User talk:Wobble/archive9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Apology 1.1 FROM ROSALIND FRANKLIN 2 Wikipedia Weekly Notification 3 Hi Again 4 Template:Double helix3 5 Lukas19 6 Please help 7 Mediation Cabal Case 8 I just have to tell you ... 9 Mulatto 10 white people/Europeans 11 European people 12 Gallery 13 Sockus secondus 14 Love the Sami picture 15 Hey 16 Racism 17 Hello 18 Thanks for your cogent post at White people 19 race 20 Slrubenstein 21 Up against the wall ... 22 Progress 23 Race and genetics 24 White People 25 Your new moniker 26 Karen 27 race 28 race 29 race II 30 race - reorganization 31 Species 32 white people 33 White people 34 Wikipedia Weekly Episode 28 35 Smile 36 Everytime you post something that makes me smile 37 population genetics 38 POV pushing and RfC 39 please reconsider 40 NOR

[edit] Apology

Thank you for your apology. I was surprised to see you react that way, as I've always found you to be an excellent and well-balanced editor. I know Wikipedia can grind people down from time to time and I hope you took a bit of time off - I certainly have been. :) No hard feelings. Vashti 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FROM ROSALIND FRANKLIN

ENGLISH NATIONALITY/JEWISH RELIGION?

I suggest the following is inappropriate: "Rosalind Elsie Franklin (25 July 1920 – 16 April 1958) was an English-Jewish physical chemist and crystallographer who made important contributions to the understanding of the fine structures of DNA, viruses, coal and graphite."

So '-Jewish' has been deleted; as ever, rather than revert - can (you) please debate this point?

Martin

91.108.47.55

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Notification

Just a super quick note, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 21 is out and can be downloaded at the usual places (if you've forgotten, WikipediaWeekly.com works wonders. -- Tawkerbot 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hi Again

Are you back?

My recollection is, after unfortunate hostility and then what I thought was a very productive conversation, I suggested reorganizing parts of the Race article along these lines:

• First, move the section "Race and Models of Human Evolution" so that it appears before the section race as subspecies
• Second, elaborate on "evolutionary lineages" either in the section on race and models of human evolution, or in race as subspecies
• Third: After Race and Population Genetics, create a new section, Race and molecular Genetics. Would this be the appropriate place to explore population structure, clusters, and work by Tang and Rosenberg?
• Fourth: under Race as Social Constructions create a new section on race as lineage, drawing on Abu el Haj and others?

At the time you seemed supportive, though understandably tired from the edit warring. The thing is, now that I understand your position (and therefore, the science, better), it seems to me that you are the most capable person to make the changes. At best I would be cutting and pasting from your own statements in your archived talk page, and doing some rewriting. If you are back, I would enjoy working with you on this - I hope the feeling would be mutual or if you prefer you can work at it on your own. It was my hope that we reached a framework that was satisfying to both of us - I certainly do not want to make you feel unwelcome at that page, and I would hate to see us loose what you have to offer, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

What you propose on my talk page makes perfect sense. If you don't mind some advice: while I may just be slow, I think you explained things much more clearly during our dialogue on your talk page, than on the articel talk page (this does not mean I question your good faith in your comments on the Race talk page) - I do think some of what you wrote in the course of that dialogue could be cut and pasted to form part of the new/revised sections. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 09:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Double helix3

A template you created, Template:Double helix3, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Thanks for your attention. --MZMcBride 17:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lukas19

For sure, KarenAER is the same as KarenAE who is probably Lukas19. I'm really not sure what happened with that suspected sockpuppetry deal - apparently Seraphim's opinion alone prevented a WP:DUCK block - but it is annoying because we all felt like we were talking to the same banned user again. Anyway, I'm glad you are back. Keep me updated. Regards, The Behnam 05:30, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please help

Hey. If you have fifteen or twenty minutes, could you look at the White people article and then, I'd appreciate it if you would comment on this discussion. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 06:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

BRAVO! And many, many thanks. I owe you big time. Still, if you don't mind, can you also look at the "content fork" section (probably the last one on the talk page). for one thing I made some claims based on what I know about population genetics but if I am wrong I'd rather you correct them and soon, than have them stay on the page uncorrected. Also, Fourdee and Dark Tea made some comments - to which I was responding - and perhaps you can provide a better response than I can.

But you covered a great deal of territory in your comment in the Bias in article section, and very very articulately. I thank you. SR —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs) 11:59:30, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

Just wanted to say thanks for offering your opinion on the White people article's talk page. Much appreciated.--Ramdrake 14:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Just thought I'd say I've come to reevaluate your input and I appreciate your opinion. I'd be very glad if we could forget our previous disagreements and start over, on the right foot this time. :) --Ramdrake 14:54, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Alun, can you respond specifically to this comment? Here is a clear case where we need expertise on molecular genetics and cladistics, I think. Also, here and here. Is it possible that this editor is making the same mistakes I made several months ago at ther race article, which so frustrated you until you patiently and convincingly explained to me my mistakes on your talk page? That experience makes me very suspicious of these edits but I do not fell I understand the research well-enough to make a fair judgement. Please look at them, and if you feel they are wrong, revert them, and explain the reasons on the talk page. Thanks! Slrubenstein | Talk 20:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation Cabal Case

Hello, you have been listed as a potential participant in an informal mediation regarding a dispute over White people. The case page is listed at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-08-19_White_people. I am looking over the case, and am willing to offer my assistance in this. If you are willing to participate in the mediation and willing to accept my offer to mediate, please let me know. Thank you, Neranei (talk) 22:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I just have to tell you ...

I just have to tell you: although my intentions were sincere, you cannot know how deeply I regret any and all the grief I caused you in the past. I consider you among Wikipedia's most important and best editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 05:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mulatto

You miss my point "light skinned afro-american" is racist by definition we could also say "dark skinned white" for mixed person. my point is that mixed person is same as afro-american as it is white so how can we ignore one part of person's heritage by simply putting him in just one group. mulatto is not peyorative, we cant simply ignore it just cos u never heard of it. check the articles about some countries with large mixed communities and u ll c mulatto term is used in this encylopedia. Luka Jačov 13:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with all you said. my goal was to avoid putting mixed-race people in just one race of their ancestry. All the best! Luka Jačov 16:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] white people/Europeans

done! Slrubenstein | Talk 09:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European people

As soon as you can, please comment here Slrubenstein | Talk 03:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Excellent addition to the gallery. Bring more please! --Kevin Murray 16:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gallery

The consensus has been to use color photos, contemporary people, and keep fame to a minimum except where it provides verifiability. I've adapted to this and now support. Originally I tried to enter some historical figures and B&W but was reverted by the mob. Each photo here has been debated over ad naseum. If we are to keep the galery we need to gain the broadest support. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Among the other concerns that editors have expressed is an over abundance of politicians. They are easy to find, but everyone has their preferences and we have to get a consensus. --Kevin Murray 17:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• You are not stepping on my toes at all. But I'm just trying to be proactive in heading off the mob. --Kevin Murray 17:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm good with the Tom Jones pic you suggested and posted it. --Kevin Murray 17:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sockus secondus

Hi there. I've blocked Phrallus Secondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) as a blatant sock per a report on wikipedia:administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and I noticed your addition to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hayden5650. In the future, I'd recomment AN/I as better than the SSP pages to report blatant sockpuppets, because it has a much quicker response time. Picaroon (t) 06:14, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but please if you really think I am a puppet file a request at WP:RFCU and clear me! I'm not a puppet, just a newbie with an unfortunate similarity in username --Commander Phralson 11:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Evidence. [1] Alun 11:26, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Along with an unfortunately coincidental edit history --Commander Phralson 11:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Love the Sami picture

Great! --Kevin Murray 07:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

If you do not mind, could you e-mail me? Slrubenstein at yahoo dot com Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

Thanks, I appreciate your comments. It is true that there are many racists in my country of birth, but you should know that in most public fora, Phral (who by the way may not be from the US - I guess we would know from his IP address and whoever detected the sockpuppetry knows though) would not get away with saying these things. While there are many things about my country that I am critical of, if you don't mind (I really do not mean to be defensive) I would like to point out two things in, uh, defense of my country. First, I would suggest that Europe is just segregated on a global scale, which makes it less visible than it is in the US. What I mean is, during the first phase of colonial expansion European countries were so segregated that they forcibly moved their subjugated African labor force not to Europe but to Europe's American colonies, leaving the descendents of America's indigenous people, Europeans, and Africans to deal with the mess (I am not denying that the US after independence continued to import slaves ... but it did so in part to produce goods specifically for a European market, and then fought a bloody civil war to end the practice). America is, I am ashamed to say, far from dealing responsibly with its history of genocide and slavery, and of course it is America's immediate burden - but the slavery largely benefitted Europeans. England recently celebrated its anniversary for the abolition of slavery, but there was no discussion of how British merchants continued to get rich off of trade with the slave-based US ... Moreover, in the second phase of European colonial expansion, Europeans did not relocate their subjugated people of color (e.g. in India for the British, Africa largely for the British and French, and Indonesia for the Dutch); instead Europeans moved to their colonies - and from what I can tell, when Europeans were living in close quarters with their subject populations, they were as racist as Americans are today (and I believe that when people from the Commonwealth, esp. in the West Indies, began emmigrating to England on a large scale in the 1960s or 1970s, Britain severely curtailed their right to move to England - this is what I mean by segregation on a global scale).

Second, I wonder whether racists in Europe before the war felt more comfortable expressing their views in public. I have friends in Germany and Austria who feel an acute burden to fight racism precisely because of their country's recent history - and some of them feel a guilt for things I (and non of my Jewish friends) do not blame them for. In short, I wonder if Europe's Nazi experience has made Europeans especially sensitive to racism in a way they were not before the war - I am not saying this to belittle a sensibility I admire and consider virtuous. I wish Americans could confront their genocide of Indians as frankly and constructively as so many Europeans. But perhaps you are fortunate to have been born in Europe when you were. And I am sorry to say that as more Muslims and North Africans immigrate to Europe (in other words, as soon as Europeans have to deal with racial heterogeneity on a scale close to that of the US), I fear you may see more and more racism in Europe. I understand it is an increasing issue in the Netherlands and in Spain and perhaps elsewhere.

In short, I have to wonder if Europeans are as bad at handling racial heterogeneity (at least or especially when it is mapped onto political or economic inequality) as Americans, they have just been able to avoid dealing with it in Europe it for the most part, with - until the Holocuast - the exception of the Jews and Gypsies.

I hope you do not think I am repaying your kindness with cynicism, I appreciate your sympathetic and supportive comment on my page and appreciate your frank thoughtfulness and am just trying to share my own thoughts in the same spirit. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Phral is from New Zealand. Sigh, I can't believe this continues myself. This person is a young person, not an older person from an un-enlightened generation, but the up and comming youth. <sigh> - Jeeny ^Talk 01:19, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I've sent you an email. Hope to hear from you. The Behnam 06:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your cogent post at White people

Thanks - this was a very useful post and quite interesting. I hadn't heard the issue addressed in quite that way before.--Gregalton 07:58, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race

I am doing some very minor work on the race article. I am not sure whether the discussion of race as lineage (I mean e.g. MtDNA lineages) belongs in a section on Molecular genetics or Models of Evolution. I mention it under "Molecular Genetics" but if yoiu want to move it up to the section on Human Evolution or Race as Subspeicies by all means do so. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just made some minimal edits - I will step back now and let you work on it for a while (especially since you have already written A LOT that just needs to be imported into the right places!). I'll go over what you wrote at any time, but I expect when I return to the article later in the week or next week i will do some editing of the Social Construction section - I think it is crucial that the article distinguish between how molecular geneticists understand all the new research on mtDNA lineages and Y-Chromasome haplotyes, versus how this information is being marketed in ways that are changing popular (but not scientific) conceptions of race. I moved some material I wrote several months ago into the Social Construction section and will need to edit it so it flows better. When we were arguing, I brought in citations from some articles I still think are important (even if they are relatively early) - I still think those source sneed to be in the article, but I trust the edits you will be making will provide a better context for that material and also correct any mistkaes I made in representing them. I remember at some point on your talk page when you provided an exceptionally clear explanation of what they menat by lineages and why it could not mean what I thought it meant (at least, it made the lighbulb over my head click on) and I think you can cut and past some of what you wrote to me on your talk page (in June?) right into the article, somewhere. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slrubenstein

Alun! What happened to Slrubenstein? Was he kidnaped or something? Check his supposed reply to you at the white people talk, it goes agaisnt everything he defendeds! The Ogre 12:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Up against the wall ...

Touche - you win this time, commie scum.... Slrubenstein | Talk 13:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Progress

I see you have just written even more material (just recently on the Talk:White people page) that can pretty much go right into the Race article, at least a third to a half of what you just wrote, with minimal editing. Good work! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race and genetics

Thanks for being constructive. As that section needs more information and a reference about Europe would you agree to add the short summary I made of Cavalli-Sforza's findings? 07:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White People

Please be mindful of WP:3RR --222.155.48.142 10:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou for the invite to the discussion. What on earth would it disambiguate to though? White People are White People, grr bloody commies at it again --222.155.48.142 11:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That edit to the White People article was a mistake, I thought they had made that page the default to which you would reach when trying to get to the white race. --222.155.48.142 11:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oi click on the link above that says White People. It goes to that album, in that case I didn't make a mistake, something is fucked up. They both have the same title --222.155.48.142 11:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah fuck I see, they have a bloody capital P. Whereas we, the white race, have it spelt White people. What a bitch lol --222.155.48.142 11:30, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your new moniker

I am DYING laughing!! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karen

Thanks - I had no idea (never followed Lucas much). I am thrilled, although in a perverse way I will miss her. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You pervert! ;¨)--Ramdrake 12:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race

Consider checking the link and comenting: [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

YOU are correct, and your edit is a major improvement. But you MUST stop reverting. Ciolate the 3RR and you risk being blocked which does no one any good. Be patient, ask others to comment on the dispute. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Let him revert the fourth time, and then have him blocked. But don't let him catch you doing it. You have to stick by the rules and wait for one of them to slip, then you have them. I know it is frustrating. But be patient, count on others, be in the right, and when they violate 3RR, strike. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race

I just made this edit, please review it, revise if necessary, and and keep an eye on it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought there was only one race, yet you made two races on this talk page in consecutive order! Oh, for commie scum's sake. - Jeeny ^Talk 18:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race II

I have been tweaking the social construction section.

Here is some material I have taken from past dialogues between us, concerning Cann et. al, genetic lineages, and genetic clustering. I have to defer to you in how to fix the article, but I think we both agree that we need to clarify the distinction between genetic and evolutionary lineages, and locate genetic clustering (does a discussion of Tang et al and genetic clustering belong in the section on population genetics or molecular genetics, for starts? If you could just make a decision on this and make any necessary move that would be a big step in the right direction).

Anyway, I have edited some stuff you have said to me, and am pasting it below because I think much of what follows can be recycled in rewritting the new section in the race article on molecular genetics. Having culled this stuff, I leave it to you to take the next step:

Cann is discussing mtDNA lineages, not human population lineages. This term only applies to the way molecules like Y chromosomes and mtDNA change over time, mutations accumulate in these molecules over time, and therefore they form molecular lineages. For example Cann says "Take, as an example, mtDNA type 49, a lineage whose nearest relative is not in New Guinea, but in Asia (type 50)", she is refering to a specific mtDNA lineage called type49. mitochondrial DNA and Y chromosomal DNA do form molecular lineages, but they are not associated with the concept of "race as lineage". Cann is actually saying that the maternal origins of these human populations are diverse, this is something seen for mtDNA and more recently for Y chromosome DNA, we find that the lineages for these molecules do not conform to any traditional concepts of "race", these molecular lineages cut accross the all "traditional ideas of race". As Keita et al. say in their paper "Conceptualising human variation"

Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type')

Of course sometimes people discuss mtDNA lineages, this is a different sort of "lineage" to "discrete population descended from a common and isolated population", which is Templeton's definition. Mt DNA lineages are groups of people who are the direct descendants of a particular ancestral female, but people carrying different mtDNA lineages are all descended from the same ancestral female through the maternal line(age). For example in the example I have provided here, the mtDNA shows several lineages, haplogroup 5 (Hg5) is part of a lineages that goes Hg1→Hg2→Hg5, but Hg3 is part of a lineage that goes Hg1→Hg2→Hg3. It is clear that Hg3 and Hg5 share a common female ancestor in Hg2, but they still form different lineages. Everyone in Hg5 carries the mut d mutation, this will have arisen in the founder female of this haplogroup, those in Hg3 do not carry this mutation, they have a different mutation called mut b.

This is not the same concept as lineages of whole populations of organisms.

A mtDNA or Y chromosome haplogroup comprises of all of those people who share a common mutation derived from a specific matrilineal or patrilineal ancestor. A lineage is the sequence of mutations that occured to that molecule, it does not represent a haplogroup but rather a series of haplogroups.

Cann's paper does mean groups of people who share a female ancestor traced through mtDNA, but it is the mtDNA molecules that form the lineages. These groups of people that share these common female ancestors may be separated by very large distances, they certainly do not represent "race as lineage", indeed sharing a common matrilinear (or patrilinear) ancestor is not the same as being part of the same lineage. Molecular lineages are not synonymous with "race as lineage", every mtDNA haplogroup is not a new "race" and the lineages represent sequences of changes to the molecule in a linear fashion, hence they are lineages.

Genetic lineages only occur in mtDNA and Y chromosomes, this is due to the unusual way these molecules are inherited. Lineages in these molecules refer to the accumulation of mutations over time, with whole series of molecules gradually accumulating mutations over time, these series of molecules are called lineages, many closely related molecules are in different lineages. this is a common ancestor in the maternal or paternal lineage as we all share much more recentl common ancestors through other lineages.

If we want to calculate how long ago we share a common ancestor through the maternal line, then we need to go back much further than if we just want to calculate how long ago we share any common ancestor. So it's not exactly the same as saying that all humans share the same common ancestor. It's more like saying that all mtDNA and Y chromosome haplogroups trace back to a common maternal or paternal ancestral haplogroup. In the case of mtDNA diversity is lost about 200,000 years ago, for Y chromosomes it is about 70,000 years ago. These both indicate common ancestors for all extant humans, they must be common ancestors to us all because we all carry modifications to the non-recombining DNA we have inherrited from them. This discussion should not only discuss mtDNA, Y chromosome analysis should also be provided. We should not imply that these are the only people from these periods that we are descended from. Other men and women lived at those times, and we are all descended from all of those men and women, it's just that all extant mtDNA molecules happen to derive from a single molecule from this time (200,000 ya), no other mtDNA molecules survived due to genetic drift. The same applies to Y chromosomes, all extant Y chromosomes are descended from a single ancestral Y chromosome that existed about 70,000 years ago. We have all inherited DNA for other people from 200,000 years ago and 70,000 ya, we just have not inherited their mtDNA or Y chromosomes

People with very different mtDNA can be part of the same lineage, remember the lineage is all molecules existing in a linear sequence of mutational events. To clarify, part of a Y chromosome lineage is R→R1→R1b. At some stage a man carrying a haplogroup R Y chromosome had a child who's Y chromosome had a single mutational difference to his fathers, this means that he was the founder of the R1 haplogroup. At some point later a member of the R1 haplogroup had a son who also had a mutation, he founded the R1b haplogroup. R→R1→R1b is a lineage, those members of haplogroup R are part of the same lineage as those members of haplogroup R1b. Members of haplogroup R are also members of the same lineage as men from haplogroup R1a. Members of haplogroup R1a are not members of the same lineage as members of haplogroup R1b.[3] Let's be clear about whether we are discussing lineage or haplogroup membership. From the point of view of lineage, then the ancestral Y chromosome or mtDNA type is a member of all lineages

I also think it is important to point out that Tang and Rosenberg don't claim that their "clusters" are discrete populations, they simply claim that populations that are geographically close are on average genetically more similar to each other than they are to populations that are geographically distant

There is some idea, promoted by certain scientists [NOTE: WE MUST INCLUDE THIS POV AND PROVIDE CITATIONS] studying clustering analyses and their proponents, that "race" can be considered the extent of human genetic variation, in this instance "race" would not constitute any discrete "population", but would constitute "genetic clusters". This sort of argument would fit the discussion for the clustering analyses. People who hold this view accept that this means a different definition of "race". Neil Risch (last author of the Tang paper and a statistician) acknowledges that "clusters as race" is not easily defined in an interview where he was asked "Genome variation research does not support the existence of human races." he replied "What is your definition of races? If you define it a certain way, maybe that's a valid statement."[4] Armand Leroi in his NY Times article "A Family Tree in Every Gene" (in support of the concept of clustering as race) states "Study enough genes in enough people and one could sort the world's population into 10, 100, perhaps 1,000 groups, each located somewhere on the map." and "The billion or so of the world's people of largely European descent have a set of genetic variants in common that are collectively rare in everyone else; they are a race. At a smaller scale, three million Basques do as well; so they are a race as well. Race is merely a shorthand that enables us to speak sensibly, though with no great precision, about genetic rather than cultural or political differences".[5] Of course these positions do not actually try to give any concept of "race", which is a problem, without defining what we mean, it remains an amorphous and almost faith based belief. Still it is a valid point of view in terms of Wikipedia. This idea also has it's critics, notably those people who claim that clustering analyses promote a sense of false distinctiveness due to uneven sampling, we can cite this easily, Kittles and Weiss (2003), Serre and Pääbö (2004), Jackson (2004), Keita et al (2004) and many more. They especially point to the similarity betweent his sort of reasoning and that of physical anthropologists of the 19th and early 20th century. I think the best explanation is that of Ossorio and Duster (2005) (though plenty of discussion on the Race and genomics website) where they state

Anthropologists long ago discovered that humans’ physical traits vary gradually, with groups that are close geographic neighbors being more similar than groups that are geographically separated. This pattern of variation, known as clinal variation, is also observed for many alleles that vary from one human group to another. Another observation is that traits or alleles that vary from one group to another do not vary at the same rate. This pattern is referred to as nonconcordant variation. Because the variation of physical traits is clinal and non-concordant, anthropologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries discovered that the more traits and the more human groups they measured, the fewer discrete differences they observed among races and the more categories they had to create to classify human beings. The number of races observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races (Marks, 2002). Twentieth and 21st century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies.

Some of these points of view are already given in the article, but could be expanded upon. I think currently clustering analyses are the most hotly debated topic about "human race" and genetics. I think this sort of discussion should not be confused with race concepts in biology though, this is not about any biological concept of "race", it is about whether human genetic variation constitutes support for (undefined) human races. Indeed Neil Risch ststes categorically that they do not define their "races" "we tend to use the definition others have employed, for example, the US census definition of race"[6] and of course Tang et al. (which includes Risch as last author) use self identified "race/ethnicity". One could argue that all they are doing is showing that people who identify as belonging to the same group just tend to share more ancestry, but is this really a "definition" of "race"? Anyway it's a decent scientific debate and I think it would fit well in the clustering section, and we have plenty of ofr and against arguments from reliable sources. Sorry for going on a bit, but I think this is an important debate.

I am all for revising the race article along these lines! Slrubenstein | Talk 13:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] race - reorganization

Only general comments for now: I agree about deleting race(biology) - what you want to do is say yoiu are merging it with subspecies and put a redirect from race(biology) to subspecies.

I agree in principle on content forks i.e. putting most of the stuff on subspecies in an article on subspeices. However, I think there are rare exceptions and this is one of them. Race is such a hot topic, many people will come ot the race article and no matter what you think ("It is what makes the internet great" or "it is the only sensivle way to orgaize an encyclopedia" or "it is so easy to do" or "any intelligent person will understand"), most readers will read the race article and NOT follow the links to an article on subspecies or race(biology). So while I am all for editing down the article, I think (1) we just have to accept that race, like all controvesial articles, has to be longer than the average Wikipedia article and (2) we need to explain just as much about subspecies as necessary for the average reader to (1) understand and (2) understand why fourdee or MoritzB are wrong. Make these principles your standards, and cut as much as you think you can, but please bear this in mind.

I do not think there is a need for a subsection on race as lineage, but I do think that within the section on evolution there is a need for subsections on evolutionary lineages an cladistics, and then in the subspecies section you can refer back to them.

I understand you reasoning for changing "population genetics and race" to genetic variation or whatever. I don't want to argue with you, but I have a different view and just hear me out: I think you are thinking like a scientist, and I am trying to think like an encyclopedia editor. Your proposal makes sense. But the reason I support mor or less the current headings is this: the core WP policy is NPOV which means multiple points of view and I and others organized the article so that different sections looked at race from different points of view. I think you are trying to express a general scientific view, and divide the arrticle into different facets of race (or race-related topics). I ask you to do a thought-experiment: imagine one day you get tied of Wikipedia and leave the project, and people like MortizB and others like KarenAER remain. They will keep insisting on adding "their views." I think if the article is divided into sections each dealing with a different facet of the scientific research, they will make horrible edits all over the place. I think if the article is organized into different viws of race (including views coming from different sub-disciplines of biology), their changes will be confined to a few sections, which will make it easier for us to fix any errors that creep in ... I am trying to think practically. Those guys will always accuse you and any well-informed editor of pushing a POV, and I also think it is a good defensive strategy to organize an article by "views" (I know that molecular geneticists and population geneticists agree on everything, but they can dtill be described as identifiable views) Also, debates with me (and I have a higher degree) who misunderstood Cann, as well as debates with MoritzB prove to you that most people really do not understand the science. So let me give two final rationales for the way it was organized (and this does not mean it can't be improved! i am not arguening against any change, just trying to lay out principles). First, people come to the article with a clear view of what race is already in their mind. I think it will be easier for them to be educated as to other ways of looking at race if it is laid out in terms of different views. For example, in race as subspecies (or evolutionary lineage) even if the section explains why scientists abandoned this view people will say "yes, that is what race is" - it will be familiar to them and when you explain why scientists have rejected it instead of feeling lost they will ask, welll, wha took its place? Second, in order to answer that question, given people's general ignorance of science, I think it is not enough to explain to them the state of the art thinking on human genetic and phenotypic variation. They need o be educated about science itself. So this is why I created sections on population genetics and molecular genetics. i think they need to understand what different kinds of work different kinds of scientists have done that have changed our views of genetic variation and the history of the species. So please just bear this in mind too: not just a structure and section headings that educate people about race and human variation, but a structure and section headings that educate lay readers about science - who are scientists, what do they do. I think it is good that they understand that scientists aren't just guys with glasses and white jackets, but that there are many different kinds of biologists (and anthropologists) who do different kinds of research and it all adds up to our current view f things.

I hope these general comments help. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your most recent comment on my page. I think a former editor confused recent advances in molecular genetics with cladistics. That said it is worth providing a few sentences on cladistics in the evolution section with a link to another article. I skimmed your rewrite of race as subspecies and liked it, though I think it could be tweeked - put it up and invite Ramdrake to edit it, maybe put a message on the evolution talk page (they are very good editors there) and just ask someone to go over it editorially. I am glad what I wrote sounds reasonable to you. I am not asking you to stop thinking about the changes you have in mind, only to mull over my rationale. I would ask you to try to work within the existing framework and when you reach a point where you find the framework makes it impossible to explain things clearly, then we can discuss altering the general framework. Might i suggest for now just rewriting the sections on population genetics and molecular genetics? In my mind, the former is the place to explain the concepts of population and cline; the later, genetic lineages (mtDNA and Y haplotypes) and how they are NOT evolutionary lineages (which is why in the evolution section we DO need a good explanation of what an evolutionary lineage is). When i wrote the population genetics section I tried to take a historical approach and I ask you to consider seriously keeping within that framework. I prefer this framework as an anthropologist because it shows how knowledge is constructed; I prefer this framework as a teacher because it helps students understand how scientists came to change their minds and walking students through that process helps students change their minds.

You know, one reason I originally fought with you is that I didn't think you understood our NPOV policy. With great respect, i still think you are sometimes too sloppy about it. YOU may think a psychologist is an inappropriate source on race (and I actually agree with you of course). But many editors disagree, and NPOV I think requires us to include them. Now, I ask you to be practical again. Imagine you left Wikipedia. I PROMISE you that shortly thereafter people will insert what evolutionary psychologists say and claim that NPOV demands it (like what MoritzB is doing right now with Sewall and Dobzhansky, trying to turn the article into "he said she said" which I think is an awful, ahistorical way to do it. WHICH IS WHY I think that strategically, we (and by we I mean you) are the ones who have to add thse views. Do not leave out a view because you know it is marginal - if you do, you are just allowing someone lse to put that view in later, and in a POV warrior way that you would hate. If YOU put it in now, you get to control the way it is incorporated. That is why thinking about the general framework of the article in terms of NPOV is so important. People will add these views if you do not. So figure out the framework that enables you to add them in a way that does not comprmise your scientific integrity. that way they will be in, no one could accuse you of pushing a POV, you won't get bogged down in stupid endless debates with other editors ... the view will be in, just in a framework that helps people understand that view (historical: it once was a widely held view, but scientists changed their mind. Scale: it is a view that makes sense if you sample college students in new York, but not if you are sampling the whole world. Discipline: it is a view that serves psychologists purposes because in order to research x, they make assumptions about y; biologists are researching y, not making assumpotions about it, and thus reach other conclusions ... get my drift? Figure out the appropriate framework that accommodates and explains differences between views including views you know to be wrong, but that you can't just say are wrong because your doing so violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Species

Obviously you have been doing a lot of fruitful research that should go into the Species article. Personally, my view of "species" is that of Darwin's:

I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other .... it does not essentially differ from the term variety, which is given to less distinct and more fluxtuating forms. The term variety, again in comparison with mere individual difference, is also applied arbitrarily, and for mere convenience sake" from 1988 (1859) On the Origin of Species in The Works of Charles Darwin edited by Paul H. Barrett and R. B. Freeman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press vol. 15 page 39.

One of the first thing I learned in college - in my first anthropology course - was the concept of ring species and the arbitrariness (or let's say convenience, or purely heuristic utility) of any definition of species. BSC just uses differential fertility as an index of genetic difference, but is only convenient as it doesn't apply to any asexual species ... PSC sounds much more appealing (if I, admittedly not a life scientist, had to come up with a definition I'd say a species is an organism with some unique heritable adaptation to a specific niche or something like that, but for me, the real point is Darwin's. Obviously for the race article you want to be relevant and I suggest this approach: what is important is not what is the best definition of species, but what definition of species people are invoking when they identify races as sub-species. I would specify the time frame, when this definition of species was mainstream, and among whom (zoologists? botanists? population geneticists? molecular geneticists? All biologists?). This is to comply with NOR and NPOV - what is important is not your view of species, but the views of those notable people who have written on race. Beyond that, you can summarize very concisely that since decade x, thanks to technology y, most biologists have abandoned that definition of species for this definition of species with a link to the section in the species article (like most articles, I think part of the species article should be a history of the concept in part because that is often a good framework for locating diferent views of a concept). If no one currently publishing on race refers to the new literature on species and the PSC definition, you oughtn't to bring it into the article. Bt if most people writing on race or human variation today simply no longer invoke the concept of species to explain themselves, you can say that. I suspect most of your work will improve the species article, and at most just help clarify certain things in the race article. Keep NPOV and NOR in mind. We report views, even when they are wrong - we just need to put those views in context. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is Darwin's preiscience, not mine! Indeed, i think his reconceptualization of species is a major break with Linneus and one of the most radical and important elements of Darwinian thought, you can certianly quote him in the Species article. As for the Race aticle: the views of Hooten, Mayr, and Levin must be included. If their positions are outdated, present their views in a historical prespective. If at the time they wrote their views were conteste, present the debate. But obey NPOV: present different, even and especially opposing points of view, and especially views you believe to be wrong - present them accurately and in context. You do not hve to give them disproportionae weight, but I think there is something very revealing about a story about arguments among scientists over how to define race, and how different definitions emerged and then were replaced as the scientific community itself considered different approaches, tested their heuristic value and tested them against evidence, and developed new approaches. Use the aricle to educate a popular audience in how science considers seemingly sensible ideas (many lay people certianly think they are common sense) but tha scientists are a communty that always debates, questions, tests, and reconsiders and revises. And establish a framework within the article for presenting contrary and even wrong points of view, to coopt any point that future racist editors will insist on including in the article, with NPOV supporting them. I hope this makes sense. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] white people

feel free to delete my most recent comment whenever you want. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] White people

See what I mean about the ednless supply of racialist editors? It is not enough to argue with them, or to put in content in an article that explains the science - they will always find an "On the other hand, x, says" even if they are misinterpreting X. This is why I think the way to win is not just by putting in a clear and well-sourced account of the science (which would of course suffice for an audience of your peers). One has to think strategically about the organization of the article so that it coopts and preempts these views. In the case of "White people," for example, I would have a section on "White phenotypes" but in it explain first how the study of white peoples reveals that they selectively use phenotypic traits metonymically as markers of their identity and that these traits do not really refer to a physical reality, and then have s hort section on how population geneticits have demonstrated genetic variation among white groups, or something like that. I still think the real battle will be won on the race article, as that is the main article on race it will be easy to insist that other articles at least be consistent with it. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly Episode 28

[edit] Smile

- Jeeny ^Talk 05:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Cut it out!! I was smiling at you for something else. But, not now. Pfft! Crabby ol' hippy 06:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Everytime you post something that makes me smile

you get this. Now don't smile back at me, because I don't like it. Pfft!. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] population genetics

Hey, I made an edit yesterday to the Race article; could you go over it ant perhaps develop it? My intention was three-fold: (1) the section introduces key concepts of cline and population, but I think is clearer about "clinal variation" than about "population" - I wanted to flesh out the explanation of "population" (if you know some very good /prevailing operationalized definitions of the term, it would be good to add. (2) I think there is value in discussing barriers to gene flow to explain differences between populations. Racialist editors are focused narrowly on the existence of differences (which leads to static, essentialist models of biological difference); my intention was to call attention to processes that leave us with a dynamic model. (3) you have spent a good time arguing on the talk page why these differences do not amoung to "race." I do not think your arguments will be effective unless you link them to a model of how these differences arise. Elaborating - as concisely as possible - on how the differences arise creates a natural opening in the article for you to add your explanation of why it doesn't amount to race, how race and population are not isomorphic. Inter alia, I see no problem with acknowledging that Mayr and others use a phrase, "geographic race" - I think the key thing is to explain how this is fundamentally diferent from race as subspecies and from popular notions of race (that lump Africans, Melanesians, and African-Americans in the same race, for example). I think it is essential to make clear that "geographic race" owes everything to the concept of "population" and thus has no connection at all to pre-Mendelian/modern synthesis Western notions of races as taxa or eolutionary lineages. I made a start at this but think you can do a better job of developing and editing it for clarity, perhaps incorporating in to the section stuff you wrote on the talk page concerning witherspoon (not just to explain witherspoon but to explain th population geneticit's view of phenotypic variation and the concept of population more generally) Slrubenstein | Talk 11:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] POV pushing and RfC

The problem with the RfC process is that it assumes that community input can help resolve the issues. In MoritzB's case, I'm pretty sure that this assumption is unreasonable. For one thing, there have already been multiple calls for him to stop and everyone's been brushed off as liberals scared to face the truth. Moreover, MoritzB consistently games the system. He does not violate 3RR per se: his reverts stop at 2 for one day, then another one the next day. He does not add unsourced material: he adds material from sources of dubious value from authors whose work has been widely discredited then argues their work was published in reliable sources. He makes an outrageous edit, then tries to find a compromise on the talk page, canvasses for support and tries to obtain a compromise which should never have happened in the first place. What is an RfC going to accomplish? He's perfectly aware of what he's doing and there's no doubt in my mind that he's an experienced Wikipedian with a new username. Pascal.Tesson 16:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I have pretty much reached the conclusion that he is a troll, and the only strategy effective with trolls is simply to ignore them - "don't feed the troll." I have not done this myself, but I thinki it is time i stopped responding to him at all. If you, Muntuwandi, Jeeny Ramdrake whoever else is working on the article agrees, then we can just refocus on the article. PT is right that an RFC will not work: most people are too ignorant of the specifics of population genetics to comment effectively on the content, and he has not violated any personal behavior rules which are the only ones that the community as a group ever enforces. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I think an RfC would help for several reasons. It lets the community discuss his behaviour and it gives him a chance to respond. It also allows uninvolved parties to comment as well. But most importantly we need to have a RfC because he is so disruptive, is pushing his POV so much and is edit waring so much that we may at some point need to go to ArbCom, and we cannot do this without first having an RfC. I have seen editors blocked for POV ushing far less than MoritzB. He seems to get a way with a lot more than other editors. He is still POV pushing, disrupting wikipedia and edit warring. He was conciliatory on AN/I, but did not actually change his behaviour on either talk or article pages. I wonder just what he has to do for an admin to actually do something, if warns do not work do you just let the behaviour continue? Some editors seem to be able to get away with a lot more than other editors. If he is an old user that has come back with a new user name, then surely there is a chance he is evading a block. I'm tired and fed up with countering his nonsense. I've had enough of these disputes and the constant lies that come from this sort of editor, and I've had enough of these racist pov pushers being given free reign to disrupt this project and spread their lies and distortions. If the answer is not an RfC, then it must be to let him pollute Wikipedia with his pov, which undermines Wikipedia and makes it anything but neutral. When I talk to my friends about Wikipedia I always tell them that this is not the place to come for reliable information, and I tell them that I know this because I am an editor of Wikipedia and I know how much nonsense is allowed to go on here. Even in a anarchistic community like Wikipedia we do have the sanction of exclusion, but if no one is prepared to start a discussion about his behaviour then the community lacks a forum for discussing this problem. I urge you to reconsider. Alun 06:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"I'm tired and fed up with countering his nonsense" - Alun, respectfully: no, you are not. You are not tired of dealing with him. Some part of you enjoys it, because you keep doing it. I told you: stop feeding the troll. he wants attention and he sticks around because you give it to him. And you want more people to give him attention? He will then never go away. Your strategy would make him a permanent and daily fixture of the article. You have to face facts: you are enabling him. If you are honest when you say, "I'm tired and fed up with countering his nonsense" then this is what you would do: you would simply ignore him. You would stop writing several paragraphs of text on the talk page when you should spend that time working on an article. When he comments on the talk page you would just walk away. But you can't stop yourself. You are enabling him.

An RFC not only would make the problem worse, most editors will say it is inappropriate since he is not violating any personal behavior rules. And more people explaining genetics to him is just going to give him what he wants: "food" (attention) and then he will never leave. Your approach will just mean we will never make any progress on the article, and will have to deal with him forever. Is that really what you want?

An intelligent person assesses their actions based on their effects. Your action has been to engage in lengthy dialogue with him, responding to every comment he makes. What has been the effect? If you are pleased with the effect, go right on doing what you have been doing. If you are not pleased with the efect, stop doing what you have been doing. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] please reconsider

I warned you, but you ignored me! please read this: Wikipedia:What is a troll? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"I don't think he's going to give up just if we ignore him." You have never even tried ignoring him. He hasn't given up because we have given him attention. His POV pushing is irrelevant: the core people working on that page do not accept his violations of NOR and NPOV and revert any edit of his that violates those policies. As long as we continue to remove bad content and add good content and ignore him on the talk page, he will go away. Just do not violate 3RR when reverting one of his bad edits. Wait for me or Muntuwandi to show up. And if he reverts four times, go to AN/I and ask that he be blocked for violating 3RR. These are things you can do. But on the talk page: do not feed him. Just ask yourself what you get out of it? Maybe it makes you feel good to explain things, but you should do that on the article page. I assure you, he is thrilled to see you waste your time showering attention on him that will never change your mind. Is that what you want? Because that is what you are doing. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It will only work if M and I and others do the same. We have to give it a week. In the meantime: delete any bad edit, never violate 3RR, and report anyone who does. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NOR

There is a huge debate going on concerning the future of the NOR policy Wikipedia talk:No original research. I think you understand what is at stake, and hope you will participate. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)