Talk:Noah Rosenberg

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Molecular Biology: Genetics

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force.

Notability

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 (talk • contribs)

POV

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:

“

We studied human population structure using genotypes at 377 autosomal microsatellite loci in 1056 individuals from 52 populations. Within-population differences among individuals account for 93 to 95% of genetic variation; differences among major groups constitute only 3 to 5%. Nevertheless, without using prior information about the origins of individuals, we identified six main genetic clusters, five of which correspond to major geographic regions, and subclusters that often correspond to individual populations. General agreement of genetic and predefined populations suggests that self-reported ancestry can facilitate assessments of epidemiological risks but does not obviate the need to use genetic information in genetic association studies.

”

Tijfo098 (talk) 12:03, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]