# Talk:Behavioural genetics

The following two sections were unsourced. I may put them back in the article once they're sourced.


### Journals
Behavioural geneticists are active in a variety of scientific disciplines including biology, medicine, pharmacology, psychiatry, and psychology; thus, behavioural-genetic research is published in a variety of scientific journals, including Nature, Nature Genetics, and Science. Journals that specifically publish research in behavioural genetics include Behavior Genetics,  Genes, Brain and Behavior, Journal of Neurogenetics, Molecular Psychiatry, Psychiatric Genetics, and Twin Research and Human Genetics.


### Societies
There exist several learned societies in the broader area of behavioural genetics:

Behavior Genetics Association
International Behavioural and Neural Genetics Society
International Society of Psychiatric Genetics


### Behavioural genetics
Article (edit | visual edit | history) ·  Article talk (edit | history) ·  Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review
 Result: Kept per Fish and karate's rational at WP:ANRFC. I see this as a close with the GA status being kept; the primary concerns (a lack of a criticism section; the lack of discussion of animal behaviour in favour of exclusively focusing on human behavioural genetics) have been addressed.  If you can carry out all the procedural elements and tell me where to post that as the closing summary I'm happy to do that, or just link to this post. Link here AIRcorn (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
I believe the article should be reassessed because it lacks a neutral presentation, as indicated by the template banner which has been present since March 2017. Neutrality of course is a requirement for good article status. The article presents behavioral genetics in a largely positive light as if the scientific field was mature and produces robust findings. I am not an expert in behavioral genetics, but I am an expert in statistics and social science, and I find many of the claims of behavioral geneticists totally implausible.  There are also serious ethical criticisms of this kind of research. Given the ongoing replication crisis in psychology, which is a neighbor to behavioral genetics and that behavioral genetics is is more a subfield of psychology than of genetics or of biology.  I think that to be considered a good article, this article should be written in a less promotional and authoritative tone and should include a section on criticism of behavioral genetics. Sources for that section might include such publications as scientific american  Nature,  and Logos . Here are some additional good critical articles by Richard Lerner   and Gary Greenberg .

--Groceryheist (talk) 08:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment A very good book about the history of (mainly human) genetics is Aaron Panofsky's book (not just Greenberg's review of it). The problem with the article is not just that it doesn't address criticisms of research performed in the field, but also that it almost completely ignores animal research. It briefly mentions selection studies, which actually are an extremely minor part of animal BG. There are huge amounts of animal BG done with mice (such as work with transgenics/KO, gene localization/expression studies, and a host of other stuff), Drosophila (for example, the "homosexual" flies, the whole rover/sitter story, learning, etc etc), C. elegans, and a range of other organisms (including primates and, increasingly, zebrafish, for example). Either this article should be significantly expanded to cover the animal work or it should be renamed as "Human behavior genetics". One thing that might argue for that is the huge gap between the human and animal fields. While animal work for the most part is concerned with mechanisms leading from genotype to (behavioral) phenotype, human BG is still for a large part about partitioning variance and seems to treat genes more as imaginary concepts, completely ignoring the underlying neural mechanisms. As far as I am concerned, this should never have been promoted to GA to start with, but my concerns were ignored at that time. --Randykitty (talk) 10:55, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
This article and related ones are awful and should not be GA.  This one has all kinds of offtopic stuff about diseases generally which is not really relevant here. There is also some hyper-detailed stuff about mathematical modelling of influences on phenotype.  The page makes no distinction between humans and other animals.  In some animals there are behaviors that ~must~ be "programmed" in the genome, like almost-fetal joeys crawling from the vagina to the pouch, but even in those cases we don't understand how that works on the level of the genome.  In humans we understand even less of the influence of genes on behavior.   Yet the page makes broad claims like "Findings from behavioural genetic research have broadly impacted modern understanding of the role of genetic and environmental influences on behaviour."   So this is over general in some ways, too detailed in others, and has big holes in it. Jytdog (talk) 16:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree with Randykitty about lack of animal work but not Jytdog. The reviewer of the page for GA was not convinced that Randykitty's concern precluded GA status, and I find it odd that no one has added anything useful about animal BG to this page. I don't have a strong opinion about GA. Jytdog you make some strong statements but the examples suggest some tweaking, not that the page is "awful". I can't see how one wouldn't conclude that behavioral genetic research has had broad impact on understanding role of genes and environment? I think it would be good to insert some crticisms, but the refs provided by Groceryheist aren't especially compelling and are mostly short commentaries. Just to take one example, Lerner was writing in 2006 and uses examples from candidate GxE paradigm in support of a big part of his argument, which themselves of course are "behavioral genetic" findings! I guess he takes (unreplicated) BG findings that support his view and discards (replicated) BG findings that do not. I also have doubts that these references represent a consensus view in psychology, neuroscience, or related fields that use behavioral genetic techniques. The authoritative tone is taken for information that represents more of a consensus view. Of course improvements can be made and I hope thye are. WRT to the replication crisis that was a huge issue for BG (animal or human), as candidate gene replication problems presaged the "replication crisis" in psychology. A comment on replication in human BG is here 
 Vrie0006 (talk) 03:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that ref 3 is not a review and fails MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 15:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
How is an overview of a field of inquiry in a noted encyclopedia written by two very notable behavior geneticists (Gottesman being one of the most notable behavior geneticists) not a review and how does this fail MEDRS (I admit not being too familiar with MEDRS, so this is a request for explanation). --Randykitty (talk) 16:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't see how MEDRS is appropriate as a strict standard in this case. MEDRS guidelines are for clinically relevant information, or for information on which individuals might base medical or health decisions. Behavioral genetics seems like a branch of psychology with little current clinical application and this is reflected in the content of the article. I think it would be appropriate to include criticisms that don't reach MEDRS level references because those criticizing another field are not likely to publish their criticisms in peer reviewed journals.  Instead they might do so for magazines or in books. That said, the MEDRS guidelines are good practice, and we should follow them when reasonable, especially when it comes to clinical recommmendations. Also, much of ref 3 seems similar to the Plomin et. al article. Groceryheist (talk) 04:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Even if MDERS doesn't apply, the critical refs provided above are IMO clearly fringe views, which is why they are not published in leading journals (in psychology or elsewhere) and/or are commentaries. The difference between Groceryheists ref 3 and the Plomin article is that Plomin et al. is a published peer-reviewed review article written by notable behavior geneticists in a leading psychology review journal with impact factor of 10 or so. So the criticisms of twin studies etc. by Jay or Lerner or Lewontin or whomever could go in a criticisms section, but they do not reflect current consensus nor do I think their exclusion precludes GA, unless someone can find a relatively current critique in a mainstream journal. The more interesting criticisms/controversies that could be inserted are the ethical ones perhaps especially wrt to things like genetic engineering and historically divisive issues like eugenics (which is dealt with somewhat in the intro) or specific topics like race and IQ. However, these ethics controversies don't touch on the science so much as the potential implications of BG findings and/or how BG has been misused/abused in the past (eugenics, "gene for this", "gene for that").Vrie0006 (talk) 13:01, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I assume you mean the references given above by Groceryheist. I agree that 1 and 3 are marginal. However, Richard M. Lerner (4) and Nature (2) cannot be that easily dismissed. Panofsky's book has unanimously been reviewed very favorably (here are more reviews: ). I've read it myself and I think that Panofsky has put together a very insightful, impartial analysis of the history of the field and its current status (and you don't have to take my word for it, those reviews are ample evidence, in fact there are so many, that this book easily passes GNG). It is telling that his book was not reviewed in Behavior Genetics, which is, in fact, in line with Panofsky's analysis... Here is another critical appraisal of current (human) BG.

The Nature article is a "news feature" and not a review, and touches more on ethical controversies in BG, which I agree could be fruitfully added to the article. My take on the Lerner piece is that he is a significant figure in developmental psychology, but not in genetics. This is why I discount his views, which are critical of the scientific methods of BG, as they pertain to the article in question. The Crusio article, on the other hand, looks interesting. But doesn't look overly critical. More of an article on ways to shape up the field on the margins, rather than claiming the whole field is bunk, like Lerner (Lerner however is fairly unreasonable...). Unfortunately, it's behind a paywall... Vrie0006 (talk) 06:20, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
I've access to a lot of stuff in the life sciences, including this journal. If you send me an address, I can email you a PDF (and other things too if you need them). As for Lerner, yes, he's professor of psychology, but so are most human behavior geneticists. Lerner's a respected scientist and should not be discounted out of hand. As Panofsky has shown, discounting critics out of hand (the word they use is: "biased") is something that the field of BG has done for decades now (in my personal opinion to their detriment). --Randykitty (talk) 09:31, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment Left a note at the reviewers talk page and at wikiproject genetics. The nominator was already informed so thank you for that. AIRcorn (talk) 09:50, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Comment:  As the original GA reviewer, I am not really going to wade into this issue again, as I have neither the time nor the motivation to help solve the problem, so I will offer my two cents, but not say anything more beyond this post (unless pinged, as I'm not even watchlisting this). In short, based on the GA criteria, it met that criteria at the time (independent sources, neutral tone, formatted, readable, not plagiarized, etc...), though it was definitely not anywhere close to FAC quality.   Perhaps it's now a matter of someone starting to work on a more FAC-level of comprehensiveness. Acknowledging there was disagreement at the original GAN, I viewed the debate to basically be over GAN standards versus FAC quality, and if memory serves, I said something to that effect.  I would support "a section on criticism of behavioral genetics" as appropiate and necessary for a comprehensive article. But keep in mind that at the time, the neutrality appeared acceptable, the "too favorable" concerns do not jump out at the non-expert reader, and the GA criteria does not mandate comprehensiveness. As for the source quality, the topic itself isn't really 100% an MEDRS issue, but WP:MEDRS can be applied to sourcing for any medical claims contained within.  (Ditto WP:SCIRS). So to me this becomes a question of 1) how can the article can be expanded to present the various issues that exist?  Not really a debate of "if", more of "how" and "let's just do it!" My own thinking is along the lines of Randykitty and Vrie0006, so carry on, gentlemen.  As for MEDRS and SCIRS, the "soft" sciences such as psychology are not "pseudoscience" or "snake oil," but they are difficult to study because humans are not lab rats, and a lot of the "evidence-based" therapies can be absolutely ridiculous to implement on real human beings in practice (Like the computer-based form of Cognitive behavioral therapy. Seriously? Sounds like a scene from Sleeper). And this topic is still a relatively new field of study. All that said, the issue for GAR is simple: if the sources are proven dubious, should the content they source be removed, rewritten or simply have appropriate caveats added, and, if the non-compliant content is removed, does what remains still meet GA criteria? If the article needs more balance, then expand as needed. Montanabw(talk) 18:33, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Randykitty many thanks for the offer. I got a copy of panofsky. On a quick skim it's interesting and he makes some good points. It's not especially compelling in part because it's qualitative research based on interviews with experts. We can add a section describing the primary thesis (BG is an "archipelago" without a strong hierarchical structure) and some of the worst of the bad and overhyped science ("gay gene"?) but I guess it's not convincing as a major criticism of the science as much as Lerner tries to do. (I'm still very much not taken with Lerner's arguments, nor have they become mainstream.) BTW, there already was a section on controversies. Two sentences buried in the History section. I've moved it to its own section and I added a paragraph on race and genetics. Just trying to get something started. I suppose race and genetics represents the worst of the worst controversies in BG. So if anything should be listed, it should be that. Vrie0006 (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC) Postscript: also the previous two sentences on controversy already included the Erika Check Hayden Nature commentary. Vrie0006 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
A decent criticism section has been added now so I feel that part is satisfied enough to meet the neutrality good article standards. I don't think this article has to go too far down the race and intelligence or any other rabbit hole and is much better kept as an overview.
As to the animal studies that relates to the broadness criteria. Broad does not mean comprehensive and in many ways (like a lot of the other criteria) can be subjective. The article mentions animal studies in its own sub section and that is enough for a reviewer in good faith to pass that aspect of the criteria. RandyKitty makes some good points and provides references and examples so this should not be discounted and ideally that section should be expanded. However, passing the Good Criteria is not actually that hard and I am not convinced that the article is undue enough to preclude it in this case. Like it or not most research is geared around humans and it is perfectly acceptable for a Good Article to focus more on the human aspects of a topic. A quick look at reviews on this topic through pubmed show twice as many articles focus on humans rather than animals.[1]
So although it could be improved I think it meets the criteria and should be kept as a good article. AIRcorn (talk) 20:15, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Neutrality concerns means the article cannot be kept. There is a body of literature critiquing Behavioural genetics, it should be summarized and included for the article to be balanced, neutral and comprehensive.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
But there is a section in the article critiquing behavioral genetics. AIRcorn (talk) 21:31, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
even that section comes across as apologetic and does in no way represent the substance and scope of the objections to the field's claims and methods.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:37, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
I honestly don't know what criticisms should be listed. Surely not every criticism directed at the field. The race and intelligence controversy is apologetic (the other controversies are not) because that controversy has involved people at the fringe of the field who at best marshaled poor evidence for their conclusions. The most notorious case (maybe other than Rushton, who surely was fringe) that panofsky goes into is Glayde Whitney. A good mouse scientist who inexplicably moved to race and intelligence in humans at the end of his career. So there's a tension between listing controversies and ensuring that some of these views are clearly described as being fringe and/or unsubstantiated. I was planning to put in a few sentences about Panofsky's book but, beyond that, this thread has not provided good suggestions for what criticisms and controversies to list. So, what are the "substance and scope of the objections to the field's claims and methods" that should be taken so seriously and listed? Vrie0006 (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2018 (UTC) P.S.: I added to the page the start of a statement on Panofsky. Vrie0006 (talk) 13:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Randykitty, please explain here how an article can pass GA review yet require a big orange warning sticker up top, something which if it were truly required means it would fail review. Especially when the issue at hand - animal research - was explicitly addressed at the review. [2] How does this not appear to be an attempt to unilaterally override the GA review, given the opinion expressed there that As far as I am concerned, this should never have been promoted to GA to start with, but my concerns were ignored at that time.?
If the issue you are trying to tag it for were really so important, how did it pass GA review? And as pointed out there, GA is not FA, so standards are lower.
Pinging Aircorn as involved as well. Crossroads -talk- 07:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
One could for instance put an "expand section" tag where the problem is, in this case in the animal studies section. It isn't clear to me that even this is warranted. Isn't most behavioral genetics research on humans anyway? Crossroads -talk- 07:33, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem is with the article, not just a section. The problem would be solved if this article were named "quantitative human behavior genetics". The article places undue emphasis on human studies and within those on studies using variance partitioning techniques. It is absolutely incorrect to say that most BG studies are with humans anyway (just look at the contents of the major journals in this field). The thousands of studies using genetically-modified animals are ignored, the words "knockout" or "transgenic" are just mentioned once in the text. Reading the article, one would think that selection studies are the most important type of animal studies, which was not even true in the past when such studies were more popular than nowadays. The huge advances made with C. elegans are not described (there's just an in-passing mention of the species), Drosophila is not even mentioned. Need I go on? If you wonder how this could pass GA despite these problems, you'll have to ask the editor who passed the article, as these problems were pointed out at the time. If the response is that GA criteria are less stringent than FA and that an article does not need to be perfect to pass GA, well, then it should not be a problem to bring these issues to the attention of editors reading the article. --Randykitty (talk) 09:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
You actually dodged most of the issue, again reiterating what your opinion is regarding the article. Please explain how you, one editor, are justified in re-tagging the article when me and Aircorn, two editors, do not see a need for a tag. And how this fits with WP:BRD, when you boldly added the tag (originally the "undue weight" tag), [3] have been reverted a total of three times (over a long period of time) on it, and yet keep putting it back [4][5][6] instead of discussing and getting anyone else to favor a tag.
As for my question about how an article can pass GA yet require article level tags, I guess your answer is just 'I say the reviewers were wrong, so I can tag it'? And if the issue is so important and you are knowledgeable about it, why not just fix the issue? The tag has been here for nearly two years (three if you count the original undue tag).
If you wonder how this could pass GA despite these problems, you'll have to ask the editor who passed the article... Okay. Pinging Montanabw and Fish and karate - could you please weigh in?
Also per WP:APPNOTE, I have asked for more input here.
Lastly, though it is kind of a side issue to whether you re-tagging is proper, my understanding is that just as "psychology" typically refers to the study of human psychology, "behavioral genetics" typically refers to the study of human behavioral genetics. Animal studies of behavior and genetics seem to either just fall under biology or genetics, or be the behavioral genetics of some specific study species. We're obviously not going to tag Psychology for focusing on human and not animal psychology, as that is what the field does. And I did look at the site of the journal Behavior Genetics, and saw that the vast majority of articles were about humans. In any case, it may be helpful to specifically define what you would consider enough coverage of animal studies, in terms of bytes or some other objective measure. Crossroads -talk- 16:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC) updates Crossroads -talk- 17:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
Have a look here. Genes, Brain and Behavior is currently the leading BG journal. Behavior Genetics is the journal of the Behavior Genetics Association. That group has indeed drifted towards human genetics, excluding most animal BG. It  is remarkable that whereas their meetings are nowadays exclusively on human quantitative genetics, their journal still has significant animal content. In contrast, the meetings of the International Behavioural and Neural Genetics Society are dominated by animal BG. It is pertinently wrong to state that "behavioral genetics" by definition focuses on human work. The very first chapter presenting an overview of the field (Hall, C. S., 1951. The genetics of behavior. In S. S. Stevens (Ed.), Handbook of Experimental Psychology, p. 304–329. Wiley) was mostly (or even exclusively, I'd have to check) on animal BG. Fuller and Thompson's iconic book, often seen as the starting point for the field, was for the largest part on animals. An early overview of European BG (The genetics of behaviour, J. H. F. van Abeelen, ed., North Holland, Amsterdam, and Elsevier, New York. 1974) had hardly any human BG in it. Same for the seminal books by Thiessen and Hirsch. In short, ever since the field was founded, animal research has been an integral and important part of behavior genetics. And even nowadays, books are being published with titles like Behavior Genetics of the Mouse or Behavior Genetics of the Fly (see here), so it is also incorrect to say that for animal BG the term "Behavior Genetics" has gone out of vogue. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
very first chapter presenting an overview of the field...iconic book, often seen as the starting point for the field...An early overview of European BG...seminal books by Thiessen and Hirsch... Yes, those are all old sources. WP:RS AGE. And even nowadays, books are being published with titles like Behavior Genetics of the Mouse or Behavior Genetics of the Fly... Yes, and what about books that just say Behavioral Genetics, like this article does? What species are most of them about?
You are more than welcome by me to add material about animal BG, to start an article on animal BG, or what have you. My main point is and was that the tag is incompatible with the GA status. Rather than plopping a tag on a GA for years, just fix the issue. Crossroads -talk- 19:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
If the tag and the GA status are incompatible, then perhaps then GA status should be withdrawn. I think I have given enough justification for the tag. --Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
courtesy link Behavioural genetics.
I don't see where the issue is here. If the tag is valid, we should be heading to WP:GAR. If not then be removed. In my eyes, there will be more weight towards humans, due to the amount of sourcing. However, that doesn't mean that there shouldn't be more from other side's for a complete picture of the subject.
I know nothing about the subject, so, I can't offer to help with the prose.  Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
For convenience, here is a comparison of the article at the time of the GA review with the present version: [7] The only substantial changes are the addition of the '10 findings' from that review paper, along with an increase in coverage of animals and criticisms. The previous GA review clearly still stands. Crossroads -talk- 18:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
To make my point clear: The article has only gotten better since the GA review, and since its original listing, so sending it through again seems a waste of time. And, again, GA does not equal "perfect". More content on animals would be fine. Crossroads -talk- 19:21, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
So again: if GA does not mean perfect, then it's totally acceptable to indicate with a tag what needs to be improved. --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
And, again, it's three against one on that matter. The problem is not serious enough to warrant a badge of shame, as determined by it being a GA, despite your having tried to stop that. Crossroads -talk- 13:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The article fails GA criterion 3. WP:GAR recommends in cases like to this to "(t)ag serious problems that you cannot fix ... if the templates will help other editors find the problems". It also counsels against "tag bombing" an article. Which is all that has happened here. I've identified a problem and put 1 (one) clear template on the article. --Randykitty (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
The article fails GA criterion 3. Again, this is only your lone opinion. And you're still ignoring the central issue that three other editors disagree with you about the tag. What gives you (1 person), no matter how right you feel you are, the right to overrule 3 others? Not to mention that you have been fighting for this tag at the same time the article has passed two GA reviews, so the idea it needs tagging is frankly ridiculous. Stop edit warring, drop the stick, and note WP:IDHT: Believing that you have a valid point does not confer upon you the right to act as though your point must be accepted by the community when you have been told that it is not accepted. The same behavioral standards do apply to all of us. Follow proper procedure and seek GAR, RM, RFC, or something else if you must. Crossroads -talk- 21:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)


### Taken to DRN
I have filed a request for dispute resolution here, you're welcome to comment there. --Randykitty (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
I added the heading above so observers can readily see the discussion moved. Thanks, at least, for not reverting again. Crossroads -talk- 19:03, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
What was the outcome of the DRN? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi Barkeep49, the archived link is here: [8] Crossroads -talk- 18:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)


### How much to say about animal studies
Randykitty, I ask that you quantify on this talk page how long (in bytes, words, whatever) you would like the "Animal studies" section to be before you would consider the tag unnecessary.
This is per WP:TAGGING, which states: Adding tags for non-obvious or perceived problems—without identifying the problem well enough for it to be easily fixed—is frequently referred to as "drive-by tagging," particularly when done by editors who are not involved in the article's development. When it comes to confusing or subjective tags...it is important to explain yourself on the article's talk page or in an edit summary. The goal, of course, is to improve the article such that a tag is no longer needed. Crossroads -talk- 17:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

The problem has been explained above over and over again. The article is all about human BG, whereas the point ca be made that the majority of BG studies are, in fact, animal studies. The latter, however, are relegated to a single small paragraph, which suggests that selection studies are the main fare of animal BG, which is absolutely ridiculous. I'd say that at least one third of this article should be discussing the behavior genetics of zebrafish, fruit flies, worms, rats, and mice, to name the most frequently used organisms, to begin addressing the imbalance in this article. --Randykitty (talk) 17:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
This recent book review makes it amply clear that animal studies are more than a footnote... The book itself would be a great source for improving this article and making it more balanced. --Randykitty (talk) 12:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

My edit adding a psychology category to this page was reverted because BG is not subsumed entirely by psychology but overlaps with psychology, behavioral neuroscience, genetics, etc. I would suggest we list all of the above as categories related to this subject. The page would benefit, as would the readers, I would think. Randykitty perhaps you could add those categories you perceive as relevant? Vrie0006 (talk) 14:21, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

It is not necessary to add categories to the article if the category "behavioural genetics"  is already in them. Also, a lot of BG is not psychology but behavioral neuroscience or psychiatry, so it is perhaps less correct to categorize BG as "branches of psychology". Finally, your edit incorrectly removed the sortkey of this article in its category. Adding "lots of categories" is something we call overcategorization. --Randykitty (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 10 June 2024. Further details are available on the course page.  Peer reviewers: TAA999.
— Assignment last updated by TAA999 (talk) 17:43, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

 This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2024 and 13 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Delucaanthony (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Delucaanthony (talk) 15:27, 1 November 2024 (UTC)