User talk:Carwil/Human genetic clustering

Template:WikiProject Genetics

Needs serious editing and removal of irrelevant references

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

Population clustering from copy number variation genotypes

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

Hopeless article

The text in this article is an incoherent rambling with no structure. It's also based almost entirely on primary sources. Hardly anything from here is salvageable besides the references and pictures. Tijfo098 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I know that you've stopped editing Wikipedia, Tijfo098, at least for now or under your Tijfo098 username, but I felt the need to state that I just got through calling this article a mess, and I see that the first section after this pretty much does as well. Flyer22 (talk) 08:02, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

restored article

The article was recently reduced to a stub with no discussion. I have restored the article to it's non-stub state. aprock (talk) 23:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

All the edits were carefully explained and relevant material moved to other articles. This article now has many inaccuracies and overlap with other articles. I will restore prior state.Miradre (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have reverted again. Please explain here on talk. See my above response.Miradre (talk) 00:28, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

File:PC Analysis of Asian Genetics.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:PC Analysis of Asian Genetics.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Terrible

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

Jenks natural breaks

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

Opposition by Grayfell

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

As I said at Talk:Racialism#David_Reich_article regarding the same basic issue, Reich's position cannot be taken in a vacuum anymore than "race" can be taken in a vacuum. From context, it is not clear exactly what Reich's point was, because even his own defenders agree he was misinterpreted. Why would the article emphasize this one perspective, stripped of any of that context? This would be cherry-picking and a disservice to both the reader, and to Reich. Again, as I said elsewhere, Reich comments have been specifically identified as sloppy (etc.) for how easy they are to misinterpret to support something Reich opposes. My opinion of Reich doesn't matter any more than yours does. What matters is what reliable, independent sources have to say. As for Michel Tibayrenc, please find an independent source for this so we can evaluate significance, and explain to readers who this person is and why their perspective would belong. Lacking this, these are just arbitrarily selected primary sources in an ocean of primary sources. You also applied two sources for one quote, which makes it difficult to verify. That an author quotes himself in a later work doesn't make this perspective anymore or less significant. Grayfell (talk) 23:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, and I have made three reverts, so I have not violated 3RR. Grayfell (talk) 23:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)