Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:51, 11 August 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race (human categorization) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Race (human categorization). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Race (human categorization) at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. Please help improve it to make it understandable to non-experts, without removing the technical details. (Learn how and when to remove this message)

Template:VA

	Race (human categorization) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 26, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 21, 2003 Brilliant prose Nominated August 13, 2006 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Ethnic groups This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Template:WP1.0

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race (human categorization) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 21 days

Changes to the lead

I edited the intro one more time for clarity and to adequately represent both sides of the discussion. I believe it to be concise and to the point. If you ask me I think that the intro is fairly solid at this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhan24 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should not revert each other's changes, but it should be noted that according to both geneticists and scholarly literature in anthropology that the term "race" is problematic and a point of contention. Both views, those of physical anthropologists and of modern geneticists, should be encapsulated in the lead-in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adhan24 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Rather than just continuing to revert each other's changes to this section, I think we ought to discuss them here. I have two problems with Mathsci's version of it:

1: As I pointed out in one of my edit summaries, this wording implies that physical anthropologists are the only people who still think race is a useful idea. That isn't the case; they're only one example of it. The other major example is in medicine, as is clear from the papers I cited about this from the New England Journal of Medicine. We can make a general statement that race can still be useful in some contexts, and then present George Gill's view as an example of this; or we can explain in detail how it's useful in both physical anthropology and medicine. What we can't do is just say that it's still used in physical anthropology, and not mention any of the other areas where it's used also.

2: Stating "Many physical anthropologists however, have been reluctant to abandon the use of the term 'race'" is clearly slanted towards the idea that physical anthropologists are "behind the times" in this respect. More than any other part of the article, the lead needs to be neutrally worded: after presenting the view that race has no basis in biology, we need to present the alternative view without hinting that there's something wrong with it.

As I'm sure both of you are aware, the version that I reverted to is the state that the article has been in for the past year. As far as I know, up to this point nobody had a problem with it. Even more than in the race and intelligence article, I think this is clearly a situation where if we're not able to come to an agreement, the default state of this part of the article needs to be the one that it was in before any of these recent changes were made. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You can't use stability as an argument against change, its circular logic and its also fundamentally against how wikipedia works. We need to work forward - not stall or work backwards. I could agree to another wording than "reluctant to abandon" and I also wouldn't disagree to adding that other fields also use race. I would like to include that "race can be useful "as a heuristic device" - because that is what those fields use it as since there is overwhelming evidence that race as commonly understood is a folk taxonomy with an negligible basis in biology , but that change would need a quote of cause. Now however the phrase says "race may be useful" this of course needs to be changed to "X and X profession finds that the concept of race may be useful". ·Maunus·ƛ· 07:08, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I've devised a single sentence which I hope is adequate: more would be WP:UNDUE. Mathsci (talk) 07:24, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, I approve of your suggestions about how to change the wording of this section. Can you try changing this yourself? I think I’m close to violating 3RR on this article (and so is Mathsci), so I’d rather not revert it again right now. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:29, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

This comment seems not to take into account my latest edit. Please don't talk past other editors Captain Occam. The aim is to find an appropriately short and accurate sentence which is not given WP:UNDUE weight. Mathsci (talk) 08:00, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

My comment is specifically in response to the changes you made. You haven’t changed several of the things that Maunus agreed with changing: the article still uses the phrase “reluctant to abandon”, and it doesn’t say that race is specifically useful to these professions. Since you haven’t changed some of the things that Maunus and I are agreeing should be changed, I’m asking him to change them. It’ll also be acceptable if you’re willing to change them yourself, though. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:09, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Maunus, I approve of the change you’ve made except for one thing: the use of the term “conceptual category” in this context. If you read the papers I was citing from the New England Journal of Medicine, you’ll see that the reason race is useful in a medical setting is because reactions to drugs can differ along the lines of biogeographic ancestry, and race is a crude but effective way to estimate biogeograhic ancestry without requiring expensive genetic testing procedures. I don’t think “conceptual category” is an accurate way to summarize how race is used in this context. Your suggestion of “heuristic device” was better in my opinion, but perhaps you can come up with another way of describing this that’s even more accurate. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:28, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to go with "heuristic device" untill we find something better for example in quote?·Maunus·ƛ· 09:05, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I tried changing it myself to something that I think is more precise than either of your two suggestions. Do you think the wording I’ve used is an adequate description? --Captain Occam (talk) 09:12, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess its ok, I think I like heuristic better but I can't currently make a coherent argument why, so lets leave it with "biogeographical ancestry" unless someone else has a better argument.·Maunus·ƛ· 09:19, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the most important point in this discussion is Captain Occam's statement, "We can make a general statement that race can still be useful in some contexts." This is usually correct. In some contexts - e.g. the United States - forensic anthropologists and physicians can often use race as a proxy for genetic ancestry. It is critical that we note that this is not always the case (there have in fact been documented caes of physicians misdiagnosing a patient because they relied on race for genetic information - I do not have citations but they should not be too hard to find. I bring this up not because physicians who rely exclusively on race always or even often get it wrong; in the US they usually get it right. But when they do get it wrong, the consequencs can be really awful). Be that as it may, it is often the case in specific contexts. It is not the case in Brazil, which has a completely different racial system, and races are constructed differently. Blacks in the US are largely descended from people from one region in Africa. Genetic assumptions about US black do not easily transport to Africa, which has a genetically more diverse popultion (or, many more populations, all of whom we might call "black" but which are genetically different). So they key point is "some contexts." As long as we are very clear about why this is so and why it is important, we are okay. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:32, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I have inserted in "specific instances", because this seems to match the cases best ("proxy for genetic ancestry" as Slr points out is correct but a clumsy phrase). In the lede there's no need to go into detail, because it is after all a summary of what should be in the main article. Biomedicine is discussed in the main text, as is forensic anthropology. I don't quite know why there should be different sources for the lede and the main article. That should be sorted out. In fact I don't see why citations are really needed in the lede. Mathsci (talk) 12:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam's modification to the sentence was a useful improvement, suitably neutral. However, David.Kane removed a lot material is a summary of what is discussed in the rest of the article, so there's no reason to remove. Mathsci (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I made this series of changes to the lead . MathSci reverted them. I agree that the lead should summarize the article. I agree that this lead is a mess. My only claim is that my edits make the lead better than it was before. I did not expect that they would be controversial. What specific aspects does anyone object to? Much of it was just cleaning up the writing, better grammar, et cetera. David.Kane (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't question your intentions, David; I went over your version and I think it was accurate. The problem is, in my view, that you cut essential context. For example, while you rightly left in that most scientists study genotypic variation in terms of clinal variation and populations, you cut the reason why. Now, articles on simpler topics are shorter, and have shorter leads. But this is not true of all Misplaced Pages articles. Articles on controversial topics are often longer, and have longer introductions. It is important to provide as thorough a summary as possible, because some people read only the introduction. Also, with controversial topics, different readers bring their own biases or preconceptions and can easily misread the lead, or think it violates NPOV. What happens then is over time diferent editors just add to the introduction more and more points of view. The fact is, the current lead is for the most part something that many very experienced editors worked hard on, to make sure it was accurate and NPOV and as short as possible. I think cutting anything would (with one exception) be counter-productive - many readers will not understand why most biologists don't use race or if they do, many readers will think tscientists use race to mean the same thing most people do, and the introduction has to be vey clear about this. I made one edit which I do hope is utterly uncontrovesial, there was some sloppy duplication between the first and second paragraphs and I revised both to make it clear that they are on different things (the first paragraph as a general intro, the second on why it is controversial). Here is the one exception concerning cuts. Like some other editors, I actually do think the current last paragraph of the intro can be cut completely. The article should have links and "see alsos" to racism and genocide, which is what that paragraph is really about, but these are too removed from the fundamental question of whether people agree races exist and if they do what they are. I di dnot cut it but am just voicing my view that it should be cut. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the last paragraph could be cut.·Maunus·ƛ· 07:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

So do I. Let’s get rid of it. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

"Getting rid of" verifiable, notable and historical facts relating to the topic is not what Misplaced Pages is about. It might be easy to reach consensus on "Your Concept Of Race as classification of human beings" – too bad the historians and publishers of the University of Cambridge do not agree with you. Would you write an article on automobiles without mentioning T-Ford and article on space travel without Laika? --Casimirpo (talk) 13:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Casimir, don't overreact here. We agree, at least I and Slrubenstein have expressed this here, that mentioning Racism and its role in genocides is relevant and important. It should obviously figure in this article. We are discussing the particular paragraph as it is written in the lead. When we advance with the article I for one would find it natural to have a section on the relation of the concept of race to genocide and racism, and when there is such a section per WP:LEAD we will have to include a summary of that sectino in the lead. It is nont a question about whether Racism and genocide belongs in the article, only about us not being satisfied by the way it is currently done.·Maunus·ƛ· 14:38, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well – the lead should include the most notable, verifiable historical events that some (ill-defined) concepts of race helped to fuel in nearby history. There is lot of less notable blah-blah and disagreed claims in the lead at the moment. Plus, at the end of the lead the context was proper for bringing in historical perspective, bridging from lead to the history-section. JMO. --Casimirpo (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Reckless move

The article was just moved without discussion from Race (classification of human beings) to Race (classification of humans). For such a prominent and controversial article this isn't a change that can be done lightly and without discussion. The title "Race (classification of humans)" has a racist tone, is more dehumanizing than the previous one, and has an Auschwitz-like sistematicity. It makes the concept "race" sound more formal and credible, while it is pseudoscience. In fact, I would be in favor of a title like Race (pseudoscience).--Sum (talk) 09:20, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The move appears tolerable in view of the main Misplaced Pages article being titled Human rather than Human being. (The latter term redirects to the article titled by the single word.) We have saved a few characters in the article title with little definite change of meaning. I just checked what pages link to this article--quite a few, with many different redirect pages--and what was done here by the move (rename) looks all right. To be a good redirect target for all the wikilinks that lead here, this article will have to remain broad and interdisciplinary in scope. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically my view (I was the one who moved the article). "Humans" is used far more often than "human beings," so my move simply made the title shorter (a clear improvement) without losing any information. I didn't even make a major change to the title—for example, I think "Race (human)" would be an even better title, but I don't want to move the page again because I think the current title is good enough and because I don't want to cause more controversy. I definitely didn't expect my action to provoke such a large reaction. 67.170.81.80 (talk) 03:34, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Err, sorry, the above post was made by me. Eyu100 03:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's face it, the title was awkward, and it is still awkward. But the move was actually an improvement. The point of racial categorization is grouping human populations, not individuals. Sure, it can be and has been used to classify individuals, but that's secondary.

The "classification of human beings" thing in the title is little more than arguing by article title. A more proper disambiguation might be "race (human populations)" or similar. SummerWithMorons, your instant-Godwining of this (come on, you referred to Auschwitz without any provocation whatsoevecr in the second sentence of your first post. Can you get any more uptight about the topic?) is an excellent illustration that the current title is the result of entirely too much discussion, and discussion among the wrong people for the wrong reasons at that. You apparently just want a title to reflect your opinion that "it is pseudoscience". This is an extremely poor approach to WP:NAME. A real discussion would just look into how other tertiary sources handle this without the obsessing over "omg racist tone dehumanizing Auschwitz pseudoscience". --dab (𒁳) 09:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

on second thoughts, I think it will spare us much grief if we just move the article to racial group and be done, after all the term is bold in the lead and it is perfectly unambiguous. We just need disambiguation because of the unrelated race-as-in-racing, and because of the related race (biology). We could just place it at race (anthropology) and be done, but then people like Summer above will rant about how it is really pseudoscience, not 'real' anthropology. Racial group has none of these problems and is just an unambiguous title for what the article is supposed to discuss. --dab (𒁳) 12:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have some qualms with race (human groups). But I think dab's other proposal is spot-on. We have race (biology) for flora and fauna, so I think race (anthropology) for humans is actually a very good and constructive suggestion. As to anyone who might say that is pseudoscience, well, they are in the same fringe as people who say Einstein was wrong about relativity. Every major university in North America, Australia and Europe, and most major universities in the other three populated continents, has an anthropology department. So the claim that it is pseudoscience is not worth taking seriously. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a title Race (anthropology) could also be workable. (I'm not advocating another change so soon after the last change.) Particularly because there is another article titled Race (biology), the parallelism of titles would announce what this article is about, as any educated person knows that the subject matter of the discipline of anthropology is human beings, by etymology of the name of the discipline. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, Race (anthropology) would be a bad title because it would imply that the article is focused on the views of anthropologists alone. For example, would the views of a geneticist belong in such an article? Not by its title. (Of course, there would be nothing wrong with having an article which covered just the views of anthropologists on race, but this article is, obviously, intended to be much broader.) I think that, on the whole, the new name is better than the old name. But I could also imagine a better name, perhaps in conjunction with a rationalization that connected this article with Human genetic clustering and Human genetic variation as discussed in the Pruning shears discussion above? David.Kane (talk) 16:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• How about moving this to a more neutral title, such as Human races (currently a redirect)? I noticed that we do not even have a Category:Human races. But we probably should have it.Biophys (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The article was once titled Race (anthropology) before the name was changed to race (classification of human beings). Despite the clumsy name, I think it is the most neutral. The problem with "human races" is that it implies that races are real when this suggestion is disputed. Looking at the definition from online dictionary, race could simply mean any classification of humans, including a "race of journalists". Wapondaponda (talk) 16:10, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Maybe the best way is to think of this article as a daughter article to human? We could then have human (races), human (genetic variation), human (genetic clustering) and so on. Just thinking out loud . . . David.Kane (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The focus of the article shouldn't be on describing particular races as articles such as black people or white people already exist. Rather the focus should be on describing the criteria used for classification, including the objectivity or lack of objectivity of such criteria. This is why I support the current title. Wapondaponda (talk) 16:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So, the races are real since we have already black people, white people and this article. At the very least, they are real as valid encyclopedic subjects. Therefore, moving this to Human races should not be a problem.Biophys (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, nobody disputes that races are real social constructs. The problem with "human races" is that it implies a list of races, rather than a discussion of classification or taxonomy. Such a discussion will provide the necessary background to the existence of these socially defined groups, and will also discuss the various controversies associated with race. Wapondaponda (talk) 23:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

@David Kane: "anthropology" is "the study of human beings." The reason for the disambiguation is that botanists and zoologists (according to some of our editors, at least) use the word race diferently from anthropologists i.e. people who study dogs and bananas use the word race diferently from those studying humans. Now, we can have a Race(plants and animals) and Race(human beings) naming the object studied, or you can have a Race(biology) and a Race(anthropology) naming the academic discipline that does the study. Do you object to the article on rocks taking the view of geologists? Do you object to the article on galaxies taking the viw of astronomers? But I have no objction, keeping this race(human beings). My point is that when thinking about the nam of the article, we need to look at all the articles on the disambiguation page. The words in the parentheses are there to aid in the disambiguation, and whatever words we put in parentheses, we should be consistent in the way we choose them. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course one could create articles Race(biology) and a Race(anthropology), but in that case one must provide clear definitions what race means in biology and what race means in anthropology (if you believe that anthropology does not belong to biology?). The definitions must be supported by reliable sources and indeed be different definitions. Do you really mean that "anthropological" definition of race should sound like this: "near-uniform groups of individuals that can be identified by a few externally visible traits such as skin color", because that is what has been rejected (sic!) by the anthropologists? Biophys (talk) 18:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Race (biology) versus subspecies

This has been debated already, but once again, term "race" does not appear in biological taxonomy. The lowest official unit of the taxonomy is "subspecies", and that is what the codes of nomenclature tell (please check International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, here or here). Term "race" appears in evolutionary population genetics essentially as a synonym of highly divergent populations (frequently as "geographic race" or "ecological race"). To deny the existence of races in biological sense is like to deny the existence of distinct (divergent) populations. Someone just quoted this publication. It tells (box#1, point 1, page S18):

Modern human biological variation is not structured into phylogenetic subspecies ('races'), nor are the taxa of the standard anthropological 'racial' classifications breeding populations. The 'racial taxa' do not meet the phylogenetic criteria.

Thus, authors mistakenly equate subspecies to 'races' (not so because race does not appear in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, only subspecies do, and the corresponding ternary names with subspecies are widely used and commonly accepted, even for bacteria), but they make a correct conclusion that human races are not taxonomical categories. Of course they are not, and no one ever claimed them to be such. But races do exist as divergent human populations.Biophys (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Biophys, exactly what sources do you have at hand as you make these edits? My concern is that sourced information was in the article before your recent edits that seems to have vanished. Exactly which sources are you looking at, and what about the sources for the passages being deleted? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I mostly deleted a few duplications of text. If something important is missing, please add it to the last(current) version of page. I checked a few sources currently quoted in this article prior to making changes.Biophys (talk) 23:09, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Cherry picking in the lede?

The statement "Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries" chosen from , as a prelude to a however, under the heading: "Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population." mikemikev (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I used another source, but if you would like to include the additional statement (2), please do.Biophys (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph in the lead

According to biological studies, all human populations derive from a common ancestral group. There is also a greater amount of genetic diversity within regional human populations, with the geographic pattern of variation between these groups presenting less discontinuity in genes. This disproves the antiquated understanding of races as almost uniform groups of people that can be identified by a few visible traits. Therefore other scholars in the fields of anthropology, sociology, biology, and genetics prefer to group shared traits along ethnic lines which correspond to a history of endogamy.

According to biological studies, all human populations derive from a common ancestral group.

All living-things derive from a common ancestral group. So what?

There is also a greater amount of genetic diversity within regional human populations

This is cherry picked, see above. It doesn't even make sense. "A greater amount of genetic diversity within regional human populations" than what? The fact that "two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population" is a more relevant fact, and a fact this sentence appears to be attempting to obscure.

with the geographic pattern of variation between these groups presenting less discontinuity in genes.

This doesn't make sense. "Less discontiniuity" than what?

This disproves the antiquated understanding of races as almost uniform groups of people that can be identified by a few visible traits.

While I agree that racial groups are not uniform (who thinks that?) this synth nonsense proves or disproves nothing. This sentence is sourced to P. Aspinall's Language matters: the vocabulary of racism in health care. Is that appropriate?

Therefore other scholars in the fields of anthropology, sociology, biology, and genetics prefer to group shared traits along ethnic lines which correspond to a history of endogamy.

Sourced to Loring Brace, who misses the wood for the trees in failing to see that taxonomic significance is a product of trait correlation, as do the AAA (a quasi-political body) in their endless parroting of Lewontin's fallacy. I find it hard to see how this complies with NPOV. Additionally the sentence is not supported by the sources.

Am I missing something? mikemikev (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not object any changes. It seems that the dispute is mostly about the politically correct terminology. Nothing will change if one replaces word "races" by "human populations" or "ethnic groups". Can they be distinguished genetically? Yes, certainly. Right? Does it mean "racism"? No, until someone makes a judgment that one ethnic group is better than another.Biophys (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In zoology, mainstream opinion equates "race" with "subspecies" (see here as a good example). However, mainstream thought also recognizes that there isn't enough genetic diversity within the human species to form distinct subspecies, i.e. races. This is where Lewontin comes in: while about 85% of genetic variation present within the human species occurs within population groups, differences between population groups (the "classical races" for example) only accounts for 1-15% of the total genetic diversity of the human species. There are also dozens if not hundreds of excellent secondary sources which say that the "classical races" are in fact a social construct rather than a biological one, much less a "valid biological construct".--Ramdrake (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be making this up. Your reference for "mainstream opinion" is a WP article about cats. Is it a joke? Even if the between group difference was 1%, or 0.0001%, if it was observable and informative we would give it a name. The name we give it is "race", and in this sense it is not synonymous with subspecies. Now if it has no biological validity, why would it be a factor in medical indication (using terms 'black' and 'white'). What is the 85% within group variation anyway? Is it junk DNA? Do you have any idea? Why would this affect classification? Making stuff up. I intend to rewrite this paragraph. mikemikev (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re to Ramdrake: Please see my explanation above. As Ernst W. Mayr said, "a subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name" . Here, we talk about geographic races or populations that are taxonomically not worthy of a separate name. Nothing more, nothing less. All geographically isolated populations, which came from the same ancestor population, are genetically different and can be identified as such, no matter if they are people or animals. I can agree that there are some "classical races" (what it means? please provide definition!) which are in fact social constructs, but this has nothing to do with biology.Biophys (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you know what "social construct" means. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can console ourselves with the thought that we know what "objective reality" means. mikemikev (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re to Slrubenstein. Ramdrake and Mikemikev talked about Genetic divergence, not about social constructs. The "Genetic divergence" article correctly tells that "Genetic divergence will always accompany reproductive isolation, either due to novel adaptations or due to genetic drift, and is the principle mechanism underlying speciation." Are you disputing this? Biophys (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. But this is precisely why race doesn't apply to humans. Humans occupy enough different geographic niches so that there are differences in gene frequencies among groups, but these groups are never clearly bounded. Unlike Darwin's finches, no human population has been genetically isolated long enough to diverge to any great degree. Take babies born in Ecuatorial rainforests and the Arctic, and switch them - they will adapt and survive in their new niches. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If you mean that there are no genetically divergent human populations (do you?), this is disputing the basics of population genetics when they apply to human populations. Such views belong HERE. "Switch babies...". Switch tiger and leopard. That's not an argument. Biophys (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing clustering with divergence. aprock (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I talk about divergence of populations as basic evolution units, and others probably talk about clusters. This baby-switching argument reminds me scifi satire about aliens who switched two mothers by moving them from their own family to family of another women who lived in a remote location. After being surprised, each women realized where she was, fed children from another family and then moved back to her home town. The conclusion from a scientific study by the aliens: humans can not recognize their own children (otherwise, why would they fed children from another family), but they are territorial animals (moved back). Just kidding. The talk is becoming too tense.Biophys (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Biophys is thinking along the right lines: i.e. current scientific thinking rather than Neo-Lysenkoist rhetoric. Nobody thinks races are clearly bounded. Nobody thinks races are "diverged to a great degree" (where's the reference point there anyway?). But why then assert that "race does not apply to humans". It does not follow. mikemikev (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious as to what we accept as isolation and long periods. I would think there are differences in physiques which make the equatorial baby and Arctic baby each more suited to their own environment, certainly the two populations they come from have been separated for a very long time. Whether the differences are race or merely adaptation is a different topic. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. A Maasai baby would have big problems in the Arctic. mikemikev (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement of Cavalli-Sforza et al misrepresented

These authors make the following statements:

1. We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity
2. We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population
3. We urge those who use genetic information to reconstruct an individual’s geographic ancestry to present results within the broader context of an individual’s overall ancestry
4. We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time
5. We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores, tendency towards violence, and degree of athleticism
6. We encourage all researchers who use racial or ethnic categories to describe how individual samples are assigned category labels, to explain why samples with such labels were included in the study, and to state whether the racial or ethnic categories are research variables
7. We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group
8. We encourage the funding of interdisciplinary study of human genetic variation that includes a broad range of experts in the social sciences, humanities and natural sciences
9. We urge researchers, those working in media, and others engaged in the translation of research results to collaborate on efforts to avoid overstatement of the contribution of genetic variation to phenotypic variation
10. We recommend that the teaching of

genetics include historical and social scientific information on past uses of science to promote racism as well as the potential impact of future policies; we encourage increased funding for the development of such teaching materials and programs for secondary and undergraduate education

In his multiply reverted edit Mikemikev stated finding number 2 and concluded, using another source (Dawkins): "Therefore, "race", when applied to humans, is of genetic and taxonomic significance." Perhaps Mikemikev could explain why he chose to misrepresent Cavalli-Sforza et al in this way. Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's also worth mentioning that's he's misrepresenting Dawkins as well. aprock (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that you're now adding meaningless nonsense to WP? Why didn't you address my points? I haven't misrepesented anyone, I used almost direct quotes. This is disruptive. mikemikev (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"“Race” is not a clearly defined word." That quote is from your Dawkins citation. The idea that you would cite Dawkins to support what you inserted is fantastic. aprock (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote was almost a direct quotation. You're basically saying that my source doesn't support itself, based on your own strange idea that things have to be defined with infinite precision to be of significance. mikemikev (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "therefore" has no meaning as used in Mikemikev's concatenation of two phrases for the lede. As quoted by Richard Dawkins (p 406-407), Richard Lewontin made the statement, "Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of human and social relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be used for its continuance." Dawkins discusses at length Lewontin's 1972 statement in his popular science book, but again he never makes the statement that Mikemikev has written. In fact, while personally disagreeing with it, Dawkins precedes this quote and a previous longer one from Lewontin with the statement, "Lewontin's view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles." Mikemikev does not seem to have used a direct quote from Dawkins. If Mikemikev is trying to paraphrase a personal statement of Dawkins, then he should give a precise quote with attribution and the pages on which that quote appears. In any event it cannot possibly be used in the lede if it is just Dawkins' personal opinion. Could Mikemikev please clarify himself? Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm astonished that Mathsci has the audacity to expect a response to his ill-informed query. Perhaps Mathsci could address the more pressing issue of the huge logical holes in his train-wreck of an insertion above, before we discuss my use of the word 'therefore' (which I can justify) and the page number of the quote (which I can provide, are we looking at different editions Mathsci?). mikemikev (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the book in front of me. By all means cite the page number. aprock (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Responding to in the appropriate place ...

If you read the entire section, instead of cherry picking quotes, you'll see that Dawkin's is specifically discussing whether or not you might infer qualities like hair color, etc. From page 410 of the hardcover (about three pages later). Inter-observer agreement suggests that racial classification is not totally uninformative, but what does it inform about? About no more than the characteristics used by the observers when they agree: things like eye shape and hair curliness - nothing more unless we are given further reasons to believe it. For some reason it seems to be the superficial, external, trivial characteristics which are correlated iwth race - perhaps especially facial characteristics. With respect to his "refutation" of Lewontin's fallacy, it's mostly about what the word virtually means. The idea that such a fine point be presented in the lead as an absolute refutation is synthesis. In fact, you will find that Dawkin's agrees that Lewontin's view is mainstream. From a half a page before your selected quote: Lewontin's view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles. aprock (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I read the section. The part I quoted is about genetic variation, the part you quoted is about observable traits.

The lead currently presents Lewontin's fallacy as fact. If you prefer we can use Edwards' paper as a source.

And no, the argument that there is 15% genetic variation between groups, therefore race is of no taxonomic sigficance is simply flawed, virtually or otherwise. mikemikev (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that Dawkins is well aware that that particular view is not mainstream. aprock (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can be sure that the word 'orthodoxy' from Dawkins isn't approving. It's been 7 years since Edwards released his paper, I would imagine most are familiar with the fallacy by now. But are you actually suggesting that we present Lewontin's fallacy as mainstream? mikemikev (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything beyond the fact that you are misrepresenting Dawkins. aprock (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. mikemikev (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have gone out of your way deliberately to misrepresent two sources. Why did you do that? Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci misrepresented Sforza.

His edit was from: Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups

The full statement: Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population

Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries . Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution . This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns.

My edit was from :We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population, which is clearly the intended point.

Why doesn't Mathsci acknowledge this so we can move on? mikemikev (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cherrypicking from a source as a means of proving the opposite of what is stated there is just disruptive editing. It's what's called misrepresenting the source. Users continually making disruptive edits or suggestions of this kind normally end up having restrictions imposed on their editing privileges. Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(I saw this at that Arbom case here) Mikemikev is BLATANLY misrepresenting the source by cherrypicking the text. This text is against using races as a classification, and at least calling that these classifications are carefully evaluated.

--Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply with what I wrote in the Arbcom case:

What you need to bear in mind is that my edit was an improvement. If "We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population" was cherry picked, "Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups" was even more cherry picked and out of context. All I was trying to do was bring the article closer to the intended meaning of the source, which I did. What you're doing now is comparing my edit to some perfect imaginary interpretation, and not applying the same standard to Mathsci. This edit verges on the embarrassing. I'm trying to engage in dialogue in order to improve it, in order to improve WP, and all I'm getting is pure hostility, nothing constructive. I gave a thorough deconstruction on the talk page, why has nobody responded? I mean, are you all such experts in genetics that what I wrote doesn't deserve a response? Or is the reality that I'm facing the "races only exist as social constructs" club, who feel that their self-assumed moral authority excuses them from any kind of knowledgeable discussion? Proper sourcing does not mean cherry picking statements out of context to synthesize a POV, whether that POV is mainstream or otherwise. mikemikev (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is NOT the intended meaning of the source, as anyone who reads beyond the second statement can perfectly see. If you are misrepresenting sources, like you did here, then you can only expect that people complains about your edits. If you keep misrepresenting sources, then of course people will complain even louder. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not addressing the point. I don't claim that my edit was perfect, but it was closer to the wider meaning of the source than what was before. Instead of attacking me, why don't you suggest something better, and/or apply the same criticism to Mathsci and Ramdrake for supporting a worse example of the problem you're referring to. This is a double standard. mikemikev (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was NOT closer to the meaning of the source. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm prepared to go over this as many times as necessary. You can be as "loud" as you want. This is the statement in question:

"Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries . Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution . This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns."

Is the intended meaning of this statement:

A) "Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups."

B) "We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population."

Note especially the however, in "Patterns of variation, however, are far from random." It's quite clear that Sforza wishes to indicate that "Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups" is commonly misconstrued to be of importance, when it actually indicates little.

Whether or not "Mainstream POV" is that "race is not scientific", you need to use a source which reasons to that conclusion from first principles, not randomly pick quotes which in your opinion support that hypothesis.

My use of We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population was closer to the wider meaning of the source than Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups. mikemikev (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that your interpretation is at odds with the rest of the document. In one of my posts above, in a collapsable section, I highlighted some of the parts I considered relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you think "We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population" is at odds with the rest of the document, your problem is with Sforza, not me. mikemikev (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll just observe that the quoted sections you provide do not mention race. Using the above quotes, which are about population groups, to make inferences about race is WP:SYNTH. aprock (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The seeming "contradiction" between the two statements is easily sorted out if one reads the references cited by Cavalli-Sforza paper. The paper basically sez there are no existing distinct biological races in homo sapiens, but there are culturally defined races. On average, when comparing some site on the genome for any two individuals of different geographical groups we are more likely to see greater genetic variation than when comparing any two individuals of the same geographical group, but only slightly more. "Geologically defined groups" are not the same thing as "biologically defined races". Human genetic variation is not purely random, -- naturally small population groups that are reproductively isolated will be expected to have less genetic variation compared with population groups which have reproductive contacts with other population groups, so there is no surprise to find some correlation between geography and genetic variation. So it's not that there is absolutely no relationship, but mikemikev's is over-emphasizing it exactly as the paper cautions should not be done.

Does anybody else think this lead needs work? One, it quickly fixates on the current biology of race issue, and fails to summarize key points that are covered in most of the rest of the article. And two, all this tweaking has left it a bit confusing. For example, "self-identified race/ethnicity" and "forensic anthropology"? The subjects of forensic anthropology can't "self-identify" anything, right? And I don't understand what the sentence "Race serves to indicate essential types of individuals or fuzzy sets of people's traits" is trying to say". Professor marginalia (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I did over-emphasize it. But it was a nudge in the right direction.

Yes, the lead needs work. "The subjects of forensic anthropology can't "self-identify" anything, right?" Lol, it's just bizarre. Slrubenstein has reinserted Lewontin's fallacy and synthesized an argument from it again also. I've explained this enough I think. I could help fix it, and I'd be happy to cooperate to do that, but I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. To be frank I'm hoping Arbcom will apply a restriction. We shall see. mikemikev (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your definition about what the right direction would be doesn't qualify, and you're not allowed to slip it into place and disguise it with cites which claim the reverse.

And I don't see how the confusing sentence has anything to do with the Lewontin fallacy either. The words are simply tangled up. Forensic anthropologists use clusters of morphological features to try and come up with reliable assumptions to identify the ancestry of skeletal remains. They will use SIRE in studies testing the reliability of their methods, and then can apply tested methods to subjects that can't self-identify. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it qualifies, I've explained how. More?

The connection is Slrubenstein, the common factor in the garbled mess that is this article. Are you sure that your highly dubious insight into the methods of forensic anthropology, even if true, is a notable enough fact to be in the lead? mikemikev (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, your opinion of biological race does not qualify. I'll assume you misunderstood my statement here rather than presume you're defending substituting your own opinions for those made in the reference given. My "highly dubious" insights come from the sources attached to the claim. Do you bother reading the cites, or do you treat them as frivolous baubles we merely attach to claims to give the illusion they are referenced therein? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall editing my opinion into the article. I recall replacing a misrepresentation of Sforza with what he actually meant. I don't think there is much to understand in your statement, just the usual context free disparagement that you copy paste in when you don't like someone's edit.

Why would I read the cites to know that self-informed race is not a big part of forensics? It's just obvious. Can you reference the place in the cites where this is expressed? mikemikev (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You did not replace a misrepresentation of Sforza. You infer "race" where it says "geographically defined" populations, and when it comes to whether or not "biological races" exist today in the human species, most agree the measured differences between even "geographically defined" populations are too slim for "geographically defined" human populations to qualify as "biological races". In other words, because the ratio between "similarity" and "difference" weighs so heavily on "similarity", then by the definitions of race which are applied to other biological organisms, the consensus is that human beings today do not descend from nor can be sorted into separate or distinct biological races. (This opinion is shared by Cavalli-Sforza who is a widely cited reference for published analyses of F_st statistics and genetic distances between such populations). You can't quote mine Cavalli-Sforza et al to cherry pick a statement which implies they're confirming race in human beings as biological-the text clearly does not. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to discuss this, but just for future reference, can you clear up whether or not the cites support the use of SIRE or something similar in forensic anthropology? mikemikev (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No? OK.

I know some people don't agree that the differences are too slim for geographically defined human populations to qualify as biological races, because F_st statistics are calculated using mainly neutral loci, which have no bearing on the phenotype, and haven't been subject to selection. Basically, we all share pretty similar junk DNA. So what? The simple fact is that we just don't know yet. mikemikev (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But actually I'm getting your point about inferring "race" where it says "geographically defined" populations. This would also mean the phrase "There is a greater amount of genetic diversity within regional human populations than between those groups" is irrelevant, right? mikemikev (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"In his article about nonmetric skull racing, Rhine designed a study to test the various methods that had until then been in use by members of the Mountain, Desert and Coastal group of forensic scientists. He gathered a list of morphological traits (blah blah) then documented their occurrence in 87 skulls of "known race" (blah blah) Rhine never explains how the race of the individuals in the sample became known but one is led to believe that it was either self-reported or attribution based on soft-tissue appearance shortly after death." Self-identification or self-reported specimens are available for study when bodies are donated to science after death.

And no, it isn't irrelevant that the genetic diversity is small. From another of Cavalli-Sforza's papers, he lays out that using standards biologists typically apply to all other populations of organisms, the diversity is too small (it's approx half the necessary threshold) for "race" to have taxonomic significance in biology. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no official arbitrary threshold. How could there be when we don't understand what most of the genome is doing? Taxonomy is flexible. mikemikev (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, they have set some standard criteria, for example an F_st statistic of at least .25 (see the article's section "Subspecies genetically differentiated populations"). Oh, what fools these experts be. But ours is not to reason why. So maybe instead of superimposing what the experts should be concluding with our own hypotheses about where to draw these lines, we should just accept that, fools though they may be, wikipedia's rules require us to remember how insignificant our opinion about the topic is here. Their opinions count. Ours don't. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's just my incidental opinion. I apologize for using WP as a WP:FORUM. You brought up F_st anyway. But I think we agree that both versions of the quote are undesirable, since they talk about "geographically defined" populations. So I removed it. mikemikev (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Restoring a much earlier version of the lede

This is not the way wikipedia is edited and displays an unhelpful cavalier attitude to other editors. In the present case Mikemikev has been been editing disruptively. David.Kane is not a disinterested party, since he has supported disruptive edits of Mikemikev elsewhere and his personal view that race is a biological attribute is also on record. Misplaced Pages is edited in a cumulative incremental step-by-step manner, not by a single user declaring themselves as some kind of arbiter on a preferred version. That is a waste of everybody's time and an irresponsible act not justified by any of wikipedia core editing policies. Mathsci (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Which specific aspects of my edit do you find incorrect? Please seek consensus on controversial changes rather than defending them reflexively. Better: Please allow other editors to chime in with their opinions. And, for clarification, a month ago is not "much earlier." (And, for the record, I find that version of the lead to be problematic at well.) David.Kane (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mathsci. Everyone, let's work with last version and do minor improvements. I suggest for David.Kane to self-revert. People, you edit war during standing Arbcom case.Biophys (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Biophys's very wise suggestion. Please, David.Kane, could you self-revert? Mathsci (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I was away from Misplaced Pages for day. In any event, Aprock has reverted. I will look at the specific issues involved later. David.Kane (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The version that David.Kane reverted to was supported by consensus for around two months. It was the outcome of this discussion in May, and wasn’t changed at all until July. If there hasn’t been any consensus for subsequent changes to the lead since this version—and that seems to be the case—reverting to the last version that had a clear consensus seems like a reasonable thing to do.

This doesn’t mean the version David.Kane reverted to has to be something we stick with in the long run, but before making any significant changes to it we ought to discuss them and obtain consensus for them. So far, that hasn’t happened yet. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither David.Kane nor you have engaged in discussion on this, and the default position at wikipedia isn't "article lockdown until mikemikev is satisfied". Care to explain why you'd defend holding this page in lock up until mikemikev gives his consent to changes? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

“Neither David.Kane nor you have engaged in discussion on this”

Yes, we have, and I linked to where we discussed it in my previous comment. The discussion which resulted in the version that David.Kane reverted to occurred from May 15th to May 20th, and the resulting version of the lead went unchallenged for two months.

If you look at the article edit history, you’ll see that the way the recent conflict over the lead started was that Biophys made several large changes to the lead without discussing them first. There was nothing wrong with him doing that—it’s just being bold—but it also meant that someone who disagreed with his edits might end up reverting them. What happened instead was that Adhan24 made several more large changes to the lead, still without discussing them. Finally, Mikemikev modified the lead a third time, resulting in his edit war with Ramdrake.

The underlying problem here is that there was never a consensus for Biophys’s and Adhan24’s changes to the lead in the first place. These changes have apparently resulted in an inherently unstable state for the lead, which had previously been stable for two months. What David.Kane has done is basically just a delayed BRD response: reverting all of the recent non-consensus changes to the last version of the lead which had consensus, and then stating that these changes ought to be discussed before they’re added back, presumably starting with the changes from Biophys and Adhan24. Since he’s reverted all of Mikemikev’s recent edits in the process, I don’t see how you think this is the same thing as taking Mikemikev’s side here. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

((Two handed face palms)).............Because the only parties locked in paralyzing stand-offs in any of these intervening months of editing are mikemikev and those objecting to his edits. Delayed BRD? That's an understatement, to be sure ... extremely delayed, since David.Kane's reverted twice within the space of days unwinding months of edits (he's only claimed one month, while you say two) but has yet at any point in these past two months to discuss any one of the intervening edits he's reverted. Nor have you discussed any of it substantively. G-A-M-E. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it such a surprise that we haven’t contested any of Biophys’ and Adhan24’s changes until recently? Until the recent edit war between Mikemikev and Ramdrake, there was no evidence that these changes had resulted in any amount of instability, but at this point there is. The problems with both Mikemikev’s and Ramdrake’s preferred versions of the article have also been discussed extensively above, and it’s clear that neither version has consensus. The fact that we didn’t participate in this discussion isn’t no reason to avoid returning the article to the most recent consensus version.

Also, claiming that David.Kane undid “months of edits” is wrong, and you’ll see that if you look at the edit history. The version of the lead to which he reverted existed for two month, but it wasn’t modified until July 15th.

Like it or not, undoing a large number of changes which didn’t have consensus is a fairly common thing to do, even if it’s done by someone who didn’t discuss those edits when they were first made. Mathsci and Ramdrake have both done this on other articles, and argued that it was a valid thing to do in those cases, so unless they’re going to engage in hypocrisy they would have to feel similarly in this case. In light of your comments about this in the ArbCom case, I also have a hard time believing that your own opposition to this action is rooted in anything other your general opposition to Mikemikev as an editor, and your feeling that David.Kane and I are “taking his side”. If you aren’t willing or able to come up with any content problems with the version that David.Kane reverted to, the procedural issues that you’re complaining about appear to be nothing but WP:JDLI. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Have I spoken of mikemikev, ever, except in regards to the improperly sourced to Dawkins edit in the lead here? I know this is a confusing dispute, one that seems to continue to spread into ever more articles, and I just finished apologizing for a screw-up that I caught myself making. But how was the article "stable" for two months of editing until Ramdrake reverts mikemikev's bogus editing, which you then claim as evidence of "lack of consensus" for the intervening edits by Biophys’s and Adhan24's? My "opposition to this action" is that it's the same kind of flimflam, bluster, mischaracterization and obfuscation that's already wasted hundreds of hours of babysitting. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When I say that the lead section (I’m not talking about the whole article, just the lead) was stable for two months, what I mean is that everyone appeared to be satisfied with it and only minor changes were made to it during that time. Compare this version of the lead from May 16th to this version from July 12th. There have been some minor (and non-contentious) clarifications of the lead’s wording, but that’s all.

And the reason why the changes made by Biophys and Adhan24 didn’t have consensus is just because they weren’t discussed. Consensus can’t exist without discussion. I didn’t have a strong opinion about these changes when they were first made, but since they’ve ignited an edit war over a part of the article that had previously been stable for two months, it seems obvious to me (and apparently also to David.Kane) that these changes shouldn’t be included in the article until there’s a consensus for them. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re to Captain. No, I do not have any serious objections to edits by Adhan24 . We had consensus with him. But I object to edit by Davit.Kate, mostly because it was revert to an old version. If he wants to gradually improve article by staring from the last version, I have absolutely no objections. A consensus can exist without discussion, simply by default (that is if no one objects).Biophys (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's tell this differently. I am totally uninvolved and never edited these articles. I made a few non-controversial edits to NPOV the introduction (this version , 2nd and 3rd paragraphs). Second paragraphs tells that races do exist in biological sense. Third paragraph tells that the popular understanding of races as almost uniform groups of people is misconception. This provides some balance. Adhan24 decided to modify this version, although in a POVish fashion, and another editor added some refs. This is fine. Now it's my turn to modify something. But reverts to an older version force me to leave this article, because being involved in confrontations is something I can not afford.Biophys (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus exists by default when nobody objects to a change, then something is seriously wrong with the way Mathsci and Ramdrake have handled the editing of these articles. There have been examples of both of them deleting content that had been in articles for several months, without any consensus (and sometimes no discussion) about removing it, and the justification they’ve provided for doing this was the assertion that there had not originally been a consensus for it when it was first added. Both of them argued so vigorously that this is the standard way of handling situations like these that I’ve assumed that it is. Was I wrong to assume that?

Race and intelligence is the only article I’ve been involved in that’s controversial enough that anybody would even consider reverting this many changes at once, so the only thing I can use as a my basis for understanding of what’s “normal” in this respect is how I’ve seen it handled on these articles. If I’m wrong about this and what Mathsci and Ramdrake have been doing isn’t normal, I’d appreciate you letting me know how situations like this are supposed to be handled. In this case, when Ramdrake reverted around two months of changes with the justification that there hadn’t been a consensus for them, some of the content that he removed still hasn’t been added back to the article since then. If this wasn’t a valid thing for him to do, is there anything that ought to be done about the long-term effects it’s had on the article?

I mentioned before that I don’t have a strong opinion in terms of content about the changes that you made, nor do I think you did anything wrong by making them. As I said, you were just being bold. What matters to me is just that the lead be in a state that’s supported by enough of a consensus that there won’t be edit warring over it. If it can be stable with the most recent changes from Aprock, David.Kane and Enric Naval, then I’ll be fine with letting it stay in that state going forward, as long as it can be kept in a state that’s consistent with NPOV. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

<= Since I've only made 13 edits to the article, two of those in July and the rest in May, it's very hard to make any sense of what Captain Occam has written. Is Captain Occam expressing his approval of Mikemikev's edits? What else is he suggesting was deleted? As far as I am aware, I formulated the general statement about physical anthropologists and race-related medicine in the lede, although it has subsequently been slightly modified. Ramdrake and I are different users who both disagreed with the recent disruptive edits of Mikemikev, which were his own sole doing and misrepresented the sources. A whole series of other editors have expressed their agreement here and on the corresponding ArbCom pages. Captain Occam seems uneasy at accepting that. On this talk page he has appeared to support the actions of Maikemikev and David.Kane, both of which were disruptive. Note that David.Kane did not self-revert, despite the request.

Mikemikev's two sentences did not satisfy WP:V and misrepresented both sources, Those sentences have been removed and replaced with something sensible. David.Kane's disruptive rollback did not have the approval of other users: it was reverted by me and Aprock, with the approval of multiple editors. Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

When I refer to your and Ramdrake’s editing of “these articles”, I’m referring to more than just this article individually. That should be clear from the fact that the example I provided in Ramdrake’s case involved the Race and intelligence article, not this one.

The rest of your comment doesn’t warrant a response, in my opinion. There’s nothing to be gained from my re-explaining what I’ve just explained to Marginalia in the comments above, and it appears to be a moot point now anyway. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a reasonable response. Please keep your reponses to edits to this article. Otherwise you are simply wasting time. I hardly edit any of these articles now, unlike you. Mathsci (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Aspinall

If this "rollback" is reverted, a second look should be given to the claim "This disproves the antiquated understanding of races as almost uniform groups of people that can be identified by a few visible traits" sourced to Aspinall. Maybe I'm just missing it, but I can't find this discussed in the text--the article seems to me to be devoted to discontinuing antiquated terminology, such as "Negro", "Oriental" etc. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I will remove this sentence. David.Kane (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hum, I had the nagging feeling that this was leaving a gap in that paragraph. I moved Cavalli-Sforza to source the "less discontinuity between groups" bit. Also from him, I added "and there is no scientific basis for hierarchically organized categories based in race and ethnicity". --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to try to clean up the lead a bit. Comments, suggestions and requests welcome. I may also take out the pruning shears by moving much of the history material into the various sub articles. Time for some boldness! David.Kane (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice one. Before I knew this I removed the most heavily disputed phrase entirely while you were in the middle of it. I'm hoping this will be an acceptable compromise. mikemikev (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to find an angle to prune the subspecies section. It needs to be done, but I can't work it out. Will keep thinking. mikemikev (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think David's last removal of sources from the lede is a move in the right direction.

I see there are still plenty of edits going on here. Just as with the topic of human intelligence (a topic on which I do much of my professional research), for the topic of anthropology, human biology, and race I expect first of all to gather lots of sources in a citations list on my user space, and to hold off on most substantive edits of articles until I have more sources at hand. (For this topic, most of the sources I now have at hand relate mostly to human intelligence. Other sources will come into my office as I do more library runs or download more sources that have online full-text access.) But it is surely correct anywhere on Misplaced Pages to prefer mainstream secondary sources to newly published (possibly unreplicated) primary sources, so edits that go in the direction of removing sources (and attached statements) that not preferred Misplaced Pages sources will help Misplaced Pages articles shrink to reasonable size and help editors communicate more clearly about which factual statements belong in each article as NPOV, due weight representations of current scholarship. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Which "mainstream secondary sources" would you most recommend for this article? Ideal would be ones available on-line in some format. I don't know much about this literature. David.Kane (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The most prominent journals are all on-line, although usually only university libraries subscribe to them. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Alas, David's editing process in the lede (always the most contentious part of an article to edit in any long article on a controversial topic) ran ahead of the source-gathering process, and an edit subsequent to my comment that opened this section has been identified by an administrator as a disruptive edit. It's prudent to source first and edit later. There is a lot to be learned from the best sources on the topic of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued disruptive edits of first paragraph of lede.

It's long past time to discuss sources first, and edits later, for this article. I just picked up the latest biography of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza at my friendly local academic biography while attending a conference of mathematics teachers this weekend, and once again I am appalled at how some of the recent edits misrepresent the findings of leading researchers on the subject and how much they push a point of view. The ArbCom decision in the Race and Intelligence case should clarify some of the editor conduct issues here soon, but meanwhile let's use the article talk page to lay out sources, and calmly discuss those before making substantive changes in the text of the lede. Misplaced Pages must rely on reliable sources by policy, so changes in article text not based on sources will have to stay out of this contentious article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation Weiji. Can you substantiate it? My edit was made in good faith. Also, do you think racial classification is based on "cultural and social" factors? It's BS and you know it. The first sentence was already unsourced. mikemikev (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You inserted an attempt to define by biological characteristics. That is one perspective, it would not be present in most of anthropology for example. The lede has to present a balanced view, not that of a particular faction or theory.--Snowded 15:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded that the lead should be balanced. My understanding is that human race is based upon both social and biological characteristics. Isn't that widely accepted? That is, what is classified as "white" is different in, say, the US and Brazil (and so is social) but, at the same time, there are biological/genetic differences, at least on average, between different racial groups in all societies. That is, race is not purely social or purely biological. Comments welcome. David.Kane (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of race is subject to social and cultural factors, but the classification is always based on observed heritable traits. mikemikev (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not going to be a single agreed definition. Some argue for biology, some for social, some for mixed. Some modern anthropology links to biological changes in the DNA within a few generations so inheritance is not the only determinant even of biology. It is a messy complex field and the best that can be hoped for is to indicate those differences. Classification is not always based on "observable heritable traits", that is just one school of thought. To be honest I think the debate here should be in suspension until the ARBCOM case on a related article is complete. To illustrate my point I recently set as an exam question (in relation to the Discworld series "Is Captain Carrot a dwarf". The answers covered a wide range (mostly well referenced) of answers--Snowded 15:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, have a good evening. Over and out. mikemikev (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful to seek out reputable sources which in and of themselves discuss any given debate and objectively represent all sides to the debate so that we can relate what reliable scholarship states, not our self-constructed tit-for-tat / he-said-she-said versions under the guise of NPOV = "leave it to the reader" and which also inevitably lead to accusations of editorial infidelity to the topic. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. But the first sentence "Race refers to the classification of humans into populations or groups based on various factors such as culture, social practice or heritable characteristics" is unsourced. It seems obvious to me that racial classification is based on heritable characteristics alone (ie. it can be done with photographs). I'm pretty sure that in the absence of sourcing "various factors such as culture, social practice or" should be left out as the default position. We already have "Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, effectively functioning as folk taxonomies" as the second sentence to clarify the matter. mikemikev (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "pretty obvious to me" editing is causing everyone trouble. Gimme five minutes and I'll source it. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about all the trouble. It just seems like absolutely obvious BS to me. Perhaps I'm just a dumbass. mikemikev (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I tell you what, I'll change it, and when you get a source, you can change it back. mikemikev (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - it took me 20 minutese. The citation was obstinately refusing to format for me nicely. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume you failed to notice my citation beat you. I recommend you revert your edit, thank you. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

mikemikev, when you write, "It seems obvious to me that racial classification is based on heritable characteristics alone (ie. it can be done with photographs)," you make a statement for which there are hundreds of thousands (perhaps tens of millions) of counterexamples. (I am a first-degree relative of some persons for whom your statement doesn't work.) But if you want to put statements that are obvious to you into an encyclopedia, it is first of all your obligation to find reliable secondary sources to back up the statements. I'll be doing some reading of some of the latest professional handbooks I've just circulated from my state's flagship university library over the next few days. Reading serious academic books is good for the mind, and I highly recommend it. Try to find some books that challenge what seems obvious to you, and see what you learn from those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(I am a first-degree relative of some persons for whom your statement doesn't work.) How's that? Please stop patronizing me also. We got an unsourced statement sourced, I'm not arguing. mikemikev (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is quite amusing. Do think I could get a rough idea of the race of your first-degree relatives from looking at a photo, and no idea from knowledge of their language and culture in the absence of knowledge of heritable traits? You seem to be confusing fuzzy sets and classification criteria. mikemikev (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall seeing some studies about this a while ago: here, here, and here. According to these studies, when people attempt to judge someone else’s race based on visual appearance, it usually lines up with that person’s self-identification, although not 100% of the time. So Mikemikev is right that this is usually possible based on heritable characteristics alone, but WeijiBaikeBianji is right that there are notable exceptions where it isn’t. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev writes that he can determine race by looking at photographs. How is this relevant to this discussion? If the article on racial hygiene were being discussed, it would be relevant, since in the 1936 edition of Rassenhygiene easy-to-use photographs, frontal and in profile, were inserted to allow easy recognition of different races by ordinary Germans in the street. The book is viewable on archive.org but I don't think an English translation was ever made. Mathsci (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really the point. It's just an illustration of the principle that language and culture are not considered in the classification. Some people seem to be bashing some kind of "100% certainty discrete classification from photographs" strawman (and even descending to "the Nazi's thought it therefore it's wrong"). The point is that language and culture are not factors in racial classification, it's obvious. But that's my opinion (and the opinion of medical science, which is apparently trumped by the opinion of cultural anthropology and the encyclopedia brittanica, who am I to argue?). Why don't you stop going on about it? mikemikev (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Its far from obvious and if you check up on medical science and biology you will find your views are not shared. Check up on the work of Odling-Smee and others on lactose intolerance if you want an example of culture and biology stepping hand in hand. The Nazi issue is a real one. Just cause they thought it does not make it wrong, but when it relates to issues of race it should trigger some caution before making bold statements. --Snowded 08:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be totally irrelevant even if the racial differences were entirely caused by historical cultural differences (they aren't of course, but to some degree). The differences in themselves are genetic. mikemikev (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On one theory of Race Mike, but its not the only one as you should know by now. If you look at the exaption literature you might see that some of your statements are increasingly been challenged --Snowded 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to reference some of this paradigm shifting scholarship? mikemikev (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well exaptation is interesting, not sure its paradigm shifting. A quick search on Odling-Smee will get you material. Then of course there is mass of material on the biological end of anthropology. You might like to look up Not by genes alone by Peter Richardson. The merger of cognitive science with aspects of philosophy of mind and anthropology is also interesting. Neither Brain not Ghost by Rockwell will give you a starting point there. Of course you won't find it obsessed with race. Hope that's useful, unless of course, God forbid, you were attempting sarcasm. --Snowded 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Mikemikev: "The definition of race is subject to social and cultural factors, but the classification is always based on observed heritable traits." Well, no. Just ... no. Untrue. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Better first sentence?

Thanks to Professor marginalia for providing such a good source from Encyclopædia Britannica for the first sentence. Looking at that source, the key sentence seems to be "“Race” is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history." I am thinking of rewriting our first sentence to be much closer to this. Comments? David.Kane (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Misplaced Pages:PSTS, Encyclopedia Britannica would be considered a tertiary source. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem, but I know some people have been of the opinion that these articles should be based on nothing but secondary sources. Do other people think we should cite a tertiary source for this part of the article? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@David.Kane. This is the introduction and needs to be more encompassing. It's clear from reading the whole article that at times they're talking about what people tend to first presume race is, at others what scientists (physical anthropologists primarily) formerly defined race as, and now what is generally considered to encompass these and other shifting definitions within a broader, sociologically ("culturally") based classification which means different things in different cultural contexts. The outward physical characteristics needs to be there somewhere-it's obviously one of the more commonly used features-but maybe it should be incorporated better into a reworking of the "Race serves to indicate essential types of individuals or fuzzy sets of people's traits" which I still think is unclear. (Essential types and fuzzy sets are too conflated or something in the sentence. It don't know what this is meaning to say.) I also think the "subspecies" discussion needs a tweak as well. Race and subspecies do mean the same things in biology, but biologists will say that biologically or taxonomically humans cannot be classified into races. In other words, in biology race and subspecies are the same, but the diversity in humans today don't qualify as having any. But there's lots of time to talk this out, so let's nobody go crazy and start making changes yet.

@Captain Occam, tertiary is fine - EB is used throughout wikipedia. It's often one of the better ways to assess the most general or commonly accepted in topics where dwell devotees who may have more intensively researched specialities but bring very selective or narrow points of view and get too lost in the tall weeds. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@Marginalia, Subspecies status is not decided by genome diversity accounting. It can't be since we don't know what most of the genome is doing. 'Subspecies' is a vague but informative term, much like 'race'. Subspecies applies to non-interbreeding but potentially interbreeding populations, with some noticeable difference (undefined). Race can be applied to clinally varied populations. I mean what do we call clinal genetic variation among humans? Race. It's not precise, but it can be informative. mikemikev (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sharing more of your "pretty obvious to me" insights here? Because it continues to strike me odd how little correlation there is between your arguments and the claims in mainstream secondary sources, including ones you've cited in support of your edits. If scientists are studying genome differences it is in a sense irrelevant what the genome is "doing". So there's fairly strong consensus on this-as reflected in EB: most scientists seek to apply the same criteria to humans as the rest of the animal kingdom--the majority haven't agreed to apply some ad hocish exemption for humans for the interim while they try and dig up a novel justification to consider them distinct taxonomically. For example, though they find there to be geographic clines in human populations, known correlations such as between skin color and latitude tend to show relatively little co-variance with other traits, and it's not a meaningful stand-in for racial taxonomy. (Most population geneticists prefer to measure neutral genetic differences from multiple loci for this kind of taxonomic analysis for similar reasons--selected traits can be distorted measures of distance.) There's a good discussion of the various analyses evolutionists apply comparing populations in Fish's Race and Intelligence cited in the Race and intelligence article. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Utter crap. mikemikev (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I take it your answer would then be "yes", you were simply offering another one of your "pretty obvious to me" arguments. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(The last I checked we're all the same species.) I don't have a suggestion for the lede at the moment, but it seems a bit of a hodge-podge—in fact, regarding the first sentence, the lede might be better off as only the first sentence. As soon as the lede strays into the "purpose" of race it's already in muddy waters. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, utter crap should probably be taken as a no. To save time, I will just copy paste (mostly) what I wrote in the Arbcom case:

said "In other words, in biology race and subspecies are the same, but the diversity in humans today don't qualify as having any", and I was making the point that genetic diversity cannot be used to decide whether or not race is of taxonomic significance. Taxonomy is based on phenotypic characteristics. Until we know what the genome is doing we cannot reason (Lewontin style) from genotypic to phenotypic diversity. So "If scientists are studying genome differences it is in a sense irrelevant what the genome is "doing"" is wrong except for a naive and valueless genome comparison, and it's certainly irrelevant to this discussion (ironically).

Certainly there is no ad hoc exemption for humans. For example flowers can be considered races just by having different colored petals. Peppered moths are races when they change color in dirty cities. In this case the phenotypic change in question is probably the only difference, and it is clinal. The genetic diversity within as opposed to between groups is absolutely huge, but they are still races and of taxonomic significance. Human races differ even more and in more ways, ways which are found to be correlated.

Concerning your point about skin color not correlating with anything, I agree. However race does correlate with things so I wonder why you throw in this red herring.

And I know that your sources don't support what you're saying.

Hence: "Utter crap." mikemikev (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And if one is basing race purely on the phenotype then nobody would bother measuring genetic differences in the first place. So what kind of work do you think geneticists like Cavalli-Sforza and Lewontin are doing? Studying tooth cusps and femurs? See here for a source, quoted. And stop wasting our time here. This is not the place to share your theories, nor is it the place to post all the guesswork and wishful thinking you've been shoving out about what is actually said in the sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well here's a paper about it.

"In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example."

I'm basically just repeating what's there, with some examples to make it easier to understand. I thought you would be aware of this paper.

I read your link, thanks. Templeton certainly isn't a major figure in genetics and taxonomy (as Edwards is in the paper above). I'm not sure his synthesis can be regarded as reliable here. mikemikev (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

From your link:

"(In analyzing criteria *a) "The validity of the traditional subspecies definition of human races can now be addressed by examining the quantitative patterns and amount of genetic diversity found within and among human populations. A standard criterion for a subspecies or race in the nonhuman literature under the traditional definition of a subspecies as a geographically circumscribed, sharply differentiated population is to have F st values of at least 0.25 to 0.30 (Smith et al., 1997). " (Human F st values are about .15.)"

"For example, when the analysis includes only humans, FST = 0.119, but adding the chimpanzees increases it only a little, FST = 0.183." mikemikev (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede, sourcing?

Regarding the citation to American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"". Aaanet.org. 1998-05-17 with reference to "When used as a biological term, race describes genetically divergent populations of humans that can be marked by common phenotypic and genotypic traits." I had read the AAA statement, authored by Smedley, some time ago, I didn't recall her supporting any kind of biological basis for race, nor did I see the same on rereading it. Perhaps editing over time without updating references has led to some anomaly? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time and it would be a surprising thing for an Anthropologist to support. May be better as "Race can describe ..." or similar? --Snowded 05:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that something changed and the AAA statement no longer applies, I hoped my question would jog some memories. In fact, the more I read the lede, the more I think that "less is more," but that's another conversation! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked the entire parade of sources but I suspect this is more of a wording stumble than a misrepresentation of sources. No, the AAA is not supportive of any biological basis of race. However "race" in non-human biology is (a now dying common usage or) synonym for subspecies or distinct evolutionary lineage--and the AAA will say by neither definition do human populations qualify as biological categories. The wording is too mixed up I think. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree in general less is more. But I also believe an introduction needs to introduce the article as a whole and this article reviews a range of approaches. That said, if we use any sources at all in the lead I think we should stick to AAA and AAPA, the largest professional arganizations representing scientists who study race/human evolution/human genetic variation. This article is chronically the target of people who rewrite the introeduction to insert their own views, so it is always degrading. Rather than argue over what the right view is, I propose we (1) keep any sentences sourced to the AAA or AAPA statements (2) make sure they represent those statements as accurately and concisely as possible and (3) make sure that any other major issue covered by the article is also introduced in the introduction. I am tring to propose general principles I hope we can all agree on; if we do I am sure that we can work out the specific wording through attentive good faith editing without much strife. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein that less is more. But contentious articles should, even more than most articles, be based on secondary/tertiary sources. The statements of professional organizations are, of course, important to include and reference, but they should not form the core of the lead or the article itself. Much better to use the Encyclopædia Britannica article or some other widely respected secondary (or tertiary) source. David.Kane (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of perhaps betraying some personal opinions, I would see points to touch on in the lede, were it to remain of similar size, as including (but not limited to):

1. the anthropological view of "race" as a social construct;
   1. I would see racial self-identification as congruent to that, i.e., SIRE should be mentioned;
   2. race as a historical tool supporting (self-anointed) colonial superiority justifying exploitation of other peoples—the science of classification as a useful contemporary to the expansion of colonial power;
2. racial classifications as they correlate to and reflect human geobiodiversity—notably, geobiodiverse mutations are also demonstrated to be shared across geographically adjoining racial groups, so, for example, sickle-cell disease being the downside of an otherwise beneficial mutation—which one escapes me at the moment—shared among peoples of African and Mediterranean descent.

As I've indicated elsewhere, there's no train leaving the station. As Audrey Smedley is the author of a wide swath of EB content regarding race, point #1 would be the most prominent regardless, as AAA's statement and EB content have been penned by the same individual. Fortuitous, no? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(Personally speaking) there are aspects of cultural life which are associated with "race" particularly in the U.S. which are more reflective of what one would typically consider cultural differences between ethnic groups, but another topic. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WP competes with EB so I see no point in our quoting them in the lead. If people want to use another general encyclopedia they are free to, if they want to use Misplaced Pages let's give them WP. Vercrumba, with regards to your chart, social construction refers to ways knowledge is produced, not to a specific group of people who use knowledge. Scientists "socially construct" knowledge as well. By the way, the sickle- cell is the beneficial mutation. People with a homozygote have too many sickle cells, and suffer from anemia, which is bad. People with the heterozygote have a lower number of sickle-cells, which affords them some protection against malaria. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was the protection against malaria, I was recalling that it manifested as an increased likelihood of sickle-cell anemia, thanks. As I stated, my list is perhaps more my personal view, but even as such it might be useful for discussion. Since EB reflects AAA owing to authorship, I'm hoping we can largely avoid debate over prominence of secondary versus tertiary and focus on what are the essential points for the lede. Apologies to the long-standing participants at my opening the proverbial can again, but I do think the lede can be improved, not just focusing on the first sentence. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now and then I should remember to scroll all the way down to remind myself what's already in the article in case I've forgotten! Thanks for your patience. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Returning to your opening question, this change is where the wording got mixed around. It was better before the edit. I'd twk it again to read, "When used as a biological term to describe humans, race should not be confused with subspecies because human races do not delineate unique subspecies. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I do see the phenotypes reference in Smedley's text. I'll take a look at the wording before/after and current to see if there is a more straightforward way of putting things. I'll try not to be too bold if I do, copy edit only. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to condense down a bit of the lede into plain English while maintaining the refs and links. I won't take umbrage if it gets reverted as not having improved things (as long as it's reverted politely!). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I will also not assume any changes I make are acceptable if not immediately reverted or if there's no feedback within period X. Many a conflict has been exacerbated by "Unless I hear otherwise,..." (!) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Made the rest of the lede readable (IMHO), unfortunately the reference for the statement regarding the study of ethnic groups didn't apply. I moved the reference up and noted we need a citation. On the other recent delete and restore, it would help to find some citations at least, the passages have been tagged since 2007. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike's deletions

Mike deletes informative content. He then adds tags, saying that certain claims are unsuppoted. This article has extensive sitations and it is just absurd to think every sentence needs a citation after it. What is necessary is to include coherent explanations of major points of view. Remove informative content, as Mike delights in doing, and what is left will not make sense to readers. Nice tactic. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was a rule against vandalism on Misplaced Pages. I'm glad that at least you are restoring sourced content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if one were to take Mike's characterization as correct, eliminating the entire discussion prevents any understanding of the context and significance of the final position. It might as well state "Elephants have no pink polka-dots." Such mass deletions are not helpful. Let's not revisit this manner of bold editing. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is significantly too long. If you disagree with Mike's deletions, what would you delete? Feel free to be bold and do it! His deletions seemed fine to me. David.Kane (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the result left me asking what's the point of the content that's left, it says nothing to the average reader without additional background. There's a lot that can be done to copy-edit to tighten instead of deleting and leaving readers scratching their heads. IMHO of course. (Copy editing the lede probably cut out 20% or more.)

If the article is too long then suggest some appropriate (additional) daughter articles, perhaps. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if everyone spoke for their own additions and subtractions as they are done so we can agree or disagree with the reasons given for an edit. Mike is absent from this discussion so it's one-sided at the moment. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a useful cut and the result made perfect sense to me. I don't think we need an extended discussion of what race is not. The section is called 'Subspecies as clade', it's utterly off topic.

This:

"For anthropologists Lieberman and Jackson (1995), however, there are more profound methodological and conceptual problems with using cladistics to support concepts of race. They emphasize that "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories in their initial grouping of samples". For example, the large and highly diverse macroethnic groups of East Indians, North Africans, and Europeans are presumptively grouped as Caucasians prior to the analysis of their DNA variation.

This limits and skews interpretations, obscures other lineage relationships, deemphasizes the impact of more immediate clinal environmental factors on genomic diversity, and can cloud our understanding of the true patterns of affinity. They argue that however significant the empirical research, these studies use the term race in conceptually imprecise and careless ways. They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for racial distinctions only because they began by assuming the validity of race."

is essentially babble. Who/What are "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model"? No evolutionary scientist I know of supports human races as clades. It's a ridiculous strawman. We need to know exactly where all of this stuff was sourced from.

There's too much repetition here. Do we need to mention that races are best represtened as clines in the 'Subspecies as clade' section, when we have a cline section later?

Also, Weiji, next acusation of vandalism or disruption gets reported. mikemikev (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable secondary source and the citation is provided so just go ahead and read it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it. The quoted sections are about the out of Africa model, not clades. This justifies immediate deletion. mikemikev (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

After breaking WP:BRD on this it would be interesting to see how your report of another editor would be taken. --Snowded 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How did I break BRD? I'm discussing now. mikemikev (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You were bold on the 7th and were reverted, you then made the deletion again on the 8th without discussion/agreement. --Snowded 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not paper. One way to deal with long articles is more effective introductions that let readers decide which sections they wish to read carefully. Nothing forces a reader to read the entire article. WP not being paper means we do not have to be superficial and partial like most encyclopedias. And I do not think we should write as if our main audience all has ADD. People can skip around from sextion to section if they wish or as Vercrumba correctly points out follow links to learn moe. But our main job is to educate by explaining things. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

@Sl, thanks for that. Equally important is that we write for our audience, not for professors reviewing a thesis. The former, IMHO, is much more difficult on any complex topic. Some of the current writing is dense enough to make reader's eyes water.

   Lastly, we're not children. This is article talk, not AN/I, so let's please dispense with accusations and threats and threats of retributions on accusations. Personally, I've had quite enough of that at the toxic R&I arbitration proceedings.

• You have a problem, go to the arbitration while it's still going and diff away. Not here.
• Major changes require discussion beforehand. Period.
• Solicitous (engenders good faith and) trumps unilateral (which engenders bad faith). Always.

We can do better. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Peters wrote, "You have a problem, go to the arbitration while it's still going and diff away. Not here." Good point. Right now we have a forum that is very focused on the issue of constructive editing to build an encyclopedia, and anyone who has objections to editing practices on articles related to the ArbCom case can bring up those objections there. Here the goal is to read and discuss sources, and then in turn to discuss wording that makes a better encyclopedia article for a worldwide readership made up of persons of all backgrounds and varied presuppositions about the topic of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting new source on subject of this article.

I just yesterday saw that my local library has acquired a new book, Race and Reality by Guy P. Harrison, which has some excellent reviews from knowledgeable reviewers. I have requested it from the library and will use it to oversee further revisions in this article. All of you are welcome to recommend other good, recent sources on this subject. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Next, history section

I won't assume that there aren't quibbles with my edits to the lede, but I'm done with my own tweaking, so moving on. My eyes tear over a bit just reading the history section, which isn't even that complex. It's a bit longer and more torturous than it needs to be, and there's some crisper background available on etymology, though not dissimilar per the single citation that currently appears. I'll also work to get the section fully cited as well. That's for over the next couple of days, pretty full up on "stuff". Just a note so we're not stepping on each other's toes. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"This new science has led many mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as a scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon"

Mainstream evolutionary scientists:

Baum, Bruce David.

Angier, Natalie.

Amundson, Ron.

Reardon, Jenny.

Also false allegation of vandalism. mikemikev (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Eh, perhaps you care to look at the article from The New York Times. What's that, almost a dozen geneticists and others in relevant disciplines? Drmies (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I count 4 supporting the statement, and an equal or greater number saying race is useful or reserving judgement. A quote mined New York Times piece "Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows" cannot be regarded as representing mainstream scientific opinion. We need to look at top scientific sources. Incidentally, here's a more recent New York Times piece (actually by an evolutionary biologist), reaching the exact opposite conclusion. mikemikev (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!..." you're not hearing that major changes with nary a comment directly prior or after on a topic in an area of contention are quite likely to be regarded as vandalism. Nor are you hearing why sometimes more is more and less is meaningless. Chill. You want to bring up allegations rightly or wrongly please take it up elsewhere. There's no train leaving the station here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so childish. This is a ridiculous addition. These are not "mainstream evolutionary scientists", they're not even evolutionary scientists. Why don't you address the content instead of giving condescending procedural lectures. mikemikev (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I just checked Baum, he's source cited in studies on race. Perhaps you'd like to offer your categorization, along with your criteria, of these individuals instead of offering sarcasm and calling me childish. I suggest trying this again as a discussion instead of sneering. As for "condescending" I rather suspect you are projecting your conflicts with other editors on me. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Vecrumba. Of course, it doesn't matter how much any one of us checks sources. One has to know how to use sources. No one ever claimed that these sources were written by evolutionary biologists. They were written about evolutionary biologistists 9among other things). This is typical of secondary sources. And of course fully in line withour policies. Sometimes I have to wonder whether mike ever looked at our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

My categorization is "not a biological or evolutionary scientist". How can this guy speak for evolutionary science? A sociologist asserts "biological race does not exist" (Lewontin's fallacy no doubt). Who cares? He doesn't even explain why in the cite. mikemikev (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then, maybe you'd like to take a look at the resume of Jenny (Jennifer) Reardon, who's a full-blown biologist, specializing in genetics and genomics and their impact on social identity. AFAIK, she fits the bill perfectly as an expert on race.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike, nor have you answered my request on your reasoning regarding the individuals mentioned and your associated criteria as they haven't dropped out of thin air. "NOT" something doesn't move the conversation along. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should I waste my time categorizing people who are not relevant? Sociologists? Political theorists? Bagpipe players? Who cares. The point is that the quote concerns "mainstream (evolutionary) biologists", and none of these people are. The only one of these who has a tenuous connection is Jenny (Jennifer) Reardon. She's now in a sociology department, hardly the place for a "mainstream (evolutionary) biologist", but let's play along. Specifically can you quote where she said something which supports this statement? mikemikev (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say she said something quite similar to this right here. Now, will you please stop this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude? The fact is that mainstream science considers race to be biologically meaningless (it is socially and sociolgically meaningful, though). That's it, that's all, move along, there's nothing more to see.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ramdrake (from the journal of feminist and cultural studies). In that cite she was just saying that there have been a lot of claims about the biological meaninglessness of race. Nowehere does she say she agrees with it. From her other work it's clear she regards the claims as an oversight, from "anti-racists" quote mining and jumping the gun, usually with little understanding of biology. mikemikev (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll say, there is no rule that you have to be X in order to say "Most X think this". --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It starts to look pretty lame when you can't reference one X saying it. mikemikev (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Mike: If you can't be bothered to "waste" your time explaining why individuals whose scholarly opinion would appear to be relevant are not other than to indicate as much in a derisive and uninformative fashion, then how is anyone supposed to understand your editorial POV? Not to mention your insulting everyone else here as being a waste of your personal life force. If you keep treating me like I'm your adversary, then that's what you'll eventually wind up with. Reductio ad Ludwigsium. Again, at least pretend that you are interested in my understanding your editorial point of view and answer the question. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:55, August 10, 2010

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class sociology articles
• Top-importance sociology articles
• B-Class Anthropology articles
• High-importance Anthropology articles
• Unassessed Ethnic groups articles
• Unknown-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists, unused