes. You completely ignored every single concern raised during talk and AE on your edit. I would advise you self revert. BlackHades (talk) 11:28, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You appear to be having issues outside of content. Allow me to suggest that you raise those in an appropriate forum.  If you want to discuss the actual content, this is the correct place.  Is there a specific non-process related issues that you have with the current content?  If so, please explain them clearly. aprock (talk) 15:30, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Would these be good sources
Razib Khan's gnxp blog and Steve Hsu's blog would be good additions as sources? Both individuals are experts in the field174.88.242.59 (talk) 21:16, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * No. Neither is an expert in any field related to the topic of this article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Sources criticizing use of Fst
I added some sources that criticized the use of Fst. Aprock reverted one of the sources I added stating:

"remove unused source, likely because it is not, in fact, critical of Fst."--Aprock

I have to wonder why Aprock didn't bother looking up the source and rather used pure speculation regarding its content but since Aprock's assertion was false, I restored the edit. Link to paper here.

WeijiBaikeBianji reverted it again by citing a different reason. That the source is too old. How can a 2002 source be considered too old when the same section contains Lewontin (1972)? If the 2002 source is too old, should Lewontin (1972) be removed as well for being older? I would appreciate it if more clarification can be given on the reasons behind this revert. BlackHades (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Aprock is right, the source is in fact a defense of the continued use of Fst against some other criticisms and citing it as if it were a critique of Fst is intellectually dishonest misrepresentation. The source should be cited, but in support of the actual point that the author is making, which is that Fst is generally useful and will continue to be so in a wide range of cases.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It is intellectually dishonest misrepresentation to try to pass this source off as a defense of Fst. It is absolutely heavily critical of Fst. Copied from my talk:


 * Calling the paper "a defense of Fst" is a clear misrepresentation. He makes it adamantly clear that newer methods of estimating gene flow are more accurate and should be used whenever possible instead of the older outdated Fst method. He states that the older Fst method should be used in the event that the newer more accurate methods are impossible, such as analyzing data from older studies. This is NOT a defense of Fst. This is Neigel stating that in situations where newer more accurate methods are impossible (e.g. analysis of older studies), Fst data is still better than nothing.


 * "Although it may be desirable to reanalyze data from past surveys of variation with new methods, it will not often be possible to do so because the necessary data has not been included in publications and is no longer available from authors"--Neigel


 * This is absolutely heavy criticism of Fst while still acknowledging that if no other methods are available, the usefulness of Fst is still more than zero.
 * BlackHades (talk) 03:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I disagree very strongly, you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting the aim of the study. I cite the last line of the abstract, which is of course the main point of the article. First he rhetorically asks the question "is it time to retire Fst" and he then answers in the negative: "Here I will argue that although gene ﬂow should be estimated by more powerful approaches whenever practical,FST remains a useful measure of the average effects of gene ﬂow and will continue to be used for comparative purposes."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:03, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also you fail to note that estimations of gene flow is just one use of Fst, whereas the most common usage is to survey variation between populations. It is only its use to estimate gene flow of which he is highly critical (a use which is not very relevant for the discussion regarding race).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Gene flow is not relevant to the discussion regarding race? I have plenty of sources that will show otherwise. Also earlier you argued that the source should be cited in defense of Fst. Why would you think it should be cited if it is not relevant to the discussion regarding race? BlackHades (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2013 (UTC)


 * It's difficult to see how presenting quotes from the body of the paper which appear to contradict the abstract can be anything but quoting out of context. aprock (talk) 04:09, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It can only appear to contradict the abstract if one doesn't understand the abstract to begin with. In both the body and the abstract, Neigel reiterates newer methods measure gene flow better than Fst, and that they should be used instead of Fst whenever possible. Even so, Fst remains useful with limitations and will continued to be used particularly when the newer methods are unavailable. But this isn't exactly "defense" of Fst. Rather, Neigel is very clear that newer methods are preferable to Fst. BlackHades (talk) 05:29, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'd argue it's actually you that's misunderstanding or misrepresenting the aim of the study. I would recommend reading the entire paper instead of just the abstract. He makes it perfectly clear newer methods of measuring gene flow are more accurate than Fst. Yes Fst remains a useful measure in the event the newer methods are impossible (e.g. analysis of older studies). But this particular position isn't ANY different from any other scientist that also criticizes Fst. You're trying to make it seem like his position is somehow different from all the other scientists that also criticize the use of Fst but it's not. All the other scientists that also criticize Fst will also argue newer methods are more accurate, but that the usefulness of Fst is still greater than zero if the newer methods happen to be unavailable.


 * To sum up Neigel's position:


 * 1. Using Fst can lead to incorrect or absurd conclusions.
 * 2. Newer methods of measuring gene flow are more accurate than Fst.
 * 3. Newer methods of measuring gene flow should be used instead of Fst whenever possible.
 * 4. If newer methods of measuring gene flow are unavailable or impractical (e.g. older studies), Fst can/will continued to be used and remains useful but with limitations.


 * I would not call this a "defense" of Fst. It's rather conceding to using Fst when better methods are unavailable. BlackHades (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The article section is not about using Fst to measure gene flow. It is about variation. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:34, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It used to be about "Lewontin's argument and criticism" but now apparently it's about "Between-group genetics" in which case gene flow is certainly relevant to the section. BlackHades (talk) 05:48, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You are shifting the goalposts at every turn, twisting sources as you go. The entire argument about Fst comes from the question of Lewontin's usage of it. Not from the question about geneflow. Geneflow is of course relevant for race, but not for the Edwards/Lewontin question. And the suggestion that Fst is not good for measuring gene flow has no bearings on the Lewontin/Edwards question at all. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You summary of Neigel is also tendentious. It can lead to absurd conclusions WHEN USED TO MEASURE GENE FLOW. Not in the context of measuring variation which is what the argument was about.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:56, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're misunderstanding my position and intent. The one and only thing I was arguing against was the assertion that Neigel's paper was "in defense of Fst". This makes it sound like he prefers the Fst method over others when he doesn't.


 * But, if you wish to argue that the citation is not relevant enough for the section, then you should have opened with that argument and we would have had an entirely different conversation. But you weren't arguing relevancy this whole time. You were arguing that the Neigel reference should be INCLUDED in support of Fst. Hence the outcome of this debate thus-far.


 * So I'm assuming you're withdrawing your previous position that Neigel should be included. Instead, the argument now is that Neigel should not be cited because it is not relevant. Would this be correct? The irony is that if this was the reason given at the beginning of our conversation, I would have accepted this argument and moved on.


 * Maunus, I know we have our differences but I am actually quite reasonable if you allow me the opportunity to be. You do sometimes misinterpret my intent or misunderstand my position which on occasion creates unnecessary situations since neither of us then can understand each other. I might on occasion misunderstand your position as well. I do think a lot of the past conflicts we've had seem to be over simple miscommunication. You and I probably agree on far more than you think we do. BlackHades (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * It IS a defense of the continued use of Fst both for geneflow (where there are better methods sometimes available) but especially for variation (where it continues to be the standard method). But no it doe not seem directly relevant to this article, which is probably why it was removed in the first place. Before you edirwarred to reinsert it in a context that misrepresented its argument as if it were in fact a paper arguing the abandonment of Fst.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Maunus, try to view perspectives from something other than through this narrow prism. You continue to either misunderstand or misrepresent what I write. You then go on these long tirades against something I never claimed or even implied. When do I ever claim ANY of the sources are arguing for the abandonment of Fst? You do realize "criticism" and "abandonment" are not the same thing right? BlackHades (talk) 12:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Let's take a look at BlackHades summary: As to the question of how this source should be used, it's clear that it would be a great source for an article about F_st. This isn't an article about F_st. This is an article about Race and genetics. As the source does not discuss that topic in any way, it's difficult to see it's relevance here. If there were a high quality secondary source which discussed the paper prominantly in the context of the article topic, this might be a useful source. Until we have such a source, introducing it here is WP:SYNTHESIS. I suspect that the entire paragraph regarding F_st is in that same boat. aprock (talk) 06:06, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * 1. Using Fst can lead to incorrect or absurd conclusions. Misrepresentation. While it "can" lead to incorrect or absurd conclusions, that is only true for very specific data scenarios.
 * 2. Newer methods of measuring gene flow are more accurate than Fst. True.
 * 3. Newer methods of measuring gene flow should be used instead of Fst whenever possible. Mostly true. The paper uses the word practical, not possible.
 * 4. If newer methods of measuring gene flow are unavailable or impractical (e.g. older studies), Fst can/will continued to be used and remains useful but with limitations. Misrepresentation. Omits the fact that F_st is now a standard measure of fundamental theoretical importance, straightforward to calculate, and that it imparts useful information about gene flow.
 * As I just replied to Maunus, if the argument is relevancy, I would have accepted it. In regards to your suspicion on the entire paragraph, the other sources specifically mentions race and genetic variation in regards to Fst so no that would not be the same boat. BlackHades (talk) 07:27, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The reason that we arrived at this discussion was because you edit warred to insert an article in a context which misrepresented its argument. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you never take responsibility for your own actions? You were strongly arguing for INSERTION of the source yourself before you later changed your mind. BlackHades (talk) 11:45, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Diff or it didn't happen. I can't find anything on this page which suggests anyone but you was arguing for insertion. aprock (talk) 16:43, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Here. Also where in this talk page do you see me arguing for insertion? Diff or it didn't happen. All I did was ask for clarification on the removal of the citation and show how Neigel criticizes Fst and why stating that "Neigel defends Fst" is a complete misrepresentation. BlackHades (talk) 22:36, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Back to the content

 * The "criticisms of Fst" paragraph is a red herring,
 * Whatever the "important variation" Fst "failed to identify", Long & Kittles (2009) do not find it (or human genetic variation in general) supports the use of racial classifications.
 * Mountain & Risch (2004) argue for the continued use of 'race' and 'ethnic' (which they define as a "social categories") labels because they "remain useful in epidemiological and clinical settings." They do not criticize the the use of Fst.
 * Pearse & Crandall (2004) discuss some of the known limitation of Fst. They do not criticize (or even mention) the the use of Fst as it relates to human racial classifications. They do find "...traditional Fst approaches are still very useful for estimating current allele distributions within and among populations..."
 * As far as I can tell this is using WP:SYNTH, WP:OR, and WP:CHERRY to cast doubt on Lewontin's findings (and all later work confirming those findings i.e., the mainstream view). The paragraph should be removed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The sources discuss race, genetics, and Fst. They are certainly relevant to the article and the section. If you feel "criticism" is not the most accurate term then feel free to change it. Use "shortcomings", "flaws", "limitations" or anything else. I never said I wasn't for altering the text. Feel free to make any changes to improve the accuracy of the cited source. What I am against is the continuation of the attempts to remove any text/sources, regardless of the quality of the source, simply because it may conflict with one's personal positions. The same attempt for removal occurred with Dawkins. An entire mess involving DRN and RfC had to be taken to get Dawkins restored. This article should reflect the views as they exist in the scientific fields rather than trying to match the views and positions of wikipedia editors and censoring everything else.


 * The Mountain & Risch source is a discussion that involves race, genetics, and Fst from peer review journal "Nature Genetics". If we're actually going to start arguing that "Nature Genetics" is not a mainstream source, or that this journal doesn't reflect mainstream positions, or that the discussion of race, genetics, Fst is somehow not relevant for the article then there is a serious problem that needs to be addressed here. How do you go more mainstream or more high quality than "Nature Genetics"? I'm all for amendment of text, but I will not support the continued attempts of censoring high quality sources that are certainly relevant to the article. BlackHades (talk) 01:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Inclusion of sources largely relies on whether there is sufficient secondary source support for the content. For example, high quality relevant sources like Dawkins should be used as a basis for determining what topics to cover.  On the other hand, the F_st sources are not so clearly appropriate.  They are quite technical, and not written for a lay audience.  As an example, I reviewed the Harpending (2002) source, and it's clearly a primary technical source.  Without secondary sources to establish proper weight, it should be removed. aprock (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Harpending's paper is based on the kinship research done by Hamilton and a discussion on his work. Also you seemed to have missed this (bold emphasis mine):
 * "Many studies agree that FST in world samples of human populations is between ten and fifteen percent. If small long-isolated populations are included, the figure is usually somewhat higher. A conservative general figure for our species is FST ! 0.125 = 1/8. This number was given by Cavalli-Sforza in 1966, and a widely cited paper by Lewontin (1972) argued at length that this is a small number implying that human population differences are trivial. An alternative perspective is that kinship between grandparent and grandchild, equivalent to kinship within human populations, is not so trivial. For further discussion see Klein and Takahata (2002, pp. 387–390) Harpending, H. (2002). Kinship and population subdivision. Population and Environment, 24(2), 141-147.
 * Harpending clearly cites another source that contains the exact same argument. If you feel that's STILL not enough sources. Here's yet another secondary source:
 * “Hamilton's analysis immediately falsifies the widely-circulated argument by geneticist Richard Lewontin that the race concept should be abandoned as of no scientific value since 'only' 10-15 percent of genetic diversity exists between populations while 85-90 percent exists within populations. However, as we saw in Chapter 3, a 12.5 percent genetic variance between two populations implies within-population kinship equivalent to that found between grandparent and grandchild or between aunt and nephew. Lewontin's genetic estimate is not only compatible with the existence of high ethnic kinship, it is a rough measure of it.” Salter, F. (2003). On genetic interests. Family, Ethny and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration. Peter Lang, Frankfurt am Main ua. pg. 92
 * I will add these new secondary sources to the text. Anything else before I restore the text? Wouldn't want you accusing me of edit warring again. BlackHades (talk) 07:54, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * You will first have to understand what secondary and primary sources are. Primary sources are the sources which come up with new conclusions.  Secondary source are those that cite the new conclusions referring to the primary sources.  It is the secondary sources which establish proper context and weight for the primary source.  You appear to have it entirely backwards.  You can't use the sources that Harpending cites to establish weight for Harpending.  aprock (talk) 15:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * You're incorrect on what primary and secondary sources are. Both primary and secondary sources can have new conclusions. A new conclusion does not equate to being a primary source. Secondary sources can and will have new conclusions (bold emphasis mine):


 * "A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources." WP:SECONDARY


 * Back to the discussion on Harpending. From the numerous reliable sources that is citing the exact same argument as Harpending, it's clear that the deleted text has due weight. If you prefer, instead of citing Harpending, I can cite Salter as the secondary source for Harpending. BlackHades (talk) 20:32, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm curious. How would one show that the Salter source meets even the minimal requirements of WP:MEDRS for inclusion in this article at all? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:06, 26 November 2013 (UTC)


 * @BlackHades. If there are numerous reliable sources for the content, then we should use the highest quality source removed from the actual findings.  Resorting to primary sources, like the Harpending one, is a poor way to handle controversial content. aprock (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
 * @Weiji, the Salter source was initially published by Peter Lang and subsequently by Transaction. It seems to me that the book does meet the MEDRS requirement for books.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk.  cntrb. 02:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Per Aprock's comment, instead of citing Harpending, I will cite Salter as the secondary source. BlackHades (talk) 23:13, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * This is precisely inverted from good sourcing practices. You don't take a primary source with content you would like to see in the article search for secondary sources which cite that content, and then add only that content to the article using the secondary sources.  This is almost a textbook example of misusing primary sources that WP:NPOV warns against. aprock (talk) 01:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You change your arguments one at a time as they fail to hold up one after another.


 * "As an example, I reviewed the Harpending (2002) source, and it's clearly a primary technical source. Without secondary sources to establish proper weight, it should be removed."--aprock
 * "If there are numerous reliable sources for the content, then we should use the highest quality source removed from the actual findings."--aprock


 * This whole time you're arguing that you removed it due to a lack of a secondary source, which by the way you could of just added a "primary source-inline" tag instead of just removing. You state that we should use the highest quality source removed from the actual findings. So I replied that I will do exactly what you requested and cite a secondary source from a major academic publisher. And now it seems you want to flip around and take back your previous statement. So your previous statement, did you not really mean it? BlackHades (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * My concerns have always been that sources not be misused. That you propose to misuse them one way, and then another, doesn't alleviate concerns.  Why not try to take the more neutral route and summarize a high quality secondary or tertiary source removed from the heart of the controversy? aprock (talk) 15:09, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Noting that there are academics in the field who feel Fst is not a good indicator for the significance of variation between racial groups seems pertinent. That the source meets even the unnecessary MEDRS standard for sourcing should be sufficient.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Maybe you could clarify things here, and explain how you would establish due weight for this content? aprock (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Useful sources for Population structures section of this article
I've been watching this page for a few years, and in recent weeks there has been a flurry of talk page discussion here, alas with remarkably little updating of the article text. I've been reading university textbooks on human genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for improving this article and related articles. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.

The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

"Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies."

The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."

On the topic of human population genetics and variation within and among human populations, a widely cited primary research article is a 1972 article by Richard Lewontin, which I have seen cited in many of the review articles, monographs, and textbooks I have read over the years.



As Wikipedians, we can evaluate where the findings in Lewontin's article fit in the current understanding of the topic of human genetic variation by reading current reliable secondary sources in medicine.

Some years after Lewontin published his primary research article on human diversity, when his primary research results had been replicated in many other studies and his bottom line conclusion that "about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups" had been taken up by many textbooks on genetics and medicine, A. W. F. Edwards wrote a commentary essay in the journal BioEssays



in which Edwards proposes a statistical model for classifying individuals into groupings based on haplotype data. Edwards wrote, "There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification," pointing to his own work with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the author of the book



which I read soon after it was published in 1994. In general, Edwards cites a lot of publications from his collaboration with Cavalli-Sforza, and mentions that collaboration prominently in his subsequent review article



in which he describes their method for tracing ancestry with genes. Edwards even shows a photograph of Cavalli-Sforza with him in 1963 in his 2009 article, emphasizing their scholarly friendship.

So I wanted to look up Cavalli-Sforza's current views as well while I traced citations of the Lewontin 1972 article and the Edwards 2003 article in subsequent secondary sources. Through searches with Google, Google Scholar, and Google Books, both from my home office computer and from a university library computer, I found a number of books and articles that cite both the Lewontin paper and the Edwards paper. Through a specialized set of wide-reaching keyword searches (for example, "Lewontin Edwards") on the university library's vast database subscriptions, I was able to obtain the full text of many of those articles and of whole books that discuss what current science says about grouping individuals of species Homo sapiens into race groups. I also found more up to date discussions by Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza of the Human Genome Diversity Project.

Listed here are sources that have the following characteristics: (1) they cite both previous articles by Lewontin and the 2003 article by Edwards, discussing the underlying factual disagreement between those authors, (2) they are Wikipedia reliable sources for medicine (in particular, they are secondary sources such as review articles or textbooks rather than primary research articles), and (3) they are currently available to me in full text through book-buying, library lending, author sharing of full text on the Internet, or a university library database. They are arranged in approximate chronological order, so that you can see how the newer sources cite and evaluate the previous sources as genetics research continues. The sources listed here are not exhaustive, but they are varied and authoritative, and they cite most of the dozens of primary research articles on the topic, analyzing and summarizing the current scientific consensus.











The book chapter by Barbujani and Colonna (2011) above is especially useful for this article as a contrast between biodiversity in other animals and biodiversity in Homo sapiens.





By the way, the Barbujani, Ghirotto, and Tassi (2013) article has a very interesting discussion of SNP typing overlaps across the entire individual genome among some of the first human beings to have their entire individual genomes sequenced, with an especially interesting Venn diagram that would be a good graphic to add to this article.



An author who is intimately familiar with Edwards's statistical approach, because he has been a collaborator in fieldwork and co-author on primary research articles with Edwards, is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Cavalli-Sforza is a medical doctor who was a student of Ronald Fisher in statistics, who has devoted most of his career to genetic research. In an invited review article for the 2007 Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Cavalli-Sforza joins issue directly with the underlying factual disagreement among previous authors, but cites different previous publications.



"GENETIC VARIATION BETWEEN AND WITHIN POPULATIONS, AND THE RACE PROBLEM

In the early 1980s, Lewontin (11) showed that when genetic variation for protein markers is estimated by comparing two or more random individuals from the same populations, or two or more individuals from the whole world, the former is 85% as large as the latter. This means that the variation between populations is the residual 15%, and hence relatively trivial. Later research carried out on a limited number of populations and mostly, though not only, on protein markers has confirmed this analysis. The Rosenberg et al. data actually bring down Lewontin’s estimate to 5%, or even less. Therefore, the variation between populations is even smaller than the original 15%, and we also know that the exact value depends on the choice of populations and markers. But the between-population variation, even if it is very small is certainly enough to reconstruct the genetic history of populations—that is their evolution—but is it enough for distinguishing races in some useful way? The comparison with other mammals shows that humans are almost at the lower extreme of the scale of between-population variation. Even so, subtle statistical methods let us assign individuals to the populations of origin, even distinguishing populations from the same continent, if we use enough genetic markers. But is this enough for distinguishing races? Darwin already had an answer. He gave two reasons for doubting the usefulness of races: (1) most characters show a clear geographic continuity, and (2) taxonomists generated a great variety of race classifications. Darwin lists the numbers of races estimated by his contemporaries, which varied from 2 to 63 races.

Rosenberg et al. (16 and later work) analyzed the relative statistical power of the most efficient subdivisions of the data with a number of clusters varying from 2 to 6, and showed that five clusters have a reasonable statistical power. Note that this result is certainly influenced by the populations chosen for the analysis. The five clusters are not very different from those of a few partitions that had already existed in the literature for some time, and the clusters are: (a) a sub-Saharan African cluster, (b) North Africa–Europe plus a part of western Asia that is approximately bounded eastward by the central Asian desert and mountains, (c) the eastern rest of Asia, (d ) Oceania, and (e) the Americas. But what good is this partition? The Ramachandran et al. (15) analysis of the same data provides a very close prediction of the genetic differences between the same populations by the simplest geographic tool: the geographic distance between the two populations, and two populations from the same continent are on average geographically closer than two from different ones. However, the Rosenberg et al. analysis (16) adds the important conclusion that the standard classification into classical continents must be modified to replace continental boundaries with the real geographic barriers: major oceans, or deserts like the Sahara, or other deserts and major mountains like those of central Asia. These barriers have certainly decreased, but they have not entirely suppressed genetic exchanges across them. Thus, the Rosenberg et al. analysis confirms a pattern of variation based on pseudocontinents that does not eliminate the basic geographic continuity of genetic variation. In fact, the extension by Ramachandran et al. of the original Rosenberg et al. analysis showed that populations that are geographically close have an overwhelming genetic similarity, well beyond that suggested by continental or pseudocontinental partitions."

A year later Cavalli-Sforza joined seventeen other genetics researchers as co-authors of a review article, published as an "open letter" to other scholars, on using racial categories in human genetics.



Other current review articles related to human population structure include



I look forward to collaborating with other Wikipedians in updating this article based on current reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I must say I am disappointed that you chose not to list the sources I provided you. May I ask why? Other than Edwards, you completely omitted any proponent view of race even though plenty of reliable sources for it certainly exists.


 * (copied from Talk:Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy)
 * Browsing through these sources, there appears to be common theme that is repeatedly mentioned. The sources consistently state that there is no consensus or agreement among scientists on the race concept and that many scientists accept the existence of biological races and find the classification useful, while many others don't. Jonathan Marks might have summed this up perfectly:


 * <blockquote class="toccolours" style="background:PowderBlue; float:none; margin-left:1em; display:table;">"Race, we must rather conclude, is underdetermined by genetics (Morning 2011). That is to say, it is genetically real when geneticists who believe it is real brandish their particular genetic data and statistical analysis (Risch et al. 2002, Edwards 2003), and it is unreal when geneticists who do not believe it is real brandish their genetic data and statistical analysis...the number of races of Europeans, say, may range from one (on the latest US Census, in 2010) to three (Ripley 1899) to five (Boyd 1963) to twelve (Coon 1939). None of these conclusions is more right than any of the others, for they are all coproduced by the natural facts of difference and by the cultural facts of classifying." Marks, Jonathan (October 2013). "The Nature/Culture of Genetic Facts"


 * All the scientists are looking at and agree on the same objective data, but it is the interpretation of the data using subjective definitions and classifications that creates the disagreement. WeijiBaikeBianji's list of sources seem to either be from scientists that either are opponents of the race concept or neutral on the topic. Given the fact that all the sources, even the ones that oppose the race concept, consistently state there is disagreement and a lack of consensus in the scientific fields on the race concept (while citing plenty of sources from both sides of the arguments), a well balanced collection of sources for the article is needed. It cannot consist of only neutral or opposing perspectives. It must include proponent perspectives as well or else it creates WP:NPOV and WP:DUE issues. BlackHades (talk) 22:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what Marks is saying. He is exactly not saying that the disagreement is based on different subjective interpretations of the same facts - he is saying that we only have access to subjective interpretations, because facts never speak for themselves nor do they make their way into scientific studies of their own accord. That is - facts about human genetics are never neutral, or objective. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * <i>"Such context dependence and multivocality on the fundamental question of race certainly does not suggest that race is an objective entity, out there to be either discovered or denied by the collection of the appropriate genetic data."


 * <i>"race does not inhere in the objectively measurable data of difference, but rather in a constant negotiation between that difference and its meaning, or how much difference and what kinds of difference are taxonomically salient."


 * Marks, Jonathan M. "The Nature/Culture of Genetic Facts." Annual Review of Anthropology 42.1 (2013).</i>


 * He'e saying no amount of researching or looking at genetics is going to be able to conclusively answer whether races exist or not because the whole concept of race is not an objective entity to begin with but a mix of nature/culture. Ultimately, he's saying no one is right or wrong. BlackHades (talk) 08:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You are right on the first account and wrong on the latter. It is very possible for someone to be wrong in their statements about rthe existence on race, both in a factual and moral sense. What is not possible is to give an answer to the question of race that is not influenced by cultural and political definitions and views. To begin with the idea of genetic facts as inherently biocultural, which is his main argument, would make any attempt to establish race as a solely biological category wrong.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Race would not be a solely biological category. The conflict in the scientific field would be scientists that view race as both biological and social, and scientists that view race as an entirely social abstract. BlackHades (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I suppose it will take you a while to finish reading all the newly posted sources. I tried to include direct URLs to the sources whenever I could. I look forward to discussing this with you further after you have had time to read and digest those sources, especially the sources that summarize the most up-to-date research for transplant medicine doctors and biologists. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 02:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm already familiar with many of the authors and sources you listed. I'm not suggesting these are bad sources or that they shouldn't be used but it's a very selective list of sources. There is a noticeable omission of sources that are proponents of the biological race concept even though this would be the majority view in the field of biology. Lieberman's survey showed 74% of biologists accepted there are biological races while 16% rejected it. The recent source Maunus posted Morning, A. (2011). The nature of race: How scientists think and teach about human difference. University of California Pr. showed that either a majority or plurality of biologists accepted the existence of biological races depending on how the question was worded. We should be using a collection of sources that better reflect the views and positions as they exist in the scientific field. BlackHades (talk) 11:27, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * No we should use the sources that best reflect the positions and views that exist in the literature. Morning's resarch was based on reviews of textbooks and surveys of personal opinions. We can and should include Morning as an source of information, but not as a source for the relative weight of different views within the most recent scholarhsip as that is not what she is pretending to be doing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * <blockquote class="toccolours" style="background:PowderBlue; float:none; margin-left:1em; display:table;">"Race, we must rather conclude, is underdetermined by genetics (Morning 2011). That is to say, it is genetically real when geneticists who believe it is real brandish their particular genetic data and statistical analysis (Risch et al. 2002, Edwards 2003), and it is unreal when geneticists who do not believe it is real brandish their genetic data and statistical analysis...the number of races of Europeans, say, may range from one (on the latest US Census, in 2010) to three (Ripley 1899) to five (Boyd 1963) to twelve (Coon 1939). None of these conclusions is more right than any of the others, for they are all coproduced by the natural facts of difference and by the cultural facts of classifying." Marks, Jonathan (October 2013). "The Nature/Culture of Genetic Facts"


 * This is ridiculous. The number of races simply depends on how often one subdivides clusters. There is an East Asian cluster, and within that Japanese and Korean clusters. All of these conclusions are right and are simply standard hierarchical taxonomic practice. There is no lower bound on how often one subdivides and doing so has nothing to do with 'cultural facts of classifying' other than that it is normal classifying. In no sense could it possibly be considered 'unreal' or 'undetermined by genetics' simply because there are clusters within clusters, anymore than solar systems are not real because of galaxies. This man is quite simply an idiot and it is hilarous that his garabage is even considered here. FrankDipshaw (talk) 05:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems you completely misunderstood what Marks was actually saying. He said "underdetermined" not "undetermined". He was saying race is both real and unreal. He's saying there isn't one correct answer when it comes to race and arguing that there is 1 race or 12 races are both equally valid. BlackHades (talk) 07:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Mr. Dipshaw seems very likely to be just another reincarnation of Mikemikev. No need to feed him.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:26, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact that there are multiple levels of race classification due to the existence of clusters within clusters in no sense renders the concept unreal nor 'underdetermined'. I completely understand what he is saying despite pointless nitpicking. And what he is saying is obviously false. FrankDipshaw (talk) 11:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The same fallacy could be used to claim heavenly bodies were 'unreal' or 'underdetermined' (or even undetermined). Is a galaxy a heavenly body? A star? So are there 1 million heavenly bodies or 1 trillion? Heavenly bodies are unreal when astronomers who do not believe they are real brandish their telescope data and statistical analysis! FrankDipshaw (talk) 12:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins on essentialism
Richard Dawkins suggests on Edge.org that essentialism is an idea that should be retired and comments on human variation. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

A citation for Fst and heterozygosity and genetic proof for racian differentiation
This link seems an excellent candidate for citation, seeing as very little of the article is for race. Also race related genetic differences in this Nyborg paper which I don't see cited 76.64.67.253 (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Nyborg is not a specialist on race or genetics, and even in the field where he is a specialist (psychometrics) his work is considered lacking in scientific qualities. It is not mainstream work. Citing a right wing extremist blog as a source is also not possible according to our policies.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The blog itself is not the source, the blog cites the sources and extrapolates the arguments. We should cite those sources.74.14.31.201 (talk) 21:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The blog post makes an argument by synthesizing two different papers, one about FST and the other about human genetic variation. It then makes the novel argument that human genetic variation is structured in a way so that Homo sapiens have genetic subspecies. This argument is not currently accepted in any mainstream literature. If this argument is published in a reputable journal and enters the mainstream then it could be included, but per current WP rules for original research and synthesis and fringe science it cannot. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * What an Earth are you going on about? It doesn't "make the novel argument that human genetic variation is structured in a way so that Homo sapiens have genetic subspecies" at all. It just says that Fst between human populations or races is similar to animal subspecies, which is an indisputable fact (I understand that indisputable facts have no place in Wikipedia and that copy pastes from Marxist egalitarian social 'scientists' do), and leaves it at that. 59.10.60.38 (talk) 08:47, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "It then makes the novel argument that human genetic variation is structured in a way so that Homo sapiens have genetic subspecies. This argument is not currently accepted in any mainstream literature."
 * Notwithstanding the fact that it doesn't, and that it is, what would you call Homo sapiens neanderthalensis? 59.10.60.38 (talk) 10:08, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Pictures for opinion on biological race
This pic has the polls of scientists in different times combined in one, probably would be useful as it says the views on biological race70.31.155.210 (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

No mention of Ernst Mayr?!
How come this major academic who is very much relevant to the topic is not even mentioned or cited once? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.242.59 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A.R. Templeton citation
Can someone add this as citation for pro-biological race?70.31.155.210 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a gross misrepresentation of Marks' views.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * See discussion above on the talk page regarding Marks. aprock (talk) 05:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The Genomic Challenge to the Social Construction of Race - NEW CITATION
http://stx.sagepub.com/content/30/2/67.short — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.242.59 (talk) 01:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that looks interesting. It will be particularly interesting to see how it is taken up by others.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:07, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We should include it now as pro-race source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.242.59 (talk) 02:10, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not sure. It is not really the case that we are short on "pro-race" sources. What makes this one interesting is that it is published in a sociology journal.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:14, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It appeared to me that we are abundant on race-denier source but not for the other side, it seems too that the race-realist side is mainstream, with supporters like Henry Harpending, Gregory Cochran, Linda Gottfredson etc. 174.88.242.59 (talk) 22:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Gottfredson is a psychometrician not a specialist in race or genetics, it would make no sense at all to cite her in this article. Both Harpending and Cochran and many of their race-believing colleagues are cited, just as much as their general status within the literature suggests it should be.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This doesn't add up, what makes you think that experts like Harpending and Cochran deserve only one or two citations, or Neven Sesardic for that matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.242.59 (talk) 01:14, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That they are hardly ever cited in the mainstream literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:51, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia external links policy guides what external links to add to articles.
The Wikipedia external links content guideline has a good checklist of criteria to look at in deciding which external links to add to articles. For an article like this article, referring to "genetics," (an inherently medical topic), a good content guideline to apply while applying the external links guideline is the Wikipedia content guideline on identifying reliable sources in medicine. I will make an edit to this article's external links section in a moment with those guidelines in mind. (Basically, I have at hand newer writings by the same authors quoted in the external link, in publications that better fit the guidelines for reliable sources in medicine, in which those authors have retracted some of the statements found in that several-year-old external link.) I invite all other editors here to review the external links found in this article and in related articles for fitness with regard to the content guidelines on external links in general and on sources related to medical topics such as genetics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:07, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Edits in light of new sources
This source by David Reich demonstrates that different races have different evolution rate and this proves among other things the arguments made by Harpending and Cochran that human races have evolved apart from each other to adapt to their environment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.75.132 (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note how the blog uses the term "population" and never "race", also note how its claims is about ethnic groups understood as lineages and not continental races? Also note that it talks about mutation rates and not "evolution rates". Also note how it is a blog.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You haven't read the underlying research sources, rather than the blog, carefully enough if you think "races have evolved apart from each other." That's not what the molecular genetic evidence or any other line of evidence on the issue suggests. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 03:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Neil Risch citation
http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007 Related to genetic grouping of race and its use in medicine. We should add it as source.74.14.73.163 (talk) 21:03, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an opinion piece and not a research article or review. The opinion it expresses is already represented in the article, but I agree that here it is expressed very clearly so that perhaps this is a useful source for the "pro-race view".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maunus will edit in opinion pieces from various social scientists/journalists if they agree with his "race has no meaning view". 210.92.171.47 (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Further this obviously is a review from a top biologist. 210.92.171.47 (talk) 15:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Mike, you seem to not have noticed the little tag that says "opinion" in the upper corner of the article. Also if you can give any specific evidence of me inserting opinion pieces in problematic ways please provide the specifics so that we can clean it up. Also you may want to reread my reply as I in fact suggest that the article should be included.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would do but you and your tag team would just delete it with no discussion. 210.92.171.47 (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Given that you are a sockpuppet of a permanently banned editor it is probably the best decision that you dont edit the article I agree. I've added it for you. Now go troll somewhere else maybe?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Unreasonable revert of "who" and "citation needed" tags.
I've been trying to get citations added to the lead of this artivcle, but a coalition of 3 accounts, User:WeijiBaikeBianji, User:Maunus, and User:Dougweller have attempted to prevent this. I will now defend each and every "citation needed" and "who" tag I have added. If a week has gone by and my rationals still hold, I will re-add the tags. Future reverts will result in me contacting administrators for support. To prove a citation is not needed, the best way is to point to the part of the article which accompanies the citation in the intro. Of course, this is not the only way.

"In everyday life many societies" : Keyword "societies" does not appear in the rest of the article. No section appears to be about societies's definitions of race.

"- these are the groups we": The use of first person pronouns violates MOS:FIRSTPERSON. Reverting this was wrong.

"tend to call "races"": This becomes a controversial statement when coupled with the use of first person.

"Because the patterns of variation of human genetic traits are clinal with a gradual change in trait frequency between population clusters": The accompanying citation states that human genetic traits are clinal only for "population pairs from the same cluster", NOT between clusters: "However, for pairs from different clusters, genetic distance is generally larger than that between intracluster pairs that have the same geographic distance." Stating "patterns of variation of human genetic traits are clinal" is false, according to this citation.

"This is due to endogamy within kin groups and lineages or national, cultural or linguistic boundaries": Keywords "endogamy", "kin", "lineages", "culture" do not appear in the rest of the article. No section appears to be about endogamy.

"if a person has light skin, light hair and blue eyes, a combination of traits that seems to have evolved in Northern Europe": WP:LEADCITE states "The lead must conform to verifiability and other policies." This claim is not supported by the in-body text.

"Genetic analysis enables us": The use of first person pronouns violates MOS:FIRSTPERSON. Reverting this was wrong.

"to determine the geographic ancestry of a person pinpointing the migrational history of a person's ancestors with a high degree of accuracy": This becomes a controversial statement when coupled with the use of first person.

"In that way there is a distinct statistical correlation between gene frequencies and racial categories": This is unambiguously controversial.

"it is not the case that there are any specific genes, that can be used to determine a person's race.": This is unambiguously controversial.

"Most physical anthropologists": Keyword "anthropologist" is used, but the given anthropologist is not labeled a "physical" anthropologist.

"consider race to be primarily a social category that does not correspond significantly with biological variation": This needs a citation because there are no obvious physical anthropologists cited in the article.

"forensic anthropologists, consider race a useful biological category." The accompanying citation for this states "In this country that person is likely to have been labeled Black regardless of whether or not such a race actually exists in nature."

"They argue that it is possible to determine race from physical remains": See above.

"Medical practitioners also sometimes argue": This is cited well in the article and does not need a citation or a disambiguation on the "who" tag. I retract my tags.

"Others argue": "Others" here does not seem to refer to any group.

Travis Daily (talk, edits) 02:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * content sourced in the body does not need to be cited in the lead. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  03:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * And as I've said on his talk page, he needs WP:CONSENSUS and tag bombing rarely receives that. It is very aggressive and so far I've seen nothing positive from this editor. And when did the idea that forensic anthropologists consider race a useful biological category become challenged? Dougweller (talk) 11:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the specificity of your comments here on the talk page. I think that there is much that we (and here, "we" means "we Wikipedians discussing editing this article" ☺ ) can productively discuss about specific statements in the article and how well they are sourced. I was most aware of one small subsection (the only subsection I have actively edited in a long while here) of the article when I first saw your tagging of the lede. You have retracted your tags on that one subsection (which I may still improve, as I have recently been doing research on the topic). I have a less strongly developed opinion on the other subsections of this article, and I will go look at them with fresh eyes now that you have drawn attention to statements in those that may need reexamination--or, at least, better footnoting--in light of the best reliable sources on the topic. I invite interested editors who would like to review and possibly extensively revise the article to consult a source list I have compiled for editors of this article and editors of articles on related topics. Thanks for your attention to detail. I'll read through the article and see what needs fixing. Something always needs fixing on Wikipedia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, the article has improved from the worst condition I ever saw it in even before today, but it does need more work, so I'm checking through the article to verify the source citations (I already had many of the sources at hand in my office, and downloaded more today with online library access). The article plainly needs more references to reliable, secondary sources and not so many to older primary research studies that haven't been replicated. The article also needs, as the Wikipedian who opened this thread points out, more coordination between the lede paragraphs at the very beginning of the article and the statements that are actually found in article text once the references are improved. Feel free to comment (or join in the work) as I slog along. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:12, 23 September 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)

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)

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? Reverting 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)