Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-06 White People
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | ||||||||||||
|
Contents |
[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-11-06 White People
Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Mediation Cabal: Coordination Desk.
[edit] Request Information
- Request made by: Thulean 17:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- Where is the issue taking place?
- White people
- Who's involved?
- Thulean and Psychohistorian
- What's going on?
- Currently there are 3 references in the article to the social and cultural only theory of the white people:
Whether any individual considers any other individual as white comes down to whether the person looks white; however this is a very subjective judgement.
David R. Roediger argues that the construction of the white race in the United States was in direct effort to mentally distance slaveowners from slaves. [2]
The 2000 United States Census, speaking of race categories, states, "They generally reflect a social definition of race recognized in this country. They do not conform to any biological, anthropological or genetic criteria."[9]
Therefore, the article currently ignores the genetic part which many scientists and research support.
-
- As is no doubt typical of these kinds of disputes, the other party in the dispute (namely, me), feels that the above misrepresents the debate. Personally, whether or not "white people in the context of genetics" is added to the page is something I'm ambivalent about. Several other editors have made it clear that they do not believe it belongs in the article and I'm willing to respect their wishes. However, before they made it clear, I took the time to find several sources which do discuss "white people in the context of genetics" and I added them to the page [[1]]. The sources I provided on the subject were also removed[[2]]. My only dispute with Theulen in this regard is that if we are to provide sources which state that race has a genetic basis, then we need to add the sources I added (linked to above) which state that race does not have a genetic basis. We must provide both sets of sources or not go into "white people in the context of genetics" at all. -Psychohistorian 17:46, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- It should be noted that the part I added, which Psychohistorian removed couple of times, was not added to the article before. And unlike previous texts, it does NOT debate about race. It simply says "self-inscribed races" has a genetic correlation. This does not say races exist or not. This simply says, while defining white people comes to looks or while defining white people might be becuse of historical reasons or while the census "do not conform to any biological, anthropological or genetic criteria", there is a genetic correlation with the definition of white people. Hence it balances out the article. Thulean 18:00, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- And my position is that it can't balance out the article. The only thing that balances out the article is cites from reliable sources on both sides of "white people in the context of race". To remove cites from one side and add cites from the other side does not create NPOV. It does the opposite.-Psychohistorian 18:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
- What are the sides to this debat?
1) White race is a social construct. 2) It has genetic basis.
The first side has three references while the second has none. Thulean 20:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- By setting up the article as "genetics vs. society", you are advocating for a position that the issue must be framed in that way (ie. "genetics vs. society"). What needs to be done is to describe "genetics and white people" and to describe "society and white people" as seperate sections. In other words, the article should not be framed as "two sides to the debate". It should only be framed as "referencing the experts" and then all the experts be referenced in a balanced way. -Psychohistorian 11:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
- What would you like to change about that?
- Hence the article should include this:
Nevertheless, recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race (white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.[1]
- Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?
- It doesnt matter.
[edit] Mediator response
- I'll read the article, and then discuss it on the talk page. I would like everyone involved to also read WP:NPOV, as this might help in the resolution. Any help from other mediators would be appreciated. | AndonicO Talk 12:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.
[edit] Discussion
While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.
