Talk:East Asian people

No race

For the second time, I removed the claim that East Asian people together with Native Americans form a "genetic group". Reasons:

• The sources say that Tianyuan man is "likely related to many present-day Asians and Native Americans." But that doesn't make them a "genetic group".
• The idea of a "genetic group" seems to be basically the same thing as a race (in the biological sense of the word). That's against scientific consensus.
• It is not clear why one (or two) human beings from several 10,000 years ago should be important for such a short article on so many people.
• Studies are primary sources (WP:PSTS), but WP articles should be based on secondary sources. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:26, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Your arguments are not a reason to delete well sourced content. Personal views or ideas are NOT to be implemented into Wikipedia articles (or to be used to delete respective content). Please rely and read WP:NPOV. Genetic group does not mean race (this is a misleading idea of you). Genetic group refers to a group of populations which are closely or closer related to each other than to other populations, because of genetic drift together from an shared ancestral population lineage (Tianyuan/Liujiang in this case), or because of convergence. This has nothing to do with race but is a typical genetic development in species. It is especially relevant for the history and migration patterns of Eastern Eurasia, especially East Asia. Any removal is based on personal ideas or views and violates Wikipedia policies. There is not one primary source but several publications in both primary and secondary journals. Lastly, WP:PSTS does support the use of secondary sources, but does not prevent us from using useful primary studies. Again a personal view of you. Please stop pushing your personal view and rely of Wikipedia policies, such as WP:NPOV. Thank you and have a good day.213.162.80.117 (talk) 19:08, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

We may discuss about the term "genetic group" and possibly delete this term or find another term, which correctly refers to it. However, I again repeat that "genetic group" is a usual term in population genetics and has nothing to do with outdated racial theories. Genetic group refers simply to an population group which shares more recent ancestry than other groups. I.e. East Asians splitted from Europeans between 40,000 years to 60,000 years and subsequently formed two indipendent genetic groups. This does not mean that they are suddenly unrelated. Please look and learn about genetics before accusing multiple studies as being connected to racialist theories. If we question academic science we fall back into dark-ages.213.162.80.117 (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

IP, I'm staying out of race and genetics. You may want to ask for input from the relevant WikiProject, but for now I'm casting my lot with Rsk6400, who has plenty of experience in these matters. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

And I'm wondering if you're the same person I blocked earlier. Drmies (talk) 20:12, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

The paragraph is not about race or anything similar. It is about ancient and modern East/Southeast Asians. If anything, this is rejecting racialist theories. There are many diverse phenotypes within Southeast Asia, East Asia and especially among Native Americans, but all share a close genetic relationship with each other and the ancient Tianyuan sample. I repeat that there is no argument to delete academic research. If we do not respect academic research we will fall back into dark-ages. Wikipedia is here to represent academic research and knowledge and not to hide it for whatever reason (or misunderstandings regarding genetic terms). WP:NPOV clearly states that. I hope we can have a constructive discussion here, for the good of Wikipedia and public knowledge. We m|ay request third user opinions? I stay at my argument that there is no reason to delete academic research because some may confuse genetics with racialist theories. Thus I also linked the disputed term "genetic group" with the respective Wikipedia article, which explains the term.213.162.80.117 (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks a lot.

IP, you didn't reply to the most important concern I raised, i.e. that none of the sources support the claim. You didn't answer the question implied in Drmies's statement I'm wondering if you're the same person I blocked earlier, either. For now, I assume that Drmies's I'm casting my lot with Rsk6400 is a third opinion already. --Rsk6400 (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems that the "Tree" file is a copyvio. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:03, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

IP, I'm happy that you acknowledged having misrepresented the sources. Still, your new wording makes the claim rather trivial. You should establish from secondary sources that it is notable enough for such a short article on billions of people. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I have not acknowledged to having "misinterpreted" the sources. I did not. But it seems hopeless to convince and ideological motivated christian missionar that he either does not understand human genetics or not want to understand. Whatever, anyone interested in human genetics will read the studies rather than get his/her knowledge from Wikipedia articles. So I will accept that there are ideological or personal reasons for the inaccuracies in Wikipedia. Fact is that genetic groups (see Human genetic clustering) is a scientific reality and not related to ″racialist theories". Furthermore it is sad that you confuse human genetics (and genetic research) with race theories from the past and that you apparently are not interested in getting into the topic. It is worrisome that academic science is interpreted as kind of threat from you. This is a clear case of violation of WP:NPOV and a good example of WP:I just don't like it. Maybe the Encyclopedia Britannica or other Online Encyclopedias are more reliable in this case (it is well known that Wikipedia is rather unreliable in disputed or controversial topics).213.162.73.117 (talk) 21:14, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

The veracity of an "East Asian people" is debatable.

It is already debatable as to what geographically counts as East Asia. Furthermore, what exactly is "East Asian people" and where does it stop? Sure, we can count the "Big 3" - Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, etc, but in this article, Mongolians are included, but what about say, Tibetans, Bhutanese, Manchus, Okinawans, Ainu, Nivkh, Oroks, Nanai, etc? What exactly sets them apart other than political boundaries? The Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans all speak a languages from distinct languages families, which sets them further apart than the Austronesians, Romance peoples, and Germanic peoples, etc. This article should be split apart with its content re-added into their respective articles of their own ethnic groups. 219.249.221.78 (talk) 15:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Although distinct from each other politically and linguistically, they share some cultural and genetic ties which I think was the basis for this article. Sgt.McHale (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)