User talk:Wobble/archive11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Wikipedia Weekly Episode 35 2 I do hope you stick around 3 Template:Wobble/sandbox 4 Your opinion needed 5 ArbCom 6 Wikipedia Weekly Episode 36 7 Your comment 8 R & I proposal 8.1 Proposal 8.2 Arbcom 9 Race 10 NOR Request for arbitration 11 Contact me? 12 Anarchism Task Force 13 the race card 14 Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 37 and 38 15 race 16 Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39 17 race and IQ 18 molecular genetics intro 19 Merry Christmas 20 more wasted talk 21 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Randy California - Restless.png) 22 Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tucky Buzzard.png) 23 Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40 24 race and IQ and cross-cultural communication 25 chuckle of the month 26 Just to say hi 27 Single purpose editor 28 I'm Batman! 29 Speedy deletion of Template:English ethnic group 30 jensen 31 Wikipedia Weekly Episode 41 32 Bauchet Map 33 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eleven-22-Pistepirkko.png

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 35

[edit] I do hope you stick around

The Bell Curve was not published in a peer reviewed journal, because there is no respectable journal that would have published it. It and has failed to hold up to scrutiny in a number of ways. Then you have books like IQ and the Wealth of Nations, which is even further out on the fringe than the Bell Curve-- to put it another way: 'the Bell Curve is the most main-stream work supporting these kinds of ideas, it supports them only weekly (Murray and Hern, talk about selective pressure between classes and have been criticized bitterly for it) But, they don't talk about it "between races" they only suggest (and not strongly) that there may be genetic differences. Since the publication their book has been aggressively debunked. Now The Bell Curve-- is the best source-- so what does that say about the rest of this stuff? This kind of work generates a lot of media attention, and it puts non-racist scientists in a bind because were not at a stage in the research where we can give definitive answers to some of these questions. Or at least that is my understanding of it. I know very little about genetics. So, I'm hoping that I don't drive you off.

The thing is we already know, without a doubt that environment matters, we just don't know how it matters or what factors are most important. I mean there are tons of studies showing that things like quality of schools, teachers, nutrition etc. have and impact in test scores. This all seem non-controversial until you stumble into the culture wars aspect of it. For example, consider "cool pose" this is the attitude adopted by many young black men. Some people think it hinders their ability to be successful, since it reaffirms their outsider position, --others think "cool pose" is a legitimate way of dealing with racism. Some people think AAVE(aka 'Ebonics') is an important part of black culture that ought to be less stigmatized and preserved, even as young people learn to speak majority culture english. Other people think that AAVE is poor english and that it makes learning more difficult (certainly the stereotype of AAVE speakers being "stupid" is a problem.) Recently this "culture wars" debate has gotten some press. You might remember Bill Cosby making a speech that caused a lot of commotion a few years back, where he said that Ebonics was one of many things holding black people back-- It caused a pretty big controversy. I think we're moving towards such questions being not only central in academia, but also central in the public debate.

When James Watson made his comments about the hopelessness of African intelligence. It did spark serious debate as much as it sparked a lot of criticism of the ideas being unscientific and racist. People didn't even take him seriously. He lost his job and has tried to retract his comments. So how on earth could a book like IQ and the Wealth of Nations that essentially says the same thing-- be anything but a fringe theory?

I think I'm rambling a little, what I've read most about is the history of this debate and the way it has changed overtime. I hope you stick around, since I don't know much about genetics, and we could use help with things in that area.futurebird 14:19, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Wobble/sandbox

Hi, I was just random-paging around through the template namespace trying to categorize the uncategorized pages there and encountered Template:Wobble/sandbox. It should probably be moved to User:Template:Wobble/sandbox, or a similar title, since Wikipedia:About the Sandbox recommends using user subpages and I can't think of a good way to categorize this page within the template namespace. Didn't want to do it myself, though, so I figured I'd give you a heads-up. Bryan Derksen 00:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Gah, I just realized that my suggestion for a new title is all messed up. It puts the sandbox in User:Template's namespace instead of User:Wobble. Sorry about that, maybe User:Wobble/Template sandbox? I use User:Bryan Derksen/Template sandbox myself. Bryan Derksen 07:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your opinion needed

Alun, can you take a look here and wiegh in? It would be appreciated. [1]--Ramdrake (talk) 12:12, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ArbCom

I have filed a case here, I just listed myself an Dbachmann as the involved parties, because I was unsure how to do it, if you would also like to be listed as an involved party and make a statement, please feel free to add your name and statement. futurebird 20:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 36

[edit] Your comment

Alun, I agree with so much of what you are saying, and it's a total relief to hear it said at all. But, in terms of dealing with the actions about specific people, I think that generalizations about systemic bias can be misleading. It's sort of like trying to show that any sing given hurricane is "caused" by global warming-- you just can't do it --but, you might be able to show that a trend of increased hurricane activity is related to global warming. Do you know what I mean?

I think the only sane way to address a general trend of systemic bias may be to try to get a more diverse group of people involved. That can make the project more welcoming in the broader sense. I'm always telling people I know about the wikipedia and I link to it a lot, I hope that people take an interest, now and then one of them might even become and active editor.

I found in the past that talking about systemic bias is hard. It makes people really defensive and they shut down because it seems like you're accusing them of being a Klan members or something, and since I've ran in to a few users (now mostly banned) who really are Klan members (or at least that's what it seemed like) I don't think it's a good idea to attack well-meaning editors in that way. But is important to have these conversations about systemic bias, I personally think the wikipedia is slowly improving in this area, and I say that with great hesitation, but with a lot of hope.

Thanks for your comment. futurebird 18:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R & I proposal

What do you think of this? I would like to expand this idea and then suggest it on the talk page, but only if there will be some people around to help with the process. What do you think? futurebird (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal

Let's not have an article on race and intelligence. Before anyone cries "CENSORSHIP" or anything of that sort let me explain. The views of Rushon and Jensen belong in their biography articles, or in articles on their books and papers and the controversies that they have caused. The views on race and its nature as a social construct belong in the articles on race, and the articles for the academics who holds those views. The discussion of test gaps belongs in the article in test gaps etc.

Our attempt to provide a summary of this topic as a summary has failed because it continues to result in an original synthesis of information, and because there is not a definitive position on the topic "race and intelligence" or even race and IQ.

My proposal is that we take the material in this article and move each item to its proper place so nothing is deleted and no information is lost and then delete this article.

[edit] Arbcom

Why is the race and intelligence article being brought up at arbcom? I don't get it. futurebird (talk) 17:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race

Did it. But for this to work, YOU need to go there right now and fix up the sections on lineages and clusters!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 17:55, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not think an RfC would help. I do think it would be good if a few dedicated editors agreed to focus on specific parts of the article (i.e. divide the labor, at least for a bit) to make sure they are up-to-date and comply with V, NPOV, and NOR. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

bravo!! When you have a chance can you go over the section on cline and population (pop. genetics) for clarity? I am also concerned you may have added material that I accidentally cut in the process. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Alun, in the section on the social construction of race there is a subsection on the marketing of race (genomic profiles). There are two paragraphs towards the end, one beginning, "The question is" and the following beginning "thus," which either (1) need to be rewritten if they remain in this section, to stick to the point of social construction, or (2) moved into the section on molecular genetics you have been editing or (3) cut. Could you go over this and do what you think is best? thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

No probs to both requests, might not be today though. More tomorrow morning hopefully. Feeling more motivated all of a sudden :) Alun (talk) 14:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate it - the work you have done so far has been excellent! Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect we can now junk both race debate and race and genetics. If you agree, ask Ramdrake f he will do it - since I was the one to revert to the older race article, someone else should delete the obsolete spin-offs. Also, are you fully satisfied with the race article now? You have put a lot of good work into it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contact me?

I see you have a degree in genetics, and there are some questions that I am struggling with about race and the view of race as a social construct. Very cordially, Die4Dixie 17:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I did respond to the email you sent me, did you not receive it? Please feel free to email me your specific questions and I'll do my best to help. All the best. Alun (talk) 17:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchism Task Force

Howdy! I'd like to cordially invite you to check out the new Anarchism Task Force we've cobbled together. Feel free to join in and contribute! Cheers! Murderbike (talk) 05:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the race card

I think you are right to focus on an accurate and thorough "race" article and am glad that you have been more active there and that you are pleased with the progress. As for Race and Intelligence: I like you feel at this point I have nothing new to say. But both of us need to keep an eye on it and register our views as necessary so a couple of racialist or racist editors cannot claim that they are the majority or have a monopoly on the truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 37 and 38

[edit] race

Between this section head Race and Molecular Genetics: lineages and clusters and this subsection head, Molecular lineages, Y chromosomes and mitochondrial DNA we need at leat one paragraph explaining why this section even belongs in the article. Presumably because some people think this research helps delineate races, and others argue the reverse. Or perhaps because some see it as another example where scientific data is interpreted (even by scientists), or research design is corrupted, by socially constructed racial categories. Or something else. But we need some transition from the previous section that explains why what follows is in the race article. Can you draft something? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 39

[edit] race and IQ

Could you comment here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Race_and_intelligence#Comments_on_proposed_changes thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 00:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] molecular genetics intro

It looks good but I have a question. is it Fair to say that this research is investigating genotypic relatedness among distant populations, rather than trying to explain phenotypic variation ... I defer to your expertise and won´t make the edit myself but if you think what I just wrote is correct I think you should find a way to highlight it in your new intro )because "race" typically conflates two issues, phenotypic difference and genotypic difference. much confusion in discussions come from identifying the two and I wonder if the key to understanding much current research including the difference between findings of population geneticists and molecular geneticists is the former are providing new (non racial) models for understanding phenotypic variation and the latter are providing new (non racial) models for understangind genotypic variation )using foreign keyboard, cannot sign name properly ' SR

[edit] Merry Christmas

[edit] more wasted talk

You do not suspect that Centrum99 is MoritzB? Even if he isn't, has he said anything MoritzB did not - and to which you and others have not already responded, several times? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Centrum99 is Moritz, Centrum99 was leaving a few personal attacks over at Caucasoid race before it was merged with Caucasian race earlier this year.[2] [3] He has little to contribute except making ad hominem attacks against users who do not support his personal opinion. I do suspect that the anon person who supported him on the talk page might be MoritzB.[4] I checked the IP address of this anon user and it's from Finland, and I remember getting an email from MathSci a little while ago saying that MoritzB was editing from Finland.[5] Centrum99 often edits from an IP as well and he's located in the Czech Republic.[6] Centrum99 is far more interested in arguing on talk pages than editing, and has several times stated that the opinions that he expresses are his own but that they should be included on Wikipedia, he offers no reason why we should accept him as a reliable source. He's obviously not particularly bright and his claims are usually superficial. On the other hand he has made substantial and unsubstantiated edits to numerous articles about different Y chromosome haplogroups. I haven't investigated these at all, but I suspect they are full of personal opinion and pov-pushing. All the best. Alun (talk) 23:19, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am sure you are right. Have you ever read Umberto Eco's Foucault's Pendulum? It includes a brilliant analysis of different ways people can be stupid. Centrum99 obviously knows something, he just doesn't know what it means. A striking contrast to Jagz who really seems to know nothing. Anyway, as always I hope your earnest and valuable comments on talk pages does not sap energy away from your contributing to actual articles. Race and Intelligence still needs some kind of major oferhaul but I have made my own suggestions and seeno value in repeating them. How are you feeling about the "race" article? One question: do you think the section on models of evolution should go later in the article? I like it - but I do not think it explains clearly enough the relationship between (1) the shift to race as a social construction and (2) the shift to understanding phenotypic variation and genetic relatedness in terms other than race. The contents is all there, but I fear a newcomer to the article will be lost. To people who know the literature the preceeding two points make lots of sense but to a general public I fear they represent radical changtes in perspective that really need clear framing and explanation ... what do you think? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:08, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Randy California - Restless.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Randy California - Restless.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tucky Buzzard.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tucky Buzzard.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 40

[edit] race and IQ and cross-cultural communication

Alun, if you don't mind my interjecting: I agree with you that we are all ignorant of things and should not be shy of admiting to that. But I think Aron was responding less to the accusation of ignorance and more to the insinuation of racism. Now, if I may make a cross-cultural suggestion (and being a native you certainly are welcome to correct me) - I don't really see any public conversation about race and racism in the UK. It is however a dominant public discussion in the US and has been my entire life. In the American context, to be accused of racism - which is understood not to be some rarified intellectual position, or just one's attachment to a particular discourse, but rather one's intention to lynch the person who served you lunch, if he whistles at a white woman; or one's intention not to serve food to people who have entered your restaurant because of the color of their skin ... in other words, this discussion about race and racism is very much tied to how people actually treat one another, and people's assumptions and expections about how they should be or will be treated ... the possibility that someone has just suggested you are a racist is very serious. It is a charge which, if true, justice demands be made ... but if not true, should be carefully avoided because the stakes are so high. Just my own two cents, but this may color Aron's reaction. Let me add to for what it is worth that i think you handled the situation well, appropriately. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] chuckle of the month

Did you read this?

I will say that both Slrubenstein and Alun/Wobble's logic and reasoning seem to be markedly different than that of the scientists and engineers whom I have worked with throughout my career. I can only speculate that Alun has a political agenda whereas Slrubenstein has a religious agenda. --Jagz (talk) 18:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know where to begin. All I can do is laugh! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. Pathetic. Alun (talk) 06:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Your problem is you read books!! Now we understand the problem!! This guy is some joker! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just to say hi

Because you're funny and smart. :) ←Gee♥Alice 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Single purpose editor

Maybe. But it is not against the rules. POV-pusher? Maybe. I think it is good of you to respond seriously to his points. But if you reach a point where you have nothing more to say or believe he doesn't listen, just stop. As long as he sticks to the talk page it doesn't matter. If he starts editing the article, then ... well, then he has to follow our content policies and we will see. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Batman!

[7] Slrubenstein | Talk 11:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC) ;-)

Holy cow Batman, who'd have thought Robin was commie scum. Kerpow. Alun (talk) 13:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Have no fear, boy wonder. Democracy means everyone is entitled to their opinion, whether noble scientist cum crime-fighter or racist troll! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Guys, if Slrubenstein is Batman, and Alun is Robin, I wonder who The Joker could be? Any ideas? ;) --Ramdrake (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL, you guys! I don't think there is just one Joker out there. There are many. ←Gee♥Alice 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion of Template:English ethnic group

A tag has been placed on Template:English ethnic group requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes.

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] jensen

I write with all sincerity that you can't understand the topic of race differences in intelligence from a scholarly perspective without being familiar with Jensen's arguments. His peers take him very seriously, even those who disagree with him. In case you missed it, here's a bootleg copy of the most relevant chapter from his 1998 book -- http://home.comcast.net/~neoeugenics/jen12.htm A copy from a library would be even better as this one is missing most of the footnotes and all of the tables / figures. --Legalleft (talk) 08:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I also tried to explain to you that "race" is a non biological concept, and so "race" differences must be social. If you are unable to understand the basic genetic facts then it is clear that you are already decided "the truth" and incapable of being objective. Hereditary is not associated with "race" and "race" does not explain one's ancestral background at all well.[8] Alun (talk) 08:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW - yes, Mike is correct, but the loose translation of his argument is that more data is better. I think any scientist would agree with that, and for MDs, asking for grand-parental ethnicity really seems to be the way to go given the data I've seen. However, even at scale, genotyping to infer ancestry is cost prohibitive, and you're getting diminishing returns as most populations aren't very admixed. --Legalleft (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

That reasoning doesn't hold. Consider -- are race differences in skin color social? Of course not -- BW differences in skin color are caused almost entirely by genetic factors if not totally and some of the casual variants have been identified -- there can be genetic differences between totally arbitrary groups (and I don't think race is *totally* arbitrary) -- which is different from *random* groups. My view about "the truth" is that the probabliity that the BW gap is 100% environmental is about 0.1 given all the data I've seen. It's nearly impossible that it's 100% genetic, but there isn't enough quantitative data to support any precise estimate. --Legalleft (talk) 08:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Skin colour is not a "racial" characteristic, or are you trying to claim that people form Australia and southern India are from the same "race" as people from Africa? Skin colour correlates with exposure to UV light, not all sub-Saharan African people have the same skin colour, for example, likewise people from southern Europe have a different skin colour to people from northern Europe. Indeed no such "racial" characteristic exists. In actual fact there are a great many African Americans with a very light skin colour derived from their European ancestors, but you would still call them black or African American. So skin colour is not arbitrary, but it is not a predictor of "race" in the biological sense, though it could be used as a predictor of ancestry to greater effect than "race" could, African Americans with a light skin colour could be assumed to have a greater degree of European ancestry for example. The black/white dichotomy is a socially constructed illusion derived from USA slavery and segregation, it has been studied extensively historically and is an artificial construct derived from the Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws, it erroneously assumes that black people and white people are biologically homogeneous, whereas this is not the case. In the USA there is significant African/Native American ancestry in the white "race" and there is significant European/Native American ancestry in the "black" race. To treat these groups as if they have exclusive ancestries is just, well daft, not to say willfully blind to the facts. As for the claim that "most populations aren't very admixed" this is clearly an incorrect statement when applied to the USA, 30% of "white" Americans have less than 90% detectable European ancestry and the overwhelming majority of African Americans have some European ancestry. White and black Americans are not split into two exclusive groups, but form a continuum of ancestry, with some white people having >50% African ancestry and some black people having as much as >90% European ancestry, the dichotomy is socially constructed. In fact you couldn't be more wrong. Alun (talk) 09:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Ack, my response was eaten. To paraphrase my lost reponse. I didn't say racial trait (which I take to mean defining of race) but rather race differences in a trait. There are many traits that vary by race (e.g. income and educational achievement), and there's no confusion about that distinction in most cases. However, the numerous physical/genetic traits that vary between races (however delinated or defined, perhaps arbitrarily) are evidence that it makes no sense to rule out a genetic cause to a race difference. That sholud be obvious. Also, of course admixture, but it's nothing compared to say Latin America. Of course all human groups are continous (excepting that there is enough population genetic structure to classify by geographic ancestry world wide and race in the US), but the topic is IQ data classified by race and so that's what's discussed and debated. Lastely, to the point of this thread, you really should read Jensen if you want to be able to summarize him accurately and to understand why people have written what they have. --Legalleft (talk) 09:24, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you deliberately ignoring the obvious? Black people in the US are supposed to be a "race" according to you. Also according to you this "race" is genetically different to the "white race" and it is this supposed "genetic" difference that has an influence on the IQ difference between these "races". But what I said is that from a biological point of view white and black people from a continuum of change. So actually there is no real genetic dichotomy between "white" and "black" citizens of the USA, a large number of so called "white" US citizens have a significant degree of recent African ancestry, the degree of European ancestry of black Americans is even more pronounced. This means that we are talking on the one hand about two social groups, white and black, membership of which is not determined genetically, and on the other hand between a continuum of genetic variation within the US citizenry, with some US citizens having a greater degree of African ancestry and others having a greater degree of European ancestry, both of these groups have a certain degree of indigenous American ancestry as well. You are still conflating an exclusive social group (whites) with a small proportion of the continuum that exists, and assuming that this represents a genetic dichotomy.[9] Alun (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an abstract example is needed. Consider the two groups "attorneys" and "meat packers". Ignoring racial differences, there is an average IQ difference between these groups (exaggeratingly largely for the sake of discussion). This difference is to some degree due to genetic differences (perhaps as little as 0%, but probably some non-zero value). These groups are entirely social in construction, yet plausibly have intelligence differences caused by genetics. --Legalleft (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

This example is totally irrelevant though isn't it? A lawyer has been to university and has demonstrated that they have the ability to gain a degree. A lawyer has worked hard and studied in school and university. A meat packer has presumably not been to university and possibly left school at sixteen. So you compare the ability of a university graduate with that of someone with little more than a basic secondary education. How is this relevant? Lawyers and meat packers are not claimed to be natural groups, I have never heard a person claim that all lawyers are genetically more similar to other lawyers than they are to say medical doctors. I have never heard anyone claim that lawyers are a "race" and I have never heard anyone claim that meat packers are necessarily innately stupid. On average lawyers may perform better on IQ test scores (and who can say that this is not just because they have more experience in test situations, having greater experience in taking examinations etc.), on average they may have "better" intelligence genes (although we do not know of any such genes), but these are not "natural" groups and no one claims they are biologically differentiated. Furthermore there has not been any social exclusion against meat packers, they do not have a history of being enslaved, of being disenfranchised or of being denied equal opportunity of education for being meat packers. Indeed I'd bet that a significant proportion of lawyers would be less innately intelligent than meat packers (and still do better on IQ test scores), because they worked hard and attained a higher level of education, whereas a significant proportion of meat packers were not driven to work hard, even though their innate intelligence was greater. The point is that your example is not about groups that are claimed to be biologically distinct. Alun (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are longitudinal and multivariate studies on these kind of things, but I can't remember the details off the top of my head. --Legalleft (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

On a slightly different note I'd be interested to see how these ways of estimating "heritability" perform on things like memes. Take language for example, if I were to claim that French children are innately more able to learn French than, say English children, and tested it by giving French tests to English children who had say O level ability French, and French tests to French children, then examined the results to determine statistically what proportion of the difference between the two groups was "learned" and what proportion was "genetic", how well would this analysis show that the ability to learn French over English is 0% genetic? Just how good are these analyses that are supposed to be able to differentiate environment from heredity, and have any of them ever been tested on control traits such as language. Realistically they should be tested on traits known to be totally hereditary and traits known to be totally environmental for them to be considered scientifically valid. Alun (talk) 11:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There are few very good online and freely accessible explanations of quantitative genetics methods, so it's hard to give you a complete answer. The methods look at how the variation in a phenotype relates to variation in genotype and variation in environment (= 1 - variation in genotype). Variation in genotype is taken from family relatedness of all degrees -- identical twins = 1, fraternal twins, full siblings = ~0.5, parent-child = 0.5, half-sibling, cousin, adopted siblings, adopted parents - children, etc. You fit linear models to those data to estimate various parameters. There are various models, but the simplest is phenotype = genotype + shared_environment + non-shared_environment. You can consider genotype as additive and non-additive genetic variance. These methods were largely developed to calculate the heritability of IQ, and so that's where the data is richest and allows the most unambigous interpretation. However, you have to keep in mind that all models are incomplete, including the behavioral genetic models. There's a molecular genetic technique to measure heritabilty, that's been applied to height with some success and it tends to confirm the results from the quantitative genetic models. All of those details related to calculating within-group variation -- they all involve family designs. Measuring between group variation is naturally much more tricky as the experimental designs are limited -- things like transracial adoption help, as do molecular genetic tests, which have been the least applied to this subject. --Legalleft (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You claim that Jensen is not "fringe", I don't quite know what this is supposed to mean. Jensen is a notable person, and so has his own Wikipedia article. The question is not whether Jensen is "fringe" or not, but whether his "theories on race and intelligence" are fringe. One of the claims you make to support your idea that Jensen's ideas are not "fringe" is to claim that his 1969 paper "How much can we boost IQ and scholastic achievement" has been cited over 12 hundred times. For your claim to have any merit these cites would have to be in support of his proposition because we are talking about how mainstream his ideas are. In Jensen's Wikipedia article it states that Although his paper was widely cited, a random selection of 60 of these citations revealed that 29 of the papers were direct rebuttals or criticisms of Jensen's arguments, 8 cited the paper as an "example of controversy," 8 used it as a background reference. Only 15 citations of Jensen's paper were in any way supportive of his theories, and 7 of these 15 were only in relation to minor points. So six citations out of sixty support his ideas. If it is then accepted that this is a representative sample it would be fair to say that in actual fact only 10% of the people who cite his paper actually support his psition and at least 48% actively oppose it. I cannot conceive how this can possibly be taken to suggest that this paper is "mainstream" thought, if anything it suggests that these ideas are opposed by a majority in the academic community. Alun (talk) 08:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

First, because the word "fringe" is a term of art in the context of Wikipedia -- Wikipedia:Fringe theories. And whether 10% or 50% or 90% of citations support Jensen's conclusions is largely irrelevant, so long as it's clear that (1) a substantial number do and (2) the total volume of discussion is huge compared to other single figures in the field. Second, obviously the paper metrics are crude, but the provide sufficient evidence of relevance and general importance. Thus, it's inappropriate to claim that what is minimally (by your own data) a substantial minority view is "fringe". Moving beyond that point, I was claiming that so much of the debate has happened in response to Jensen's arguments, that the debate makes little sense if you don't have a clear picture of what he says. As Flynn often says, the glove that Jensen threw down forced people to put much more effort into bolstering their (previously weak) arguments. Jensen is mainstream because people take him seriously as a scholar. This would be obvious in a context without political overtones. --Legalleft (talk) 09:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia fringe theories include "ideas which purport to be scientific theories but have not gained scientific consensus", that is a direct quote. There is no way Jensen's ideas can be considered "consensus". Give the nutters a small section in the article, by all means, but don't claim they are mainstream. No geneticist worth their salt would support Jensen's clearly racist and bigoted "science" (and I use the term in it's loosest possible sense, as I would for intelligent design). Alun (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't sound as if you're prepared to make an unbiased report of what people have written about this subject. The number of famous and less famous scientists who have spoken in support of Jensen (whether endorsing his opinions as the correct science or merely endorsing them as legitimate areas of inquiry) is large (see e.g. Mainstream Science on Intelligence and the recent discussion between Flynn, Gottfredson, Ceci and Turkheimer http://www.cato-unbound.org/archives/november-2007/). --Legalleft (talk) 20:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I have to make any "report" (whatever that's supposed to mean) at all. Indeed considering you have stated that you "believe" that IQ differences between "races" are genetic I find it hilarious that you accuse me of being biased. Your "beliefs" are no less unbiased than mine. I also don't understand what you are trying to infer, so what if there are some scientists who agree with him? I don't remember ever saying that he was unique, and I have not said that we should not mention his work in the article, I have merely stated that his theories on race and intelligence are fringe according to Wikipedia's own guidelines. In my opinion Jensen is nothing more than a racist bigot who is far from an unbiased "scientist", for example Jensen specifically states in 1969 that remedial education in the USA has failed, this was in 1969, a mere five years after the civil rights act was signed, when segregation was less than a decade over. This sort of claim is clearly not derived from an unbiased perspective, whichever way one looks at it. He claims that less than five years is enough to reduce five hundred years of white supremacism. Clearly the article on mainstream science and intelligence is not about mainstream science, it is a few psychologists, not a full representation of a broad swath of scientific opinion. Furthermore there are serious problem's with using the concept of IQ as a specific measure of intelligence. Many reputable scientists claim that so called "general intelligence" is nothing more than a statistical artifact. Whether it is or not is not really the point, the point is that no one knows if it's real or not. Likewise I have been looking into heritability, and many scientists are sceptical of heritability estimates for IQ, claiming that (1) heritability is a measure of variance and (2) that environment-gene interactions need to be independent for any analysis to be valid. To the laboratory scientist correlation is never proof of cause and effect, but some social scientists seem to be strongly wedded to this belief.

The fallacy is that a knowledge of the heritability of some trait in a population provides an index of the efficacy of environmental or clinical intervention in altering the trait either in individuals or in the population as a whole. This fallacy, sometimes propagated even by geneticists, who should know better, arises from the confusion between the technical meaning of heritablility and the everyday meaning of the word. A trait can have a heritability of 1.0 in a population at some time, yet this could be completely altered in the future by a simple environmental change. If this were not the case, ‘inborn errors of metabolism’ would be forever incurable, which is patently untrue. But the misunderstanding about the relationship between heritability and phenotypic plasticity is not simply the result of an ignorance of genetics on the part of psychologists and electronic engineers. It arises from the entire system of analysis of causes through linear models, embodied in the analysis of variance and covariance and in path analysis. From The analysis of variance and the analysis of causes by R C LEWONTIN (1974) Am J Hum Genet 26:400-41

Lewontin’s classic article on the analysis of variance in human behavioural genetics warrants continued attention for perhaps the worst of them: the article makes several correct observations that continue to remain under-appreciated in some research and much discussion about the causal role of genes in human outcomes. The lucidity of Lewontin’s arguments has historically proven no match for the allure of overly simple characterizations of outcomes as being x% due to genes and (1 - x)% not due to genes. From Commentary: The analysis of variance and the social complexities of genetic causation by Jeremy Freese. International Journal of Epidemiology doi:10.1093/ije/dyl065

The point of the paper was to explain why the statistical partitioning of observed variation in phenotype into variance associated with variation in genetic relationship as opposed to variance assigned to environmental dissimilarities does not, in fact, separate genetic and environmental causes in development, whether in human genetics or in agricultural applications. The reason why the partitioning of variance does not partition causes is that changing the distribution of genotypes will also change the environmental variance, while changes in the distribution of environments will also change the genetic variance. Moreover, neither the magnitude nor the direction of these changes can be predicted from the analysis. From Commentary: Statistical analysis or biological analysis as tools for understanding biological causes. by R C Lewontin (2006) International Journal of Epidemiology doi:10.1093/ije/dyl070

(i) Heritability is not a measure of the contributions of genes and environments to any individual phenotype, a fruitless enterprise as both are subsumed within the processes of development.
(ii) Heritability is an estimate of the genetic and environmental contributions to the variance of any phenotypic measure around the mean for a given population.
(iii) The measure cannot say anything about the causes of differences between populations (Jensen’s earlier error).
(iv) Heritability refers to the genetic contribution to variance within a population and in a specific environment (it was originally introduced for use in breeding experiments intended to improve crop yield); if the environment changes, the heritability measure changes.
(v) Implicit in the measure is the assumption that the contributions of genes and environment are additive, although a fudge factor for small interactions is included. To demonstrate the problems with this assumption, Lewontin draws extensively on the concept, originally introduced by Schmalhausen in the USSR and developed in the US by Dobzhansky, of norm of reaction, which means that the phenotypic effect of any gene may vary continuously but non-linearly and often unpredictably across a range of environments. The various figures in the paper are intended to demonstrate some of these possibilities.
From Commentary: Heritability estimates—long past their sell-by date by Steven P R Rose. (2006) International Journal of Epidemiology doi:10.1093/ije/dyl06444

While acknowledging the impact of biological factors on intelligence test performance, we have examined the impact of cultural/environmental factors that affect performance on aptitude and achievement measures. Our work, and that of others (e.g., Aronson, 2002; Sternberg, 1996), show us that intellectual performance is much more fragile and malleable than what is often noted in the current literature. The goals of our commentary are to highlight, briefly, assumptions underlying definitions (i.e., intelligence, heritability, genetics, culture, race) and clarify historical, contextual, and testing issues that were only briefly mentioned by Rushton and Jensen. Finally, we comment on the heuristic value and on policy implications of the research. From THE CULTURAL MALLEABILITY OF INTELLIGENCE AND ITS IMPACT ON THE RACIAL/ETHNIC HIERARCHY by Lisa Suzuki and Joshua Aronson (2005) Psychology, Public Policy, and Law doi:10.1037/1076-8971.11.2.320

I can't find any mention of the validity of heritability estimates for IQ tests in the current article, even though there are clearly many reputable researches that dispute the validity of these estimates, which clearly are estimates of variance and not causation. Alun (talk) 07:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 41

[edit] Bauchet Map

On the genetic map you created from Bauchet's data, you made a critical error. All of the Italians tested in that study were from Southern Italy. So the Northern 2/3 of the country should be in gray, and the color gradients should go from the South to Sicily or vice versa (see this chart of Cluster 1 from the paper for an example). ---- Small Victory (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Check your image again, there are the Italian samples from the Coriell panel as well. I don't think these are identified as anything other than Italian. So there are two sets of Italian samples, the Coreill panel samples and the Southern Italian samples. The only reason I drew it as a gradient is because it was the only way to portray that some Italians belong to the "northern cluster" and others belong to the "southeastern cluster". Check out Table 1 in the paper, this also states there are two sources for Italian samples. Thanks for the note though. Alun (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are three sources for the Italian samples: Southern Italy, Sicily and Coriell. And you can see in the chart I linked to that the one belonging to the "northern cluster" is the Southern Italian sample. The other two samples both belong to the "southern cluster". So even if the Coriell sample was composed of Northern Italians (which is unlikely), your map would still be inaccurate. It needs to show that the gradient is between Southern Italy and Sicily, not between Northern and Southern Italy as it does now, which is unsupported by the data no matter what the origins of the Coriell sample. ---- Small Victory (talk)

No, you are incorrect. The map does not not need to show that the gradient in Italy is between central Italy and southern Italy, the map needs to show that there is a sharp gradient in Italy, the only reason I show the gradient varying north-south is to show that 1) there is a gradient in Italy and 2) That some Italians belong to the "northern cluster" and that some Italians belong to the "south-eastern cluster", I think the map illustrates this very well. I don't think the map is either incorrect or misleading, it is not likely that the Italians that belong to the "northern cluster" are from southern Italy or that Italians that belong to the "south-eastern cluster" from are from northern Italy. Furthermore your claim that the Coriel samples are unlikely to be derived from northern Italy seems to be without foundation. One of the problems with this paper is that many of the samples are only labelled by state of origin and no data are available for the geographic origin of the samples within the state, it gives a false sense of distinctiveness. I worked very hard to construct this map, it was not easy and took a long time to do, I am very pleased with the results, I am quite annoyed that all you can do is critisise another's hard work and effort. Alun (talk) 17:16, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, you should have spent as much time reading and understanding the study as you did constructing your map. You went with your assumptions about Northern and Southern Italy instead of learning the facts. And you seem unable to even understand what I'm explaining to you now, or to interpret a simple chart representing the data from the study.

Look at it again. It's clear that the Southern Italian sample belongs to the "northern cluster", and that the Sicilian and Coriell samples both belong to the "southern cluster". There's no evidence that any Northern Italians were sampled in the study, but even if Coriell were Northern Italian, it doesn't cluster with the "north", it clusters with the "south", so it doesn't help your case at all.

Conclusion: Your map is incorrect and misleading. It needs to be either fixed or deleted. ---- Small Victory (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Please read and try and understand the policy on assuming good faith. Your arrogant and patronising attitude does nothing to help the situation, it only leads to confronation. Please also observe that this paper makes no mention that samples were only collected from south Italy, so your claim is without foundation. The paper's text refers to Italians and to Italy several times, it makes no claims specifically for southern or northern Italians. The Italian samples are simply called "Italian" in the text of the article, there are seven Italian samples, five from South Italy and Sicily and two from Coriell simply labelled "Italian". Because of the way the diagrams are labelled in the paper it is not always possible to know which individuals in the analysis are from which part of Italy, and so it is impossible to claim one way or the other which samples correspond to which geographic region. I used the diagram in figure 4B (k=6), in this diagram the samples are labelled "Italian", with no other information given. Because of this, all I did was to take the samples that have membership of the "northern cluster" (three samples) and apply them to the north of Italy, and apply those that mostly belong to the south-eastern cluster (four samples) to southern Italy. The only reason the samples that mainly belong to the "northern cluster" in Italy are in the north of the country is because the cluster is the northern cluster, the map makes no claims that only northern Italians belong predominantly to this cluster. The alternative would be to average all Italian samples together and apply the average to the whole of Italy, as I have done with all other groups. I would happily do this if that is what you would like, but it is absolutely clear in the text of the paper that some Italians belong predominantly to the "south-eastern cluster" and others have some membership in the "northern cluster", but all Italians also belong to other clusters as well. Indeed all clusters on my map are averages for the populations sampled, all I did with Italians is the average members of the "northern cluster" differently to members of the "southeastern cluster" because the paper claims that some Italians belong in one and other Italians belong in the other (mostly). Here are the relevant quotes from the paper:

Conversely, Italy appears to be a zone of sharp differentiation over small distances. Some Italians cluster with the Northern Europeans while others fall into the Southeastern grouping (Figure 2A).
Within the two broad Northern (Polish, Irish, English, Germans and some Italians) and Southeastern (Greeks, Armenians, Jews and some Italians)
The Northern cohort included all Finnish, Polish, most German, Irish and English, as well as some Basque and Italian individuals. The Southeastern cohort included all Armenians, Jews, Greeks and the other Italians.

I don't really understand your obsession with this rather trivial and minor point. The map is a graphic representation of data, nothing more, it hardly warrants the fanatical obsession you appear to have with it. I made this map in good faith, you simply don't seem to have any good faith in you at all. If you'd like me to average out all Italian samples and apply them to the map as I have with other regions, then I am happy to do this, as long as you can muster enough good grace to ask nicely instead of being arrogant and insulting towards other good faith editors who have put in a great deal of hard work. Oh, and learn to sign your posts, it's not difficult. I also note that you cite the neo-nazi site "racial reality" quite often, I think I know where you are coming from. Alun (talk) 16:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Racial Reality is not a "neo-Nazi site". Read the introductory paragraph on the homepage to see what an absurd accusation that is. But some people whom I would label neo-Nazis have been using your map to argue that Northern Italians are of Northern European descent, which is not at all supported by the data from that study. I've explained it to them and shown them the evidence, but they don't listen, just like you won't listen now. In fact, you're making the exact same assumptions about Northern and Southern Italy as they are, instead of looking at the data I'm showing you. So forgive me if I get a little frustrated.

• Racialreality is a neo-nazi website, look at all the bollocks they spout about so called "races", that any reputable anthropologist worth their salt knows is patent nonsense. The very fact that this site is run by obscure figures who are to ashamed to even publish the names of the dingbats who write this crap speaks volumes. Alun (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Unless you believe that the "southern"-clustering Coriell sample is Northern Italian (which you've implied you don't), there's no basis upon which to include Northern Italy in the map at all. But let's simplify things here. What you should do is forget gradients and regional subdivisions altogether. After all, the Germans are from Hanover and the Spaniards are from Valencia, but you applied these samples to the entire country in both cases. So follow your idea of applying the Italian samples to the whole of Italy (and do the same for England and Ireland while you're at it, just to be consistent).

• Nonsense, the paper talks about "Italians", if you actually read the text of the document or even what I wrote above, this would be obvious to you. Furthermore the Figure I used to make the diagram does not state where any of the samples come from, as I pointed out to you. The paper does however claim that "Italy appears to be a zone of sharp differentiation over small distances", so I included the differentiation in the map, the paper makes no such claims about any other region sampled, so it was actually a representation of what the article actually says. Now as to where the sharp differentiation occurs is another matter. If you check the map I made then you will see that the gradient is rather shallow, with only strong differentiation between the very north and the very south. I could have drawn the map with strong differentiation across Italy and a very steep gradient, but this would have been biased. The only reason for including the gradient at all was because the paper itself stated that there was "sharp differentiation". Indeed there are serious problems with the Bauchet data, the number of samples used was tiny, only seven for the whole of Italy (and less than 300 in total) and we don't even know where two of these come from. The "data you are showing me" are totally irrelevant because it is impossible to know which of these data correspond to which individuals in the Figure I used to construct my map. Indeed the real problem with the map, that you haven't even commented on, is that there was only a single sample from the whole of France, which gives the impression that people in the south of France are not similar to people in the north of Italy or Spain, though one would actually expect that people in the south of France would be more like northern Italians and northern Spanish people than they necessarily would be to northern French people. The paper is not actually very good, the origin of the samples is not clear and we do not have a very good sampling strategy. Ideally the paper should have collected samples by geographic regions rather than by artificial political constructs, this sampling method distorts the map greatly and appears to indicate that there is differentiation between individuals across state borders, where we would not expect to see sharp differentiation. On the whole the work seems to have been done not for academic purposes but so they can sell their "Europe test" to the gullible, they're just trying to make a few quid. I don't know what you are talking about with regards to England and Ireland, these samples were collected independently and have not been presented as a gradient, they were simply "west Irish" and "east English", so that is where they are placed on the map. As for the claim that northern Italians are of northern European descent, well they are, all Europeans are to a greater or lesser extent of northern European descent, just as all Europeans are of southern European descent. Indeed all humans are of recent African origin and our species is of such recent origin and is so outbred that we all have descent from a great many parts of the world. The problem is that whenever anyone claims to be of any "exclusive descent" then they have entered the realms of fantasy, they believe it for ideological (or sometimes cultural) reasons and not because of scientific reasons, so changing the map won't change that. The same goes for claims of "race", they are ideologically motivated and proving that "race" is a fallacy, as genetics and anthropology has done over and over again, will never stop racism or so called "racialreality" because these are ideologies and not based on rationalism. Alun (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

That's my suggestion. I hope you follow it, but whatever you decide, I would appreciate some kind of correction, because the map now is definitely misleading and it's being exploited by the very kinds of people you dislike. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you have accepted my proposal, it's a shame you could not have been a little more constructive at the beginning rather than having a hissy fit. I don't think there is anything wrong with the map as it is, but I'm happy to change it, it won't be any more or less accurate if I make the change because I will be omitting the sharp differentiation in Italy the paper specifically discusses, but as I'm fed up with reading your whining I'll change it to get some peace. Alun (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

1) Studying racial characteristics is not "neo-Nazi". I can see you're one of these self-righteous types with an irrational hatred of race who rely heavily upon Reductio ad Hitlerum in fashioning your "arguments" against racial reality. Suffice it to say that the "racist" anthropology of the past is harmonizing very nicely with the genetics of today.

Again you rely on non-reliable sources to support your claims. Who wrote this? What is their authority? Is it written by a reputable geneticist or anthropologist? Is their analysis a non-biased representation of the sources they have used? I on the other hand have a degree in Genetics from a reputable university and so rely on peer reviewed publications written in reputable scientific journals by academics who do not conceal their identity to form my opinions. If you rely on non-reliable sources from written by anonymous people who appear to have no reputable academic credenials, then more fool you. Basically you are claiming it is correct because a "bloke down the pub said it". Alun (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

2) The data I'm showing you is perfectly clear. You just don't know how to interpret it, which was your problem from the start. It shows the "SouthItalian" sample clustering with the north (English, Irish etc.) and the "Sicilian" and "ItalianCoriell" samples clustering with the south (Greek, Jewish etc.). That's how your map should have been constructed, since there's no evidence of anyone from Northern Italy clustering with the north. In this study, only the Southern Italian sample clusters with the north. Get it?

Firstly you damage your own credibility by claiming that "The data I'm showing you is perfectly clear". The word "data" is plural, so The data are perfectly clear is correct. I repeat again that there is no way of knowing which samples come from which region of Italy in the diagram I used to construct the map. I have ststed this again and again, but you do not seem to be able to greasp this very simple concept. The data used to construct the map do not use principal coordiante analysis, they use STURCTURE, this programme produces different results to the principal coordinates analysis because it is a different analysis. This is surely not beyond even your ability to grasp? Alun (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

3) I'm saying that if you apply the samples from Hanover and Valencia to the whole of Germany and Spain, why not also apply the East English and West Irish samples to the whole of England and Ireland? Be consistent.

I am being consistent, look at the figure I have used to make the map, figure 4B. The figure specifically states "East Enlish" and "West Irish", but the German samples are only labelled as "German" and the Italian samples are only labelled as Italian. You need to look at the diagram I used to make the map. It is impossible to know which samples are derived from which part of Germany on this diagram, but it is possible to know that the "east English" samples come from the east of England, because they are labelled as such on the diagram. You do not appear to understand that the map is constructed from a single diagram (fig 4B), the diagram is the one that shows the clustering analysis, I have not used any other information in constructing this map for the simple reason that it is not possible to know which samples in this diagram correspond to which sampled regions. This is a flaw in the paper I agree. For example if the exact location of each individual sample were given in the clustering diagram, then I could construct a much better map, we would be able to see exactly where the cline is in Italy, and any other clines internall to any political region. I have done nothing more than try to make the best map I can from the way the data were presented in the paper. Clearly you think you can directly identify which sample on the clustering diagramme (fig 4B) is derived from which specific region, I think this is not true and would be at best a guess. Alun (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

4) Getting you to make that (necessary) change to the map was like pulling teeth. But thanks anyway. It's been a pleasure educating you.

Your ignorance of the science, lack of social skills, bad faith, arrogance and utterly obnoxious attitude really do mark you as a true "racial reality" type. Alun (talk) 11:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

--- Small Victory (talk) 12:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

"Who wrote this? What is their authority? Is it written by a reputable geneticist or anthropologist? Is their analysis a non-biased representation of the sources they have used?"

The paper was written by Dr. Neil Risch, Ph.D et al., and published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Who wrote the blog is irrelevant since it only quotes the paper.

Nonsense, who wrote the blog is of fundamental importance because it is not necessarily an accurate representation of the paper. Neil Risch ison record as having stated that he doesn't even know what "race" is.

Risch: Scientists always disagree! A lot of the problem is terminology. I'm not even sure what race means, people use it in many different ways.[10]

Alun (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"The word 'data' is plural, so The data are perfectly clear is correct."

Data can be used with either a singular or plural verb. The singular is actually preferred by scientists. You'd think someone with a "degree in Genetics" would know that.

I've never heared any scientist use the term data in the singular. Maybe it's an American thing. Alun (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"It is impossible to know which samples are derived from which part of Germany"

Um, the Germans were all sampled from the same location: Hanover. (See Table 1)

The figure I used states they are German. Alun (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"You do not appear to understand that the map is constructed from a single diagram (fig 4B), the diagram is the one that shows the clustering analysis, I have not used any other information in constructing this map"

That was your big mistake. All of the diagrams represent the same samples and information in different ways. That's why you have to look at more than one to understand the study. Figure 5 breaks down the Italian sample and must be used to inform one's interpretation of Figure 4B.

Not a mistake, it is deliberate. As you point out yourself the Italian samples are derived from at least three different parts of Italy, but they are only called "Italian" in fig 4B. It is not possible to know which individuals in fig 5 correspond to which individuals in fig 4B. If the findividuals in figure 4B were labelled by their exact region of origin, then it would be possible to produce am much more informative map, if this had been the case, that all individual samples were labelled by the exact origin in all figures, then it would be much easier to draw a conclusion. I had to make "east English" samples all "east English" and all Italian samples as "Italian" because the labelling on diagram 4B does not give more detailed infrmation. As such, inorder to be consistent I had to call all German samples German. There's northing wrong with consistency.Alun (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

--- Small Victory (talk) 11:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I've made the changes you've asked for, I agree there was some merit in what you were saying, but the change I made soes not reflect the clinality in Italy, but then the way the samples are labelled in the paper is inconsistent and it could have been written in a far more logical way. Currently it appears that there are discrete "boundaries" between political regions, which would be more like clinal variation had the sampling strategy and labelling in the paper been of better quality. It's not a particularly good paper, it could have been a great deal better, but we must work with the materials we are given. I did my best and acted in good faith when I made the map, something you seem incapable of doing.Alun (talk) 15:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"Nonsense, who wrote the blog is of fundamental importance because it is not necessarily an accurate representation of the paper."

There's a link to the paper at the bottom. Anyone can read it and verify that it's been accurately represented.

"I've never heared any scientist use the term data in the singular. Maybe it's an American thing."

No, it's a British thing too.

"The figure I used states they are German."

Yeah, Germans from Hanover -- every single one of them. Try reading the whole study instead of just looking at one figure.

"It is not possible to know which individuals in fig 5 correspond to which individuals in fig 4B."

Of course it is because both figures show the same "northern" and "southern" clustering individuals, and Figure 5 tells you that it's the South Italian individuals who belong in the "northern" cluster, and the Sicilian and Coriell individuals who belong in the "southern" cluster.

"Well I've made the changes you've asked for, I agree there was some merit in what you were saying"

Thank you.

--- Small Victory (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eleven-22-Pistepirkko.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Eleven-22-Pistepirkko.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)