This is an archive of past discussions about Human skin color. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Genetics of skin color variation: organization scheme
I believe the Genetics of skin color variation section would be better organized by the genes involved in the determination of skin color (e.g. MC1R, SLC24A5, etc.) and not by attributes of skin color (e.g. light skin, dark skin, etc.) or by geographic regions (Europe, East Asia, etc.). All human populations possess the same genes. The determination of different skin color phenotypes depends on the alleles of the gene. All geographical populations have these genes, what they differ in is the allele frequencies. The MC1R gene cannot only be sorted under the dark skin section, as it plays an important role in the high levels of polymorphism in the Northern European, North Asian, and other light-skinned populations. The same is true for the ASIP, KITLG, and every other gene or gene cluster. Sorting by genes was the original organizational scheme about six months ago when it was unexplicably changed to the current one. FonsScientiae (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I was the one who restructured the section back in February (and created the original format in 2011). I did it because the old format had no structure which made it confusing and hard to work out which genes did what and some people (eg you [1]) had trouble understanding what it was saying. The current format makes it much clearer how each allele affects pigmentation and groups together alleles that are known to be responsible for particular skin colours in particular populations. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it, but going back to an unstructured list of genes would be a step in the wrong direction.
It's a bit meaningless to say all human populations possess the same genes. A gene is just a label for a section of DNA, so it's like saying all human populations possess the same hands. You and I both have hands, but they're not the same hands. In the same way, Samuel L Jackson and George W Bush both posses an SLC24A5 gene, but they're not the same gene.
I have twice now had to remove general discussion of the MC1R gene from this section. This section is for listing specific alleles that have been associated with skin pigmentation in modern humans. As such, MC1R is already included in the Dark Skin section, the East Asian section and in the Tanning Response section. Much of what you added is already included in the appropriate section, and the rest is not relevant to the section nor in all probability, the page. There is an MC1R page that might be a more suitable place for the kind of content you are adding. If there is something specific you think is missing from the section, then please let me know and include the appropriate refs.
First of all, I never had trouble understanding what it was saying but had objections for the opinion you were pushing at that time (that every modern population's skin color phenotype is a consequence of an admixture of three original populations). Without reaching a new consensus on the previous issue you have added the new format which pushed the whole discussion further from reaching compromise. The previous format was not at all more confusing than it is today. We cannot include specific genes only under one population. As you said the MC1R gene is already included under two different populations (and with the new material I added it should be included under another one or two). The same is true for the SLC24A5 gene (which you have exclusively listed under the 'Europe' section). A particular allele of the SLC24A5 (which codes for light skin tone) is present at high frequencies in South Asia, Western Asia, and North Africa. The other allele of the SLC24A5 is present in other populations (Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia). The same is true for every other gene, and as genetic research on skin coloration progresses and expands to include a more comprehensive list of subject populations I am positive that even more genes will be added to the current list.
Your hands analogy is out of context. Every human has hands and ten fingers on them, just like every human possesses the same genes. What humans differ in is the length, position, thickness, colour, etc. of the fingers (for which different alleles of the same gene code for). By including specific genes only under specific subgroups of humans, it's like saying that e.g. East Asians only have little fingers, while Melanesians only have thumbs. While these populations may differ, for example, in average rates of the length of the fingers (different allele frequency), they have all the same ten fingers (the same genes).
The text I added is relevant to that section and to this article as it talks about the connection between the MC1R gene and skin coloration. A better solution would be if we returned to the listing by genes. Under the specific genes we could include the different alleles of the gene (or polymorphism) that are associated with specific populations or skin color phenotypes. FonsScientiae (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
My apologies if you feel the previous discussion was unfinished, I presented you with over 10 papers published in peer-reviewed journals that supported my position and you presented me with zero supporting evidence for yours. You stopped replying after the restructure so I assumed you'd accepted the inevitable.
I think your issue here is that the headings "Europe" and "East Asia" could lead to the assumption the the alleles are only found in these regions. "Dark Skin" is not an issue because there is only one known genetic mechanism for it so it needs no subdivision. "Light Skin" however has evolved twice with different alleles in each case so it needs to be subdivided to avoid confusion. The research papers generally refer to these separate evolutions as either "European" or "East Asian" - referring to the continent that the reference (ie fixed) populations come from, eg HapMap CEU as "European" or CHB as "East Asian". When I first restructured I tried to find different headings but in the end I decided to follow this naming scheme and add explanatory text about the 3-way model to the introduction. We can change the headings if we can find better descriptions for the 3 fixed phenotypes and/or could clarify in the section intro that these are in name only and don't reflect the geographical distribution of the alleles today.
The section already talks about all the connections with MC1R and skin colour where research has shown a positive association. I found the general discussion you added was very broad and inspecific, and as such it only served to muddy the water - it would be better placed in an overview of the gene (such as on the MC1R page), not in a table listing known population-specific alleles and their effects on skin pigmentation. I've tried to be very comprehensive but if there are proven associations with MC1R that I've missed please point me at the research and I'll add them where appropriate.
The research papers you have included do not refer to the genes as they would belong exclusively to a particular geographic population, but they differentiate between the different variants (or alleles) of the particular gene:
1: "Variants in SLC24A5 play a central role in skin lightening in Europeans, explaining ∼30% of the difference in skin pigmentation between European and West African populations"
"Variants in MC1R, one of the critical receptors in melanogenesis, are associated with red hair and pale, non-tanning skin in Europeans (26). MATP and OCA2 have been associated with eye color in Europeans (27,28). A joint effect of MC1R and OCA2 on skin pigmentation in Tibetans has also been demonstrated"
The three-way evolutionary model proposed by the researchers is tentative as it is based on limited sample data:
"We provide a tentative three-population model (West Africa, East Asia and North Europe) of the evolutionary–genetic architecture of human pigmentation.(...) We have combined our results with those from other studies to form a simple and somewhat speculative model for some aspects of the evolution of pigmentation in humans. Our model (...) shows an average tree of the three HapMap populations [Yoruba from West Africa (YRI), Japanese and Han Chinese from East Asian (ESA), European-Americans (CEU)]"
The model is tentative because their population sample was extremely limited. Also, these three populations are referred to as "West African", "East Asian", and "North European", and not African or European as it is written in the article now. Continental categories are inappropriate because 1, the study is not comprehensive enough to infer that the findings are true for every population on a continent (they examined four populations: Han in West Africa, Japanese, Chinese, and CEU). 2, Populations genotypes and skin colour phenotypes are highly diverse within a large continental group.
"It is important to note that this simplified phylogeny and model only encompass some of the variation in human pigmentation. For example, it remains unclear whether other similarities in human pigmentation across the world, for example those leading to dark skin in West Africa, South Asia and Melanesia, are the result of common evolutionary events and genetic mechanisms. Our simple model is also deficient in assuming broad population groups are uniform in terms of pigmentation mechanism and evolution. For example, related phenotypes such as hair/eye color and skin response traits (like tanning) vary substantially in Europe. MC1R variants, known to influence these traits, vary significantly in frequency across the continent. MC1R or another gene may explain a substantial difference in tanning ability between West (e.g. British Isles) and North (e.g. Scandinavia) Europe despite similar constitutively pigmentation"
Some of the genetic variation of skin coloration is shared between distant populations which may differ in other aspects. Inclusion of these genes under the different population (or skin color phenotype) headings would be again problematic and repetitive.
"Two additional genes, ASIP and BNC2, show evidence for selection in both East Asians and Europeans, with haplotype sharing between the populations pointing to a selective event prior their divergence." [[2]]
The other study included also only examined two populations (Han chinese and Canadians of East Asian ancestry). " (...) a genetic variant located within the gene OCA2 (rs1800414) is associated with skin pigmentation in two samples of East Asian ancestry. The allele associated with lower melanin levels is found at high frequencies in East Asian populations, but is absent or at very low frequencies in other population groups." "A recent genome-wide study reported that variants within the genes SLC24A5, SLC45A2 and TYR are associated with skin pigmentation in a South Asian sample."[[3]]
This study also does not refer to different alleles of the gene as "European" or "South Asian" but by the variants of the gene (which are shared among other populations). While I agree that the variants of certain genes differ among populations such as in West Africa, East Asia, or North Europe, some of the other allele variants are shared among these populations such as the KITL and ASIP gene. Furthermore, many of the other populations (which are not included in this paper) share similar allele frequencies to the previous populations.
Other research papers may refer to variants of a particular gene in terms of a population but I still think it is not appropriate - and rather confusing and imprecise - to denote certain alleles of a gene which are found in high frequencies around wide geographical regions in terms of certain geographic populations.
I do not think that inclusion of additional relevant information on the genetics of skin coloration in the Human Skin Color article would only serve to "muddy the water". The genetics section of the article is not long at this time and inclusion of any well-sourced and reliable material should be welcomed. In case the section would grow too lengthy, we can always create a separate article for it.
Evolution works on the level of genes. So variants of a gene may be widespread among two distant geographical populations, variants of another gene may show much more differentiation between the same two populations. That is why I support changing back the organization to gene-based. One gene - or even a specific allele - is not exclusively shared in one population. Under the headings of the different genes we can include more information about the variants of the gene across geographical populations. If you want to include the tentative (and geographically limited) evolutionary history in the article, it belongs to the evolutionary section, not the genetics section. I would also suggest changing the denonyms of the alleles: "African" to "Ancestral" and - depending on the particular gene - "European" or "East Asian" to "Derived". Until we have good understanding of the comprehensive evolutionary history of human skin pigmentation I support keeping the evolution and genetics sections separate and discussing the known genes that affect skin coloration under their own headings in the genetics section, and hypotheses of evolutionary history in the evolution section. FonsScientiae (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The paper that mentions the model as "tentative" was the first paper to propose the model (in 2006). Numerous papers since, researching different genes in different ways, have made findings that support the model (see the list in our previous discussion). The paper itself is cited by many articles on the topic and it's safe to say that the model is globally accepted in the scientific community and is no longer tentative. Trying to align the data to any model other than this would be unrepresentative of the general consesus.
"Ancestral"/"Derived" is good suggestion, but it doesn't solve the problem that the derived alleles fall into two categories - those that are fixed in Europeans and those that are fixed in East Asians. One possibility might be to model the section in the same way as that paper does - include the image from the paper [4] and label the "European"/"East Asian" sections as "Path 1", "Path 2" etc. It's a bit clumsy and we will obviously still need to use "European" and "East Asian" when summarising the references but this will at least remove it from the headings and TOC.
I agree that the evolution of light skin pigmentation happened partly (genes such as the ASIP, or BNC2 are shared among light-skinned populations) independently at least twice during human evolutionary history. But I disagree that Europe or East Asia would be the only locations we should mention to emphasize this fact. We do know the allele frequency distribution of the ancestral and derived variants of the SLC24A5 and other genes among many global populations. [[5]] [[6]]
"It's a bit clumsy and we will obviously still need to use "European" and "East Asian" when summarising the references but this will at least remove it from the headings and TOC."
I agree with this suggestion. We will still need to use the “European” and “East Asian” when summarizing references in the wikitext. But we also need to include other populations to represent these populations with known allele frequencies of the same gene. FonsScientiae (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll look into getting permission to use the diagram. I think we can come up with better headings than "Path 1/2" and I'm thinking of rewording the text as well to make it clear it's talking about phenotype more than location. I'm thinking maybe "European" Phenotype (with the quotes) but maybe something else will come to mind or you have some suggestions. The discussion of allele frequency is similar to the one I'm having with Soupforone in the SLC24A5 section below, so if it's OK I'll discuss that there. Tobus2 (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should include the diagram in the present form. The evolutionary history of skin colour of a number of geographical populations (South Asians, Native Americans, Southeast Asians, Khoisan, etc.) are missing from the image. I oppose using the name European phenotype in the diagram (even with quotes) as a label, for the previously mentioned reasons. Colour coding should be removed because we do not know the phenotypes of historical population. Number 5 from the image should be removed as it does not mark a point of appearance and dispersal of a new allele (West Africans share the ancestral alleles). [[7]] After these modifications, if you'd like to, go ahead and include the image.
There's no way I can agree to changing the image from the research paper as you suggest - we're presenting the scientific consensus not our own ideas. The consensus is what the image shows, and the skin colours of populations not included in the image are considered to be due to some combination or partial expression of the three phenotypes presented. Tobus2 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not saying that we should include other populations that are not on the image. I am saying that we don't know the evolutionary history of many of the other populations and that the image is incomplete and makes assumptions that may not be necessary true (that is why it is tentative). Otherwise I support the labels ancestral path and derived path 1, 2 on the image. FonsScientiae (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood, I meant change the headings in the article, not the image (which I'm still waiting for permission on). After sleeping on it I think "Path 1" and "Path 2" are way too clumsy, and they don't reflect the research which clearly say "European" and "East Asian". As a compromise perhaps we could put "Phenotype" after these headings (in the article), to indicate they are not meant to be taken literally in a geographic sense.
Note that I've reverted (again) your restructuring of the section to remove the phenotype sections and simply list the genes one after the other. I disagree with this as it makes it less clear which alleles have which effect, the grouping by phenotype makes it crystal clear. It would be appreciated if you'd wait till we reach agreement before making such drastic changes.
I apologize if I misunderstood something but I told you that I was planning to change the headings. You did not reply to this and I took it as agreement to list by the genes. When you were referring to "path 1" or "path 2" I thought you were talking about the diagram you wanted to include not the wikitext.
I disagree with listing by phenotypes as there are numerous number of phenotypes (skin coloration is continuous) and many populations have different phenotypes. We cannot list different genes only under one phenotype as every population of every phenotype possesses the same genes. In contrast to this, genes (and their different alleles) have an exact effect on the phenotype. As a compromise we could list the phenotypes under the headings of the relevant genes associated with the allele of the particular gene.
We should mention the known geographic areas by name (West Asian, North Africa, East Asia etc.) where path 1 and 2 are prevalent in the text. It would be the less clumsy and confusing solution. FonsScientiae (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The publisher of the image (Oxford University Press) has refused to let us use the image ("Unfortunately it is not OUP policy to allow articles/figures that appear in our journals to be posted on third party websites."), and the backup image I was planning to use[8] is also published by them, so we can't use that either. I think the section needs an image immediately after the test (where the rascist Stoddard map was), so I'm open to suggestions if you (or anybody else) has any.
I originally used a flat list of genes like you suggest, but I think grouping by effect makes it easier for people to find the allele they want. If you're looking for what makes someone from China the colour they are, you can find it very quickly if there's an "East Asian" section, but you'd have to read through the entire list if there's no structure.
The section is really a list of SNPs, not genes. The gene names are just user-friendly and easy-to-remember shortcuts - otherwise we'd have to use "rs6058017", "rs16891982" etc. Perhaps we could use the full user-friendly name "SLC24A5 Ala111Thr" etc. but this isn't really standard and I've seen the "Ala111Thr" written lots of different ways (A111T, 331A>G etc.). It's also useful to list the gene because in general, each gene is related to a function of the organism and the individual mutation can make more sense within the context of its gene... MC1R is a good example because it's famous for being the "red-haired gene". Everybody has the gene of course, whatever their hair colour, but mutations in it are widely known to cause red hair - stating that rs1805007 is in MC1R immediately gives it a context that wouldn't be there if the gene wasn't mentioned. Also, it's very common practice in research and published articles to refer to just the gene, usually after defining the particular SNP in question (eg "populations from South Asia have been tested and alleles found at TYR, SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 can largely account for differences"[9]), but sometimes even in isolation without the SNP even being mentioned - I couldn't find the SNPs for the ancestral dark-skinned MC1R alleles defined anywhere. So the way it's laid out now is both practical and within the standard scientific convention. I think we can probably find less geographical headings, but in terms of separating the genes into the phenotypes they cause it makes sense, is very clear and fits the currently dominant scientific paradigm.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last paragraph, by and large the papers talk about "African", "European" and "East Asian" in relation to the reference populations with the most extreme phenotype, the Path1/2 idea only makes sense in reference to the image we're not allowed to use. Perhaps you can explain what you mean there?
"The section is really a list of SNPs, not genes. The gene names are just user-friendly and easy-to-remember shortcuts - otherwise we'd have to use "rs6058017", "rs16891982" etc. Perhaps we could use the full user-friendly name "SLC24A5 Ala111Thr" etc. but this isn't really standard and I've seen the "Ala111Thr" written lots of different ways (A111T, 331A>G etc.). It's also useful to list the gene because in general, each gene is related to a function of the organism and the individual mutation can make more sense within the context of its gene"
I agree. Genes are part of the genome which code for a protein (in cases, for physical characteristics such as skin colour). Alleles are the different versions of the gene. There can be many alleles of a gene (as in the case of MC1R) which code for different skin/hair colour phenotypes. I'm not saying that we should write the name of the alleles in the headings, we should just write that "the derived or ancestral allele is associated with this or that". We can include the name of the allele if we want or just the site name which is associated with the phenotype once for reference. "111" in the "Ala111Thr" refers to the site of the SNP, the "Ala" to Alanine (the ancestral allele), and "Thr" to Threonine (derived allele which is associated with light skin).
The problem with the current listing is that it is supposed to include only certain populations under one heading. E.g. Europeans under the European section or East Asians under the East Asia section. The same is true for the "dark skin"/"light skin" listing. Now, the European section already mentions South Asians and Africans when it talks about some of the specific genes under the section. The East Asian section assumes that every East Asian populations have the derived allele when it is not true: among Mongolians (East Asia) there is a less than 25% frequency of the derived allele of the OCA2; the frequency of the derived allele of the OCA2 among Malaysians (who are East Asians) are basically 0%; the OCA2 is found almost in 1/4 of the Kazakh population (similar to some East Asian populations) who are Central Asians. Furthermore different genes have different frequencies in different populations. Different alleles and polymorphism of the MC1R gene are associated light skin in different populations not just with dark skin (as it is assumed from the current form of the section). Listing genes only under one phenotype or population is confusing because it suggests that only humans of this geographic region or phenotype possess these genes and that the gene (or certain alleles of the gene) are absent from other populations.
While I understand the reasoning why you have changed the organization scheme in the past, I find the new listing more confusing than the previous one. What do you think about listing the genetics section by the genes which affect skin colour phenotype and under each gene subdividing the section into "light skin"/"dark skin" phenotype and listing the relevant populations under those section? FonsScientiae (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The latter structural scheme wouldn't work for many global populations with heterogenous allele and pigmentation patterns. The current system seems better, as it is focuses more on the pigmentation functions of each allele. The only other workable structure seems to be one centered on each gene's ancestral vs. derived alleles. Soupforone (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify terms, genes can produce hundreds of proteins each. The proteins are determined by codons which are groups of three nucleotides (base pairs). An SNP is a variation in a single nucleotide. So the "rsXXXX" number refers to a single nucleotide, the "Ala111Thr" refers to the codon (and its protein) that the SNP is part of and the gene "SLC24A5" refers to a stretch of codons (and sometimes non-coding nucleotides) that the SNP is in. The term "allele" can refer to a specific variation of any of these, depending on context. I'm not 100% sure what you are suggesting with the headings, are you saying that we should put the codon number after the gene name (eg "SLC24A4 111" instead of just "SLC24A5") in the headings?
I understand what you are saying about the current headings and I half agree. The half I agree with is the implication that the current "Europe"/"East Asian" headings have is not geographically correct. I spent a good deal of time trying to find alternate headings that wouldn't be OR/Synth on my part but would still be short enough to be used as headings. In the end I gave up and just stick with the terms used by the research papers, which they use to refer to reference populations in HapMap or other data, not necessarily to geography. If you or anyone else can come up with better terms for the headings that can be supported by sources then I'm happy to hear them, my suggestion would be to put "Phenotype" after them (eg "European Phenotype" instead of "Europe" in the heading) and make it clearer in the introduction that the reference populations represent one end of a phenotype range, not a geographical location. The half I disagree with is that this also applies to the dark/light skin headings. I think it's understood that we're talking about small additive effects and somebody wanting to know about a "medium skin" phenotype wouldn't be expecting a section of its own - they'd understand it was due to some combination of both the dark and light skin genes.
The problem I see with a "Gene: 1. Dark version / 2. Light version" structure is twofold. Firstly the two are largely reciprocal so you're essentially stating the same data twice: "The ancestral Ala111Thr causes dark skin and is found 100% in Africa and 0% in Europe", then "The derived Ala111Thr allele causes light skin and is found 0% in African and 100% in Europe" etc. etc. To me it makes more sense (and better reflects the evolution) to say "Dark skin is ancestral" once and then highlight each of the derived alleles that cause light skin in their own section. Secondly, a flat list disguises the fact that there are two distinct evolutions for light skin - a reader would have to know or specifically be looking for it to see that "European" and "East Asian" light skin phenotypes are caused by (mostly) different genes. The current structure highlights the effect of each allele much better (I think SoupForOne agrees with this too) and it also allows for the common genes to be clearly identified as well.
I agree with Soupforone in that a structure would work where we center information on the derived and ancestral alleles of the gene. The current structure would not work for many larger geographical areas because 1, if two distant populations possess similar allele distribution of a 'skin colour gene’ then listing the allele and genetic data more than once under different headings would make the text redundant and repetitive 2, putting a gene under a heading of particular geographic area misrepresents both genetic structure and known facts of allele distribution.
No, we shouldn’t state the "dark version / light version of gene" data twice and separately under different headings but we should state it once e.g. “The ancestral allele of the Ala111Thr is associate dark skin and widespread in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeastern Asia, and the Americas. The derived Ala111Thr allele is associated with light skin pigmentation and is found 80% in North Africa and 100% in Europe, 50% in Central Asia". While it is convenient for a reader to look for the genes that cause light skin pigmentation in Europe or East Asia, what about readers looking for all the other populations and areas that are not included in the list (e.g. Southwestern Asians, Native Americans, North Africans, Oceanians, etc.)?
It is not clear why the current structure emphasizes two geographical populations (Europe and East Asia) instead of giving an unbiased representation of global populations. The maps represent the global distribution of the alleles in a most comprehensive way but the current organizational scheme is contrary to the map data.
As for alternatives for the appellations of ‘Europe’ and ‘Asia’, ‘Western Eurasia’ and ‘Eastern Eurasia / East Asia’ would serve better as Western Eurasia is the broad area where the genes in question are widespread (although it does not include North Africa). These terms are also often used in human population genetics. FonsScientiae (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This section doesn't focus on geographical areas, it focuses on genetic areas. The "European" and "East Asian" labels apply to distinct genetic phenotypes, not to physical geographical regions on the earth. It emphasises these phenotypes because they are emphasised in the research (presumably because they the extremes of the phenotype range and so are easier for researchers to work with). As I said I'm happy to change the headings/text to make it clearer if it's confusing, but changing to different geographical areas that don't represent the phenotypes and/or using labels that aren't used in the research will only make it more confusing. We should be moving away from geography and towards genetics, not the other way round. Tobus2 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Genetics of skin color variation: organization scheme
I believe the Genetics of skin color variation section would be better organized by the genes involved in the determination of skin color (e.g. MC1R, SLC24A5, etc.) and not by attributes of skin color (e.g. light skin, dark skin, etc.) or by geographic regions (Europe, East Asia, etc.). All human populations possess the same genes. The determination of different skin color phenotypes depends on the alleles of the gene. All geographical populations have these genes, what they differ in is the allele frequencies. The MC1R gene cannot only be sorted under the dark skin section, as it plays an important role in the high levels of polymorphism in the Northern European, North Asian, and other light-skinned populations. The same is true for the ASIP, KITLG, and every other gene or gene cluster. Sorting by genes was the original organizational scheme about six months ago when it was unexplicably changed to the current one. FonsScientiae (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I was the one who restructured the section back in February (and created the original format in 2011). I did it because the old format had no structure which made it confusing and hard to work out which genes did what and some people (eg you [10]) had trouble understanding what it was saying. The current format makes it much clearer how each allele affects pigmentation and groups together alleles that are known to be responsible for particular skin colours in particular populations. I'm open to suggestions on how to improve it, but going back to an unstructured list of genes would be a step in the wrong direction.
It's a bit meaningless to say all human populations possess the same genes. A gene is just a label for a section of DNA, so it's like saying all human populations possess the same hands. You and I both have hands, but they're not the same hands. In the same way, Samuel L Jackson and George W Bush both posses an SLC24A5 gene, but they're not the same gene.
I have twice now had to remove general discussion of the MC1R gene from this section. This section is for listing specific alleles that have been associated with skin pigmentation in modern humans. As such, MC1R is already included in the Dark Skin section, the East Asian section and in the Tanning Response section. Much of what you added is already included in the appropriate section, and the rest is not relevant to the section nor in all probability, the page. There is an MC1R page that might be a more suitable place for the kind of content you are adding. If there is something specific you think is missing from the section, then please let me know and include the appropriate refs.
First of all, I never had trouble understanding what it was saying but had objections for the opinion you were pushing at that time (that every modern population's skin color phenotype is a consequence of an admixture of three original populations). Without reaching a new consensus on the previous issue you have added the new format which pushed the whole discussion further from reaching compromise. The previous format was not at all more confusing than it is today. We cannot include specific genes only under one population. As you said the MC1R gene is already included under two different populations (and with the new material I added it should be included under another one or two). The same is true for the SLC24A5 gene (which you have exclusively listed under the 'Europe' section). A particular allele of the SLC24A5 (which codes for light skin tone) is present at high frequencies in South Asia, Western Asia, and North Africa. The other allele of the SLC24A5 is present in other populations (Sub-Saharan Africa, East Asia). The same is true for every other gene, and as genetic research on skin coloration progresses and expands to include a more comprehensive list of subject populations I am positive that even more genes will be added to the current list.
Your hands analogy is out of context. Every human has hands and ten fingers on them, just like every human possesses the same genes. What humans differ in is the length, position, thickness, colour, etc. of the fingers (for which different alleles of the same gene code for). By including specific genes only under specific subgroups of humans, it's like saying that e.g. East Asians only have little fingers, while Melanesians only have thumbs. While these populations may differ, for example, in average rates of the length of the fingers (different allele frequency), they have all the same ten fingers (the same genes).
The text I added is relevant to that section and to this article as it talks about the connection between the MC1R gene and skin coloration. A better solution would be if we returned to the listing by genes. Under the specific genes we could include the different alleles of the gene (or polymorphism) that are associated with specific populations or skin color phenotypes. FonsScientiae (talk) 04:19, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
My apologies if you feel the previous discussion was unfinished, I presented you with over 10 papers published in peer-reviewed journals that supported my position and you presented me with zero supporting evidence for yours. You stopped replying after the restructure so I assumed you'd accepted the inevitable.
I think your issue here is that the headings "Europe" and "East Asia" could lead to the assumption the the alleles are only found in these regions. "Dark Skin" is not an issue because there is only one known genetic mechanism for it so it needs no subdivision. "Light Skin" however has evolved twice with different alleles in each case so it needs to be subdivided to avoid confusion. The research papers generally refer to these separate evolutions as either "European" or "East Asian" - referring to the continent that the reference (ie fixed) populations come from, eg HapMap CEU as "European" or CHB as "East Asian". When I first restructured I tried to find different headings but in the end I decided to follow this naming scheme and add explanatory text about the 3-way model to the introduction. We can change the headings if we can find better descriptions for the 3 fixed phenotypes and/or could clarify in the section intro that these are in name only and don't reflect the geographical distribution of the alleles today.
The section already talks about all the connections with MC1R and skin colour where research has shown a positive association. I found the general discussion you added was very broad and inspecific, and as such it only served to muddy the water - it would be better placed in an overview of the gene (such as on the MC1R page), not in a table listing known population-specific alleles and their effects on skin pigmentation. I've tried to be very comprehensive but if there are proven associations with MC1R that I've missed please point me at the research and I'll add them where appropriate.
The research papers you have included do not refer to the genes as they would belong exclusively to a particular geographic population, but they differentiate between the different variants (or alleles) of the particular gene:
1: "Variants in SLC24A5 play a central role in skin lightening in Europeans, explaining ∼30% of the difference in skin pigmentation between European and West African populations"
"Variants in MC1R, one of the critical receptors in melanogenesis, are associated with red hair and pale, non-tanning skin in Europeans (26). MATP and OCA2 have been associated with eye color in Europeans (27,28). A joint effect of MC1R and OCA2 on skin pigmentation in Tibetans has also been demonstrated"
The three-way evolutionary model proposed by the researchers is tentative as it is based on limited sample data:
"We provide a tentative three-population model (West Africa, East Asia and North Europe) of the evolutionary–genetic architecture of human pigmentation.(...) We have combined our results with those from other studies to form a simple and somewhat speculative model for some aspects of the evolution of pigmentation in humans. Our model (...) shows an average tree of the three HapMap populations [Yoruba from West Africa (YRI), Japanese and Han Chinese from East Asian (ESA), European-Americans (CEU)]"
The model is tentative because their population sample was extremely limited. Also, these three populations are referred to as "West African", "East Asian", and "North European", and not African or European as it is written in the article now. Continental categories are inappropriate because 1, the study is not comprehensive enough to infer that the findings are true for every population on a continent (they examined four populations: Han in West Africa, Japanese, Chinese, and CEU). 2, Populations genotypes and skin colour phenotypes are highly diverse within a large continental group.
"It is important to note that this simplified phylogeny and model only encompass some of the variation in human pigmentation. For example, it remains unclear whether other similarities in human pigmentation across the world, for example those leading to dark skin in West Africa, South Asia and Melanesia, are the result of common evolutionary events and genetic mechanisms. Our simple model is also deficient in assuming broad population groups are uniform in terms of pigmentation mechanism and evolution. For example, related phenotypes such as hair/eye color and skin response traits (like tanning) vary substantially in Europe. MC1R variants, known to influence these traits, vary significantly in frequency across the continent. MC1R or another gene may explain a substantial difference in tanning ability between West (e.g. British Isles) and North (e.g. Scandinavia) Europe despite similar constitutively pigmentation"
Some of the genetic variation of skin coloration is shared between distant populations which may differ in other aspects. Inclusion of these genes under the different population (or skin color phenotype) headings would be again problematic and repetitive.
"Two additional genes, ASIP and BNC2, show evidence for selection in both East Asians and Europeans, with haplotype sharing between the populations pointing to a selective event prior their divergence." [[11]]
The other study included also only examined two populations (Han chinese and Canadians of East Asian ancestry). " (...) a genetic variant located within the gene OCA2 (rs1800414) is associated with skin pigmentation in two samples of East Asian ancestry. The allele associated with lower melanin levels is found at high frequencies in East Asian populations, but is absent or at very low frequencies in other population groups." "A recent genome-wide study reported that variants within the genes SLC24A5, SLC45A2 and TYR are associated with skin pigmentation in a South Asian sample."[[12]]
This study also does not refer to different alleles of the gene as "European" or "South Asian" but by the variants of the gene (which are shared among other populations). While I agree that the variants of certain genes differ among populations such as in West Africa, East Asia, or North Europe, some of the other allele variants are shared among these populations such as the KITL and ASIP gene. Furthermore, many of the other populations (which are not included in this paper) share similar allele frequencies to the previous populations.
Other research papers may refer to variants of a particular gene in terms of a population but I still think it is not appropriate - and rather confusing and imprecise - to denote certain alleles of a gene which are found in high frequencies around wide geographical regions in terms of certain geographic populations.
I do not think that inclusion of additional relevant information on the genetics of skin coloration in the Human Skin Color article would only serve to "muddy the water". The genetics section of the article is not long at this time and inclusion of any well-sourced and reliable material should be welcomed. In case the section would grow too lengthy, we can always create a separate article for it.
Evolution works on the level of genes. So variants of a gene may be widespread among two distant geographical populations, variants of another gene may show much more differentiation between the same two populations. That is why I support changing back the organization to gene-based. One gene - or even a specific allele - is not exclusively shared in one population. Under the headings of the different genes we can include more information about the variants of the gene across geographical populations. If you want to include the tentative (and geographically limited) evolutionary history in the article, it belongs to the evolutionary section, not the genetics section. I would also suggest changing the denonyms of the alleles: "African" to "Ancestral" and - depending on the particular gene - "European" or "East Asian" to "Derived". Until we have good understanding of the comprehensive evolutionary history of human skin pigmentation I support keeping the evolution and genetics sections separate and discussing the known genes that affect skin coloration under their own headings in the genetics section, and hypotheses of evolutionary history in the evolution section. FonsScientiae (talk) 05:53, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The paper that mentions the model as "tentative" was the first paper to propose the model (in 2006). Numerous papers since, researching different genes in different ways, have made findings that support the model (see the list in our previous discussion). The paper itself is cited by many articles on the topic and it's safe to say that the model is globally accepted in the scientific community and is no longer tentative. Trying to align the data to any model other than this would be unrepresentative of the general consesus.
"Ancestral"/"Derived" is good suggestion, but it doesn't solve the problem that the derived alleles fall into two categories - those that are fixed in Europeans and those that are fixed in East Asians. One possibility might be to model the section in the same way as that paper does - include the image from the paper [13] and label the "European"/"East Asian" sections as "Path 1", "Path 2" etc. It's a bit clumsy and we will obviously still need to use "European" and "East Asian" when summarising the references but this will at least remove it from the headings and TOC.
I agree that the evolution of light skin pigmentation happened partly (genes such as the ASIP, or BNC2 are shared among light-skinned populations) independently at least twice during human evolutionary history. But I disagree that Europe or East Asia would be the only locations we should mention to emphasize this fact. We do know the allele frequency distribution of the ancestral and derived variants of the SLC24A5 and other genes among many global populations. [[14]] [[15]]
"It's a bit clumsy and we will obviously still need to use "European" and "East Asian" when summarising the references but this will at least remove it from the headings and TOC."
I agree with this suggestion. We will still need to use the “European” and “East Asian” when summarizing references in the wikitext. But we also need to include other populations to represent these populations with known allele frequencies of the same gene. FonsScientiae (talk) 18:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
OK, I'll look into getting permission to use the diagram. I think we can come up with better headings than "Path 1/2" and I'm thinking of rewording the text as well to make it clear it's talking about phenotype more than location. I'm thinking maybe "European" Phenotype (with the quotes) but maybe something else will come to mind or you have some suggestions. The discussion of allele frequency is similar to the one I'm having with Soupforone in the SLC24A5 section below, so if it's OK I'll discuss that there. Tobus2 (talk) 10:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't think we should include the diagram in the present form. The evolutionary history of skin colour of a number of geographical populations (South Asians, Native Americans, Southeast Asians, Khoisan, etc.) are missing from the image. I oppose using the name European phenotype in the diagram (even with quotes) as a label, for the previously mentioned reasons. Colour coding should be removed because we do not know the phenotypes of historical population. Number 5 from the image should be removed as it does not mark a point of appearance and dispersal of a new allele (West Africans share the ancestral alleles). [[16]] After these modifications, if you'd like to, go ahead and include the image.
There's no way I can agree to changing the image from the research paper as you suggest - we're presenting the scientific consensus not our own ideas. The consensus is what the image shows, and the skin colours of populations not included in the image are considered to be due to some combination or partial expression of the three phenotypes presented. Tobus2 (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I am not saying that we should include other populations that are not on the image. I am saying that we don't know the evolutionary history of many of the other populations and that the image is incomplete and makes assumptions that may not be necessary true (that is why it is tentative). Otherwise I support the labels ancestral path and derived path 1, 2 on the image. FonsScientiae (talk) 02:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood, I meant change the headings in the article, not the image (which I'm still waiting for permission on). After sleeping on it I think "Path 1" and "Path 2" are way too clumsy, and they don't reflect the research which clearly say "European" and "East Asian". As a compromise perhaps we could put "Phenotype" after these headings (in the article), to indicate they are not meant to be taken literally in a geographic sense.
Note that I've reverted (again) your restructuring of the section to remove the phenotype sections and simply list the genes one after the other. I disagree with this as it makes it less clear which alleles have which effect, the grouping by phenotype makes it crystal clear. It would be appreciated if you'd wait till we reach agreement before making such drastic changes.
I apologize if I misunderstood something but I told you that I was planning to change the headings. You did not reply to this and I took it as agreement to list by the genes. When you were referring to "path 1" or "path 2" I thought you were talking about the diagram you wanted to include not the wikitext.
I disagree with listing by phenotypes as there are numerous number of phenotypes (skin coloration is continuous) and many populations have different phenotypes. We cannot list different genes only under one phenotype as every population of every phenotype possesses the same genes. In contrast to this, genes (and their different alleles) have an exact effect on the phenotype. As a compromise we could list the phenotypes under the headings of the relevant genes associated with the allele of the particular gene.
We should mention the known geographic areas by name (West Asian, North Africa, East Asia etc.) where path 1 and 2 are prevalent in the text. It would be the less clumsy and confusing solution. FonsScientiae (talk) 03:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
The publisher of the image (Oxford University Press) has refused to let us use the image ("Unfortunately it is not OUP policy to allow articles/figures that appear in our journals to be posted on third party websites."), and the backup image I was planning to use[17] is also published by them, so we can't use that either. I think the section needs an image immediately after the test (where the rascist Stoddard map was), so I'm open to suggestions if you (or anybody else) has any.
I originally used a flat list of genes like you suggest, but I think grouping by effect makes it easier for people to find the allele they want. If you're looking for what makes someone from China the colour they are, you can find it very quickly if there's an "East Asian" section, but you'd have to read through the entire list if there's no structure.
The section is really a list of SNPs, not genes. The gene names are just user-friendly and easy-to-remember shortcuts - otherwise we'd have to use "rs6058017", "rs16891982" etc. Perhaps we could use the full user-friendly name "SLC24A5 Ala111Thr" etc. but this isn't really standard and I've seen the "Ala111Thr" written lots of different ways (A111T, 331A>G etc.). It's also useful to list the gene because in general, each gene is related to a function of the organism and the individual mutation can make more sense within the context of its gene... MC1R is a good example because it's famous for being the "red-haired gene". Everybody has the gene of course, whatever their hair colour, but mutations in it are widely known to cause red hair - stating that rs1805007 is in MC1R immediately gives it a context that wouldn't be there if the gene wasn't mentioned. Also, it's very common practice in research and published articles to refer to just the gene, usually after defining the particular SNP in question (eg "populations from South Asia have been tested and alleles found at TYR, SLC45A2 and SLC24A5 can largely account for differences"[18]), but sometimes even in isolation without the SNP even being mentioned - I couldn't find the SNPs for the ancestral dark-skinned MC1R alleles defined anywhere. So the way it's laid out now is both practical and within the standard scientific convention. I think we can probably find less geographical headings, but in terms of separating the genes into the phenotypes they cause it makes sense, is very clear and fits the currently dominant scientific paradigm.
I'm not sure what you mean by your last paragraph, by and large the papers talk about "African", "European" and "East Asian" in relation to the reference populations with the most extreme phenotype, the Path1/2 idea only makes sense in reference to the image we're not allowed to use. Perhaps you can explain what you mean there?
"The section is really a list of SNPs, not genes. The gene names are just user-friendly and easy-to-remember shortcuts - otherwise we'd have to use "rs6058017", "rs16891982" etc. Perhaps we could use the full user-friendly name "SLC24A5 Ala111Thr" etc. but this isn't really standard and I've seen the "Ala111Thr" written lots of different ways (A111T, 331A>G etc.). It's also useful to list the gene because in general, each gene is related to a function of the organism and the individual mutation can make more sense within the context of its gene"
I agree. Genes are part of the genome which code for a protein (in cases, for physical characteristics such as skin colour). Alleles are the different versions of the gene. There can be many alleles of a gene (as in the case of MC1R) which code for different skin/hair colour phenotypes. I'm not saying that we should write the name of the alleles in the headings, we should just write that "the derived or ancestral allele is associated with this or that". We can include the name of the allele if we want or just the site name which is associated with the phenotype once for reference. "111" in the "Ala111Thr" refers to the site of the SNP, the "Ala" to Alanine (the ancestral allele), and "Thr" to Threonine (derived allele which is associated with light skin).
The problem with the current listing is that it is supposed to include only certain populations under one heading. E.g. Europeans under the European section or East Asians under the East Asia section. The same is true for the "dark skin"/"light skin" listing. Now, the European section already mentions South Asians and Africans when it talks about some of the specific genes under the section. The East Asian section assumes that every East Asian populations have the derived allele when it is not true: among Mongolians (East Asia) there is a less than 25% frequency of the derived allele of the OCA2; the frequency of the derived allele of the OCA2 among Malaysians (who are East Asians) are basically 0%; the OCA2 is found almost in 1/4 of the Kazakh population (similar to some East Asian populations) who are Central Asians. Furthermore different genes have different frequencies in different populations. Different alleles and polymorphism of the MC1R gene are associated light skin in different populations not just with dark skin (as it is assumed from the current form of the section). Listing genes only under one phenotype or population is confusing because it suggests that only humans of this geographic region or phenotype possess these genes and that the gene (or certain alleles of the gene) are absent from other populations.
While I understand the reasoning why you have changed the organization scheme in the past, I find the new listing more confusing than the previous one. What do you think about listing the genetics section by the genes which affect skin colour phenotype and under each gene subdividing the section into "light skin"/"dark skin" phenotype and listing the relevant populations under those section? FonsScientiae (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The latter structural scheme wouldn't work for many global populations with heterogenous allele and pigmentation patterns. The current system seems better, as it is focuses more on the pigmentation functions of each allele. The only other workable structure seems to be one centered on each gene's ancestral vs. derived alleles. Soupforone (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Just to clarify terms, genes can produce hundreds of proteins each. The proteins are determined by codons which are groups of three nucleotides (base pairs). An SNP is a variation in a single nucleotide. So the "rsXXXX" number refers to a single nucleotide, the "Ala111Thr" refers to the codon (and its protein) that the SNP is part of and the gene "SLC24A5" refers to a stretch of codons (and sometimes non-coding nucleotides) that the SNP is in. The term "allele" can refer to a specific variation of any of these, depending on context. I'm not 100% sure what you are suggesting with the headings, are you saying that we should put the codon number after the gene name (eg "SLC24A4 111" instead of just "SLC24A5") in the headings?
I understand what you are saying about the current headings and I half agree. The half I agree with is the implication that the current "Europe"/"East Asian" headings have is not geographically correct. I spent a good deal of time trying to find alternate headings that wouldn't be OR/Synth on my part but would still be short enough to be used as headings. In the end I gave up and just stick with the terms used by the research papers, which they use to refer to reference populations in HapMap or other data, not necessarily to geography. If you or anyone else can come up with better terms for the headings that can be supported by sources then I'm happy to hear them, my suggestion would be to put "Phenotype" after them (eg "European Phenotype" instead of "Europe" in the heading) and make it clearer in the introduction that the reference populations represent one end of a phenotype range, not a geographical location. The half I disagree with is that this also applies to the dark/light skin headings. I think it's understood that we're talking about small additive effects and somebody wanting to know about a "medium skin" phenotype wouldn't be expecting a section of its own - they'd understand it was due to some combination of both the dark and light skin genes.
The problem I see with a "Gene: 1. Dark version / 2. Light version" structure is twofold. Firstly the two are largely reciprocal so you're essentially stating the same data twice: "The ancestral Ala111Thr causes dark skin and is found 100% in Africa and 0% in Europe", then "The derived Ala111Thr allele causes light skin and is found 0% in African and 100% in Europe" etc. etc. To me it makes more sense (and better reflects the evolution) to say "Dark skin is ancestral" once and then highlight each of the derived alleles that cause light skin in their own section. Secondly, a flat list disguises the fact that there are two distinct evolutions for light skin - a reader would have to know or specifically be looking for it to see that "European" and "East Asian" light skin phenotypes are caused by (mostly) different genes. The current structure highlights the effect of each allele much better (I think SoupForOne agrees with this too) and it also allows for the common genes to be clearly identified as well.
I agree with Soupforone in that a structure would work where we center information on the derived and ancestral alleles of the gene. The current structure would not work for many larger geographical areas because 1, if two distant populations possess similar allele distribution of a 'skin colour gene’ then listing the allele and genetic data more than once under different headings would make the text redundant and repetitive 2, putting a gene under a heading of particular geographic area misrepresents both genetic structure and known facts of allele distribution.
No, we shouldn’t state the "dark version / light version of gene" data twice and separately under different headings but we should state it once e.g. “The ancestral allele of the Ala111Thr is associate dark skin and widespread in Sub-Saharan Africa, Southeastern Asia, and the Americas. The derived Ala111Thr allele is associated with light skin pigmentation and is found 80% in North Africa and 100% in Europe, 50% in Central Asia". While it is convenient for a reader to look for the genes that cause light skin pigmentation in Europe or East Asia, what about readers looking for all the other populations and areas that are not included in the list (e.g. Southwestern Asians, Native Americans, North Africans, Oceanians, etc.)?
It is not clear why the current structure emphasizes two geographical populations (Europe and East Asia) instead of giving an unbiased representation of global populations. The maps represent the global distribution of the alleles in a most comprehensive way but the current organizational scheme is contrary to the map data.
As for alternatives for the appellations of ‘Europe’ and ‘Asia’, ‘Western Eurasia’ and ‘Eastern Eurasia / East Asia’ would serve better as Western Eurasia is the broad area where the genes in question are widespread (although it does not include North Africa). These terms are also often used in human population genetics. FonsScientiae (talk) 22:49, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
This section doesn't focus on geographical areas, it focuses on genetic areas. The "European" and "East Asian" labels apply to distinct genetic phenotypes, not to physical geographical regions on the earth. It emphasises these phenotypes because they are emphasised in the research (presumably because they the extremes of the phenotype range and so are easier for researchers to work with). As I said I'm happy to change the headings/text to make it clearer if it's confusing, but changing to different geographical areas that don't represent the phenotypes and/or using labels that aren't used in the research will only make it more confusing. We should be moving away from geography and towards genetics, not the other way round. Tobus2 (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
By the way, there was an error under the SLC24A5 gene. It stated that it is “fixed in European populations and absent from populations that have no European admixture”. While the mutation is of course at fixation in European populations, it is not restricted to Europe nor is its presence in most other areas due to European admixture. In all likelihood, the gene evolved in West Asia and dispersed from there to Europe, the Middle East, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, and South Asia, where it is today found at high frequencies. Soupforone (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
SLC24A5: I see no reason that the high frequencies of the particular alleles of the gene would be consequence of admixture outside Europe, especially as it seems now that the evolution of the allele happened outside Europe. FonsScientiae (talk) 04:44, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, the SLC24A5 section doesn't make any statements or claims about the origin or history of the allele. It simply states the facts as they stand today: it is fixed in Europeans, and it doesn't appear in populations that don't have European admixture. If you are drawing your own conclusions from this, then please please don't claim it's the article that is in error.
Secondly, the blog post you linked to makes no claim that the light-skin SLC24A5 allele originated in West Asia. The closest it comes to that is talking about the allele being essentially fixed not just in Europe but in all of "Western Eurasia" (which, as you no doubt aware, includes Europe). Please note that this is a blog post, not a research paper and you shouldn't overstate the blogger's personal opinions as meaning "researchers have a better understanding". For the record, the paper he is talking about (which is written by actual researchers) makes no such claim either, it implies the opposite in fact: "the selective sweeps for the European-specific alleles at TYRP1, SLC24A5, and SLC45A2 started much later, within the last 11,000-19,000 years, well after the first migrations of modern humans into Europe".
Thirdly, this is way off-topic, if you still feel the need to discuss the accuracy of the SLC24A5 section, it should probably be in a separate topic.
The link points to Discover magazine's blog, and the author of the piece is a geneticist. Anyway, the assertion in the wikitext that the derived SLC24A5 allele is "absent from populations that have no European admixture" is inaccurate, as its widespread presence outside of Europe is for the most part not due to European admixture. The variant only reached fixation in Europe after the last Ice Age, and on a very short timescale. It appears to have arrived with the Neolithic Revolution (Razib Khan, Medical Hypotheses 75 (2010), 363–367):
Approximately 20–45% of the skin color difference between Sub-Saharan Africans and Europeans is controlled by variation on one gene, SLC24A5, with another 25% of the variation between these two groups controlled by another locus, KITLG[24]. With relation to SLC24A5 all Europeans have one variant, and all Sub-Saharan Africans have the other. The African variant, which is shared with East Asians, is ancestral, while the European variant, which is distributed across West Asia and North Africa, is derived[4]. Additionally, analysis of the genetic variation around this gene with haplotype-based methods suggests that the derived European variant began to rise in frequency on the order of 6000 years ago[25]. The relatively recent date of this selection event combined with the very high frequency of its variant in Europeans, nearly 100%, leads us to infer that the factor driving natural selection must have been very powerful, generating on the order of 10% fitness increase per generation to those carrying the new variant in relation to the population average. This is a very high rate of adaptation, to the extent that individuals may have observed changes in their own populations in their lifetimes. SLC24A5 is also responsible for approximately the same proportion of the skin color variation in South Asians[26]. The European variant of SLC24A5 is extant at frequencies of 50% among South Indians and Sri Lankans, and 80–90% in Pakistan, exhibiting a southeast–northwest cline[27]. This gene has had a rapid rise and wide sweep across western Eurasia and North Africa after the last Ice Age. Different genes also seem to have arisen in East Asia recently, conferring lighter pigmentation on those populations[6]. These data imply strongly that the relatively lightly pigmented phenotype of modern Europeans post-dates the last Ice Age, and those modern humans were relatively dark-skinned at higher latitudes for several tens of thousands of years. Only with the arrival of agriculture do the new methods suggest that genes responsible for light skin in modern populations began to rise in frequency.Soupforone (talk) 21:34, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but your logic escapes me. If the assertion "the derived SLC24A5 allele is absent from populations that have no European admixture" is inaccurate, then that means that there must be populations with no European admixture that have the derived allele. I would thus expect your supporting refs to contain evidence for the existence of such a population, but neither the blog post you provided earlier nor this paper do - all the populations mentioned have known European admixture (and post-Neolithic at that). So what is it that makes you think the assertion is inaccurate? Do you know of a population with the allele that doesn't have any European admixture? Tobus2 (talk) 06:01, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
The statement in the wikitext that the derived SLC24A5 allele is "absent from populations that have no European admixture" implies that the many populations outside of Europe that have the derived allele have it specifically due to European admixture. However, the Khan paper dismisses this notion with the observation above that "the relatively lightly pigmented phenotype of modern Europeans post-dates the last Ice Age, and those modern humans were relatively dark-skinned at higher latitudes for several tens of thousands of years[...] only with the arrival of agriculture do the new methods suggest that genes responsible for light skin in modern populations began to rise in frequency". This is an allusion to the arrival of agriculture in Europe during the Neolithic i.e. the Neolithic/Agricultural Revolution, when migrants entering from the direction of West Asia brought along the derived SLC24A5 allele. This is why Khan explains further on the Discover magazine blog (same geneticist) that the derived allele isn't really strictly European, and that much of the evolution of light skin pigmentation probably took place outside of Europe:
"SLC24A5 in its derived skin lightening state is found outside of Europe[...] I’m rather sure there are more copies of the derived “European” allele among non-Europeans: South Asians, Middle Easterners, and North Americans. The problem here is semantic I think. The authors were really talking about West Eurasians in a generic sense, but because their data utilized Europeans, East Asians, and Africans, they felt like they had to speak about Europeans specifically. Additionally, during the Last Glacial Maximum much of Europe was not inhabited, or very sparsely so. That suggests to me that much of the evolution of “European pigmentation” may have taken outside of geographical Europe proper."[19]Soupforone (talk) 22:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
OK I get it now, you agree that the article text is factually correct. Your complaint is not that that what states is in error, but that what it implies is misleading in regards to whether SLC24A5 first appeared in Europe or whether it was carried into Europe by a migration. I don't have a particular view on the subject - I don't think anyone can really claim to know where the allele originated or how long it existed in or out of geographical Europe before it came under selection. The genetics section doesn't make any claims about it so as Razib puts it, "the problem here is semantic".
I will point out though that Razib's 2010 is a bit outdated. The 6,000 years ago figure is taken from this article [20] which he dismisses in his 2012 blog post: "A few years ago a conference presentation implied that the selective sweep around SLC24A5 began ~6,000 years ago. To my knowledge a paper never came out of this, and from what I’ve heard in part that’s because that very low number is probably not right, and you may have to push it back some." The 6000 years was actually the lower bound of the 12,000-6,000 range that the article suggested so was probably a bit extreme anyway. The published and peer-reviewed paper he discusses in the blog is this one [21] which is more reputable and states a range of 19,000 to 11,000 - before the arrival of agriculture from the southeast. Given there has been high degree of admixture and migration to and from Europe since the allele became fixed (consider Greeks at the Ganges, Tocharians at the Tarim Basin, Romans and Vandals in North Africa in just the last few thousand years), it's probably going to be nigh impossible to determine where exactly the allele first appeared.
It doesn't really matter though, what we do know is that today it is fixed in Europeans and only appears in populations with European admixture, with the admixed populations showing a skin colour proportional to the ratio of derived alleles to ancestral ones. The case being made is not where it originated, but it's effect on the skin pigmentation of modern populations.
Tobus2 (talk) 13:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I agree that the ~6,000 date in Khan's paper is somewhat outdated. But the claim in the wikitext that the derived SLC24A5 allele is "absent from populations that have no European admixture" is even more so, given what researchers now know regarding the allele's global distribution. For this reason, the assertion should be removed and replaced with a statement acknowledging the widespread distribution of the allele in its other global areas of concentration (as is done, for instance, with KITLG). The fact that East Asians and many Africans carry the ancestral SLC24A5 allele should also be noted. Soupforone (talk) 21:28, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Unless you know of a population that has the derived allele but has no European admixture, then the wikitext is not "inaccurate" or "outdated", it's true. Undeniably so.
Personally I'd prefer to remove the reference to admixed populations altogether. This section is not about the geographical distrubution of skin colours (that's what the "Geographical Variation" section would be for), it's about detailing the individual genetic mutations that are known to have an effect on skin pigmentation. Since the widely accepted consensus of experts is that the range of skin colours today is due to various combinations of three separate evolutions (the ancestral dark-skinned alleles and two independent sets of light-skinned alleles), it makes sense to use populations fixed for these alleles as reference points. Using populations that aren't fixed might be a little bit like trying to describe the RGB system by talking about orange, yellow and purple. It so happens that the light skinned alleles are fixed in two populations, and today those populations happen to be centered in Europe and East Asia. Mentioning populations from other locations who aren't fixed and display only part of the phenoytype caused by the alleles might be useful in an overview explaining the full spectrum, but it's not helpful in showing the effects that each individual set of alleles has.
It is not a foregone conclusion that the derived SLC24A5 allele's presence outside of Europe is specifically due to European admixture. Khan argues that it reached fixation in Europe only after the arrival of the Neolithic agriculturalists, and that much of the evolution of light skin pigmentation actually occurred outside of the continent. Beleza et al. (2012) erroneously suggest that the derived SLC24A5 allele is "primarily restricted to European populations", when in fact the allele is also found at high frequencies in various other populations. Despite this, they too acknowledge the alternate possibility that the allele may have evolved elsewhere and was later brought to the continent [22]:
1) the derived alleles arose in Europe (for SLC24A5 and TYRP1)or in the ancestral Eurasian population (for KITLG) where they increased in frequency and were introduced later into Africa by gene flow, 2) the derived alleles arose in Africa, where they remain at low frequencies and spread out of Africa with the early migrations of modern humans. These alleles were then lost from the ancestral gene pools of East Asians (except for KITLG) and ultimately increased in frequency in the ancestors of Europeans, and 3) the African and European alleles had independent mutational origins and are homoplastic, which is an unlikely scenario. It would be necessary to carry out a more exhaustive study of the diversity of these loci, and particularly, the pattern of intra-allelic variation for the derived alleles in African and Eurasian populations, to clarify these issues.
The wikitext must reflect the actual global distribution of the various alleles, including the ancestral SLC24A5 allele. It cannot make claims like "the Thr111Ala allele (rs1426654) has been shown to be a major factor in the light skin tone of Europeans compared to African-Americans, South Asians and other populations" or that the latter allele is "absent from populations that have no European admixture" because this implies that this derived SLC24A5 allele is largely restricted to Europeans and that anywhere else it is found today at appreciable frequencies is mainly due to European admixture. The variant is actually quite common among South Asians in addition to a number of other non-European populations, and in many or most instances, this may not be due to European admixture. Soupforone (talk) 22:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I disagree. The section doesn't have to state the global distribution of all the alleles - it can do so if it helps demonstrate the effect of the allele, but there's no obligation. For instance it doesn't mention the widespread occurence throughout West and South Asia of the ancestral dark-skin alleles for SLC45A2 and TYR1. Also, the section can state the effects of the Thr111Ala allele when comparing European, African-Americans, South Asians and other populations and then go on to say it's absent from populations with no European admixture because both statements are verified by reliable published sources.
It seems to me that the issue is more about interpretation than facts. You are associating "European" with the physical location but I think the researchers are using "European" as an example of a specific phenotype more than as a geographically-defined population - after all, the main "European" population in HapMap (CEU) is taken from Utah in the US. The important point about the admixture is not whether it came from inside or outside geographical Europe, but that it came from the same evolutionary path that has lead to the European phenotype. The allele didn't evolve independently in Europeans, West Asians and South Asians, it's the same one spread around by intermarriage and migration. Perhaps we just need to find a better way to express that fact.
While I appreciate Tobus2’s point, I agree with Soupforone’s suggestion that the wikitext should reflect the global distributions of the various alleles of the genes without giving undue weight to any particular geographic population. As Tobus2 mentions the wikitext does not include the distribution of the ancestral allele of the gene through West and South Asia. It should, just as it should state the same of the derived allele.
Whether the research paper uses the word “European ” for the physical location or the phenotype, writing the variant of the SLC24A5 which is associated with the light skin phenotype as the “European” phenotype or allele is essentially misleading and fallacious. A better way to state the conclusion of the study would be to write that the derived allele of the Thr111Ala is associated with light skin and is found high frequencies in European, West Asian, North African, and South Asian (etc.) populations. There are a number of reliable references that mention that the derived allele of the Thr111Ala is widespread in populations outside Europe and that the ancestral allele is not only restricted to Africa and East Asia in high frequencies.
“The derived allele (T= Thr) has been associated with light skin pigmentation (…) and is common in Europe, Southwest Asia, and Central Asia. This SNP has shown evidence of natural selection.” [[23]]
“Looking at the frequencies on other populations besides Europeans that a) it is extant at high frequencies across North Africa and Western Asia and b) there is a signature of selection. There is of course one population which I’ve talked about in regards toSLC24A5 already, and that’s South Asians. It seems that about 1/3 of the variation in skin color within this group can be explained by polymorphism on this gene; that’s around the same range as the between-group difference for Africans and Europeans.” [[24]]
“Rs1426654 and rs2733832 of SLC24A5 and TYRP1 genes respectively, along with some other genes, may be involved in influencing pigmentation differences across India.” [[25]]
“Northern Europeans carry a new allele from a gene called SLC24A5 at a frequency near 100 percent. This allele has spread as far west as Spain, and as far east as Pakistan; it is also common in North Africa.” [[26]]
I believe that inclusion of a map of global distribution of the ancestral and derived alleles would the best solution, clarifying the allele’s distribution in different populations and avoiding cherry-picking certain populations as representative or geographically ancestral to an allele (we are in agreement that we do not know where the evolution of the derived allele of the SLC24A5 happened).. FonsScientiae (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. The global distribution of both the ancestral and derived SLC24A5 alleles should be shown, and an allele distribution map is a neutral way of doing that. Toward that end, allele frequencies for various world populations are available in this database. Soupforone (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
We can't interpret or rewrite the conclusions of the papers - if they say "X does Y in European populations" then we have to present that as it is. If there is a reliable source that makes an interpretation then we can use that, but we can't WP:Synth our own ideas.
As for the map I think that's a great idea - the allele frequencies are really informative and interesting but it's impossible to present them all via text and not doing so raises the possibility of synth or introducing a geographical bias like we are discussing. That's why the current frequencies in the section are the ones stated by the research papers themselves, not from HapMap or Alfred. HapMap produces maps like this[27] that would could probably use (Razib's blog post uses it so I'm assuming it's fair use or public domain). The issue will be that they're quite big and if we had one for each allele we'll end up with more pictures than text. To get around this with could probably combine a number of these into a single composite image that shows all the alleles on one map.
Yes, we cannot rewrite the conclusion of the sources, but we can include other reliable sources which present a more comprehensive description of the allele's global distribution.
Looking up the maps of the global distribution of the SLC24A5 I found three fairly comprehensive maps. One is from the HGDP project (2005) [[28]], another is from a book by E. Hall [[29]] (2008), and the last one is from Yale's ALFRED / ALlele FREquency Database (the one Soupforone have provided the link for) [(map view)]. I personally would prefer Yale's ALFRED as reference, because it has the largest sample size (119 populations in contrast to HGDP's 52, and Hall's 69), the map of HGDP looks bent and the entire region of the Americas are left out from it, and because ALFRED is the most recent one (updated daily). Plus, ALFRED's copyright states that "ALFRED is intended to be a useful scientific resource for everybody (...).Our copyright precludes any for profit use, but non-profit educational use is welcome." so there shouldn't be a problem with copyright. Although there is a problem with Google Maps as it only displays 30 of the 119 typed populations [[30]]. The kml file works well in Google Earth and other programs which support kml but the 2D map version of the allele frequencies probably can only be created manually. FonsScientiae (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
It would probably be best to use percentage gradients for the SLC24A5 allele map, as on the haplogroup frequency maps [31], [32]. This way the per population frequencies are better captured, as well as any geographic continuities or discontinuities. Soupforone (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm happy to use data from any (reliable) source, but remember that the more populations the more crowded it will be, and the less it will be useful as a thumbnail.
Percentage gradients would be great, but AFAIK there isn't data available that would be so specific. It requires full genome studies which are much more expensive than the single X/Y-chromosome studies required for the haplogroups. I had a quick search but didn't find anything that looks promising in this regard. It may be that reproducing Alfred/HapMap is the best we can do.
The allele map would have the same basic format as the haplogroup frequency maps. These maps are similarly based on specific population frequencies, and they too don't and can't cover every single population. However, they do cover as many as possible, and can also take into consideration geographic continuities/discontinuities via different coloring and shading. The mini-pie charts superimposed on the globe can't do that, as they are constrained by limited space. ALFRED's Google chart [33] also doesn't show the areas in Central Asia and Africa where the derived SLC24A5 allele is found at high frequencies. We need an allele map where the frequency gradients are based on actual per population percentages, as on the Allele Frequency Database here. Something along the lines of the HIV/AIDS world prevalence map would be workable [34]. Soupforone (talk) 21:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
That AIDS map is a dead link... did you mean this map[35]? It looks like a typo but it's using national borders which I think is contradictory to what you are trying to achieve.
A gradient map would require a separate map for each allele, and as I said before I think space on the page will be a problem. An alternative to circular graphs might be to use the bar graphs (rotated -90 degrees) which could easily be colour coded and stacked side-by-side in about the same space that the circles take up... this would allow a single image with all the alleles displayed.
I agree that a gradient map would represent the continuous geographic variation the best, but I could not find any published sources where they include a gradient map (except for the OCA2 in Asia). I created a pie chart map based on Yale's Allele Frequency Database and added it to the article. I included the names of the ethnic populations from the database also. Let me know what you think about it. A gradient map based on the same data would be possible to create but I'm not an expert in GIS or image editing. Maybe we can find someone to do it. FonsScientiae (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this, it's a great image and really useful for the section. Two things: on my screen (4x3) it's a bit wide so maybe we could cut the Atlantic Ocean out, and also it could use a key (Blue = Derived, Yellow = Ancestral), but I'm nitpicking, good work. Tobus2 (talk) 05:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
The map looks good; thanks for the effort. Would it be possible to stretch the canvas vertically to accommodate the allele frequencies for Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, Ethiopian Jews and the San? All of the database's other population frequencies seem to have been captured, which is remarkable. This would also render the frame more square. Soupforone (talk) 22:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
I reverted most of the changes you made to the SLC24A5 section, here's why:
1. The 2013 Beleza paper article doesn't contradict the 2005 Lamarson one - the difference is simply how they calculated the %age difference. Both found the same absolute melanin units difference (4.8/4.9), but Lamarson compared this to the average difference of the two populations (the average African measurement to the average European one - about 30 units difference) while Beleza compared it to the range of variation (the lowest measurement to the highest one - about 77 units difference). They both found the same effect, they just reported it differently. I have changed the text to say "average skin tone difference" to clarify. We could change it be "13% of the maximum skin tone difference" and use Beleza as the ref, but I think using the average is a closer representation of the 'real world' differences and so more meaningful.
2. You removed the Norton2006 ref as "wikitext not in source". The ref is provided for the first part of the sentence ("shown to be a major factor..." - they do a study using spectrometry samples of African-Americans and African Caribbeans) not to the %age difference. If you like you can move it to after the statement, I've restored it to the end since the other ref also confirms the first part - I think if you put the first ref half way through it'd make the 2nd ref look like it only refers to the %age diff, but it also refers to the "major factor" as well.
3. I don't think we should use Alfred or HapMap frequencies as refs in the text, especially to generalise about geographical areas. If a paper or an expert has said it then let's use that as the ref, otherwise let's leave our own interpretations out of it.
1. "We could change it be "13% of the maximum skin tone difference" and use Beleza as the ref". Okay, I agree with this.
2. "The ref is provided for the first part of the sentence ("shown to be a major factor..." - they do a study using spectrometry samples of African-Americans and African Caribbeans) not to the %age difference. If you like you can move it to after the statement, I've restored it to the end since the other ref also confirms the first part" I agree with this also and I do not think that putting it at the end would make it seem like it only refers to the end of the sentence. An alternative could be to put all the refs at the end of the sentence.
3. The text I used is directly from the source (Yale's Allele Frequency Database) and is not a personal interpretation. [[36]] I apologize if the ref link was missing from the article. Reference to other populations are also found in other sources
"As the map from the HGDP browser to the left indicates, the derived “European” variant is nearly fixed in Middle Easterners. (...) It is also found in high frequencies in South Asians."[[37]] FonsScientiae (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The map: I have updated the old map with a new one with different aspect ratio. I have cut out the Atlantic Ocean and modified the vertical span of the image as you have suggested. San and Ethiopian Jew populations are now included in the map, but I could not include Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews as their geographical location is unlisted in the ALFRED database. FonsScientiae (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Great thanks. ALFRED lists the Ashkenazi Jews and Sephardic Jews (Roman Jews in actuality) as being from Israel and Italy, respectively [38], [39]. Soupforone (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
1. I think using the averages is better as the average difference is what people see when walking down the street or picture Africans/Europeans in their head. Either one is verifiable, so if nobody else has an opinion and you feel strongly that the maximum range is better to use then go ahead and change it, just make it clear that it's the range from darkest individual to lightest individual, not the 'typical' difference that most people might imagine.
2. I've put both refs at the end which I think is better, I won't change it back if you want to move the first one to after the word "African-Americans".
3. My bad, I assumed you'd just described the map. I went to add it back in but after rereading the section I think the allele's spread is fairly well implied already ("across a range of populations", "recent selection in Western Eurasia", "natural variation of skin color in South Asia") especially when taken with the map (great work BTW!). My aim for the section is to focus on the alleles and their proven effects and I'd prefer for it not to turn into long lists of populations that have the allele if possible (maybe that can be done in Geographical Variation?). Perhaps we can fix up the problem with it sounding like "Europe" means geographical "Europe" as a better solution than trying to list each and every region where it occurs?
1. Adding the maximum range is informative but I have no objections keeping the average difference reference. I have readded the Beleza ref while keeping the Lamarson ref.
3. Including the geographical areas in the wikitext where the allele occurs is the most comprehensive and least biased way to illustrate the allele's distribution next to the map. There are not many large regions to include if we keep the categorization on the level of the UN geoscheme regions (or on continental level where allele distribution is homogenous). Also, these regions are often used in the sources. FonsScientiae (talk) 22:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Beleza et al. (2013)'s 13% figure pertains to the variation within Cape Verde alone: In our work, the effect size of SLC24A5 corresponds to 13% of the range of skin color variation in Cape Verde, and we did not detect KITLG as a skin color locus.Soupforone (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Besides Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews, could you also try and include the derived SLC24A5 allele frequencies for Tamils and Sinhalese in the global map? They are presented in Soejima and Koda (2007) [40][41][42]. Soupforone (talk) 04:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I removed the Cape Verde statement since the SLC24A5, SLC45A2, TYR and OCA2 alleles have a combined frequency of only 35% in said population [43]. No sense in abridging the derived SLC24A5 allele's high frequency areas, while focusing on this one low frequency group. Soupforone (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
1. It seems silly stating one percentage then a different one in the next para, for now I've merged the two into the same sentence and included the raw difference in melanin units, but I suggest we agree on one or the other . As it stands it's unnecessarily clumsy. My vote is for the "average 25-40%" as I think it's more meaningful to the ordinary reader.
3. It's much less biased to state the largest area that includes all the locations than to specify individual locations that potentially leave gaps or exclude populations who don't identify. I've combined the individual locations into "Western Eurasia and North Africa" because I can't think of a geographical term that covers both. I also removed the Alfred reference which we shouldn't draw conclusions from and is already better represented via the map.
"West Eurasia and North Africa" alone doesn't capture the full high frequency distribution of the derived SLC24A5 allele. On the other hand, "Europe, North Africa, the Horn of Africa, West Asia, Central Asia and South Asia" does since those are the global areas where the derived SLC24A5 allele is common. Soupforone (talk) 03:51, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Removed some blog links. The derived SLC24A5's allele's actual primary geographical distribution should be clearly outlined. Soupforone (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion about the Human displacement map of the world
the following text was copied from the talk page of the aforementioned map
This map, while mostly informative, is quite inaccurate regarding large countries. A national average of skin color obscures the actual distribution of skin colors within each country.
Many large countries display a great skin color diversity that can be explained mostly by a diverse racial admixture. Other countries have a skin color diversity that correlates less strongly with racial admixture and more with latitude.
I agree. Also, the on the site of the the original[44] it states the map is made "with data from the latest national census". Every nation has a different way of reporting skin colour on the census, some have 2 options (white/black) some have more, some don't have it at all and most do it in terms of self-identified ancestry, not skin colour. In no case that I know of does the census taker select their skin colour from the von Luschan Scale, so a whole lot of subjective interpretation has gone into this. While I think it's an interesting and valuable exercise, I think it would have to be considered as wp:OR and so probably can't be used here. Tobus2 (talk) 23:46, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
This map is poorly constructed, especially for large countries with great internal variation. I don't see the point in including a POLITICAL based map on a wikipage of a biological phenomenon. It's better left out rather than being included in such a misleading and irrelevant state. Wadaad (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The thing is, the census data from which this map is based upon is also data from which wikipedia articles regarding racial information in multiple countries are built upon, is non-sense to say that source information in a map is original research but the same source information used in these articles is not. And as some editor above me stated, it's the average tone, which means that in the same country there migh be people with lighter or darker skin, the footnote made it clear, if the footnote or the original source said that it's the ONLY ONE color then there would ba a problem, but since it's an average and nothing else there is nothing incorrect on it, the division of the countries might be political but the subject the map addresses is entirely biological, to complain about it is non-sense. the map is not misleading and is not original research in any way: it's correctly sourced, the source where it is based upon is far well elaborated and is made by an investigator who has prestige and who also meets all the standards regarding reliable sources. It's source data meets the wikipeadia quality standards to be used as a reliable source and it will stay regardless of personal opinions. This map is far more reliable, recent and better elaborated than the two maps that already occupy space in the "Human skin tone" article (one being from 1920 and other from 1940). Czixhc (talk) 01:19, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The problem is, the sources for the data in the image aren't cited, there's no way to verify the claims made in the image. Given that you're the only individual cited as a source, that raises alarm bells of original research. —C.Fred (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Can you cite the paragraph in that wikipedia guideline who specifies what you are saying? a look on it revals that a source is reliable if it has been published and per reviewed, and Jonathan Hagos works have been published by third parties before, a source which didn't meet that criteria wouldn't be published on first place. Czixhc (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Front paragraph of WP:Verifiability: "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors." As noted above, the only source cited on the map image is you: you've claimed authorship of it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
That's why the map cites Jonathan Hagos as a source, his work is reliable and has been published by third parties, therefore a map made by me citing him is reliable and don't violates copyright, it's the same base on which all the other maps on wiki are done. Czixhc (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
The original census data may be reliable sources, but they've been massively interpreted in a non-objective way. All over the world there are people of who identify as having the same ancestry but have completely different skin colours. For example, both Samuel L Jackson and Halle Berry would have ticked the "African American" box but their skin tones are at opposite ends of the von Luschan Scale - what colour has been chosen to represent them?. In some countries a particular skin colour would be considered "white" while another country would be consider it "black". There's no way self-identified ancestral or racial categories in censuses from multiple societies can be accurately mapped to a chromatic scale of skin colour in any kind of scientifically verifiable way. It's a great idea, but it's not suitable for an encyclopedia. Tobus2 (talk) 12:18, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more... calculating geopolitical skin colour 'averages' from census (often self-identity based) information is just extremely unscientific and misleading.Wadaad (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
There are various reasons for which i have to disagree with almost all the things you've said, starting with the fact that there isn't a huge difference from Samuel L. Jackson [45] and Halle Berry [46] skin tones. Racial census by identification or self-identification are highly accurate and you saying that it was misinterpreted in a non-objetive way has no real fundament at all. In fact to divide the skin tone distribution using governamental census and their respective political borders is much more accurate than to stick to how the skin pigmentation was before the massive migrations in recent centuries have happened. Skin disribution isn't uniform anymore, neither follows a patern, specially in zones that experimented migration recently, Costa Rica for example, has a notable light skinned population while it's neighbours Nicaragua and Panama don't, with the later having a huge black skinned population, another clear exampe is Australia, whose native population had black skin but now the majority is light skinned. To highlight the effects of migration in recent years is the objetive of this map, and there is no way to measure the migration trends without using governamental data, which, for being reliable on every article on wikipedia where it's used is reliable in this map too. Neither you or the other editor can give valid reasons to not include this map, there is no reason for it to not be included on the article, It have been proved reliable and it's way more complete and recent than the two maps used in this article right now. Czixhc (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The government census data doesn't use the von Luschan Scale, so you can't "divide the skin tone distribution using governamental census", you have to do it using your own subjective interpretation of whatever racial category each particular census uses. I count 4 against and only the OP for, so I think this is pretty much decided. Tobus2 (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
The Von Luschan chromatic scale was Hagos' initiative, who is an investigator which have imparted seminaries and have exhibited his work around the world, his work has also been published, therefore he knows what he is doing and is reliable. And no, this is discussion is not decided because accord to WP: Consensus: "Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); nor is it the result of a vote" The consensus is decided in base to sources, and I happen to be the one who has the most reliable and recent sources, while you haven't brought anything that can support your point, you and the other editor that is actively opposing the adition (because it turns out to be 2 vs 1, not 4 vs 1) have also failed at disproving my sources. The only thing that is opposing to the adition of this map in this article is your and Wadaad baseless opinions, which in the end have no weight at all because none of you have any sources to support their views, even if it were 10 vs 1, the one who will be favored in a discussion on wikipedia in the end is the one who has the sources, not the opinionated oppositors who don't have anything to back up their positions. Again, the map have been proved reliable way too many times and is more precise, recent and elaborated than any of the two maps existing on wiki, so in the end there is no way for it to not be added. What can be changed is what the footnote on the map says, i've been thinking about one that can leave all of us satisfied and that can leave clear what this map is about, here it is: File:Human displacement map of the world.jpgAverage skin tone per country after the recent mass migrations. It doesn't means that only that skin color is present, on every country there is persons that have lighter or darker skin than it's respective averages
I believe it's the best way to set a middle ground, does anybody of you want to add something else to it? Czixhc (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Sorry Czixhc but you haven't provided any "reliable and recent sources". All you've done is repeatedly state your own opinion that the producer of the map is reliable and has been published.
WP:OR states that OR "includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources.". In this the case, the map creator has synthesised the census data and presents a position that is not advanced by that data - the sources state percentages of self-identified ancestry and the map creator has extrapolated this into skin colours on the van Luschan Scale. This makes the map original research. In order for it to be considered for inclusion it would have to have been published in a peer-reviewed journal and/or be accepted as consensus by the general expert community. The author having had something else published somewhere else doesn't qualify. If this particular map has been published anywhere besides the author's website then please provide evidence of it. This will give us an idea of it's acceptance or lack of such by experts in the field.
Let me correct you there, for one WP:SYNTHESIS is a policy directed towards and only to the editors of wikipedia in no way it applies to the work of investigators, scientists, writers etc. the work of these persons is, in fact to synthetise existing information to introduce their concepts and views, by that logic, nearly 90% of the books cited on wikipedia are original research, not to mention the racial census themselves, don't confuse and don't try to apply the policies to which all the editors of wikipedia must adhere to persons whose work is in fact, to synthetise information, you are grasping at straws at this point. Finally, despite you being overdemanding towards a work made by a person whose work has been exhibited and published before, you must know that his map was in fact, featured in an exhibition in London [47][48] (November 9th 2009). It's reliable, end of history. Czixhc (talk) 03:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I was pointing out that the map is not a reliable source - it's not accurately representing the census data, it's manipulating and interpreting the data to say something that is way beyond the scope of the original sources, thus making it original research, not a reliable secondary source. You're asking us to accept this from someone we've never heard of, who appears to be more of an artist than a scientist and who makes claims that we can't verify with any independent reputable third party. What you've presented us with is unverifiable, self-published original research. Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source says "self-published media, such as ... personal websites ... are largely not acceptable as sources. Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". So this map can be considered reliable enough for inclusion if there is evidence that is the creator is an expert in the field and has been published as such (like the authors of "90% of the books cited on Wikipedia" have). I asked you to provide us with evidence of the publications the map is used in so we can assess it's scientific reputation and the best you can come up with "it's been in an exhibition". End of story indeed. Tobus2 (talk) 06:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Just removed another personal map. It's basically the same as the Von Luschan map, but with different coloring, a few distribution tweaks toward Oceania and the Americas, as well as original research image text. WP:OI on this: "Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Image captions are subject to this policy no less than statements in the body of the article."Soupforone (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Tobus2, you are repeatedly claiming that the data on the census is not being represented accurately, to which i have to ask: Do you, by chance have a source that states that Jonathan Hagos map is, in fact, misinterpreting it's source material? because if not, if the only thing you are basing your claim is your own opinion then your claims are completely worthless, until you present any source to back up your claim better stop doing it. Quoting what you wrote in your own response: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. well, maybe you already forgot, but Hagos is an established expert and is recognized by the Oxford university [49] and in the same site the publications and exhibitions where his work has been featured are listed, with the above mentioned map already proven to have been featured in an exhibition. In conclusion this map meets the complete criteria to be a reliable source, and as long you don't present a source to back up your claims saying that it misinterprets the source data your opinion is and will be worthless, this discussion, rather than be like "can this map be added?" (because i already provided more than enough sources that confirm it as a reliable work) is more like "can this map be removed?" so, it's up to you to found sources to back up your claim of it being unreliable and misinterpreting information, and until you acomplish that you, or any other editor won't be able to remove it, because it's proved to be a reliable work. Czixhc (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The onus is on you, the presenter of the questionable material, to verify it's reliability in this case that it was "produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Hagos may have some expertise in Product Design and Architecture. He may be published in those fields and have work in exhibitions and have studied at Oxford, but that doesn't make him an expert in every other field. I wouldn't let him take my tooth out or take my car apart for instance. In terms of this article his credentials mean nothing - I'm sure he's really good at drafting, drawing and designing, but he is certainly no expert in Anthropology or Genetics. The map is a well executed "re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration", but it is more a work of art than a scientific document and as such we won't be using on this page. Tobus2 (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You know, you have zero authority on this page, you don't own it. Reliable sources are what decides what is used and what not, not you, thus far i've proved that jonathan Hagos is a proffesional architect and cartographer (aka, proffesional map maker) with works on the field published and exhibited, In no source his map is called "more a work of art than a scientific document" that's your personal opinion, bring sources or your opinion is completely worthless, you have today and tomorrow to do so. Or the map will go up, likes you or not. Czixhc (talk) 21:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Please don't get hostile and start making threats, it won't help. The map has been reverted four times by three different editors (none of whom was me) and in this discussion there has been no support for the map from other editors. There is no consensus that the map can be used (quite the opposite in fact) and if you put the map back up it will just be reverted again. If you believe that all the other editors are in error then you should go down the WP:Dispute Resolution path and not the WP:Edit warring path. Tobus2 (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
I'm not making any kind of threat, i'm just giving a deadline to this discussion which is going on circles. This isn't a 3 vs 1 or anything similar, the other editors who removed the map already accepted it as reliable when i showed the sources to them, the only editors who keep disagreeing with it regardless of the reliable sources that have been presented are you and Wadaad, but none of you have any source to back up their opinion, your and wadaad performance thus far can be resumed as "it's not correct because i don't like it" which leds me to the next point: WP:Dispute Resolution is used when there are two or more points of view that colide, but all the points of view involved must be backed up by their respective reliable sources. This discussion clearly is not case, because neither you or any other editor that have opposed to the adition of this map have sources to back up their points of view, here wont be any WP:Edit warring, because if any editor remove the map (that has been proved to be reliable) it just will be reported for removing sourced information, which is a violaton to wikipedia's codes of conduct and might have long term repercussions to it's edit "carrer" on wikipedia, it's common sense, if "x" document is proven reliable it must be added, unreliable information or statements should be ignored and editors who remove reliable information are reported. Czixhc (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, you don't have the authority to create or enforce a deadline.
And you don't have any authority to decide what stays and what not.
Secondly, none of the editors have said that they accept the map as reliable, they simply didn't respond - you will need everyone to explicitly state their support before you can claim consensus.
Have you ever read the wikipedia consensus policy?
Thirdly, it's you who has the obligation that show the map is reliable and to date you have not presented any reliable sources that do so.
I already presented more than enough reliable sources
Fourthly, my sources are:
The National Census Data (eg [50], [51]), which don't use the von Luschan Scale as a measurement and don't have skin colour as a question. The closest they come is self-identified ancestry. The map is original research.
Actually no governmental census uses the Von luschan scale, however that doesn't means that other experts can't use it or interpret it, like the ones who made maps that are already used in the page.
Jonathon Hagos's homepage[52], which states his field is Architecture and Product Design, not Genetics or Anthropology. He is not an expert in the field.
Nowhere is said that he is a product designer, and citing the page: Jonathan's work focuses on the ‘re-illustration’ of post-colonial themes such as freedom, identity and migration executed through diverse media such as cartography through to film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions. He is already a proffesional recognized by Oxfords University, whose work has been published before and featured in exhibitions (this already proven)
The PubMed database[53], which says "Your search for jonathan hagos retrieved no results.". He has not been published in the field.
PubMed is used for topics related to medicine, not migration topics, and the Oxford Brookes University site confirms that his work has been featured in various publications [54]
Jonathon Hagos's homepage[55], which states his works are the "reillustration of colonial themes". He himself is not claiming the map to be scientific accurate.
Here i go again: Jonathan's work focuses on the ‘re-illustration’ of post-colonial themes such as freedom, identity and migration executed through diverse media such as cartography through to film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions. He is already a proffesional on the field, and you implying things that he never said constitutes a form of Original Research.
No source that you've presented back up your point in reality, i don't see why you waste so much time with something that will go up sooner or later anyway, the sources that i've presented meet the criteria of wikipedia for reliable sources, it's as simple as that, i also already propossed a middle ground that you ignored, your behavoir really isn't appropiate for a site like this, and as i told you above, to remove reliable content for no reason at all will get you reported for uncivil behavoir, what else would I want that you actually discussing a middle ground on a civilized manner, not just "It's wrong because i don't like it!" would you try it for once? Czixhc (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Please don't intersperse your answers inside another editors text, it makes it very hard to follow. If needed, you can quote the relevent parts in italics before your replies. To answer your points above in the order you made them:
I didn't decide the map was to go, 3 other editors did. When an edit to a page is contested, it's standard procedure to remove the edit until consensus is reached.
Yes, I have read the wikipedia consesus policy.
You have not presented any reliable sources that support the inclusion of the map. As I already explained, the sources you refer to clearly show that he is not an expert in the subject matter and that he has he not been published in the field. To show somebody is an expert in a given field, you require third-party sources that are reputable in that field. One source you use is Hagos' own site which can't be relied upon to accurately state his expertise, and the other, the Oxford Brookes School of Architecture, would only be acceptable if this article were an architecture article.
Hagos is not an expert in Anthropoloy or Genetics, so his interpretation of which von Luschan tile should be applied to the various self-identified ancestries in each country cannot be considered reliable. The other two maps are from works by noted early anthropologists, both widely published in the field and both notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. Both these authors have established reputations for expertise in the field, Hagos has zero, so there is no valid comparison between them.
A person can be a "professional" on one field and a complete novice in another. The Wikipedia policy on using original research clearly states that the author must be an expert "in the subject matter". Drawing maps and making movies does not make somebody an expert in Anthropology or Genetics.
The topic of this page is "Human Skin Colour", not "Migration". The page is primarily a scientific article and most of the other authors used have extensive publications in PubMed (search Nina Jablonski, Mark Shriver, Roger Norton etc.). If Hagos had any expertise in the field I would expect him to have at least one published paper in PubMed.
Here I go again: Drawing maps and making movies does not make somebody an expert in Anthropology or Genetics - Hagos is a professional Architect, not a scientist, so he is not "already a professional on the field". When you say I imply something he never said I assume you mean my comment that he doesn't claim the map is scientifically accurate. My point in that you have assumed that it's scientifically accurate, but nowhere on his site does he say that. In fact, since he describes it in such artistic terms ("re-illustations of post-colonial themes") and puts it into exhibitions, it's clear he considers it more as an artwork than a scentific document.
All the sources I've provided back my point - they are in fact what lead me to my point in the first place. Your "middle ground" was to add some clumsy text to the bottom of the image, I ignored it because I thought it was a bad idea that didn't address the multiple issues with the map. I have given very good reasons why I don't support using the map on the page and I have never once said that I "don't like it". I'm open to discussion of any "middle ground" that uses high-quality reliable sources, but as I've already explained, I don't count this map as one.
I should also raise the issue of copyright - do you even have permission from Hagos to use his image?
Again, it seems that you forgot what consensus means, maybe three editors opposed originaly, but the only one left is you. The map is reliable and i've proved it already, the Oxford brookes University recognizes Hagos as an expert architect and map maker. Hagos don't needs to be a geneticist to make him reliable, because this image isn't a diagram of DNA haplogroups, it's a map regarding the impact of migration, and he happens to be a proffesional at ilustrating maps, the map adresses the impact that migration have had on the mean skin color by country, therefore it's related to this article. To expect hagos to appear in PubliMed is non-sense, PubliMed treaths topics related to medicine, not migration. You saying that it is more a piece of art than a investigation has no foundament whatsoever: That it has appeared on a conference don't means it is art, that would mean that all the graphics used in expositions and seminars are art too, which is non-sense. You asking me if I have permission of Hagos to use his map makes clear (again) your lack of knowledge regarding wikipedia policies, starting with the fact that i'm not using his map, i'm using a map made by me who cites his map as a source, therefore there is no copyright violation, i already have explained that several paragraphs above to another editor. When i called you to make a middle point i was asking for sugestions to you, not asking you to accept my proposal, let me be more clear: what do you consider have to be made to improve the map so there can be a middle ground? i'm considering to add prose to the respective section regarding some countries such as Brazil, Costa Rica, Australia etc. regarding the subtle changes on the skin tone of their populations. Czixhc (talk) 23:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
You seem to have missed my point about the consensus - you can't assume that people agree with you just because they're not actively arguing with you. Three separate editors have reverted your edits and two more have raised objections. Until those same editors have said the map is OK, you shouldn't assume they've changed their minds.
You also seem to have missed my point about expertise. Hagos has no expertise in assigning self-reported racial ancestry to von Luschan skin tones (as if such a thing is even possible). I'm sure he draw great maps, but the colours he's chosen to represent each country are based on his own, inexpert, opinion and can't be considered scientifically verifiable.
Hagos is an expert map maker, and we all known that to found a exact interpretation of the Von Luschan scale at a genetic level is something that has never been done, and stills impossible today, you really wouldn't think that maps used in this article (one from 1920 and other from 1940) used a genetical-level-accuracy to asign skin tones would you? because competent genetic studies didn't even existed back then, this map is as reliable and valid as any of the other ones already used, which certainly are outdated.
If this is your own work then it's subject to WP:OR which states: "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented.". Your work only uses a single self-published primary source by an author who has no reputation or expertise in anything but Architecture.
The map cites Jonathan Hagos' map as source, and he is a proffesional architect and map maker who has works published on these fields. The work cited happens to be a map, so it's reliable, as i told you above, if the map were a diagram about DNA haplogroups then it certainly wouldn't be reliable, but this is not the case, in this map he is not doing genetical research, he is just ilustrating the data from national census.
Other editors have also raised objections to the use of national borders - it means the internal variation has been "averaged" in some way which is both inaccurate and misleading and in some cases could be inappropriate and culturally insensitive to many people.
I already explained why national borders are necessary: because the census are also done on a national level, it's impossible to know the distribution of each ethnicy if not for national census, i would preffer a map without borders but only a few countries have regional distribution data, wouldn't be fair for the rest and the amount of sources needed would be colossal.
My suggestion for a middle ground would be to abandon this map and find a source that is accepted as accurate by the wider scientific community, preferably one that doesn't use national borders as the boundaries.
I've already asked you not to intersperse your replies with existing comments, please don't do this. In response to your comments:
I have to because you adress too many different topics
"you really wouldn't think that maps used in this article (one from 1920 and other from 1940) used a genetical-level-accuracy to asign skin tones would you"
No I wouldn't, they held coloured tiles up next the skin and chose the one that matched the best. Note that only one of the maps uses the von Luschan Scale.
however these are up in the article, despite having the same issues for which you attack the Hagos map, shouldn't these be taken down too?
"he is just ilustrating the data from national census"
No he's not, that's my point. The national censuses don't have any data about skin colour.
yes, that's the only thing he is doing, if he have made his maps based upon ethnicies and genetic data that he made up just from census then he would be doing stuff he is not qualified to do, but he is just ilustrating the conclusions of the census.
"I already explained why national borders are necessary: because the census are also done on a national level"
Then perhaps you should find one based on actual skin colour measurements, not best-guess averages from census data.
A map as complex as that doesn't exist, and by that logic the maps already up were guessings too.
"You clearly don't know what a middle ground is"
Any middle ground has to be within the parameters of the WP:Verifiability guidelines, if you start so far outside them then you can't expect the middle to be close to your original position.
The map meet all the criteria regarding reliable sources on wikipedia: It's made by a proffesional in the subject of architecture and cartography whose work has been featured in publications related to the topic before, i don't know really, i've tryed to make you understand for so long, but it's not that you can't, it's that you don't want to. The map meets wikipedia's reliable sources crieria, it will be added, what i'm doing here is trying to explain to you why it is an ok map so you can accept it, but you clearly wont, you will have to learn how wiki policies work on first hand. All that you've said has been arbitrary (like saying that the map is not accurace because it is a interpretation of von Luschan's scale that isn't 100% linked to genetical studies, when the two map already up weren't either, with the 1920 map being almost completely wrong according to the census of many latin american countries) and poorly or not sourced at all. Czixhc (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
You say it's impossible not to intersperse your comments, but some how I manage to do it.
Did you not read: "They held coloured tiles up next the skin and chose the one that matched the best". Compare this to your map where the source has taken a tick in the "African-American" box and assigned a colour to it from his own personal subjective opinion of what colour "African-Amercians" are. Also the authors of the other maps were both published experts in the field of anthropology while your source is an architect. So these maps don't "have the same issues" as the your map does.
If all the map is doing is "illustrating the conclusion of the census" then can you please show me some census data that states which color Von Luschan tile belongs to each of the self-identified ancestry options provided.
I've already explained the maps already up weren't "guessings", they used empirical measurements of the actual skin colour of the actual people who live in the places on the map.
The map doesn't meet any of the requirements for a reliable source. These are that it a) has to have been made by an expert on the subject matter (that means an expert on human skin colour, not mapmaking), and b) has to have been published by a reliable publisher in the field (and that means appeared in a scientific journal/book on human skin colour, not featured in an architecture or design exhibition). It fulfills neither of these two requirements so it's not a reliable source.
these maps don't "have the same issues" as the your map does yes they do, in fact the 1920 was as flawled that it was already removed, now let's give a look to the 1940 map:
The date the study which this one is based upon is said to be 1940, and the author seems to be called Renatto Luschan, well, you attack my map for saying that the interpretation of the Luschan's scale isn't 100% genetically exact, to which i have to let you know that competent genetic studies didn't existed in 1940, also the map don't cites any census, therefore is beyond obvious that this map is much more guess-based than mine. Not only that, but the source that it cites: [56] looks dubious, i'd like to see a link to the 1940 book on which this map was published, though that don't makes it less flawled, because maybe it was acceptable in 1940 to publish a map like this, but not today.
It fulfills neither of these two requirements so it's not a reliable source. it's the opposite actually, it meets all the requirements, I will cite Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source here: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Jonathan Hagos is recognized by the Oxford Brookes University as an expert in the architecture and cartography fields, specializing in themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions. themes on which he is a consultancy expertise, his works have also been featured in several publications akin to the topic, and have been featured in seminars and exhibitions. Having even colaborated in the production of films regarding migration trends. He meets all the criteria, there is no real discussion here, you just keep saying that he is not reliable because he isn't a geneticist, which is nonsense, because:
1-His map is not a diagram regarding haplogroups or DNA structures, it's about migration collecting data from national census.
2-There is no official 100% genetically exact stablished criteria to apply the Von Luschan's chromatic scale (and never will because that would be extremely complex)
3-The maps already up are outdated and didn't applied the scale on a 100% genetically exact way (simply because genetical studies didn't existed back then)
Again, did you not read: "They held coloured tiles up next the skin and chose the one that matched the best" and "the authors of the other maps were both published experts in the field of anthropology". The existing map uses an empirical measurement of skin colour made by an expert in anthropology. Your map uses a subjective assumption of skin colour made by someone with zero expertise in anthropology. Can you see the difference?
I see that neither of the authors used a genetical level accuracy to apply the Von luschan's chromatic scale, because genetical studies didn't even existed back then, and by saying "they chose the one that matched best" which means guessing, and again, his knowledge of antrophology is irrelevant because he took the information from national census, which did the racial research for him.
You seem to think this article is about architecture of cartography. It's not, it's about human skin colour. I'm questioning the ability of your source to accurately decide which von Luschan skin colour applies to each of the various self-identified ancestries in each census, not his ability to draw maps accurately. Your source is not an established expert in any field that gives him the ability to make such decisions accurately and none of his work has been published by anybody with the authority to verify that his decisions are accurate. In terms of its ability to accurately represent the skin colours of the world today, your map relies on a single self-published source that does not meet the criteria wikipedia sets down for the use of self-published sources. It's unverifiable original research.
The map is about how migration has impacted the average skin color on each country, and he happens to be an expert on this topic, again you are saying that you question his ability of your source to accurately decide which von Luschan skin colour applies to each of the various self-identified ancestries in each census, but i don't see you questioning that on any other map, and that claim is non-sense, because there is no official genetically exact equivalents to apply the Von Luschan scale, this map is as reliable as any other up.
1. Your map is claiming that the colours in each country accurately represent the skin colour of the people in that country. These colours don't come from the census data, so you need a reliable third party source published by a reputable publisher in the field that can verify the skin colours you have used are accurate.
it does exactly what the other maps do, i already told you above, i want to see the sources on which renato luschan based his conclusions
2. The official way to apply the Von Luschan scale is to compare coloured tiles against the skin of the person being measured. As you agree, there's no accurate or official way to assign von Luschan skin colours to self-reported ancestry from census data. That's why your map cannot be verified by any reliable third-party source.
Again, you have to preove that back on 1940 that person travalled around every country of the world and did it personally on each population, until then, it is as realiable as my map.
3. We're discussing the problems with your map, pointing out that other maps have problems doesn't in any way help to verify that your map is reliable. In any case the existing map uses empirical data from a published book written by an expert anthropologist[57], a totally different case to your map.
The problems of the other maps have to be pointed out in order to make everyone (you included) see that you are being ridiculously over demanding here. picking up the minimal detail on the map but letting pass other maps that have same issues or even worse issues up.
I hope you can see that your map is effectively stating things like "The skin colour of people in India today is Von Luschan tile #xxx". These are contentious statements likely to be challenged and thus require verification from reliable sources. The only source you have provided is self-published by someone with no established expertise in using the von Luschan scale nor in any field relating to human skin colour. His source is national census data which doesn't use skin colour or the von Luschan scale in any of their categories. So we have a problem, you're making controversial statements citing a non-reliable source. Your non-reliable source cites a reliable source but that reliable source doesn't support the claims being made. There has been WP:Synth on the part of your source and since it's self-published by a non-expert it fails to meet the WP guidelines for reliability. It's a great looking map and would be perfect for the section you placed it in, unfortunately we can't verify that it is accurate so we can't use it.
your map is effectively stating things like "The skin colour of people in India today is Von Luschan tile #xxx". These are contentious statements likely to be challenged and thus require verification from reliable sources. Do you realize that this is exactly the same thing that the other map does? And for the book you brought up, you know, inline citations are necessary, and you have to prove that Reanato Luschan travelled around every population in the world and did the measurements by himsefl without guessing any of these.
3. The other maps are irrelevent.And you are saying it is unreliable again, here this is why it is reliable: I will cite Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source here: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Jonathan Hagos is recognized by the Oxford Brookes University as an expert in the architecture and cartography fields, specializing in themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions. themes on which he is a consultancy expertise, his works have also been featured in several publications akin to the topic, and have been featured in seminars and exhibitions. Having even colaborated in the production of films regarding migration trends. He meets all the criteria, there is no real discussion here, you just keep saying that he is not reliable because he isn't a geneticist, which is nonsense, because:
1-His map is not a diagram regarding haplogroups or DNA structures, it's about migration collecting data from national census.
2-There is no official 100% genetically exact stablished criteria to apply the Von Luschan's chromatic scale (and never will because that would be extremely complex)
3-The maps already up are outdated and didn't applied the scale on a 100% genetically exact way (simply because genetical studies didn't existed back then)
1. Your source can't be using data from the national censuses because no national census reports skin colour or uses the von Luschan Scale.
False, the skin color is implied by stating the race, in USA is one of the most obvious for example, exists white american (white skin), african american (very dark skin), asian (yellow), hispanic (taned skin), native american (brownish skin) and white hispanic (white skin), in UK the category british white exists, and i could go on with every country existant but it's unnecesary. The Von luschan is not stated because there is not exact way to determine what color belongs by who.
2. There is an exact established criteria to apply the von Luschan Scale and your map doesn't use it.
Citing the Von Luschan's chromatic scale article: it was considered problematic, even by its practitioners, because it was very inconsistent. In many instances, different investigators would give different readings of the same person. The von Luschan scale was largely abandoned by the early 1950s what you are saying is a lie, exact established criteria doesn't exists, the criteria used by hagos is even more accurace than the 40s method, for taking information related to ethnicy in consideration (So it doesn't matters if a person whit exclusively germanic ethnicy got a heavy tan, he stills counts as light skinned) as opposed to the old unreliable method, which didn't took ethnicy in consideration and whose direct performance in a world scale (having to travel to every population in the world to collect data of the skin tone of it's populators) was impossible.
Accord to Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source policy the map is reliable, i will cite it here: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Jonathan Hagos is recognized by the Oxford Brookes University as an expert in the architecture and cartography fields, specializing in themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions. themes on which he is a consultancy expertise, his works have also been featured in several publications akin to the topic, and have been featured in seminars and exhibitions. Having even colaborated in the production of films regarding migration trends. He meets all the criteria, there is no real discussion here, you just keep saying that he is not reliable because he isn't a geneticist, which is nonsense, because:
1-His map is not a diagram regarding haplogroups or DNA structures, it's about migration collecting data from national census (which is a more precise way to measure the average skin tone than the old method because:
2-There is no official 100% genetically exact stablished criteria to apply the Von Luschan's chromatic scale (and never will because that would be extremely complex). Aditionally, the old official method was abandoned for being considered too imprecise, if anything the new method based in racial information is more accurate, because a person with germanic ethnicy who happened to have a heavy tan during the time of the census might still be considered white-skinned, thing that wouldn't have happebed with the old method.
3-The maps already up are outdated and didn't applied the scale on a 100% genetically exact way either (simply because genetical studies didn't existed back then) and Hagos' procedure is more accurace for the reasons already stated above.
This map is one if not the most precise maps regarding skin tone to have ever been done, and meets wikipedia criteria to be a reliable source. Czixhc (talk) 00:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
We've been through your sources before and none of them show that he is an "established expert in the subject matter" nor that his "work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", the two criteria that you yourself have stated are required by Wikipedia policy. His education and professional experience is in architecture (which has nothing to do with this page) and all his listed publications are either architecture related or catalogs for art and design exhibitions. Looking through his work on his website, this map is the first serious map he has ever done - the other "Cartography" works are clearly concpetual art pieces, eg [58]. It also appears to be the only work he has done on human skin colour or migration. Since this map is the only work he's done on the subject matter, he is clearly a beginner, not an expert.
He is an expertise consultant in fields such as inmigration, his work has been feautred in publications and seminars, he gave advise in a film regarding the impact of migration which is due to be premiered in 2014, and the Oxford Brookes University calls him an expert, and it is more reliable than you.
1. Your map claims to accurately represent human skin colour in each country and that needs verification from a reliable source. Using ancestry information from census data to determine skin colour is not a "more precise" method, because people of different skin colours will report the same ancestry.
It's objetivelly more precise than the old method, because as i said above, the old method would qualify a germanic person who got a heavy tan as "dark skinned" by taking ethnicy in consideration the information is more consistent, this is a fact.
2. There is an established method for using the von Luschan Scale, but yes, it is no longer considered accurate enough for scientific use. Modern skin colour studies use dermospectography samples on unexposed skin, usually under the arm. Out of the three methods, assuming colour based on self-reported ancestry (the method your map uses) is the least accurate since there is no imperical measurement being done and it's all up to the preconvceived notions of the observer who, in this case, has no experience in the area.
That's false, citing again the Von Luschan's chromatic scale: The equipment consists of 36 opaque glass tiles which were compared to the subject's skin, ideally in a place which would not be exposed to the sun (such as under the arm). The von Luschan scale was used to establish racial classifications of populations according to skin color; in this respect it is in contrast to the Fitzpatrick scale intended for the classification of the skin type of individuals introduced in 1975 by Harvard dermatologist Thomas B. Fitzpatrick to describe sun tanning behavior. The von Luschan scale was used extensively throughout the first half of the 20th century in race studies and anthropometry. However, it was considered problematic, even by its practitioners, because it was very inconsistent. In many instances, different investigators would give different readings of the same person. The von Luschan scale was largely abandoned by the early 1950s, what you called "modern procedure" is in fact the one that was considered unacurate and abandoned, in no way there is any mention of a "modern procedure" don't lie.
3. Hagos' procedure is not accurate enough for you to use as the single self-published source for your map.
He is regarded as an expert by the Oxford Brookes University, and his procedure is more accurate than the old one, this is unquestionable
No, this map is certainly not the most precise map of skin tone ever done and no, it doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources.
I don't see any other map which is more accurate, do you know any? and accord to the Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source policy the map is reliable, i will cite it here: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Jonathan Hagos is recognized by the Oxford Brookes University as an expert in the architecture and cartography fields, specializing in themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions. themes on which he is a consultancy expertise, his works have also been featured in several publications akin to the topic, and have been featured in seminars and exhibitions. Having even colaborated in the production of films regarding migration trends. He meets all the criteria, there is no real discussion here, you just keep saying that he is not reliable because he isn't a geneticist, which is nonsense, because:
1-His map is not a diagram regarding haplogroups or DNA structures, it's about migration collecting data from national census (which is a more precise way to measure the average skin tone than the old method because:
2-There is no official 100% genetically exact stablished criteria to apply the Von Luschan's chromatic scale (and never will because that would be extremely complex). Aditionally, the old official method was abandoned for being considered too imprecise, if anything the new method based in racial information is more accurate, because a person with germanic ethnicy who happened to have a heavy tan during the time of the census might still be considered white-skinned, thing that wouldn't have happebed with the old method.
3-The maps already up are outdated and didn't applied the scale on a 100% genetically exact way either (simply because genetical studies didn't existed back then) and Hagos' procedure is more accurace for the reasons already stated above.
The map meets all the wikipedia requirements, i don't know why do you keep saying it doesn't, is the part of text that i've rewrite like three times above me invisible for you or something? or you just ignore facts and wikipedia's policies? i mean, at this point you are clearly starting to lie. Czixhc (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
I've made it very clear why the map doesn't meet the wikipedia requirements.
You're just saying the same things over and over now, if you don't have anything new to add please don't just cut and paste your previous comments. In an effort to end this, can you please provide links to the sources that show:
that Jonathon Hagos is an expert in determining human skin colour from census data
that work by Jonothan Hagos in the field of human skin colour has been published by a reliable 3rd party source
Please don't use Jonathon Hagos' personal or professional websites - anybody can make a web page saying they're an expert in anything.
Please don't use the Oxford Brookes Uni's School of Architecture page you've already posted - I've already been through the publications it mentions and none relate to human skin colour.
Tobus2 (talk) 03:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
that Jonathon Hagos is an expert in determining human skin colour from census data I was revisiting the sources and i noticed something i haven't seen before, the map on which he completely based the skin color he applied was the Reantto Luschan's 1940 map for native populations (which is already up and you consider completely reliable) [59], this completely changes the perception of the map, for example, when a census says "white european descent" or "african descent" he don't determines by himself what color belongs to that ethnicy, but uses the color that Luschan (even you consider him an expert) asigned to it years ago, so he is not doing it by himself, but completely using the information provided by Luschan himself, who is the expert on the field. The only thing he is contributing with is his knowledge about migration and cartography,he basing his map in a map published by an expert on skin color makes this point to be completely covered. that work by Jonothan Hagos in the field of human skin colour has been published by a reliable 3rd party source, Please don't use the Oxford Brookes Uni's School of Architecture page you've already posted University pages are as reliable as it can get, so i have to disagree, and this point is covered too (for the aforementioned reasons: He is not adding skin colors in a random or personal manner, but using the colors provided and patterns provided by an expert in the field) and because he is an expert regarding migration (his advise even was solicited on the film industry, this map itself has been featured in a seminary) with both fields being recognized by the Oxford Brookes University. I think this is finally seetled. His map is reliable because the color distribution for each race is based on the Renatto's Luschan map which is an expert on human skin color, what he only does is to apply his knowledge on cartography and migration, nothing else, I should have realised this before so we could have save many time and words. Czixhc (talk) 03:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
So your source for him being an expert in human skin colour is his own map.
Do you have a source for his work on human skin colour having being published by a reliable third party source?
No, look closely to the small map here: [60] (bottom left). It's the same map that it's up in this article, if you have good sight you can even see that the name Renatto Luschan appears, he is entirely basing the colors he gives to each race on the color that the skin color expert Renatto Luschan gave to each race. As i said above, the only thing he did was to apply his cartography skills and his knowledge of migration (both of which he is an expert) to elaborate the map, it's completely reliable. Czixhc (talk) 05:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
A more accurate term would be "Hagos's map is no longer a self-made source" because he based the skin distribution on Luschan's early map, so he no longer "decided" what ethnicy had what color" his work is on his personal site, but that isn't an issue, citing Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications since what he adds to the map is his knowledge on cartography and migration which are backed up by the Oxford Brookes University (he is recognized as a consultant expertise, with even the film industry soliciting his advise) whit his work on both areas being featured on seminars and magazines, all the requirements are covered. Czixhc (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
So... please provide links to sources that show:
He is an "established expert in the subject matter" of human skin colour, and
His "work in the relevant field" (ie human skin colour) "has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"
Remembering that his own website can't be used to vouch for his own expertise, and that none of his "publications" listed by the School of Architecture at Oxford Brooks are in the relevant field.
that's unnecessary, he didn't asigned the skin colors by himself, but used the ones the Luschan asigned to each race, Luschan being an expert on the field validates his work because it's based on it, all the requirements are covered. Czixhc (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Von Luschan didn't apply colours to any "race", he created the system of numbered tiles that used to be used to define skin colours for different populations. This scale to make measurements of some of the indigenous populations of the world before 1940 and Rennto Biasutti collated these and presented his findings in a map. The von Luschan scale is now considered obsolete and modern scientists use dermospectrography instead. Since it was published and widely cited, Biasutti's map is verifiable as an example of the scientific consensus in the 1950's, however it is not considered accurate by today's scientists and would not be considered suitable for publication by any today's scientific publications except as a historical referece. The notes on the image confirm this: "Use with caution; The best known of these maps is that composed by the Italian geographer Renato Biasutti, which was based on von Luschan's chromatic scale. This map has gained broad circulation in several widely distributed publications (Barsh 2003, Lewontin 1995, Roberts 1977, Walter 1971), despite the fact that, for areas with no data, Biasutti simply filled in the map by extrapolation from findings obtained in other areas" and "The map's intended use is in articles dealing with the history of the notion of race, and it should not be used as an up-to-date reference."
Your source has taken self-identified ancestry from various national censuses (each with their own varying options for reporting ancestry), combined this with a 70-year old map derived from an obsolete measurement system and claims that it accurately represents the average skin colour of countries today (countries which may not have existed or had the same boundaries in 1940 as they do now - see List_of_world_map_changes). This is a contentious claim and so needs to be verified by a reliable source. The only source you have provided is self-published and so needs to meet wikipedia's criteria for self-published sources before it can be used. I've investigated the source and it doesn't seem to meet the criteria specified by the policy, you keep claiming it does so please prove it:
Please provide links that show a) Jonathan Hagos is an expert in human skin colour, and b) that Jonathan Hagos's previous work on human skin colour has been published by a reliable third party source.
If you can't do this then there's no point discussing the accuracy of your map since wikipedia policy means we can't use it anyway.
So, in short, what you said up there is that the map is made Renatto Biasutti using the Von Luschan chromatic scale and for being cited in multiple publications it has gained reliability? that's good, because tha means that Hagos based the coloring of his map on a very reliable source, making it reliable too, even if he is not a geneticist but an expert on migration. To answer your question for the third time: Hagos don't needs to be a complete expert about skin color because he is using Biasutti's map as a reference, that makes his work valid, your claim regarding political boundaries is pointless because ethnicy isn't defined by borders, only nationality, more than one country can share the same ethnicy. And don't attemp to change your posture towards Renatto's map because until yesterday you defended it very bravely, Renatto's map is reliable, therefore a map based on it made by a consultancy expertise on cartography and migration is reliable, don't ask for things that wikipedia's policies for reliable sources don't ask for, that goes against WP:BOLD and verifiability policies states that self published documents are reliable as long as these are made by an expert on the field, with Hagos being that on cartography and migration, and the map he uses as a source being made by an expert too, therefore it's reliable. Don't try to find voids where there isn't any, you only clog the improvements to the article, i don't care if the map don't meet your extreme and arbitrary notions of what is reliable and what is not, as long as it meets wikipedia's ones it's alright to use it, and it does that very well. Czixhc (talk) 04:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
The source is there, it's Renatto's map, which is reliable, if you can't grasp that and wikipedia's policies i think it's better for you to step aside. Czixhc (talk) 05:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
So which of the requirements for self-published sources does Renatto's map show, that Hagos is an expert in the subject matter or that his work in the field has been published by a reliable third party source? Tobus2 (talk) 06:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure you understand - Biasutto's map doesn't mention Hagos or his work (which is expected, since Biasutto died more than 15 years before Hagos was born). You need something that shows Hagos is an expert in the subject matter and that he's been published in the field. Do you have any sources that show either of those two? Tobus2 (talk) 23:03, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
There is no need for a source declaring Hagos skin genetics expert, because he is basing his work entirely on a work made by an expert, not asigning the colors by himself, what's so hard to understand for you? Czixhc (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes there is, because Hagos's map is a self-published source. Wikipedia policy is very clear on this, as you yourself have quoted several times. Hagos's map is not based "entirely" on Biasutti's map, it's a synthesis of self-identified ancestry from census data and the von Luschan tones used on Biasutti's map (if it were "entirely" based on Baisutti's map then we could just use Biasutti's map instead). I have major issues with such a synthesis, but as I stated before, there's not much point discussing those issues if the source isn't usable in the first place.
So please, if you can, provide evidence to show that Hagos is an expert in human skin colour and that his previous work on human skin colour has been published in reliable third party sources. If you can't do so then we can't use his map as a source.
for the sixth time: Hagos don't needs to be an expert on skin genetics because his work is based on Biasutti's map, the only thing he is contributing with is his knowledge about migration and cartography, fields on which he is an expert, this is more than enough to fulfill wikipedias reliability policies. If you aren't able to grasp this concept you clearly have some issues regarding reading comprehension or you are just playing the fool card here to clog the improvements on this article, either way an user with a behaviour such as yours certainly shouldn't be on wikipedia, mind you the only reason for which i haven't just ignored you and added the map (and reported you in case of you removing it) it's because i want to let clear how uncivil and ridiculous your posture and demandings are, thing that becomes more evident everytime that you basically write the same response ignoring wikipedia's policies and all that these imply, at this point everybody can see how intransigent and biased you are. Soon i will get done with you if you keep your clearly non-neutral posture. Czixhc (talk) 04:59, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Citing Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source for the I-actually-don't-know-what-time-again: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications since what he adds to the map is his knowledge on cartography and migration which are backed up by the Oxford Brookes University (he is recognized as a consultant expertise, with even the film industry soliciting his advise) whit his work on both areas being featured on seminars and magazines, all the requirements are covered. But yeah, keep playing the fool card for a time more, that's what i want you to do. Czixhc (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Good, you agree that Hagos's map is a self published source.
Hagos has not simply added "his knowledge of cartography and migration" to an existing map, he has created a new map from scratch by WP:Synthing data from two unconnected sources. Neither of these sources explicitly states what his map states, so we need to verify that the conclusions he draws on his map are accurate.
Wikipedia policy is very clear on what is required to verify a self-published source before we can use it. To satisfy wikipedia policy can you please provide links to sources that show:
That Hagos is an established expert in the subject matter, and
That Hagos's previous work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.
Note that the "subject matter" and "relevant field" in this context are not migration or cartography, they're human skin colour.
Wikipedia's WP:synth policy applies only to editors, not investigators, i already told it to you above, Hagos is a recognized expert on cartography and migration, and his work is based on the work of an expert on skin tone with previosly published works, thus his map is reliable, it's clear that you understand this, you are not fool. But let's waste some time more, every time you reply with that flawled logic (because to attemp to apply a wikipedia guideline directed to editors to investigators isn't something that someone sees everyday) you are taking away your own credibility. Czixhc (talk) 01:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There are no sources that show Hagos is an "established expert in the subject matter" and none that show his "work in the relevant field has been published by a reliable third party source". Do you agree? Tobus2 (talk) 02:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't agee because they have, the list is on Oxford brookes Universoty website, he gave advise in a movie and this map itself was featured on an exhibition. I just really don't want you to bring all this non-sensical drama to the vandalism noticeboard once i report you for removing it, so, i'm leting you waste space here over a map that has been proven reliable on everyway. Czixhc (talk) 02:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
So, again, please provide links to the sources that you believe show:
that Jonathan Hagos is an established expert in human skin colour, and
that Jonathan Hagos's previous work on human skin colour has been published by a reliable third party source.
why would he need to? he is basing his work on data from an expert, not doing it by himself, about what he is an expert is on the fields of migration and cartography, which is what he adds to the map, so he is reliable. Czixhc (talk) 03:42, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Why? Because it's a self-published source and the Wikipedia policy concerning self-published sources is very clear. If his work really is based on data from an expert and he hasn't done it himself, then you should be able to use the expert's work as your source instead. Tobus2 (talk) 04:32, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
He is basing his work completely on one made by an expert on the field of skin color, the only things he is adding are his skills at tracing maps and his knoweledge about migration and how it modifies the society, reflected on the alterations of the colors in each country based from census data whose root information for color comes from Renatto's map, it's about time for you to stop pretending, though it really doesn't makes any difference if you don't. Czixhc (talk) 04:52, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide an alternative source that verifies what your map is presenting, or his Hagos's map the only place it is presented? Tobus2 (talk) 04:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
There is the national census data of each country, which is an inmense amount of information considering that the work is done on a worldwide scale, which is the basis to his work, with Renattos data being the other. Czixhc (talk) 01:42, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for that. Neither of these two sources presents the same data as your map. Your map claims to show the average von Luschan skin colour for countries today. The census data state proportions of self-identified ancestry in various countries over the last 10 or so years, and Biasutti's map shows extrapolated von Luschan skin colour for indigenous populations in 1940. There are issues with using either of these sources as a basis for skin colour in modern times, but there's no point arguing about that until we establish if there is a usable source for your map.
Do you have any others or is Hagos's map the only place where the skin colours shown for each country are the same as on your map?
Neither of these two sources presents the same data as your map now you got something to prove and i hope you can, i'll wait a bit for you to do so. Czixhc (talk) 02:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
I've already explained this:
Your map says "the average skin colour in Country X today is von Luschan skin tone Y".
Biasutti's map has different skin colours in different places to what your map does.
The census data doesn't mention skin colour or the von Luschan scale at all.
You need a source that says the same thing as your map and neither of these two do. To date the only source supplied that directly supports the claims in your map is Hagos's map.
Do you agree that it is the only place that says what your map says?
the skin tone for each race/location is stated in Renatto's map, the amount of each race per country comes from national census data. It's correct. Czixhc (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The information definitely no, it's widespread worldwide. Now, do you agree that Wikipedia:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source states that a selfpublished source done by somebody with previous expertise on the field and who cites another experts is largely reliable despite the document in question being self-published? Czixhc (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
If it's widespread around the world then it should easy for you to provide another source that says it.
No, as we both know the Wikipedia policy states "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications" - nothing there about citing other experts.
So, do agree Hagos's map is the only source that makes the same claims as your map, or do you have an alternative source that says the same thing?
There is places where you can find the same information, here is an example: [[61]], going accord to the policy, Hagos does have works recognized and published on migration and cartography, and the study on which he bases the skin tone distribution is from a reliable investigator who also has published material. And don't dodge the question, do you agree that a selfpublished source done by somebody with previous expertise on the field and who cites another experts is largely reliable despite the document in question being self-published?Czixhc (talk) 03:37, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The example you give does not mention skin colour or the von Luschan Scale.
The topic of the article is human skin colour, not migration or cartography.
I didn't dodge the question, I said "No" and then corrected your rephrasing of the Wikipedia policy, pointing out that citing experts is not one of the criteria that validates self-published sources. The reason for this is that self-published sources often cite experts but then draw their own conclusions or interpretations, eg I could put up a website saying "Mars is the 4th planet from the sun and is called the red planet(cite NASA). That's because people on Mars have red hair". Even though I've based my website on data from NASA, Wikipedia policy won't accept my website as a source because I'm not a published expert in the field - the conclusions I've drawn from the sources a not necessarily the same conclusions that experts in the field would make, so any claims I make need to be verified before they can be used. In a sense this is what Hagos has done - he's taken data from 2 legitimate sources but then made a map that neither source can verify. That's why we can't accept his map unless he himself is a proven expert in the field. If there's another, more reliable, source that says the same thing then we can use that source instead.
To get back on topic, Hagos's map is still the only source you've provided that claims the same skin colours as your map does. Are you ready to accept that no other source exists?
The example you give does not mention skin colour or the von Luschan Scale The Von Luschan chromatic scale parametters are taken from Renatto's map, The topic of the article is human skin colour, not migration or cartography He is in fact, citing an expert on the human skin color field, I could put up a website saying "Mars is the 4th planet from the sun and is called the red planet(cite NASA). That's because people on Mars have red hair". Even though I've based my website on data from NASA, Wikipedia policy won't accept my website as a source because I'm not a published expert in the field... In a sense this is what Hagos has done - he's taken data from 2 legitimate sources but then made a map that neither source can verify it's not the same, to be the same you would need to have a study that confirms that the hair color of martians is red, if you cite a published study saying that martians have red hair then it will be reliable. Now, you certainly didn't answered the question but found a tangent, answer it this time without a tangent: Do you agree that wikipedia accepts as reliable sources work done by a specialist who have published works in the respective fields? Czixhc (talk) 01:03, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
"if you cite a published study saying that martians have red hair then it will be reliable": Exactly my point - if you can cite a published study saying that the average skin colour in each country today is what Hagos's map says it is then we can accept Hagos's map as a source (although we'd probably just use that study instead). Does such a study exist, or is Hagos's map the only place that uses those colours for each country?
You're asking a different question now (this one doesn't mention self-published sources). Yes, I agree that wikipedia accepts as reliable sources work done by a specialist who has published works in the field. To clarify my response to your original question: No, I don't agree that a self-published source is considered reliable by Wikipedia policy just because it cites other expert sources.
Biasutti's map uses different colours for the countries than your map does (eg North America/Australia), so it doesn't verify the colours that you've used.
You just quoted the WP policy on self-published sources yourself and there's clearly nothing in there saying a self-published source is allowed if it cites other expert sources. Perhaps you can quote the part of WP policy makes you think the policy for self-published sources (the one you just quoted) doesn't apply if the self-published source cites expert sources?
Biasutti's map uses different colours for the countries than your map does (eg North America/Australia), so it doesn't verify the colours that you've used. It does, you can compare homogeneous countries from the old world such as Germany or Poland and you will get the same tone, there are different colors in countries such as United States because it is less homogeneous. There's clearly nothing in there saying a self-published source is allowed if it cites other expert sources as i said above, to do so is a very common practice among proffesionals, easily one out of three documents used as reference do it. if you want to take advantage of something that is clearly implied in wikipedia´s policies you might have to prove it textually. Czixhc (talk) 03:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
So you agree that Biasutto's map doesn't say the same thing as Hagos's. Whatever the reasons for the differences, this means that Biasutti doesn't verify what Hagos's map is saying, so it needs to be verified by some other source.
I agree, let's only use wikipedia policy that actually appears in the wikipedia policy text.
Let's recap. You have agreed that Hagos's map is self-published, and we have both quoted, multiple times, Wikipedia's requirements for self-published sources. When asked to prove that Hagos satisfies these requirements you failed to do so and claimed that they aren't needed because his work is completely based on an expert's work. When asked to provide the expert's work that Hagos's map is the same as, you failed to do so and instead are now claiming that Wikipedia policy is that his map can be used because he cites expert sources. I am still waiting on you to provide sources that show one of the following:
1. That Hagos's map meets the Wikipedia policy for self-published sources - ie, that Hagos is an extablished expert in human skin colour and his previous work on human skin colour has been published by a reliable source.
2. That Hagos's map is completely based on the work of an expert - ie. that a published map by established expert in human skin colour uses the same skin colours for the same countries that Hagos's map does. You should be able to use this source instead of Hagos for your map.
3. That Wikipedia policy for self-published sources states they can be used on the basis that they cite other expert sources - ie a quote from WP policy that shows the rules in Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources don't apply if the self-published source cites expert sources. Note that there are different policies for published and self-published sources - be careful not to confuse them.
So you agree that Biasutto's map doesn't say the same thing as Hagos's. Whatever the reasons for the differences, this means that Biasutti doesn't verify what Hagos's map is saying, so it needs to be verified by some other source. - I've never agreed on such thing, in fact, my posture have always been the opposite: That Hagos map is based on Biasutto's work, making it reliable. When asked to prove that Hagos satisfies these requirements you failed to do so - Did you forgot that the map has been festured on exhibitions already? claimed that they aren't needed because his work is completely based on an expert's work. I say this because that's how wikipedia's policy on verifiability works. When asked to provide the expert's work that Hagos's map is the same as, you failed to do so - I didn't failed here either, i already told you that the colors asigned to each race are based on the color that renatto asigned to them, it's the same information, adapted to modern times via census data, and you can confirm it by yourself. and instead are now claiming that Wikipedia policy is that his map can be used because he cites expert sources. - I claim this because that's how the policy works, and i can prove it by citing documents that are alredy featured on this site that have internal citations. If i recall correctly you have failed at proving that it doesn't. 1. That Hagos's map meets the Wikipedia policy for self-published sources - ie, that Hagos is an extablished expert in human skin colour and his previous work on human skin colour has been published by a reliable source. -Hagos is basing his work completely on the work done by an skin color expert, he is not pulling the colors by himself, internal citations is a common practice in several documents, and it's accepted on wikipedia, again i can prove it right now by bringing investigations and books who do so. 2. That Hagos's map is completely based on the work of an expert - ie. that a published map by established expert in human skin colour uses the same skin colours for the same countries that Hagos's map does. You should be able to use this source instead of Hagos for your map. - This claim don' has much logic at all, Hagos work is proven to be based on the work of an expert, and it happens to be his original work, to ask for the existence of a work identical to his original work done before by somebody else is bizarre, and wikipedia guideline to self published sources does not require this. 3. That Wikipedia policy for self-published sources states they can be used on the basis that they cite other expert sources - ie a quote from WP policy that shows the rules in Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources don't apply if the self-published source cites expert sources. Note that there are different policies for published and self-published sources - be careful not to confuse them. -You might need to use sematic tought here: as i told you two times above, to use internal citations is a common practice among accepted sources on wikipedia, this means, it's acceptance it's implied on sources in general (i can prove it right now, bringing documents and books featuring internal citations), with self published sources being a small part of the entire field related to sources, not something apart, therefore the acceptance of internal sources inside self-published sources is implied for these being inside the semantic group on which all sorces belong. If this weren't the case it would be explicitly stated on the section of the policy regarding self-published works, however, as far as i know it doesn't, and you are yet to prove it is this way, by citing the part of wikipedia policies where in fact, what you say it's clearly stated, as long as you don't do this what you are claiming remains out and apart of any of wikipedia's guidelines. Czixhc (talk) 01:19, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
My bad, I thought when you said "there are different colors in countries such as United States" you were saying that there are different colours in countries such as the United States.
1. WP policy says nothing about "being based completely on the work of an expert". It states the work itself must be done by an expert (and that that expert's similar work must have been published).
2. You are trying to avoid the WP self-published policy by saying that Hagos's work is "completely" based on the work of an expert. If this is true then you need to show me an expert's work that is "completely" the same (in terms of content, not necessarily style) and then we'll use that for your source instead of Hagos's map. You can't use Biasutti as your source because his map uses different colours to yours, and since the colours are the whole point of the map, this would mean your map is WP:OR.
3. Self-published sources aren't considered part of the "semantic group" of acceptable sources on WP. If you read WP:V you will see that the "Reliable sources" section doesn't include self-published sources. Self-published sources are included under "Sources that are usually not reliable", so self-published sources belong to the "semantic group" of unusable sources - we don't use them unless the specific criteria set down by the policy are met. Note that other documents and books used on Wikipedia that use internal citations are all published sources. This means they've been fact-checked and verified by a 3rd party publisher (and often peer-reviewed before publication) so we know what they say has some level of acceptance by experts in the field. Self-published sources don't undergo this degree of scrutiny, which is why they aren't considered reliable enough for use.
WP policy says nothing about "being based completely on the work of an expert". It states the work itself must be done by an expert (and that that expert's similar work must have been published). -It in no way states that it can't be partially based (because to point this out is very important) either, and regarding wikipedia's guidelines for reliable sources it's acceptance is implied, also you are ignoring that Hagos is an expert on migration and cartography-related topics, which why he is able to modify the colors to nowaday's reallity, Biasutti's map constitutes only a small (the base colors) Hagos does the rest, and he is an expert on that. You need to show me an expert's work that is "completely" the same (in terms of content, not necessarily style) - There is expert's works that are already up on wikipedia and that states the same information that Hagos map does, just with a different style: they are called census data. Self-published sources aren't considered part of the "semantic group" of acceptable sources on WP. If you read WP:V you will see that the "Reliable sources" section doesn't include self-published sources. Self-published sources are included under "Sources that are usually not reliable", so self-published sources belong to the "semantic group" of unusable sources - They do belong to the sources semantic group: [The one of sources that are used on wikipedia] wheter they might be found reliable or not doesn't affect that in the end they are sources. Note that other documents and books used on Wikipedia that use internal citations are all published sources. This means they've been fact-checked and verified by a 3rd party publisher (and often peer-reviewed before publication) so we know what they say has some level of acceptance by experts in the field. Self-published sources don't undergo this degree of scrutiny, which is why they aren't considered reliable enough for use. - This is not true at all, non-published and online sources do it too, and again, you are implying things that are never said on any guideline or policy on wikipedia, and you are yet to prove it textually, and, judging how far this discussion has gone without you doing seems like you wouldn't be able to do it, which means that your criteria for reliable sources isn't the same as the one set by wikipedia. Quote the policy that states that self-published sources done by recognized proffesionals can't partially cite previously published expert works and you'll be right on this. Czixhc (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia policy doesn't say anything about whether a self-published source can or can't partially cite previously published experts because it makes no difference - self-published sources, whether they cite experts or not, are "are largely not acceptable". The policy says you can only use a self-published source (whether it cites 1000 experts or none) if it is by an established expert in the topic whose previous work in the field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Your argument about citing experts is completely irrelevant to the issue... let's get back on track:
1. Do you accept that Hagos is not an established expert on human skin colour and that he has no previous published work in the area of human skin colour, or do you have some sources to show me otherwise?
2. Do you accept that Hagos's map is the only place that uses those particular von Luschan tones for each country, or do you have a source that also uses the same ones?
1. Do you accept that Hagos is not an established expert on human skin colour and that he has no previous published work in the area of human skin colour, or do you have some sources to show me otherwise? - Completely unrelated and pointless, he is citing an expert in the topic which has works published on the field, and on what he is an expert is on migration and it's impact, which is what modifies the original colors, in fact yes, he is a complete expert on the topic at hand. 2. Do you accept that Hagos's map is the only place that uses those particular von Luschan tones for each country, or do you have a source that also uses the same ones? you asked for the same thing yesterday, and i directed you to national census that do expose the same information, but with a different style,so yes, there is information. Wikipedia policy doesn't say anything about whether a self-published source can or can't partially cite previously published experts because it makes no difference - self-published sources, whether they cite experts or not, are "are largely not acceptable". The policy says you can only use a self-published source (whether it cites 1000 experts or none) if it is by an established expert in the topic whose previous work in the field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Your argument about citing experts is completely irrelevant to the issue... You are making this up by bending and interpreting the policy to your convenience, show me the textual evidence, not your personal interpretations, because you have misinterpreted policies multiple times before in this discussion. And as I told you above, Hagos is an expertise consultant in both: migration and cartography, with the point of the map being how the original skin tones have been affected by migration trends the skin color bases aren't the main point here, just a reference, with Hagos being an expert on the main point and content of the map, therefore the map being largely reliable. In short what you are doing right here is equal to you attacking and calling unreliable an investigation made by an oncologist stating that Lung cancer might be a latent risk on "X country" 30% of population, because the large amounts of toxines in the air (70% of toxines on the air according to "X country" ambiental agency) because he used numbers given by the ambiental agency with him not being 100% expert on air toxicity, see? it's simply non-sense and unacceptable. Czixhc (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
1. Wikipedia policy is that a self-published source has to be created by an established and published expert in the subject matter, so my question is completely related and not at all pointless. Unless you can show that Hagos is a published expert in human skin colour then we can't use his map on this page. He can cite experts, you can claim he's an expert in other areas like cartography and migration (which he's not, but no point arguing about irrelevancies), but it makes no difference - WP policy is that he needs to be an expert in human skin colour for his self-published map to be considered a reliable source for this article. You aren't even arguing that he is an expert in human skin colour, so I don't know why you can't agree that he isn't one.
2. As I said last time you cited it as a source, the national census data don't say anything about skin colour. All they have is self-identified ancestry. A person ticking "African-American" (or "Hispanic" or "Australian Aboriginal" or "South Asian" etc. etc.) as their ancestry can be any skin colour from very dark to very light. It's totally inaccurate (not to mention racist) to assume somebody's von Luschan skin colour based on what they say their ancestry is. So, no, the national census doesn't use the same skin colours for the same countries that your map does and we've already established that Biasutti's map doesn't either. Unless you have another source, it's pretty obvious that Hagos's map is the only place that uses the same skin colours for the same countries that you do.
If the "oncologist" was really a graphic designer and the "investigation" was really a picture he'd made and put in an exhibition and the only source showing that the "toxins" actually cause cancer was 70 years old, discussed different isotopes of the chemicals and used methods that aren't used anymore because they're unreliable, then you might have a suitable analogy. I hope you agree that it would be nonsense and unacceptable to treat such a source as reliable.
WP policy is that he needs to be an expert in human skin colour for his self-published map to be considered a reliable source for this article. - No it doesn't, you are misinterpreting (either premeditely or because you can't understand it) the policy again, it does say that it has to be an expert recognized on the field, thing that he does, what you fail to realize is that migration trends is what modifies the skin tones, while the original skin tones asigned to each race by an expert are cited as a source, migration is the main point of the map, it's what makes it different from Biasutti's map, and he is an expert on that, the skin tones he uses as a base is a small part of it, he is an expert in what the map is about, and nowhere on the policy is said that an expert can't cite other experts as sources to complement his work, you are making this up and until you bring a textual citation you are wrong.
A person ticking "African-American" (or "Hispanic" or "Australian Aboriginal" or "South Asian" etc. etc.) as their ancestry can be any skin colour from very dark to very light. It's totally inaccurate - I already explained this before (and also proved you that african-americans' skin tone don't varies greatly at all, south asians don't vary greatly in tone either, and for hispanic the category "white hispanic" exists) in fact it's the opposite, it's more accurate to base the skin tone on ancestry than on what is seen by simple sight, because this way it doesn't matters if a person with german ancestry got a heavy than, he/she still will be counted as light skinned this way (thing that wouldn't happen if we use another method, leading to way more inaccurrate information). The national census data don't say anything about skin colour - This was already discussed, the colors for each race are based on the colors that Biasutti asigned to them, and the analogy is reliable, simply because it's the same base: an expert that partially cites another expert source to create a new work. If you don't like the source or you think that the source is bad that's merely your opinion, because the source itself on this case has been used extensively and has multiple articles on wikipedia based on it (this one included), once you remove all the sources on wikipedia that are "experts partially citing another experts to create their work" you would be on the right of saying that this is unreliable, but as long as you don't do it and also you fail at textually cite the imaginary policy on which you base upon you are wrong. Czixhc (talk) 01:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, you agree that Hagos is not a published, established expert in human skin colour, your argument is that he doesn't need to be, because, in this case, the phrase "in the subject matter" doesn't mean "in human skin colour"... correct?
Your "proof" that African-Americans don't vary much in skin colour was two cherry-picked photos of Halle Berry and Samuel L Jackson in which they clearly have different skin colours (it's impossible to be anywhere near accurate because of the lighting and because we can't see under their arms, but from the midpoints of skin visible on these photos, I'd put Sam at around 35 on the von Luschan Scale and Halle on about 25). That's subjective though, reliable proof that African-American have a wide range of skin colours can be found in various research papers ([62][63][64][65]). Similar studies (like [66]) show South Asian populations have a wide range of skin colours as well. Also note that I'm not suggesting we base skin colours on simple sight (like your tanned German example) I'm saying we can't assume skin colour on the self-reported ancestry from census data at all.
It's not just my opinion that the von Luschan colours on Biasutti's map are unreliable, it's stated on the the map description itself: "The map's intended use is in articles dealing with the history of the notion of race, and it should not be used as an up-to-date reference."[67] and on Hagos's description of the map too: "Though the 'von Luschan scale' was used extensively throughout the first half of the twentieth century in the study of race and anthropometry, it was considered problematic, even by its practitioners, because it was very inconsistent. In many instances, different investigators would give different readings of the same person. It was largely abandoned by the early 1950s, replaced instead by methods utilizing reflectance spectrophotometry."[68]
I'm not suggesting we remove all the sources on Wikipedia that cite other experts, I'm saying that the policy for self-published sources is that they must be done by an established and published expert in the field, whether they cite experts or not.
To reiterate the only relevant point in this, are you saying that Hagos is not an expert in human skin colour and that he doesn't need to be because "in the subject matter" and "in the relevant field" in the WP policy for self-published sources do not mean "in human skin colour" in this case?
Reliable proof that African-American have a wide range of skin colours can be found in various research papers - Why are you citing genetic studies when you himself have said that to base on mere looks is better, and you are ignoring half of the issue here: You are worried that a somehow lighter skinned person fills "african-american" in the box, thus making USA darker, but what about people that is dark skinned but fills in white anyway? because of these exist many, it's, in overall a very precise way to get racial information, because the large majority will meet the criteria and visual expectancies of a "white" and a "black" small anomalies does not have a notable impact at all. It's not just my opinion that the von Luschan colours on Biasutti's map are unreliable Well, it stills being used in many articles, even here, and it's curious that you find it outdated (because that is the correct term) but oppose to the installation of a map that updates it. "in the relevant field" in the WP policy for self-published sources do not mean "in human skin colour" in this case? - The map is about the alteration of skin tone due migratory trends, both being extremely related, and you are yet to cite the policy on wiki that states that "experts citing another experts" is forbid, prove it or you are wrong, remove all the sources who do so or you are wrong, i'll wait. Czixhc (talk) 03:38, 10 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you've completely misunderstood what I'm saying - I haven't said anything about basing skin colour on mere looks. What I am saying is that you can't assume skin colour based on self-reported ancestry in census data. The genetic studies are to show that your statement "that african-americans' skin tone don't varies greatly at all, south asians don't vary greatly in tone either" is completely false.
Again you've completely misunderstood - I haven't said anything about wikipedia forbidding experts citing other experts. What I am saying is that wikipedia only accepts self-published sources if they are by an established and published expert in the field, it makes no difference if they cite other experts or don't cite other experts.
You totally failed to answer my question, I'll split it into two to make it easier for you:
1. Are you saying that "in the subject matter" and "in the relevant field" as used in the WP policy for self-published sources does not mean "in human skin colour" in this case?
2. Do you accept that Hagos is not an established and published expert in human skin colour?
I've detected that, so far, the issue here is that your arguments are completely based on personal assumptions, this must be pointed out right now. What I am saying is that you can't assume skin colour based on self-reported ancestry in census data - Hold on there, i'm not the one doing it, it was done on based on biasutti's study, which has been published before, no one of the links you brought calls self reported census imprecise, that's something that you are making up, and until you bring sources that say otherwise it's only your opinion
1. Are you saying that "in the subject matter" and "in the relevant field" as used in the WP policy for self-published sources does not mean "in human skin colour" in this case? 2. Do you accept that Hagos is not an established and published expert in human skin colour?
you answered your own questions here: I haven't said anything about wikipedia forbidding experts citing other experts - you just said that it´s reliable. Czixhc (talk) 01:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The issue here is that you've created a map that contains controversial claims which can't be verified by a reliable source.
Please answer the questions. Please stop misrepresenting what I'm saying.
You already answered the question by yourself by admiting that experts citing another expertes are reliable, therefore the answer is this: Hagos map is reliable because it's made by an expert on migration and cartography (which is what modifies the colors) who also bases his work on studies done by another expert who has works published in the field (which sets the standards for each race). You've said it by yourself, it's reliable, question answered. Czixhc (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
The questions are:
1. Are you saying that "in the subject matter" and "in the relevant field" in this case mean something other than "in human skin colour"?, and,
2. Do you agree that Jonothan Hagos is not an established and published expert in human skin colour?
Again, please answer these questions and please stop saying that I've said things that I haven't.
stop saying that I've said things that I haven't Yes you did, here - I haven't said anything about wikipedia forbidding experts citing other experts - And i already answered the question, the map is reliable. Czixhc (talk) 04:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I said wikipedia doesn't forbid a source from citing an expert. This doesn't mean I said a self-published source is reliable just because it cites an expert. If I say the law against underage drinking doesn't forbid people wearing shirts from drinking beer, that doesn't mean I think that a 12yo is allowed to drink beer just because he's wearing a shirt. A self-published source has to be created by an established and published expert in the field. Whether it cites other experts or not is not part of the criteria.
Which question do you think you answered? The questions I'm asking are whether you accept that Hagos isn't an expert in human skin colour and whether your think wikipedia policy means human skin colour when it says "in the subject matter". You haven't answered either of these.
I've already replied to your questions and i will do it again: The map is reliable. The problem here is that you have a very particular and whimsy definition of "reliable" which does not adhere to wikipedia policies. I said wikipedia doesn't forbid a source from citing an expert. - So it's setled, experts who cite other experts are reliable. A self-published source has to be created by an established and published expert in the field. Whether it cites other experts or not is not part of the criteria. - Answer this question: Can you textually cite the wikipedia policy that backs up your point or not? Czixhc (talk) 01:43, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I can't understand how what you are saying answers my questions. To make it easy for me, can you please say either "Yes" or "No" to the following:
1. Is Jonathan Hagos an extablished and published expert in human skin colour?
2. In the WP policy for self-published sources, where it says "on the subject matter" and "in the relevant field" does this mean "in human skin colour" in regards to this particular case?
No, you've misunderstood: "wikipedia doesn't forbid a source from citing an expert" does not mean "experts who cite other experts are reliable".
To answer your question: Yes I can, and have many times already: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources)
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." (from Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources) - I don't see nothing here about forbiding experts citing another experts. No, you've misunderstood: "wikipedia doesn't forbid a source from citing an expert" does not mean "experts who cite other experts are reliable". - You will have to explain how one thing is different from the other because both look like the same from here. *In order for you to understand why I, infact already answered these questions you must answer this question first because it's linked to yours: Does the Renatto Biasutti's map meet the criteria to be reliable? Czixhc (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
That's right - it doesn't forbid citing experts, in fact it doesn't mention citing experts at all. What is does says is that a self-published source must be by a published expert in the subject matter. That's why you need to show that Hagos is an expert in human skin colour or find a different source.
The difference between what I said and what you think it means is that WP policy sets down clear criteria for what makes a source reliable - for a source to be reliable it has to meet these criteria, even if it does other things that wikipedia doesn't forbid. For instance the policy doesn't forbid sources from being written in blue pen, or from being drawn in cartoon form, or from being created by a left-handed person... but by themselves none of these things make a source reliable. Even if a source cites experts (or is written in blue pen, or is a cartoon, or the author was left-handed) it still has to meet the WP reliability criteria before it becomes reliable. For your position to be true the WP policy would have to say something like "self published sources are considered reliable when they cite other experts", and it doesn't. It says self-published sources are considered reliable if they are by an established and published expert in the subject matter.
I don't need to answer any questions for you to answer mine, a simple "Yes" or "No" will do.
To answer another of your questions (would be nice if you'd return the favour!), "Sometimes" - it depends on the context it's being used in. Biasutti's map is known to have accuracy issues and is very outdated. At the same time it's by an expert and has been published and widely cited so it satisfies the WP reliability criteria - so if it's presented for what it is, a historical map, then yes it's reliable, but if it's presented as a modern-day consensus of global skin colours, then no it's not. I think that's pretty clearly stated in the comments on the file's page [69].
it's by an expert and has been published and widely cited so it satisfies the WP reliability criteria - Ok, this is easy since i already have your answer, well, Yes, Hagos map is reliable, he is an expert on carthography and on migration, (which is what modifies the colors on first place), and since he is citing an expert on skin color and you have already said that it's reliable, the map meets the complete criteria. You already admited here by saying That's right it doesn't forbid citing experts, in fact it doesn't mention citing experts at all - That you can't prove that self-published sources can't cite another experts, that's a great improvement, so it's decided, the map is reliable, anything else you like'd to add before reincorporing it to the article?. Czixhc (talk) 05:09, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you genuinely not understand what I'm saying or are you misrepresenting me on purpose? I'm happy to explain it again if you really don't get it.
You still haven't answered my questions. Perhaps asking two at once is confusing for you, so let's just keep it simple: Is Hagos an expert in human skin colour? Yes or no?
Already told you so, the work is based on a document created by an expert on skin color, with hagos being a proffesional on migration, therefore being able to modify the colors (something that biasutti wouldn't be able to do), the map is the combination of the work of two reliable experts, and since you've admited that you can't prove that wikipedia forbids experts citing experts it's reliable, Yes, the map is reliable and is about skin color and the impacts of migratory trends on it. Czixhc (talk) 00:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
So are you saying that Jonathan Hagos is an expert in human skin colour or that is he is not an expert in human skin colour? Tobus2 (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
No, he is an expert on this case because his work is the amalgamation of a work of an expert in skin color, since wikipedia does not forbids experts citing experts his work is the work of an expert. Czixhc (talk) 01:42, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, I disagree, so can you please point me to the sources that make you think Jonathon Hagos is an expert in human skin colour. Tobus2 (talk) 02:29, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
You can't disagree, since you admited that you couldn't prove that wikipedia forbids experts citing another experts. Czixhc (talk) 03:13, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Citing an expert doesn't make someone an expert themself. Is that the only reason you think Jonathon Hagos is an expert in human skin colour or are there others? Tobus2 (talk) 03:20, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you cite the policy where that is stated?, you also shouldn't dismiss Hagos, he is an expert on migration topics (which is what modifies the colors). Czixhc (talk) 03:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Are you really going to argue with me that anyone who cites an expert is considered an expert themself? If that were true then everybody would be an expert in everything, all they'd need to do is say "Einstein said xyz" and they'd be an expert in Quantum Physics. Can we agree that citing an expert does not make someone an expert themself? Tobus2 (talk) 03:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Don't dismiss Hagos, he is an expert on migration, cartography architecture etc. If he didn't had any experience on these fields i would agree with you, but since he is an expert too, and he only happens to base the skin color on what an expert on the field said he is reliable, he does like 80% of the job here, remember the analogy of the oncologist who cites the ambiental agency, it's the same, because he don't relies totally on one source but uses his own knowledge too. Czixhc (talk) 23:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
You say Hagos is "is an expert on migration, cartography architecture etc." - I notice you don't include human skin colour in the list. Does this mean you accept that Hagos is not an expert in human skin colour? Tobus2 (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
As i told you above, not in this particular case, since the work that we are discussing here is the summatory of multiple data brought by experts, similar to the analogy of the oncolgist and the ambiental agency, if Hagos does a work on the future on skin color field lacking the respective references then it would. Czixhc (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, so we've agreed that Hagos map is a self-published source, and we've agreed that Hagos is not an expert in human skin colour. By my reading of the WP policy quoted many times above, this would mean his map can't be considered a reliable source for your map. You obviously disagree, so can please state your reasons (with sources!) why the WP doesn't/shouldn't apply in this case? Tobus2 (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
*and we've agreed that Hagos is not an expert in human skin colour - I didn't, i clearly told you that he qualifies as such on this case. By my reading of the WP policy quoted many times above, this would mean his map can't be considered a reliable source for your map. - Can you cite the part on which it textually states that experts can't partially cite another experts? Czixhc (talk) 23:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I misunderstood what you mean in your last post. To clarify, you are saying that in this case he is an expert in human skin colour because his work is a summation of multiple sources that are by experts, is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobus2 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 14 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm confused, are you saying that Hagos himself qualifies as an expert in human skin colour in this case, or that in this case his work qualifies as an 'expert work' in human skin colour even though he himself is not an expert in human skin color? Tobus2 (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Both, his work and him are qualified as experts on this case, i rather reffer to the work than to the person, because this is not an article about him. Czixhc (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, and the reason you think he qualifies as an expert in this case is because the work is a summation of the work of other experts, correct? Tobus2 (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand what you mean because your analogy doesn't correlate very well with the situation for me. Are you saying that Hagos qualifies as an expert in human skin colour in this case because his work is a summation of work by experts, or are you saying something else? Tobus2 (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
The analogy is fine, and yes, Hagos qualifies as an expert in this particular case. 01:04, 15 August 2013 (UTC)Czixhc (talk)
For me the analogy doesn't fit very well - an oncologist making a statement about cancer is very different to an architect making a statement about human skin colour.
You say Hagos qualifies as an expert in this case and I want to know your reasoning behind that statement - what makes you think Hagos is an expert in this case? It it because he cites experts in the field as you've previously hinted, or is it something else?
Yes, but I disagree. So please tell why (with sources) you think he qualifies as an expert in human skin in this case. Tobus2 (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
So you are saying that Hagos is an expert in human skin colour in this case because he cites Biasutti's work? Is that correct? Tobus2 (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
I wouldn't have to spin around if you'd just answer the questions first time I asked them.
So you are saying Hagos is an expert in human skin colour because he cites Biasutti's work. Does this mean that everybody becomes an expert when they cite an expert's work, or is there something specific about this case that makes it unique?
Except that you haven't yet established that Hagos is an expert, so it's the common case of a non-expert citing an expert. You can't assume "X is an expert" as part your argument to prove that X is an expert - that's circular reasoning.
So again, does citing an expert make everybody an expert, or is there some special circumstance that only applies in Hagos's case?
Hagos is an expert himsefl in several fields, you've accepted this before, he cites an expert on skin color, what makes him and his work reliable and qualified on both fields, the one on which he is citing an expert and the others that are his speciallity, he is a non-expert and his own skills play a crucial and major move in the making of the map. Czixhc (talk) 03:13, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
Please note I haven't accepted that Hagos is an expert in any field.
OK, so are you saying that an expert in any field becomes an expert on any other field if he cites an expert in that other field, or is there something specific between Hagos and Biasutti that makes the expertise tranferrable via citation?
You did accept him as an expert on the topics related to migraton and cartography multiple times in the discussion though. To answer you question just refer to the analogy of the oncologist and the ambiental agency. Czixhc (talk) 01:13, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
No I didn't accept his expertise in those fields, I just didn't argue about it because it's not relevant - this article is about human skin colour, not migration or cartography. (If you reread my posts you'll see that I express doubt about his expertise in these fields a number of times, eg 01:43, 1 August 2013 and 06:37, 9 August 2013). It's irrelevant to the argument, but please don't tell me I accept things which I don't.
As I said before your oncology analogy doesn't work for me, please don't use it to try to explain your position to me, I won't understand what you are trying to say.
Is there something special about Hagos and Biasutti that enables Hagos to become an expert in human skin colour just by citing Biasutti, or are you saying that expertise can tranfer between experts of various fields via citation as a general rule? For instance would Lionel Messi (and expert in football) become an expert in tennis by citing Raphael Nadal (and expert in tennis)? Would David Attenborough (and expert in biology) become an expert in physics by citing Albert Einstein (an expert in physics)? What if Nadal cited Einstein, would he then be expert in tennis and physics? Why/why not? I'm trying to understand how you think this tranfer of expertise works and the parameters that allow it to occur, I suspect you are actually talking about something else and that Hagos hasn't become an expert in human skin colour at all.
Well, you can or not accept his expertise, but that doesn't changes that he is recognized in these fields, and please explain why the oncologist and the ambiental agency analogy doesn't works, rather than resorting to the logical fallacy known as "the strawman". Czixhc (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I explained the problems I have with the analogy already, put simply an oncologist making a claim about cancer is not the same as an architect making a claim about human skin colour. There are other elements of the analogy that don't fit the situation too (see my 06:37, 9 August 2013 post), but rather than argue about it, let's just drop it and deal with the facts in this case directly.
You stated that Hagos was an expert in human skin colour, when asked for evidence you said he became an expert by citing Biasutti's map. Can you please explain how that works, because it seems a ridiculous statement to me.
I checked it and you didn't, and his skills on architecture aren't being used here, what is being used is his knowledge of cartography and migration, with him citing Biasutti as a reference to his work, it's the same, it's an expert citing another expert, i'm starting to believe that you can't explain the why the analogy is any different. 02:38, 16 August 2013 (UTC)Czixhc (talk)
Sorry I don't understand. Can you please explain to me why you think Jonathan Hagos is an expert in human skin colour? Tobus2 (talk) 02:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
it's simple really, he qualifies as such on this case because he is citing an expert on his work and basing it from it, it's a common practice on wikipedia, and you failed at proving it to be unreliable, now you explain to me why are you repeating the same questions again?. Czixhc (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I ask the same question again because you don't answer them the first time.
Again you are saying that Hagos qualifies as an expert on human skin colour because he's citing Biasutti. This is a completely ridiculous claim, if you really mean that can you please explain how this tranferrence of expertise via citation is supposed to work?
I suspect what you mean is that Hagos is not an expert himself, but that his statements can be considered as a statements by an expert where he cites and says the same thing as an expert - eg if Hagos cites and says what Biasutti says, then we can consider what he says with the same association of expertise that we would if Biasutti said it. Is that what you are trying to say?
I already told you various times that exactly because that is that he qualifies as an expert on this occasion. Czixhc (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, your sentence makes no sense. Are you saying that Hagos is an expert himself because he cites Biasutti, or are you saying that we can treat Hagos's claims as expert claims (even though he's not an expert himself) because he cites Biasutti? Tobus2 (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I've been clear enough on this: In this case, both, Hagos and his work qualify as such, Stop dragging the discussion, it's pointless to do so. Czixhc (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
You haven't been very clear at all. I asked you to clarity which of two possibilities you mean and you say "Hagos and his work qualify as such" - how does that answer my question? I've tried to break this down and make it at simple as possible but you keep dodging questions, giving ambiguous answers, stating broad claims with zero evidence and refusing to explain your logic.
If you think Hagos is an expert in human skin colour then you need to prove it with reliable sources. The only "proof" you've provided so far for him being an expert is that he cites other people in his work, a patently ridiculous statement since citing experts doesn't make someone an expert.
If instead you are trying to say that Biasutti's expertise tranfers into this particular work because of the citation, then you need to accept that Hagos is himself not an expert in human skin colour. The citation doesn't make Hagos an expert, but it does lend Biasutti's expertise to the work in so far as the work duplicates Biasutti's.
Can you please clarify which of these two you mean, or clearly explain the logic behind your position if it's neither of these.
for the first part of your question refer to the analogy of the oncologist and the ambiental agency (which you couldn't prove wrong) for the next part of your reply, just remember that you couldn't prove that wikipedia forbids experts citing another experts. The overall answer is the Next: Yes in this particular case Hagos and his work qualify as experts because he is not making up anything by himself, but partially basing his work on an expert on the field (similar to a study on which an oncologist states that on "X" country 30% of the population have a risk of getting lung cancer due the toxicity in the air being elevated accord to "X" country ambiental agency). Czixhc (talk) 01:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
As already said, your analogy doesn't work for me so using it as an explanation tells me nothing.
As already said, I'm not claiming that wikipedia forbids experts from citing other experts, so telling me I can't prove something I never said also tells me nothing.
You have combined the author and the work in one argument but they are separate issues, so I'll separate them.
First the author: Your logic is flawed. If my 10yo son (or anyone else) partially bases his school project on experts and doesn't make anything up himself he still doesn't become an expert in the subject matter - citing Biasutti or any other expert does not make Hagos an expert in human skin colour himself.
Second the work: You say that Hagos "is not making up anything by himself" but Hagos has "made up" the most important apect of the map (the specific colours used in each country) - neither of his two sources assign those colours to those countries. So while this work might be "partially based on" the work of experts in their fields (although as shown before, Biasutti is only an 'expert' in a historic sense), it is not an accurate representation of either source, and so doesn't have the expertise or reliability that either source might have.
In short: Hagos is not an expert in human skin colour, and his map does not represent the work of an expert in human skin colour.
If my 10yo son (or anyone else) partially bases his school project on experts and doesn't make anything up himself he still doesn't become an expert in the subject matter - Depends, is your 10 year old son recognized as an expert by universities? Hagos has "made up" the most important aspect of the map (the specific colours used in each country) - That's false, what modifies the colors on the map is the effect of the migration trends, and is on what he is a recognized expert and is the main basis of this work, now you understand why it's reliable? you already said what i wanted you to say; that the main part of this map is entirely his work on his field. Czixhc (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
So we're back at the point we were before - is there something special about the relationship between Hagos and Biasutti that allows this transfer of expertise just by citation? My point is that it takes years of training, experience and recognition by others in the field to be considered an expert in that field. You seem to be saying Hagos got it just by citing Biasutti. If David Attenborough cited Niels Bohr would he become an expert in Physics? No he wouldn't, he'd just be an expert in biology who happened to cite an expert in physics once - we wouldn't be able to accept anything he said about quantum mechanics or block holes as fact until we checked it with a genuine expert in the field. So what makes you think Hagos has become an expert in human skin colour just by citing Biasutti? And remember that the policy doesn't just state "expert", it states "established expert in the topic whose previous work in the field has been published by reliable third-party publications" - unless you are you going to argue that Hagos got Biasutti's reputation and previous publications as well I think this is a dead end argument. You should accept that Hagos doesn't meet the criteria laid down by the WP policy for the creators of self-published sources.
If you don't think that Hagos chose the colours for each country then who do you think did it? They didn't just magically change due to "migration trends" - somebody made a decision that colour X goes in country Y. From the evidence we have it would appear that Hagos was the one who made that decision - it certainly wasn't made by Biasutti or the writers of the national census data that he cites as his sources.
It makes no difference to the situation so I won't argue it, but for the record I don't accept that Hagos is a recognised expert on migration.
The migratory trends is what modifies the color, the color asigned to each race is based on Biasutti's map, the percentage of races per country is got from the census, nothing on that map is original research, and Hagos being an expert on migration makes his work reliable because that's the core of it and what alters it, it's simple and you already admited it to be the core. Czixhc (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
No, Jonathon Hagos is what modifies the colour (migratory trends can't draw things).
There are no races on Biasutti's map (only "native populations")
There are no races in the census data (only self-identified ancestry).
Hagos is not an expert on migration.
Your map represents the subjective opinion of one individual with no formal education or experience in the subject matter. You may personally consider such a source as reliable, but it fails to meet the WP policies for verifiability and it can't be used here. Tobus2 (talk) 05:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Jonathan Hagos is who has the knowledge of migration, the races, and the places from where they are originary from are roughly the same, there is races on census data, what are you talking about? don't get that dense, you sound desperate. Your map represents the subjective opinion of one individual with no formal education or experience in the subject matter - so the Oxford brookes university recognition, his multiple publications and his exhibitions mean nothing to you? I'm sorry to tell it to you but he is a recognized expert. You may personally consider such a source as reliable, but it fails to meet the WP policies for verifiability and it can't be used here. - You mean the policies that you already acknowledged to not be able to prove to be true and that you admited to not exist previously on this discussion? Czixhc (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The policy I am talking about, as quoted many many times is: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"
My view is that the source your map, a self-published map by Jonathan Hagos, fails to meet this policy because Jonathan is not an established expert on human skin colour and has no previous published work in the field.
To date, the only arguments you've provided that relate to the policy are that 1) Jonathan Hagos is an expert in human skin colour because he cites an (historical) expert in human skin colour in his map, and 2) Hagos's map can be considered the work of an expert because Hagos is not making up anything by himself, but basing his work on an expert in the field. Neither of these arguments have factual basis.
1. Your claim that Hagos is an expert because he cites Biasutti is just nonsense. To become an expert in a given field takes years of study, experience and recognition in that field - it's not something that you get just citing by somebody else who really is an expert in the field. Jonathon Hagos is not an expert in human skin colour and so his map fails to meet the WP policy for self-published sources.
2. Your claim that Hagos hasn't made up anything on the map is not correct - he has made up the most important aspect of the map, namely the von Luschan skin colours used for each particular country. You think that he's just taken the colours off Biasutti's map and combined them with the percentage of each "race" on the census data to come up with an average skin colour for each country, but this is simply not possible.
2a) Biasutti's map doesn't align with the census data
For instance Biasutti uses 5 different colours in Africa. The US census data only has one category for people with African ancestry ("Black/African-American") - which of these 5 colours has Hagos decided to use for "Black/African-Americans"? Simarly with India, Biasutti uses 4 different colours and the Indian census doesn't include ancestry as a category (the closest is "Scheduled Caste/Tribe" which covers ~20% of the population and isn't 100% aligned with skin colour)[70]. How has Hagos come up with the colour for India and Indians in other countries? The categories used by Biasutti and the census data are not the same and there is no definite correlation between the ancestry reported on the census and the colours used on Biasutti's map.
2b) The ancestries used in the census data don't represent a single skin color
For instance, the US census data has 5 different ancestry categories ("White", "Black/African-American", "American Indian/Alaskan Native", "Asian" and "Hawaiian Native/Pacific Islander") each with the option of "Hispanic/Latino" or "Not Hispanic/Latino", giving 10 possibilies in all (ignoring combinations for simplicity). The terms "White" and "Black" are social concepts, not direct references to skin colour (see White people and Black people) although "White" in the US is aligned with almost 100% European ancestry and hence very light skin. "Black/African-American" represents an admixed population with a range 10-80% European ancestry in individuals (averaging 20-25%)[71][72] and so there is no single skin colour for this category. Likewise with the "Asian" category (which includes all colours from the darkest South Asian to the lightest Japanese) and the "Hispanic/Latino" who are an African/European/Native American mix[73]. This is further confused by the combining of "Hispanic" with the other categories - for instance which of Biasutti's colours has Hagos used for the "Black/African-American Hispanic/Latino" category? This is just one country, other countries use different ancestry categories and some (like India) don't use any at all. The ancestry categories on the census aren't aligned to populations with a single skin colour, and so can't be used as a basis for presenting average skin colours of a population.
2c) Biasutti's map in not accurate.
As stated earlier Biasutti's map was made 70 years using obsolete methods and with data known to be inaccurate (Biasutti made up the colours for places with no measurments). This is acknowleged by Hagos himself as well as on the file page for the map here on wikipedia - it's only reliable as an historic document and doesn't reflect the scientific consensus today. Any map that uses Biasutti's map as the source for the skin colour of various populations is going to be inaccurate.
Since there is no direct connection between the ancestries reported in the census data and the colours that Biasutti uses on his map, it is impossible for Hagos to use Biasutti's colours to represent the census data - they simply don't match up. Hagos must have "made up" the colours used on his map and in doing so he has had to assume skin colours for various populations that aren't confirmed by the census or the Biasutti map. Since he's not an expert, we need confirmation from an expert that the colours he's chosen are correct before we can treat his map as the work of an expert.
Hey man, go slower, and before calling unreliable investigations and data that is already up on multiple wikipedia articles (and that by your logic, must be removed, damaging greatly this site) answer this question: Can you prove that wikipedia forbids experts citing another experts? If you can't back up your reasonings with textual evidence from wikipedia's policies your arguments are pointless, start out small, and don't bring back issues that already were answered, you are desperately trying to drag this discussion and is obvious that is because United States turned out to be darker than Canada. Czixhc (talk) 01:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
As I've said (many many times now), my reasoning has nothing to do with wikipedia allowing or disallowing experts citing other experts. My reasoning is based on the WP policy quoted above - we can't accept your map because it uses a self-published source that is not by an established and published expert in the field. Can you quote me wikipedia policy to the contrary?
The issue here is not what colour the US is compared to Canada (and please stop trying to tell me what I think, you are completely wrong), it's whether your map can be verified by a reliable source. The only source provided is self-published and doesn't meet the WP policy for self-published sources so we can't use it.
You just admited again that you can't prove it, and experts citing experts it's a proven common practice on investigations, it meets the criteria, and i know that USA is the country for which you are upset because is the one you reffer to the most. Czixhc (talk) 02:03, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Quote from wikipedia policy that says you can use Hagos's map as a reliable source please.
No, the US is just the most well-known example and there's lots of sources I can use.
The US happens to be one of the most precise countries whan it comes to ancestry issues, not only cataloguing race, but asking for the country from which the ancestors come from, also in your previous statement you said that The europen ancestry of African-Americans varies from 10-80%, averaging 20-25% - Well, with the last part of your sentence you just answered your own question. This map is about averages, it don't pretends to be absolute (just like every other map on the field and on the article), the problem with your behavoir is that you are being overdemanding towards it, while being permissive towards every other map not only on the this article, but on the entire site, if there were one person like you judging every map or chart used here, there wouldn't be any map or informative image on wikipedia. In short, as long as you don't start challenging and judging with this extreme standards every other map used on wikipedia your attitude is biased, which is on itself a direct violation to wikipedia's neurtral point of view policy. as for your second question, self published sources are allowed as long as published by an recognized expert (which Hagos is on cartography and migration, with the later being the reason for the map to exist), and it in no way forbids experts citing another experts, therefore if Hagos cites an expert on human skin color as a source there is no comprobable issue. Czixhc (talk) 00:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
So how did Hagos choose which skin colour represents the average "African-American"? He didn't get it from Biasutti's map (which only has native African populations and uses 5 different colours for them) and he didn't get it from the census data (which doesn't refer to skin colour at all) - he "made it up" himself.
This is not about POV, it's about Verifiability. WP policy is that a self-published source is only reliable if it's by an established expert in the subject matter whose previous work "in the relevant field" (WP bolding, not mine) has been published. Hagos doesn't meet this criteria. If you know of other maps on WP that also don't fulfill the policy then you should raise the issue on the appropriate talk page so the situation can be remedied.
Despite your repeated claims otherwise, Hagos is not a recognised expert in cartography or migration. It has no relevance anyway since neither this article nor my challenges to your map are about cartography or migration.
There is no problem with Hagos citing an expert, the problem is that he's not an expert himself.
You have failed to provide a quote from WP policy that allows you to use Hagos's map as a reliable source. Can I assume that you are unable to do so?
Jonathan Hagos is recognized as a consultancy expertise by the Oxford Brookes University, [74] don't lie. There is no problem with Hagos citing an expert, the problem is that he's not an expert himself - Well, seems like you just acepted experts citing other experts to be valid, and since i already proved Hagos to be an expert, there is no problem anymore. The map is completely valid now. Czixhc (talk) 00:33, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
That page you linked to has nothing about cartography or migration on it. It shows he's a professional architect, not sure if it would be enough to make him "an established expert" in architecture or not. In terms using him as a source for your map, he'd need to be an established and published expert in human skin colour, so clearly he doesn't satisfy the WP policy.
I've always accepted that anybody can cite anybody, what I don't accept is that citing an expert makes a person an expert themselves.
We have a section of WP policy that clearly states the requirements for using a self-published source, unless you can show another part of the policy that says Hagos's map is acceptable then there's really not much more to discuss.
That page you linked to has nothing about cartography or migration on it - Read the section titled "Research Interest and consultancy expertise" it's all there, and you've cited that section days back and you said that he was an expert on migration. In terms using him as a source for your map, he'd need to be an established and published expert in human skin colour - Not really, you already said that there is no problem with experts using another experts as reference. Czixhc (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you'll find that the other sources on wiki that cite other experts all satisfy the WP policies in some other way - ie they are published by a reliable 3rd party source (or are by an established and published expert in the topic if self-published). Hagos's map doesn't satisfy the WP policy so it can't be used here. Tobus2 (talk) 01:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm somehow skeptical at every one of these sources being the kind of self-published source that you are refering to, can you bring me one like the one that you talk about? Czixhc (talk) 02:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Exactly my point - these are all examples of the "acepted practice" on WP of experts citing other experts and they all fulfill the WP criteria for reliability in other ways (ie published by a reliable 3rd party source). I don't know of any self-published sources currently in use in Wikipedia, in general they are not considered reliable and in the few cases they are, there is usually a more reliable published source that is used instead. Perhaps you can provide examples of what you are talking about - self-published sources being used in WP that aren't by an expert in the subject matter? Tobus2 (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
But then why do you say that the self-published sources already used on wikipedia are different from mine when you couldn't even find one? Czixhc (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The question here is why are you saying it's "accepted practice" when there isn't even a single example of it? Tobus2 (talk) 02:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Because wikipedia has a section of their policies dedicated to them? And what i say it's a common practice is to have experts citing other experts. Czixhc (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
You're making no sense. The WP policy section dedicated to self-published sources say they have to be by an established published expert in the field - not that they need to cite other experts. Citing experts is only "common practice" for sources that meet the WP policy in other ways (ie published by a reliable publisher). You haven't found a single example of a self-published non-expert source that cites experts so how can it be "common practice"?
You really have no ground to stand on here. I suggest you accept that we won't be using your map and we can end this discussion. Tobus2 (talk) 03:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
But you are the one who is assuming the most here, if to cite other experts weren't allowed it would be stated, also what you say about to "Cite experts being only allowed for sources that meet the WP policy in other ways" isn't wrote anywhere on wiki either. Czixhc (talk) 03:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
The WP policy on self-published sources says they are reliable if the author is an established and published expert in the subject matter. Jonathan Hagos is not an established and published expert in the subject matter so his self-published map is not reliable - there is no assumption here.
We've already discussed how your "citing an expert makes a source reliable" argument doesn't work. You seem to be doing the common "I'm wrong but won't admit it" tactic of moving from one argument to the next without acknowledging your point is wrong and then bringing it up again later when you run out of arguments. So here's a summary of the arguments you've abandoned so far and why they are wrong, I expect you not to revisit them unless you have some new evidence to support them:
1. Hagos is an expert in human skin colour because he cites Biasutti - wrong because citing an expert doesn't make someone an expert themselves (eg David Attenborough and Niels Bohr)
2. Hagos's map is an "expert" map because he only used data from expert sources and didn't make up anything himself - wrong because there's no way to associate the "native populations" on Biasutti's map with the ancestry categories from the census data, Hagos has "made up" which skin colour belongs to each census category (eg Biasutti has 5 colours in Africa, US census has single "African-American" category)
3. Hagos's map is reliable because it cites other expert source - wrong because citing an expert isn't one of the criteria that WP policy uses for reliability. That's because a source can cite an expert and still make unreliable claims (eg "Mars is the red planet[cite NASA]. That's why martians have red hair")
4. Wikipedia policy doesn't forbid experts citing other experts so Hagos's map is reliable because it cites experts - wrong because a source must meet the stated WP criteria for reliability, not meet criteria that aren't mentioned (eg sources in blue pen, cartoons and left-handed authors aren't forbidden either, but none of these make a source reliable).
5. Hagos's map is like an oncologist citing an environmental report in a statement about cancer - wrong because an architect making a map about human skin colour is not like an oncologist making a statement about cancer (eg. it's more like a graphic designer drawing a picture about cancer based on outdated data on different isotopes).
There's probably more but I'll add them to the list when you change topic back to them.
The self-published source you've found doesn't support your "common practice" argument at all - it doesn't cite any experts (the two you-tube videos are by the same author, not an "other expert"), and it's inclusion on the page has nothing to do with the "citations". It's by a published-in-the -field[77] author with some degree of recognised expertise in the subject matter[78][79]. It's inclusion is probably a borderline case, and since the claims it's making are already backed up by a more reliable source I suggest you remove it if you don't think it meets the policy. I doubt anyone would argue even though it has a lot more validity in its context than Hagos's map does in this article.
So are you still saying that its commonly accepted practice on WP to treat self-published sources are reliable because they cite experts, or are you ready to accept that self-published sources must be by an established and published expert in the field like the policy states?
While i found truly admirable the determination that you've shown on this discussion, your fails are beyond obvious, you've gave an argument against every proof I've brought to prove that Hagos' map is reliable, however, your problem is not your skill to bring arguments, but that all your arguments of opposition are either baseless, unsourced or simple overmisinterpretations of wikipedia's policies (and in varios cases all of these). Let's cite the policy again "Self-published works might be used when created by somebody recognized as an expert and with published work in the relevant field" here, see what's your problem? you are implying things that the policy don't say anywhere by claiming that a recognized expert (because Hagos is) can't cite another expert as a source, it obviously can be, because it has been done before, here is another example of a self-published expert that cites another expert whose work is used on wikipedia: [80]. Czixhc (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
On the contrary, all my arguments are well sourced statements of fact. It is you who continually fails to provide sources and then changes the topic without acknowledging that you were wrong. I don't find this admirable at all but more of a character failure. (My personal motto is: "When I'm wrong I change my mind... what do you do?")
You are forgetting the sentence in the WP policy immediately before the one quoted: "For that reason, self-published media, such as ... personal websites ... are largely not acceptable as sources". As a rule self-published sources are not acceptable and the only exception provided by the policy is the scenario quoted many times above - when it's by an established and published expert in the subject matter. The policy says quite clearly that Hagos's self-published map is not acceptable as a source unless Hagos is an established and published expert in the subject matter - there's no need for me to imply anything.
The source you just provided is not self-published - it's published by the Palomar Community College. In any case the author is a Professor of Biological Anthropology, has a PhD in Anthropology, over 40 years experience and 29 previous publications[81]. Even if it were self-published it would pass the "expert test" - the author is clearly an established and published expert in Anthropology.
So, ready to accept that your map fails to meet WP policy yet?
Do you know that the only difference between hagos site and O'Neil's one is that one site is happens to have the name of the author on the URL, right? now, if he is that much of an expert would be good for him to fix the "Emeritusof" word on the text for his image, now leaving that aside, i don't see from where did you got the "29" books published thing, i see him in contributing here and there, just like Hagos, and how old an expert is really doesn't matters, his expertise is what matters. Finally he is an anthropologist, not an expert on human skin color or other skin related topics (that would be a dermatologist) citing an expert on a field he is not an expert by himself to validate his work, He is just like Hagos, therefore Hagos work is as reliable. Czixhc (talk) 01:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
No I don't know that because it's not true. O'Neil's site is published as part of a University website (www.palomar.edu[82] - the .edu should have given that away) and so is governed by the University's policies and guidelines while Hagos's is published on his own personal domain and so he can say whatever he likes.
That would be the "Twenty-nine published articles and monographs on archaeology, biological anthropology, and/or computer related topics" under the "Research Related Activities"
You should probably look up Anthropology, and in particular Biological Anthropology (the subject he's currently teaching BTW) before you say his claims are outside his field of expertise. (This article sources heavily from work in Anthropology and Genetics and I've said a few times that Hagos would need to an expert in one of these fields for it to be "in the subject matter" (eg my post on 09:06, 27 July 2013).
In terms of WP policy O'Neill is the exact opposite of Hagos. O'Neill is a highly-regarded and published scientist presenting a well-sourced scientific consensus in his area of expertise. Hagos is an architect making up a map that doesn't agree with either of his sources in a field he has no experience in.
You are trying to show that the use of self-published sources that cite experts instead of meeting the stated WP policy is "common practice" on WP. So far you've found 0 examples despite having ample time to look. Can I suggest that "common practice" was a massive overstatement on your behalf, and that you change it to "extremely rare and possibly non-existent practice"?
Note that if you do manage to find such a source, it's much more likely that it will lead to that source being removed than to your source being accepted.
Thus far the section you reffer to for the books only shows 4, and aren't published books, but computer based tutorial programs, so, he being a highly regarded and published scientist is false, he is just older, and since you won't be able to cite a WP policy saying that the age of an expert matters it's pointless. For what you refer as the page being from the palomar uni, well that isn't certainly true, it's a different page completely with the URL being different, and clearly stated as being created and mantained solely by O'Neil himself [83] who is an emeritus, meaning that don't works there anymore. Antrhopology and biological anthropology by themselves are way to wide fields, with none of the branches of the later specialized on skin tone [84], he is not a especialized expert on skin tone because he is not a dermatologist, he is like Hagos and unless you can cite a policy saying that an expert that is under 40 years old can't be cited you got nothing else to do here. Czixhc (talk) 02:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
The section states he has 29 publications, it doesn't list them. The tutorials aren't counted as part of these (so add another 30 if you like).
His expertise and reputation are beyond question, he's got a PhD in the field, has taught for over 40 years (still teaches courses via the web even though he's retired) and his tutorials are widely recommended by other experts in anthropology[85][86][87]. He's knows what he's talking about and it's got nothing to do with age (except perhaps that he's had a lot more time to get a lot more experience). In contrast Hagos has no qualifications, publications or demonstrated experience in any field related to human skin colour - he is definitely not an expert.
The page is definitely published by Palomar, "anthro.palamar.edu" is the Anthropology Dept. at Palomar and the main menu has "Created and maintained by Dr. Dennis O'Neil, Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College, San Marcos, California" at the bottom, clearly stating it's a College page. If he says something that could ruin the College's reputation they can make him remove it. Hagos's site doesn't have the same editorial oversight and he can say whatever he likes.
If you can't see how Biological Anthropology is relevant to the page then I guess you didn't see the "Human biology" branch which "concentrates upon international, population-level perspectives on health, evolution, adaptation and population genetics". Human skin colour is an aspect of all 4 of these perspectives and very highly researched area in the last 3 especially.
Please stop this "you can't provide a source that says XXX is forbidden" nonsense, we've been there before (see 3 and 4 on my "old arguments" list above). It's up to you to provide a source that says it can be used, not up to WP policy to forbid every desperate possibility you can come up with.
After all this side-tracking, you've failed to show that using self-published source because they cite experts is "common practice". Hagos's map is still a self-published source and it still fails to meet the WP policy for self-published sources. We still can't use it to verify the claims made on your map.
A research through google books reveals that he haven't published a single book, and thus far have been mentioned on 2, therefore, your statement is false. His site remains as a sef-published source because it was created and maintained by him, If that investigation were officialy part of the school site it simply would be included there, not in another site, the lack of editorial control in his site is also obvious: As i pointed before, there even is a typo mistake at the very beginning. Human biology is a very wide field, and while it touches evolution, adaptation and genetics that does not give to a biologist the expertise on skin color that a dermatologist has (because to be an enginer does not instantly makes you a spacial or an hidraulic enginer). By that loose logic Hagos being a consultancy expertise on migration qualifies him to be a skin tone expert, because migration implies biological adaptability too. Finally, don't ask me to stop demanding you a explicit textual citation to back up your claims that an expert can't cite another expert on self-published sources because you are the acuser, and the acuser is always who have to bring proof to back up his acusation, thing you've failed to do from the very beginning. Czixhc (talk) 20:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
I think you need to look up the difference between "author" and "publisher" in the dictionary. O'Neil is the author, Palomar Community College is the publisher, no question. This means that Palomar owns and has editorial control over the content - they are ultimately responsible for the content and can remove or change it if O'Neil doesn't conform to their policies. Contrast this to the source for your map where Jonathan Hagos is the author and Jonathan Hagos is the publisher - there's no independent editorial overview and Hagos can make any claims he likes without scrutiny. This means that O'Neil's work has "a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments" (so meets WP:V#What_counts_as_a_reliable_source) which Hagos's self-published work doesn't, hence the extra policy requirement for Hagos to be an expert in the field.
Biological Anthropology doesn't "touch" evolution, adaptation and genetics, it "concentrates" on them (read the quote!). By your logic Mark Shriver[88], Nina Jablonski[89] and Alan Rogers[90] (Anthropologists used extensively in this article) aren't experts on human skin colour either.
I've never claimed "that an expert can't cite another expert on self-published sources ". Twice now you've made up strawman arguments that I've never made and then told me I have to prove them. Please stop it, if I say something factual that you don't believe I'm happy to provide a source it, but I have no obligation (or interest) to provide sources for things that you say which I've never said and which are irrelevant to the issue. In this case you are the "accuser" because it's you that is claiming your source is reliable because it cites experts. The obligation is on you to show me where the WP says this. I've already provided clear textual evidence that WP policy says that Hagos has to be an expert in human skin colour before you can use him as a source, there's nothing else I need to prove. If you are claiming an exception to this rule, then you need to show me where WP policy allows for it.
You are currently trying to get around this by attempting to prove that using non-expert self-published sources because they cite experts is "common practice" on Wikipedia (and so doesn't need to be explicitly stated in the policy). You haven't been able to provide a single example, and you'd need a raft of them to support the "common" bit. Are you ready to accept that it's not "common practice" at all?
I'm afraid that you are going to need a source to prove that somehow palomar Uni stills aware or cares of what a former proffesor does. By your logic Mark Shriver[120], Nina Jablonski[121] and Alan Rogers[122] (Anthropologists used extensively in this article) aren't experts on human skin colour either - That's my point, you can't claim that Hagos map is unreliable because he is not an expert on skin tone (aka dermatologist) because several other people cited on this article aren't either, if they are reliable Hagos is reliable too. You are going to need to bring textual information over wikipedia forbiding experts from citing another experts for self-published sources because you are the accuser who is claiming that wikipedia does, not me, it's your duty to bring back up to your claim, if you don't feel like doing so abandon this discussion. Czixhc (talk) 00:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Palomar's responsibility for the content is implicit in their publishing of the work.
The anthropologists I mentioned are three of the most prominent experts in human skin colour in the world and all their referenced work is published by a reputable third party publishers. Are you really suggesting they compare to a self-published architect with no education, expertise or previous work in the subject matter?
Strawman! I've made no claims about "wikipedia forbiding experts from citing another experts for self-published sources", that's your claim not mine.
The problem on this discussion lies on user tobus afirming that wikipedia forbids experts citing another experts when it comes to reliable sources while Wikipedia's self-published sources doesn't states that anywhere. I ask to him to prove it but he says that he is not forced to do so, well, let's give a look to burden of proof: "The burden of proof (Latin: onus probandi) is the obligation resting on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position. He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the benefit of assumption, passing the burden of proof off to another party."
this is why tobus must bring explicit textual evidence to back up his position, otherwise the map is reliable (and please, avoid using walls of text, just answer the question). Czixhc (talk) 00:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Please stop misreprenting me. Here is my actual position and the "textual evidence" that it's based on:
1. The only source for your map self-published (Proof: made by Jonathon Hagos and published on jonathanhagos.com [91])
2. The WP policy for self-published sources is that they need to be by an established and published expert in the subject matter (Proof: Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources)
3. The author of your source is not an expert in human skin colour and doesn't have any published works in the field (Proof: default position confirmed by lack of evidence to the contrary [92][93] - onus is on submitting user to show otherwise)
Note that nothing in my argument says that "wikipedia forbids experts citing another experts". That's something you've made up to get around the fact that your source fails to meet the policy requirements.
I think the real "core question" you should be asking is can this map be verified as per WP:V?
You are who is accusing the map of unreliable, you have to prove it to be unreliable, since I, and the map are the ones who are being attacked the benefit of doubt lies on me and my map. Please don't dodge the question and don't try to start side-fights again. Can you cite the wikipedia policy that states that experts can't cite another experts on the self-published source field? Czixhc (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I just clearly articulate my logic with the sources it's based on. Which part of what I actually said do you have an issue with? Tobus2 (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The only thing that you said above is that you've never said that experts can't cite other experts, is that the part you reffer to? Czixhc (talk) 01:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope, I refer to my 3-point statement of why the map is not reliable. Which of these 3 points do you think is incorrect, or are you claiming there's an exception to the WP policy (point 2) that I've failed to include? Tobus2 (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Stop dodging the question (which actually is closely related to the 2nd point you made). Can you provide textual evidence that back up your claim of wikipedia forbiding experts citing another experts of self-published sources? Czixhc (talk) 02:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not my claim. I've already provided textual evidence for the points I'm actually making (see my 3-point statement above). Can you please direct any criticism of my position to the actual arguments I'm making, not to something you just made up yourself. See Straw man. Tobus2 (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
What you are saying is that i made up that you said that wikipedia forbids experts citing another experts on self-publisehed sources therefore you've never said it meaning that you don't oppose to the practice making Hagos map reliable? is that what you mean? Czixhc (talk) 02:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
What I'm saying that we can't use Hagos's map as a reliable source because it's self-published and fails to meet the WP policy for self-published source (ie. it's not by an established and published expert in the subject matter). I thought I made that clear in my 3-point statement above. Tobus2 (talk) 02:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
you haven't proved anything, because all of your three points depends on you textually citing that wikipedia forbids experts citing another experts, Can you prove it? Czixhc (talk) 02:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
My 3-points are all proven by the references provided. If you are suggesting one of my points is incorrect or that there an exception to the rules that I've overlooked then you'll need to state clearly what is incorrect and provide references of your own to prove it. Tobus2 (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Stop dodging the question, your three points depend of you being able to prove that wikipedia forbid experts citing another experts on self-published sources, answer the question, otherwise your inhability to answer it will imply that you can't, therefore losing this argument. Czixhc (talk) 03:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I've already provided sources that prove each of my 3 points, they don't depend on anything else. If you genuinely think there is problem with any of my points then please tell me which point is wrong and provide your own sources to prove it. Tobus2 (talk) 03:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Well, here i go, I'll answer your points one by one, on their respective order: The map don't needs to be published somewhere else, if it's made by somebody recognized as an expert 8Hagos is recognized as an expert and also cites other expert); The policy for self-published sources does not say that an expert can't cite another, in fact, the core question is about you being able to prove it forbids to do so; It's already proven that most people cited in the human skin color article aren't dermatologists, neither have works published on these fields. Now i answered your points, it's your turn to answer the core question: Can you prove by textual explicit citation that wikipedia forbids experts citing another experts? You may not bring any other side-discussion here, just answer the question. Czixhc (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The WP policy source I refer to in point 2 clearly says that self-published sources are "largely not acceptable as sources". This means that the default position for self-published sources is that they can't be used on wikipedia (or as you like to say, they are "forbidden"). The source goes on to provide an exception to the rule if the source is by an established and published expert in the field. This means you can't used a self-published source - even if it's in blue pen, or cites other experts, or is a cartoon, or is by someone under 40 years old, or is be a left-handed person, or any other random excuse you think up - unless it is by an established and published expert in the field. Jonathan Hagos map is self-published and he is not an established and published expert in the subject matter, so you can't use his map as source. Tobus2 (talk) 00:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you textually cite the section that says that "exception to the rule" and the part where it says that a expert can't cite another expert? otherwise you are just making it up. Czixhc (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I already read it, and it doesn't says anywhere that an expert can't cite another expert, the core question is about you being able to textually cite the wkipedia policy that backups your argument. Can you? Czixhc (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
It clearly says that self-published sources are not acceptable. This includes self-published sources that cite other experts. Tobus2 (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
No it doesn't, it says that self-published sources are aceptable when made by recognized experts like Hagos, i also read it full again and didn't saw anything related about forbiding experts citing another experts. can you bring me the textual citation or not? Czixhc (talk) 01:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Hagos is not an expert in the subject matter and has no previously published work in the field and so doesn't meet the criteria. Tobus2 (talk) 01:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The source I've provided proves that Wikipedia policy forbids self-published sources that cite other experts unless they are by an established published expert in the subject matter. In the case of your map, the source is self-published by a non-expert in the field - so it's "forbidden". Tobus2 (talk) 01:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
That would make sense if wikipedia forbid experts citing another experts, can you prove that it does? otherwise you are wrong, and if you keep dodging the question i'm afraid that it would be interpreted as you not being able to prove it. Czixhc (talk) 02:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I've provided proof that Wikipedia forbids all self-published sources that aren't by experts in the field, this includes self-published sources which cite other experts. I've answered your question, can you please just accept that we can't use your map here. Tobus2 (talk) 02:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you provide the textual evidence from that wiki policy from which you talk so much about? you know, the one that textually forbids experts citing another experts. Just do it, if you are right on this it shouldn't be hard. Czixhc (talk) 02:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't see any textual citation, just you making assumptions and saying things that no policy linked here say. Czixhc (talk) 02:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you even read my posts? I've already provided textual evidence that the default policy for all self-published sources is that they are not acceptable ("self-published media ... are largely not acceptable as sources") and that the only category the wikipedia recognised as exempt from this rule are self-published sources that are by established and published experts. You seem to be saying that you can just make up any category you like and claim it's acceptable unless the policy explicitly forbids that category. I'm sorry but that's not the way it works. If you want to claim that citing experts makes a self-published source exempt from the default "largely not acceptable" rule then you are going to have to cite a wikipedia policy that proves it. Tobus2 (talk) 03:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Thus far the policy states that are reliable if done by an expert, hagos is a recognized expert. Didn't you read the definition of burden of proof? The burden lies on the attacker, you've got to prove that an expert citing another expert to complement his work is forbiden. Once for all: Can you do that? Czixhc (talk) 03:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
So you're abandoning your "citing other experts" argument without acknowledging you were wrong. Do you accept that my argument in point 2, that self-published sources are only allowed if they are by an estalished and published expert in the field, is correct? Tobus2 (talk) 03:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
The policy explicitly states that the author must be an "established expert in the subject matter" and have "previous work in the field" published, not just "expert" is any sense or in any field. Hagos is not an established expert in the subject matter and has nothing published in the field.
The "burden of proof" is not on the attacker, but on the person trying to "shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position". In terms of expertise the default position is that a person is not an expert and you need to provide proof if you want to say they are an expert, not the other way round. Having said that, I've already provided sources for Hagos education, experience and publications and they show zero expertise or publications in the field. (PS. We've been through this before.)
You are the one who has been trying to prove that this map is unreliable, you are the one on the shifting position, your basis is that wikipedia forbids experts citing another experts, thing that thus far you haven't been able to prove. No idea from where you get that i abandoned my position, you saying that Hagos is unreliable for him not having works published in dermatology makes no sense, since many people cited in this article doesn't, Now, can you answer the core question? i'm running out of patience with you, just say yes or no. Czixhc (talk) 03:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You abandoned your argument (and the "core question") when you suddenly jumped from saying I can't prove WP forbids citing experts to instead saying that Hagos is an expert. Can we please just do one topic at a time... I've proven that WP policy's defualt position on self-published sources is that they can't be used. If you are claiming an exception to the "largely not acceptable" rule due to citing an expert can you please provide the policy that allows it. Alternatively accept that my point #2 is correct and we'll move on to point #3. Tobus2 (talk) 03:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Looks like you are very confused, i've never abandoned my position, I've always been up for Hagos being a recognized expert on migration (already proved by the Oxford Broookes University site) who cites an expert on skin tone to complement his work (This is, in short, my position on this discussion) and the default position of wikipedia on self published sources is that they aren't acceptable if are done by somebody without recognition, Hagos is a recognized expert, Biasutti is a recognized expert; therefore his work is reliable by default and it's up to you to prove it unreliable by answering the core question. The core question prevails here: Can you prove, by citing textually that misterious wikipedia policy that you are yet yo link here, that wikipedia forbisd experts citing another experts? And for god's sake, stop looking for side-arguments in order to dodge the question, you've done it like 7 times just today, do it again and it will imply that you simply aren't able to cite the policy you are refering to, therefore making your claims of unreability baseless, even if you don't admit it on a explicit way. Take your time and think well your answer, this discussion has been going for one month and i'm in no way leting it continue. Answer the question, if yes link the policy to which you refer to, if no just say no. Czixhc (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, which part of "self-published media ... are largely not acceptable as sources" are you having trouble understanding? Tobus2 (talk) 05:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I find funny how you ignored that the same policy states that self published media may be reliable if done by an expert (which Hagos is, and is recognized by the Oxford Brookes University) citing another largely recognized expert to complement his work, therefore making his work reliable unless you could prove that wikipedia forbids experts citing another experts, this happens to be the core question, the one that you've tried to dodge for a long time now (or you think that you try). However is not necessary for you to answer it right now because you already did before. Czixhc (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
I didn't ignore anything, the question was about WP not allowing self-published sources that cite other experts and the quoted text is my source that shows that. If you want to change the argument to whether Hagos is an expert then please accept that my point #2 above is correct first. Tobus2 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Conclusion of the discussion
A brief look through this discussion reveals that Tobus already answered the core question some days ago [94]: here, when I asked you if you could prove that wikipedia forbids experts citing other experts you answered with the following: No, i can't, because it's not true (wikipedia forbiding experts to cite other experts), i don't see how this is relevant to the discussion. You already accepted to not be able to prove your argument, therefore you accepted to not be able to prove Hagos map as unreliable. You rendered weightless any claim of unreliability you can come up with, you already accepted to be wrong. You might keep replying to this if you feel like, but you already have admited your own opinion to be baseless and weightless so there is no point in doing it. The map will be restored. Czixhc (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
You seem to be having trouble understanding what I'm saying (you keep telling me I'm saying things I've never said). I think it's because you have your own pre-conceived ideas about what makes a source "reliable" and are trying to fit WP policy into this. The problem is that WP policy uses completely different categories to the ones you are trying to use and your pre-concieved categories don't fit - you're trying to put a square peg into a round hole and it's just leaving you frustrated and confused. If you want to understand why your map is not acceptable by WP standards then I suggest you forget your "citing experts" idea and instead read the WP policy for reliable sources: Wikipedia:Verification#Reliable_sources. Once you understand the categories that WP policy uses to determine if a source is reliable then perhaps you will understand what I'm trying to tell you. Tobus2 (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
What you say makes no sense, because you already admited to not be able to prove your point, it's not something i'm inventing, it's something that it's proven to have been said by you [95]. Even if you weren't ever admited to be making things up, by your broken logic every person cited on the article who isn't an expert on dermatology would be removed too, even less sense makes that, accord to you, this map is not situable to be used here, but is perfectly situable to be used on the 192 articles related to human migration [96] for Hagos being a direct expert on that. There is no way for you to keep this map out of wiki and out of the reach of readers, forget about that, it will be used one way or another. Czixhc (talk) 23:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia forbidding experts citing other experts was your point, not mine. I can, and have, proven all my points (see 1, 2 and 3 above). If you read the WP policy I provided in my last post it should be evident that citing other experts is not a category that WP uses to determine reliability - your obsession with using it as such seems to be the main source of this misunderstanding.
The other sources cited on this page are considered reliable because they are published by reliable 3rd party sources - a category that is used by the WP policy to determine reliability. (You should also note that Dermatologists specialise in the bio-mechanics and disease of human skin, not the distribution of human skin colour throughout various populations. So fields like Anthropology and Genetics are more relevant to this page than Dermatology.)
There's no point discussing Hagos's expertise if you don't yet agree with my point 2 - he only needs to be an expert if point 2 is correct. So let's agree on point 2 (ie what the WP policy requirements are) first and then we can discuss whether Hagos satisfies them if you still believe he does.
The policy only states that the source must be done by somebody with expertise on the field, However, very few people cited here are direct experts because dermatologists are the ones specialised on everything related to skin, skin color included, not only bio-mechanics. Several experts lack published works on the field of dermatology, If you disagree you have to bring a source that in fact, states that anthropologists are more specialised on skin tone than dermatologists, though that won't happen. Citing experts is indeed, my point BUT wikipedia forbiding experts citing another experts is YOUR point (a point that you admited to not be able to prove) therefore an expert who cites another expert is reliable. Again, what you argue here is non-sense not only for what I already wrote above, but because accord to yourself Hagos map is perfectly reliable to be used on 192 articles but on this one somehow it isn't, see why your logic is broken? Czixhc (talk) 00:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
My points are clearly elucidated in my 3 point statement above. Wikipedia forbidding experts citing other experts is NOT in part of that statement so you can PLEASE stop saying that it's MY point. It's YOURS and it's IRRELEVANT to what I'm trying to tell you.
The policy about experts in the field applies to self-published sources, not ones published by reliable third party publishers. Again, I suggest you actually read the WP policy.
Again you're trying to tell me I said something that I didn't say. It's according to YOU that Hagos's map can be used on 192 articles. I never said such a thing and I certainly don't agree with it. Misrepresenting the other person's argument is a logical fallacy, is not very polite and detracts from your credibility. You've been guilty of it a number of times in this discussion, it would be appreciated if you could make an effort not to do it again.
Can we please agree that my point #2 is correct - self-published sources are only acceptable if they are by an established and published expert in the field. (It's directly from WP policy, so assuming you've read the WP policy by now you shouldn't find it to hard to agree).
We've been through this many times before, i know what the policy says, I also know that wikipedia does not forbid experts citing another experts, not even on self-published sources because if were that way it would be stated, and you agreed to be unable to prove that in fact, on self published sources to cite other experts is forbiden, got it now. now for the next point, you say that self-published sources may be used when done by a direct expert, Hagos is a direct expert on migration, therefore his work is apropiate on every article related to it, you being as rigurous as you are here makes clear that you will defend the existence of the map on any article related to migration and if this discussion keeps this direction is obvious that is correct for me to eventually link it to the 192 articles related to migration, as i said above, to try to keep the map out of the reach of the readers is impossible, it will be used one way or another. Czixhc (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
OK, so you agree with my point #2? Meaning that you can't use Hagos's map as a source unless he is an expert in the subject matter with previous published work in the relevant field? Tobus2 (talk) 01:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No i don't agree with you, because the policy is too ambiguous and in these cases, as the burden of proof states it's up to the accuser to prove it's point and shift the default position, which would be self-published experts being able to cite other experts. However i want to see how consistent you are with your own ideals, meaning that you would allow and defend the existence of Hagos' map on these other 192 articles and on every article that adresses migration, such as the ones regarding non-native ethnic groups on countries different to theirs [97], is that what your rigurous objetive ideals dictate you to do, right? Czixhc (talk) 01:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The default position is that self-published sources are "largely not acceptable as sources". If you are claiming an exception due to citing experts you will need to provide a quote from the policy that supports it.
As already said, I don't believe that Hagos is an expert on migration so I don't believe that his map can be used on every article that addresses migration.
Do you have a quote from WP policy that says citing an expert makes a self-published sources reliable?
The question would be: do you have a source stating that experts citing experts are unreliable? though we know the answer is no, And Hagos is a consultancy expertise on migration, he is called so by a third party (Oxford Brookes University) with his map featured on exhibitions and giving proffesional advice on film industry, his reliability in migration related topics is out of question, in fact you must support it. Czixhc (talk) 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No, the question is do you have a source that says self-published sources are reliable if they cite other experts? Don't try to turn it around - I've already provided a source that says self-published sources aren't reliable as the general rule. The cited WP policy covers all self-published sources, including those that cite experts, and as you stated yourself the burden of proof is on the person trying to shift away from the default position. Asking for further proof like a tenant insisting on a rule saying "Pets with collars aren't allowed" when the lease clearly says "No Pets Allowed".
I'd be happy to discuss Hagos's expertise with your once we've agreed that it's relevant.
i'm afraid that i can't agree on anything but the policy being too ambiguous and working both ways, i just happen to preffer teamwork over arguing over and over, so if you actually asist the preservation (making sure it don't gets removed) of Hagos' map on migration related topics (because are too many articles how for me alone to take care of all of them) I might leave you alone on this article, if you disagree with my proposal, just add the map back on this article, it's two alternatives. Czixhc (talk) 02:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about, stop avoiding the question. Do you, or do you not, have a source that says self-published sources are considered reliable sources if they cite other experts? Tobus2 (talk) 02:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I already told you that the policy is ambiguous, it doesn't states that there can't be experts citing another experts, but it don't says otherwise either. So, i rather move to a field where Hagos expertise is out of question. now, do you accept my proposal? Czixhc (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The policy is not at all ambiguous, it unambiguously states that self-published sources are not acceptable unless they are by an established and published expert in the subject matter (exactly as I said in point #2). The reason you think it's ambiguous it's because you are trying to fit some preconceived notion about reliability into it that is totally irrelevant and doesn't belong. There's enough information in the policy as written to decide if the source for your map is acceptable or not.
I don't understand your proposal. Hagos is not an expert on migration so his map can't be used on migration related topics. The map isn't about migration anyway so why would they even want to use it?
It's ambiguous regarding wheter an expert can or not cite another expert, but let's leave that aside. Now, Hagos is a consultancy expertise on migration recognized by a third party (Oxford Brookes University) and actually a very notable third party, his reliability is out of question, and his map is about the migratory trends and it's effects, the name of the original map is "Human displacement map of the world", it's migration related. Do you accept my proposal? if not just restore the map on this article. Czixhc (talk) 02:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
No let's not leave it aside so you can again change the topic without acknowledging that you were wrong. It's not ambiguous about it, it simply doesn't care - it tells us not to decide if a self-published source is reliable based whether it cites or doesn't cite, it tells us to base our decision on the expertise on the author. We can unambiguously determine if Hagos's map is acceptable or not by looking at whether he is an established or published expert in the subject matter or not. I suggest you forget about your "citing experts" concept - it's only confusing you and it's not a concept that's used anywhere in the WP policy.
The logic behind proposal makes no sense unless you agree with my point #2 above, that self-published sources can only be accepted if they're by an established and published expert in the subject matter. Do you agree that my point #2 is correct? I'll be happy to discuss your proposal in detail once we've agreed on the WP policy that applies to it.
I won't say anything that the policy don't states, the policy is ambiguous: It doesn't states anywhere that experts can or can't cite another experts, that's why i won't say that i'm wrong, the chances of either you or i being wrong are equal because both of us rely on a implicit concept, not a explicit one. However, i agree that a direct expert (like Hagos regarding migration topics) might be preffered. Now that is setleed, do you accept my proposal? Czixhc (talk) 03:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
You are just playing word games now, the policy clearly sets out the requirements for self-published sources. The policy says self-published sources that cite experts can be used if they are by an established and published expert in the field, and that self-published source that cite experts can not be used if they are not by an established and published expert in the field... can you agree to that? Tobus2 (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The second part of your sentence is not written on the policy, let's stick to what is written there, now for what is written there i can clearly be seen that a direct expert is preffered, that's why hagos on migration topics is ideal, you already accepted my proposal right? fine. Czixhc (talk) 03:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
I thought I asked you to stop telling me I've said things that I haven't. I have not accepted your proposal.
I agree, let's stick with what's written - that means no more nonsense about "citing other experts" (which is not written anywhere in the policy). So we have a catch-all "self-published media ... are largely not acceptable" saying that as a rule, you can't use self-published sources. Then we have an exception saying that "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Can you please tell me, only using what's written in the policy, where Hagos's map belongs - is it included in the exception for established and published experts or is it in the largely not acceptable category?
I agree, let's stick to what the policy says and nothing else, which means that experts recognized on the relevant field are preffered. This means that Hagos' map is more appropiate and a must be on migration-related articles than it is here, where it's presence must be ambiguous and might be objected by people who finds the void on the policy, thing that it's impossible to happen in migration topics, i'll take it there to avoid further debates. Czixhc (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Excellent, we've agreed that we'll use WP policy as written (ie as I originally stated in point #2).
Can you please provide evidence that Hagos is an established expert with previous published works in human skin colour, and while we're at it Migration and/or Cartography?
Why do you still ask for human skin color? i already told you that this article might not be the most appropiate for the map, for cartography and migration there is the recognizement of Oxford Brookes University, a better third party support probably doesn't exist, his expertise on migration is not open to discussion. Czixhc (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I've read it many times. I thought you must have found something else. Can you please tell me which part of this you think proves that Hagos is an established expert and has previously published work in any of the three fields I've mentioned? Tobus2 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
That's more than enough to make him an expert on human migration, it fulfills the self-published sources policy. Czixhc (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
What is? I've read your source and I can't see anything in there would establish him as a published expert in any of those fields. Can you please quote me the text that makes you think otherwise. Tobus2 (talk) 02:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
You mean the bit that says: "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions."? Tobus2 (talk) 02:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Then act like an adult and stop avoiding the question - I asked you repeatedly for a quote an ended up having to provide it myself. If you're going to insist on giving ambiguous half answers then I'm going to simplify it until it's clear what you are talking about.
The quoted section is clearly written by himself and it doesn't claim or indicate he is an expertise in any of the fields "Human skin colour" is not mentioned at all, "migration" is only mentioned as one of many themes his work has focused on and "cartography" is only mentioned as one of the diverse media he has used. There's no indication of formal training or recognised qualifications in any of these fields and there is no evidence of any experience or understanding beyond a topic or avenue for his artistic design work. It definitely doesn't say he has been used as a consultant in any of them. Based on this source, he is clearly not an expert in human skin colour, migration or cartography.
Boy, let's not start this again. That it's said on the consultancy expertise section wrote on the site of the Oxfords brookes University, which is a respectable institution and a very reliable third party which counts with a very serious editorial control, he is a consultancy expertise on migration. Therefore his work can be used on migration related topics, you already cited what is written under the "consultancy expertise" section. Act like an adult, unlike the human skin color affair, here there is not a single doubt or void about it, he meets the criteria to be an expert on migration related topics. Czixhc (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Where does it say is a expert on migration? All it says is that he's used migration as one of the themes in his work, nothing about being an expert or having any education, qualifications, experience or research in migration... surely you're not saying he's an expert because there's a "Research Interest and consultancy expertise" heading on the page?!? The page is a generic format used for lots of staff (eg. [99], [100], [101]) - the heading doesn't mean he has consultancy expertise, it's just a placeholder where he'd put it if he did have. What he has put in there are his research interests, he hasn't said anything about consulting.
If you still think the page proves he's an established and published expert in migration or cartography, can you please quote the text from the page that says it.
As you said before i invite you to act like an adult, if the page of an institution as respectable as the Oxford Brookes University says that he is a consultancy expertise on migration among other topics then he is. The section is not a "placeholder", on that section is stated the fields on which each person of it's staff has expertise (the other people you cited included), it's not up to you to attemp to interpret to your convenience what a section on an academic site says, as yourself said before "stick to what is written" nothing more nothing less, there is no ambiguous voids here, respect the standards that you've brought on yourself. Czixhc (talk) 01:47, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you are wrong. In that section is not "stated the fields on which each person of it's staff has expertise". In that field is a statement by each staff member of what their research interests and/or consultancy expertise are. This is clearly shown by the first link I provided where the staff member starts his two paragraphs with "My research interests centers around.." and "My consultancy expertise is..." respectively. If the person only lists their research interests then it follows that that have no consultancy expertise.
Hagos clearly states that "migration" is one of the "post-colonial themes" that his "work and research" focuses on, not that he's ever been a consultant on it. So sticking to what's written, migration is one of his research interests, not part of his consultancy expertise. Similarly with "cartography" which he says is one of the "diverse media" his work is "executed" through - he doesn't says it's a field that he has been a consultant in.
As I said, I can't see anything on this page that says Hagos is an expert in migration and/or cartography, if there is something there that makes you think otherwise can you please quote me the text. All you seem to be saying so far is that there's a heading on the page with the word "expertise" in it, you'll need something more concrete than that. Remember that you need to show that he's an "established" expert (ie other people think he's an expert) and that his previous work in the field has been published by a reliable 3rd party source... a heading of "Research interests and consultancy expertise" with only his research interests listed under it doesn't do that.
i'm afraid that you aren't in any way credited to interpret what a section of an university website says, if it says consultancy expertice and research interests is because that is what it is, stick to what it's written, don't make up or imply anything by yourself, additionaly, he says "my work and research" not only my research, your logic falls apart by that. No offense intended but your attemps at trying to prove this map unreliable are getting awful and you are starting to embarrase yourself. You are nowhere near to be an authorty on wikipedia, the self-published source policy requires a reliable third party supporting the expert (and the Oxford Brookes University is one of the third parties with more recognizement), it's not up to you to demand more because you are trying too hard to find or imply a void, the source states that he is a consultancy expertise on migration among other topics, the wikipedia policy states that support from a third party is required, the requeriments are fully meet. Stick to that and stop trying to keep this map out, I told you that it would be used on wikipedia one way or another and it will. Czixhc (talk) 23:22, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
If a heading says "Favourite fruit and vegetables" and under it is has "Apples, pears and oranges" does that mean that an apple is a vegetable?
It takes years of education, experience and recognition to become an expert, you don't become one simply by referring to a topic once or twice in your work. If I write a novel about flowers that doesn't make me an expert in botany nor an expert in literature. The text says that migration and cartography are two of many topics and media that he has used, not that he is an expert in either field.
If you can quote the text that says he is an expert then please do, otherwise please accept that there's no evidence that he is.
This is in fact awful, and a better analogy would be "Favorite fruits and vegetables: Tomato, letuce, strawberries and grapes" seriously dude, you are trying too hard at this point. Give it up, you won't stop this map from beig used. Czixhc (talk) 00:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
If i recall correctly, the self-published soures policy states that third party support is the only requirement, nothing about "hiring proof" or whatever you want to call it. Stick to what is written. Czixhc (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
The policy says ""Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". You have provided a page to show that Hagos satisfies this requirement but I can't see anything in it that supports your claim.
Can you please quote the text from this page that shows Hagos is an established expert with previous publications in the fields of migration and/or cartography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobus2 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Research Interest and consultancy expertise:
"My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions."
I really don't see why do you keep arguing, it's clear like the pure water that he is a consultancy expertise on migration among other topics, that's his work, i'm starting to feel sorry for you, but not on a way that might convince me of not using this map on all the migration related articles i advise you, so better stop, you won't acheive nothing. Czixhc (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, that statement doesn't say anything about being hired as an expert consultant. It only says he's used migration and cartography among various other fields as topics/media for his work and research - not that he's ever been a consultant in them. Can you please quote the text that says he's worked as an expert consultant on migration and/or cartography.
Secondly, you've ignored the "established" and "published" requirements. Can you please quote the text that shows he's an "established" expert and that he has previous published work in the fields of migration/cartography.
I don't get what's your obsesion with him being hired when that's not required anywhere, but if that's what it takes to finally render your argument 100% useless then here it is: [102] he is working as the production designer on the film Simshar, which focus on the impact of migration on the mediterranean countries. Done, the requeriments are meet above and beyond, the map will be used. Czixhc (talk) 02:30, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
You keep saying he's got "consultancy expertise". A consultant is someone hired to give advice on a particular area, hence my "obsession" - I'm trying to get you to back up your statements with solid evidence, something you seem to be finding very hard to do.
A Production Designer "is the person responsible for the overall look of a filmed event" who chooses "the settings and style to visually tell the story" - so basically he made the sets. Saying his involvement in Simshar makes him an expert in migration is like saying the make-up artists on Avatar are experts in rocket science. It certainly doesn't give the averaging of skin colours across various ethnic groups in his map any validity.
So, any actual evidence he's an established and published expert in migration/cartography, or do accept that you were wrong on this as well?
Now this getting sad. So, here we have two very reliable evidencies: 1. the Oxford Brookes University states that he is an expertise consultant on migration. 2. He is the production designer, what in your own words means that he is the person responsible for the overall look of a filmed event and who chooses the settings and style to visually tell the story, on a film whose core is migration. Give up already and stop embarrasing yourself. And he clearly is not a make up artist, stop misinterpreting everything. Czixhc (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
So let me get this straight, you are saying that in regard to migration he's an "established expert in the subject matter whose previous work in the relevant has been published by a reliable third party source" because:
a) There's a heading with the words "consultancy expertise" in it on his staff page at Oxford Brookes, and
b) He oversaw the sets/visuals in a film about a group of illegal immigrants in Malta
Neither of these facts require nor demonstrate that he has any established expertise or previous publications in migration.
Can you please supply some solid evidence that he's an established and published expert or just accept that he isn't.
Let me get this straight, are you saying that the Oxford's brookes University calling him a consultant expertise on migration and he actually supervising and giving advise on the production of a film regarding migration aren't convincing evidence? really? are you serious? Czixhc (talk) 03:51, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you are misreprenting me again. I'm saying the Oxford Brookes University doesn't call him a consultancy expert in migration at all - what it says is that migration was one of the many themes he has used in his work, it says nothing about being him a consultant in it.
Wrong, his specialities and works are listed on the section called research interest and CONSULTANCY EXPERTISE, you denying this is plain absurd. Czixhc (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
His role on the movie was for artistic advice on the look of the film, not scientific advice on migration. Would you trust someone to take out your tooth if their only experience was designing the bathroom set for a toothpaste commercial? Would you trust someone to fix your car if their only experience was painting a car for a photo shoot? No you wouldn't, and we can't trust Hagos to accurately amalgamate census data with Biasutti's map just because he designed the sets for a film about illegal immigrants.
And of course you can actually bring evidence that states that his role was artisctic, right? because if you can't bring any backup to your claims better keep them to yourself. Czixhc (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The evidence you have provided doesn't support the claims you are making. Can you please provide evidence that shows Hagos is an established and published expert in migration, or acknowledge that your claims are unfounded.
My sources do prove all my claims, stop saying that they don't, you are the one who have been blatantly assuming things that aren't said anywhere in either policies or sources. Prove your arguments about Hagos intervention being artistic and the Oxford Brookes University not considering him a consultancy expertise despite he being clearly listed as such or stop talking. That's it, prove your arguments with real and clear sources, not shrug inducing worthless arguments like "it doesn't matters that the migration field is listed on the consultancy expertise section he isn't because i say so" or non-sense such as to compare make up artists with production designers, bring, for once, real and clear sources or don't bother to reply back. Czixhc (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
As already discussed the default position is that he is not an expert, and the burden on proof is on you since you are claiming that he is an expert. You can't just paste a link and say "this says he's an expert, prove it doesn't", you actually have to provide something concrete that says/proves it directly.
Did you read the link I provided to Production Designer? It says that the role of this position is about the look of the film, not about it's scientific accuracy. It also says (which you'd know if you actually read it instead of just immediately assuming I was wrong), that "Previously (and often subsequently) the people with the same responsibilities were called "art directors."". If you are trying to claim he was hired for the film as an expert on migration then that is something you need to provide some evidence for. The evidence you've provided so far shows that he was hired for artistic ability, not for scientific expertise.
To become an expert a person must study the subject at a high level (post-grad at least) and spend years researching/working in the area to build up a reputation for expertise among their peers in the field. To conform with the WP policy they must also have some amount of their previous work in the field published in a reputable way. The sum total of evidence you've provided so far is a heading with the word "expertise" in it and a statement (written by Hagos himself) mentioning "migration" as one of many themes his work and research has focused on. You need to show he has studied migration at a high-level, is considered an expert by people/institutions that are knowledgeable in migration and has some previous work on migration published. Simply stated, reinterpreting migration as a post-colonial theme in some design projects does not make Hagos an established and published expert in migration.
As it stands the evidence you've provided fails to support your claims. If you have any further evidence then please provide it.
The article states that they were previously called art directors, PREVIOUSLY, now they are in charge of multiple areas and the former name is outdated, citing the same article: "From early in pre-production, the production designer collaborates with the director and director of photography to establish the visual feel and specific aesthetic needs of the project. The production designer guides key staff in other departments such as the costume designer, the key hair and make-up stylists, the special effects director and the locations manager (among others) to establish a unified visual appearance to the film... Some of the crew who work in the art department under the production designer include the art director, set designer (draughtsman), set decorator, costume designer, property master, concept artist, graphic designer, and model maker." A production designer must be somebody who is in deep touch with the thematics to threat in the production, which on this case is migration, or are you going to deny that migration is the core topic of the film he is working on? The burden of proof is on you, there is no such thing as a default position, that's a made up claim by you (again) and the Oxford brookes University claim of him being a consultancy expertise remains, And still you didn't brought any backup to your forsaken claims, do it or stop talking and wasting my time with your flawled reasonings. Czixhc (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Everything you just quoted about Production Designers confirms my point - they're artists, not scientists.
As I explained in my previous post, Oxford Brookes doesn't claim that Hagos is a "consultancy expertise".
You provided the same evidence, you got the same result: Hagos is not an expert in migration.
You must be really dense, in that case a production designer that works for a militar movie who is actually very into militar knowledge such as tactics and campaigns is considered merely an artist by you, while you ignore all his knowledge on military, bravo. As I explained in my previous post, Oxford Brookes doesn't claim that Hagos is a "consultancy expertise" - let's get this straight: do you swear for this entire discussion that Hagos knowledge and works on migration aren't listed on the "research interest and consultancy expertise" section? can you actually swear and hold for this? Czixhc (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Please don't insult me, it won't help.
To reply to your military movie example, I would not consider the Production Designer for "The Hurt Locker", Karl Júlíusson[103], to be a bomb disposal expert, nor an expert on warfare, nor an expert on Afghanistan. Likewise I don't consider Jonathan Hagos to be an expert on migration just because he was Production Designer on a movie about illegal immigrants in Malta. I wouldn't trust Karl Júlíusson to disarm a bomb for me and I wouldn't trust Hagos to accurately estimate average skin colours from census data and Biasutti's map. It takes one set of skills to make something look realistic, but a totally different set of skills to do actual work in the field.
The Oxford Brookes site says Hagos's work and research focuses on reillustrating post-modern themes, one of which is migration, via a diverse range of media, one of which is cartography. It does not say the he has consultancy expertise in either field.
here the problem is that doesn't matters what you consider or not consider somebody to be, you must bring sources to back up your claim, understand this, your personal feeling are irrelevant on any wikipedia discussion. The Oxford Brookes site says Hagos's work and research focuses on reillustrating post-modern themes, one of which is migration, via a diverse range of media, one of which is cartography. It does not say the he has consultancy expertise in either field. - alright boy, use your brain a bit here: how is called the section on which the text you wrote about Hagos is written? Clue: is the sentence with a different font and size that is directly above the aforementioned text you quoted. I know you can answer this, how is that section called? Czixhc (talk) 02:08, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you must bring source to back up your claim - if you think working as Production Designer on a movie makes someone an expert on any topic related to the movie then you need to prove the case. My example of "The Hurt Locker" was to show you that your assumption doesn't hold in other cases - the Production Designer on a bomb disposal movie set in Afghanistan doesn't have to be an expert at bomb disposal, nor warfare, nor Afghanistan, so why are you saying that the Production Designer on a movie about illegal immigrants in Malta has to be an expert in migration? Your reasoning (Production Designer = Expert) doesn't hold in other examples so you need to show why you think it does in Hagos's case.
I already explained the heading but I'll explain it again since you are obviously having trouble understanding - it's "Research Interests and Consultancy Expertise", meaning he can put either or both in the section. Just like "Fruits and Vegetables" can contain just "apples, pears and oranges" (fruits only) or can contain "Tomato, letuce, strawberries and grapes" (both), this section can contain research interest and/or consultancy expertise. Hagos only talks about his research interests here ("My work and research focuses on..."), there's nothing about him being hired as a consultant, nor about him being considered an expert. (And please don't let the word "work" confuse you as well - the fact that he says ".. executed via diverse media" shows that he means "work" in the artistic sense, not in the employment sense.) If you are using this section to claim he has been used as an expert consultant in migration then you will need to quote some text that actually says that, not just assume he has been because the words "consultancy expertise" are part of a heading.
I'm afraid you will need some real sources to back up these non-sensical claims, if you can't don't bother on replying back, i'm tired of your non-sense, if it says research interest and consultancy expertise is because that is what it is, there is no "super cryptic weird-implicit reasoons or anyhting like that" you can't prove anything of what you are saying. Just let it go. Czixhc (talk) 02:39, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
There's nothing weird or cryptic about it. It's a standard staff page with a heading that says "A and B", and on his page Hagos has listed only A, very simple - like only listing fruit under "Fruit and Vegetables", I'm surprised you're finding it so hard to understand.
What is weird and cryptic is why you think Hagos is an established and published expert on migration based on this source... it simply doesn't say anything like that!
As far as i can see it says research interest and consultancy expertise, and then migration, cartography and other stuff is mentioned (and i have to remark that research interest is a reliable and valid point too, so here is not fruits and vegetables, because both are valid). I still don't see any source to back up your claim that it doesn't says that. get one or accept that you lost here. Czixhc (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You need to look at the context in which the word "migration" mentioned - otherwise your logic could say he's been an expert consultant in post-colonialism, or the media, or free-speech or any other word mentioned in the sentence as well. It clearly says migration is just one of many themes he's used in re-illustrating, not that he's a specialist in it or has been consulted in it. He's got no formal training or qualifications in the area, there's no evidence that anyone defers to him as an expert and he hasn't been published in the field - he's not an expert in migration. Tobus2 (talk) 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Im tired of your baseless assumptions, and to be heard, he is a expertise consultant on post-colonial themes such as migration, freedom of speech and opression (themes that are touched on the film he is working too) get what the text says right, and bring sources for your forsaken arguments, i won't wait for much time for you to do so, i've waited more than enough already and i've gave you too many chances. Czixhc (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
The text says "My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration" - where in there does it say he's an expert consultant? It's you who is making baseless assumptions, not me - I'm just reading the text as written. Tobus2 (talk) 03:55, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Seriously, you still don't get it? Just because the heading has the words "consultancy expertise" in it doesn't mean that he has consultancy expertise in every word mentioned under it - is every entry under "Exhibitions/Installations" an installation? Is everything in the "Fruit and Vegetables" section of the supermarket a vegetable? Stop being so ridiculous - either quote me the text that says he's an expert in migration or accept that there is no such text. Tobus2 (talk) 04:24, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
No, you are the one being ridiculous here, why in the holy earth would something listed below a section clearly called "research interest and consultancy expertise" not be such thing? you ain't making any sense, and again, it's not a "vegetables and fruits" thing because research interest is valid too, here it's "fruits and fruits". And again, bring reliable sources to back up your uneven reasonings or don't bother on replying again. Czixhc (talk) 04:34, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
As I said from the start, it's in that section because it's part of his research interests, not because he is an expert consultant in it. Your words are a bit confusing, are you saying you agree with this? Tobus2 (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
You funny boy, it's both, "Research interest AND consultancy expertise" the head of the section isn't called "Research interest OR consultancy expertise" for a reason. Again, it's "fruits and fruits" on this case because research interest is valid too, guess what several scientists are: Researchers. So far you haven't brought any source so it's over for you. Let it go. Czixhc (talk) 04:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, what are you saying? That "research interests" and "consultancy expertise" are the same thing?!?
You're doing this backwards logic thing again - yes some experts are researchers but no, not all researchers are experts.
You keep saying I haven't provided a source but I have many times - the quote that says migration is one of the post-colonials themes that Hagos re-illustrates in is work. It is you that has failed to provide a source that show Hagos has consultancy expertise in migration (the small picture) and more importantly that Hagos is an established and published expert in migration (the big picture).
Look who is talking about backwards logic. yes some experts are researchers but no, not all researchers are experts - The section is called "research interest AND consultancy expertise" He is both, if he wasn't both the word used would have been "OR" here you have nothing to grasp on. And bring sources to back up your awful reasonings or don't come back. You are doing nothing but to embarrase yourself with that logic worth of a 7 year old kid. Czixhc (talk) 00:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
OK can you please stop with the insults. If you have a rational case to make then make it, insulting me won't help us reach an agreement and only weakens your case by making you look desperate and irrational.
By your logic an apple becomes a vegetable if you list is under "Fruit and Vegetables" but becomes a dessert if listed under "Fruit and Dessert". You can see why I think it's ridiculous. The content of the section is what is important, not the heading it's under. Can you please show me the content that says Hagos has consultancy expertise in migration, or acknowledge that no such statement exists.
I told you that i don't care about your 7-year old tier reasinings (because to compare two closely related terms in modern science with fruits and a desert is something as awful that only a 7 year old kid would do) BRING SOURCES, BRING SOURCES OR DON'T REPLY BACK. Czixhc (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not interested in your justifications for insulting me, just stop doing it.
I've already shown you the text that says migration is just one of many post-colonial themes that Hagos has used in his "re-illustations". What we're waiting for is for you to quote the text that says Hagos has been hired as an expert consultant in migration.
You desreve every "insult" (because i've never insult you actually, I just told you that your reasonings are non-sense that only a 7 year old would use) - I've already shown you the text that says migration... - how is the section called?. And you still haven't brought any sorce. Czixhc (talk) 02:03, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
You're not making any sense - I just told you my source. Are you saying the only text in the page that supports your claim is the heading "Research Interest and consultancy expertise"? Tobus2 (talk) 02:06, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that's what i'm saying, and play the 6-year old again and you will lose all that you've acheived in this discussion, believe this, i'm very serious. Behave like an adult. Czixhc (talk) 02:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Do you have any other evidence that Hagos is an established and published expert in migration, or is this it? Tobus2 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
What has been presented it's all that it's needed to fulfill wikipedia policies, unless you can cite a source that clearly says that Hagos isn't a consultancy expertise on migration (and that has at least as much good reputation as the Oxford Brookes University has) you've got nothing to do here and you've lost this discussion. Czixhc (talk) 02:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Please just answer the question - do you have any further evidence or is this heading all that you are basing your claims on? Tobus2 (talk) 02:35, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There is more, i already brought sources stating that he has been workin on a theatrical film about inmigration as the production designer, and being as awfully predictable as you are you will say "he is not working there due his knowledge on migration" but you will need a source to back up your claim, so better bring a source saying that he isn't working on the film due his knowledge on migration or you've lost here too, and before making any other redundant already answered question bring sources, or are you maybe in reality a kid that can't look for these and that just don't accepts that he lost? if you don't bring sources that's what everybody will think. Czixhc (talk) 02:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Please just answer the question - do you have any further evidence or are the heading and Simshar all the evidence your claims are based on? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tobus2 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Of course i have, there is plenty of information on the Simshar film and on Hagos working on it, but to keep asking me questions without answering mine is very inmature and informal, answer my question, now: do you have sources to back up your claims? Czixhc (talk) 02:55, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Alright, then write it, there is no point on me bringing even more when i already outnumber you. Or are you acting again like a 6 year old and in reality you don't have any source? Czixhc (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
It's not providing the larger number of sources, it's about providing genuine evidence for what you are saying... I need to know all your evidence so I can properly assess whether your claims are true. I don't want to come to a conclusion only to have you provide something else, so please state all the evidence your claims are based on.
I've already provided sources for all my claims, which one(s) in particular do you need reminding of?
I would like to know these sources you are talking about. Bring them. Also Oxford Brookes University is as genuine as it gets. Czixhc (talk) 03:21, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
My sources, as already stated, are 1. [104] (Hagos's map is self-published), 2. [105] (Self-published sources need to be by an established and published expert in the field) and 3. Default position plus [106] and [107] (Jonothan Hagos is not an established and published expert).
Enough sidetracking, if you have any additional evidence that shows Hagos is an established and published expert in migration then please provide it, otherwise please state (clearly!) that the two facts you've supplied (heading and Simshar) are everything that your claim is based on.
Hagos being recognized as an expertise consultant on migration and working on a film on migraton plus the Oxford Brookes University site listing his exhibitions and publications fulfill the criteria. What are you talking about? And there is no source for that default position thing, you are making that up and as i said above you'll need a source that states that he is not an expert, if you don't found it you lose. Czixhc (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Please answer the question, I've asked it 4 times now and you've yet to confirm if you have futher evidence or not. Tobus2 (talk) 05:02, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
That depends on whether the sources you bring actually show that Hagos is an established and published expert in a field that qualifies him to make the statements that he makes on his map. If they are anything like the ones you've brought so far then no, I won't.
Can I take it from this that you do actually have futher evidence? If so then please provide it, if not then please acknowledge the two sources already provided are the only evidence for your claims.
Ha ha ha, oh wow! Explain to me how is that the Oxford Brookes University is unreliable, and do it with actual sources, not with your awfuly dumb reasonings about "fruits and deserts" or your baseless claims, if i recall correctly so far you couldn't do it. You really aren't on the posture of evaluating sources or demanding more when you completely failed at proving any of the ones i've brought to be wrong. Czixhc (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
So now it sounds like you don't have anymore. It would be really helpful if you'd just answer the question, I've asked it 5 times now, why are you dodging it? Are these two the only sources you have to back up your claim that Hagos is an expert in migration or do you have more? Tobus2 (talk) 23:10, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'ts not that i don't have more, it's that i know how you roll: The reason for which you are demanding more is because you want to switch the discussion to adress these sources instead of discussing the ones already brought, because you are already cornered and failed at proving the actual sources unreliable with actual sourced claims (which you didn't brought). The sources such as the Oxford Brookes University are largely reliable and more than enough to confirm Hagos expertise, you just want to change the subject to extend the discussion, but it won't happen. I have no need to bring more links when you failed at proving unreliable the sources already presented, additionally prove the sources i brought to be unreliable or you are finished. Czixhc (talk) 23:27, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm giving you an opportunity to present more evidence if you have it, I don't know why you are being so hostile and defensive. Shall I just assume you have nothing further to add? Tobus2 (talk) 00:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
What a surprise! you assuming things again! I already told you, there is no need for me to bring more sources when the ones already brought are fully reliable. Czixhc (talk) 00:34, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So you've failed at proving the already linked sources to be unreliable and are trying to find a tangent to avoid accepting that you lost the discussion? Czixhc (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Nope, the sources you've provided so far fail to support your claim and I'm seeing if you have any further sources you'd like considered. Tobus2 (talk) 01:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Can you explain based on real sources, not only your 6 year old worthless reasonings how do they fail? I mean, one need to be very opinionated/ignorant to call the Oxford Brookes University unreliable without any source, just because it disagrees with you. Please explain with real sources and like an adult how it is unreliable, i'm curious to know. Czixhc (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've already explained my issues with your sources and provided links to help it explain it. You dismissed them off-hand and started insulting me as you have just started doing again now. I'm not going to explain it again, I suggest you reread what I've written over the last few days, this time with a little more respect. Tobus2 (talk) 02:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
If I recall correctly I already told you why your explanations were completely baseless (this is, you didn't brought any source to back them up) and I already explained to you why your reasonings (such as the "fruits and a desert" thing) were shrugh inducing and non-sensical. Bring sources this time or just admit that you can't prove my sources to be unreliable. Czixhc (talk) 02:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You recall incorrectly, I provide sources for the issues I raised. Again I suggest you reread my posts, this time try to actually understand what I'm saying, don't just assume it's wrong before you even read it. Tobus2 (talk) 02:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
No, i recall correctly, you used shrug inducing analogies that weren't related at all and assumed things that weren't mentioned in any policy at all. can you do something worth my time this time, if not just stop embarrasing yourself. Czixhc (talk) 02:48, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
So you say something that is incorrect, I tell you to check your facts, you refuse and say the incorrect statement again... not a good way to reach a resolution.
Are you going to provide your extra evidence or are we still playing the "not telling" game?
The difference being that you've failed completely at proving the sources i already brought to be unreliable (your senseless and sourceless claims are 6 year old-tier and no person over 14 would consider them at all). And i checked your response again and stills as shrug inducing and baseless as it was yesterday. Don't evade this, just accept that you can't prove any of my sources to be unreliable and that you lost, believe me, it's better for you this way, otherwise I'll guarantee that i will put this map in this article too, not only on the migration articles where it may be needed. You are risking the little ground that you've obtained from me for acting on this awfuly inmature way. Czixhc (talk) 04:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
If you really reread and understood my points and the links I provided for them, you'd know that the problem is not that the sources are unreliable, it's that they simply don't say what you think they say - Oxford Brookes says migration is one of many themes that Hagos re-illustrates (not that he's been hired as an expert consultant in it) and the Simshar site says he's the Production Designer (not a role that requires or proves expertise in migration). The sources are reliable enough, they just say the opposite of what you are trying to prove. Tobus2 (talk) 05:30, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Stop playing the fool card, the sources are reliable AND they say exactly what is needed, the problem here is you saying this: they just say the opposite of what you are trying to prove - Thus far, you've failed completely at proving this, you've tried, but the only thing you've done have been to bring up awful shrug inducing 6-year-old worth arguments such as the "fruits and desert" aberration that is completely unrelated and unsourced, stop dodging the goddamn question, can you prove your statements (with real sources, not objetivelly dumb responses) about these sources not saying what they clearly say? can you bring real sources to back your point up? Because you need very reliable and prestigious sources to say that Hagos is not a researcher and a consultancy expertise on migration despite exactly that being written in a section called "research interest and consultancy expertise" on a site that happens to be the Oxford Brookes University. I advise you right now and i'm very serious, if on the next response you write you come up with another baseless dumb and worth of a 6-year-old kid argument you will end with my patience. Czixhc (talk) 20:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Please calm down, there's no need for insults, threats or hostility. If what you are saying is correct then you should show me with evidence, not abuse. For example, show me where these sources say "exactly what is needed". Show me where they say Hagos has high-level education and qualifications in migration, show me where they say that Hagos has years of experience in migration and is regarded as a expert in migration by people knowledgeable in the area and show me where they say Hagos has previous work in migration published.
Please DON'T show me a heading with the word "expertise" in it, I've already seen it tells me nothing - it's just a heading and the text beneath it contradicts the assumptions you expect me to make from it (it says migration is one of many "post-colonial themes" he "re-interprets", not a specialist field that he is a consulting expert in).
Please DON'T show me that he's worked as Production Designer in a movie, I know this already and again it just contradicts the assumption of expertise that you want me to accept. As you quoted yourself a Production Designer oversees the "costume designer, the key hair and make-up stylists, the special effects director and the locations manager (among others) to establish a unified visual appearance to the film" - it's not a person who is an expert on the films subject matter.
In your post above you repeatedly talk about your two sources with phrases like "they say exactly what is needed", "they clearly say", "exactly that being written" etc. Can back this up with written text from them that does in fact clearly say exactly what you are claiming - that Hagos is an established and published expert in migration? Or is this just a lot of bluster to hide the fact they your argument is based on assumptions that aren't exactly what is clearly written in the sources?
Please explain with real sources how is that themes such as migration, carthography etc. being mentioned in a section called "research interest and consultancy expertise" in a site of an institution such as the Oxford Brookes University tells nothing to you. I mean, it's really clear that he is that, nobody sane would doubt this, this is your last chance to do it. Czixhc (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
I've already explained this multiple times, even simplifying it down to the level of 6-year-old for you, but still you seem to have some trouble grasping that fact that "A and B" as a list heading doesn't mean that everything in the list is both "A" and "B". It means that you can list as many "A"s as you want (including zero) and as many "B"s as you want (including zero). Examples of other staff members listing both are here[108][109], and listing just one are [110][111]. Note that if you read the section text, not just the heading, it's pretty easy to see which is research interest and which is consultancy expertise. Hagos only lists one and if you read the text, it's pretty easy to see that he's not listing any consultancy expertise.
You have made an assumption based on the heading that Hagos has listed both research interests and consultancy expertise in the section but there is zero evidence to support that. The available evidence suggests the opposite - in the actual text of the section he talks about his "work and research" and as I've already shown, says that migration is just one of many themes not that he specialises in it or has been a consultant in it. The next section "Examples of recent projects" also confirms this, as none of the projects involve him being an expert in migration (one is the Simshar role and the rest are as an architect). The final nail in the coffin is that Oxford Brookes' consultancy service doesn't even offer migration as area of expert consultancy[112] - the only program that applies to Hagos department (Architecture) is, as you would expect, about architecture[113]. Unless you have some written text that clearly says the opposite, your assumption that he's talking about migration as an area of consultancy expertise is unfounded.
I've answered your side-tracking and previously answered questions once again, so can you please now answer mine. Do these sources actually contain written text that clearly says exactly what you are claiming (ie that Hagos is an established and published expert in migration), or is your argument based on assumptions you've made about these sources?
What you say about the consultancy expertise section is false, the site itself sugest you to look for more specific themes giving a look to it's full list of faculties, which is here: [114] there you'll found what you are looking for, which would be in this case human and social sciences [115], in conclusion the Oxford Brookes University and Hagos are qualified on the field. and agian you didn't brought any source to back up your reasoning (because i've heard it multiple times, i'm asking you for a source) behind hagos not being a consultancy expertise on migration (though Oxford Brookes University covering humanities actually contradicts your previous reasoning and sugests that he in fact is a consultant on migration), and you've neither brought a source that states that Hagos is only a mere architect at Simshar, bring sources, it's simple, just do it. Czixhc (talk) 01:49, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
What are you talking about, Hagos isn't in any of those faculties and I didn't say Oxford Brookes doesn't have those faculties, I said it doesn't offer migration as one of it's "Consultancy Services"[116]. Also who said he was an architect for Simshar - we both know he was Production Designer.
Again you failed to answer the question, where in these sources does it clearly state, in written text, exactly what you are claiming - that Hagos is an established and published expert in migration? Or are you ready to admit what we already know, that they don't in fact say that at all?
where in these sources does it clearly state, in written text, exactly what you are claiming - that Hagos is an established and published expert in migration? - In the section named "research interest and consultancy expertise" here: [117] textual citation:
Research interest and consultancy expertise
"My work and research focuses on the ‘re-illustration of post-colonial themes such as freedom of speech and expression, identity and migration which are executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions."
Now, here is where you assume and say "it might be only research interest not consultancy expertise because dragons!!!!" However you've missed an important detail (which i marked with bold font as a bit of help for you) the detail is that he clearly says My work and research before mentioning migration etc. which means that migration and his other fields are in fact both things: Research interest and consultancy expertise, get it now? Czixhc (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Unless of course by "work" he means his design/art work such as[118] and [119] which are clearly "re-illustrations of post-colonial themes". It's also a much better explanation for his use the phrase "executed through diverse media such as cartography, film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions" to describe this "work". It would be very strange wording indeed if he was talking about being hired as an expert consultant on migration. So we have an ambiguous word "work" which can mean "work of art" or "employment" being used in a sentence that accurately describes his artistic creations and you assume the opposite. Do you have any actual text that says he's worked as a consultant or any evidence that this is what he means? If not then your assumption has no factual basis and is just that, an assumption.
I note you're not saying anything about his Production Designer role, can I take it you accept that this role shows recognition of his aesthetic/artistic/creative abilities not any purported expertise in migration?
There is no ambiguety here, since consultacy expertise happens to be a form of "work" (ie: i work as a consultancy expertise on migration) the section is called "research interst and consultancy expertise" which is two things, he happens to mention the two things in the same context, or will you say that his research interest on migration isn't research interest because he nly said "research"? And again, you haven't brought any reliable source to your claims (to post unrelated works by him don't works, it must be directly related to this issue). And to heavily assume things while not bringing any source is a bad mix. You are grasping at straws here. Czixhc (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there's ambiguity either, but you insist "work" means consultancy work when it's clear to me he means artwork so logically, it must be ambiguous. The works I linked to aren't unrelated, they are exactly the "re-illustration of post-colonial themes ... executed through diverse media" that he's talking about. Have you provided links to any consultancy work he's done that fits the description? No, if fact you haven't provided links to any consultancy work he's done at all. This is supposed to be you proving that Hagos is an established and published expert in migration, you can't just make wild unsupported assumptions and expect people to accept them, you need hard evidence to back up your claims. Tobus2 (talk) 03:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If he were hired as an expert consultant in migration he would have said so, thus no consultancy expertise, just let it go. Tobus2 (talk) 03:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
If the section we are discussing about in the Oxford Brookes University site is called Research interest and consultancy expertise whose context clearly is about serious themes, why do you think that by saying "my work" he would have meant artwork instead of his research and expertise fields? The section is not about his artistic side, it don't asks for that, the context doesn't fit, the section is called Research interest and consultancy expertise not About my art. The Chances of him having meant art instead of actual work are zero, because the section isn't intended to include that, a institution such as the Oxford Brookes University will never commit such mistake. Czixhc (talk) 04:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
So why are the words describing the work almost a direct copy of what his website says about the artworks I linked to[120]? Why is there no mention of him being hired as an expert consultant on migration? Why are you unable to provide a single example of this consultancy work? Think about it - if someone really hired him as an expert in migration then he was an expert before they hired him, so there should be plenty of other evidence that supports your interpretation apart from your interpretation itself. But there's not, he has no education or qualifications in migration, none of his projects or employment history is in migration, no other migration experts refer to him as an expert and there's no previously published work on migration by him. The only thing suggesting he's an expert in migration is your assumption that he is one and it's contrary to all the other evidence at hand. So what's more likely, you've interpreted "work" wrongly or that he's got a whole bunch of hidden qualifications, experience, reputation and publications that no-one in the whole world knows about except for the person hiring him? The "artwork" interpretation fits all the other known facts and I've provided a number of links that support it, your "consultancy" theory fits nothing but itself and you can't provide any links that support it. Tobus2 (talk) 06:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't care about any of your arguments if you don't have any source to back them up, the heading name is "research interest and consultancy expertise" not "research interest, consultancy expertise and artwork" As long as you don't provide sources that prove otherwise and that are related to this issue your assumptions are baseless and worthless. Czixhc (talk) 23:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I just provided a source and it's the 9th one I've provided over the last 5 posts so start caring! On this page [121] he uses almost the exact same phrase "Jonathan's work focuses on the ‘re-illustration’ of post-colonial themes such as freedom, identity and migration executed through diverse media such as cartography through to film, full-scale installations and architectural interventions." There's absolutely no mention of any consulting expertise on that page nor on any of the other pages on that site - are you going to claim he's not talking about artwork here either? All he's done on the Oxford Brookes page is modify the wording slightly and and changed "work" to "work and research" so it fits as a "research interest" (no need for "artwork" in the heading!).
On the contrary you have failed to provide a single source that show he has ever actually been employed as a consultancy expert in migration. Perhaps you can tell me one of the companies that hired him as such, or perhaps what year it was or what the project was - can you provide even a single example to show this "consultancy expertise" ever actually happened? If you can't provide a source then I won't care about your arguments either.
So the only thing that you have going in this argument is that he uses the script of the Oxford Brookes University in his about page too? that's not big deal, and you are assuming that he somehow fooled that institution? That's impossible, it's way more likely that he imported the text from the Oxford's site to his userpage, like several people in the music industry copies their Allmusic bios on their sites. Again, Oxford University is a serious institution, the scenario you are propossing it's impossible. Czixhc (talk) 01:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I've already given you heaps of other supporting evidence, reread my last few posts. Can you can show me a source that can confirms your interpretation? If not it seems that the only person being fooled here is yourself. Tobus2 (talk) 01:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I already read it and told you that is more likely that he copied the text from the university to his userpage, he maybe added more information, but the information that is mentioned in the Oxford site clearly is subject to the editorial control of said institution, Again, he fooling the entire university is unlikely. Another explanation that would make sense is that the University only included the fields on which he is an expertise on it's site (hence the "my work and research") leaving the information about his art out. Czixhc (talk) 02:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The University hasn't been fooled, only you have - the University doesn't say anywhere that Hagos has been employed as a expert consultant in migration, you are the only one saying it. Can you give me a source or not, I'm not interested in your arguments unless you have some genuine evidence to back them up. Tobus2 (talk) 02:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
My point with the Oxford Brookes University isn't if he have been or not hired as a consultancy expertise on migration, my point is that it's a notable third party backing him up, and states that he is. No policy demands that he must have been hired, thus far i have no clue on why you ask for this. Czixhc (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
On the section "research interest and consultancy expertise", on which he states "my work and reasearch centers on topics such as migration etc." leaving clear the he does research on migration and that he works as a consultancy expertise on the topic, he can't be refering to his artwork because the section does not ask or mention it. deja vu much? Czixhc (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
No, it's not clear that he works as an expert consultant at all - as discussed previously that's an assumption you've made. Do you have any evidence to back up your assumption? Tobus2 (talk) 02:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
What about the part on which he says that it's his work? "my work and research focuses on topics such as migration..." you have no ground here at all. Czixhc (talk) 02:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The meaning of the word "work" in that quote is what you are assuming - you can't prove your assumption is correct by simply restating it. Do you have a source that confirms he has worked as an expert consultant in migration or not? Tobus2 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
why do you keep asking for a work proof? no policy requires that. And he being a consultancy expertise in the topic remains, there is no way for you to deny this. Czixhc (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
So you don't have an answer... well, it's not like it matters, no policy requires a hire proof, what is required is to have third party support and the Oxford Brookes University undebatably backs him up as an expertise consultant and researcher on migration. Even if you don't agree it stills reliable and it's impossible for you to deny this. End of discussion. Czixhc (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
You are assuming is that when he says "work" on the Oxford Brookes page he means "employment" and that this employment is as an expert consultant in migration. All the other evidence points to a different interpretation so I'm asking you to provide any reliable evidence you have to support your assumption. Do you have any? Tobus2 (talk) 08:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Which other evidence? the one that is unsourced and made up by you? And you are yet to show me the policy that states that a hire-proof is mandatory. Czixhc (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
![[31]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Haplogroup_I_%28Y-DNA%29.PNG){kind=link}
![[32]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Melanesia_M_ADN-Y.PNG){kind=link}
![[34]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AIDS_and_HIV_prevelance.svg){kind=link}
![[35]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AIDS_and_HIV_prevalence.svg){kind=link}
![[41]](http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/5165/pm09.png){kind=link}
![[45]](http://s3.amazonaws.com/img.goldderby.com/ck/images/Samuel%20L_%20Jackson%20Playbill%20Headshot.JPG){kind=link}
![[46]](http://images2.fanpop.com/images/photos/6800000/Halle-halle-berry-6833429-1600-1200.jpg){kind=link}
![[47]](http://jonathanhagos.com/files/PK-1-London.jpg){kind=link}
![[59]](http://www.jonathanhagos.com/files/gimgs/11_25continental-outline-sm02.jpg){kind=link}
![[67]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unlabeled_Renatto_Luschan_Skin_color_map.png){kind=link}