Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Acadēmica Orientālis (talk | contribs) at 02:49, 16 April 2012 (→Race/Ethnicity). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:VA

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human 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: 30 days

	Human 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.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 13, 2005 Peer review Reviewed November 1, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted February 13, 2006 Featured article review Demoted November 14, 2006 Good article nominee Listed January 1, 2008 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Former featured article

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

Template:WP1.0Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Primates Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates 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.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate 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. Tree of Life High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic 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. Mammals High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal 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. 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. Anthropology Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

view · edit Frequently asked questions To view the response to a question, click the link to the right of the question. Q1: Why does the Human article use the third person? Aren't we humans? A1: The third person ("Humans are..." or "They are..." as opposed to "We are...") is simply the conventional mode of writing for Misplaced Pages and other reference works. We realize this may cause some phrases in Human to sound quite strange — "a majority of humans professes some variety of religious or spiritual belief" sounds almost like it was written by space aliens. However, the occasional strangeness this approach may lead to is still preferable to the alternative of inconsistency. If we were to use "we" in the Human article, it would mean sometimes switching strangely between persons as we narrow our topic of discussion. For example, even if an editor were female, she would be forced to write things like "We humans, and especially those females...." Whenever a subgroup of humanity became the article's focus, we would need to switch to the third person; a sentence about humans would use "we", but a sentence about adults, Asians, engineers, or heterosexuals would need to use "they". It is far simpler to just consistently use the third person in all contexts, even if this doesn't always seem completely natural. A related issue is the fact that, as a general rule, Misplaced Pages prefers to avoid self-references. In addition to being human, all editors on this site happen to be English speakers — yet we treat our article on the English language the same way we treat every other language article, in order to avoid bias and inconsistency. Likewise, we treat Misplaced Pages the same as other websites and reference tools. Analogously, we ought to aspire to treat Human in much the same way that we treat every other species article. Ideally, we should make exceptions of Human only where objective, verifiable facts demand that we make exceptions (e.g., in employing a lengthy behavior section). This is the simplest and easiest way to avoid bias and to prevent editorial disputes: When in doubt, follow the rest of Misplaced Pages's lead. Q2: Aren't humans supposed to be purely herbivorous/frugivorous despite our modern omnivorous habits? Aren't we jungle apes albeit highly intelligent and largely furless jungle apes? Most jungle apes eat no meat or very little. A2: No, we really are natural omnivores. Contrary to popular belief, we humans did not evolve in jungles. We actually evolved on open grasslands where fruit-bearing trees are nowhere near as plentiful as in the jungle, where most of our surviving close relatives evolved. Evolving in such a place, we would have always (for as long as we've been humans rather than Australopithecines and other even earlier fossilized genera) had to supplement our diet with meat in addition to plant material. We evolved also eating plant-derived foods to be sure; the Savannah (grassland) has some trees with edible fruit although comparatively few and far between, and grain-bearing grasses are far more plentiful there than any tree. (Some evidence suggests that the first bread and beer were made from these tropical grains long before recorded history.) Even so, the grassland being much less fruit-rich than the jungle caused us to evolve as true metabolic omnivores, not pure herbivores/frugivores. See the Archived Debates on this subtopic for source documents. Q3: How was the lead image chosen? A3: The current lead image was added on 15 September 2009 following this discussion and given this explanation. In short, an editor looked at commons:Category:Couples and picked one. Due to alphabetical sorting, this one came up early (the filename starts with "A"), so they picked it. They were looking for an adult couple standing side-by-side. The use of this image has been discussed many times over the years, including but not limited to: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The current wording of this FAQ entry was decided following this discussion. See also our policy on photo galleries of people. Q4: Is it possible for an infobox image to perfectly and accurately represent all of humanity? A4: No. Q5: Is it possible for the text of this article to perfectly and accurately represent all of humanity? A5: No. Q6: If we can't make a perfect representation, should we still try to make the best representation we can? A6: Yes. Of course. Because Misplaced Pages is a work in progress. Q7: How should the infobox image best represent humanity? A7: The lead image should illustrate important features of the subject — in the case of Human, these include an upright bipedal gait, hands specialized for manipulating tools, and use of cultural products such as clothing. Lead images can attempt to encapsulate the broad strokes of the diversity and variation in its subject (e.g. Frog, Primate). The current consensus is that attempting to do further like that for humanity is not practical. There is a guideline MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES that exists due to issues on this topic in the past, stating that we may not assemble a gallery of many images into the infobox. And regardless of MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES, by picking just one image, we leave space for showing important details of that image which would be obscured if we shrank it in order to fit multiple photos in. Sometimes, what a collage gains in diversity, it loses in detail and clarity. In this case, the current consensus is that the topic covered at Human is best served with a single image — a collage of faces, for example, would fail to illustrate the human body. Q8: Shouldn't the lead image show more major groups of humans? A8: There is no good way to decide which groups of humans are the "major" ones. The consensus is that showing more groupings (such as along ethnic lines) is contentious due to the risk of unverifiable species-wide generalizations. As a middle ground, we currently just show examples of a male and a female human to represent sexual dimorphism in humans. While many Misplaced Pages articles on diverse subject matter (e.g. Spider, Bird) do attempt to encapsulate that variety through galleries and selections of images, we are prohibited from doing so on this article per MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES even if we wanted to. Other articles on diverse subject matter sometimes similarly have few examples, or even one example, rather than a collage in their infobox (e.g. Whale). Q9: The current image is / / , shouldn't it be replaced? A9: The current consensus is that this isn't that big a deal. When viewed as normal at thumbnail size at a glance, you can't really tell. Q10: The current image shows two people, not one. Doesn't that violate MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES to begin with? A10: The current consensus is that group photos probably do not violate MOS:NOETHNICGALLERIES. That guideline is based on a RfC, and is to be interpreted narrowly. It specifically only prohibits galleries or photomontages to illustrate ethnic groups or other similarly large human populations. The consensus on this page is that a group photo does not count. Past discussion of this can be found here. Q11: Could the lead image be a different photo? Perhaps a group photo with more than two people in it? Or a photo of an individual? A11: There is nothing prohibiting that, it is just not the current consensus to do that on this page. It would likely take a large discussion and very strong arguments for why the alternate image is an improvement. Q12: Other ethnic groups have lead images such as a flag or map (e.g. of population density). Could that be the lead image (instead of any image(s) of humans)? A12: There is nothing prohibiting that, it is just not the current consensus to do that on this page. There already is a population density map at the bottom of the infobox. Q13: Why isn't the lead image more abstract or symbolic? A13: Because any attempt to symbolically or nonliterally depict humans will subtly express an editorial opinion about what the "essence" or "nature" of humanity is. Even if we pick a famous artist's work to put at the top of Human, the fact that we chose that particular work, and not another, will show that we endorse certain non-encyclopedic points of view about humanity. The only real way to avoid this pitfall is to not pick an image that is even remotely symbolic or nonliteral — a completely literal, straightforward photograph simply depicting a human, with no more "deep meaning" than our lead image for Brown bear has, is the most neutral option available. It is also worth noting that most abstract depictions of humanity remove a great deal of visual information. Misplaced Pages's purpose is educational, and our readers include non-native English speakers, young children, neurodivergent people, and other readers who will be best served by a clear, unambiguous, and factually rich depiction of the topic at hand. Imaginative works also tend to be much more subjective and idiosyncratic than photographs, reflecting the creator's state of mind as much as the subject matter itself. The purpose of an article's lead image is to accurately depict the article's subject matter, which in this case means accurately depicting a human.

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human 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: 30 days

Replacement of anatomy image

I suggest that the anatomy image shown in the biology-section should be replaced with a new one. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Replacement of human anatomy image. Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Support: This image is clearer. In particular, it gets rid of the camera angle distortion on the female human. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 01:04, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

They're all awfully white! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.41.121 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Having an entire article on humans with almost nothing but whites would be unacceptable; having a few pictures of white people among many others is acceptable. --152.65.39.146 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Can you give any legitimate reason why we should go out of our way to find pictures of different races? Or are you just trying to purposelessly be politically correct? Not done because there is no reason.--174.49.47.34 (talk) 17:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I can. That's what we would do for any plant or animal with several main varieties. Think of it as a report from Dr. Phlox to the Denobulans or some such. They're going to want to know about the basic types of this animal and want to see an example of each. It's not all that different from this picture: It has nothing to do with political correctness.

Chrisrus (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

No. If he wanted to show us all varieties, he woud just do it. Choosing one white female and one Asian male helps nothing, it only confuses people. It looks like the 2 belonged together. --Kmaga (talk) 23:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about the picture of the different races, here:

• File:RaceMugshots.jpg

. I don't know why the artist chose a white and an Asian were chosen for that picture, but maybe it's because those are the two most common varieties of this animal. What would you prefer, that they both be Asian? We have an Asian couple in the infobox. Maybe it was just the two models he had available and didn't think it mattered. You can't show "all varieties" when the picture has to be of two individuals. Chrisrus (talk) 01:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

But the prupose of the image isn't to show all varieties and races, its purpose is to describe the human anatomy. Both sexes must be of the same race in order not to create confusion. --Kmaga (talk) 11:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'd thought you were talking about the composite picture of all the different races. About the anatomy picture, what "confusion" does having them be two different races cause? Chrisrus (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

This picture is an improvement but I agree with Chrisrus and others questioning whether these pictures of a white 'couple' are close to the ideal. In an article on anatomy, there is no need to be restricted to pictures of a couple (a social concept); given that the aim is to improve accuracy, an image where pubic hair is not shown and the woman is standing with a slightly odd posture are also shortcomings since these are not typical of the human anatomy; the fact that they both appear white is particularly inaccurate when the image is to be used (as suggested) in an article about human evolution. In this case, the idea of excessive political correctness appears to have been used (as it often is) to defeat valid points rather than invalid ones.

There are several possible solutions, none ideal but all improvements. First, choose different races and body types for the two sexes and label them so as to make it clear that there is variation (eg "Older Caucasian male", "Small body type, African female"). Second, use an outline/sketch rather than a photograph of models to convey the idea that these are generalities. Third, show three variations of both male and female and label them to emphasize the variety of shapes of the human body.--174.7.25.37 (talk) 19:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that for the Anatomy image, we find a picture of a man with a bigger penis. 108.9.107.14 (talk) 05:11, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

The new picture, the one on the right has the female human standing unsymmetrically, leaning to the side. It is awkward and needs replacing.Dogru144 (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree, not only does the guy have penis problem + but the 2 figures are extremely anorexic aswell. Someone may also be partially motivated to promote exaggerated stereotypes. The picture before with moderate figure had been used for long time and is good representation of average human figure.WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 5:09, 12 march (UTC)

100 percent dont see any racial discrimination or malaise intent at all. The image is better in quality and presentation - who care what race they are. Both images of the females are not perfect one is to fat the other to skinny - but the new image is a better angle and overall is easier to see. Moxy (talk) 21:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

What Moxy said. Oh and who cares about the penis size, that is just an odd thing to complain about. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Just because you don't see someone showing racial discrimination doesn't mean someone ain't intentionally using "biasness" to promote racial discrimination. And to begin with the picture of the Asian guy and blonde women is skinny as hell with no body mass whatsoever. SO WHY WOULD SOMEONE REPLACE MODERATE FIGURES WITH ANOREXIC FIGURES? There was an similar incident before, someone in the Australian aborigine wiki page decided to used the most ape looking australian aborigine to promote the stereotypes Australian aborigines look like apes which created quite an stir among some wiki users. Even though the person says there is no racism, he chose the most ape looking Australian aborigines... this is what I called "BIAS RACISM". WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 5:37, 12 march (UTC)

So, you are accusing Moxy and I of being racists then? Your most recent edit summary seems to say this. If you want to 'report this page' as your edit summary says, I suggest you do this. Take me to ANI and call me a racist then. I just think it is a clearer picture with poses that match. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

How can I accuse you or moxy being racist? the best I could say you're more bias than racist, I have no evidence to call you racism. BUT anyone can be intentionally racist without showing it. As for you claiming the new picture is clearer? is too heavily bright to be honest so I don't know how it's good quality, the old picture shows an medium color just like their figures should be. WarriorsPride6565 (talk (talk • contribs) 6:14, 12 march (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.118.39 (talk)

I don't know that anyone's being intentionally racist or stereotyping, but that male nude Asian illustration is offensive. He might as well be named "Shorty". ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 01:04, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Give me a break. I haven't weighed in on this before, mostly because I think either image is acceptable and neither is optimal, but this has become profoundly silly. Based on my own—cough—personal experience with penises, Asian and otherwise, the one at issue here looks to be within a standard deviation or so of the mean. In fact, allowing for the apparent difference in angle, I don't think that there's necessarily much difference in size between this one and the one in the alternate image. If anyone seriously believes there is any question of actual abnormality (i.e., unfitness for the article), he or she might consider leaving a note at WikiProject Medicine and see if anyone there might care to weigh in. Otherwise, it's quite subjective, and discussing it borders on the inane. (I include my own comments in that assessment, of course.)

Both images could use some judicious tweaking for color and contrast, but the alternate one has lighting problems on the woman that cannot be corrected adequately at this stage. As for the issue of race and the question of bias, I do sort of see where WarriorsPride6565 is coming from, and that's a discussion it should be possible to have somewhere on-wiki if the various participants will be thoughtful and patient with one another. Of course, there's no excuse whatseoever for edit warring. Rivertorch (talk) 07:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me WarriorsPride6565 is the one being offensive here. There's zero evidence presented that the model has a 'penis problem'. He really shouldn't be suggesting a living person has a penis problem based solely on one photograph, I would go far as to say it's not his place to comment on whether someone has a penis problem unless he's a doctor who has personally seen and diagnosed such a problem and received permission from his patient. It's also unclear to me that the penis is erect as has been suggested. It may look that way in the image but it may also be simple an illusion from the angle. Our own penis size article suggests the average size of the flaccid length may be around 8.9cm, so really it doesn't seem that the penis is that much below average. Nil Einne (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

BTW if you check out the centralised discussion there's some decent discussion of the image. The issue of penis size was not raised there before WarriorsPride6565. Note that according to their user page, the photographer is a medical student. Nil Einne (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Then they're not paying attention. Maybe someone should put the two male images side by side, along with the caption, "Why the Allies won the War." ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 11:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

The two images have been sitting side-by-side above for a while now, and it never occurred to me to compare the size of the men's penises. I still prefer the newer version. -- Donald Albury 12:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

And now we've crossed the border into truly inane territory. This is helping the discussion how? Rivertorch (talk) 19:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Hoping that the lightbulb will go on for some of you, and that you'll see how racially offensive that image is. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 23:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

From where I stand both WarriorsPride6565's comments in particular, but also yours, have been what's racially offensive in all this. Nil Einne (talk) 06:57, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Why? For pointing out the obvious? ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 09:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

For trying to use an image of an individual to justify a racial stereotype. -- Donald Albury 11:30, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

You've got it backwards. The first rule is "try not to make wikipedia looks stupid". That illustration makes wikipedia look stupid, especially compared with the previous illustration. In y'all's good-faith desire to have multiple races in the article, you've managed to create a racist-appearing joke. That doesn't make you racist. But it makes wikipedia look racist. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 13:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Which further demonstrates the problem with your comments. It's clear from this and the centralised discussion that a desire for having multiple races was only a small factor, if a factor at all in the preference of this photo over the other one for most participants. The photographer has now also clarified that the race of the subject was just a coincidence. In other words, the 'good-faith desire to have multiple races in the article' never really came in to it. Nil Einne (talk) 20:53, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

In your case, for making offensive racist comments (like the Allies thing), for continually making claims without evidence (so far no evidence has been presented that the penis is significantly below average without even bringing race in to it), for making derogatory comments about living people without any real evidence (see earlier). (I've already discussed WarriorsPride6565 here and elsewhere.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:47, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Your blindness to the obvious, and how stupid this makes wikipedia look, is your own problem. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 22:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

As a brief follow up, I had a quick look at the study linked above and the flaccid length given in the study was 8.85cm +/- 2.38 for 1 SD, so the penile length would need to be shorter then 6.47cm to be below one standard deviation of the average determined from that study. (The measurements were performed from pubo-penile skin to meatus as is fairly standard.) I don't see how you can draw any conclusion it's below 6.47cm from that single photo. (And in the study they say they consider anything within 2 SD of the mean or 4 cm flaccid to be within the normal range anyway.) Really I still have no idea why people here are so concerned about flaccid length. As the article I linked to notes, as does the study, flaccid length is a fairly poor indicator of erect length and (WP:OR) most men care a lot more about the later. Finally while I resisted saying this before, since others can't seem to resist making offensive comments I guess there's no reason to hold back. I've been wondering since I first became aware of this discussion if part of the problem is some people are getting their ideas of average penis size from pornography. If this is the case, unfortunately I have to say that it's generally accepted this is a rather misleading indicator. And yes, if you have distorted views of average penis size, that's your problem not wikipedias or anyone elses. Nil Einne (talk) 01:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

As the initiator of this discussion, I'm sorry if my absence from it until now may have caused some confusion, but I can ensure that there was no bias towards choosing an Asian person. The only male model who fitted the ad simply happened to be Asian. Also, I see no reason to suspect any dysmorphology. However, I do agree that the image is a bit too bright. And indeed, I can recall that the photographer intentionally made the originals a bit too bright, because it's easier when digitally retouching them, but in this case I considered the non-retouched ones to be preferable. I made a minor gamma correction of the image to make it look a bit darker, and I think it looks more like in reality now. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's better. Thanks! Rivertorch (talk) 05:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I suggest that we archive this section now, because there's a substantial risk that future additions come from people who notice some particular flaw on the bodies in the current picture and use this section to complain about it, which was not the intention of this discussion. The current picture is not perfect, but neither was the previous one, and by just looking at the bodies there's a risk of missing improvements such as the higher resolution, more detailed data on model heights and weights, written consent from the models about usage in Misplaced Pages etc. Future comments can still be made in new sections, and will probably be even easier in the absence of having to scroll through this section first. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I object to the closing suggestion at the bottom of this section. Obviously, the discussion is quite active, with many participants. Also, back to the shadow and angle question, the pictures at left are more interesting and more practical for the reason that they can be seen with shadows. This is owing to the side angle composition of the shot. The straight ahead posture of the characters at the right is definitely most dull. Additionally, the color is VERY washed out. I don't think all commenters were commenting on race when they recognized that the models are quite white (washed out). Ditch the photos at the right, return to the ones on the left.Dogru144 (talk) 08:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

There are shadows in the new picture as well but they are less pronounced, thereby creating less distortion to the anatomical visualization, and the representation of the symmetry of the human body is partially lost when taken in side angle. Also, I think the newer image is still more colorful than the previous image, so we still need to replace it with a completely new image instead of reverting if we want to improve the situation. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

No body hair

This is ridiculous that the figures lack body hair. Hairless privates biases the picture to a current cultural trend among westernized peoples. There is hair there for a reason. And caption on latest picture says that scalpal hair has been trimmed. That is only apparent on the male.Dogru144 (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Since both the earlier version and the current version shown at the top of this section show people with body hair removed, you are arguing against both versions. You need to nominate another image set to illustrate human anatomy if you want the images to include body hair. Then, the issue is, do you want to see images of people with completely untrimmed hair (full beard on the male, etc.)? Or will you settle for some intermediate condition of hair removal? As for the removal of pubic hair being a cultural trend among westernized people, are you aware of the Sunan al-Fitra? -- Donald Albury 09:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Dogru, I understand your points and think that they are reasonable. I pointed the lack of body hair out some time ago. On the other hand there are good reasons that things are how they are. I was the one who added the captions to the image and this was generally accepted as a good solution, we should at least tell our readers that the images show humans with hair altered or removed. If you think there are errors in the captions then these should be corrected.

One suggestion I have as a way forward is to show additional picture(s) of humans with completely untrimmed hair. Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Citing Fitra kind of supports my point: hair generally is to be left be. It's not an outright deformity. Unpleasantries such as hair that is excessive can go. But back to the point: hair trimming under 40 Westerners in the world are a minority compared to the global population at large. I'd wager that most adults in the world have their private hair untrimmed. If we are going to have human specimens we should have them look like most look.Dogru144 (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

That they appear under 40 seems quite beside the point. I think you make a valid point about body hair, though. It's a bit analogous to depicting a trimmed poodle to illustrate canine anatomy—it's not typical across the board for humans to be shaved like that. Nonetheless, unless an image of equal quality using unshaved subjects becomes available, it will have to suffice. Rivertorch (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We should look for some images of humans with completely untrimmed hair. We already have, for good reasons, images with hair trimmed or removed. If we also show some with completely untrimmed hair we can simply point out that many cultures have different styles for the modification of human hair and refer our readers to the appropriate articles, such as hairstyle and beard. This makes for a completely neutral article. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

We should probably also have comments a link to body modification this then covers all the angles in this area. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

So the next step is for someone to find or offer one or more images for consideration. I don't see the current image being removed unless and until an image is available that a consensus here agrees is better. -- Donald Albury 13:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I am not suggesting replacing the current image but adding some just to show what completely unmodified hair looks like. Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:54, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Is completely unmodified hair really optimal? It seems sort of undue-ish. Rivertorch (talk) 05:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think we should show what humans look like with no modifications. I am suggesting just one more image to show what unclothed, unmodified, humans look like. It need not be especially prominent It is actually something that most people do not know; how long does your hair grow if you just leave it? What is the objection?

The advantage, as I say below, is that we can then separate the ethnic and biological from the cultural, thus defusing some of the discussions like this one. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, I think it's reasonable, and my objection (already given above) is a mild one. To expand on it a bit, I'll just say that humans with untrimmed, visible body hair aren't something that very many people are likely to encounter. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's pretty much true globally. So it sets up a situation in the article where this article, which provides a general overview of a species, depicts something that's extremely rare among the species. That strikes me as undue weight. Not a big deal, perhaps, but there you have it. Rivertorch (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

It is the same reason that we show some humans with no clothes on, even though they are hardly ever seen that way. The best images, in my opinion, would be the anatomical images with all hair removed to show details obscured by hair, including the shape of the skull, and some images with hair completely untouched, to show how it grow naturally if left. Everything else is culture. Unfortunately such image sets may be hard to find. Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, no. Humans with no clothes on are seen quite frequently in certain settings in most cultures. There's a world of difference between naked humans and naked humans who've never had haircuts. Rivertorch (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Some classic recentism on display here. Humans have been around for what, 2 million years. For 99.9999% of that time there was very limited cutting of hair and facial shaving in men, and no removal of hair from other body areas. That's all very recent fashion, especially the removal of pubic hair. For most of that time too clothing was minimal and only designed for protection from the elements and environment. The article is called Human, meaning the whole story of humans, not just Young humans in first ten years of 21st century. HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

All nonsense - for centuries in anatomy we go out of our way to remove hair so parts of the body can be seen better. Best to ask experts then make random guesses ................ Pls read a book and note how hair is not there so we can see..........Moxy (talk) 23:57, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Gerhard Wolf-Heidegger; Petra Köpf-Maier (28 September 2006). The Color Atlas of Human Anatomy. Sterling Publishing Company, Inc. ISBN 978-1-4027-4200-2.

Saladin, Kenneth. Human Anatomy' 2007 Ed.2007. Rex Bookstore, Inc. ISBN 978-0-07-125971-2.

OK, change my figure to 99.9% of human history, and it covers enough centuries to keep you happy. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I guess I sounded mean... What i was trying to say is that in anatomy we remove hair a seen at Vitruvian Man ca.1487. Removal of hair is the norm for anatomy since the beginning of the topic as it is in this article.Moxy (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

(@HiLo48) While it is well to guard against recentism, and your point that the article is about ancient as well as modern humans is well taken, certain limitations of technology preclude the introduction of photographic illustrations depicting humans outside that pesky one-ten-thousandth of a percent (except for certain images that won't do the trick, of course). Rivertorch (talk) (one of the 0.0001%) 05:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My intention was to try and avoid exactly this kind of argument by showing humans in two different culturally neutral ways: with all hair removed to show the bits that hair covers, and with no hair modification at all to show how hair grows if it is left untouched. All other forms of hair treatment are cultural and fall between those two cases. These can then be treated under culture along with other ways that culture causes humans to modify their appearance. Martin Hogbin (talk)

The main problem I see in the image is that the sexual dimorphism isn't pronounced enough (too small breasts and penis), and therefore not representative. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing this issue. Indeed, it's another thing that should be considered when finding a new picture. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Myriad topics --except clothing???

Homo sapiens is the only species to wear clothing, as the article says, yet the article is faulty because it fails to note that homo sapiens CANNOT survive in most parts of the world without clothing. Moreover, at which point in time did humans take the highly unusual step of beginning to wear clothing. Dogru144 (talk) 08:08, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

As far as time period goes, humans (Genus Homo) started wearing other animals' fur before the speciation of the surviving type (Species Homo sapiens). In other words, clothing was worn by humans before the exact type of human that survives today even existed. This Article, by earlier Consensus, is about the surviving type. Therefore, your point would be more effective if you redirected your comment to the Article on the Genus Homo. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

"This Article, by earlier Consensus, is about the surviving type." That is an unfortunate error. There are countless wikipedia articles that deal with the history of particular species.Dogru144 (talk) 08:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I have suggested a section on this subject below. It is not something that we can ignore. Martin Hogbin (talk)

Linnaeus is the type specimen

Some interesting info which should be covered here: http://iczn.org/content/who-type-homo-sapiens and http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4065043?uid=3737880&uid=2&uid=4&sid=47698796633937 FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Self-modifications

I have been bold and added a small section on self-modification. These are almost universal and I think gets us out of cultural issues concerning images with/without hair etc.

And clothes?

I am thinking of moving this section to the top of 'Society and culture' and renaming it something like 'Clothing, adornments, and self-modification'.

The fact is that humans almost universally change their appearance by wearing clothing and modifying themselves in some way. All the pictures in the article show humans like this yet we do not seem to say much about this, almost unique, feature of humans in the article. We do not need to say much; most things can be covered by links but we should say something. Any thoughts? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with reliable sources, but I think something could be done with how humans use clothing, tattoos, scarification, body painting and jewelry and other adornments such as feathers, as ways of stating their membership and position in cultural groups. -- Donald Albury 22:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, along with hair removal and trimming.

I think this approach may help get round some of the problems with picture choice by separating cultural issues from biological and ethnic ones. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Placing Homo in context in lede

After I reverted SK-KP's edit to the lede to change "are the only living species in the Homo genus" to "are the only living species in the ape genus Homo", that editor posted the following to my talk page:

Hi. Thanks for explaining your reversion of my edit to this article. I'm aware that "ape" covers a wider range of primates than just the genus Homo, but didn't think that my edit suggested that ape and Homo were synonymous. There are lots of examples of articles where we've used a similar form of words to help readers place the article taxonomically: Savi's Warbler to pluck one at random. What I was trying to achieve was to place the word ape into the article so that most readers could place humans taxonomically, without having to navigate away from the page, to Homo, and then to primates etc: I felt that ape was a sufficiently widely understood term which could achieve this. Maybe there is a better way of achieving the same end result - any ideas? SP-KP (talk) 12:17, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this is worth discussing. I do think "ape" is too broad a descriptor for Homo, but we may want to make Homo's taxonomic position clearer in the lede. -- Donald Albury 12:36, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Too Eurocentric

Scracthing my brains trying to find any images of ancient African artefacts, etc. Instead, I find clusters of European images in agriculture, religion, art, etc. I find it hard to believe that not a single African artefact cannot be found and inserted in the relevant section when the British Museum among others is full of them. This is a major problem in English Misplaced Pages. French Misplaced Pages in many cases is more inclusive.Tamsier (talk)

If you are right, please see to it that this is fixed. However, a glance at all the images in the article just now did not leave the same "Eurocentric" impression on me. Chrisrus (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Issues with wikipedia as a whole or perceived bias of ethnic groups represented by a large swath of articles is a topic beyond the purview of this talk page... If your on a mission to de-europanize wikipedia then theres probably better avenues to discuss it and it probably SHOULD be discussed beforehand. — raekyt 10:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Chrisrus, Done! One is free to compare A and B. Thanks.

@ Raeky, the issue is with English Misplaced Pages not necessarily Misplaced Pages as a whole. This is less of a problem in French wiki. Besides the last time I checked, Europeans were not the only humans in the world. I have neither the time nor the inclination to de-Europeanized Wiki. Europeanization of Wiki should not exist in the first place unless the relevant article relates specifically to Europe. This article is about human beings. Again, the last time I checked, Europeans were not the only humans. Thank you for your contribution.Tamsier (talk) 12:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I've restored previous concensus on the image chosen to illustrate the "Art, music, and literature" section. I have two grounds for doing so:

1. The grounds for changing given, in order to balance image Eurocentrism in the article, did not stand up to investigation. If you would, please count the numbers of eurocentric images vs non-eurocentric images and note the prominance of each. You will find that there is no such imbalance, because there are far more non-eurocentric images than there are eurocentric ones. The grounds for changing established section image concensus have proven false.

2. Previous concensus image better illustrates the nature and scope of the section.

Please do not restore the replacement image until you have provided valid grounds for doing so. Chrisrus (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree that article images should not be based on an ethnicity count but on which one best suits the context. Martin Hogbin (talk) 19:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I count atleast 9 images relating to Europe (human beings and the art included). Show me where this discussion was held. The closest to the issues I have raised was in section (see above), but is mainly about anatomical images. Read through the whole of section 1 and the closest I can find is the following comments by these IPs:

"They're all awfully white!" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.54.41.121 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

"Having an entire article on humans with almost nothing but whites would be unacceptable; having a few pictures of white people among many others is acceptable." --152.65.39.146 (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Consensus appears to have been reached in relation to the anatomy section, but there was no discussion as far as I can see relating to the art and others etc. So my mind boggles trying to figure out what discussion you are talking about. And to think that I have the time and the inclination to edit war over images! Some of us have other things to do than edit war. I don't have to do anything else regarding this article. Any reasonable person who sees this article would realise this article is a joke. Going by the quotes above, it would appear that I was not the first. But hey, if anyone wishes to use English Misplaced Pages to promote their Eurocentric views they have come to the right place. This nonesense would not be tolerated in French Misplaced Pages. Only in English Misplaced Pages. What a surprise.Tamsier (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Images:

1. Lead Photo: Southeast Asian
2. Plesiadapis
3. Crania
4. hominid skeletons
5. Venus of Dolní Věstonice (Paleo-European)
6. European farmer, Hard to tell, but seems to be European.
7. human diaspora map
8. Brazilian Indians
9. Anatomical nude, one European, one Asian
10. Vitruvian Man, (European)
11. Human embryo
12. Prepubestent girl (African)
13. Adult Woman (South Asian)
14. Elderly woman (Europen)
15. Prepubescent Boy (East Asian)
16. Adult man (Amerindian)
17. Elderly man (Central Asian)
18. Collection of head shots, (1/4 each European, African, Amerindian, East Asian)
19. The United Nations (this is in NY but represents the whole world)
20. Banana Market (African)
21. Stone tool (Paleo-African)
22. Nsibidi script (African)
23. The creation of Adam (European)
24. Confucius (East Asian)
25. Allegory of Music (European)

That looks like a good selection to me. Martin Hogbin (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Genus: Homo Homo Sapians

There seems to be a grave error in the taxobox that I don't know how to fix. The genus is only Homo, and "sapians" is wrong in any case. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You are right. I can't fix it either. What's going on? Strange. Chrisrus (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Somebody has messed up the complex taxonomy box templates. I may or may not have straightened it out (in any case, I learned something ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It's fixed! FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!  Done

Race/Ethnicity

Why is this a sub section in the biology section? The section clearly states as it should that there is no biological basis for racial or ethnic groupings. It should be moved to culture and instead a section on biological variation should be inserted showing the different aspects of human biological variation and how they intersect with but are different to notions of race and ethnicity. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's a problem. Experts disagree as to whether there is or isn't a biological basis for race. Doctors and forensics and so on say there is and use it in their work. Some group with a name like "the international association or Anthropologists" or some such came out with a concensus that there is not. Any good physiologist, forensic examiner, or genetic analyst can distinguish people on the basis of race even with just a skeleton, skull, or sometimes just a tooth or a single strand of DNA. I can't understand how the anthropologists could have come out with such a statement because obviously there is a biological basis for race, or DNA analysts couldn't do what they do. It's just that we shouldn't make too much out of that fact. Make sure your doctor knows your race because it might be important. Chrisrus (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a popular science presentation of the debate for a lay reader: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html. Chrisrus (talk) 18:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Forensics and doctors don't use races because they think they are biological categories but because they know they are statistically valid heuristics for the kind of practical work they do. (basically they are not telling anything about race but about geographical ancestry and from that they can infer how the individual is locally classified racially) There is plenty of literature on this. Actual experts are geneticists and anthropologists and they do agree that race is not a biological category but a social category that maps onto culturally selected biological variation in different ways meaning that in some contexts race has biological predictive power. This is not "knowing about race" but knowing how race often statistically relates to biology in certain contexts. A geneticist can tell what country you're from - but that doesn't mean that Belgians are all of a sudden a race. I don't need popular science books about race - I am quite familiar with evolutionary anthropology. You perhaps should try to read some of the wide range of anthropological and genetic literature criticizing the notion that because a concept has predictive power that means that it is the best explanation. Try reading anything by Jonathan Marks, Joseph Graves, C. Loring Brace, Simon Outram, or Troy Duster (on misuse of race in Medical anthropology). And then change the article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Your asking me to do too much too quickly. I take your word for it that everyone you name would agree with you and disagree with me that race obviously does have any biological basis in reality. I am just asking that you read at least the second half of that www.pbs.orx link "Does race exist?" article, which is quite a bit less to ask of a person. I'm not planning on using it to cite any addition to the article, my purpose here is to just please hear the author of the second half of the article out. His name is Dr. George W. Gill, professor of anthropology at the University of Wyoming and forensic anthropologist for Wyoming law-enforcement agencies and the Wyoming State Crime Laboratory. My purpose is merely to sway you slightly to the belief that not only is what you say about those experts true, but also it's true that there are a significant number of experts who would disagree completely that there is no biological basis for race because it's their job to determine ancestry of skeletons and DNA droplets and such. These experts maintain that race is not merely an outdated socially constructed concept with absolutely no basis in biological reality but one with an undeniable overload of evidence that it absolutely does have a biological basis in reality. Gill gives enough evidence and reason for you to admit, while maintaining your right to disagree with them, there are many experts do hold this 180 degree opposite position. I take your word for it that many experts do say the exact opposite and concede to your expertese without challenge. Please accept this plea to hear Gill out to ONLY AND AT LEAST concede that NOT ALL experts agree with that. Here it is again, it begins with the "no biological basis in reality" position and then Gill gets his say at the very end: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html Chrisrus (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read Gill's polemical piece many times and he is a forensical biologist yes who specializes in courtcases. His research shows that people ith high degrees of African ancestry have slightly different skeletal anatomy than persons with less african ancestry. He claims that this validates race but fails to realize that race is not just about degrees of African ancestry but about local and individual social categorizations based on the phenotypes connection with geographic ancestry. In the US small portions of African ancestry generally correlate with "black" - but that is not unuiversally the case. Basically he is ´making claims about something on which he is no expert - namely race- based on something that he is an expert on namely biological variation based on ancestry. He assumes the two are the same thing in spite of the fact that anthropologists specializing in race have spent the past century showing with abundant evidence that it is not. There are tomes of critiques even in forensic sciences journals of the uncritical acceptance of the concept of race by forensic scientists "because it works". So it is incorrect to assume that because some forensic anthropologists use race or some geneticists determine geographic ancestry genetically those disciplines believe in race a s a biological concept - many do not and still use it. C Loring Brace is also fully able to determine if a skeleton is likely to have African ancestry - he just realizes that that is not information about race- but that information about racial categorization ncan be inferred from information about geographical ancestry. That does not make it a scientifically defensible standpoint nand it certainly doesn't make it the point of view that Wikipedias article on humans should adopt uncritically. And YES I AGREE that not all experts agree on the biology of race - there is still some debate about the degree of relevance of biology about race among experts - especially as it relates to american forensics and medicine. I agree that that is true - but I also know that generally the coin falls on the other side on the debate than is chosen by this article. Furthermore the article has no section on biological variation - which is not the same as race - but is of course important for describing the biology of the human species. It also has no section on the cultural role of ideologies about race and ethnicity for human political and hierarchical organization - which is equally important. Basically by moving the race question to the cultural part of the article and inserting a section that actually explains the relation between biological variation and geographic ancestry we'd have a much better and more accurate article. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The text states "As pointed out in a recent 2000 edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races". So it is not just Gill but many US forensic anthropologists. That anthropologists in other nations have much higher acceptance of race than in the US have been pointed out to you before with sources. As well as scientists in other disciplines like genetics or anatomy being more being more supportive of race. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, the section is biased, reporting Lewontin's argument but not the criticisms against it: "Human genetic diversity: Lewontin's fallacy" (scientific paper). Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 21:22, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If you had read what I wrote you would realize that I am not saying that it is only Gill. As always your claims about "lewontin's fallacy" being given any credence among people who work with race are fallacious. Edwards show that it is possible to infer geographic ancestry from genetic analysis - not that race is a biological concept. Your statements about "anthropologists in other nations" who love race are also getting tedious - yes racism is still academically acceptable in many other countries - that is of no consequence to science. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be arguing that only the views of some US anthropologists are relevant, ignoring other US anthropologists, non-US anthropologists, and scientists in other disciplines. This is obviously incorrect. Regarding "Leowintin's fallacy", see the link. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well perhaps it seems like that to you but I couldn't really careless what you think.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

The obvious problem with the word "race" is that in the USA, the home of a lot of our editors, it's a word with all sorts of horrible (and a few good) meanings and connotations. Now I'm no fan of political correctness, but I avoid the word whenever I can because of its ambiguity and loaded meanings. In my country, Australia, race is not a major issue (apart from with a small proportion of ignorant, anti-Aboriginal bigots in the population). Our national census asks about ancestry, not race. Ethnicity is a more meaningful and less arguable term too. Can I recommend a move away from race and towards ethnicity and ancestry, as appropriate? HiLo48 (talk) 21:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, except for, they are two different things. One is supposedly biological, the other sociological. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

IN any case it needs to be moved outside of the biology section.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, there is no scientific agreement that biological races do not exist (except among some US anthropologists but they are not the only relevant view). Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:39, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Again you lie <rephrasing: write untruths> and misrepresent the much larger global consensus in anthropology and among geneticist to make it seem as if your viewpoint has more support than it does. Your view builds on one study that does not suggest that there is a general support for the idea of race outside of the US or that the US is not representative of the global mainstream. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:50, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding US forensic anthropologists see the article mentioned above in this section. Regarding non-US anthropologists see: . Regarding some views in medicine and genetics see: . Also, please stop the incivility. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that you are able to cherry pick sources in favor of your viewpoints. However in contrast to you I am also aware of the actual academic debates about these things.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages relies on sources in order to ensure WP:Verifiability and WP:No original research. Not on the unsourced personal opinions and claims of the Misplaced Pages editors. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You are clearly editing in bad faith here as I have previously presented you with dozens of sources that show that your interpretation of the matter is in the minority. I will of course do so again if asked. But not by you or to you. I will do my very best to ignore your trolling from now on Miradre. You should not be editing these articles - but at least I can act as if you weren't. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You seem to be the minority view here. Despite this you have removed the NPOV template in the disputed section stating that this should not be done before there is a consensus and as well edited the article according to your own personal unsourced POV and claims without attempting to form a consensus on talk. That is not how Misplaced Pages operates. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You wouldn't recognize a minority view if it was a yard up your butt. <Rephrasing for courtesy: I don't believe you are capable of adequately identifying what is or isn't a minority view > You are the only one who has argued that the section is unbalanced. Goodbye.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Calling All Experts:

This article needs attention from an expert in This article must describe a major fundamental and sensitive debate among major factions of experts. We need to describe the debate appropriatly, being NPOV on both sides carefully and accruately, in a chronological point/counterpoint intellectual-history-kind of way: who said what and when and how, and then who replied and who counter-replied and so on until it's up-to-date. This may not be easy, but this is (one of?) the most important article on Misplaced Pages, and WP:Good mammal species articles always adress the major subspecies, varieties, breeds, landraces, or whatever term experts in that area use for major subspecific or sub-subspecific branches on the Tree of Life. Here is a good starting place that summarizes the dabate, a quick and easy read: "AN ANTAGONIST'S PERSPECTIVE by C. Loring Brace" followed by "A PROPONENT'S PERSPECTIVE by George W. Gill": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html.. Please add a reason or a talk parameter to this template to explain the issue with the article. [[Misplaced Pages:WikiProject This article must describe a major fundamental and sensitive debate among major factions of experts. We need to describe the debate appropriatly, being NPOV on both sides carefully and accruately, in a chronological point/counterpoint intellectual-history-kind of way: who said what and when and how, and then who replied and who counter-replied and so on until it's up-to-date. This may not be easy, but this is (one of?) the most important article on Misplaced Pages, and WP:Good mammal species articles always adress the major subspecies, varieties, breeds, landraces, or whatever term experts in that area use for major subspecific or sub-subspecific branches on the Tree of Life. Here is a good starting place that summarizes the dabate, a quick and easy read: "AN ANTAGONIST'S PERSPECTIVE by C. Loring Brace" followed by "A PROPONENT'S PERSPECTIVE by George W. Gill": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html.%7CWikiProject This article must describe a major fundamental and sensitive debate among major factions of experts. We need to describe the debate appropriatly, being NPOV on both sides carefully and accruately, in a chronological point/counterpoint intellectual-history-kind of way: who said what and when and how, and then who replied and who counter-replied and so on until it's up-to-date. This may not be easy, but this is (one of?) the most important article on Misplaced Pages, and WP:Good mammal species articles always adress the major subspecies, varieties, breeds, landraces, or whatever term experts in that area use for major subspecific or sub-subspecific branches on the Tree of Life. Here is a good starting place that summarizes the dabate, a quick and easy read: "AN ANTAGONIST'S PERSPECTIVE by C. Loring Brace" followed by "A PROPONENT'S PERSPECTIVE by George W. Gill": http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/does-race-exist.html.]] may be able to help recruit an expert.

Chrisrus (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you calling for all experts, or only for ones that agree with you? Given that you assert that one side of the debate is correct, I have to ask. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please join me in calling for the participation of all experts. Please agree that the article must take a NPOV point of view and simply state the facts using wordings such as maybe "On this date, The Association of Major Antropologists released a statement stating one point of view, and this is what it said. Next, this other group replied in this way. Yadda yadda", as good as we can get it. My or your personal points of view or those of any other editor should not come into it. When there is a major debate such as this, there is a proper way of doing it. Let us speak no more of my POV. Chrisrus (talk) 18:07, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree: you are mistaken in your understanding of Misplaced Pages's approach to NPOV. We don't necessarily give 'equal time' to all views, but instead represent them according to their acceptance: and the simple fact is that amongst anthropologists (who are of course those best qualified to answer the question) the clear (probably overwhelming) majority say that 'race' is a social construct, rather than a biological 'fact', and as such of little use as an abstract concept: to suggest that there is 'a major debate', with two balanced sides, is simply a misrepresentation of the situation. Or if there is a major debate, where is this debate being argued out? Who are the people arguing that races are "major subspecific or sub-subspecific branches" of Homo sapiens sapiens, and that people should be classified accordingly? Who is even suggesting that there are meaningful 'subspecies' one can put a name to? What are the proposed names of these 'subspecies'? Please provide sources... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is what experts think: The American Anthroopological Association's educational website on race. . The fact that PBS is able to set up the debate as one for and one against doesn't mean that the two sides have equal standing.72.221.123.196 (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• This is a detailed explanation of why the genetic evidence doesn't support the existence either of subspecies or divergent lineages in Hmo sapiens.Templeton, A. R. The genetic and evolutionary significance of human races. In: Race and Intelligence: Separating Science From Myth. J. M. Fish, ed. Pp. 31-56. Mahwah, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2002.
• If that is not enough expertise then the American Association of Physical Anthropologists (which includes forensic anthropologists) issued a statement in 1996.. UNESCO (an expert group of anthropologists under UNESCO of course) has issued statements in 1950 and 1978. And even the proponents of certain ways of seeing race as biologically real (for example cladistically ) agree that the dominant view is that objective biological races don't exist. (e.g. here: ). So how many more experts do you need? 72.221.123.196 (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC) (By the way this IP is Maunus editing logged out - I am not trying to mislead anyone just bypassing my wikibreak enforcer. Stupidly. Why can't I just leave it alone...)72.221.123.196 (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

@Andy, as you know, experts don't use the term "subspecies" for extant varieties of this mammal, but rather "races". If this were a plant, it'd be "varieties", with dogs we say "breeds" or "landraces". @Maunus, this seems to establish that there is, in fact, great disagreement among experts: http://www.anthro.ucsd.edu/~jmoore/courses/anth42web/CartmillRaceConcept1998.pdf. Chrisrus (talk) 15:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

And your source for your assertion regarding 'experts' is where? And how does linking an article that describes race unequivocally as a social construct help your case? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

By showing that not everyone agrees with him, he establishes it as controversial. My case is only that it's contraversial, that is all. Not that one is right and one is wrong, whereas you seem to be saying that virtually all anthopologists agree it's simply a cultural construct with no basis in biological fact, yet these other experts who agree with you describe, if only to refute, experts who disagree with him/you. Chrisrus (talk) 16:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that argument is a non-starter. Everybody knows that this is controversial and has been for the past 100 years. That does not mean the two sides are equally supported. They are not - I have shown proponents of race as biology stating that the non-biological view is dominant. And official statements by very large international groups of experts. You can not counter argue with a single paper by a scholar who argues against race but takes not that not everyone agrees. It makes no sense - please address the substance here - don't pull out red herrings. 72.221.123.196 (talk) 19:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

(outdent) Firstly, the paper is 14 years old. Secondly, it is referring to past trends regarding the question - it analyzes data going back to the 1960s - and thirdly, it is specifically discussing the opinions of American physical anthropologists - who clearly cannot be taken as representative of anthropology in general. But what is it saying anyway?

"In summary, the role played by racial taxonomy in the study of modern human variation has apparently changed little or not at all over the course of the past 30 years. In the 1990s, as in the 1960s, most researchers studying human variation do not make use of the concept of race in gathering and analyzing their data; however, a consistantly large minority continue to do so."

So all this seems to indicate is what we already know - that the issue has been debated in the past, in one particular subsection of anthropology, in one particular country - and even then "most researchers" didn't consider 'race' as a useful concept. If you wish to claim that there is a controversy now, provide the evidence - and provide evidence that the minority position has significant support now. All the evidence I have seen is that the minority position has less support than ever, even amongst the section amongst the 'experts' who had been its most keen supporters - forensic anthropologists. A recent textbook, Forensic Anthropology: 2000 to 2010 (eds Sue Black & Eilidh Ferguson) states that "we can view modern “races” as epiphenomena" (p. 135), and points out that "there is no clear philosophical consensus of exactly what a “species” is" and asks "...if biologists have significant difficulties defining the basal taxonomic unit , then how can they hope to define a subdivision of that unit, namely, the race?". (p. 121) All indicating the non-utility of the generalised concept of race even to forensic anthropology - where the concept has in the past had most support. Without evidence of a significant controversy now, we have no reason to pretend that there is one, just to provide a 'pseudo-balance'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

http://raceandgenomics.ssrc.org/Hammonds/ asserts that there actually is just such disagreement and debate among experts. Chrisrus (talk) 20:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

So you aren't going to provide the evidence I asked for: that the minority position has significant support now? Unless you can, this whole discussion is a waste of time. We know that there are still those who claim that 'race' is a valid biological concept. We also know that this is very much the minority view. We aren't going to mislead our readers by claiming that both positions have equal support - and unless you can provide evidence of significant support for the minority position, we have no necessity to discuss this at all. As the article you link makes clear, there are some significant political forces behind this, and there is a great deal of evidence to suggest that this 'controversy' is being exploited by those who wish to legitimise 'race' as a broader concept - for sometimes-questionable objectives. And finally, it must be noted that yet again this is an article discussing the issue from a US perspective. Misplaced Pages is an international project, and the subject matter here is the whole of humanity, not just that portion of it that is involved in contemporary US political discourse. Far too often, Misplaced Pages suffers from US-centrism: in this article it would be particularly reprehensible to allow this to happen. Find evidence that this is truly an international debate, and that it is being discussed in a significant way beyond the narrow arena that it appears to be, and maybe we will look again. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

These seem to be more recent: http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.1086/662279?uid=3739832&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=56038021093 and http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/POSC_a_00048

Chrisrus (talk) 22:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you going to respond to my comments regarding US-centrism in any more helpful way than by posting more links to US journals? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Quit "moving the bar" on me. All I am supposed to establish is that there is in fact such a debate, not whether it is limited to the USA, only. It may be, for all I know. As I recall, it was an American association of experts, wasn't it in the first place, who jointly published that there is no scientific basis in biological reality "race". I've never heard of it being questioned until that day. Everyone in Brazil and Mexico and Korea that I've met seems to carry on discourse with reference to the concept as a part of the reality of the world. Has anyone so outside of the USA ever declared that race has no basis in reality but is purely a socio-cultural concept? Chrisrus (talk) 23:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

You are claiming there is a debate - it is for you to provide the evidence, and if it is only going on in the US, it is probably not justifiable to include in the article. As for whether race is a 'reality', of course it is, as a social construct. The question is whether it is a biological reality (and BTW, neither Maunus nor I are Americans, both of us have a background in anthropology - Maunus much more so than me of course - and both of us are telling you precisely what you ask). But remember, we aren't asking you to show that there is a debate, we are asking you to show that there is a significant one - and as yet, you don't seem to be providing the evidence for this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I have provided many links to WP:RSes from Google Scholar from both sides of the issue stating that there is in fact, such a debate. Here is another: http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/gb-2002-3-7-comment2007.pdf. Hey look at this: that stuff about the races not being tree-of-life claddistic realities? Here on page three they have a very nice cladogram quite like the ones so many other taxon-based articles. The Figure One caption says "The evolutionary tree of human races. Population genetic studies of world populations support the categorization into five major groups, as shown", but to see the text for details. That's the specific kind of biological cladistics that you two said was universally rejected by experts. Chrisrus (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it that you cannot understand that you can find single articles to show just about anything. To show that a view is significant you need to secondary and tertiary sources such as review articles, textbooks and encyclopoedias. Yes they make a cladogram - but no they are not representative of their profession of melecular biology of human differences (look e.g. at Relethfords textbook "Human biological variation - he is a recognized expert summarising the field). AAA and AAPA are not just representative of "American" but are the main organizations of anthropologists in the world with members all across the globe. Their publications are the most representative of any kind of mainstream in anthropology. The UNESCO is not an American organization at all. Now, yes there is debate about raace, but debate is not about whether Homo Sapiens have subspecies - the debate is about whether allele frequencies cluster in ways that are best described by continental races. Here there are some scholars saying yes (mostly the ones working with applied sciences - e.g. doctors and forensic anthropologists, and a some molecular biologists) and some that say no (mostly anthropologsits and many molecular biologists). We can and should describe this debate - and the article currently does. But there is no significant debate about whether races can be understood as subspecies anymore. That view is obsolete even among those who believe that racial categories reflect the most significant clusterings of allele frequencies.72.221.123.196 (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this debate not just about which section 'race' should come under? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we all know the debate is not about whether to refer to them as "subspecies". Experts haven't done that for a very long time. They are called "races" and the debate is whether they are biological facts or mere cultural constructions. Chrisrus (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Could I ask whether everyone agrees that there is some biological aspect to race? Martin Hogbin (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That's a vague question. It depends on what precisely you mean by race, since the word is used to mean various things. My understanding is that it's sometimes used by biologists almost synonymically with subspecies (although not with reference to humans, afaik). Rivertorch (talk) 14:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The WP article starts, 'Race is a classification system used to categorize humans into large and distinct populations or groups by heritable phenotypic characteristics, geographic ancestry, physical appearance, and ethnicity' so I guess that is what I mean. According to this definition there is some biological aspect to race. Martin Hogbin (talk) 15:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sigh. Nobody denies that there is biological variation that clusters in different ways. What is at question is whether the idea of major continental races is the best way to represent that clustering. By most accounts it isn't, because it is just one - arbitrary - way of describing the clusters of allele frequencies. That is why it is better to have a section generally on biological variation in the human species that mentions the ways in which "race" as a concept is a contested way to describe huyman biological variation (because race is usually not used in a scientific sense but describes social categorizations of people oftne based on arbitrary phenotypical traits that vary between different local classificatino schemes (how much african ancestry makes a person "black"? (answer: "that depends"))). The article does so now - after I moved the part about ethnicity to the culture section.128.148.211.79 (talk) 16:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary is a wrong description. As noted earlier, forensic anthropologists can with great accuracy determine a person's race from only partial skeletal remains. Similarly, molecular geneticists can determine a person ancestral origin with great accuracy. Like differentiating between Chinese and Japanese. Regarding if race has utility, see the views here: Regarding the view of American anthropologists, I note again and refer to the sources given earlier in the section for that non-US anthropologists differ greatly from US anthropologists with many being more supporting of biological races. As well as US forensic anthropologists disagreeing. Yes, the AAA has issued a statement condemning the existence of races but it cited not scientific sources for its claims unlike, say, when climatologists issue a statement on global warming. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not seem that you read what I write at all. You keep regurgitating the same arguments over and over presenting sources that do not say anything that I hvae not already said and presented other, better, sources for. The ARTICLE ALREADY STATES THAT MEDICINE AND FORENSICS FIND RACE TO BE A USEFUL CONCEPT!! I WROTE THAT AND PROVIDED CA. 20 SOURCES! That is not the issue. The question is whether it is the most scientifically accurate way to conceptualize human biological variation. The fact that it is usefull does not mean that other conceptualizations might not be just as useful or more so - and that is exactly the argument critics of "racial medicine" keep making - using racial categorizations as if they are objective entities glosses over the ways in which they do not adequately descirbe the phenomena. E.g. sickle cell anemia is not just found among people with African ancestry, but people with ancestry from other places where Malaria has been endemic as well such as southern Europe. Calling it a racial disease leads to underreporting for "white people" who happen to also have the genetic variant. Race is a useful heuristic - but not an accurate description - that is the argument. Now address what I actually write instead of what you believe communists like me are supposed to write and we may actually have a conversation. Read what I wrote in the section and point out what you disagree with or where you think you have a better source saying something else. 128.148.211.79 (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the greatest problem with current version is the last paragraph which does no take into account the opposing sources I mentioned above. These sources show that many scientists accept races as having a biological reality, although not necessarily in the "subspecies" sense, and are not dropping the word race. Most concepts have somewhat ambiguous borders to other concepts. That does not make the concepts meaningless or inaccurate. See also UNESCO discussion below. Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The rest of the sectin very clearly describes the kind of relatin that exists between "races" and genetic variation. The last paragraph makes two statements for which ample sources exist: 1. homo sapiens have no living subspecies, and races whatever they are are not subspecies. 2. most studies of biological variation prefers to use the terms ancestry and population rather than "race" (both because of the connotations of the term and because of the way the fourway classificaiton oversimplifies the complexities of genetic-geographic clusterings). I don't think any of these points are contested or even really contestable (the forensics textbook for example shows this very clearly - and it is a source that considers race to have a biological foundation). I have not been shown a source that states that a sigificant group of scholars continue to use race as the main term to describe human biological variation - we have seen single instances of scholars arguing that it should be used - but all review sources state the opposite that the term is becoming less and less used. the source by Strkalj and by Lieberman that have studied usage also show the decline of the usage of the term - noting that the development is slower outside of the US and Europe. They ascribe it not to scientific differences but to a slower rate of acceptance of new scholarship outside of Western tradition.128.148.211.79 (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but when the AAA did that it was a very significant event that can't be ignored by us. Which we don't do, we address it, but when it's not phrased as a description of a debate, the section simply seems to assert that two opposite things are both true and as a result it's incoherent. Chrisrus (talk) 17:17, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree that we should describe the debate more fairly and neutrally, Furthermore, the current section gives great weight to the views of several UNESCO statements. First, the 1950 statement was heavily criticized and a 1951 revision issued that among other dropped the rejection of the word race: . The current text is misleading by only mentioning the 1950 version and not the 1951 one. Unlike the 1950 and 1951 statements the 1978 statement was primarily drafted by human rights experts and not by experts on human biology.As such it is primarily a political statement rather than a scientific ones as can also be seen in its lack of scientific sources. Academica Orientalis (talk) 17:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Refresh my memory please. Which source analyzes the UNESCO statements? You refer to honesthinking.org? How is that a reliable source? To me it looks like an anti-immigration pro-racialism blog.128.148.211.79 (talk) 18:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Same test here from UNESCO. See the 1951 statement: . Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That is the text of the statements. Of course making a claim about the statements validity or scientific foundations requires a good secondary source and not OR.128.148.211.79 (talk) 19:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

No double standard please. You are citing the 1950 statement. I am citing the 1951 statement including a preamble which explains why the 1950 statement was revised. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If you want to read an actual analysis of the relation between the statements try this: .72.221.123.196 (talk) 20:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I trust you have a very solid source supporting your evaluation of the three UNESCO statements. And that you will present it. Also note that the survey you keep referring to has been characterized as useless because it does not ask what kind of biological entity race is supposed to be... I might for example agree if the question is whether there are identifiable clusterings of physical traits that correlate with geographic ancestry (which would mean that being icelandic or maori is a race). But I wouldn't agree if the idea was that this implies that races are separate evolutionary lineages or subspecies. 128.148.211.79 (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources given except possible for the claim that the 1978 statement was a political one. It was however drafted by human rights experts, not experts on human biology, and lacks scientific sourcing as my source shows. If you referring the survey on non-US anthropologists views on race it clearly shows that they differ markedly from those of US anthropologists in many nations.Academica Orientalis (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So is there a consensus that the section now called 'Biological variation and race' can stay where it is, saying nothing about whether we should revise the title and content. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

At the moment, I don't see that there is a consensus for that, given the clear majority view amongst those best qualified to comment - anthropologists - is that 'racial' categorisation has little to do with biology. One again, I ask for evidence that there is any significant 'controversy' over the question at present. If there isn't, we have no reason to discuss any supposed relationship between race and biology at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Why should American anthropologists be more qualified than, say, geneticists or non-US anthropologists? Sources have already been given above for widely different view among non-US anthropologists and other scientists. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What? Where have I suggested that American anthropologists are more qualified than others? Anyway, are you going to provide evidence that there is a significant ongoing controversy? If one cannot be found, there is no reason to pretend there is, just to suit the objectives of a POV-pushing fringe. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:05, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Already done but I can do it again: Many US forensic anthropologists argue that biological races exist: Many non-US anthropologists argue the same: . Here is an article regarding recent discussions of race in medicine and genetics showing the diversity of views: . Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

George W Gill is not "many Us forensic anthropologists" - and I have already explained above that what they argue is that race exists as a useful heuristic which has also been shown by reference to a US textbook in forensic anthropology. The Lieberman study clearly argues that lack of rejection of race is a sign of heistancy to revise conceptualizations based on newer knowledge, not of differing scientific conclusions. You selectively present its conclusions. Again AAA does not only represent American scholars - but is the umbrella organization of anthropology in the world. Also geneticists are not generally in favor of reducing genetic variation to continental clusters as Templetion and Graves, Collins and many other molecular biologists have argued at length.~~ 19:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

IDINDNTHEARTHAT. As already pointed out to you before and which you ignore, the source states: "As pointed out in a recent 2000 edition of a popular physical anthropology textbook, forensic anthropologists (those who do skeletal identification for law-enforcement agencies) are overwhelmingly in support of the idea of the basic biological reality of human races" The Lieberman study clearly shows differing opinions regarding race. Liberman's personal interpretation of the causes of these differences his own hypothesis that does not change that differences exist. The AAA is obviously dominated by American anthropologists. It it not the international anthropological association. Regarding genetics, see the source which gives many different views from different scientists.Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So yet again, the same old sources, and no evidence of any significant ongoing controversy. If the AAA is"obviously dominated by American anthropologists", what about the ? Can you provide a source suggesting that there is an ongoing debate there? Or indeed, can you provide a source that says that such debate is taking place anywhere? Unless you do, we have to assume that there isn't. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The source already given states that Europe differ from the US with lower rejections of race than in the US. Not sure why you are ignoring the sources already given? The article about genetics and medicine clearly shows an ongoing debate between different sides. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

But as we have documented that debate is not about what you claim it to be about.~~(talk) 20:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

"The source already given states that Europe differ from the US with lower rejections of race than in the US" So what? The source doesn't state that there is any significant ongoing controversy. You have utterly failed to provide evidence for any controversy outside the US. On this basis, we can only assume there isn't one. End of story. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That is an unclear argument. The sources shows that there is lack of worldwide agreement among anthropologists and thus there is controversy. There may not be much discussion in Russia and China regarding race if everyone there thinks that races exist as Liberman's study indicates. This obviously does not mean that the issue if definitely settled. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. Provide sources which actually state that there is significant controversy, or stop wasting our time. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources already given showing large-scale controversy among anthropologist and non-anthropologists. But I agree we now seem to be wasting time and going around in circles which is obviously not constructive so I will not continue unless significant new arguments are introduced. I have given my views and arguments with sources above. I hope other editors will add their views. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The sources you have provided show a clear worldwide trend towards rejection of race as a biological category with some areas being slower to adopt the trend than others. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Andy, are you saying that race has nothing to do with biology? Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

What I say is beside the point: the sources clearly indicate that the overwhelming consensus amongst anthropologists is that 'race' plays no useful role in 'classifying' human beings. It is a social construct which attempts (and fails) to subdivide a diverse population into a limited (but poorly-defined) subsets, in spite of the evidence which demonstrates that such arbitrary divisions have no basis in biological fact. It may be 'useful' to forensic anthropologists (who seem to be well-represented amongst the few making use such 'divisions') on occasion, but even then, many do not find it useful: and as I've already pointed out, a recent forensic anthropology textbook makes clear the flaws in such arbitrary classifications. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Repeating the same thing over and over does not change that sources show that many non-US anthropologists disagree with you. As do scientists from other areas. Oh, I will quote from another recent forensic anthropology textbook in order to add something new to the debate: "Moreover, such ancestral information is undeniably helpful in the search for an identity. Therefore, to react to the term race (or ancestry) as a vampire to sunlight is counterproductive... ...when allele frequencies were clustered into five groups,the resultant groups corresponded to the world’s major geographic regions: Africa, Eurasia (Europe and West, Central, and South Asia), East Asia, Oceania, and the Americas (see also King and Motulsky, 2002). Moreover, there was excellent agreement between individuals’ membership in the clusters and their self-reported regions of ancestry." (FUNDAMENTALS OF FORENSIC ANTHROPOLOGY, LINDA L. KLEPINGER, 2006, John Wiley & Sons, p. 65).Academica Orientalis (talk) 00:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

How does citing another book from an American forensic anthropologist constitute evidence for what non-US anthropologists think? It doesn't. If you are going to claim that there is a significant controversy elsewhere, you have to provide a source that says so explicitly. Put up, or shut up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

IDINDNTHEARTHAT. Source for non-US anthropologists views have already been given earlier several times as you well know. I will quote another interesting study (my bolding): "Subjects identified themselves as belonging to one of four major racial/ethnic groups (white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic) and were recruited from 15 different geographic locales within the United States and Taiwan. Genetic cluster analysis of the microsatellite markers produced four major clusters, which showed near-perfect correspondence with the four self-reported race/ethnicity categories. Of 3,636 subjects of varying race/ethnicity, only 5 (0.14%) showed genetic cluster membership different from their self-identified race/ethnicity . On the other hand, we detected only modest genetic differentiation between different current geographic locales within each race/ethnicity group. Thus, ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population."

No, you have not provided a source which explicitly states that there is an ongoing controversy amongst non-US anthropologists. You are engaging in synthesis to concoct one. If you persist in doing this, I may consider raising the matter at Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. Put up, or shut up... AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:35, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately content disputes are not resolved there. I have never claimed that the last two sources are about non-US anthropologists. The last two sources show that some US forensic anthropologist and geneticists argue that race exists. Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The last source shows nothing of the sort. Your claim is highly questionable. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I think the quote speaks for itself. Here are some more views from geneticists showing the ongoing debate: Academica Orientalis (talk) 01:59, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• "Phenotypic traits have been used for centuries for the purpose of racial classification. Developments in quantitative population genetics have allowed global comparison of patterns of phenotypic variation with patterns of variation in classical genetic markers and DNA markers. Human skin color shows a high degree of variation among geographic regions, typical of traits that show extensive natural selection. Even given this high level of geographic differentiation, skin color variation is clinal and is not well described by discrete racial categories. Craniometric traits show a level of among-region differentiation comparable to genetic markers, with high levels of variation within populations as well as a correlation between phenotypic and geographic distance. Craniometric variation is geographically structured, allowing high levels of classification accuracy when comparing crania from different parts of the world. Nonetheless, the boundaries in global variation are not abrupt and do not fit a strict view of the race concept; the number of races and the cutoffs used to define them are arbitrary. The race concept is at best a crude first-order approximation to the geographically structured phenotypic variation in the human species." Race and Global Patterns of Phenotypic Variation. John H. Relethford. Am J Phys Anthropol 139:16–22, 2009. (Review Article 2009 by population geneticist John H. Relethford - this entire issue is dedicated to the state of the art regarding Race and biology. This one is particularly interesting as well: Understanding race and human variation: Why forensic anthropologists are good at identifying race (68–76)

Stephen Ousley, Richard Jantz and Donna Freid)·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:00, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1. Not talking about a single trait such as skin color but possible millions of genes that vary together systematically in clusters. 2. True, populations from geographically close ancestral origins have only gradual variations between them. The same do not necessarily apply to populations from geographically widely separated ancestral origins such as the populations in the US which were taken from widely geographically separated ancestral origins. Which explains why geneticists have so few errors when classifying DNA from US populations. The DNA from different persons can easily be classified into very distinct groups depending on geographic ancestral origin. Again, "ancient geographic ancestry, which is highly correlated with self-identified race/ethnicity—as opposed to current residence—is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population" Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that, but the keyword is "in the US population". Race is important in the US (both genetically and socially) because of its particular colonial history that has brought people from the four different continents together in large amounts. Nobody contests that. The issue is that race is useful becaus eof that particular history - not because of any particular scientific validity of the particular grouping - if the US had been settled by mostly Sami and Maori then the "major races" would be very different. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That is true. Rather distinct US clusters/races are not evidence for that this is a global pattern or that the US clusters/races correspond to any distinct global races. On the other hand, this is not an argument for that geographically separated populations cannot differ markedly on traits on average. Japanese and Bushmen, two geographically widely separated populations, may differ markedly on average on many traits, including possibly also psychological. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikibreak

• Does anyone know how I can stopt my wikibreak enforced from working. It really serves no purpose now...~~ 18:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I cannot help you but there are probably better places to ask that question. Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:13, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

It would also be more helpful if you placed your comments here rather than left them as edit summaries. In what way have I (or is it someone else) misunderstood you? Martin Hogbin (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

That was to Miradre who routinely bypasses arguments made and regresses to IDINDNTHEARTHAT and repetition.~~ 18:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Who is Miradre? Martin Hogbin (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

My former username. Not sure why some keep using it. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:43, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

because it is ca. ten characters shorter than the present one and requires no special characters.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Who coined Homo sapiens sapiens?

Linnaeus obviously named Homo sapiens, but Homo sapiens sapiens is a much later invention, so who named this sub-species? FunkMonk (talk) 19:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The trinomial apparently goes back to the debate on whether the Neandertals were a separate species, Homo neanderthalensis, or a sub-species, H. sapiens neanderthalensis, which leads to H. sapiens sapiens to distinguish us from the Neandertals. Even on sites that give the naming authority for most species, including Linnaeus for H. sapiens, no naming authority is listed for H. sapiens neandethalensis or H. sapiens sapiens. I would say that there is a possibility that no naming authority for the trinomials is generally recognized. -- Donald Albury 01:23, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

But whoever made the combination first should be the author, right? It didn't manifest by itself, but I guess it's an obscure case. FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Clarification is needed

"There is no scientific consensus on the biological relevance of race. Few anthropologists endorse the notion of human "race" as a basically biological concept; they tend to see race as a social construct superimposed on, but partly obscuring, underlying biological variation."

This portion needs to be clarified and amended. Homo sapiens subspecies very much exist. Any amount of social construction affecting these subspecies does not in some way make that less valid. It's like saying that most gender studies experts don't think that gender differentiation is a "basically biological concept" because there are implicated social constructions relating to male and female. In other words, you can't let human behaviour distract or detract from science.

Look at the other wiki pages for animal species, many of them have a section called "subspecies" where the subspecies are listed and explained. The same should be done here. Take the social construction debates to a different section OUT of the scientific aspect of this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.150.3 (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

There are no scientifically-recognised 'subspecies' of Homo sapiens. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There are, we have Homo sapiens sapiens and Homo sapiens idaltu, and perhaps Homo sapiens neanderthaliensis, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that there are no 'living' subspecies - which is what the IP was trying to suggest. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Heh, apart from us, that is. But if they aren't discussed already, it would actually be interesting to mention them. FunkMonk (talk) 10:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but we will be going firmly into contested territory if we do. It is pretty well impossible to put two palaeoanthropologists together in one room to discuss such issues without three different opinions emerging on what is classified as what - and with the possibility of a fist fight too ;-). I'm not sure it will be useful to discuss the subject in sufficient detail without having a long-winded section on the different interpretations of each and every fossil, who labelled what as what, and just how much Homo neanderthalensis DNA there is in the average palaeoanthropology undergraduate's genome :D AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with a good fistfight? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm referring to the races (Australoid, Caucasoid/Europid, Mongoloid, Negroid). If you look the entry for Lions there is a section entitled "subspecies" in which the various subspecies are listed (West African lion, Asiatic Lion, etc...). The same should be done on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.150.3 (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

ATG yes there are. If you believe otherwise, could you tell me what the difference is between human races and lion subspecies? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.100.150.3 (talk) 04:51, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to 'tell you' anything. Misplaced Pages articles are based on published reliable sources. There are no such sources that claim that mainstream science recognises 'races' as 'subspecies'. So no, the same shouldn't be done on this page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Those races are not acknowledged as sub-species. If some genetic study one day in the future did do so, we could add it, but it hasn't happened. FunkMonk (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• B-Class Primate articles
• Top-importance Primate articles
• WikiProject Primates articles
• B-Class taxonomic articles
• High-importance taxonomic articles
• WikiProject Tree of Life articles
• B-Class mammal articles
• High-importance mammal articles
• WikiProject Mammals articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Anthropology articles
• Top-importance Anthropology articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English