1 |
Recent addition Negrito
Hi Skllagyook! A new editor has added some text to Negrito based on a very interesting article about an ancient (Toalean) hunter-gatherer from Sulawesi. I don't want to revert it at once, even though it is totally misplaced, as it construes the Toalean individual as a "Negrito" when the paper doesn't do that, and even worse, the paper clearly shows that the genome of this specimen is quite distant from Negritos (represented only by the Mamanwa from Mindanao). I don't want to remove it now, because I simply don't know where we can place it (with all due corrections). In Peopling of Southeast Asia? But then we miss the important link with the peopling of Australia and Near Oceania. Do you think it makes sense to build a new article? It could cover similar material that was amassed in Australo-Melanesian before, but with less synth and more emphasis on the genetic complexity of Australia, Near Oceania and the SEA remnant populations without spurious unifying labels (Negrito, Australomelanesoid etc.).
I don't want to talk about the familiar combination of good editing skills, a good instinct for valuable sources, but a lot of CIR in interpreting and presenting the data; I'm sure you know what I mean. I've somewhat given up on this hunt (unless they go into edit warring), and rather focus on improving the affected pages. –Austronesier (talk) 20:46, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: Thanks for letting me know. As for creating a new article covering the peopling of Australo-Melanesia and/or Oceania, it seems like a pretty good idea I think, especially since (if I remember) all or most population genetic information was removed from the Australo-Melanesian page. Skllagyook (talk) 02:58, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
- Hi again! It's not that I have forgotten about this, but I have been doing some basic reading of the relevant studies about the topic. The latest edit-spree by the WCF sock IP in various pages has introduced many factual/terminological errors and misrepresentation of sources (which you have correctly pointed out in the recent discussion) for whatever reasons (I assume it is plainly CIR-related). Much of it can probably only resolved with a TNT-approach. So I think it is time to get a firm consensus about what the relevant sources actually say and what definitely should not be read into them.
- For that purpose, I want to build small summaries about full genome-based studies (I am little interested in haplogroups because they only produce a tunnel-shaped view into the past) from the last 5–10 years covering East/Southeast Asia, Oceania and the Americas (and maybe other regions) in my user space and invite you (and later also other knowledgeable and interested editors in good standing – and without identity-related axes to grind) to collaborate in this mini-project.
- The idea is to extract the basics: the groups that are covered in the study, the basic splits and admixture events that are modeled to explain the observed diversity, and other important findings like proposed ghost populations. Of course zero OR, especially nothing will be extracted from supplement data that is not elaborated on in the actual paper. The question of where to use these sources considering due weight is a different matter, but will certainly be easier if we get the basics straight. I have loads of projects to do IRL, so I will probably proceed in a slow pace. Let me know if you're interested, and I'll ping you when I start the page. –Austronesier (talk) 12:43, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: My appologies for the late response. I think should be able to participate some, though I will also be busy irl and my contributions will likely also proceed slowly. Feel free to ping me. Skllagyook (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
- On a side note, I have decided to return to a zero-tolerance approach to WCF edits. Our recent attempts to engage with them on a professional level only has made them more confident to resort to edit-warring and new sock accounts. I know that you hate drama as much as I do, but we need to be stringent on this. –Austronesier (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: What does "WCF" stand for. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the initials. Skllagyook (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yes, sorry it's not per se obvious. I meant WorldCreaterFighter socks. –Austronesier (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: Of course. I should have guessed you meant that. In that case, I think I would agree, as long as the evidence (that the user is a WCF sock) is reasonably strong (as it often is - or becomes after not too long - in my opinion with WCF socks), so one is not/does not seem to be assuming bad faith. WCF certainly is tenacious and persistent as I have seen (and often brazen in their problematic editing). Skllagyook (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, of course, a high confidence level about the abusive block evasion is a must; weakly founded accusations are all to often used as a cheap weapon in content disputes. "Tenacious, persistent, brazen", all this describes it well, and very often I would add: not well-informed. I have seen that whenever we have tried to fix things in individual articles, they would inevitably restore their distorted picture of archaeogenetic research in articles that are not "on our radar". You know, things like labeling everything traceable to Eastern Eurasia as "East Asian" even if it goes back way past Tianyuan. So in the future, I will immediately revert, look at the sources, and see what's worthy of inclusion the given context. –Austronesier (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: Of course. I should have guessed you meant that. In that case, I think I would agree, as long as the evidence (that the user is a WCF sock) is reasonably strong (as it often is - or becomes after not too long - in my opinion with WCF socks), so one is not/does not seem to be assuming bad faith. WCF certainly is tenacious and persistent as I have seen (and often brazen in their problematic editing). Skllagyook (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- Oh yes, sorry it's not per se obvious. I meant WorldCreaterFighter socks. –Austronesier (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: What does "WCF" stand for. I'm afraid I'm not familiar with the initials. Skllagyook (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- On a side note, I have decided to return to a zero-tolerance approach to WCF edits. Our recent attempts to engage with them on a professional level only has made them more confident to resort to edit-warring and new sock accounts. I know that you hate drama as much as I do, but we need to be stringent on this. –Austronesier (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
- @Austronesier: My appologies for the late response. I think should be able to participate some, though I will also be busy irl and my contributions will likely also proceed slowly. Feel free to ping me. Skllagyook (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
In spite of the proxy address of the IP editor, the current discussion in Talk:Negrito is a big deja vu and not really a surprise. I am still baffled about the fact that someone can do so much reading of valuable sources without getting a decent grasp of it. And this is what WP would look like if our community weren't alert (I'm really not into web sleuthing, but simple Google searches inevitable lead us to these pages). Sorry for my aimless short rant, but I am aware that you have been watching the "discussion" in the last days. –Austronesier (talk) 21:49, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
What is going on?
Why are you changing my edits? I will add more sources to them this time and you cannot simply revert them because it doesn’t fit your worldview. AASI is a purely East Eurasian lineage that is nested deeply within the East Eurasian clade. It has nothing to do with the Onge, Andamanese or Australian Aboriginals. All the latest research shows that the Onge are best modeled as ancient East Asians, and are coancestral to East and SE Asians. They are much more closely related to East and SE Asians than they are to AASI.
Furthermore, no Australoid ancestry exists in South Asia, and there is no relationship with Australian Aboriginals or Melanesians with the AASI. Finally, why are you removing the statements referring to the fact that the bulk of ancestry of South Asians is West and Central Asian derived? This is a fact, as most South Asians have far more ancestry from West Eurasians (including West and Central Asians) than East Eurasians. How do you think Nikki Haley is born? Magic trick? She is at least 85% West Eurasian, like most endogamous NW South Asians and looks White.
You are also removing the fact that the Han Chinese were found to be a better proxy for AASI than the Onge or Andamanese, and the fact that there are different AASI strains within the country, all of whom have equally high AASI levels but still look and are different from each other. Furthermore, AASI has been found in both modern admixture and in ancient components throughout West Asia, Central Asia and even in Europe, at different levels, and the Steppe component contains AASI among other components in Europe. I plan to add multiple sources for each of these claims the next time I edit the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:F:561A:0:0:0:C (talk) 02:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- I have explained the issues in edit summaries already. I suggest you read those. But I also have begun a topic on the article's Talk page with more detail here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetics_and_archaeogenetics_of_South_Asia
- As explained, your Additions (along with removing sourced material) seemed to contain your own reasoning and WP:Synthesis rather than information explicitly stated in the reliable sources. If you wish to make changes, you have to add reliable sources (that can be verified). Unsourced changes and additions are not acceptable and are against Wikipedia policy, even if you plan to add the sources later. Also, the best place to discuss this is there, not on my personal Talk page (link above). The topic there is under ("To the IP"). Also, accusations of bad faith and personal motives are not appropriate. See WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Thank you. Skllagyook (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
RfC on race and intelligence
Thanks for your revert at Charles Murray (political scientist). Just FYI, since you linked to the older RfC in your edit summary [1], probably best in the future to direct people to the more recent RfC here: Talk:Race and intelligence/Archive 103#RfC on racial hereditarianism. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 16:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Generalrelative:. I was having trouble finding the newer RfC. Thank you for linking it. Skllagyook (talk) 16:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Andamanese peoples
The source that you added here (to support the dispute claim) does not seem to exist. Could you please check it again? Thanks. M.Bitton (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
- @M.Bitton:. I see that now. I have replaced it with a ref that links to the source.Skllagyook (talk) 04:12, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
Archaic admixture text in the Race and genetics
Hi, I noticed you removed the recent text I added to the Racial genetics page. I believe this is clearly relevant, and I'm at a loss as to why this wouldn't be relevant to the page. The sources are RS, and clearly talk about the relationship between African, European and Asian people, and the difference in DNA makeup relating to their archaic admixture. In any case, I've started [talk section on it here] , if you would like to contribute - cheers Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)