Talk:Noah Rosenberg

Latest comment: 13 years ago by Tijfo098 in topic POV

Notability

edit

Who's the one that is saying that Rosenberg is non-notable? Guess it's someone who thinks that the 273rd chapter of Star Trek or the 13B station in Tokyo's underground is more notable than human genetics. The logic of so many bureaucrats here is impossible to understand.

It is notable. --Sugaar (talk) 22:32, 23 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

when I removed the previous tag on the article saying it should be deleted, it is still necessary that I keep the note that his notability has been challenged. it is not easy in practice to show the notability of beginning faculty. What are his most cited papers?--get the data from Web or Science or Scopus-- any academic library can help with this. DGG (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2008 (UTC)Reply


Rosenberg appears to be much more notable than some of the Namibian Football Club Forward and Dutch Footballer articles that I have seen recently. I am going to remove the notability tag. Ptrask 16:33, 6 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptrask (talkcontribs)

POV

edit

His 2002 paper (Rosenberg, N. A.; Pritchard, J. K.; Weber, J. L.; Cann, H. M.; Kidd, K. K.; Zhivotovsky, L. A.; Feldman, M. W. (2002). "Genetic Structure of Human Populations" (PDF). Science. 298 (5602): 2381–2385. Bibcode:2002Sci...298.2381R. doi:10.1126/science.1078311. PMID 12493913.) is not summarized properly. The paper is famous not for what his bio here claims, but for the opposite. See citation by Edwards for instance in Lewontin's Fallacy or in Vogel and Motulsky’s Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches, 4th ed., Springer, 2010, ISBN 3540376534, which has a section on this paper.

Here is the abstract:


Tijfo098 (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)Reply