User talk:Carwil/Human genetic clustering

Needs serious editing and removal of irrelevant references
It seems like nearly half of the article's quotes come from one Dorothy Roberts, who is an anti-race crusading law professor and not a scientist. It's clear that whoever added those is on a mission to balance out the article, but has had trouble finding strong support for his ideological views among actual experts, and has sullied the article with the overuse of her quotes. I'm not for removing them all (and I just took out a couple particularly political ones), but they need to be seriously trimmed down, much more than what I've done. I'm hoping someone else will take a look as there are just so many of them that I'd struggle to do the amount of pruning and rewriting required. Nonetheless, this article contains important information and it's needed on Wikipedia, especially after removal of the A.F. Edwards discussion from the Human Genetic Diversity article. ThVa (talk) 17:16, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Population clustering from copy number variation genotypes
This topic should be discussed in this article. It is discussed in this article and includes this figure. --Saul Greenberg (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hopeless article
The text in this article is an incoherent rambling with no structure. It's also based almost entirely on primary sources. Hardly anything from here is salvageable besides the references and pictures. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I know that you've stopped editing Wikipedia, Tijfo098, at least for now or under your Tijfo098 username, but I felt the need to state that I just got through calling this article a mess, and I see that the first section after this pretty much does as well. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

restored article
The article was recently reduced to a stub with no discussion. I have restored the article to it's non-stub state. aprock (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * All the edits were carefully explained and relevant material moved to other articles. This article now has many inaccuracies and overlap with other articles. I will restore prior state.Miradre (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I see that you have reverted again. Please explain here on talk. See my above response.Miradre (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Terrible
This article is rambling and awful. Filled with typos and irrelevant references. COPY EDIT, people. 142.244.5.202 (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Jenks natural breaks
Has jenks natural breaks ever been used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14F:8000:FB6B:21D3:AE71:AA2B:9B5D (talk) 15:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Opposition by Grayfell
A user named "Grayfell" is reverting and opposing additions of sourced content I made from experts David Reich and Michel Tibayrenc. He is clearly POV pushing, and now claiming this content is "non-neutral". What does he even mean? None of the content is fully non-neutral - that is the point of building an article. We provide a balanced synthesis of information from reliable and valid sources of differing viewpoints. Reich and Tibayrenc are experts in this subject area, and I entered information almost verbatim from them. Grayfell's POV pushing is not a valid reason to re-vert. His claims of "whitewashing racialism" clearly show he has a massive ideological bias here, and an unwarranted one. The content I entered is what that sources I added state, and his perspective or opinion on them is irrelevant anyway. Grayfell's opinion is not greater or more valuable than that of Reich or Tibayrenc, so his personal opinion of them is an unacceptable basis for such academic content to not be included. I already have tried to compromise with him by re-wording my initial edit (he opposed the use of the word "however"), but he has not reciprocated with any attempts at compromise and has already violated WP:3RR. 142.118.184.153 (talk) 22:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * As I said at Talk:Racialism regarding the same basic issue, Reich's position cannot be taken in a vacuum anymore than "race" can be taken in a vacuum. From context, it is not clear exactly what Reich's point was, because even his own defenders agree he was misinterpreted. Why would the article emphasize this one perspective, stripped of any of that context? This would be cherry-picking and a disservice to both the reader, and to Reich. Again, as I said elsewhere, Reich comments have been specifically identified as sloppy (etc.) for how easy they are to misinterpret to support something Reich opposes. My opinion of Reich doesn't matter any more than yours does. What matters is what reliable, independent sources have to say. As for Michel Tibayrenc, please find an independent source for this so we can evaluate significance, and explain to readers who this person is and why their perspective would belong. Lacking this, these are just arbitrarily selected primary sources in an ocean of primary sources. You also applied two sources for one quote, which makes it difficult to verify. That an author quotes himself in a later work doesn't make this perspective anymore or less significant. Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I have made three reverts, so I have not violated 3RR. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not the one who determines the validity of opinions from experts. Reich has stated clearly that his critics misinterpreted him, not that he denies anything that he stated. He has stood by all of his comments on this issue and has not taken anything back. Your inclusion of the views of unqualified critiques is irrelevant to the inclusion of Reich or Tibayrenc. They are not experts in this area, and in any case, their opposition does not negate in any way Reich or his statements. Reich and Tibayrenc, however, are both experts in their fields today, and their opinions can be added in this article. Reich and Tibayrenc ARE independent sources. Who says they are not independent? You? What do you mean? Where is your authority to claim they are not "neutral"? You are the one who is not being neutral here because you disagree with them. That is POV pushing, and is NOT a reason not to include their material. These sources are just as valid as any of the others in the article. Reich's statement is perfectly valid in a section on the relation between clustering and race. So is that of Tibayrenc. You cannot decide to remove them, while including material from other scientists. Reich and Tibayrenc are both geneticists and biologists, and there comments, opinions and findings are relevant to the discussion in the section where I entered them.
 * You have not provided a single valid contention for the inclusion of Tibayrenc or his comments. That material will be reinstated. As for Reich, I will discuss further, but that quotation is not just from the editorial, but also from his book (where he goes into even greater detail for the existence of biological constructs that correlate with colloquial race). As for WP:3RR, you are not supposed to make 3 at all, and that is only a guideline. If you are an experienced editor, you should know better and have followed WP:BRD. Your opposition to the inclusion of Reich and Tibayrenc is purely ideological. Opposition or critique is not grounds according to WP for the exclusion of content from experts. 142.118.184.153 (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I also do not know what you mean by "independent" source with regards to Tibayrenc. The American Journal of Human Genetics IS a valid, reliable and independent source. I entered Tibayrenc's specific statements about race. Perhaps they could be paraphrased instead of directly quoted, but direct quotes are perfectly acceptable, and are used throughout the section where I entered them. 142.118.184.153 (talk) 23:39, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * As per WP:3RR: "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times." 142.118.184.153 (talk) 23:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias are tertiary sources. The purpose of the project is specifically to provide context for topics, otherwise we would be a dictionary. The generally accepted standard for this is via WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDY sources, with WP:PRIMARY sources used to fill-in important details. Reich is not independent of Reich, and Tibayrenc is not independent of Tibayrenc. Taking a controversial comment and stripping it of context is directly contrary to this standard, and therefore to the purpose of Wikipedia.
 * As I said, there is an ocean of primary sources we could be citing. The goal is not to include random quotes taken from random works from random scientists who have written about this topic. If Tibayrenc's perspective is significant, it should be supported by independent sources. If, instead, it is a summary of consensus, there should be some indicator that he is the correct voice for summarizing this. Neither of these basic standard have been addressed, much less met.
 * On Human Nature: Biology, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, and Religion doesn't appear to include the cited quote, so I'm, not sure why you added it. At a glance, it does reaffirm that race is a social construct ("It undoubtedly is"), and that whether or not race "exists" is "largely a matter of definition, selection criteria, and semantic strategy." As my quotes show, cherry-picking to support a prior assumption is very easy.
 * Announcing "That material will be reinstated" is a declaration that you intend to edit war. As an experienced editor, I would recommend against this. Grayfell (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedias do provide context for topics, and that includes providing a balanced WP:Neutral Point of View. I am not taking statements out of context, and this whole article is filled with direct quotations from experts. They do not need to be "independent" of their own expert opinions. What do you even mean here? Opinions from expert academics are perfectly valid for inclusion. If you disagree, then why are you not removing all of the other opinions from experts in the article? It appears you are still POV pushing. The content I entered is found in On Human Nature: Biology, Psychology, Ethics, Politics, and Religion, which he cites in his reply to the ASHG. That is why it was added, because the information is taken from that book. Just like Reich, it shows that the biological categories which can colloquially be called "race" do exist, while also outlining the problems and deficiencies with the use of race due to it often being a social construct. As you pointed out, he quite clearly says the levels of difference between populations can be sufficient for categories like subspecies and race, let alone other labels (population, etc.). I did not intend to take him out of context at all, but merely to add an opinion on the issue to provide more balance to this article. There are plenty of quotes already in the article about the deficiencies of using race, or limitations. This information from Reich and Tibayrenc merely provides more information and detail from very recent (2018 and 2019) and expert sources, with specifically comments on what validity (or lack thereof) there is of race and population differences that colloquial racial terms refer to. Given that the debate about the usefulness of race is not settled, and debated more than ever (another valid point made by Tibayrenc), this is highly pertinent. Reich and Tibayrenc both clearly make their statements to emphasize that the level of biological difference associated with colloquial race IS real, even if race as a category in humans is highly problematic because it is often used as a social construct. In any case, I'm not sure what problem you have here. Would you be happy with me entering the information as paraphrased instead of direct quotes? 142.118.184.153 (talk) 00:13, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The quotations of Tibayrenc that you have taken from his book are also noteworthy, and could be included as well, either as quotes or paraphrased. If you want to include that information, then by all means. So what is it you are opposing exactly here? These opinions are valid, from both Reich and Tibayrenc, and are pertinent to the section I entered them in. Maybe they could be placed in a different paragraph or their own paragraph, but they should not be excluded simply because you personally may not like them. 142.118.184.153 (talk) 00:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)