Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Archive 15

RfC: Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups?
Should sections on genetics be removed from pages on ethnic groups? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: The investigation of a limited number of haplogroups (either Ydna, Mtdna or autosomal dna) in still very limited test groups of various populations, to track migrations of people that took place in prehistory, is a field still very much in it’s infancy. It is a field that is still changing all the time (which is a good thing by the way) and it is a highly specialized field. Publications in books, on the internet (blogs or summaries) are manifold and of varying quality and, taking into account that the field is still in it’s infancy, often contradictive. Although undoubtedly interesting I would like to raise a few concerns about the way this field is reflected on several Wikipedia pages on ethnic groups:


 * WP:SYNTH. Synthesis: It has come to my notice that many of these sections are based on more that one primary source. Interpreting these sources is not something that WP editors should be engaging in as they are not supposed to be qualified to do that.


 * Nitpicking: Various haplogroups and various investigation in them can tell different stories . Per haplogroup, (which stands to reason) or per investigation and blog or press release about them, which can also come to different conclusions about single haplogroups. This situation can allow an editor to emphasise those results that will show the ethnic group of his choice in the light he pleases, where descent or relations to other groups are concerned, and ignore others. I am aware that this doesn’t always happen consciously, but it’s a danger. Again. Wikipedia editors should not be in the business of interpreting highly specialised primary sources. This also often leads to editorialising


 * The notability of haplogroup genetics in relation to the subject at large: While descent is most certainly a subject of interest when it come to ethnic groups, deep time genetic relations and deep time migrations of populations do not always convey very useful information about the actual origins of modern ethnic groups, or indeed about the modern concept that the subject itself is. Ethnogenesis is a process that at various times in history has completely ignored (or mythisised) descent. Let alone deep time genetic descent.


 * What point do these sections make: This is a worrying subject for me because a lot of them seem to be about showing that ethnic group (a) has always been deeply related to ethnic group (b), while not so much with etnhic group (c) and (a) and (b) can’t stand (c) anyway. It is easy to see the potential for politically motivated mischief here. This also often leads to editorialising. That of course in combination with the possibility for nitpicking I mentioned before. On a matter concerning the subject of archeological cultures (which is admittedly not quite the same as genetics) I would like to quote an exchange I had with an editor here and in the edits beyond.


 * Potential for edit conflicts: It has been known that sections about the haplogroup genetics of ethnic groups have lead to conflicts between editors on a field of which they are not always sufficiently informed. Intrapolations of unsourced personal opinions of editors with an agenda do occur. For instance here and here and then of course you also get this and also this as a reaction to why the information added is not in the source given. Just a few examples. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal Aside from DNA studies being in their infancy, articles have been developed to the point of being WP:UNDUE, WP:OFFTOPIC, WP:SYNTH, and just plain breaches of WP:NOR. For example, the Bulgarians article, as it currently stands, has more emphasis on "Ethnogenesis" and "Genetic origins" than it does on culture, language, etc. (Please note that I've directed other editors to a version I'd reverted to before even more DNA research - the latest and most correct, of course!! - had been added). Given the large shifts in information as research evolves, such genetic data is being proven to be incorrect every year, and it is not the central point of ethnicity actually is. Ethnic groups are being treated as if we're examining a completely different species of human to the rest of humanity. Either these articles are about cultural, historical, religious and linguistic differences that are the markers of what makes different ethnic groups unique, as well as the commonality between human ethnicities, or ethnicity is an object that can be dissected and, in case you were adopted and brought up by the wrong species, you should have a DNA test and moved to the correct ghetto in order to assimilate with your own. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment This suggestion is very bizzare. Genetics, DNA and encyclopedias are at least scientific(biological) values and you may not separate them. Culuture and ethnic groups will always be only a matter of human imagination as all ethnic groups will be. Leaving the primitive and excluding the serious matters would not come out to be a such great deal. The argument supporting the removal is that occassianally some editors often introduce synthesis, editorialising, and the matter changes over time? Well, this definitely does not mean that genetics should be removed all over the articles only about ethnic group and remained elsewhere. Even if your opinion that the studies are limited and change over time come out to be true, despite this is not evidenced, the same genetic information and frequencies of ethnic groups will remain in articles like Origin hypotheses of the Croats, Genetic history of the British Isles, Genetic studies on Serbs, Genetic history of Europe, List of R1a frequency by population but be excluded form articles like Serbs, Croats and British people. Does this matter so much? If not, you should either change the proposal to "remove chromosome studies all over Wikipedia" or cancel the current one. If you think that these studies are of poor quality and want to extermine them, they are actually peer-reviewed and will always remain in other articles in Wikipedia because you do not have arguments against them. Prior to getting a consensus, please do not apply this completely unjustified agenda all over the encyclopedia as you already did. I suggest an intermmediate solution instead - to deal with the arguable "SYNTH" information ocasionally, as it is ocassionally introduced, probably to keep the genetics brief instead of radically removing it from all ethnic groups' articles.  87.227.209.96 (talk) 08:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal: These sections may have undue weight placed on them, meaning that they need shrinking, but they appear to be fundamentally important information that should not be removed. Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 10:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * A valid point which could be included in an advice page for example. Challenge: people trying to reduce the size of a genetics sections are actually often trying to filter and effectively change the impression. (For example, in a case I just saw today, removing Portuguese people from tables of data about genetic markers in Europe which show signs of ancient movements of peoples from Africa.) Apart from just reducing the undue bits, there is also of course the valid concern of how ethnicity is not only a field defined by geneticists, who may indeed be quite bad at that. So BALANCE is also a nice aim, but also difficult.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal. This is valid and relevant scientific content. If other aspects of ethnic groups are not sufficiently covered on certain pages, please improve/expand these other aspects. My very best wishes (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal: I'm aware of several articles where genealogy and genetics sections - particularly those which pertain to a number of Semitic groups - are hotbeds for editors trying to push one political agenda or another. To a lesser degree this is manifested in any number of articles covering non-indigenous populations (say, Afrikaners). I've also encountered a number of articles which place too much emphasis on ethnic makeup as a means to identify said groups, without taking into consideration greater factors such as cultural and linguistic ties and self-identification. For instance, if Group A originated in Region X, but due to a history of migration are in the process of being integrated with other groups in Region Z, which they have come to identify with culturally and linguistically. This is another very worrying form of POV that has the tendency to get hijacked for nationalist and racial agendas as much as political ones. I don't deny it's frustrating to police sections pertaining to genetics or distant ancestral roots for these reasons. But removing them altogether is the easy - and frankly, laziest - course. We're not discussing a proper solution to resolving the undue weight and NPOV problems in genetic admixture sections, we're discussing a cop out: "instead of trying to fix a problem with said topic, get rid of the whole topic altogether so we won't have to worry about it".


 * As I've mentioned on a previous occasion, I understand this logic, I just disagree. Removal of valuable and well-researched content in the interests of avoiding perceived future controversy and/or the editing conflicts that will invariably have to be sorted does not set a good precedent for this encyclopedia at all. It'll ease the workload of dispute resolutions and admins, sure... at the expense of content. That's a trade off I simply cannot in good conscience support. And with regards to the fact that certain fields of DNA research are just now coming into their own, that's no excuse to put off discussing genetic/ancestral lines. In fact, it's one of the most absurd arguments I've ever heard on this page. Never put off until tomorrow what you can do today. As and when sufficient advances have been made in the relevant fields, we can simply continue to graft their findings into the existing sections, or modify the existing information accordingly. Wikipedia has always worked with what we have, here and now, instead of waiting expectantly for the future to come to us. Just my two cents. Thanks, -- Katan gais (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm finding the opposition arguments to be bizarre in themselves with lengthy diatribes about reams of undue information, with no indication that any of the editors arguing that the genetics content is important actually understand the research, yet stating that, because it's a new field of science, inclusion must be addressed immediately because it is somehow falsely suppressing "progress" for these articles. There are already articles on genetic studies that can be linked to for readers who want to wade through things like this. Please read it (and its subsections) carefully and explain how this is edifying for a reader who wants to know something about Bulgarians, or any other European ethnic group, or why such information should not be a WP:SPINOFF article from Genetic history of Europe? Added to that, of those arguing for WP:ITSIMPORTANT to have haplogroups splattered across pages, how many of these editors actually have any idea of what any of it means? This is technical information, not something for amateur enthusiasts to play around with trying to interpret. Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia anyone can edit, but that is under the constraints of expert fields that aren't for just anyone to try to analyse. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Iryna, consider this section, for example. Why having this section about indigenous people of the British Isles was problematic? I do not see any reason to exclude it. This is understandable for an average reader and relevant to the subject of the page. Having sections about ancestral roots of various ethnic groups that combine genetic and history/humanitarian studies seems to be appropriate. My very best wishes (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that this RfC probably needs to be clarified. What is under discussion is not brief, general sections about ancestry, but protracted sections with content like this. By this time you have two or three editors nitpicking over the significance of mitochondrial DNA, rNA, autosomal DNA, etc. according to one research study over another (ultimately as reinterpreted by these editors who are no more proficient in the science than are the readers), we've had WP:BATTLEGROUND after battleground being used explicitly for the purpose of POV-pushing racist rubbish. No one is asking that short summary sections with a hatnote to the main article be eliminated: what is being asked is whether other editors want over half of every article on ethnic groups to be dedicated to protracted scientific jargon subject to arguments like this. Again, are these article focussed on specific ethnic groups or the number of haplogroups there may or may not have existed and editors being under pressure to ensure that anything added there is complete OR, or so far back in pre-history that we don't have a clue? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Just responding to a tingle on my talk page from Iryna. She's pointed up a real problem. It remains to be seen, per consensus, whether her proposal we remove this wholesale is the best solution. I edit a lot of articles dealing with Jewish history, and they have their genetics sections, commingling genetic papers or immediate-response newspaper articles (totally unreliable, negative or positive). Much of this is agenda driven, and the results of several scientific papers over 15-20 years have never benefited from a sharp overview by an editor who can synthesize the material with a sharp eye. Most editors adding this stuff have an agenda, to prove something. The result is unreadable generally, and not encyclopedic. I often think the solution would be to find or wait until they come out, specialist books with a relatively neutral overview of the topic, and just paraphrase them. This would avoid what's going on, snippety edits from the abstract by people who never read the whole paper with competent eyes. What Iryna has done is to point up a serious issue: it needs far wider review and input, and probably the best approach would be to get some cross-wiki coalition of people with a thorough knowledge of the technical side to look at these sections slowly, and provide a synthesis on the talk page so it can be discussed and edited in, in such a form that people won't skip the marshaled morasses of but, however blobs that make this all overtechnical and confusing to the general reader.Nishidani (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * To be more concretely constructive, one argument for removal as an automatic measure to the talk page when the blob is obviously problematical, would be to constrain editors to actually fix these patched up sections. Unless you get this stuff right, it doesn't go in. A consensus simply on retention means the problem most of us recognize will never be addressed. Some directive stating that: 'Articles with DNA studies on ethnicity must pass basic levels of comprehensive review of the sources, accurate synthesis and clear expository prose that a general reader can grasp, before they can be entered into an appropriate section of an article. When in doubt remove to the talk page, and put in an RfC tag to get a specialist to look over it,' or something along those lines. Nishidani (talk) 15:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't recall ever having seen such a section that was well-sourced, NPOV, etc. Everyone I can recall has had problems. Doug Weller  talk 12:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly support improving upon the serious existing issues in genetics or genealogy sections instead of removing them altogether, which is what is being proposed. BTW, if especially problematic sections like the one Iryna Harpy mentioned in Bulgarians are not edifying to the readership, they should be individually challenged and removed by consensus. The answer is not a blanket ban on all similar sections across the encyclopedia. -- Katan gais (talk) 13:27, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we all (and Iryna) agree that well-written sections about ancestral roots of various ethnic groups that combine genetic and history/humanitarian studies are appropriate (like here). Hence a blanket removal of all genetic information from all pages would not be appropriate. OK. On the other hand, yes, the section on the page about Bulgarians is a content fork and does not belong there.  Cases like that are already covered by existing policies and guidelines, but should be treated on the case to case basis. I can easily imagine a small and properly written subsection about the ancestry of Bulgarians according to genetic studies. I do not think the blanket removal is solution. My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * @User:Doug Weller. I think there might be a few which have been acceptable at least for a short period. Nishidani and I have tried hard to watch the Jewish one for example. I have made a few bursts of effort on others. Usually though, a few months later it is hard to keep up. The publications move fast, and there are editors who hit these articles in "tricky" ways, for example by adjusting data as if there had been a typo. You have to check the actual article, and I can promise you that when you do this it is incredible how often you find that it pure fraud. Bad faith editing is definitely a big part of what makes it difficult. But should WP give up on a subject because it attracts bad editors? (Tempting to say yes, I know.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Andrew's caught more eloquently what my basic feel for this is. Outright removal would be problematical. But since we all agree there's a problem, we should try to find some workable solution. As I said, mere retention is an open sesame for poor or bad practice editing to persist. The Bulgarian link Iryna gave is instructive. There is a logjam of the available sources, which will go over most readers' heads, but underneath it is a synthesis which, though it needs considerable tightening, looks like what a readable encyclopedic overview should look like.compare this first part with the following synthesis. The first part could be shifted to a specific page, and the second retained on the main article. That sort of thing. Nishidani (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal - per WP:COMMON SENSE and WP:IRRELEVANT. Genetic studies have no relevance to the ethnicity people decide to declare.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Self-reported race/ethnicity in the age of genomic research: its potential impact on understanding health disparities--Moxy (talk) 14:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal (as a policy). I think making a simple policy like this will simply never work because it clashes with core content policy. The test should be whether the ethnic group in question has had significant notable material published about it. Relevance is not something we get definition, again as per core content policies, but something we look to published sources to define for us. I have worked on these problems a lot though over the years, and I perfectly understand the reasons for frustration. A big part of the problem is indeed the WP:SYNTH of primary sources. But there is a lack of secondary sources defining a consensus, because the field moves so fast. I simply can't think of a solution via policy at this time. Many attempts have been made over the years to argue that any field without a clear set of secondary sources should not be covered by WP but in practice making that happen seems impossible. (And, just to repeat the point, there will be ethnic groups where a reasonable consensus can be found in published sources.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Here is a secondary source explaining that there is a consensus among vast majority of genetics regarding this issue:
 * The only clash with core content policies would be giving undue weight to scientific explanations of social constructs by allowing sections about genetic studies to remain in articles about particular ethnicities. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 09:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have missed some crucial words out of that quote, . Cordless Larry (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I somehow missed some crucial words. Here is full quote. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I somehow missed some crucial words. Here is full quote. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose blanket removal Because I think this is something it is entirely legitimate for a significant number of our readers to be interested in, and we best serve them by summarising the available information, and referring them to the best sources.  For many groups there have now been some very large studies done, giving some quite detailed information.  I see no advantage in suppressing these.  I do think, however, that any such treatments should primarily focus on the most recent studies, rather than older material which is often now very out of date.  Jheald (talk) 16:45, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal from ethnic articles, with the provisio that such articles have links to the relevant related genetics-specialised articles, depending on existence. Agree with Iryna that the majority of us are really out of our depth in competently deploying this material, and it should be left to the specialists in the community to concentrate on creating or improving robust, impeccably-sourced and NPOV specialist genetics articles on ethnic groups. Irondome (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Discussion noted at WikiProject Human Genetic History. Jheald (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: There are clearly problems with these sections, including POV and sourcing concerns, and I also think we need to keep an eye out for undue weight being given to material about genetics when the mainstream sociological understanding of ethnicity focuses at least as much on shared culture and language, but I don't think that blanket removal is the answer. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * As an amateur genealogist I use recreational DNA-testing extensively. These are the same tests that form the observational basis for the scientific research in the non-trivial connection between DNA and ethnic groups. Based on my experience I agree with the above. To be more specific, I think any entry related to DNA in ethnic groups should be supported by peer-reviewed scientific sources, preferably via a secondary source, i.e. a strict application of existing WP:RS policies. I expect that this will significantly reduce the amount of text related to DNA in ethnic groups in our articles. Lklundin (talk) 08:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal: I've always thought that the "genetic" aspect of the discussion around ethnicity attracts the last sort of people you'd want to argue with on Wikipedia, from casually racist liberals trying to mask their bigoted views as "science" (which often is anything but scientific) to outspoken chauvinist nationalists and Nazi-inspired eugenicists. Of course, this isn't always the case as some editors spend their time on this out of genuine curiosity and the desire to share knowledge, but more often than not someone is trying push an agenda with these topics and it is usually a nasty one - whether it's overt or through implications. Does this warrant the removal of "Genetics" sections from all ethnic group pages? Of course not, but it's tempting. What really justifies the removal is the fact that genetics has little to do with ethnicity, as ethnic groups are almost entirely socially constructed, based on culture and self-identity rather than a person's ancestry.


 * Many Europeans claim membership of one or more ethnic group without having any real knowledge about their genetic ancestry. Most statistics exploring ethnicity are based on the responses of study participants (their own view of which ethnic group they belong to, which is shaped by the society they were brought up in, is treated as the defining source for determining one's ethnic identity). Yes, there is a biological aspect in ethnicity, but it is insignificant compared to all the other linguistic, religious, historical and other such cultural factors. I'd say even the food you eat has potentially more power in defining your ethnicity than your genetically inherited characteristics (of course, this varies across regions, where in countries like the US skin colour almost entirely defines your ethnicity - but this is once again a simplification whereby people of vastly different genetic backgrounds are classified as either "white", "black" or "native" due to the historical context of America). Last but not least, these genetics sections are often badly-written and feature unprofessional interpretations of data by Wikipedians.


 * I feel as though I've written too much considering how many good reasons have been given for the removal already, so I'll sum up by saying that these sections should be removed as in various cases they have taken the spotlight for topics that are much greater in scale and more thematically diverse. If it's really necessary, give all these studies their own articles where you can monitor the fights between one group of people who think they're living in the 1930s and another, but please don't let them ruin the pages about ethnic groups as mixing the two seems to bring toxic results most of the time. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For example, do you think this section should be removed? It includes a lot of content related to Human evolutionary genetics. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Interestingly, your example is less than 50% about genetics (over half of the section - starting at Between the 8th and 11th centuries - is about the politics and national identity of the time). This is probably why it reads so much better. And I'll admit that the first few smaller paragraphs that are actually about genetics are indeed better written than most I've seen, but this doesn't change the fact that they're quite irrelevant in regards to ethnic identity. How does this have anything to do with several million Brits who do not have Celtic/Norse/Anglo-Saxon/Norman ancestry? I'm referring to - among others - the almost 5 000 000 people with Asian ancestry, the almost 2 000 000 identifying as "Black" or "Black British", the over 500 000 descendants of Poles living in the UK, the hundreds of thousands of other individuals whose parents were immigrants from distant countries with different genetic roots? All of them are citizens of Britain and most identify as British. They identify as British because they live in a society that was based on, among others, Celtic and Anglo-Saxon politics and they may know their folklore - they may identify with the values common across that society - but it has nothing at all to do with their genetics, because many of them have a different skin colour or their parents were Eastern Europeans, etc. Sure, your example speaks of indigenous people of the British Isles, but this does not equate to being British. Take an infant orphan with primarily Celtic/Anglo-Saxon ancestry and give him/her to be raised by a family in the middle of a different continent (in a country that wasn't colonised by the British Empire)... they will never see Britain and they will have pretty much nothing to do with it. Even the article you linked to, in its opening sentence, equates Britons to citizens of the UK and makes no mention of genetics. In some aspects a person from India is likely to have more in common culturally with the average inhabitant of Britain than the average Polish person with Brits, even though genetically Poles and Brits have more in common than Brits and Indians (I'm not referring to Native Americans, of course). --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 02:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal. Trying to give a biological meaning to a primarily cultural aspect of humankind, and that based on a small sample, is borderline racist. It's one thing to say "gene group X is more frequent in population of region Y" (e.g. in the article about gene group X or region Y) and a completely different thing to say "ethnic group X is defined by the following combination of Y, W, Z genes".Anonimu (talk) 18:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal. Ethnicity may be largely a social construct. But the correspondence or lack of correspondence to genetics is inherently interesting. One area of study (language, dress, religion, for instance) may be more subjective and the other—genetics—may be more objective. But the likelihood is great that some patterns can be observed between "outward" traits and inward (genetic) traits. In the final analysis we shouldn't be deciding on blanket removal. On a case by case basis we should be deciding if material justifies inclusion. Bus stop (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment on related issues I see that people are already moving these comments to separate articles. Like this one on the Bulgarian situation. Let's not do that for now User:IjonTichyIjonTichy. This is still under discussion and replacing the problems to other venues won't do anything to solve the question at hand. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * While it is appreciated that you wish to de-clutter the "Bulgarians" article, for the sake of other editors joining in the discussion here, could you please restore the section as was for an understanding of the issue. The SPINOFF article can simply be recreated at a later point dependent on the outcome of the RfC. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * , I'm worried that posts such as this, which you have been placing on relevant article talk pages, look like canvassing. It's fine to place notifications on those pages, but saying that "this will almost certainly result in the removal of the 'genetics' section" reads like scaremongering designed to attract editors who would oppose that outcome. The outcome of the RfC is not preordained, and notifications should be neutrally worded. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * :Hello Cordless Larry and user:Katangais. I'm pretty sure that notifications about this discussion on the relevant talkpages are allowed under Wikipedia rules. Just as long as they are stated neutrally and just inform people about the mere fact that this discussion is taking place. Everybody involved should take care that messages we place shouldn't involve any more than that. I'm planning to place a few.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That's what I said: neutrally worded notifications are acceptable, but stating that the RfC "will almost certainly result in the removal of the 'genetics' section" is not neutral in my view. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:40, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Cordless Larry you're right. user:Katangais. That's not the way to go about this. Let's make sure this doesn't happen again! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, . As long as a notification about the RfC isn't directed specifically at other editors you're familiar with, I wouldn't legitimately describe it as canvassing. Furthermore, I was under the impression that this discussion was to determine whether genetics sections should be removed from articles. Surely it's not weighty to also point out the specific section in the relevant article ("Genetics", "Genetic History", "DNA", etc) that will be affected and how, depending on consensus. We're deciding on whether to keep them or remove them after all. It only makes sense to elaborate. Now, per neutrality would you rather I wrote, "this will affect X section in this article by deciding whether it's removed or not"? -- Katan gais (talk) 21:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Katangais, it's enough to describe what the question at hand is. Talk about the consequences shouldn't be involved. You can do that here on this page. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:58, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Something like "an RfC concerning the appropriateness of genetics sections in ethnic group articles" would seem best to me. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal (as a policy). Note however that I think one or two sentences, such as the predominant genetic markers, suffice in ethnic group articles — large sections of Y-DNA results, markers, and their thousands of years of [theoretical] history is unneeded. I suggest transforming these independent sections to articles, with neutral names, "Genetic studies on X" (instead of "Origin of", "Genetic history of", etc.), and leaving, as suggested, one or two sentences. --Z oupan 23:31, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is that, instead of creating seperate articles such as "Genetic studies on X", these informations should be mentioned on the page of related haplogroups such as on Haplogroup R1a, Haplogroup R1b...46.221.212.141 (talk) 07:19, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In practice though many of those specialized articles suffer from many of the same problems as the genetics sections. They contain a lot of speculation about history and archaeology sourced from single research articles, and thus arguably primary material. Also they suffer from POV editing which makes it very difficult to keep their quality up.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal (as policy) In many articles the genetics sections are given huge amounts of undue weight, based on unreliable sources and synthesis. These should be removed and shortened. However in some articles they are warranted because there actually is a serious literature on the relation between ethnicity, identity, history and population genetics. These sections should not be removed. Hence, removal should be decided by editorial decisions on a case by case basis not by across the board decisions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:37, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

I support removal. Genetic studies are mostly pseudoscience. There are even some "studies" that were done with only 10-20 people. Additionally, other enclopedias do not include genetic sections. However, reliable genetic data can be mentioned on pages of related haplogroups such as on haplogroup R1a, R1b...46.221.212.141 (talk) 06:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal. I do not even understand why genetic studies on ethnic groups could not be mentioned if there are peer reviewed publications about this topic. If there are specific pages with specific content that cannot be verified, that specific content should be deleted instead of creating new and new policies to limit our free encyclopedia. Borsoka (talk) 08:52, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal Per Borsoka comment. According to genetics studies nearly every ethnic group has a diverse set of haplogroups, intersected with same of other ethnic groups. So racists and chauvinists wold be rather upset than pleased with such information. Cathry (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Just as a reality check, could you explain how this sits comfortably in the Bulgarians article? What does it convey to the reader about the ethnic group known as 'Bulgarians', and how will it prevent racists and chauvinists from having their evil way around the presentation of any ethnic group? Is this information 'fit for purpose' in an article on the ethnic group 'Bulgarians', or is it WP:OFFTOPIC and seriously muddled up with content from self-published Wordpress and other blogs?
 * Every statement and link should be checked there. There are not scientific sources and original researches in Bulgarians and Genetic studies on Bulgarians articles now. Cathry (talk) 04:54, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes there are: the section is still in the article right now, as well as having been moved across into its own article until this RfC is over so that editors can compare the two presentations. I've started working through the content of the 'as an article unto itself version' here and have already found multiple usage of blogs of unknowns. The other fact is that not all ethnic group articles gets as much attention as others. Until I'd started making some noise about it, I appear to have been the only editor around on a regular basis actually watching the "Bulgarians" article because I've been trying to keep on top of vandalism and other issues on my own for months. If I get a notification that a change has been made, I eventually check back on it (even if it's over a week later) because no other editors have checked. Wikipedia is not in a position of being so well manned by editors that every article has page watchers that will check on content changes within a few hours. It should also not be down to me to wade through the newly introduced content and argue with the IP who has kept coming back to reintroduce it that their sources are mostly spurious at best. I am capable of reading through the sources being used and guessing at whether they're credible, but I am not capable of evaluating whether this is FRINGE, problematic, NPOV, CHERRY picked or any other policy-breaker because I am not an expert and would have to depend on an expert, or an expert scholar's secondary research breakdown of what the research means. That which has not been gleaned from blogs is predominantly from WP:PRIMARY sources which are not for editors to interpret because that is a violation of WP:OR. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Further on the subject of genetics being some sort of preventative measure against racism, I beg to differ. A cursory look at recent history (What Science Says About Race and Genetics; Nicholas Wade), and history in general (Scientific racism) actively refutes such an assertion. DNA research cuts both ways, but that is not the issue at hand here. No one is talking about the censorship of research, but where it is appropriate and inappropriate to use it and, more specifically, at whether non-expert editors are qualified to present it. Please compare the difference between Genetic studies on Bulgarians as an article unto itself as compared to the same content inserted into the article on the ethnic group Bulgarians. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:11, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal Per Katangais; the misuse of genetic studies to support political narratives on Wikipedia, and the lack of knowledge of genetic studies on the part of the average Wikipedian, are not grounds for a blanket removal of the genetic sections. George Al-Shami (talk) 21:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal Considering you can now do cheek swabs and send them to ANCESTRY.COM and quite a few other places to receive back documentation of your constituent biological heritage piece parts, it's a bit Luddite to suggest that an encyclopedia should censor such information in its articles, for any reason. VєсrumЬа ►TALK
 * In fact that is exactly a reason that wikipedia should be able to either provide its readers with information that is either better than the commercial products (which most experts consider highly problematic for a host of reasons), or no information at all. We need a higher standard of evidence here that whatever someone got from 23andMe and a couple of blogs.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:40, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think you've actually read what this RfC is about. Of course you can have your DNA analysed. Does this mean that, by virtue of your having a copy of your DNA breakdown and reading self-published blogs, you've suddenly become an authority on what your own readings (much less those in comprehensive scientific research reports) actually mean? As has already been suggested below, the standard for research should be parallel to the sourcing prerequisites for MEDRS. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:21, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal. The genetic traits of an ethnic group are an important and distinctive aspect of them, and show their relative genetic affinities with other groups, and give insight into their ancestry, so it is absurd to remove such essential information. Hebel and Iryna- quit lying by saying that population genetics is in its infancy; it hasn't been in its infancy since the early 00s, over a decade ago. Saying that these informative sections should be removed entirely simply because they are often flawed in some way, or because people are likely to fight over them or use them for some agenda, are irrelevant and insincere non-sequiter arguments that have nothing to do with the general importance of such information. Clearly there is a political motive behind this crusade to remove this important information, which can be seen in some of the comments made by the pro-removal people, what with the false accusations of racism and pseudoscience, and Iryna's bizarre false accusation of treating different ethnic groups as different species and seeking to put them into separate ghettos. Blucdgl (talk) 09:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not helpful to accuse other editors of lying, . Please assume good faith. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The genetic traits of an ethnic group are an important and distinctive aspect of them... why? Because they allow certain organisations and conservative states to pursue politics of exclusion that marginalise those who don't fit their definition of a "true" member of the local dominant ethnic group? Because they give people justifications for forbidding a teenager born and raised in Britain to identify culturally with his or her peers due to the fact that their parents were Romanians? Because they allow for the exclusion of individuals with "black" African ancestry from ever being considered a native of Poland, despite the decades they have spent living there? --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I also want to point out that scientific theory and research (even the most up-to-date recent studies), just like that of other disciplines, is never completely free of agendas or values. Very few things in life - if anything at all - are truly objective. Just as some early anthropological research has been used to justify the "inferiority" of "primitive" ethnic groups and thus the reason why it's ok to colonise and bring "civilisation" to their lands, eventually transforming into more progressive schools of thought that sought to understand other peoples, and much of modern sociology often employing identity politics in an effort to "liberate" disadvantaged groups in society, genetic studies are time and time again used to show how certain ethnic groups are more closely related and should not mix with the others. Whether you like it or not, these are the logical conclusions of most of this research (be it scientific or not) and the content concerning this created by Wikipedians on pages of ethnic groups fully reflects this. --Samotny Wędrowiec (talk) 16:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow, Samotny, those are some highly libellous and ridiculous accusations of motives and "logical conclusions" that you are making, not to mention the fact that you are clearly projecting your own presence of a political motive onto the honest researchers, whose only motive is to attain knowledge. I looked at Samotny's userpage and saw that he is an admitted "libertarian socialist", aka a social anarchist or anarcho-socialist. I happen to know that there is an anarcho-socialist political agenda to destroy all biological knowledge of races and ethnicities. I know that because I myself am against authoritarianism and hierarchy, and have been in the company of many anarchists, the majority of which are anarcho-socialists. I wonder if there are other anarcho-socialists among the pro-removal people. Blucdgl (talk) 02:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Some old notes. I just remembered that I long ago put some notes on this question on my userspace, from a time when I was spending a lot of effort on such articles and sections. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Andrew_Lancaster/My_ideas_on_controversial_genetics_articles I think in practice in cases where there is only a fast moving research literature the best thing to go for a dry summing up of the articles. Might not make great reading, but it should be possible. Any attempt to filter out conclusions and make something neat and conclusive tends to look like biasing. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal as a standard practice to be followed in any or all cases, although I have no real objections if sections with no particularly valid content were removed. I think the problem here as others have pointed out above is the frequent misuse of such a section, not the possibly less frequent correct use of the section. Perhaps some sort of guideline of what sort of material should be included in such a section, and what material might not best be put in such a section, would be better. Alternately, maybe a separate section for genetic disorders common in specific ethnic groups might be better. John Carter (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal - Although language or culture can be (and often have been) borrowed or abandoned, genes are biologically inherited. Genetics are therefore fundamental to ancestral heritage. Soupforone (talk) 15:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal - WP:OR by Wikipedia editors who don't understand science and thus misrepresent findings.VictoriaGraysonTalk 15:12, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, we can't all be as gifted in science as you, but last time I checked peer reviewed sources weren't original research. Many of these genetics sections have information from books and magazines, and particularly reliable sources, which are peer reviewed, science academic journals, books, or magazines. And if they don't, then they simply need to edited and adjusted with the appropriate sources. We can definitely cite from sources such as these:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/12/genetic-study-reveals-surprising-ancestry-many-americans https://books.google.com/books?id=EKI3g79yYswC&pg=PA147&dq=african+americans+58+european+dna&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjutYT55dfMAhXLWj4KHV5RBJ4Q6AEIKzAB#v=onepage&q=african%20americans%2058%20european%20dna&f=false . So---oppose removal, per all the above. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment on scope of RfC
I think it is broadly understood that adopting an absolutist position is problematic and, probably, undesirable. Reading through comments/responses at this early stage in the RfC illustrates a desire to eliminate DNA research in practice, but not in theory for fear of incurring the wrath of the gods of progress. Thus far, however, proposals as to how to keep the beast under control all involve some form of expert checks to ensure that the content is up to par, not POV, etc. How do we maintain such a high level of scrutiny and re-reading of complex sources on a constant level (because that is how quickly the information is changing in the real world)? There are no 'consensus' versions to revert to simply because the pre-exiting content has been usurped by new research, therefore such content doesn't ever meet a 'done and dusted' level of perfection. The introduction of new research demands that regular editors on the articles involved read through convoluted material every time someone brings something new to the table. Such an expectation means that regulars must commit themselves to A) finding time to read through new research on demand (and assumes that they can access the sources there and then); B) actually genuinely understand these research materials. I can understand physics when Professor Brian Cox does one of his fabulous specials/series of specials and explains 'stuff' in concrete terms for me. That does not mean that I can read the sources he has studied and elicit facts I know to be correct according to contemporary standards in the field of physics.

Wikipedia is extremely proscribed when it comes to articles on medicine and other empirical sciences for good reason: if we're not experts, we're amateurs. Unlike history, politics, philosophy, etc. we can't be good amateurs, rusty experts who need to brush up, or ordinary people who can consult secondary sources and build up enough of a knowledge to be able to construct and maintain a half-way reasonable article. A brief appraisal of ancestry is fine because there are tertiary sources and more generalised secondary sources to check against for veracity. A reading of the latest word on haplogroups is beyond the average Wikipedian's capacity. That doesn't make us stupid, incompetent, or afraid of embracing the latest research: it makes us unable to present such content with any level of confidence as to whether it's true or misleading. If there are editors who want to dabble in genetics, have some competence in that area of science, there should be separate articles dealing with that specialised material. It is not part of the far more generalised content found in articles on ethnic groups.

Again, saying that it should be kept brief doesn't actually address what 'brief' means, or what 'appropriate' information is, nor what 'serious' literature/research is as opposed to SYNTH. How do we know when there is nothing intuitive about analysing scientific research? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it would make sense to adopt a strict sourcing policy for genetics sections - possibly MEDRS. There are so much unreviewed terrible genetic/ethnicity stuff out there.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:57, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If there are large sections of this nature, they should be treated as in the case with Bulgarians (see above), i.e. to create a separate page, Genetic studies on Bulgarians and replace this text by one or two phrases on main page about Bulgarians as ethnic group. My very best wishes (talk) 02:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * As has noted, we already have articles following the "Genetic studies on ETHNIC GROUP X" formula, so we now have a comparative article (with thanks to  for restoring the genetics content on the Bulgarians article for the time being) where we can see lengthy genetics content in situ within an ethnic group article, and as a separate article in Genetic studies on Bulgarians. Perhaps that is a solution of sorts but, as is also being noted, those articles need to be subject to a strict sourcing policy. I don't think you can type 'haplogroup', 'genetic studies of' into Google without thousands of articles in every fringe blog hosting domain being coughed up.


 * I'm also sure that most of you will remember at least one article in which regulars have just given up when genetics are introduced despite the fact that there are are already dedicated articles articles in place (I'm thinking of Genetic studies on Jews), yet months of frustrating, time consuming, barely civil discussion on the talk page of Ashkenazi Jews ensued because it became absolutely imperative that there be more content featuring genetic studies over and above anything about their rich and complex history and cultural life. For all of that, a good couple of years on and the article still features far too much in the way of genetic studies. Similar problems have arisen on so many such articles where editors end up walking away rather than face TBANs, blocks, or just having to argue the same things over and over. In the end, it's the article and reader that suffer from being subjected to content that should be elsewhere. If the most prominent and interesting features of any ethnic group revolves around whether their forebears spent 20,000 years in the most northerly part of the Indian subcontinent, tend to have a slightly longer middle finger than the Homo Sapiens Sapiens who spent 12,000 years crossing South-East Asia and ended up spreading out towards and into the Pacific, then ethnic groups and their cultures are a lot more boring that I've always thought them to be. I don't believe that this can be sorted out using WP:COMMONSENSE because there are always going to be editors who are going to insist that a brief summary into the habitation of/inhabitants of a territory is not enough.


 * Would it be fair to assume that, per 's suggestion, there is room for a policy decision along the lines of MEDRS? --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Support removal from ethnic articles, with the provisio that such articles have links to the relevant related genetics-specialised articles, depending on existence. Agree with Iryna that the majority of us are really out of our depth in competently deploying this material, and it should be left to the specialists in the community to concentrate on creating or improving robust, impeccably-sourced and NPOV specialist genetics articles on ethnic groups. Irondome (talk) 23:58, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Making links is not enough. One needs a brief and understandable summary of something that genetic studies tell on the origin of an ethnic group, at least a few phrases. My very best wishes (talk) 00:25, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That is contingent on their being quality WP:RS articles on the subject matter in the first instance. There is no benefit in having a summary based on the work of a couple of enthusiasts with no recognised credentials running self-published sites. Content needs to be verified as being state of the science, not state of whatever someone has pulled together as an autodidact (even if in good faith). It simply is not an area for amateurs. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously, no one objects to using good sources. However, this is not the question asked on the RfC. If someone asked "should we remove such and such poorly sourced materials?" everyone would agree that we should. However, at least some of these materials are not at all poorly sourced. My very best wishes (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * BAsically I think the argument can be made that MEDRS actually applies to this topic already and just needs to be enforced.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:42, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not think MEDRS can be used as the rule for subjects which often involve discussions about ethnicity and historical movements of people. There is an innate multidisciplinary aspect to this type of subject which makes it difficult. Once again such a blunt weapon approach will be extremely easy to "game". A POV pusher can cite a geneticist to over-rule historians for example? (BTW I think this has come up MANY times on WP:RSN.) On the other hand the idea of having some specific guidelines somewhere for this specific type of content, could make sense.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, a geneticist published in a MEDRS can overrule a historian on the topic of genetic history. We are talking only about the genetics sections in ethnicity article, not on the entire topic of the ethnicity. Genetics sections are basically biomedical sections within aarticles on culture historical topics, and MEDRS can be and should be applied to those sections- though not to the rest of the article (here WP:HISTRS should apply). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:43, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Andrew Lancaster what is being proposed with regard to MEDRS is only the discussion of the genetic study and its interpretation. (reviews are where the field validates or invalidates analyses and conclusions presented in research papers) Other kinds of historical evidence could never be subject to MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sounds good in theory, but I can tell you that it is the crossover areas which are PRECISELY the ones where the silly editing happens and which create the problems needing the most attention. Population genetics articles which talk about medical issues are not the big issue here I think. I think it is more the ones which say that for example Afghans descend from the armies of Alexander the Great, or that Anglo Saxon England must have had an "Apartheid" system of government. (These were claims in single genetics articles, and for a few years until that was criticized by other genetics articles it was hard not to at least mention these as claims. At least after a while we could mention the criticisms too.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing what I am saying. If we require that when somebody wants to use evidence from actual genetics work (e.g sequencing) to make an historical argument, they have to source that per MEDRS, the rank speculation would be stopped in its tracks. That is what raising source quality does. Right?  This is not talking at all about handwavy bullshit about "descending from" - just the genetic studies, per the OP. Jytdog (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I do not believe we can have a "half way house" solution on this issue. The idea that we can have a few brief sentences in ethnic articles dealing with genetic aspects is a perpetual open invitation for edit warring, bad feelings and POV pushing of all stripes. a short section on this issue will inevitably grow into a vast problematic blight in the article. Strongly recommend that a task force be created with our project genetics colleagues to create intelligent, up to date and powerfully sourced articles on the specific genetic aspects of the various ethic groups that we have strong sources on. Genetic speculation by non experts should be ruthlessly excised from general ethnic articles. Links can then be provided so that the general reader gets an up to date NPOV expert overview of current research on ethnic genetics. Also strongly support MEDRS standards being applied to these articles. Irondome (talk) 02:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I've been following along. I think this content is arguably "biomedical" and MEDRS could be argued to apply.  If all content about this kind of genetic analysis and what it means were sourced to high quality reviews, and never to the primary source where the results were first published, a lot of the problems would likely go away. Jytdog (talk) 02:59, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. Sorry, I do not understand the reasons of the creation of a new policy. As far as I know, WP:NOR and WP:Verify are to be applied in connection with articles on ethnic groups as well. I think, the problematic pages should be edited in accordance with the existing policies instead of creating new and new bans and starting long discussions. I am afraid that I am not able to follow the specific bans of wikiprojects any more. Why do you think that new editors will be ready to read and apply large collections of specific (and rarely well established) policies and bans? If there are peer reviewed publications about the results of genetic research of ethnic groups, why should we ignore them when writing of ethnic groups? Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If you are actually reading along there have been long-term and very entrenched battles about this content. The reason why is very clear.  And if you look at arbcom cases I think there are at least three cases arising from  disputes among ethnic groups that still have DS on them.   In the face of all that, the proposer went for a kind of "nuclear option" and proposed that we just ban discussion of this from those articles.  I don't think it will fly as that is not how we do things, but requiring higher sourcing standards ~should~ tamp it down.  Should. Jytdog (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I clearly understood that edit wars and unsuccessful attempts to delete or add material to specific articles gave rise to the above strange proposal. However, I still do not understand it: should we also delete all articles which are frequently subjects to edit wars and debates? Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyone wanting an inside seat on the sheer POV pushing genetics-has-solved-the-mystery-so-please-empty-the-page-of-historical-complexities edit-warring is invited to observe the shenanigans at Khazar theory of Ashkenazi ancestry, preferably after having read Alexander Beider, Origins of Yiddish Dialects, Oxford University Press, 2015 pp.553-4, arguing reasonably that 20 years of genetic evidence has thrown no light on the topic, is skewed by politics and religious beliefs, and is methodologically, so far, deeply problematical. Half of this article is crammed with indigestible genetic 'proof' and any attempt to cite the same sources fully, to nuance the monocular slant with details that contradict the snippet, is reverted on sight.Nishidani (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realized that specific editors' specific problems with specific articles gave rise to this specific attempt to create a general ban. :) Borsoka (talk) 14:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose removal (as a policy) - Overview sections like at Paleo-Indians can be very basic and lead to more information at parent articles Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas.....no need to  orphan main articles and unhelpful for our readers to just have a link... summarizing sections  is the best way forward for our readers. All that is needed is proper sourcing ....not suppression   of information. People are simply going to go to other websites if this info is not here. Does deletion help? ( Don't leave our readers in the dark by deleting articles and  sections of sourced information.)  --Moxy (talk) 17:20, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Support removal The existance of these DNA analyses in ethnicity articles is due to a lack of understanding of the difference between ethnicity and the discreted interpretations of race. There are many sources confirming this such as and . Oncenawhile (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal (as a policy) but Support) - strong guideline as to what is/is not appropriate on such pages, and lengthy, complex, DNA analysis is clearly inappropriate. What I also don't understand is how sections which are WP:OR, not WP:RS, impenetrable English and numerous other faults are surviving, and if they are, how would a 'remove' policy help, since all other guidelines have been ignored? Pincrete (talk) 23:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose removal, which would seem like a knee-jerk reaction to the existence of some poor-quality sections. Those can be WP:PRESERVEd, while pressing content issues with them are covered by our well-established policies of WP:V/WP:RS and WP:UNDUE. LjL (talk) 00:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Oppose - think blanket ban is not justified, and this seems more an area to apply WP guidelines, and perhaps an opportunity for crafting some WP:GENETIC guidances. Markbassett (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No. The question is on total removal of these sections, so I give an absolute answer; they should be trimmed though. If nationalists editing articles is a risk, then it is a risk we face with every article on Wikipedia, because we are a volunteer project where people by-and-large edit only the articles that interest them personally. The only difference which I see between genetics sections and other sections on ethnicity articles, is a fear here of giving some empirical basis to scientific-racialist claims. I really shouldn't have to say this, but we're not here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, even if the wrongs have a really horrific history. The other big risk here, of Russophobic Ukrainians saying they are more related to Poles than to Russians or something along those lines; well, those claims are already made based on other spurious criteria, such as language cladistics, and sourced to shitty social science books (which nonetheless are praised in this discussion as "secondary sources"). Let's not have an idealists' circlejerk over how self-identification is the most important factor in the determination of ethnicity, because that's a pretty contested-if-not-outright-rejected way of defining the boundaries in almost every culture in the world. Shrigley (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
 *  Oppose removal Comment - See Indo-Aryan migration theory, where the genetics are a continues matter of debate, but are also higly relevant, because of the immense implications of the recent research on the origins of the Indian population. See also Corded Ware culture; the research by Haak et al. provided a definite argument for the Indo-European origins of/mingling with the Corded Ware people. Indispensable information. this RfC is also of interest to you.   Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   07:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Could you please read through the actual RfC proposal? We are discussing 'ethnic group' articles, not 'archaeological' or 'anthropological' articles. This is not related to Template:Infobox archaeological culture articles, but to Template:Infobox ethnic group. Articles affected are the likes of Bulgarians, etc. We're not talking about tracing ancient DNA in articles specifically tackling scientific research. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 10:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * ah, I see. Well, don't take my "vote" into account then, only my comment.  Joshua Jonathan   -  Let's talk!   11:01, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid JJ's example and other similar articles like Indo-Aryan peoples. Dravidian peoples etc. are indeed ethnic group articles, not anthropology. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * An uninvolved admin or experienced editor will be called in to evaluate and close this RfC, therefore there's a high likelihood that your initial reaction will be counted as a !vote. Would you please strike through your !vote in order that it clear that it is your comment that is of primary importance? As this RfC has evolved, it's become apparent that DNA (genetics) content is understood as being important, but the manner in which it is used, which level of 'ethnic group' article structure it is pertinent to, and the quality of sources are the primary concern of editors who work on articles about our own species (as well as the misuse of primary sources themselves as OR and COATRACK). Thank you. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support removal with qualification - I am not opposed to including authentic genetic information in the ethnic group articles, but I am opposed to including WP:PRIMARY sources. The reason is that the results are too new, subject to revisions and qualifications, and open to interpretations. The text of the scientific articles is also quite technical and the geneticists are not good at explaining their results to lay audience (a problem admitted by some). Most editors of the ethnic group articles don't understand the technical issues and endless debates ensue. I believe the use of genetics primary sources should be limited to Genetic history articles (or anthropology and "peopling of..." articles). -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Removal-The genetics sections on many articles are quintessential information for certain ethnic groups such as African Americans and Latino Americans. Many ethnic groups in the U.S. do not know their true ethnic origin, but DNA helps them to recover the lost information. AAs can now pinpoint where specifically in Africa (such as the Yoruba of Nigeria, which many did not know before) most of their ancestors originated, and understand that they are an American ethnic group (with their ancestry being formed here in the U.S. through admixture) as much as an African ethnic group. Black Americans can learn more about their African, European, and to a lesser extent Native American ancestry. Latinos, who also descend from these groups (with much more NA ancestry) can uncover where exactly their DNA comes from. These two admixed groups have had much of their ancestry covered by the horrors of slavery and colonization, but DNA can help recover what has been lost. These DNA analysis (peer reviewed, non-profit, such as some by Faoud Zakharia, http://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2009-10-12-r141 Katarzyna Bryc, http://www.pnas.org/content/107/2/786.long and Francesco Montinaro http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150324/ncomms7596/pdf/ncomms7596.pdf) also corroborate what historical records hold, for example confirming that most African Americans have British ancestry. This was known before DNA testing because most slave owners and overseers were from Britain, but these analysis substantiate and maintain congruity with historical records.The science may be new and evolving, but it holds accuracy. The genetics sections on many ethnic groups is needed because their history has been obscured for a long time, but advances in science have brought the truth to light. Genetics sections are also useful to certain European American ethnic groups, especially in the South and West, where there is more admixture with Black and Native Americans. It also goes to show that race is a social construct, with some self-identified Afro Americans being more European genetically than African. Genetics sections are important for these reasons and more. Some may need to be trimmed or edited strictly, but they need not be deleted. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 14:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You've inadvertently !voted twice. Could you please strike through "So---oppose removal, per all the above." in the first section of the RfC in order that it be clear that they're not separate votes. Thanks. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Removal While the section needs improvement, the issue is important. Israel announced that it may begin to use DNA tests to determine whether potential immigrants are sufficiently Jewish. (see http://www.timesofisrael.com/russian-speakers-who-want-to-immigrate-could-need-dna-test/ and http://jlb.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/06/16/jlb.lsv027.full ). While I find the the subject kind of icky to think about, ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Gouncbeatduke, as I understand the proposal, your examples would not prevent inclusion of the content you mention in relevant pages (about Israel, or the right to return, even possibly about Jews as an ethnic group), since the material would be about this policy, not about the DNA of Jews as a group themselves. Pincrete (talk) 22:35, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it is improper for the article on Ethnic Groups to not have a section on genetics, given we live in a world where at least one county is doing DNA testing to determine the ability to obtain the legal privileges given to an Ethnic Group. That is why I oppose removal. It sounds like you are asking about something beyond the scope of the removal issue, and something I have not thought about, but I don't think I understand the question. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Firstly: In as far as there are concerns regarding conflicting results, undue synthesis by editors, and similar, these are all covered by existing policies, which of course still apply, and IMPROVEMENTS to content made in line with these policies are perfectly legitimate. A whole-sale REMOVAL is a very different matter.
 * Oppose Removal (extremely strongly)

Secondly: Wikipedia (and society in general) already has a massive problem with besser-wissers who are either so convinced that they know the truth that they wish to strike down opposing opinions by any means necessary (including censorship) or who feel that some areas of discussion are so dangerous that they must be avoided, be it because they fear finding a truth they do not like or others misinterpreting the facts. This includes such excesses as at least one individual editor wanting to remove the article on "The Bell-Curve" entirely. (I do not recall his exact motivation, but it was in the general family of "too dangerous" or "too evil".) Notably, to many of these, anything even hinting at a genetic difference between population groups is "evil", even when no conclusion of the "X is better than Y" kind can be drawn.

(I do not presume to judge the exact motivations and mentality of the OP, but it is strictly speaking not relevant to begin with. What counts are the results.)

A good encyclopedia should never filter its information for reasons like fear of conflict or fear of readers developing an opinion that the editor does not like. Information (that is sufficiently verifiable) must be reported neutrally and filtering only take place for very good reasons (e.g. not publishing undue information on living people). This applies especially in areas where other media could be likely to filter or distort information. (It does not follow, however, that Wikipedia must go to lengths to actively add such information. Only that it must not artificially filter it when it is provided.)

Such filtering is unencyclopedic, intellectually dishonest, and unethical. It also poses a pragmatic problem in that something that is perceived as the truth today, but is actually faulty, risks standing unquestioned for a prolonged time. Consider e.g. the unquestioning belief in many theories of Aristotle in medieval times, the problems encountered by Bruno and Galilei, or the hard time Evolutionists have had in some strongly religious areas.

In particular: While it is true that there are groups like white supremacists that a) consist mostly of people who are poor critical thinkers, b) could use such information to their (perceived) advantage, it is also true that the politically correct a) consists mostly of people who are poor critical thinkers, b) could use the lack of such information to their (perceived) advantage. (By analogy, while most Creationist have their beliefs for a poor reason, e.g. "my PReacher said so", the same applies to most people who believe in Evolution, e.g. "my Teacher said so". The latter happen to be right, but for an equally poor reason as the former and by no means have the moral high-ground, which should be reserved for those who actually have the right opinion for a GOOD reason. Having a good reason includes knowing all the facts, not just the facts that others consider "appropriate".) Indeed, for every actual racist there are a dozen politically correct moving on roughly the same level of intellectual development, and who belongs to what group could mostly be a matter of chance... 213.196.223.94 (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I think you perfectly summarized "Oppose Removal" position: "A good encyclopedia should never filter its information for reasons like fear of conflict or fear of readers developing an opinion that the editor does not like." This really sounds like an invincible argument. I think "Support Removal" position can be probably best summarized in this sentence: "What really justifies the removal is the fact that genetics has little to do with ethnicity, as ethnic groups are almost entirely socially constructed, based on culture and self-identity rather than a person's ancestry." An equally invincible argument.
 * Here is what geneticists say: If sections on genetics should indeed remain in the articles on ethnic groups the only thing such sections should say is that ethnic groups are not based on genetics. That should be maybe compromise conclusion on this discussion.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I am afraid you misunderstood the above comments. Your last statement could hardly represent a compromise. The majority of editors have quite obviously concluded that there is no need to create a new ban or policy. Of course, we need to respect our basic policies, especially WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Borsoka (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Closing discussions says: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads..." If wikipedia policies are to be respected, the only heads which should be counted belong to "the vast majority of geneticists" whose position is clear. I really believe that the compromise solution would be to leave this section with obligatory clear presentation of the opinion of "the vast majority of geneticists" before any other position. That would be a kind of win/win situation instead of win/lose, and if it makes sense, maybe it would be good to organize a poll about it so editors would have a chance to !vote? --Antidiskriminator (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it would not be a win/win situation because the policy that you suggested above would prevent editors from citing certain reliable sources when editing articles about ethnic groups. I think we should not organize new and new !votes on the same subject. I suggest we should edit articles instead of creating new bans and policies. Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Not at all. My proposal is to close this discussion with (or to organize a poll to !vote about third, I think) compromise alternative: "keep but" clearly present "the opinion of "the vast majority of geneticists" before any other position" in this section.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I've sofar refrained from much comment, but I would like to explain myself a little better perhaps. The modern concept of ethnicity and ethnic groups has no clear or lineal relation to haplogroup genetics. The mention of which may be interesting as to express opinions about where these people generally came from (territorially or ancestry wise). But that's basically all. Whatever conclusion is reached here, that should be made clear. If sections on genetics are retained in these articles, they should be a summarization of facts only. Not a hodgepodge of home made interpretations by editors derived from multiple and sometimes nitpicked sources. We will need to look at a lot of these sections anyway then. However, as the relation to the subject of these articles is at least questionable the sections are in my opinion not always necessary. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that editors cannot make their conclusions in the articles. This is a clear consequence of our basic policies, especially WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that people don't generally live according to DNA, and that it's also true that race is socially constructed and that most geneticists have concluded as much. For example, Benjamin Jealous, the former head of the NAACP, is 80% European and 18% Sub-Saharan African. (http://blogs.ancestry.com/cm/2014/10/29/finding-your-roots-benjamin-jealous-gets-in-touch-with-his-revolutionary-heritage/) (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hcrZy4VoXU from 48:00-49:22) He identifies as black and African American, not as mixed-race or multiracial because he notes that most African Americans are mixed in terms of DNA or genetics, and because of the history of the one-drop rule. Similarly, you have ethnic groups like the Scots-Irish who often identify as Irish, yet most of their DNA and ancestry comes from Scotland. Many don't even have "Irish" DNA. However, this is part of the reason why genetics sections are important. They've helped shown that DNA is not a necessarily defining factor in identification and that race is not real. Although certain ethnic groups may not live by DNA, genetics still factor into the origins and history of these ethnic groups and should not be removed simply because they don't always correlate with how certain ethnic groups identify. The genetics sections aren't, or rather should not be about the congruity between how people label themselves and haplogroups. They should be there to shed new light on the varied origins and ancestry of people who identify with a particular group, and are significant because they can uncover fresh information about people with at least some shared ancestry. They should exist only to show the shared history that is common to most people who identify with an ethnic group, which is unrelated to how they choose to identify. So, for example, Scots-Irish can label themselves "Irish", but you can still have a genetics section on the group that explains that their ancestry or DNA traces to Scotland or Northern England. Race is socially constructed; genes aren't. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Most uses of "social construct", including the above, that I have seen to date have been hog-wash. Just throwing "social construct" around helps no-one. Let's do science, not post-modernism.213.196.223.94 (talk) 17:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * One does not have to be a post-modernist to view ethnicity, or anything else, as a social construct. Such a view dates back at least as far as Max Weber. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:30, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I would caution to great care when making statements about ethniticity having no or little genetic background, race not existing (and/or allegedly having no scientific support, see below), etc.


 * For instance, even if genetics is/were of little importance when considering what individual belongs to what ethniticity, it can still be highly important when looking at groups. Consider e.g. that there are known biological differences between some groups with regard to what diseases occur with what probability and how they are best treated.


 * Aside on "is/were": If we use self-identification as the sole criterion, the importance will usually be small for the individual, but still with a strong statistical claim about most groups. Using other criteria, including what others think, will show a far higher importance, even if the correlation will not be anywhere near fool-proof. Just claiming that ethniticity is matter of self-identification is highly simplistic and begs the question and/or restricts the applicability of the current discussion to only a sub-set of the articles theoretically affected. Do I have the right to self-identify as Apache without asking them for their opinion? Hardly. If I did ask, they would almost certainly disagree. So would the wast majority of everyone else asked. Had I been adopted by Apaches when I was a toddler, I might have had a case, even in the absense of genetic ties; but looking at Apaches as a group, such cases form a small minority compared to those born by Apache parents.


 * For instance, tracking genetic traits can give us important information about who lived where/did what in pre-historic times. (Largely, because there does tend to be a fair bit of genetic stability within groups, although this tendency is likely growing weaker by the day, due to the unprecedented migration and information flows, the latter influencing self-identification.)


 * For instance, (human) races in the conventional, everyday sense most certainly exist (and are largely based on genetics). Questioning this is pointless bordering on the idiotic; anyone who does, has not understood the issue. On the other hand, relevant questions that we validly should ask, and a good scientist is more likely to ask than the average demagogue, include e.g. whether the word "race" describes the same concept when discussing humans as it does when a biologist discusses animals and/or a dog breeder dogs (disputable), whether they are of any kind of importance in a given situation (in most, the answer is "no"), and whether and when the concept is useful (considering complications like the sorites paradox; but note that many other concepts widely considered useful, e.g. big and small, cold and warm, suffer from similar weaknesses). Contrary to what many politically correct seem to believe, the problems with racism do not stem from claiming that races exist or that there are group differences between the races, but from seeing race as an overriding aspect of a human, dwarfing the effects of individual variation (be it genetic or cultural).


 * Notably, I have been involved in many debates on various blogs dealing with similar topics and it is extremely common for poorly informed or partisan thinkers to make statements like "Scientists have proved that races do not exist. X must be caused by discrimination." ("X" being a place-holder for any number of group-level items, e.g. difference in schooling outcomes between groups) or even "[...] Using different heart medicines on black people is just a rip off.", which is just depressing.  (Note: It is quite possible that discrimination actually is the main or a contributing cause of a given X. However, it is entirely unscientific to rule out possible causes in advance through spurious arguments and the consequences will be less informed, suboptimal, or outright faulty conclusions.) For this reason, I find it very important that Wikipedia, which is the first or even only stop for information for many, does not make dubious or misleading claims like those in my first sentence.213.196.223.94 (talk)
 * I am certainly not saying that there are not biological differences between people. This isn't about political correctness, it's about correctness. What scientists largely agree on is that there are no common traits that define "blackness" or "whiteness" or any other racial category: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2015/06/16/how-fluid-is-racial-identity/race-and-racial-identity-are-social-constructs http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ http://bigthink.com/think-tank/bill-nye-race-is-a-social-construct http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-mean-when-we-say-race-is-a-social-construct/275872/. To say that people who say race does not exist do not understand the issue is insulting. Even if one disagrees with another point of view, it does not make it ok to denigrate that pov. It was uncalled for and really disrespecful. I oh so sincerely and thoroughly apologize for my "post-modernism" and "hogwash". But no, please continue to correct me, Mr. Spock. Race is something that has been used to say that even if you are mostly of European ancestry, and you are just a little bit black, then you are black. In terms of race, you can be identified as black in the United States, but as mixed in Latin America simply because of your phenotype. When I say race is socially constructed or is not real, I am not saying that there are not biological differences between certain groups. What I am saying is that these biological differences vary so drastically from individual to individual and from one geographical location to the next that the labeling of people into a "race" is not often reflective of their genetics or entire, recent ancestral background: "[M]odern genetics research is operating in a paradox, which is that race is understood to be a useful tool to elucidate human genetic diversity, but on the other hand, race is also understood to be a poorly defined marker of that diversity and an imprecise proxy for the relationship between ancestry and genetics." If race was real, are all the European Americans in the U.S. who have any small amount of black ancestry now to be classified as black? Is Muhammad Ali mixed-race because he has Irish, English, and Malagasy (Indonesian and East African) ancestry in addition to his sub-Saharan African ancestry? Should all African Americans now be classified as "mixed-race" because geneticists are saying that they have European and to a lesser extent Native American ancestry on average? When James Baldwin, for example, said that he did not believe in race, he wasn't saying that there are not biological differences between most African Americans and White Americans in terms of ancestry or genetics. What he was saying is that there are a myriad of ancestries within a group and that race does not often truly correlate with one's full ancestry. Nor can it be considered real when you have Don Cheadle, who considers himself African American, yet Walter Francis White also considered himself African American. And as Langston Hughes said, "You see, unfortunately, I am not black. There are lots of different kinds of blood in our family. But here in the United States, the word "Negro" is used to mean anyone who has any Negro blood at all in his veins. In Africa, the word is more pure. It means all Negro, therefore black." You are right, however, that genetics are important for certain ethnic groups in terms of finding out medical history, and advances in science have helped with that. Are there certain differences genetically between African Americans and White Americans and Latino Americans? Yes. I am not arguing that there aren't---and I never have in all my 23 years of life, so you're misinterpreting my stance. I agree with you that the genetics sections should stay and are important. I disagree that genetics and DNA are a very important factor in how people identify, and that "race" is a real thing. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I do not have the time to go through your comment in detail. A few observations however: You do not make any kind of plausible argument against the existence of races. Whether the concept is useful (etc. see my previous comment) can be validly discussed. That they exist is beyond dispute by any criteria that would not also bring a great number of other, uncontroversial concepts into doubt (e.g. "educated", "middle class": do try to give me a scientific consensus on who should be considered middle class). To consider people black by the "one drop rule" is incorrect to begin with. At least today, they can be considered colored by the criterion, but not black. Further, the "one drop rule" IS a case where it could make sense to discuss social constructs. It a U.S. thing and other countries can see the issue differently. That some individual U.S. people self-identify as blacks, african-american, or whatever, does not make a true statement about race. They need not represent either of the U.S. overall view or the global view, and even if they did, they are not infallible authorities on the topic. If in doubt, you have to consider the possibility that one word can denote several concepts, and that one person (or the entire world) uses that word only for one concept does not invalidate the other concept(s). By analogy, "Jew" has at least two meanings: Someone of Jewish descent (by some standard) and someone of the Jewish religion. Someone Orthodox group might insist that the word only refers to people of the right descent, but this does not deny others the right to practice the Jewish religion. Of course, what matters for this discussion is the concept, not the word. Finally, even if races in fact did not exist, this would not automatically imply a "approve", because there are still potential value in the information (cf. my earlier comment). This especially since we discuss ethnic groups that is a concept separate from, if partially overlapping with, race. I will let this be my last comment, partially for lack of time; partially, because I know from experience that either people understand certain basics about concepts, and more or less automatically agree, or do not understand these basics, and can then not be persuaded by any means.213.196.223.94 (talk) 08:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * First, rest in peace to the greatest, Muhammad Ali. He lived an amazing life and he fought hard for equal rights. He was a hero and taught me to stand up and fight for what I believe in.
 * Now, 213.196.223.94, you say you do not have the time to go into my comment in detail, yet the comment you posted on May 29 is even lengthier in terms of word count than my May 29 comment. And you say I have no plausible argument---but to say that, you would actually need to read through the argument, which you clearly said you haven't. Is this another example of your great logic at work, Spock? Please, continue to enlighten me, unshackle me from the cave of ignorance, and show me the light.....but alas, the light of the truth is too blinding! That the truth of "race" is real! You say that you know from experience that either people understand a concept or do not understand the basics---well, I hope you looked in a mirror (if you could stomach it) when you said this. Yes, we were talking about ethnic groups, which is different from race. I was agreeing with another user briefly about race being a social construct, when you decided to go on a rant about race not being a social construct. That's why we unfortunately went into this side discussion. I was not saying that race being socially constructed implies an "approve" vote. You are once again trying to misrepresent my position.
 * You say, "That they exist is beyond dispute by any criteria that would not also bring a great number of other, uncontroversial concepts into doubt (e.g. "educated", "middle class": do try to give me a scientific consensus on who should be considered middle class)." Well, gee, I'm tempted to try to gain a scientific consensus on "educated", and it looks like the only thing that the whole scientific community could agree upon for this concept is that it is something that you are not. At least not on this issue of race and ethnicity. Let's not try to conflate incongruous issues, especially considering that the concept of "middle class" and "educated" are not scientific issues or rather do not pretend to be scientific issues (although when tied to race, they certainly do) the way that race does, so that comparison falls shorter than Muggsy Bogues.
 * You say, "That some individual U.S. people self-identify as blacks, african-american, or whatever, does not make a true statement about race. They need not represent either of the U.S. overall view or the global view, and even if they did, they are not infallible authorities on the topic."---Really, so who is the infallible authority on the topic? I suppose you are, 213.196.223.94? That's the point, no one is an infallible authority on the topic when it comes to race. There is no agreed upon definition of race. People can argue what race Benjamin Jealous is until their faces turn blue (perhaps creating the "blue" race). It is up to the individual to decide what "race" they are---as long as they have some ancestry from that group. If you actually read this, http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/05/what-we-mean-when-we-say-race-is-a-social-construct/275872/, perhaps you would better understand. Or perhaps not. There is no U.S. overall view or universal global perspective of what constitutes who is "black" or who is "African American", because there are a thousand different definitions of what this concept truly means. By even assuming that there is a U.S. overall view or a common worldview, you've already substantiated that you don't understand the concept of race. So what is the true concept, then? Enlighten me, sir. As you say, the "one-drop rule is incorrect to begin with", so what makes any other rule about race correct? Who decides? If you had, for example, a glass, and 20% of that glass was filled with lemonade, 78% was filled with milk, and 2% was filled with apple juice, and I told you that this was apple juice, you would vehemently disagree. "Race", as stated above, is a "poorly defined marker of [human genetic] diversity and an imprecise proxy for the relationship between ancestry and genetics." Race is not a precise reflection of DNA or ancestry, and labels people according to what has been useful for the dominant group of a society. But, see, this is what "race" does---it comes from racism, not the other way around, and was created to label people into a certain category so that certain groups could claim superiority over others. Your example of what or who defines who is Jewish or not proves my point---not yours (then again you have such perfect points, king of logic), that race has come from racism and that race is a concept. It is something that one group has used to define what another group is or is not. By the way, ethnicity is a social construct too. The Irish and Scottish are both "celts", have shared common language and heritage, and share common ancestry. Yet they identify as different ethnic groups. The Ulster Scots considered themselves "Irish" for most of their recorded history in Ireland until around the early 20th century, when Northern Ireland came about and joined the UK. Whether these people are "Irish" or "British"---it is up to the individual to decide what ethnic group they belong to. You can make an argument about Lowland Scots being much different than Irish genetically, but some who moved to Ireland were Highland Scots. Nearly a quarter of Scotland's population is estimated to have predominant roots in Ireland, but most of them consider themselves ethnically Scots. Whether this is accurate or not is up for debate. We are dealing with social constructions here. Kinfoll1993 (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Remove - there may be some cases where this kind of information is presented in an NPOV informed manner. But I have yet to see such. Most of the time these are just POV-pusher magnets, or badly constructed attempts at proving superiority/purity of some ethnic group. In a lot of cases, they're simply non-encyclopedic and unimportant and thus violate undue. Do you really think that readers who come to these articles are desperately looking for info on haplogroup markers? Volunteer Marek (talk) 03:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Further comment on scope of this RfC... I've already applied for this RfC to be closed (although there's a massive backlog on the closing board), but was actually going to start another section dealing with the prominent feature in the !voting so far: being that the emphasis on genetics sections in ethnic group articles are overtaking the more general nature of the articles which deal with the cultures and cultural histories of ethnic groups. The WP:TITLE of the articles we are discussing is not that of scientific research surrounding the development of particular haplogoups. At best, there seems to be an inclination towards dedicated articles which need to stringently adhere to acknowledged specialised sources, and that genetics should probably be treated as separate articles within the scope of the sciences rather than humanities. Any genetic content in "ethnic group" articles should serve as a summary of the relevant name space article. Again, as was brought up as an example, Genetic studies on Bulgarians has recently been developed. It is a major and comprehensive article which I haven't had the energy to go through as yet simply because of the complex nature of the field, so I have no idea of how much of it is truly WP:RS, and how much of it is WP:OR. Simultaneously, the section in the Bulgarians article has been developed by the same user, and is an unnecessarily protracted summary section. This is all fine, but only a handful of ethnic group articles have regular editors watching the main articles. Other major tertiary resources such as Encyclopaedia Britannica do not conflate genetics with ethnic groups (see Bulgar).


 * Furthermore, I would like to reiterate that, of the editors I see here, none are more than interested amateurs in terms of their qualifications as geneticists. Having seen numerous arguments on the talk pages of articles, there has been nothing to instil any sense of confidence that anyone arguing over research papers actually even understands the research. Sorry, folks, but I'm calling it as I see it. Editors are also forgetting that this isn't merely a point of principle: the majority of ethnic group articles do not have the undivided attention of regular editors. Essentially, there are only a few ethnic groups who have more than the lion's share of interested editors. Meanwhile, those of us who cover the multiple ethnic groups and diasporic articles can take literally weeks to get around to reverting vandalism on articles Cluebot might have overlooked. There are points at which pragmatism has to figure into the equasion. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Remove: these are pages on cultural and sociological groups, not anthropology. The people who use genetic studies to push a point are confusing the two fields &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 00:42, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Strongly support removal. From the past we've learned that these kinds of things need a consistent guideline for articles accross the wiki lest they (and their repeated arguments) will be discussed endlessly. And from what I've seen, large genetics sections have far too often been in relation to nationalism or even supremacism. Furthermore, they are nearly always misrepresented, which is easy since the vast majority of readers know little about anthropology. The problem is that non-scientific reliable sources rarely ever make mention of these things, while scientific reliable sources tend to do it completely independent from the concept of nations. WP:SYNTHESIS is (quite ironically) a common result. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Did you mean "large ethnicity sections",, or large genetics sections? Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I did indeed actually mean large genetics sections, thanks for pointing it out. I've modified it. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 18:50, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Ethnicity is based on much more than just genetics. "An ethnic group or ethnicity is a category of people who identify with each other based on common language, ancestral, social, cultural, or national experiences" (see ethnicity) and relies heavily on self-identification. Moreover, ethnicity is not fixed but changes over time and haplogroups are not confined to a specific ethnic group. Unless anyone can link genetics (specific haplogroups for instance) and ethnicity for a specific group and show (WP:V, WP:RS) these are inextricably linked, it should be considered WP:OR, especially if conclusions are drawn from that. Kleuske (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)