Talk:Cheddar Man

message: Is the title of the article quoted incorrectly in footnote 2?
:"Population Replacement in Early Neolithic Britain", Nature Ecology & Evolution, 3: 765–771
When you follow the link you get:
:"Ancient genomes indicate population replacement in Early Neolithic Britain"
Or is it acceptable to use only part of a title? Note also the different use of upper case letters. Perhaps one reason this makes a difference is that the article is actually available to readers without library access here:
:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6520225/pdf/emss-82120.pdf 
Which is more difficult to find without the correct title but would make the footnote a lot more meaningful to WP readers. Perhaps the footnote link could go there instead. Dynasteria (talk) 08:32, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you should just correct according to your judgment. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The displayed title was the older title of the bioRxiv preprint. . –Austronesier (talk) 12:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

text: Please take a look at our policy on original research and our guideline on reliable sources to find out why we cannot take action on your suggestion. This has nothing to do with a supposed belief in the infallibility of scientists. Generalrelative (talk) 05:13, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

text: If a so-called 'reliable source' says that Cheddar Man had dark skin, we say that Cheddar Man had dark skin. If then another so-called 'reliable source' says that Cheddar Man had intermediate skin, then we say that source A says Cheddar Man had dark skin, but source B says that Cheddar Man had intermediate skin. If these are the only so-called 'reliable sources', and both of those sources are wrong, then Wikipedia will also be wrong. Welcome to Wikipedia.  Tewdar (talk) 21:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Here you go: https://www.nature.com/nature/for-authors/initial-submission. Best of luck.  Tewdar (talk) 21:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

text:  Dear IP expert: how is a paper in Nature Ecology & Evolution not properly peer-reviewed? If you have different insights about the skin color of Cheddar Man, go ahead and write an article and succeed to have it published in a peer-reviewed (and non-predatory) journal. If it gets a reasonable number of citations in other peer-reviewed articles, we might consider it for mention here. This is how WP works, and it is good that WP works this way. Otherwise, WP would just be collection of arbitrary assertions made by people with unverifiable credentials (or no credentials at all). –Austronesier (talk) 21:31, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

text: https://www.nature.com/srep/author-instructions/submission-guidelines#texlatex-files  While we await publication of your article, do you have any published reliable source (not Quora, mind you) that gives a different prediction specifically for Cheddar Man's phenotype? Because I'll add it to the article within an hour.  Tewdar (talk) 13:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

text: What "kind of formatting"?  MS Word? If we have a source, published by Nature Ecology & Evolution, about Cheddar Man's phenotype, we pretty much have to include it here. If then no other published article refutes the claim, we cannot just paste up the results of random hobbyists on random blogs doing amateur fun with HIrisPlex. Do you see the position we're in here?  Tewdar (talk) 13:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote 2 

message: I am troubled that users think that making our own OR predictions of skin colour using this model is acceptable here. Tewdar (talk) 15:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you clarify? What do you think is OR? My most recent edit reflected the source - or I thought it did. I cannot now find the comment that an intermediate complexion cannot be ruled out, for which apologies. The Supplementary Material cited in the note says that darkest possible pigmentation cannot be ruled out. I think a further edit is needed. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:03, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's quoted at length - in view of the previous ructions on the subject - in the reference by Brace et al. Richard Keatinge (talk) 17:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, my mistake. I was looking at the Walsh study, not Brace. Tewdar (talk) 19:14, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

text: Even so, is  really appropriate for an article about Cheddar man? This ain't a research paper supplement! Tewdar (talk) 19:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  :-) Probably not... at this edit I have had a go at simplifying the language. Comments welcome of course. Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not just put it in a note, like Austronesier did over at the WHG page? Tewdar (talk) 20:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like a good idea, over to you to provide a version... Richard Keatinge (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Walsh, Susan (2017). "Global skin colour prediction from DNA" 

message: Skin color is more difficult to predict than previously thought. I've updated the article to reflect this—please discuss before reverting if you disagree.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2017.11.015 DenverCoder9 (talk) 17:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is called WP:SYNTH. The added source was not about Cheddar Man. Indeed, it is limited in scope to Africans. Before you can add a statement saying that scientists made a "tentative guess" about Cheddar Man's skin color, you need to provide a reliable source saying that explicitly. Generalrelative (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: We already talk a bit about the "incomplete genetic markers" ie the low coverage at relevant loci, and say "probably", so we already made it clear that the Hirisplex-S predictions are not certainties. We could maybe elaborate a bit, using the Brace article as the source, but I don't really see the point.  Tewdar  22:36, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. My point was simply that the article linked by DenverCoder9 (Martin et al.) cannot be used to support the language they added. Generalrelative (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarified skin color 

message: You have added wording which says:  What is the appropriate qualification for ‘all’? e.g. all Mesolithic individuals found in Britain whose DNA has been examined? Sweet6970 (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you could change it to "individuals sequenced to date" or whatever if you like... 😁👍   Tewdar  15:14, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Don't bother, I did it already.  Tewdar  15:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  ‘All British Mesolithic individuals’ 

message: Happy New Year! The current wording which you have recently added includes:  I don’t have access to the source - does it actually say that Cheddar Man could not be the ancestor of the teacher? Surely the point is that there is no reason to believe that Cheddar Man is the direct ancestor of the teacher based on the mtDNA, because mtDNA is passed on through the mother, and that the particular mtDNA group is very common, anyway. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Happy new year to you too! Yes, that should probably be something like "you can't conclude that Chedder was teacher's direct ancestor on the basis of mtdna results." I'll fix that, please continue to point out any other botches or unclarities...  Tewdar  13:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

text: That's probably a bit better now...😊  Tewdar  13:39, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I’ve tweaked the wording a bit, which I hope is true to the source. I hope you don’t think I’m being picky. It’s always easier to spot someone else’s mistake, rather than your own. Earlier today, I added a link for Jessica Taylor when I was intending to link to Jessica Taylor (author). Whoops! Fortunately, someone else was checking my work…. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I've got really shitty flu at the moment, so I expect I've made several daft mistakes, which I would be very happy for you to find. Thanks for checking. 😁👍  Tewdar  16:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your modification matches the source perfectly btw.  Tewdar  16:23, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks - get well soon! Sweet6970 (talk) 16:29, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  In popular culture - query 

message: Here's what the source says, verbatim: 
Now, it's pretty clear (to me at least) that the article is not talking about claims that are being disputed by research scientists in peer-reviewed journals here. Although this extract does not actually call these people unqualified, it does use language ("revisionism, scepticism of expertise, post-truth, inappropriate interpretations") that I do not think is captured by just 'individuals'. Anyone got any better suggestions?  Tewdar  13:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: This says nothing about ‘’. And that the source refers to a supposed ‘’ indicates that this is more of an opinion piece than serious reporting. I am leaning towards deleting this last para of the section altogether. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: here's the link to the Antiquity article from CUP. There is more context to this which I didn't add for copyvio reasons. It is certainly not an opinion piece.  Tewdar  15:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I also do not want to use the term 'Brexit supporters'.  Tewdar  15:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And here is a discussion of post-truth politics and misinformation in the context of Brexit and the Vote Leave campaign.  Tewdar  15:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm… let’s not get into a discussion about Brexit, “truth”, and sociology….. How about changing ‘individuals’ to ‘members of the public’? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:30, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you said that using a phrase like  was characteristic of an  - I merely pointed out that this is, erm, probably not quite accurate. 😁  is fine with me.  Tewdar  16:40, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for making the change to the article. But what does 'bah' mean? Sweet6970 (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context, it pretty much translates as, "I want to write that these criticisms are coming from people who wouldn't know the difference between a SNP and the SNP, but the source isn't quite explicit enough in saying this and I'm too busy to find another source right now." 😁  Tewdar  17:01, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

text: I agree that unqualified and Brexit supporters - my suggestion - are both unsatisfactory, but I think that individuals and members of the public are too vague. How about "Cheddar Man's dark skin colour and the expertise of the authors of the study have been disputed on social media." Dudley Miles (talk) 16:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I already added a reference to social media, so for now, I think it's not too bad. I just want to make it clear that these criticisms are coming from random bloggers and tweeters, not scientific articles. I'll try and find something better, but it's probably alright for the time being in my opinion.  Tewdar  17:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think "members of the public" is OK. It is so vague that it conveys nothing useful to the reader. It does not convey people with an agenda, which is what the source is saying, and we have to convey what our sources say. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

text: There are problems with any description. That is why I suggested a wording, "Cheddar Man's dark skin colour and the expertise of the authors of the study have been disputed on social media.", which gets round the issue. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:28, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Your wording sounds fine.  Tewdar  18:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: If the suggested wording is to replace the last sentence of the section, I would be happy with that. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good. The preceding sentences in the paragraph already provide sufficient information about the background and nature of the discourse. –Austronesier (talk) 20:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Unqualified) individuals, Brexit supporters... 

message: The falsehood of this article is deliberately aimed to protect the theory's that the study predicts accurately that he had brown to dark skin.
The actual report states light to white skin cannot be ruled out.
Those who worked on the study states we do not know his colour, yet the wiki admins are arguing he most likely has brown to dark skin, based on what?. 
I see the wiki theory, the chatter about DNA, but no proof?
Nothing on this article proves he had brown to dark skin. 
New Scientist  along with other actual scientists have retracted their statements he was brown to dark skinned, evidence showing it was unlikely. 
I remember this article including the sources stating he may have not been brown to dark skinned, now removed & page locked.
The realistic fact is that wiki is bias, bias admins on many pages who are willing to lock pages, block sources if comments don't fit certain agendas, we can see it on many wiki pages.
This page has no right to imply those who argue his colour are anti migrant, i am dark skinned and a son of migrants in the UK, yet I do not dismiss the facts so easily.
I also know white people exosr3d in western Europe 10.000 years ago, there are many study that show it. 
Could he have been light skinned, or white - yes
Do official sources, including the actual study argue he may not have been brown, or dark - yes.
So such sources should be permitted in the page freely.
Finally, the DNA testing could not go back 10.000 years as a facr, they also used living DNA of dark, ethnic sources to conclude, therefore as stated the results could have been inaccurate as a fact. 2A02:C7F:C7A:4A00:4907:F625:E78B:CCF7 (talk) 20:18, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skin Colour - Wiki Edits - Falsehood