Talk:John D. Hawks
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 2 February 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
|This article was proposed for deletion by BaronLarf (talk · contribs) on January 22, 2010 with the comment:
Non-notable associate professor. Does not meet WP:PROF
It was contested by JWB (talk · contribs) on January 22, 2010
I'm a Biological Anthropology student who reads John's blog religiously and know a little bit about him himself. What's key is that although he's only an assistant professor (he's still quite young) he writes one of the most widely read science blogs on the internet and has an enormous following of laypeople and scientists alike. He's been really influential in the legitimization of science blogging and has achieved what most scientists only dream of: interesting the public. I'm gonna try to make some updates to the article, but I'm relatively new to Wiki, so feel free to correct/suggest things. Joeklein (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
The article has some sicked banners. I cabn't find out what they refer to. Can somebody who did it explain what he/she want to improve? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 01:54, 14 April 2010
- What are "sicked banners"? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:46, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
- As one can determine by clicking on the banners, Wikipedia requires citations on all claims in articles. At present the article has no citations to WP:Reliable Sources. Abductive (reasoning) 16:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is odd. A stub without citations, about an assistant professor who alledgely defends a theory which is sliding slowly but surely to the realm of fringe theories. I would try to write something else, given that it was decided to keep it, but google only offers me data about his blog (And about a soldier called John D. Hawks). I am genuinely interested in the human evolution, so, anybody knows what new theorie or perspective this person offers? Thanks!
- This article survived an attempt to get it deleted, with the closing admin feeling that there was no consensus to delete. Abductive (reasoning) 15:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I know, I read a bit of the discussion, it is longer than the actual article, so I wonder, there is nothing else to add here? I have also found links to the discussion in several related articles, which is something I had never seen before. It is just that I find strange someone would discuss to keep the article as it is, and not add anything in four months.
Ok. Done. How this article survived the discussion is beyond me. I am not about to read one blog to update the article about its autor. I would be grateful if anybody could point any published article I could use to add some meat here. (Given that the article stays, we could as well make something with it) Leirus (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
- I have been waiting per WP:BEFORE for article improvement. Abductive (reasoning) 16:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Hawks meets criterion 6 of WP:Notability (academics) because of his highly influential blog, both in his field and as a trailblazer for early transmission of academic information through blogging. Unfortunately, that's difficult to find sources on, and indeed that particular criterion doesn't have a specific verification criterion.
I think Hawks may also meet criterion 1 but that one does need verification. Perhaps someone can figure out how to get Google scholar to cough up a cites number and see if it's high enough; he's coauthored some important papers with Wolpoff.
As for "fringe theories", findings in 2010 appear to have proved this particular fringe theory correct. The competing and more mainstream theory - recent African replacement - was disproved in 2005 with p<10**-17 by Templeton - who also needs an article but easily meets WP:PROF; the press just hasn't caught up yet.
Does anyone want to keep the tag with the article in its current shape, which is a bit better than a stub? If no one chimes in, I may remove it.
The paper based on Hawks' work: "If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking?" is cited. If this is good research, why doesn't there seem to be an article in wikipedia that covers it? and if it isn't, why doesn't this article say so? I'm puzzled. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 17:32, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
- Because it is a blog post and not a peer reviewed article. There is general consensus about the fact that Homo sapiens have smaller brains than our immediate ancestors, and it is mentioned in the relevant places.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:34, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
John Hawks opinion on race
- I don't think it is correct to describe the position he takes as race realist, since this term usually implies the idea that biology determines racial groupings and that social races are really biological categories. I don't think that is his argument, in the pieces I have read. It is not surprising that he emphasizes that biological variation is geographically structured and correlates with racial categories since he is a student of Milford Wolpoff who is a proponent of the multiregional hypothesis that sees modern human geo-genetic differences as reflective of continuity between Homo erectus populations and Homo sapiens. This theory is a fringe view within physical anthropology. The view he is proposing at his blog is just a variation of the standard view of anthropological geneticists, namely that populations can be genetically distinguished through cluster analysis, and that this is also the case for racial groupings. SO all in all I don't think it is very notable. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:44, 5 January 2014 (UTC)