Talk:Outbreeding depression

Racism

This page, along with miscegenation, is the frequent target of edits that attempt to use questionable reports, or misinterpretation of reports, to promote racist ideologies and/or anti-interracial propaganda, as the page history shows. Reports about the foetal health and/or metrical measurements of interracial children or adults should not be added to this page. Hunan201p (talk) 00:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, dont mention humans in this article at all because that's not PC Aube123 (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, anything that makes alt-right incel racists feel validated = science, regardless of what actual scientists say. Generalrelative (talk) 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course humans can be mentioned, but if the paper doesn't involve outbreeding depression, it probably shouldn't be included. I agree with Hunan201p (talk); I believe Aube123 (talk) is misinterpreting what he is saying. MathIsMusic (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which "in humans" things to include/what is in good faith

There is a slight issue here. Obviously, outbreeding depression is a biological concept, and so it applies to all organisms, including humans. There are also legitimate publications and discussions about outbreeding depression in humans. However, there are racist motivations to overly apply outbreeding depression to humans. I've gone through the edit history and I'll compile claims/sources that were in previous "in humans" sections (these sections go back to the creation of the page) and list them below, where we can have a discussion about if it would be best to include them. I'll give my opinion and it would be great if others would chime in. MathIsMusic (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include a thumbnail involving humans as the example? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Total_Number_of_Grandchildren_and_Relatedness_of_Grandparents.png

No, this seems like it is focusing too much on humans. Most discussion of outbreeding depression involves conservation efforts for non-human animals, so a human-involved thumbnail is unusual and unnecessary, and may be in bad faith. However, there should be a quality non-human replacement for the thumbnail.MathIsMusic (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include "miscegenation" under see also?

No, that appears to be in bad faith. To my knowledge there is no source that links that term with outbreeding depression.MathIsMusic (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Outbreeding depression as a reason why "fertility often increases with kinship?" https://science.sciencemag.org/content/322/5908/1634.2

I think so. This is referenced and is relevant.MathIsMusic (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include "ADAMTS13 gene?" https://ashpublications.org/blood/article/110/11/277/74483/The-ADAMTS13-Gene-as-the-Immunological-Culprit-in

Yes, under some circumstances. This is the first publication on a specific instance of outbreeding depression in humans, which makes it relevant in my opinion. However, the wording must careful and very neutral.MathIsMusic (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include HapK gene? https://www.nature.com/articles/ng1692

Soft yes. I went from no, to maybe, to yes on this one. On one hand, it should be added due to very large clinical relevance. On the other hand, this sometimes seems to have been added in what I'll call "less-than-good-faith." Furthermore, the paper isn't really about outbreeding depression; it's about something which results from instances of outbreeding depression. However, so are many articles used for plants in animals, and the authors specifically linked this result to the mechanism of outbreeding depression in subsequent media releases. What made me change my mind was that this result has been discussed in the media and there were specific medications made for African-Americans as a direct result of this study. However, if this is included, it must be done with an exceedingly neutral point of view.MathIsMusic (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include this link? https://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/11/health/genetic-find-stirs-debate-on-racebased-medicine.html

I think this link can be included if as perspective if needed. However, it should not be used in a biased and skewed manner such as found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outbreeding_depression&oldid=28868744.MathIsMusic (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include pregnancy risks of Asian/White couples? (no link, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outbreeding_depression&oldid=931718946)

No, because there's no evidence to say that this results from outbreeding depression. This could be due to any number of things. Since I don't believe there is any publication or secondary source linking this to outbreeding depression, this should not be added.MathIsMusic (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include "black and white couples face higher odds of prematurity and low birth weight?" (no link, see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Outbreeding_depression&oldid=931718946)

No, for the same reasons as above (there's no evidence...).MathIsMusic (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include "adverse birth outcomes" for b/w couples?

No, for the same reason as above. If the source doesn't clearly link the outcome to the genetics/reproduction, it probably shouldn't be added.MathIsMusic (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Include outbreeding depression "is also observed in human populations, where interracial breeding results in an average 43% increase in still births"? https://obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1600-0412.2012.01501.x

No, because the source doesn't say that the cause is genetic, and doesn't even attempt to establish causality at all.MathIsMusic (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MathIsMusic: Thanks for your hard work here. This is really thoughtful stuff. That said, I'm not seeing the kind of references I'd want to see to include a section which suggests that there is such a thing as outbreeding depression in humans. Notably we would need WP:SECONDARY sources. Sometimes primary sources can be useful as a supplement, especially when the overall science is clear, and the comment published in Science is on its own quite interesting, but for a topic as controversial as outbreeding depression in humans we would need secondary sources stating that there is broad agreement that it even exists. Indeed, the 2007 article in Blood states in its title that it represents the "First Evidence of Genetic Out-Breeding Depression in Humans". If it's the first evidence, either it represents an outlier or there should be additional results by now, and those results should have been subjected to some sort of meta-analysis or at least systematic review. These would be the type of sources that we could base a section on. Otherwise I would object to giving credence to the idea that outbreeding depression is known to occur in humans. We are, after all, a remarkably genetically homogenous species. Generalrelative (talk) 03:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you asked about including an op-ed by discredited science journalist Nicholas Wade. Hard no from me on that one. Generalrelative (talk) 03:54, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Nature article is indeed not about outbreeding depression so including it here would be WP:SYNTH. Generalrelative (talk) 04:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Generalrelative: Those are good points. Although other places on this page only list primary sources, there's more of a burden to have better sources for potentially sensitive issues like this. It would be great to add secondary sources if any of the potential edits were added. However, after reading WP:SECONDARY and WP:PRIMARY, Wikipedia allows and encourages primary sources if they are used carefully and properly. Therefore, primary sources can be added if and only if:

1. It is used to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be easily verified

2. The editor must not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in the primary source, and

3. The editor must word the primary source in a way as to not a potential "outlier" as fact. I.e., say "X et al. suggest 'A' may be evidence for 'B,'" instead of something like "D causes E."

This way, an editor can add relevant information. After all, the entire "In Plants" section is based on one primary source. Other areas on this page follow this pattern of being heavily/entirely based on primary sources. This is just due to the fact that outbreeding depression isn't a huge topic; no journalist really wants to write a secondary article about it. For example, the Wikipedia page for AFAP1L2 consists largely of primary sources because it simply isn't that exciting of a topic for loads of people to write about.

I understand the (very valid) concern, but the concern can be addressed through careful wording and adding secondary secondary sources when possible.MathIsMusic (talk) 04:21, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]