This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Hi Iieeeric, happy to review but best time would be before Friday 12/6/13. Let me know. Emhawkins (talk) 07:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles
You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. I invite all the rest of you to review the source list and suggest new sources for it, and meanwhile I'll add some of the better current sources to the further reading section of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Ive removed the further reading section which was much too large to be useful for a reader. I think these lists are more useful in general for editors than for readers, and especially when they are this large.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:08, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I've actually discussed with a lot of members of the general public recently about what they look for when they read a Wikipedia article. (Well, all right, these are educated members of the general public with university degrees whom I meet in forums discussing parenting issues.) They pretty uniformly tell me that if a Wikipedia article provides a guide to further reading, then they think they get good value from the article. That has made me more willing than before to include more rather that fewer further reading references in most Wikipedia articles I edit, which seems to be in accord with Wikipedia policy as long as the suggested further reading materials are reliable sources. I am, of course, happy to discuss with fellow Wikipedians here which references might be the most accessible and helpful to lay readers--the kind of readers who make up most readers on Wikipedia. And of course if a particular work is used as a citation reference for updating the article (which would be worth doing soon), then the usual Wikipedia practice is not to list that work as a further reading reference. But until the article is updated, why not err (if this is error at all) in the direction of including more rather than less reliable information for readers of the encyclopedia? All the professionally edited print encyclopedias have suggestions for further reading, many of them quite specialized and technical. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:25, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I understand your point, but wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an annotated bibliography. Sources should be used to write the article, they are not the themselves content. Further reading sections are most useful when they present a few well selected sources, an entire academic bibliography doesnt help most people, and academics should know where to find it themselves. I have never seen a professional encyclopedia entry that had a longer further reading section than the entry itself. I think specifically for wikipedia erring on the side of less is better, because each source included needs to be supported by consensus otherwise further reading sections will quickly become new sites of editwarring.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I was in an hour-long interview with four academic librarians yesterday that among other topics discussed how Wikipedia can support undergraduate students learning how to do research properly. Those librarians were contacted by the Wikimedia Foundation as part of an effort to build better linkages between academic libraries and active Wikipedia editors like us. So after I digest further what they said, I think I will restore to this article a trimmed list of further reading references, knowing full well that most readers of Wikipedia never see the article talk pages, but many read all the way down to the bottom of an article to see if the article suggests other sources for deeper research. In general, based on my conversation with the librarians yesterday, I expect to pickle myself in the current Wikipedia Manual of Style section on Further reading sections and then to expand rather than contract the further reading sections on the majority of the hundreds of pages that are on my watchlist. In the meanwhile, of course, I encourage you and all of our fellow editors to use the full list of reliable sources that you kindly moved here to expand and update the actual article text. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you should restor it without prior conensus for each title. Also I think you should drop the quotes, which will be necessity be cherrypicked to show a particular point. If you feel that you can include further reading items without prior consensus, then other people can too. This is not a sustainable path in these articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Speicher, Michael R.; Antonarakis, Stylianos E.; Motulsky, Arno G., eds. (2010). Vogel and Motulsky's Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches. Heidelberg: Springer Scientific. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-37654-5. ISBN978-3-540-37653-8. Lay summary (4 September 2010). This authoritative textbook includes sections by Arno G. Motulsky, Stylianos E. Antonarakis, Michael R. Speicher, Michael Dean, Jon F. Robinson, Nicholas Katsanis, Andrew G. Clark, Jacques S. Beckmann, Bernhard Horsthemke, David N. Cooper, George P. Patrinos, Alexandre Alcaïs, Laurent Abel, Jean-Laurent Casanova, Stefan Mundlos, Ian Tomlinson, Romulo Martin Brena, Joseph F. Costello, Emmanouil T. Dermitzakis, Alan H. Bittles, Michael Hofreiter, Ross C. Hardison, Sohini Ramachandran, Hua Tang, Ryan N. Gutenkunst, Carlos D. Bustamante, Sophia S. Wang, Terri H. Beaty, Muin J. Khoury, Nicole M. Walley, Paola Nicoletti, David B. Goldstein, Jonathan Flint, Saffron Willis-Owen, David L. Nelson, Thomas D. Bird, Brett S. Abrahams Daniel H. Geschwind, David Goldman, Francesca Ducci, Michael R. Speicher, Markus M. Nöthen, Sven Cichon, Christine Schmael, Marcella Rietschel, Antonio Baldini, Morgan Tucker, Min Han, Ruth Johnson, Ross Cagan, Heidi G. Parker, Elaine A. Ostrander, Siew Hong Lam, Zhiyuan Gong, Tiemo Grimm, Klaus Zerres, Vivian W. Choi, R. Jude Samulski, Ian Wilmut, Jane Taylor, Paul de Sousa, Richard Anderson, Christopher Shaw, David J. Weatherall, Rachel A. Harte, Donna Karolchik, Robert M. Kuhn, W. James Kent, David Haussler, Xosé M. Fernández, Ewan Birney, Roberta A. Pagon, Ada Hamosh, Johan den Dunnen, Helen V. Firth, Donna R. Maglott, Stephen T. Sherry, Michael Feolo, David Cooper, and Peter Stenson. This book includes the chapter
Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen, eds. (2011). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press. ISBN978-0-231-52769-9. Lay summary (31 August 2013). This review of current research includes chapters by Michael Yudell, Robert Pollack, Michael T. Risher, Helen Wallace, Troy Duster, Duana Fullwiley, Jonathan Kahn, Joseph L. Graves, Jr., Pilar N. Ossorio, Robert J. Sternberg, Elena L. Grigorenko, Kenneth K. Kidd, and Steven E. Stemler, Patricia J. Williams, and Osagie K. Obasogie.
Whitmarsh, Ian; Jones, David S., eds. (2010). What's the Use of Race?: Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. ISBN978-0-262-51424-8. Lay summary (28 April 2013). This review of current research includes chapters by Ian Whitmarsh, David S. Jones, Jonathan Kahn, Pamela Sankar, Steven Epstein, Simon M. Outram, George T. H. Ellison, Richard Tutton, Andrew Smart, Richard Ashcroft, Paul Martin, George T. H. Ellison, Amy Hinterberger, Joan H. Fujimura, Ramya Rajagopalan, Pilar N. Ossorio, Kjell A. Doksum, Jay S. Kaufman, Richard S. Cooper, Angela C. Jenks, Nancy Krieger, and Dorothy Roberts. This includes the chapter
Kaufman, Jay S.; Cooper, Richard S. (2010). "Racial and Ethnic Identity in Medical Evaluations and Treatments". In Whitmarsh, Ian; Jones, David S. What's the Use of Race?: Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press. ISBN978-0-262-51424-8.
Roberts, Dorothy (2011). Fatal Invention: How Science, Politics, and Big Business Re-create Race in the Twenty-first Century. New Press. ISBN978-1-59558-495-3. Lay summary (18 October 2013).
Al-Chalabi, Ammar; Almasy, Laura, eds. (2009). Genetics of Complex Human Diseases: A Laboratory Manual. Cold Spring Harbor (NY): Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press. ISBN978-0-87969-883-6. Lay summary (21 November 2010). This practitioner's manual includes contributions by Janet Sinsheimer, Ingrid B. Borecki, John P. Rice, John Gallacher, Laura Almasy, John Blangero, Hon-Cheong So, Pak C. Sham, Cathryn M. Lewis, Jo Knight, Ammar Al-Chalabi, Benjamin M. Neale, Paul I.W. de Bakker, Benjamin M. Neale, Mark J. Daly, Ruth J.F. Loos, Nicholas J. Wareham, Eden R. Martin, Evadnie Rampersaud, Dheeraj Malhatra, Jonathan Sebat, Simon J. Furney, Gunes Gundem, Nuria Lopez-Bigas, Brage Storstein Andresen, Adrian R. Krainer, Howard J. Edenberg, Yunlong Liu, Inti Pedroso, and Gerome Breen.
Crawford, Michael, ed. (2006). Anthropological Genetics: Theory, Methods and Applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN978-0-521-54697-3. Lay summary (4 December 2013). This textbook includes chapters by M. H. Crawford, Lorena Madrigal, Guido Barbujani, Joe Terwilliger, Joe Lee, James H. Mielke, Alan Fix, Rohina Rubicz, Phil Melton, John Relethford, Dennis O'Rourke, Moses Schanfield, Ric Devor, John Blangero, Jeff T. Williams, Laura Almasy, Sarah Williams-Blangero, Sarah A. Tishkoff, Mary Katherine Gonder, Barbara Arredi, Estella S. Poloni, Chris Tyler-Smith, Elizabeth Matisoo Smith, Francisco Salzano, and Henry Harpending.
Fullwiley, Duana (21 November 2011). The Enculturated Gene: Sickle Cell Health Politics and Biological Difference in West Africa. Princeton University Press. ISBN0-691-12317-9. Lay summary (9 February 2014).
Hartl, Daniel L.; Jones, Elizabeth W. (2009). Genetics : analysis of genes and genomes. Sudbury (MA): Jones & Bartlett. ISBN9780763765392. Lay summary (16 October 2010).
Koenig, Barbara A.; Lee, Sandra Soo-jin; Richardson, Sarah S., eds. (2008). Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press. ISBN978-0-8135-4324-6. Lay summary (24 November 2010). This review of current research includes chapters by Jonathan Marks, John Dupré, Sally Haslanger, Deborah A. Bolnick, Marcus W. Feldman, Richard C. Lewontin, Sarah K. Tate, David B. Goldstein, Jonathan Kahn, Duana Fullwiley, Molly J. Dingel, Barbara A. Koenig, Mark D. Shriver, Rick A. Kittles, Henry T. Greely, Kimberly Tallbear, Alondra Nelson, Pamela Sankar, Sally Lehrman, Jenny Reardon, Jacqueline Stevens, and Sandra Soo-Jin Lee.
Morning, Ann (24 June 2011). The Nature of Race: How Scientists Think and Teach about Human Difference. University of California Press. pp. 223–224. ISBN978-0-520-27031-2. Lay summary (31 January 2014). "A straightforward explanation of why essentialist concepts are more popular than constructivist ones might simply be that the former are true and the latter false. But there are several reasons to be skeptical of such a conclusion. First and foremost, many experts believe there is a great deal of empirical evidence that refutes the biological model of race (Barbujani 2006; Koenig, Lee, and Richardson 2008; Marks 1995). Analysis of human DNA has not revealed any 'race gene' whose alleles (i.e., variants) correspond to racial-group membership, nor any complex of genes that together indicate a person's race (pace Leroi 2005). Instead, it has demonstrated extraordinary similarity in human beings' genetic makeup, regardless of their outward appearance: 99.9 percent of our genome is identical (Barbujani et al. 1997; Lewontin 1972). The genetic variation variation that does exist among human beings can mostly be found within the boundaries of any one racial group (Feldman and Lewontin 2008)."
Park, Michael Alan (2009). Biological Anthropology (Sixth ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. ISBN978-0-07814000-6.
Barbujani, Guido; Colonna, Vincenza (15 September 2011). "Chapter 6: Genetic Basis of Human Biodiversity: An Update". In Zachos, Frank E.; Habel, Jan Christian. Biodiversity Hotspots: Distribution and Protection of Conservation Priority Areas. Springer. pp. 97–119. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-20992-5_6. ISBN978-3-642-20992-5. Retrieved 23 November 2013. "The massive efforts to study the human genome in detail have produced extraordinary amounts of genetic data. Although we still fail to understand the molecular bases of most complex traits, including many common diseases, we now have a clearer idea of the degree of genetic resemblance between humans and other primate species. We also know that humans are genetically very close to each other, indeed more than any other primates, that most of our genetic diversity is accounted for by individual differences within populations, and that only a small fraction of the species’ genetic variance falls between populations and geographic groups thereof."
Barbujani, Guido; Ghirotto, S.; Tassi, F. (2013). "Nine things to remember about human genome diversity". Tissue Antigens82 (3): 155–164. doi:10.1111/tan.12165. ISSN0001-2815.
New review articles on human population genetics based on studies of ancient DNA
Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in human molecular genetics that helps trace the lineage of people living in various places on the earth. I've been reading university textbooks on human genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate to build an encyclopedia, I thought I would suggest some sources for improving articles on human genetic history and related articles. The Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources in medicine provide a helpful framework for evaluating sources.
The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."
Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.
The guidelines, consistent with the general Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources, remind us that all "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources" (emphasis in original). They helpfully define a primary source in medicine as one in which the authors directly participated in the research or documented their personal experiences. By contrast, a secondary source summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. The general Wikipedia guidelines let us know that "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper. When relying on primary sources, extreme caution is advised: Wikipedians should never interpret the content of primary sources for themselves."
Two review articles in prominent journals about human population genetics are bringing together analysis of the many recent studies of human DNA, including DNA from ancient individuals.
Pickrell, Joseph K.; Reich, David (September 2014). "Toward a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA". Trends in Genetics30 (9): 377–389, 378. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2014.07.007. PMC4163019. PMID25168683. Retrieved 16 September 2014. "However, the data also often contradict models of population replacement: when two distinct population groups come together during demographic expansions the result is often genetic admixture rather than complete replacement. This suggests that new types of models – with admixture at their center – are necessary for describing key aspects of human history ([14–16] for early examples of admixture models)."
Earlier studies of this issue were based on more limited samples (fewer genes, and fewer human individuals from fewer regions and only recent times). As more samples of more genes from more individuals from more places and times are gathered, the molecular evidence is making it increasingly clear that human beings have been moving back and forth across the Earth's surface and mixing genes over long distances ever since their earliest ancestors moved out of the human homeland in Africa. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 15:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)