Talk:Race (human categorization)

This article is using non-neutral sources

Trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The section "Concepts and realities of race" is especially bad. It relies heavily on Audrey Smedley's THE HISTORY OF THE IDEA OF RACE… AND WHY IT MATTERS, which seems to mostly concern the history of black slavery. This could be OK, except that it's used for scientific claims. The piece is clearly non-neutral, in the introduction she begins "When five white policemen shot a young unarmed African immigrant 41 times in the doorway of his New York apartment, this can’t be explained by examining their genes or biology." This is not a neutral scientific attitude. I find it hard to imagine that the science regarding the biology of race will be represented neutrally from this source. I recommend finding something from a biologist rather than a political POV pusher. 80.254.146.52 (talk) 08:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Please read WP:NPOV. Wikipedia does not consider whether a source is neutral or not, because what one editor considers neutral and objective, another editor considers subjcive and biased - and vice versa. Instead, we require the views we include in articles to be WP:Verifiable, which is demonstrably the case here as they come from a published book. I do not understand your point about, "When five white policemen shot a young unarmed African immigrant 41 times in the doorway of his New York apartment, this can’t be explained by examining their genes or biology." are you suggesting that this incident can or should be explained by examining genes or biology? More to the point (since editors' views are irrelevant) do you know of any verifiable view that says that it can or should be explained by genes or biology? NPOV requires that we include all significant views from verifiable sources, so if you have a verifiable, reliable source that provides the view that this incident can and should be explained by genetics, as long as the view is not fringe, we can include it. I also do not understand your point about "biologist" versus "political POV pusher." Many biologists are also political POV pushers. Many non-biologists are experts on race. What matters is that the view be significant and from a verifiable reliable source. As it happens, many experts on race are evolutionary biologists - political scientists, historians, sociologists, anthropologists and literary critics. And of course there are many people in each of these fields (including biology) who are not experts on race. Moreover, in many cases biologists and political scientists (etc.) who study race share the same views, and biologists can disagree over race. It is inevitable that we will include the views of people with training in each of these fields. But picking people just based on their PhD. is not the way to achieve comprehensive and balanced coverage. And of course more generally if you know of other reliable sources for significant views on this topic, by all means share it with us, we will probably include it. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I find it hard to believe WP does not consider neutrality. Surely by considering all sources it's possible to envisage a spectrum of views, and have a stab at the centre. Smedley and the AAA are very to the left, and not biologists. Regarding the statement of shooting, this kind of highly emotive implied white-on-black racism is really inappropriate to base a behavioural genetic argument on, and is a tactic better applied to political pandering. And yes, incidentally, I'm sure the incident could be analysed from a genes and biology point of view, but again, such a one off highly charged incident is far from appropriate to a careful scientific study, especially for something so complicated as behavioural genetics. Such careless argument from emotion immediately identifies Smedley as out of field, this kind of material would be better for a newspaper than a scientific encyclopedia article. Your argument regarding fields seems strange, and a way to insert fringe views. It's highly unusual for a person in one field to be an expert in another. It's extremely inappropriate to only reference someone out of field. If your assertion that "in many cases biologists and political scientists (etc.) who study race share the same views", it should be easy to find a biologist making the same claim as Smedley, and I suggest you do so. I will certainly take pleasure in dredging up some additional sources in the near future. 80.254.146.52 (talk) 09:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Smedley is a widely cited authority on the subject--she's an anthropologist and historian, and of course currently almost nobody in the mainstream turns to "biologists" to explain such episodes. Professor marginalia (talk) 13:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I don't see your point. 80.254.146.52 (talk) 14:04, 8 October 2010 (UTC) How are you defining "the mainstream"? 80.254.146.52 (talk) 14:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC) That your objection to her example is a poor argument in favor of "biologists". "Mainstream" as in WP:FRINGE. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2010 (UTC) (ec) @IP: Smedley is the expert in her field on race. Smedley is not cited in the article to make "scientific" claims; you miss the point of the passage you quote: that genetics and biology, at that moment of social interaction, is irrelevant; that what is (exclusively) at the forefront at that moment is our perception of race, that is, race as a social construct, how we each individually view others. That anthropologists, biologists, geneticists et al. agree or disagree or cite findings outside their own field as correlating or supporting their own views regarding is to be expected, and the topic of another conversation. Furthermore, there is no "left" or "right," there is nothing political here. If you are uncomfortable with the notion that how you interact with other "races" is a reflection of your upbringing and social mores—and not biology, regardless of where the argument over biological/genetic distinctions winds up, trends and counter-arguments notwithstanding—then you are just another person looking for a biological excuse for societal conduct. You might consider that Smedley is an "advocate," and I will grant that, as the result of her studies, not as someone looking for excuses to bolster a personal agenda; whereas history is replete with "scientists" whose studies were informed by and used to justify personal prejudices. Your underlying premise that advocacy twists facts (non-neutral, not a scientific attitude, et al.) is ultimately a convenient excuse to pronounce her views unsuitable for the article. Whether you realize that's your underlying position is another matter. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:37, 8 October 2010 (UTC) I actually have a great deal of objection to this, on purely scientific grounds. I also object to your attribution of my personal feelings on the subject. However, what I think is irrelevant. I agree with your interpretation of Smedley, but maintain that it is at odds with mainstream POV. I will attempt to find some sources to demonstrate this. 80.254.146.52 (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC) And there are numerous biologists already cited in the section. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Furthermore, this conversation sounds like a rebroadcast-same singling out of Smedley, "not a biologist", "not representative of the field", "all about the history of slavery", "left leaning", yep. Hitting each and every one of those too-familiar buttons as a now-banned user.[1] Professor marginalia (talk) 15:40, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, I've been reading the archives. I entirely agree with that user. Why was he banned? Suarneduj (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Since you seem familiar enough with the 29 volume archive here to have recognized "this user" among the countless other editors whose comments are found there, then all you have to do is click on his user talk page to find your answers. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC) What is clear is that this user understands neither Wikipedia policy nor scholarship, and at this point I think we have had more than enough good-faith discussion. At this point we can just ignore any repetition of the same, senseless points. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed-obviously. Professor marginalia (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC) "What is clear is that this user understands neither Wikipedia policy nor scholarship." Where have I violated policy? Sorry if I don't share your extremist left "there are no biological differences" POV, but I'm not violating policy. The only policy violation is NPOV, by you. Suarneduj (talk) 18:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC) The comment wasn't directed at you. Best to move along, this thread is over -- srsly. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2010 (UTC) So is it time for you to run crying to ANI? Suarneduj (talk) 19:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I should note

Thanks to Professor marginalia for putting the dialog above out of our misery. Let's abstain from mixing anthropology, biology, and genetics and from arguing about the political leanings of particular disciplines. If "...(classification of humans)" is not about humanity's self-perceptions—and cross-disciplined studies thereof and of their bases, then what is? (That is a rhetorical question!) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:48, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Gene frequency differences? Suarneduj (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

And gene frequencies have had the potential to assist in informing our (modern) notions of "race" for how long? We didn't even know how "genes" were encoded until, what, 1944? And now that we've sequenced ourselves, it's even more interesting to see how statistics can serve both sides, but that's another conversation. Statistical gene analysis has arguably pretty much settled everything according to most and settled hardly anything for others. IMHO, the usefulness of investigating meaningful genetic differences among and between populations gets lost in arguing over how well those differences align to "race." PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus, gene frequencies allow us to distinguish populations of humans quantitatively rather than qualitatively. The rise of genetics is in fact historically a major reason for why scientists moved away from race, because we now understand that phenotype often does not reflect genotype (a basic principle of genetics) and because measuring gene frequencies shows human variation to be along a continuum rather than clearly defined, rigid and immutable, boundaries. But these points are already in the article. The real point is that Suarneduj should read the article and understand what it already says before trying to suggest changes. This page is to dicuss improvements to the article, and spending time explaining the same basic points over and over again do not serve any constructive purpose. Time to move on. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"The rise of genetics is in fact historically a major reason for why scientists moved away from race." Yes, I am finding multiple sources from the friendly largest bio-medical library in my state that say the same. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 00:21, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Can we have a reason why The New England Journal of Medicine does not qualify as a source of information on the medical differences between races, other than the long list of anthropologists, sociaologist, etc., who are cited?

Here is the NEJM quote:

The New England Journal of Medicine has this to say about biological (as opposed to political) racial differences:

From The New England Journal of Medicine [5]

The Importance of Race and Ethnic Background in Biomedical Research and Clinical Practice

"In the United States, race and ethnic background have been used as cause for discrimination, prejudice, marginalization, and even subjugation. Excessive focus on racial or ethnic differences runs the risk of undervaluing the great diversity that exists among persons within groups. However, this risk needs to be weighed against the fact that in epidemiologic and clinical research, racial and ethnic categories are useful for generating and exploring hypotheses about environmental and genetic risk factors, as well as interactions between risk factors, for important medical outcomes. Erecting barriers to the collection of information such as race and ethnic background may provide protection against the aforementioned risks; however, it will simultaneously retard progress in biomedical research and limit the effectiveness of clinical decision making. … Nonetheless, racial or ethnic differences in the outcomes of disease sometimes persist even when discrepancies in the use of interventions known to be beneficial are considered. For example, the rate of complications from type 2 diabetes mellitus varies according to racial or ethnic category among members of the same health maintenance organization, despite uniform utilization of outpatient services and after adjustment for levels of education and income, health behavior, and clinical characteristics.11 The evaluation of whether genetic (as well as nongenetic) differences underlie racial disparities is appropriate in cases in which important racial and ethnic differences persist after socioeconomic status and access to care are properly taken into account."

My point is that there is large corpus of legitimate discussion of human racial differences that is not politically motivated or "a social construct," (whatever that means). These voices should be added to the Wikipedia discussion of human racial classification.Tholzel (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)74.104.98.213 (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

So, there being no objection, I will re-insert the NEMJ quote as a partial balance to the many, many sociological counter claims against race as anything but a nasty made-up concept. 74.104.98.213 (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted it. It isn't a quote from the NEMJ-it's a quote from an opinion piece (lead author Burchard). The lengthy quote is putting undue weight on the position, which has already been briefly outlined in the section. You have a user account. You've already contributed here with your login so try to remember you need to login first before you post. Professor marginalia (talk) 22:40, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason at all to include the following quotation, which has nothing to do with the biology of race and everything with a polticial distaste for the subject--and is thus merely ideological ventilation?

"Detractors of race-based medicine acknowledge that race is sometimes useful in clinical medicine, but encourage minimizing its use. They suggest that medical practices should maintain their focus on the individual rather than an individual's membership to any group. They argue that overemphasizing genetic contributions to health disparities carries various risks such as reinforcing stereotypes, promoting racism or ignoring the contribution of non-genetic factors to health disparities.[106] Some researchers in the field have been accused "of using race as a placeholder during the 'meantime' of phamacogenomic development".[107]" Tholzel (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It is a notable and representative opinion in the debate over the how the category race is best used in disease prevention and medical treatment. Notable opinions belong here. Our own opinions do not. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Whatever you believe is notable, what nearly ALL doctors believe who are practically involved in the issue, is not. Thus, the fact that whole blood users are closely matched (whenever possible) to racial classification when obtaining infusions (because types A, B, AB & O are only one small aspect of optimum compatibility) doesn’t count—indeed, would probably not be allowed expression—too racist—even if that is the unarguable fact of the matter. Tholzel (talk) 00:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

The opinion isn't notable because it's mine or any other wikipedian's opinion. The opinion is notable because it was adopted by a multi-disciplinary panel of bioengineers, geneticists, bioethicists, and other representatives from these respective departments at Stanford University. The claim in the article doesn't say "nearly ALL doctors" believe in anything. You're entering into the debate itself, and not simply assessing the references as is the proper position to take here. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:10, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not entering into the debate. I am trying to point out that the current article on human racial differences makes every attempt to deny such differences for political reasons, while scientific opinion that differs is ignored, sidelined, or excluded based on simple distaste for the opinion. Here is an except of racial clasification from another respected source which should be included in order to give a well-rounded overview of the ongoing debate:

Catholic Encyclopedia. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12620b.htm Although the human race must be regarded as a unit intellectually and physically, there have existed and still exist differences which permit a classification into various groups and races. Even the most ancient remains of man, dating from the glacial period in Europe, show differences that justify the acceptance of at least two races. Remains of skeletons that certainly belong to the Quaternary age have been found in France, Germany, and Austria. The shape of the crania found at Spy, Krapina, La Chapelle aux Saintes, Le Moustier, etc., resembles that of the skull discovered at Neandertal, the geological stratification of which is uncertain. These remains can be grouped together as the "Neandertal race", which had a long, narrow, low skull with very retreating forehead, enormous brown ridges (torus supraorbitalis), powerful masticating apparatus, upper jaw with the fossae caninae, heavy under jaw with broad ascending branch, no chin, and chin part with an outward convex curve. Some of these characteristics are still to be found among the Eskimo and aboriginal Australians. The bones of the skeletons indicate a bulky, relatively low-sized frame. The gait was upright, but it would seem with knees somewhat bent. Variations existed even in this era. The Krapina remains belong to crania somewhat broader than do the remains of the Neandertal race of Western Europe. The strata in which the remains of the skeletons were found must be regarded as belonging to the last warm intermediate period (or the last glacial period), and were found with remains of the early Palaeolithic period, the stage of civilization represented by the Saint-Acheul and Le Moustier remains. During the glacial period, particularly during the late Palaeolithic period (as represented by the remains found at Aurignac, Solutré, and La Madeleine), human beings of a different form existed. Their remains, as those found at Laugerie-Basse, Chaneclade, Mentone, and Combe-Capelle, may be grouped together as the "Cro-Magnon Race". The peculiarities of the Neandertal race are not to be found; the generally long dolichocephalic crania have a good vault, and are relatively high without great brow ridges; the apparatus for mastication is less powerful; the upper jaw contains plainly fossae caninae; the under jaw is less massive, the chin being fine and projecting. In the structure of the cranium the Cro-Magnon race on the whole resembled the modern European. Local variations are recognizable. It is not impossible that both diluvial races lived at the same era, so that crossing appeared, as would seem the case from the skulls found at Galley Hill and at Brünn. The bones of the skeletons indicate a higher stature. Variations with a broader skull appeared in Europe very soon after this, if not along with the long-skulled Cro-Magnon race in the diluvian epoch, so that the present different shapes of crania found in Europe seem to go back to the earliest era. Schliz ascertained two main forms of crania in the remains found in a layer of the Ofnet cave near Nördlingen (Bavaria) belonging to the transition period between the Quaternary and the present geological era: one was a low, short skull and the other a moderately high, long skull, both with a low, broad face. These skulls recall, on one hand, the form of the skull of the homo alpinus, and, on the other, the structure of the skull of the later lake-dwellers and of the Mediterranean type. … Following Cuvier and Topinard, W. H. Flower, an Englishman, separates mankind into three main divisions: • Ethiopian or Negroid Races: (a) The African type of negro; (b) Hottentots and Bushmen; (c) The Oceanic negro or Melanesians; (d) Negritos. • Mongolian Race: (a) Eskimo; (b) The Mongols proper, comprising the Mongolo-Altaic group; and the southern Mongolian group; (c) Malayans; (d) Polynesians, Maoris; (e) Americans. • Caucasians, comprising Kanthoeroi and Melanochroi. Etc. Tholzel (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Apples and oranges. None of the above has anything whatsoever to do with the "race based medicine" debate which is the subject of the section we're discussing. Furthermore nobody in the sciences accepts these definitions today. (Homo alpinus? This is 2010-and what's the date of the source you're using? 1930?) Professor marginalia (talk) 16:33, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Even better - it dates from 1911. I think that a few discoveries may have been made in the past century....Ergative rlt (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

You are mixing apples and oranges. The Catholic Encyclopedia article is using the word race to refer to subspecies. But the races you refer to (Negroid, Mongolian - I think you mean Mongoloid? - and Caucasian - or Caucasoid) are not subspecies. These are as our article notes a taxonomic classification that developed in the 19th century and that has largely been rejected by evolutionary biologists and population geneticists and others who research biological variation among humans. Hottentots and Bushmen are pejorative terms, but they refer to pastoralist and hunter-gatherer groups in Southwest Africa i.e. societies, which may be isomorphic with populations or may not be (and note Vercrumba's important point below about how cultural differnces can lead to genetic differences) but most definitely are not subspecies. The genetic differences between so-called Hottentots and Bushmen may be as great as the differences between Caucasoids and Negroids, but they are definitely not great enough to establish them as different subspecies. The races you pick out are much, much, much closer genetically than Neandertrhals and Cro-Magnon.

Your point about political motives are irrelevant. The views you are espousing are unscintific. The article currently represents the best science of the present. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:36, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

“The races you pick out are much, much, much closer genetically than Neandertrhals and Cro-Magnon.”

Well, I’m glad you are using the term “race” as everyone else does—genetically transmitted visible differences among human groups, generally groups that have interbred for centuries and, based on environmental Darwinian responses (skin color to shield against the sun, higher vital capacity for those living at altitude, etc.) congenitally acquired these advantageous differences which are so clearly visible that they are used to loosely classify the groups. I don’t quite understand this urge to eliminate this common understanding of the word race by the incredibly complicated “explanation” given in the article. “Clines,” “ DNA,” “genomic analysis”--all are served up not to define the word but to steer the conversation away from any possible admission that human groups differ anatomically and visually.

The tendentious nature of this argument fall apart the instant one compares the grouping of other animals, say dogs. Dogs—all of whom can interbreed—are classified by race (the term of art is “breeds”). No one complains. No one writes long turgid “explanations” about dog breeds that explain nothing except that the authors hate the idea that dogs can be grouped by hereditary differences. One could compare all the legerdemain of clines, DNA, etc. and “prove”—as this article strains to do--that because there are mixed dog breeds, therefore no breeds exist per se. And because no pure breeds remain, therefore there are no breeds at all. The hidden assumption behind this posture is because there is an infinity of mixture possibilities, the slippery slope is a straight line with no discernable difference between a Dachshund and a Great Dane. It doesn’t wash with dogs; it doesn’t wash with humans. Why the continued disinclination to define the term “race” in the way it is accepted by nearly everyone else? Tholzel (talk) 21:22, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Why tag on tragically

Term is long gone now. Not a suitable forum for continued soapboxing.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The authors view is obviously that the suffering "race" has caused is all the more tragic given the superficiality of its most identifiable characteristics (external appearance). There's no explanation needed. And since the authors don't go to the lengths of explaining the obvious, adding the obvious as an explanation would be synthesis not in the source. That is why the single word is there cited to the source to make it clear it is not an editorial interpretation. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC) It may not be an editorial interpretation (if it were, then I'd have removed it, not tagged it), but it is not outstanding writing, either. As with most writing by most people, it could use some revision (and revision is what Wikipedia is all about). Look closely at the sentence: "Tragically,[A] those characteristics most closely associated with classifying races: skin color, hair color and texture, and facial characteristics—[B] while evolutionarily important [C]—are among the most superficial of human genetic traits."[D] I don't know whether "superficial" is supposed to mean "unimportant" or "near the surface", but let's pretend that we know what D means, and for the sake of argument let's assume that "B = C = D" is a true equation. Still, I'm not sure how A comes into the picture, to make the full assertion, "B = C = D, therefore A". Skin color, etc., is not intrinsically tragic. Evolutionary importance seems like an opposite of tragedy, at least for those with the "important" traits. And "superficial" is either dismissive ("Looks are superficial; it's personality that counts") or descriptive ("it's a superficial wound, so it only affects the skin"). How is superficiality, per se, tragic? Even if the reader can sort of intuit the reason why the word "tragically" might be there, the reader--if astute enough--will recognize that the sentence, itself, is a far cry from a syllogism. The line is poorly phrased, and the word "tragically" is out of context. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2010 (UTC) "A" given the strife race has caused; "tragically" comes from the source's original statement which binds the tragedy of past race relations to the genetic superficiality of race (that is, specific causative genetic differences which govern appearance but nothing else). You're over-analyzing. Is the tragedy of centuries of racial strife as the result of genetically superficial differences that unclear? "A" is per the source, it has nothing to do with my editorial opinion; removing "A" ultimately misrepresents the source. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC) What is "the source's original statement"? The one saying that the "possibility that human history has been characterized by genetically relatively homogeneous groups ('races'), distinguished by major biological differences, is not consistent with genetic evidence"? The quote is asserting that "genetic evidence" does not support the idea of "race", if by "race" one means "genetically relatively homogeneneous groups...distinguished by major biological differences". I suppose that "major biological differences" could contrast with differentiation in "superficial" characteristics. So, perhaps it would be a good idea to move the tagged line up, so that it follows the "major biological differences" line. But even if "superficial" can be put in context, where do we see anything about tragedy in that entire section, let alone in any quote? The article hasn't gotten there yet. Yes, it eventually connects race (as popularly understood) with genocide, slavery, apartheid, and the like. The word "tragically", therefore, functions sort of like a road sign saying, "Warning! Tragedy ahead!" This sort of thing is fine for road signs and for TV shows with graphic content, but an encyclopedia should not keep its readers in suspense. Encyclopedias do not have "spoiler warnings". It is the job of the WP:LEAD to let the reader know what lies ahead, but even "the lead...should not 'tease' the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article." I have worked extensively on the lead, molding it into two paragraphs: 1) race as a legitimate scientific concept, and 2) race as a problematic popular belief. The lead can have four paragraphs. Perhaps a third one should be introduced to let the reader know what kinds of tragedy have resulted from the popular idea of race. (I'd even be willing to draft such a paragraph when I have a moment.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:01, 12 October 2010 (UTC) Just added the third paragraph. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC) I trust I have adequately addressed the {{vague}}, {{why}}, {{elucidate}} tags including removing the "tragical" editorializing. Also, elsewhere in the section, originally it stated "Race as a correlate..." regarding biomedicine and I had added "surrogate" to be more readable, so back to my preferred version there. :-) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Nice work! The section flows considerably better now. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC) The lede seems a bit long, "Intergroup competition fosters ingroup biases against their outgroup.[27][28] Accordingly, when groups find themselves in competition with their designated outgroups, the more privileged group may subject its disadvantaged counterpart to discriminatory treatment...." is tending away from the core of the article and to race relations instead. It's enough to indicate that the social concept and instantiation of race, particularly since the 18th century, has been the origin of considerable suffering and to leave it at that. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:53, 16 October 2010 (UTC) You're probably right. Personally, I have a tendency to "over-write" (my professors grew a little weary of my 100-page versions of "20-page essay" assignments!), and I suspected almost from the beginning that the lead would need to be tightened--perhaps by moving certain details to a later section in the article. There's just one problem, IMO: As of now, the article doesn't even have areas devoted to race relations or racism. The article spends too much time explaining what race is not (indeed, it's not a subspecies or an essential type--we get the point), and too little time exploring the realities of race (which is--yes, we get it--defined differently in different circumstances), including racism and its horrific consequences. I could be wrong, but I think a section called "Race relations", perhaps with a subsection called "Racism", might be a good idea. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC) Update: I've gone ahead and tried to tighten the lead, incorporating some elements of the fourth paragraph into the third, and then commenting out the fourth paragraph for potential use in future revisions of the article. (Well, that's assuming that the fourth paragraph is actually good enough to keep in some form or another.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC) I'm still struggling somewhat with the current lede as it's quite huge as compared to the one here and repeats concepts. Also, racism is outside the purview of this article, which is about the system of human classification colloquially referred to as "race." As such, race having originated as a social construct based on external physical and cultural differences, the content of the article should largely be about the origins of the concept of race as imagining significant biological differences between human populations based on perceived differences and how those differences actually map—or do not map to— genetically divergent populations. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC) FYI, the thought had been to slowly work through all the sections and then readjust the lede as necessary to reflect the article contents. I had initially cleaned up the lede down to just its essentials. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC) [outdent] Fair points, but they beg the question of whether the "tragedies" of genocide, etc. should be mentioned anywhere at all in the lead. I would think it's not race, per se, that has caused suffering; "race" on its own appears to be no more tragic than "rock" on its own: Somebody has to have a reason to throw the rock at someone else, and actually has to throw it. As for race, I don't see how we can get from "race" to "suffering" without some sort of causal chain, e.g., "Racial factors + social class <-> power <-> competition <-> racism <-> discriminatory treatment -> suffering." But perhaps it would suffice just to say something to the effect of, "Early and enduring conceptions of race, in combination with socioeconomic factors, have led to enormous suffering amongst the disadvantaged racial groups"? As an aside, I don't really see why an article about race shouldn't devote at least a little bit of space to a discussion of the abuse of race, i.e., racism. IMO, it's sort of like having an article about alcohol that doesn't talk about addiction. I do, however, entirely agree that the focus of the article (if the article even has a focus at this point) should be the nature of race, and not that of racism. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:30, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Update: Okay, I've had a go at tightening it even more. Please see what you think of the resulting version. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:13, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I think it is quite obvious that we could and should write that the division of humans into racial groups has been used as justification for discrimination, oppression, and genocide based on the view that different races do no have equal status as humans. It would also not be a problem to find good sources for this statement. Your causal chain on the other hand looks like OR. Race of course by itself hasn't caused anything - especially seeing that it has no objective existence - it only exists in so far as humans have made use of it - and its use has generally been as a divisive tool (even if we suppose that there is a kind of biological basis for the category the category itself only comes into existence when articulated by humans).·Maunus·ƛ· 12:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC) "especially seeing that it has no objective existence" this is just one opinion, some would say it's an extremist one from people on the fringes of academia. See the Sokal affair for claims that "objective reality is a social construct" mocked by academics who actually make a practical contribution to civilization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Dickman (talk • contribs) 14:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC) You are not getting it. ·Maunus·ƛ· 15:04, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Could you explain to me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Dickman (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Race doesn't have any objective existence because it is a word that is and has been used in many different ways in different social and historical contexts. A definition based only on continental genetic heritage is not sufficient or possible (for example because most people have genetic heritage from more than one continent). The fact that race only has contextual existece doesn't mean it isn't important or that it doesn't affect us, it just means that the way the concept is used cannot be reduced to any single paramater such as e.g. genetics. The Sokal affair has nothing to do with this - this was a scientist who got tired of postmodernist jargon and decided to parody it. The description of social constructs is an important contribution to siciety because those constructs affect our every day lives more than we would ever think. After all the world economic system is also "just a social construct". Thats enough for now Mike.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I think the point is that race exists as a perception and it is acting on that perception, whether through prejudice or fear or self-superiority that has been at the root of race-related human suffering. We've also established that the external characteristics we associate with race (and which have for centuries defined humanity's notion of races) are not genetically significant differences. Again, race relations are not part of this article. A link to existing content elsewhere is sufficient, we also already sufficiently cover the anthropological aspects of race with regard to classification. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:55, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Of course race relations is poart of this article. The point of having a main article about general concepts is so that it can link to spinnout articles on all the relevant related topics. If race relations is not relevant to the description of what race is then I don't know what is. The article shouldn't just state different arguments for and against different definitions of race - it should also lead the reader to all of the other relevant topics that he might be looking for and explain their relation to the concept.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Agreed. And, with all due respect to Vecrumba, I think there's more than a little irony in suggesting (in good faith, of course) that this article, of all articles, should focus on defining its subject without emphasizing the relational aspects of the subject... Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC) [edit conflict] Re. Maunus: The "causal chain" was just a quick attempt to capture the gist of both A) the lead as it had been in the four-paragraph version, and B) sources, like [2], that convey the recursive and multifactorial nature of racial groupings. Countless sources point especially to social class relations as the hidden culprit. As a sidenote, I'd caution against overstatement and oversimplification in the article of the "race = social construct" equation. If we realize that even empirical observation in genetics may be socially constructed (see p. 14 of this book), then we ought perhaps to ask ourselves if the article goes to excessive lengths to dichotomize science and society. There have been, one might suspect, both helpful and harmful definitions of race espoused by both the scientific community (emphasis on "community") and society at large. But I digress. Anyway, I pretty much agree with what you said (apart from the suggestion that the "causal chain" was OR...unless, that is, by "OR" you meant "obnoxious rambling" :Þ), except that (as per various sources) I'd emphasize that race has been used as an ostensibly divisive tool, often serving to obscure the very social context in which the racial distinctions had been constructed in the first place. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Of course it shouldn't be overstated - but I don't think it is. If anything it is just using much too much verbiage to argue against the opposite view without ever actual giving a clear definition of what a social construct actually is. This is why guys like Mikemikev (now in the guise of Frank Dickman) keep failing to understand that social constructions are as real as any other construction and have the same effects and that the concept "race" is not a natural category any more than "chinese" or "geneticist" is - they are labels that wehave decided to use in a certain way. The doubt is not about whether race is a social construction the doubt is about whether this social construction should be defined as prinmarily having a biological definition or a socio-political one. Even if we decide that race is best defined by haplogroups the definition will still be a social construction because that definition is decided on by human beings engaging in a social negotiation of how best to use the specific combination of letters R-A-C-E. The only way the article can convey this basic fact is by describing how definitions of the concept have been used and negotiated over time - this naturally includes mentions of the most impoirtant events in that negotiation some of which are develkopments in anthropology in the early 20th century, second world war and the american civil rights movement. Without these events the understanding of what race means that is in most wide currecny today woud not exist - Describing developments in race relations therefore are an unavoidable part of describing the words genealogy and its present definition.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Sounds like your definition of "social construction" is pretty much the same as "word". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Dickman (talk • contribs) 18:39, 17 October 2010 (UTC) No, a word is just a string of sounds or letters. Its the meaning of the word (yes, any word) that is a social construction - and its meaning comes through the way it is used.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Cool! I'm off to pointlessly write "is a social construct" into every article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Dickman (talk • contribs) 18:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC) I agree that writing "race is a social construct" is pointless - that is not what I am arguing. I am arguing that the article should describe the different ways in which the concept has been and continue to be socially constructed - part of this is the debate about the degree to which the colloquial use of the word in America corresponds to geo-genetic heritage or to a kind of social divide sustained by the powers that be by reference to physical phenotype differences. Another part is to describe how world events has changed these conceptualizations over time and how these changing conceptualizations have affected human beings.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC) Well, I agree. But the fact that race has been subject to changing definitions and political abuse doesn't mean that there isn't an underlying physically real phenomenon. Geographically associated gene correlation patterns are actually physically real, however you slice and dice them. The labels given to local maxima or points on a continuum at varying degrees of resolution will always be an approximation, but there is an underlying objective reality. This isn't a POV, it's simply a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Dickman (talk • contribs) 11:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC) Re. Cool! I'm off to pointlessly write "is a social construct" into every article.: Psht. You could make the same WP:POINT in a whole lot less time by going over to social constructionism and just calling that a social construct! >:) Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I would if I didn't think they'd agree with me. Maybe it would more fun to argue that the edits are social constructs and of equal value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RLShinyblingstone (talk • contribs) 11:26, 19 October 2010 (UTC) This entire discussion on race is a one-sided attempt to eliminate any sense that there are major visible human group differences. No visibility is given to the many (majority?) of anthropologists who do use the term as a useful partitioning of the peoples of world. Main stream anthropologists believe there are seven major racial groups in the world; where is that delineation discussed? The usual debator’s trick is used ad nauseum of claiming that because racial types vary one from the other on a continuous scale, there are therefore no major groupings. This is akin to saying there is no difference between snow, ice, and liquid water because each state slides seamlessly into the other. The normative concept of race is not proved false because it is not a perfect state, and to attack it for that reason, as this site does, is merely the attempt of one group of authors to avoid given any space to any opposing opinions.Tholzel (talk) 21:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC) I know of no such mainstream anthropologists - and I can provide a rather large amount of sources, including the official website on race of the American Anthropological Association that state quite unequivocally that the mainstream anthropological view of race is that: "Physical variations in any given trait tend to occur gradually rather than abruptly over geographic areas. And because physical traits are inherited independently of one another, knowing the range of one trait does not predict the presence of others. For example, skin color varies largely from light in the temperate areas in the north to dark in the tropical areas in the south; its intensity is not related to nose shape or hair texture. Dark skin may be associated with frizzy or kinky hair or curly or wavy or straight hair, all of which are found among different indigenous peoples in tropical regions. These facts render any attempt to establish lines of division among biological populations both arbitrary and subjective." and that "Race" thus evolved as a worldview, a body of prejudgments that distorts our ideas about human differences and group behavior. Racial beliefs constitute myths about the diversity in the human species and about the abilities and behavior of people homogenized into "racial" categories."[3]·Maunus·ƛ· 22:29, 5 December 2010 (UTC) My mistake. I shouldn't have said "anthropologists." In today's climate of political correctness, you are not allowed to be an anthropologist unless you are an ardent multicultural social activist. I should have said first that the U.S. Government uses racial classifications in its census forms: In October 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced the revised standards for federal data on race and ethnicity. The minimum categories for race are now: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White. Instead of allowing a multiracial category as was originally suggested in public and congressional hearings, the OMB adopted the Interagency Committee's recommendation to allow respondents to select one or more races when they self-identify. With the OMB's approval, the Census 2000 questionnaires also include a sixth racial category: Some Other Race. There are also two minimum categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race. [4] And secondly, I should have brought up that the only scientists who known anything functionally about racial differences are the biologists. The New England Journal of Medicine has this to say about biological (as opposed to political) racial differences: From The New England Journal of Medicine [5] The Importance of Race and Ethnic Background in Biomedical Research and Clinical Practice "In the United States, race and ethnic background have been used as cause for discrimination, prejudice, marginalization, and even subjugation. Excessive focus on racial or ethnic differences runs the risk of undervaluing the great diversity that exists among persons within groups. However, this risk needs to be weighed against the fact that in epidemiologic and clinical research, racial and ethnic categories are useful for generating and exploring hypotheses about environmental and genetic risk factors, as well as interactions between risk factors, for important medical outcomes. Erecting barriers to the collection of information such as race and ethnic background may provide protection against the aforementioned risks; however, it will simultaneously retard progress in biomedical research and limit the effectiveness of clinical decision making. … Nonetheless, racial or ethnic differences in the outcomes of disease sometimes persist even when discrepancies in the use of interventions known to be beneficial are considered. For example, the rate of complications from type 2 diabetes mellitus varies according to racial or ethnic category among members of the same health maintenance organization, despite uniform utilization of outpatient services and after adjustment for levels of education and income, health behavior, and clinical characteristics.11 The evaluation of whether genetic (as well as nongenetic) differences underlie racial disparities is appropriate in cases in which important racial and ethnic differences persist after socioeconomic status and access to care are properly taken into account." So, my point is that there is large corpus of legitimate discussion of human racial differences that is not politically motivated or "a social construct," (whatever that means). These voices should be added to the Wikipedia discussion of human racial classification.Tholzel (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Unfortunately, diabetes for example is strongly related to environment. There are many correlations; those are quite often also (and more strongly) to factors other than "race." If people of similar socioeconomic status and access to care are divided by their consumption of chitlins, I'm confident chitlins will trump race as regards differences in health every time. Are there as many young black men who find themselves participating in or becoming victims of violent crime because blacks as a race are more violent? Certainly no one is going to put forward that premise. Correlation is not causative. We want to believe "race" aligns to truly genetically divergent populations, but true genetic differences—as you dig beneath the surface—don't line up neatly along the racial boundary. There was a time where I was more of a believer in that (thinking of well known things such as propensity for sickle cell anemia or other medical disorders, drugs targeted to racial populations,...), but as I peeled away the layers of "obviousness" of those, what I found underneath was something a bit different. Lastly, a bit more on the lighter side, IMHO, there's no "adjusting" statistics for the diversity in cuisine as aligned to ethnic and racial groups (functioning as ethnic groups). You can compare results according to who gorges sashimi and who eats chitlins, but you can't "adjust" those two populations into a single data sample. Lastly, diverting completely to another topic but illustrating the dangers of correlation, we used to think coffee was bad for us until someone thought to also check doughnut consumption. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:43, 10 December 2010 (UTC) I'm sorry, it is not sufficient to conversationally bring up some unfounded theory (diabetes) to disqualify the New England Journal of Medicine claim that race does matter when it comes to selecting which drugs to use for best outcome, based on race. (Meaning that racial differences exist on the biological level.) Further, it is wastefull to keep adding more and more left-wing anthropologist to the list of people who hate the very concept of "race." (They can't even bring themselves to use the word; they say "ethnicity" instead, meaning exactly the saem thing.) These little homilies (see below) may be a cute way of diagreeing with the concept of racial diffeences among humans, but they add absolutely nothing to the discussion--except to proudly reinforce the author's political inclination. Please count the number of anti-racial cliams vs the number of pro-race claims, and see if this article is giving a fair representation of opinions--primarily biological and medical opinions which differ completely with the wholly politicized assemblage we have here--of human racial differences. Also, can we please drop the fatuous slippery slope argument that because racial types are no longer perfectly separate, therefore they don't exist? Dogs, which are also racially divided. also are no longer perfect genotypes--yet we recognize both "pure-bred" breeds (Oh how anthropolgist hate that term) and mutts--like our President. You don't see groups of ideologues lining up to claim that there are no different dog breeds, why the entire idea is a racist folly. Etc., etc. In other words, let's discuss the issue from VARIOUS mainstream points of view--not totally eliminate one half of the subject matter. 72.61.197.200 (talk) 15:23, 14 December 2010 (UTC) (Tholzel) P.S. On the whole "social construct" thing, it is what it is: we look different so we must be different so I can treat you differently The point is that genetic differences are completely irrelevant to the construct and its societal effect. We only started to understand DNA in the 1950's; race and prejudice are a lot older than that. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Sexual selection

There are concerns that the article Sexual selection in human evolution has been overly racialized. Input from anyone interested in the subject is welcome. Wapondaponda (talk) 01:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In the section "Concepts and realities of race", the last paragraph contains the sentences:

"Among the very first American colonists, African entrepreneurs who had arrived as laborers engaged in society and commerce on an equal footing, with equal rights, as Europeans — and with similar attitudes.[22] The Enlightenment, in the 18th century, institutionalized the concept of humans as unequals, with blacks placed as the lowest of the races in the Great Chain of Being.[35]"

Given the two sentences in context of each other, the text seems to imply that the 'concept of humans as unequals' and the basis of 'the Great Chain of Being' originated with 'The Enlightenment'. When I read the two sentences as they are, my first thought was 'Really?!', before following both links to 'Enlightenment' and 'Great Chain of being' to discover absolutely no correlation of detail between the two articles.

Arguably, while some (or even many) 'Enlightenment period thinkers and leaders' may have sought to apply the best scientific argument of the time in order to ratify what is clearly an older theological concept, associating the entire philosophical movement directly with the rise of commercially sustained inequality is a bit provocative, no? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AllixHD (talk • contribs) 16:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

No one said the Enlightenment met our current day standard for enlightened behavior. Enlightenment begat Great Chain of Being begat the order of things: God and angels at the top, man with some men on atop other men, all the way down to the worms and rocks. It's where the inequality of blacks as compared to whites came from—being different is one thing, being different meaning superior or inferior, that was new. "Commercially sustained?" If you mean exploitation of people according to their race for personal profit, well yes, Enlightenment did give direct rise to that circumstance—one which clearly did not exist prior to our being enlightened by Enlightenment. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:03, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Load of rubbish

"Race refers to classifications of humans into populations or groups based on various factors, such as their culture, language, social practice or heritable characteristics"

This is nothing but illogical -bordering on the utterly retarded- racialization.

Using this definition, EVERY group in existance, is a "race" as long as they excercise their ideas in any way whatsover. (social practice) Thus, Liberals & Conservaties are races and political systems involving parties are built on racial apartheid. And what about language then? So every english speaking person is of the same race? What about multi-lingual persons? What are they, "hybrids"? Culture? Ok, so emo-kids for instance, constitute a "race" then.. Christians are a race?

And what about the implications when it comes to racism: With this definition, it migt constitute racism to critizise a culture, a political group, a sub-culture etc.

I think you get the picture. In short, This definition is nothing but laughable. No offence, but only a COMPLETE MORON would call any group a race based on their social practice, language or culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.227.176.140 (talk) 10:49, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. There should be a disclaimer that this article, while mostly discussing biological phenomenon, is sourced almost entirely to the most extremist egalitarian social anthropologists for biological views, which they are entirely unqualified to assert, and even then cherry picks the most extreme quotes. Try to change it though, and you'll get smeared and banned. Cadada (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2010 (UTC) sock

Our idea of race is based on differences in appearance (heritable characteristics) and inevitable differences in customs et al. reflecting geographic diversity. The very recent debate (compared to the existence of the notion of race) regarding genetics is another topic and a subject of debate among geneticists regarding meaningful differences, statistical interpretation of differences, and so on. The article reflects both. And do put the moronometer (that's mo-ro-KNOW-me-ter, as in you know better because we're morons) away. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I have changed the definition to better focus on the issue of appearance which I think there is general consensus even among extremist egalitarian anthropologists is part of what distinguishes race from e.g. ethnicity. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:01, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's an improvement. What about the other 99% of the article. Cadada (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC) sock

The remainder of the article is rather slanted in the opposite direction.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:23, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

The whole article ignores the gene frequency concept which is how biologists view race. To maintain the race denying strawman which is based on ignoring gene frequencies you need to reference sociologists misrepresenting biology such as Lieberman or Smedley or fringe vested biologists like Graves and Keita, which is who this article is based on. Add a healthy dose of Lewontin's fallacy for good measure. I don't know if you're aware of the fraud, maybe your career depends on pushing this stuff maybe you really just don't get biology. But let me assure you that it's a fraud. Oh well time for me to be banned I suppose. Cadada (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2010 (UTC) sock

Appearance is not always a determining factor in identifying race. With all due respect to Maunus, i think a better edit would be: "Race refers to classifications of humans into populations or groups based on various factors, depending on the time, place, and group in qustion, such as their culture, language, social practice or heritable characteristics". As for Cada-yad-yada-yada's rant (a very good immitation of the dearly departed Mikemikev, which tells you something, I mean, pragmatically), I think we can pretty much disregard comments here that are expliclty anti-intellectual POV-pushing. By the way, the article shouldn't be slanted in any direction; our standard is always to provide all significant views from reliable sources in proportion to their significance (which I do believe we do fairly well). Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't know of a source that supports the inclusion of e.g. "language" as a determining factor of race in any context. The source currently given also doesn't. Even the AAA's race website talks about race in terms of visible characteristics, but also showing that this is not the only factor and that it is always mitigated by socioeconomic and cultural factors. The previous definition made it impossible to distinguish race from an "ethnic category" in the terms of Handleman - there is something that is distinguished race from ethnic categories - and it is the fact it is usually an intersection of visible characteristics, inherited status (not in the sense of genetic) and socio-economic class. Denying this is is not in line with sources and I don't know of any anthropological literature that doesn't see race and ethnicity to have different implications in this sense. When someone say something that makes sense I react without considering whether those who say it are otherwise acting as idiots as in this case. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

@Cadada, Anthropologists quote biology only as/where it agrees with their view of race, they do not "misrepresent" it. Even if there were universal agreement on conclusive proof of race = the most significant (and meaningfully significant with regard to processes within the human body) genetic differences between peoples (beyond external appearance), anthropologists would still argue—correctly—that race is (that is, originated as) a social construct. There is no conflation or confusion or preferring or ignoring of anthropology versus biology. Really, folks, let's give the evil ultra-leftist uber-egalitarian anthropologists perverting biology to deny the biological/genetic basis for race mantra a rest. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:46, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't post here often any more because of what I see as far too much of the title of this section throughout the whole article and discussion, and as soon as someone uses a term like ultra-leftist to condemn those with whom he disagrees, it confirms my judgement. HiLo48 (talk) 21:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you're responding to me, just to be clear, I'm not calling anyone an ultra-leftist, that is my characterization of the position taken by the most vociferous proponents (per those proponents) of the "anthropologists ignore biological reality (and never the twain shall meet)" position. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. I guess my irony meter wasn't properly calibrated today. I suspect you and I both see similar problems in these discussions. HiLo48 (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Please WP:DENY the trolling banned user the attention he craves. Resisting the urge to respond to him will help lessen problems with these discussions. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I understand the sentiment of that post, but fail to see the practicality of it. I don't know the "trolling banned user" and I fail to see what he did that was any worse than a lot of other rubbish here. No one person's extremism stood out. Your troll's first post in this section was to agree with someone who is presumably acceptable. From my perspective many people with extreme views have had a go at this article and added to discussion here. So how do I pick the trolls so I can ignore them? HiLo48 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I apologize if you felt singled out. My advice was primarily intended to those who do recognize the socks but can't resist responding to them. But to keep things from getting out of hand again in these articles, we need to step up the talk page discipline a notch or two when it comes to the rants and soapboxing regardless of the source. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

To reply to Maunus: I did not mean to suggest that "race" os never or even seldome involving physical appearance. I only meant to say that sometimes it isn't. The Romans used the word for race (the latin word that became the root for race) to refer to something that did not depend on physical appearance. Nor did I mean to privilege language, a term I never personally added to the article and have no stake in. What distinguishes race from ethnicity is a complex issue - Brubaker and Cooper's "Beyond Identity" in Theory and Society 29: 1-47, 2000 nis my favorite essay on the topic but it is only one view among many. I agree with Eric Wof that races emerged along with the massive relocation of continental populations during the mercantilist period, whereas ethnicities developed during the process of the consolidation of national identities and th migration of peoples (within a state or from one state to another) during the capitalist phrase. I am just pointing out that there are a variety of approaches. I do not think we need to go into it in detail here. I never meant to eliminate reference to physical appearance, only to emphasize that whatever are markers of racial identity depnd on particular regimes of race and these have changed over time as well as vary from one place to antoher, which I think is th key point. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Thinking-out-loud-non-sequitur, I think it's fair to say that, historically, endogamy has maintained and strengthened both racial and ethnic identity, ethnic largely being finer divisions of identity but also linked to custom, physical appearance, et al. Race or ethnic group--both are how others see us and how we see others. And, recalling the identification of the "Irish gene" some years ago now, who is to say there are not biological patterns among ethnic groups which match those among racial groups (hmmm... I think I shall invent a new term, "fractal heritability.") Now there's some WP:OR for you. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:00, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. 20th-21st century mobility has shot that all to hell of course, for the worse where we are losing ethnic groups, for the better where ethnic identity becomes less a factor in a desire to kill rival ethnic groups. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:08, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

This is an excellent and salient point. Tibor Koertvelyessy (a population geneticist) published a paper analyzing genetic differences between two groups in Hungary (or maybe Romania?) and argued that th best evidence indicates that genetic differences between the populations were the effects of cultural differences between the two groups that discouraged intermarriage between them. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I see it's been changed and I agree until this part: "also often influenced by and correlated with traits such as culture, ethnicity and socio-economic status."

Really? Your race is influenced by and relates to your socio-economic status or your culture? Can anyone explain to me how your "heritable phenotypical characteristics or geographic ancestry" can be influenced by or correlate with your socio-economic status (in itself! It might come to correlate with that through racial discrimination or an apartheid system, but that's another story entirely) or even your culture for that matter.. does your race somehow change if you embrace another culture?

Just pick a definition and stick with it. How could non-hereditary characteristics ever influence (or "correlate" with) hereditary ones? Is someone saying that your socio-economic potential and cultural preferences depend on your racial heritage? Sounds more like eugenics than a definition of the term race.. My suggestion, use the simplest and most widely accepted defintition: "Race refers to classifications of humans into populations or groups based on factors such as heritable phenotypical characteristics or geographic ancestry." This is the "normal" definition and it makes sense, unlike the one in the article. 90.227.176.140 (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Good luck trying to get some sense in here.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.163.156.30 (talk) 19:14, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Nope they locked it. Looks like the jumped up sociologists who apparently know more biology than biologists will be writing this one. This "encyclopedia" is a joke. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.189.26.144 (talk) 13:53, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Rather than "this encyclopedia is a joke", I would say that this encyclopedia has as much trouble with controversial subjects as the rest of society. Most of Wikipedia is great. Topics like race, unfortunately, bring out the barrow-pushing bigots, just as they do in other forums, online and offline. I watch articles like this, but rarely contribute. I will jump on obvious new garbage with a simple response, but have learnt to accept that it's going to take a long time for articles like this one to reach maturity. HiLo48 (talk) 21:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

For perspective a link to what the Encyclopedia Britannica has to say about race might be illuminating: [6]·Maunus·ƛ· 22:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I believe we have an expert in the house - and one who is in a unique position to bridge between psychological and anthropological views Drjefffish (talk · contribs).·Maunus·ƛ· 18:26, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Smedley at work again. Same old creationist style epistemological arguments: Races aren't perfectly homogenmous and discrete categories therefore they don't exist! Really pathetic. What Dawkins would call the tyranny of the discontinous mind, except I can't hep feeing the deception is intentional somewhere in the chain. Smedley, the AAA and Richard Lewontin may have rejected race, during their strawman massacre, but let me assure you that mainstream biology has not and never will. The attempt to imply otherwise, for blatant political reasons, as this sorry wikipedia article is designed to do, is a lie. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.40.189.186 (talk) 18:31, 23 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.111.120.63 (talk)

I mean look at this.[7] It's not so complicated. Maybe you should go to this article and argue that there is more genetic variation within the Key lime and the Persian lime than between them (a lot more than humans), and that hybrid populations exist. When they've finished laughing in your face, come back here and we'll talk it over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.111.120.63 (talk) 22:32, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Wow, glad J. Fish is here to explain mainstream biology.[8] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.111.120.63 (talk) 23:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Nice quote from Fish: "It is often difficult to get white people to accept what at first appears to contradict the evidence they can see clearly with their own eyes" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.111.120.63 (talk) 09:49, 24 December 2010 (UTC)