Talk:Race (biology)

Obsolescence

most biologists reject the concept of race (I mean, applied to dogs, bumblebees, etc). We need some acknowledgment of this. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Breed is different from race because it is obtained by artificial selection. Other than that, it is essentially the same. Of course no one rejects the existence of breeds. Biophys (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

They're not "essentially the same" though. Slrubenstein is correct that this term is obsolete in biology, and our article is broken in this regard.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Where was it demonstrated the term is obsolete? Was it invalidated or put on the euphemism treadmill due to PC? Please go into more detail. SamOrange (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Needs further digging. The term has clearly been abandoned in most fields; you won't see it used much if at all in most biology works since the mid-20th century or earlier. But as details below slow, it has actually clung on at least two places, mycology and bacteriology, in what seem to be narrow usages. It's easy to find reliable sources in these fields using them, but nailing down definitional sources may be more difficult. They might not even have exact definitions. It would also be of great usefulness to find journal articles; ICZN, etc., organizational statements; conference proceedings; etc., explicitly deprecating the term, but it's likely the shift mostly happened sotto voce. One avenue worth looking at is old standards documents and taxonomic manual, to identify the years or at least decade in which particular fields dropped the term, and the extent to which it has been abandoned. I did encounter it used in reference to some caudates, back in the 1990s, but I don't recall how old the source in that case was. I've never seen it used in reference to mammals in sources newer than ca. the 1940s, if not earlier, but it was common in the late 1800s.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Fungal Races and Plant Disease

I came to the Race (biology) page expecting a discussion of host specificity in plant pathogenic fungi. Wow! Cressflower (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If, in fact, "race" is a legitimate concept in the classification of pathogenic fungi, then the fungi article seems the most logical place to discuss it. I have a hard time believing that a quality or term specific to pathological fungus is in any way notable enough in itself to justify its own article, but if someone can produce a single reliable SECONDARY source establishing otherwise, I'll defer. But so far, all the article's defenders seem to generate are, "This one time...at band camp"-type anecdotes about how sure they are they once saw or read about the term somewhere. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Plant Pathogens and Races

I'd have to revise the topic to be fully confident of my understanding, but I think that in plant pathology, a "race" is a category below the level of a subspecies and is used to distinguish a form of the fungus that is capable of infecting one host plant species from a form that infects another host plant species. For example Fusarium madeupname subsp. madeupname race 1 infects watermelons, Fusarium madeupname subsp. madeupname race 2 infects cucumbers etc. I think it can also be used to distinguish between a form of the fungus causing mild symptoms and a form causing severe symptoms in the same host plant species.

I strongly suspect that there will be genetic variation underlying the differences in host specificity and virulence, but there is probably not enough genetic distance between two "races" to justify separating them into different subspecies. It might only be a few genes that allow the fungus to overcome the defenses of the watermelon plant, but not the cucumber, and in other respects the two "races" might look the same, smell the same, grow on the same nutrient agar at the same rate, have the same morphological features and spore size/shape/colour...

I think host specific types within species of plant-pathogenic bacteria are also described as "races". There may also be different "races" or types among pathogens that infect humans and other animals, although I don't know enough about medical/veterinary pathology to be sure.

Using the term "race" is not ideal because it has a lot of unpleasant connotations, however the concept of fungal races has been used extensively in Plant Pathology publications, so it requires explanation within the context of this subject. Even if the term "race" were to be replaced by "type" or "form", decades of plant pathology literature would still use this terminology, and plant pathology students would still need an accurate definition and thorough discussion to ensure their understanding of this important concept in host-pathogen interactions. Cressflower (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Cite some Reliable Sources, or it didn't happen. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Future of the Race (biology) page

Unresolved

 – Most of these problem as still extant as of July 2015.

The article is a bit confused and I doubt the accuracy of some of the statements.

Some of the material might be better placed in a discussion of the process of speciation or taxonomic classification.

The links under "See Also" seem like a useful start on drawing together different concepts related to speciation and the evolution of populations.

If the article could be geared toward a discussion of host specificity and the definition of "race" within the classification of plant pathogens it would be more useful and hopefully not offensive.

Or should I just create a new page called Race (Plant Pathology)?

Yours tired and confused,

Cressflower (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Social concept

The Race (human classification) page starts with "Race, as a social concept, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics." Isn't non-human race then also a social concept? How about species? Am I silly to suggest this or are they silly to randomly call things "social concepts" when "Constructionism became prominent in the U.S. with Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann's 1966 book, The Social Construction of Reality. Berger and Luckmann argue that all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common sense knowledge of everyday reality, is derived from and maintained by social interactions."

Should we reference Foucault or Andrew Pickering's Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics at this point? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also discussion here "Is "strain" a social concept and should we write this in the first sentence?" Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

But we have any number of sources that say race is a social concept. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are exceptionally stupid, even for a troll. Next question... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well if your only argument is childish and hypocritical name calling, you'd best not write anything at all. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is that strains and breeds are not "social concepts", they are the result of selective breeding in plants and animals; very different from the human concept of "race". Species even more so; no human intervention at all, but rather a function of biology. A 1966 source isn't going to work here, and though AndyTheGrump was, well, rather grumpy, you did ask if you were being "silly to suggest this," and the answer is yes, you are. Montanabw^(talk) 05:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What about the concept of race applied to naturally differentiated animals, which is referred to using that term all over the literature? That's what this page is about. Please do not insult me also. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Other languages use "race" interchangably with "breed." English does not. "Naturally differentiated" animals - i.e. changed without human intervention - if not subspecies, are landraces, which is a different sort of word. This article really needs to be merged and redirected. Bottom line: WP:FRINGE theories do not belong on wikipedia, and anything added needs to be cited to a reliable source. If you actually have sources (other than the above), present them with links. Otherwise, stop arguing, it wastes bandwidth. Montanabw^(talk) 06:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact it is you that has no sources and are just writing (false) assertions. "Breed" generally refers to animals intentionally differentiated by humans. "Landrace" refers to domesticated organisms that differ due to location. "Race" is a more general term applied to organisms differentiated without human intervention. There are many sources using the term race in this sense in the article. In fact Darwin used it on the cover of his book. And you fail to address the point of this section which is why human races are "social constructs" but animal ones aren't. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating this sort of nonsense. Provide authoritative, reliable sources (with links to the peer-reviewed sources in which they are published) if you wish to be taken seriously. Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races."

Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals." Mayr 2002. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Mayr 2002" isn't a source. Montanabw^(talk) 17:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

How's this? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Race" in that source is from a non-native English speaker, and in some languages, "race" and "breed" translate as the same word. Mayr has been noted as a closet racist and promoter of eugenics: [1], [2] (same document) [3], so no, definitely not a source for here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

""Race" in that source is from a non-native English speaker"

Garbage. Why aren't you asking to delete references to Boas?

"Mayr has been noted as a closet racist and promoter of eugenics"

He is a leading biologist and a reliable source. Sorry if you don't like him

Your arguments are garbage at this point and you are clearly biased towards an "anti-racist" agenda, truth be damned. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Such bluster. Must be Napoleon complex. danielkueh (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Such vacuous comments. Must be no logical contradiction complex. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

lol. I will take "no logical contradiction" over "Napoleon" any day. danielkueh (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sadly only one of them has any accuracy. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's Napoleon complex indeed. After all, the term "no logical contradiction complex" does not even exist. lol. danielkueh (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you like me to report you again? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Just don't go cry on your way out. danielkueh (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Done[4] Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Good job! But would you like some tissue for those tears? danielkueh (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Does it make you feel better to pretend I'm crying? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes no difference to me. Either way, you're just a cry-baby. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of giving "garbage arguments" or having an "agenda." Worse, you actually file formal complaints about "incivility" or "stalling" just because you don't get your way. Pathetic. But humorous. Thanks for the entertainment though. Have a nice life. danielkueh (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So I think we've established that the animal race concept is equivalent to the human race concept. I therefore propose to write "is a social construct" in the first sentence. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that fact that race, as applied to humans, is a social construct, then that sounds fine. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Oops, wrong article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Animals have breeds, not "races" - the word "race" applied to animals is a mistranslation. Human beings don't have "breeds" - these are totally different concepts. Truth is, this article should be merged into breed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Montanabw. The proposal is based on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Clear violations of WP policies. danielkueh (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense and breeds are artificially selected. "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" What is this a mistranslation of? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Cap'n, you clearly don't understand anything about animals, you obviously don't know the difference between a species, a subspecies, and a breed. Montanabw^(talk) 10:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironic. I won't attempt to define species due to the species problem, it's irrelevant to the point anyway. Subspecies is a division of species and is the last level named in the ICZN. This is due to exponential numbers of names rather than taxonomic validity. Breed is an artificially selected infrasubspecific division. Race is a naturally selected infrasubspecific division. The fact that "rasse" or "razza" is used for both concepts in other languages is irrelevant, since this article is about the English terms where a distinction is made. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Any source for this distinction between "breed", "population", "subspecies" and "race" in contemporary biology?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"So I think we've established that the animal race concept is equivalent to the human race concept. I therefore propose to write "is a social construct" in the first sentence. Captain JT Verity MBA" If you write that in the first sentence it will be removed by every biologist who comes across the page. The name of this page is "Race (biology)", which is not a social construct. As has been noted above, animal breeds are the result of human selection, whereas a race of animals within a species (or within a subspecies or variety) arises through natural means (notably by vicariance). Eventually, a human may notice something that distinguishes the races of animals and may call attention to it or give it a name. That is a concept, however, not a social construct. As it says at Social constructionism, "Social constructs are the by-products of countless human choices". If a biologist talks about the long-tailed race of Macaques, that may be of no interest to anyone but that scientist and those who read their papers. Biological races have fuzzy boundaries, not all individuals can be delineated according to biological race. Human social constructs, however, assign a single race to each person. If you apply for a driver's licence in the U.S. and don't fill in the race field, I know from experience that a desk clerk will look at you, take a guess, and check exactly one box on the form, and the boxes don't include "none" or "mixed-race", just some other offensive terms that supposedly divide people by a combination of skin colour, hair curliness, and eye shape. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The real problems here are:

1. Too many people are trying to cram too many things into this article that are not related. This article is about an obsolete taxonomic term. Nothing else. It is not about a "social construct". It is also not about breeds. Breed only applies to domesticates; race was applied generally, as a classification below subspecies.
2. This term is obsolete and has been for a long time (exception maybe, maybe, with regard to fungi, but multiple editors here clearly consider any such claims to ben an "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary sources". (One primary-source article from 1993, or when ever it was, is insufficient, especially given the likelihood that it was translated from a German paper; the word Race in German, like raza in Spanish, carries less social "baggage" than the English cognate.) The current state of this article is that what few sources it has are a scattershot of cherry-picked examples establishing that the term has been used, without any proof of any kind that this is a current term used as a taxonomic rank by anyone in any field.

It's important to keep and improve the article. Anyone with an anthropological background understands how important it is have this article and get it right. The late Victorian notion of races in biology, an innocent attempt at classification just like subspecies and cultivar group, etc., was misapplied to human groups, on the basis of gross phenotypic differences, and nutters ran with it, coming up with the turn-of-the-last-century anthropometrics mania, the dangerous idea of eugenics and lots of terrible results from it (forced sterilization of prison inmates, etc.), and eventually led straight to the Holocaust. Today this stupid nonsense still dominates public thinking about human ethnicity (outside of actual anthropology, which has known this idea was stupid for several generations how). The biological, taxonomic notion of race is deeply bound up with the entire history of modern world. You could write a Featured Article about this.

In the interim, the bare minimum fixing this article has to have are: A) proper sourcing to demonstrate that it's obsolete (if it's not in some particular narrow field that needs to be extraordinarily well-sourced); and B) anything not related to the term as used in biology being excised from it so people stop confusing it with the term as applied to human populations. While they're historically tied, and the best thing this article can do long-term is document that encyclopedically (with a summary of it in history section at Race (human classification)), they are not equivalent and each are separate articles for a reason.

The proposal to make this article be about the social concept is completely backwards from where we need to go.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Races of birds are also quite commonly discussed by scientists. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This debate actually died weeks ago. I say let's slap a merge tag on this thing and move the most relevant material to the animal breed article. Montanabw^(talk) 23:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge to Breed

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus not to merge the two articles. Closed early per WP:SNOW. The two articles describe clearly different subjects. Kraxler (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

---

I propose we merge this article to Breed, since there is little to nothing to suggest that "race" and "breed" is used in separate senses in contemporary biology.

Survey

• Support as proposer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Breeds are made by humans; races are natural phenomena. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support: In animals, we have breeds and species/subspecies. An animal "race" is just another word for a breed. Most of the time when a European word gts translated "race", it is a word that refers to an animal breed. (Example Andalusian horse aka Pura Raza Española.) (Those who disagree and wish to make the argument that "races" are natural and have DNA differences, then that argument, is, essentially, that an animal "race" is just another word for species/subspecies). If any selective breeding is involved, it's clearly a breed. If it's a more natural or feral process, then we have a landrace. But let's merge this article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, and move to Race (taxonomy): While use of "race" in biology (in English) is obsolete, and it was sometimes also used imprecisely to mean "breed", by other people than taxonomists, this article is about the taxonomic term. The difference between them was concisely pointed out by Sminthopsis84, above. "Breed" does not apply to anything but domesticates, and (in English) "race" in the taxonomic sense doesn't apply to breeds except occasionally in an incidentally overlapping sense, the way subspecies sometimes does.

  This should move to Race (taxonomy), since the present title is an ambiguous un-disambiguation (humans are biological, but this article doesn't apply to them).

  The #1 reason this article's topic is notable is direct involvement of the use of this term by taxonomists (as a category in natural taxonomy, not as any way of saying "domesticated breed"!) in the 19th century in the formulation of the early (now also obsolete) concept of human "races" in early, pre-genetics anthropology, which led directly to a lot of really, really terrible socio-political consequences we are still living with. A concise but important Featured Article can and should be written about this. I even took an entire university class about the history of this (at UNM in 2009 or 2010). I'm not certain why it has not received the development it needs, but it would be absurd to merge this to Breed. They are not the same topic. Just because two words are about two categorizations of organisms doesn't make them synonymous (shall we merge phylum and cultivar?)

  There's also some evidence that term may still be in very narrow use, taxonomically, in mycology, which is a world away from animal breeds. This merge proposal is essentially impossible for three independent reasons.

  Non-English use of cognates of race aren't relevant. This is called the "false friend" or "false cousin" effect in linguistics. What do you think embarazada means in Spanish, or that librairie means in French?

  We already covered almost all of this, in detail, one thread above this, a couple of days ago, so this blanket merge proposal (which is not what was suggested earlier) is a WP:POINTy case of bait-and-switch. That said, any material that is in, or winds up in, this article that is really about breeds should merge to that article (which is what the original merge idea was), if the material is sourced and not redundant. Trivial merges of that sort do not generally require a merge discussion, and certainly do not require a total-merge proposal like this. Any material at Race (human classification) that is about taxonomic race generally can merge into this article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life has been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Sminthopsis84 and SMcCandlish. "Breed" and "landrace" are groupings of organisms created by humans; a "race", as (formerly) used taxonomically, is not. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - also per above, race can mean both subspecies and breed, so it can be merged with neither. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And this is neither a verboten dicdef, nor a disambiguation/conceptDAB page, so whether there are other meanings is irrelevant; this article is about the taxonomic use (even if it has some offtopic stuff to remove or move).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - breeds are artificial races are natural. SamOrange (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• I would appreciate some evidence in the form of sources for the claims that 1. "race" is currently used as a taxonomical category in zoology/mycology/biology, 2. "race" is used in a sense that is distinct from both "breed" and "subspecies". Also I note that Biophys (talk · contribs) above specifically rejected that Race was ever a taxonomical concept, argueing instead that it is simply a name for a naturally occurring breeding population distinguished by phenotype. I would accept that argument if it were supported with sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:LMGTFY: [5] [6]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

None of those google searches actually address the issue of whether it has any current use as a taxonomical category distinct from population/subspecies/breed. Maybe if you learned to use google scholar for this kind of thing it would work better for you. The attempt to use an irrelevant google search as support for your argument does show however that your lengthy posturing above is not based on any actual sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This currency non-issue was already addressed above. Please stop the WP:ICANTHEARYOU game.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if the term was completely outdated, it would still warrant an article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I have encountered the term in some recent papers that I sadly don't remember at the moment (bird papers I think), used synonymously with subspecies. For example as in "the southern race of the" etc. I think the above supports and opposes reflect in what context people have encountered the term race. Those who write articles about breed encounter it there, while those who write about taxonomy have encountered it there, leading either to think it is synonymous with either breed or subspecies, which is too simple, as it can refer to both. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That would suggest that it is simply a vague term and not an actually welldefined concept in biology, which would mean that we should have articles on subspecies and breed and mention there that sometimes "race" is used to refer to these categories, but that we should not have articles on "Race (taxonomy)" or "Race (biology)".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The history of the term would itself warrant a very long article, so I'd certainly disagree with that. It was used way more than subspecies in the past, that it is used less now does not diminish its encyclopaedic value. And by the way, taxonomic ranks are extremely vaguely defined as well, shouldn't be an argument for merging them. What sets species apart from subspecies? Genus from family? Etc. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a literature about the history of the term "race" distinct from the literature about the history of its application to humans? If not and it is used synonymously with breed and subspecies - then really it doesnt merit its own article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Then take it to WP:AFD. This merge proposal is already disputed and will not reach a consensus to merge here, because the topics are categorically unrelated. The only options are keep or delete.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A quick Google Scholar search (on "subspecies race animals", but note the term was also used in botany) gave me these papers about the use and history of the concept in relation to similar concepts, I'm sure loads more can be found, also in Google Books (as well as in literature cited by these papers): [7][8][9][10][11][12] FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Almost all of those sources are old sources that use the concept race for animals, but only one of them seems to actually be about terminology - the first one is specifically about the term subspecies - not race. I must say I remain unconvinced that a meaningful article that is not based on OR can be written about this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said, they discuss the concept in relation to other concepts, no one said they should only be about the concept of race. And no one said they couldn't be old, and that should be irrelevant anyway, old concepts do have Wikipedia articles. But I see you've found something newer below, so I can forgive the goal-post change, heh. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't feed. You've answered the WP:ICANTHEARYOU demands, and are not obligated to answer more redundant demands for sources and rationales that have already been provided. None of maunus's arguments are relevant, because it's against policy to merge articles on unrelated topics. I'm actually going to take this to WP:ANRFC for speedy closure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here is one from 2005 that uses the term.[13] It states that "Throughout, the term race is used to define the major groups and subgroups of B. tabaci so as to avoid the con- fusion raised by the use and misuse of terms such as population, biotype and clade." It also states that "The term race is based on its usage in Mallet (2001)." Mallet[14] however uses the term only as "geographic races" and never gives an exact definition. Here[15] is a note about where the concept "geographical races" comes from "In 1937, Theodosius Dobzhansky introduced the idea of geographical races — populations of species that differ in the frequencies of one or more genetic variants.". This begins to convince me that there is an article to be written.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it is quite easy to find articles that use the term "race" for fungi in scholar.google.com by searching for the terms "race" and "fungi". It is so commonly used in the context of pathogenic fungi, that papers generally don't define the term. When a pathogenic fungus is discovered in the wild, it is not appropriate to refer to it as a "strain", because that means one genotype, and this could be several genotypes with similar behaviour. Similarly, it is not appropriate to refer to it as a "clade" until it has been discovered that all of the descendants of some putative ancestor are included in the group that is being discussed. "Races" of wild fungi (and other pathogenic organisms) are very much current topics. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Move to Race (taxonomy)

The suggestion by  SMcCandlish above that this page should move to Race (taxonomy) has my support, so I'm separating it out for possible discussion. That page title currently redirects here. I think it would be less likely than "Race (biology)" to cause a reader to think that particular phenotype components will be discussed, such as skin colour of humans. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support – a more precise title, as per WP:AT. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that would be incorrect as well, since it can also refer to man-made breeds, which do not necessarily have anything to do with taxonomy. Only a few very old domesticated types of animals (or "breeds") are currently recognised as taxa (Bos primigenius taurus, Canis lupus familiaris, Equus ferus caballus, Sus scrofa domesticus, etc.), sometimes where the wild form is extinct. Subtypes of these (which can also be referred to as races) are not recognised as taxa. Maybe "Race (classification)" could be better, as it has a broader scope. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • • Per my comment below, I'd prefer we just got rid of "race" as an article title altogether and just decide where to redirect it (maybe to a main dab page). Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy, as per the definition at the dab page is about naming and classification, so "Race (classification)" would just be a subset of "Race (taxonomy)". For plants, the situation is clearer, since the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, dealing with human-created plants, is as much part of taxonomy in general as is the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, dealing with wild plants. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy is specifically about classification of taxa, that is, scientifically named/described units/populations (though some can remain nameless for various reasons), not necessarily classification in general. Breeds do not generally have scientific names and do not naturally form populations with only members of their own breed, so they do not count as taxa (apart from the very few that have been named scientifically). Using taxonomy to refer to biological classification in general is therefore technically incorrect, but in reality, I guess ordinary readers wouldn't care. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it difficult to see the difference between a breed and a cultivar; cultivars are are taxa according to the ICNCP. Cultivars "do not naturally form populations with only members of their own [cultivar]". You seem to be imposing your own narrow sense of "taxonomy" and "taxon". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The term "breed" has been applied to plants in some sources as synonymous with "cultivar", though the usage is decreasing; there seems to be a sense in botany and horticulture that it's confusing, ignorant, obsolete, informal, or imprecise (depending on who's talking about it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: 'it can also refer to man-made breeds'; that's already covered by disambiguation; that article is at Breed. Not everything mentioned in this article has to be covered in detail in it; WP:SUMMARY style tells us to summarize, and provide a link to the main article on things that have (and can support) their own.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• • • • And I agree with SMcCandlish on that point! Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A cultivar has a formal scientific name (unlike most animal breeds, no dog race is called "Canis lupus familiaris German shepherd"), and therefore falls under the taxon category I mentioned above. But anyhow, there may be a point about disambiguation. FunkMonk (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And it would be "Canis lupus familiaris 'German Shepherd'", anyway. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Irrespective of the proposed merge above the article is about a taxonomic concept specifically. The new DAB would better distinguish it from other concepts of Race. SPACKlick (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

See my comment above, it is not merely about a taxonomic concept. Dog races, for example, have nothing to do with taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And see my comment above. In as much as dog races are concerned with naming and classification, they clearly do. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with dog "races". If it is a landrace, then it is not a breed. Canis lupus familiaris is a subspecies. Races are informal taxa, as are landraces, but they are still part of (classification and) taxonomy. The breeding scheme used to established a breed is known, but that is not true of races or landraces or (most of) the formal taxonomic ranks such as subspecies. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed elsewhere, a landrace is a stage in breed formation, so again, "race" is just poor , sloppy wording for other things. Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Your source actually said a landrace can be one mechanism of breed formation (Sponenberg 2000[16]).Please stop saying "a landrace is a stage in breed formation"; you've been doing this across Wikipedia for over a year in your efforts to distort acceptance and coverage of that word and concept in the encyclopedia. Anyway, your "just sloppy wording for other things" claims doesn't follow from the false premise you advanced.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Missed this...Source cited states "One mechanism for breed formation includes a landrace stage." Thus, "a landrace is a stage in breed formation" is an acceptable paraphrase, though if you prefer, perhaps "a landrace can be a stage in breed formation" would be more precise. But lay off the personal attacks and attribution of motive here. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"is a stage in breed formation" suggests that it is always that, which is not the case. "a landrace can be a stage in breed formation" is not just more precise, but is accurate. A landrace may never lead to a breed, and a breed can be formed in other ways. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support of course, and make the present title into a disambiguation page. Both "race" as applied to human ethnicity or skin color, and "race" in the non-English (and rare English) sense of "breed", are both, like the taxonomic use, encompassed by "biology". A disambiguation that just introduces two more ambiguities is worse than useless. The "taxonomy" disambiguator is precise, concise, etc., and broad enough to address how usage has varied within taxonomy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose but because this causes the same problem as (biology) the concept is as fuzzy as "race" = "breed." I still see zero sourcing here that this term is used as more than sloppy phrasing or mistranslations. What I suggest is for this title to redirect to race and we can put links to both either breed or taxa, or species, or whatever at the dab, but I want the title to go away. It's just troll bait for racists. Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Any chance you can clarify this?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Please clarify this. SamOrange (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Technically the social constructs of human race such as the one drop rule are taxonomies. Race in biology in general is more reasonably based on natural biological divisions (eg. morphological or ancestral similarity) by definition. Propose retaining "Race (biology)". SamOrange (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And to be clear the natural biological concept of race can certainly be applied to humans, Marxist pseudo-science (aka. "American Anthropology") notwithstanding. SamOrange (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@SamOrange: Re: Technically the social constructs ... are taxonomies – Semantic quibble of that sort won't matter here, because of all the usual WP:AT logic. See analysis below.
Re: the natural biological concept of race can certainly be applied to humans – yes, of course. This article needs to include in it how that biological categorization was, after being applied to humans, seized upon and warped. Our historical coverage of how that construct arose is lacking in clarity; Race (human classification)#Early taxonomic models goes over various pre-modern attempts to classify people geographically and phenotypically and behaviorally, but does not directly cover the role played by race as a taxon proper in the scientific naming scheme, and how it helped lend a veneer of science to social constructs that already existed. This will then need to be contrasted, in a section on application to humans, with modern genetic approaches to understanding human phenotypic diversity.
PS: Not all Americans with anthropology degrees are anywhere near that political classification. I have one, but am very far from a socialist (I'm a classic liberal, a.k.a. libertarian without the crazy). There are always extreme-lefists in social sciences, in Europe too; it's just a matter of not drinking their Kool-Aid and instead reading the actual science.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Supplement: I didn't think there'd be call to get into the details, this move seems so routine, but here's a detailed WP:AT policy analysis of why this move should proceed as proposed:
  • The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "taxonomy" in the context of biological classification is obviously Taxonomy (biology), the meaning used here, not the broadest sense at Taxonomy (general). Under our naming principles and WP:COMMONSENSE, the context-specific meaning of a disambiguator is the one applied in the context. This is central to the way the disambiguation system works. See WP:AT#DAB and WP:DAB and the examples they use, e.g. "Mercury (element)"; "element" has many meanings, but it's obvious which one applies here. Same goes for this case; it doesn't matter that "taxonomy" has some other meanings.
  • We would not need to use something long-winded like "Race (biological taxonomy)", just like we don't use "Mercury (chemical element)", unless this had to be disambiguated from some other article on "race" in some other "taxonomy", and people were likely to confuse them. Since that's not the case, "race (biological taxonomy)" fails WP:CONCISE.
  • "Taxonomy" is the WP:COMMONNAME for biological classification in the sciences, not "biology", one of its "parent" concepts along with taxonomy (general). See the DAB page Taxonomy#Science; every single entry is a subset/subtopic of Taxonomy (biology). Then see the Race DAB page, and note how many of them are biological, but only one of them is a subset of Taxonomy (biology).
  • "Race (taxonomy)" fulfills WP:RECOGNIZABLE but "Race (biology)" does not; anyone who knows that this taxon exists will instantly recognize that the title of the former probably means this taxon, while the later will leave them wondering what it is, because so many different uses of "race" involve organisms, including the human social constructs. For that reason, "Race (biology)" also fails WP:PRECISION; any application of "race" to anything alive involves "biology", but only one application of "race" to anything biological involves taxonomy (biology).

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever SMcCandlish. You seem to have a good handle on this issue so I'll defer to your decisions. Regards. (I still think it should be (biology) :p) SamOrange (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current version incorrectly claims that race (in Biology) is a taxonomy unit. No, it is not. The biological taxonomy starts from sub-species, which is something different from race, although there is certain overlap. "Race" comes mostly from population biology and studies on the evolution of species, not taxonomy.My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

It is not true that "The biological taxonomy starts from sub-species". Only zoology has the notion that the lowest rank that can be formally named is the subspecies. Also ... nomenclature is not the sum total of "taxonomy". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps it would be fair to say in Intro something like that: "In Biology, races are genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences. The race is also used as an informal taxonomic rank, below the level of subspecies"? My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• However, I am not sure in the second phrase. Since you suggested to rename this page to race (taxonomy), can you pleas provide some refs that show usage of this term as a unit of biological taxonomy? I thought only strain and subspecies were used for biological classification, and this is actually the difference between the "race" (a biological population) and "subspecies/strain" (a classification unit).My very best wishes (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: See #Race in biological taxonomy?, below. There are already sources in the article demonstrating use of the term for taxonomy (biology); this is not the same as use as a formal taxonomic rank in biological nomenclature. The thread below outlines who we'll distinguishing the concepts for lay readers (and frankly this approach should probably be carried to a few other pages, since the concepts are not clearly distinguished in our articles).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see comments by Sminthopsis84 and myself in this section below. Not only none of the discussed sources (including Ernst Mayr) claims race to be a unit in biological taxonomy, but they tell exactly the opposite: race is merely a population (or a group of populations) which might be used at some point as a basis for introducing a new subspecies. Unlike race, the subspecies is a unit of biological classification. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below; you seem again to be not distinguishing between biological taxonomy a.k.a. taxonomy (biology), and biological nomeclature.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it boils down to this. I did not see a single source claiming "race" to be a unit in biological taxonomy or nomenclature. If you know such source(s), please quote what they are telling about race. None of the "codes of nomenclature" (see above) uses races as classification units. If they do, please provide a link. Keep in mind that Canis lupus familiaris is not a race, but subspecies. Neither are cultivars and breeds. We rightly have separate pages for them.My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. According to nominator the actual reason for renaming this page is political correctness (it would be less likely than "Race (biology)" to cause a reader to think that particular phenotype components will be discussed, such as skin colour of humans). Bringing politics, rather than sources to encyclopedia is a very bad idea, almost just as bad as in other subject ares. My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  Um, racism is not "political correctness." Racism is a very bad thing, hence, the need to avoid confusion and to be careful that the phrasing doesn't attract trolls. Montanabw^(talk) 06:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Proposal three: Fully diffuse and redirect to dab

New idea: How about fully diffusing all content to relevant articles (breed, taxon, landrace, whatever) and redirect this title to race, where we can use sourced, verifiable links to breed and taxon, explaining why they are there. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reason given to censor definition of a valid, current and historical biological term other than vague worries about supposed "baggage", ie. moralistic fallacy based on distaste with the effects of the application of a valid biological concept to human affairs. SamOrange (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not a "new idea", just the same one in the two previous discussions: Merge the article away so nominator can redirect its title where she wants. While I share SamOrange's concerns, the main issue is that the proposal simply isn't possible: The content cannot merge into multiple articles, because of the already sourced fact that "race" is [whatever else it might be in other contexts, per the Race DAB page] a taxonomic category (still current in at least two fields, mycology and bacteriology), not synonymous with anything else. There is nowhere to merge that to. Taxon is an article about the concept of the taxon; it's not "List of taxa".

  Summary material about former taxonomic uses of the term in ways that overlap breed, landrace, subspecies, etc., is required to adequately cover all taxonomic uses of "race" and distinguish between them so readers know what we're talking about; the article would be incomplete and directly misleading without it. The material in the article is not some kind of WP:CONCEPTDAB that is redefining breed, landraces, and subspecies as kinds of "race", and thus competing with the real articles on these topics. It's simply referring to them in context. If this material were "merged" into those articles, it would have to be re-added here later to make the article coherent again. Any material irrelevant to taxonomic use can be moved or deleted, but it doesn't take whole-article merge proposals to do that.

  On the behavioral issue raised: Yes, it's clear (the nom even said so, one thread above: "I want the title to go away") what her goal being pursued here is, in all three concurrent actions (merge, rm, redundant merge). This doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic goal, but a personal one, of uncertain rationale. This misuse of a trio of concurrent discussions to push for deletion isn't the right process for that; WP:AFD exists for a reason. The WP:ICANTHEARYOU game being played is getting non-trivially problematic, with repeated insistence on a lack of sources, when the article has sources, and these very discussions have provided plenty more, combined with her refusal to acknowledge that multiple editors, including a subject-matter expert, have demonstrated that it's a real taxonomic term and still used, and not overlapping in that usage with any other. The nom needs to just accept her own unfamiliarity with the topic, and drop it.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • WP:AGF people; see below. Montanabw^(talk) 08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy close request: The speedy close rationale in the prior edition of this equally applies here. We can't merge away the central concept in the article, because it's a clearly different topic from any of the merge targets. Despite the wording tweaks, the merge proposals are effectively identical.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: hoping that after such lengthy discussion (some of it unfortunately archived so less visible) the reasons don't have to be enumerated yet again. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Feel free to unarchive whatever you like. I archived the moot threads manually because they were confusing Race (taxonomy) and Race (human classification). Archiving them seemed like the thing to do since enthnicity-related trolling was a concern.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is obviously something described as a separate subject in multiple books. Even if someone believes this is a historical concept (no, it is not), it deserves a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm basically not seeing a reason why the contents of this article can't simply be moved to other relevant articles, hence blanking it altogether. By redirecting it back to the broad concept dab page and adding as many links as needed there to appropriate articles that people who may not be English speakers might be looking for (like taxon per the proposal above, or breed which rightly or wrongly IS a way "race" is translated from languages like German and Spanish), we solve the whole problem. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, though I do think there is enough literature to write an article about the history of the concept, but until someone does that, this article is pretty useless on its own. So I might support, unless someone volunteers to expand the article. But also note that the term is validly used today to refer to bacteria, as noted earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I'll be expanding it, if for no other reason that to put an end to the WP:GAMING tactic of denial that the topic exists, is notable, and is sourceable. I did this at Shrew (stock character), and Landrace for the same reason. It turns weak stubs into real articles. That's actually a compelling reason not to start WP:ANI slapfests about WP:POINTy misuses of process like this. Just make the article unassailable: WP and its readers benefit, everyone's blood pressure stays within reasonable limits, and the article's naysayers look silly for having suggested the article couldn't be salvaged, and may think twice before doing that again. I say "may", because the nom already tried same approach to getting rid of Landrace a year or two ago, with the exact same faulty rationales. I suspect that the presence of -race in that word had a lot to do with it. It probably won't be long before the few holdouts in science abandon this term has having too much socio-political baggage. But we'd still need the article, since we'd still have to cover how the word was used and what it meant in taxonomy, and when it was finally abandoned. This 'delete everything with "race" in the title so no troll ever ends up at Talk:Breed' pursuit is a waste of time. Hint: "Half-breed" is a human term, usually a slur, so trolls will show up anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, in that case, I'll step back and see what happens... FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, the reason I'm making this proposal is basically because of the racially-charged debate prior to the move suggestions: individuals with an agenda of POV-pushing wanting to claim that human race is a biological construct in that it provides them dubious grounds for arguments of racial superiority and inferiority. (aka, racism) The "race=breed" definition is, as most seem to agree, incorrect; essentially, a mistranslation of the words in other languages for "breed." But the "taxonomy" argument doesn't look much better to me - I'm seeing argument here, but no sources or links to WP:RS that verify that "race" is a taxonomic concept that is any less a simple mistranslation. Show me the URLs to link to evidence (other than the neo-Nazi nonsense of an earlier debate) and I'm willing to reconsider. Montanabw^(talk) 08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This very talk page has already provided those sources. Asking for them again and again and again is not going to make them go away or make anyone believe they weren't posted already. WP:YOUCANSEARCH, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, plenty of links to non-human biology/taxonomy articles that use the term have been provided so far in the sections above. WP:Wikipedia is not censored, so I find the argument about racism a bit odd. We have articles about actual racial slurs and racist science concepts, by the same logic, those should all be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

False analogy. I'm just trying (in vain, it seems) to tone down a dramafest. It's pretty clear that the term in biology or taxonomy, or whatever is not preferred phrasing, and I think it would be better to just discuss the concept in the relevant articles and add this as an additional definition in wiktionary. Seriously. Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So am I to understand we should merge it to prevent drama on the talk pages? Because that I find even more pointless. We write for the readers, not the editors. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we should merge and redirect articles where a nonstandard term gets its own article but is, in essence, a content fork. If those who argue it is a needed article will actually do what they say needs to be done, then fine. But if they just want to debate and do no work, then let's get rid of this article and put its content elsewhere. I'm tired of this endless debate, it's time to put up or shut up. Either the people who suggest improving the actual article need to knuckle down and start improving it, or it needs to be merged and redirected. I think (assuming good faith) that most of the people posting here do agree that the current article isn't very good. So, fix it. One way or the other. I've recommended one way, but if another solution is actually enacted, fine. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is there is no evidence this is "nonstandard". It's used even more broadly, in more biological fields than it seemed to be at first, and it seems to be used consistently (i.e. in a standardized way). Not being part of the formal hierarchy of taxonomic ranks in biological nomenclature doesn't make it "nonstandard". So, basically, we do need to cover it, just accurately and neutrally (and yes, as a practical matter, in a way that discourages vandalism and trolling, but that's more a matter of how we write, not what we write about).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Right. And properly sourcing and writing this article, if people will stop fighting to the death to delete it (LOL), will disarm the ability of POV pushers to falsely claim that such a biological basis for human "races" exists. If there's a void in which to write bullshit, it will be filled with bullshit, so fill it with facts. The most obvious one is that while mycology and bacteriology sometimes still use this taxon, mammalology does not, ergo it has been rejected in that field, which means it does not apply to humans. We can historically document how it was formerly applied to humans, and how that was bent to racist ends. But not if our editing time is mired in these circular censorship/deletionism debates. It's a high-powered time and enthusiasm drainage system.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I can agree with that in concept. So those who claim expertise, time to get it done, then and I'd be glad to accept that as an alternative solution. Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"The most obvious one is that while mycology and bacteriology sometimes still use this taxon, mammalology does not, ergo it has been rejected in that field, which means it does not apply to humans."

Was infrasubspecific classification rejected for mammals or was the word race rejected because of Marxist agitation? Is this all just silly semantics? SamOrange (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not provide for ranks below subspecies, so no organisms covered by this code can have a formal rank below subspecies. The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, by contrast, provides for the ranks of variety (varietas) and form (forma) below subspecies, but again no organisms covered by this code can have a formal rank of "race". Historically, "race" was one of the terms used in biological classification to describe groupings within species, but it was not adopted by the main codes of nomenclature. The term still has some uses, e.g. the International Society for Plant Pathology says here: "A 'race of a bacterium is a collection of strains which differ from others within a bacterial species or pathovar in their host specialization to cultivars or germplasm. ... Races have no nomenclatural standing." "Race" is used in a similar way in the context of pathogenic fungi. For example, the fungus that causes Panama disease has a strain or race called "tropical race 4" or "TR4" which is currently the most serious threat to the commonest cultivars of dessert bananas. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, races are not recorded in the ICZN, but this is more to do with exponential numbers than taxonomic invalidity. If editors want to assert that race (or variety or form or group or whatever) in animals has no validity they will have to back that up with a demonstration of a consensus that this is the case. I very much doubt that they can so editing as if it was would be a violation of NPOV. SamOrange (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@SamOrange: Note that I was responding to your question of why infra-subspecific classification was rejected for mammals; the answer is because it was rejected for all animals in the ICZN. I certainly didn't say that "variety" and "form" have "no validity" for animals, merely that they can have no formal taxonomic status. Nothing prevents zoologists using the terms "variety", "form" and indeed "race", but in the absence of a scientific name attached to a name-bearing type, the meaning of such infra-subspecific labels is necessarily somewhat vague, which is one of the points to be made in the article.

If you wanted to put it in the article, you would need to back up your assertion that "this is more to do with exponential numbers than taxonomic invalidity" – what sources say this?

I also note that your three links don't include the use of "race". Your "group" link above goes to a discussion of subspecies. Google searches suggest that currently the term isn't much used for animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

And for my part, a separate point I'm getting at is that while we right now have evidence of still-current use in bacteriology and mycology, and I've also seen it used in the 1990s, in sources that may have been older, for some salamanders (among which several species have subspecies that intergrade), it seems to be never, ever used in modern sources for mammals. I.e., I wasn't making an argument about formal taxonomic ranks (I already knew, from having drafted MOS:ORGANISMS, that "race" isn't an ICZN, ICN, ICNCP taxonomic rank). Rather, I was getting at attested usage, period. I'm hoping the term turns out to have been formally deprecated in various fields and that sources will demonstrate this, but they might be in journals from the 1940s or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The term simply refers to an infrasubspecific category and the only reason it is used less and is replaced with absolutely synonymous terms like variety, form and group is because it is the common term for human infrasubspecific categories and is therefore not PC. SamOrange (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Infrasubspecific" is not synonymous with race, and there is no taxonomic level below subspecies. Down there, it is just population. FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: That's not quite what SamOrange said. It's correct that "race" is an infra-subspecific category, although not a formalized rank for animals (unlike "variety" and "form" for plants). SamOrange is wrong to say that "race" is an "absolutely synonymous" term for variety, form and group, because although none of these terms now have a formally defined meaning when applied to animals, when the first two are/were used for animals, "form" is/was generally used as in plants, namely as a category below "variety". It's still used widely in Lepidoptera for example, where it usually refers to "aberrant forms". These are not "populations" but individuals with some common genetic abnormality or difference (e.g. melanism). "Race" as applied to humans is intended to be a population term, so is clearly not synonymous with "form". (Redheads, like me, could be considered a "form", I guess, but not a "race", even though, at least when young, we are as identifiable as any of the human "races".) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. this is precisely why this article is problematic - and troll bait. Whether we fix it or move it or merge it, we need to disconnect the use of the word "race" in biology from the use in human society. As Peter rightly indicates, having a "Race" characterized by red hair was once a reason for "no Irish need apply," with all sorts of cultural assumptions (hot temper, propensity toward drunkenness) attached. (FWIW, and similarly I have some Norwegian and German ancestry, and in Montana, "norskies" were once a mocked and ridiculed ethnic group considered stupid (due to poor English - and often viewed as drunks), and "krauts" faced severe discrimination during WWI). So it is not "PC" to say that human racial classification has little to do with biology and much to do with culture. While a given trait (eye shape, hair color, etc.) has a genetic reason, the decision of whether to classify it as significant has nothing to do with science. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing sockpuppet trolling
What you write is garbage. It's laughable. Go away please. SamOrange (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC) You forgot to call him a Marxist. Go away now meat sock thing. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC) He's been WP:INDEFed as a sockpuppet of User:Captain JT Verity MBA. Likely to be back, of course.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Disconnecting this article on taxonomy from Race (human classification) (being RM'd to Race (human categorization)) is certainly a goal (an encyclopedic accuracy one, not a "p.-c.") one. As for the "while a given trait has a genetic reason, the decision of whether to classify it as significant" issue, see Talk:Race (human classification) and page-search for "Leroi". While not the originator of the idea's resurrection, he seems to be the popularizer of the notion that because various little traits like this can be averaged into population aggregates that they somehow meaningfully coalesce into "races" (iffy from a statical basis - you could swap in other traits to average out, and get different results). If you read him carefully he doesn't quite say this, but people have run with the idea. I'm thinking that article is the principal one to keep an eye on. It's already giving too much WP:UNDUE weight to "competing" "theories" some of which are bunk, some of which disputed (e.g. because medical research can't keep straight what "race" and "ethnic group" are supposed to mean, to whom, about whom, in what contexts), and some of which are very new (e.g. the idea, from evolutionary psychology, that a conceptualization of "the other" into something like "races" may be somewhat innate, a byproduct of hominid visual categorization and territorial xenophobia that evolved for other reasons) but may actually work their way into our model of understanding of the issue. I've proposed an approach on its talk page for readdressing the question and managing that article. At any rate the shunting of all that sort of material to that article gives breathing room to get this one right, but makes that one a more obvious target.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Still in wider-spread use than expected

I'm turning up recent peer-reviewed sources still using it in entomology and caudatology, too. I'm quite surprised. I'm wondering if it's a principally European usage. It's clearly not some "mistranslation of breed". These are journal articles on wild species with no domesticated counterparts. Well, I guess this is why we do source research instead of making assumptions. After a bunch of searches, I still don't find it being used with regard to mammals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's a language issue. And right or wrong, I do routinely find that on horse breed articles, European sources that do not speak English as a first language often do say "race" when they mean "breed" (an example of machine translation using "race" or "racial" for "breed" here: [17] translating words like "Rassegruppe" and "Rassen") (the Germans who translate into English like to put concepts in all one word too - schoolquadrille, showjumping - which also drives me nuts, but that's not an issue for this page). So I think you are on the right track. Montanabw^(talk) 02:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:: In terms of article improvement, (seeing as how my proposal is going over like a lead balloon) any suggestions on how to handle the legitimate thing of the word "breed" in English being translated as "race" when brought in from foreign languages? It's a periodic problem. The Pura Raza Española is probably where I'm fretting the most (see Andalusian horse), but some articles coming in from places like fr. and de.wiki have similar issues of saying "race" when they mean "breed". I think most of the current horse articles with that problem have been cleaned, but we have several hundred, plus other animal breeds, so... I have also definitely run into problems with people who confuse breeds with species/subspecies (had a now-blocked-sock derail a GAN over the issue once) and right now some folks think taxonomic classifications are "breeds". Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, the list of horse breeds is very different from the list of wild horse subspecies (redirects under discussion). Based on such examples, anyone can realize that subspecies and breeds are different. Same with subspecies and populations ("races"). My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Just read through this talk page. Breathtakingly circular. As a psychologist with no interest in taxonomies, but great interest in human concept formation, I point out that all, and I mean all, human concepts are fuzzy and filled with values (opinions). So, I would heartily suggest that some mention in the article directs readers to Race (human classification) to point out that biology does not have the last word on this. No matter how few biologists still use "race", those who focus on human classification have a consensus that there are no human races (in both the biological and common sense meanings of the term). This would go a long way towards preventing back door racists from slipping in their views under general biology. Perhaps include the opening sentence of Race (human classification) ? Waddaya thimpk?Imersion (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I can easily agree that concepts in psychology are fuzzy. Not so in natural sciences, and especially in Physics, where definitions are based on measurements ("time" is what clocks show). No, Biology has the last word to say on something that belongs to Biology. My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Imersion: This is already done with the hatnote at the top of the page. This article isn't about (except in a "History" section that hasn't been written yet, that will cover obsolete Victorian usage) anything relating to Race (human classification).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Disambiguating: I do, of course, understand that "race" and its cognates are used by some (mostly non-English) sources to refer to breeds. But that use isn't the topic of this article. I'm skeptical that we need to do more than specify this clearly with a disambiguating sentence in the lead. If we really think it'll be a problem, a combination of DAB hatnote, sentence in lead, and couple of sentences in the body should do it beyond all doubt. If someone ends up on this page looking for anything at all to do with domestic breeds/cultivars they're simply in the wrong place. Same goes for if they come here looking for something to do with humans, at least in modern sources. Some Victorian material literally was trying to classify humans into races in precisely the same way the term was has been used in relation to grasshopper or grass populations, and this of course contributed to the a "race question" in anthropology. We'll cover that properly in time, too. It's probably most pressing to properly define the term as used in biological taxonomy, thus the thread below.

Foreign sources on breeds: We have sufficient evidence in various English biology sources that races in the biological taxonomy sense in English are not breeds or vice versa, so combined with dictionaries that indicate German Rasse and Spanish raza that show that these words correspond to multiple different concepts in English, that's enough to declare their translation to 'race' in English in this context to be a false friends mistranslation of cognates. NB: If you harken back to previous discussions, I think you'll better understand now my insistence at Breed and Landrace that a) we cannot reasonably include the idea, even if there's a source for it, that "these words mean whatever someone wants them to mean" (this opens wide the door to apply even breeds to humans, for example, something that the very racist trolls you're concerned about elsewhere on this page have been doing for a few centuries), and that race cognates in other languages much be clearly understood by our readers to not directly correspond to one specific word in English, but vary in meaning by context.

Confusion of breeds and subspecies: I share your concern about animal breeds being confused with subspecies and other biological taxa, but honestly we seem to have this under pretty good control. Some of the confusion actually stems from older sources; e.g., with cats for a while, ca. the 1930s, there were attempts to define various domestic breeds as subspecies, like Felis catus siamensis for the Siamese cat, and while these ideas were rapidly abandoned, the old primary sources don't magically disappear, so someone comes along and wants to insert that from time to time. The best approach seems to be to document in the article body that source-so-and-so proposed such a classification once,^{[cite old source]} but it was not adopted by mainstream science.^{[cite modern source]} This is basically "proof" against later attempts to insert bogus taxonomic names into the infobox or lead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll be happy if the article just makes it clear (via hatnote or whatever) that breeds are neither subspecies nor races (!) And, do you wanna go help close the mess here? I agree with your assessment on the meaning of words in other languages, the problem is when they translate things wrong here... sigh. As for the rest, I still thik it's archaic usage, but I'm not going to prevail here, so onward with the sourcing. Montanabw^(talk) 08:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Race in biological taxonomy?

@Sminthopsis84. If one looks in the literature, including biological databases, such as Uniprot, one can frequently see subspecies and strains in classification, but (almost) never the "race". I thought only "strain" and "subspecies" are used for classification, and this is actually the difference between the "race" (a biological population) and "subspecies/strain" (a classification unit). The source you just included [18] is very typical in this regard: it tells about "races" as biological populations. Could you name any textbooks where races (rather than strains or subspecies) were claimed to be widely used for taxonomy? My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the distinction here is between Biological nomenclature and Taxonomy (biology). "Classification" is an ambiguous word, referring to either all of taxonomy or just to nomenclature. A scientist can define a group and call it a race, but might not give a (formal) name to that group. Defining the group (the Panagira-island race of short-tailed macaques) is taxonomic work, but naming it is a particular task, which involves nomenclature. Subspecies, varieties, sub-varieties, formae, and pathovars are formally named. Races and populations are not. (Formae speciales are a bit different, they have names but no descriptions, and are considered "informal"). Breeds of animals and strains (e.g., a strain of laboratory mice) receive names that are regulated in different ways, not by nomenclature codes, and are not considered to be taxonomic ranks. Anything written by Ernst Mayr, and he is the standard for zoologists (i.e., the source of the traditional textbooks), considers races to be part of taxonomy but not of nomenclature. I think this is encapsulated in the quote used on the page "Ernst Mayr wrote that a subspecies can be "a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name." For him, taxonomy was a useful practical matter, about noticing morphological differences between groups, and he is saying that if the differences are great enough, then the group should be named as a subspecies. In recent years, the emphasis on inferring evolutionary history has made this all more complicated, hence the species problem. The aim of many biologists has shifted from populations and races to clades. A population might not be a clade (see Metapopulation and Population biology, which allow for migration between populations within a species) because clades are rigidly hierarchical structures that cannot represent the network structures of metapopulations. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Admirably clear! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. So, "Subspecies, varieties, sub-varieties, formae, and pathovars are formally named. Races and populations are not.". Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about - agree. In addition, races are usually not used in practice for any classification, even like strains and breeds (unlike races, strains are widely used in biological databases). This should be explained. Speaking about Ernst Mayer (and his classic book "Populations, species and evolution"), he used the term for discussing evolution/speciation and never called race "an informal taxonomic rank" (as currently on this page). This should be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep, this is pretty much what we need to get across, in compressed and sourced form, in the article. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly. (NB: This also explains why Race (taxonomy) is the proper name for the article. This usage of the word is biologically taxonomic, but is not "classification" in the sense of formal biological nomenclature. This is also why there's a WP:RM ongoing to move Race (human classification) to Race (human categorization) – there are various approaches to currently and formerly using "race" as a some kind of categorization of people/peoples, but they are not consistently really taxonomic in the sense of Taxonomy (biology), and definitely not classificatory in the sense of biological nomenclature.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I think we just agreed with Sminthopsis84 that there is no such thing as race in biological taxonomy. Therefore, renaming to Race (taxonomy) is wrong.(talk) My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're correctly following the thread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

:::"Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about - agree. In addition, races are usually not used in practice for any classification, even like strains and breeds (unlike races, strains are widely used in biological databases)."

No, apparently you totally failed to get the simplest of the points. Race is of course a classification. Why especially would you write this after digging up modern sources using the term with animals?[19] You make no sense. Thanks. Tortoise Handler (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Struck sock edit by banned user User:Mikemikev. Doug Weller (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tortoise Handler: This is a tricky subject, and we are gaining clarity. It doesn't help when you write things like "you totally failed to get the simplest of the points".

What "classification" means is not a "simple point"; eminent biologists have discussed this topic and disagreed for years. (I can provide a long list of references from the 1960s onwards.) In particular, the term has both a formal and an informal use and SMcCandlish clearly wrote that it is not "classification" in the sense of formal biological nomenclature, which it's not. It is "classification" in a very broad sense, but most definitions of classification used in biology require a classification to be hierarchical. Population-based concepts, like "race", often don't have this property – populations are fluid, without clear boundaries or even persistence through time. Review Sminthopsis84's clear explanation above. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, one can classify individual animals as belonging to a population ("race") A or B. However, this has nothing to do with biological nomenclature. In addition, yes, exactly as Ernst Mayr said, specialists can decide that they would like to introduce a new subspecies. If that happens, this is no longer a race, but subspecies. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please review the above more closely. You're still equating biological nomenclature and biological taxonomy, when the whole point of the thread is that they are distinct. You're thinking of nomenclature, which is hierarchical, while taxonomy is broader. It doesn't help that the field itself uses the term "taxonomic rank" in reference to nomenclature, of course. It does unnecessarily confuse the jargon. We may have to write this so precisely that we say something like "while biologically taxonomic in a broad sense, race is not a taxonomic rank in biological nomenclature".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is very simple. Current version tells that "In biological taxonomy, a race is an informal taxonomic rank (not governed by the codes of nomenclature), below the level of subspecies". None of the sources currently used on this page clams such thing. If you think that they do, please provide direct quotation from a couple of secondary sources to supports such assertion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's even simpler if you drop the mortal combat approach, reread the thread as requested twice, and reapproach this constructively. I have no interest (and I'm sure no one else does either) in responding to your demand to support the exact current wording when the whole point of this thread is to more accurately replace the current wording.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Asking to provide and quote sources is not a "mortal combat approach". Now, if we are talking about improving this text, I can easily fix it, if that's OK. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

So what are you proposing?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to describe "race" in the way it usually appears in biological literature. The book by Ernst Mayer is typical in this regard - if one reads the entire book. For example, in the current quotation "a subspecies can be a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name", the key word is geographic (only such race can be can be nominated as a subspecies; there are other types of races), whereas word "taxonomically" appears because subspecies (not race) is a taxonomical category. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This is getting quite confused and confusing. This statement makes no sense to me "the key word is geographic". If you look at the page Ernst Mayr, it says "When populations within a species become isolated by geography, feeding strategy, mate selection, or other means, they may start to differ from other populations through genetic drift and natural selection, and over time may evolve into new species." So no, geographic is not a key word. "a subspecies can be a race distinguished by feeding strategy" could be substituted. Mayr was very much concerned with the Biological species concept; anything that created reproductive isolation could lead to speciation; geographical isolation (vicariance) was not required. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure, that could be any race. However, this is not the point. The point is: race is simply a genetically divergent population or a group of populations. This is not a taxonomical category (as currently claimed in this page). It is not widely used for informal classification (like breed). It is not widely used for designating specific genomes and proteomes, like strain, etc. But if we can not agree about this, I am not going to edit this page only to be reverted. Do you agree that "race" is not a commonly accepted taxonomic unit in biology? My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. Sminthopsis84 laid this out well, and the sources I've seen to date agree with that take, so that's the angle I'll pursue in working on this article. The most recent sourced material I added myself disproves your hypothesis that the definition is tied necessarily to geographical distribution, BTW. Different races can develop in the same place depending on entirely different factors, like food source.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What my hypothesis? It was Ernst Mayr who said "geographic race" in the quote currently cited on this page. If there are other types of races that have been nominated as subspecies, that's fine. Please bring sources that provide such examples. So far you did not. But this is not the question I brought for discussion (please see the header and the rest). My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is being worked on to avoid this sort of confusion. Race is NOT "simply a genetically divergent population." Stop trolling and take your veiled white supremacist viewpoint elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 06:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)