Talk:First Peoples (TV program)

Changes

I have replaced "the most recent" with "very recent" since the series omits the genomic research on Indian contact with prehistoric Australia and is not recent enough to include the latest Hs/Neanderthal genetic contact in the terminal Paleolithic. I have tried to clear things up a little by replacing humans with Hs in one place. (The series is muddled on this point-- basically on discussing Neanderthals in general, including saying both every-one of us has Neanderthal in us but also saying Africans don't have any N. genes (Huh? Isn't the program also addressed to African Americans with-out non-African admixture?)

I question having the sentence about the pan-African origin of Homos in the lead. While that is the key fact of the African episode, that episode is not the first one (read Forbes to get an idea why), and I don't recall that it is relevant in the specific to the other episodes.Kdammers (talk) 20:35, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

It wasn't the first in the series, I know, I saw the programs. But it was first on most tree diagrams of movements of peoples—the out of Africa origin of modern humans. I thought it was appropriate to the lead. If you or other editors think it is better elsewhere in the article, as long as it makes sense to our target audience, fine by me.

You understand I patrolled the page and improved it enough to mark it patrolled. I'm trying to do as many of these as I can with the time I have available. The New Pages list is long right now and getting longer. I still try to work on my own projects as I can. When patrolling, I don't try to finish an article; just get it off to a good start. This article didn't need as much as most others do—just some minor work here and there. If there's anything in the code I changed that you don't understand, just ask. I'd be happy to explain what I did and why. This was an interesting enough article that I thought it deserved more sources. That's why I spent more time finding sources and adding sourced information. The series is repeating in July and that might spur more articles. Many of the more in-depth articles come months after the broadcast. Anyway, good luck with improving the article. User:Rus793 (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Order of information vs. order of article

Rus: I appreciate your work. I'm interested in content and English rather than details of wikification (so my articles often lack some details of correct formatting, but that's one of the great things about Wikipedia: diff'nt strokes for diif'nt folks.. To my main point: Do we organize articles about books, poems, plays, soaps, documentaries etc. according to what is logical (Africa first Forbes one, which is very extensive and thoughtful) indicated that putting the Americas first was due to the "immediacy" of Kennewick and the hook of dealing with "local" material. I would opt for going with the latter as long as it doesn't confuse our readers. How-ever, I would think there would be some sort of policy or consensus at simple.Wik about this. So I'm not going to change it back to the way i had it. Do you or does any-one else have any further comments?`Kdammers (talk)

Some answers

Some of these questions can be answered. In reporting a series, the order should be as broadcast, whether logical or not. That's all there is to it.

Second, in reporting research it is important not to run ahead of consensus, something En wiki is rather prone to do. It can take years before a researcher's peer group reaches a consensus about his or their claims. Basically, an encyclopedia should not be edited as though the latest claim is established. A claim is just a claim until and unless other workers in the field are satisfied about its significance. We should follow them.

It is not our objective to report most recent research, still less any conclusions based on it unless there is a clear consensus of peer researchers in favour of an interpretation. It is our objective to behave like a good quality print encyclopedia. We can report what is known to be the case (according to relevant peer group sources) and, secondly, what is claimed but not yet accepted by independent professionals in that field. The presentation of these two categories should never be smudged by careless writing, or the personal enthusiasms of editors.

All present, information about Neanderthal DNA being part of modern human DNA is still highly controversial, and not agreed between research teams. Still less is agreed about how the data should be interpreted. I have no idea how this field of research will pan out, but the text we present should be worded in a conservative fashion. That's what people expect of an encyclopedia. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)