Talk:Race (human categorization)

Race is religious, and/or social affiliation.

Race is religious, and/or social affiliation. There is no supporting text in the body for this statement in the lead? It does not need a citation it needs to be deleted. --Inayity (talk) 21:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with deleting that part of the sentence. But for the sake of completeness and verifiability, there should still be a citation for the rest of the lead sentence. danielkueh (talk) 22:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

From one POV social affiliation is a contributor (while not exclusive) factor in Race. I.e believing your are part of a particular group. I think what was wrong with the sentence was it made it almost seem like religion = race, social affiliation = race, while the latter is a factor. either way supporting content in the body is needed --Inayity (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. And until such content supported by reliable sources is forthcoming, we'll stick with your initial suggestion of keeping it off the lead definition. Cheers, danielkueh (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I reinserted the citation tag because according to WP:LEADCITE, information in the lead needs to be verified. Granted, the need for citations in the lead should be done on a case-by-case basis and should be based on consensus. There are several reasons why I think a citation is warranted here:

1. Race is a fairly controversial topic and so any information in the lead, especially the lead sentence, should be verified with reputable sources. Adding citations also prevents erroneous information (previously removed) from creeping in.

2. Adding a citation contributes to the stability of the article.

3. Adding a citation to the lead DOES NOT hurt the article. If anything, it improves the quality and reliability of the article. It also helps readers locate the sources quickly without having to read the entire article.

4. Citations already exist in the lead. Adding a citation to the definition would not be inconsistent.

5. This page really needs it.

danielkueh (talk) 08:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If this is the case then pick one of the 20 citation tags from the body and put there. It is hardly something controversial since it is the most common criteria for race, per the body. Adding citations for things which most agree and have been excessively discussed in body are of no use and drop readability. By this reason you then add tags on everything. --Inayity (talk) 09:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

By controversy, I am referring to the topic in *general.* It's a topic that can arouse other people's passions. Why do you think a page like this is semi-protected? You must not have followed the recent changes that have been made to the lead definition. Not everyone agrees with the previous definition, which is why it was changed to the current, which as you say, many people do. Citation tags are standard and common in Wikipedia. They may not be pretty or improve readability, but they serve an important purpose, which is to alert the reader as to the quality and reliability of the article. So get used to them. But don't like them? Then insert a citation. It's that simple. Anyway, I do intend to insert a source soon. Plus, it's good to wait a bit so that other editors can read this thread and respond. If you would like to suggest a citation, then paste it on this talk page for discussion. Otherwise, sit back and be patient. danielkueh (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been editing Race related articles on Wikipedia for so long I cannot even remember, it is my area. U should look at the contributions to this page cuz I do recall being part of the new lead before you came. I have never seen any disagreement, EVEN from critics of race, that physical traits are central to the definition of race. And there is no disagreement around that. Seems like a very odd thing to take issue with. And I will cease commenting on it. If you have read the rest of the article it is cover over and over again. citations are at the discretion of other editors. I say unnecessary for the tag, but you go and put it back on your own. --Inayity (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand my comments. If you did, you would not have written all that. danielkueh (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Lead sentence

To me having 'as a social construct' in the first sentence implies that there are more ways to define it that will be discussed in the article. For that reason I find it odd that it is included in the first sentence because it seems like it is cherry picking one definition. I think it would be better to split the phrase 'as a social construct' into a second sentence to explain that race being a social construct is the most common, albeit not only, way of thinking of it. That also has the advantage of a sentence corresponding to the first subsection. Something along the following I think would be an improvement.

'Race is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics. Whilst some scholars argue that race correlates with biological traits, there is wide consensus that the racial categories used in everyday usage are instead socially constructed'

Thoughts? Hollth (talk) 14:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Before a change can even be considered, you need to first cite reliable sources that support the points being made by your proposed second sentence. As far as I can see, the current lead sentence is supported by reliable sources. Also, I recommend that you take a look at the recent archive of this talk page to view the previous discussions of this issue. danielkueh (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

I knew it would be contentious, hence posting it before putting it in. My proposal is just an amalgamation of the lead sentence and the first paragraph of the definitions subcategory. Both are already sourced so that shouldn't be an issue. Hollth (talk) 06:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Given the discussions at Talk:Race (human classification)/Archive 33 about initially defining race as a social concept and the #Race is religious, and/or social affiliation. discussion above, I think that the current lead is a good compromise. It's also standard on Wikipedia to have the most common definition first, just like it's often or usually the case that dictionaries and other encyclopedias give the most common definition first. Flyer22 (talk) 14:39, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not common to have the basis for a definition nested in commas as it currently is, much less so if the basis is one of several, nor is it uncommon to have the definition by function (grouping similar looking people) in a separate sentence than the reductionist definition, which is what I would like. To be clear, I'm not trying to change the meaning, I just find it really, really jarring the way it is phrased. If you feel it is undue, I'd be fine with the second sentence being changed to not include scholars arguing that it correlates to biological traits. Hollth (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I notice that the book "Race" by Prof John R. Baker, Oxford University Press, 1974, which was once in the bibliography, has been deleted. Any reason for this? 24.44.181.147 (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Possibly because it is worthless as a source on the topic. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that the issue (if there is one) being discussed here is mainly about style (the way the lead sentence is written) rather than substance (what the lead sentence actually says). I don't know whether the present format of having "the basis for a definition nested in commas" is common or not. What I do know is that it is not wrong or unorthodox. For a few examples, see the lead sentence in France, Ivory Coast, world, sports, and atheism, just to name a few. Plus, the present lead is consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines on formulating lead sentences (see WP:LEADSENTENCE). I think separating the present lead into two sentences is not an improvement, even if weasel words such as "whilst some scholar argue..." were removed. In fact, it disrupts the otherwise smooth transition to the next sentence, which discusses the historical development of the word race. Anyway, I will let other editors to weigh in and come to a consensus. danielkueh (talk) 17:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I fixed up Race (biology) to show it's a social construct. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

And it's been reverted. The race and species concepts are social concepts, for example tomatoes can be fruits or vegetables, and dolphins can be fish or mammals. I think it's important to point out that everything is a social concept, and if people take that to mean "never scientific" that's their problem. It's nobody's intention to deceive the masses for some nefarious purpose after all. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedias' 'nefarious purpose' is to base article content on material verifiable in published reliable sources, rather than on facile analogies concocted by POV-pushing 'contributors' who clearly don't have a clue what they are writing about. Go find a forum somewhere, and promote your tinfoil-hattery there. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The lead sentence is problematic because it implies the biological concept cannot be applied to humans. The purpose of Wikipedia is to base article content on material verifiable in published reliable sources, rather than on cherry picked fallacies and sources selected by POV-pushing 'contributors' who clearly don't have a clue what they are writing about. Go find a forum somewhere, and promote your tinfoil-hattery there. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 17:21, 18 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. You can read in every textbook on evolution that geographic races of animals, when isolated from other races of their species, may in due time become new species. The terms 11 subspecies" and "geographic race" are used interchangeably in this taxonomic literature."

Mayr 2002 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Captain JT Verity MBA (talk • contribs) 17:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by Captain JT Verity MBA because it was not supported by the sources in the lead sentence and there doesn't appear to be consensus for this change. danielkueh (talk) 19:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

It's supported by Mayr above. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Problematic opening

From the opening entry: "Although still used in general contexts, race has often been replaced by other words which are less ambiguous and emotionally charged, such as populations, people(s), ethnic groups, or communities, depending on context."

- This is misleading and incorrect because the "race = population" was a failed 1950-60s re-definition attempt by Theodosius Dobzhansky who didn't want to abandon the race concept when it was being abandoned at the time. As Montagu wrote:

"It seems to me an unrealistic procedure to maintain that this late in the day we can readapt the term “race” to mean something utterly different from what it has always most obfuscatingly and ambiguously meant." - Montagu, A. (1962). "The concept of race". American Anthropologist. 64(5:1):919-928

Clearly populations exist and no one denies them - so its inaccurate to state "race" has simply been replaced with this other word when breeding populations have nothing to do with race in the first place. Are the Amish then a race? Ralph Roadrash (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Basically my point is the opening reads as if human races are actually real and that through politically correct semantics or word-play "race" has been replaced with "population" or "people groups" etc. This is false, and is actually an argument racist hereditarians or "race realists" use like Richard Lynn. Ralph Roadrash (talk) 01:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

No, that's exactly what happened. "Population" is a very broad term. "Race" groups by ancestry, or genetic or phenetic similarity. It is a precise defined term with predictive validity. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 April 2015

This page cites polygenism in the US as promoted by Nott, Morton, et al in "the late 19th century." This should read in "the mid-nineteenth century" (Morton was active in the 1840s and dead by the 1850s, and Nott's most famous polygenist work was in the 1850s, such as Types of Mankind). Wikipedia pages for these authors will bear me out. 75.44.125.146 (talk) 13:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done: [1]. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 02:01, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Who is currently checking sources for this article?

I see that there have been quite a few edits to this article recently that cite no source, and on the whole this article still needs much better sourcing to meet the expected standard of Wikipedia articles. Since 2010, I have been compiling a source list for this article and articles on related topics, and I'd be delighted to hear from other active editors here what other sources you know that fit the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources and especially the Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources for medical topics. I think if we look at reliable sources together, we will be able to resolve many of the recent issues that have come up in editing this article. Please let us know what you recommend that we read to follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines to improve this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 22:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

It is claimed in the article that forensic scientists can identify someone's race (= ancestry by continent) with high accuracy, almost 100%. This is simply false and is challenged in numerous recent studies, e.g. Henneberg who found as low as < 30% accuracy:

• Sierp, I., & Henneberg, M. (2015). "Can ancestry be consistently determined from the skeleton?". Anthropological review, 78(1): 21-31. http://www.degruyter.com/view/j/anre.2015.78.issue-1/anre-2015-0002/anre-2015-0002.xml?format=INT

Note the 100% claim from the page is using Sesardic as a source. Sesardic is a philosopher not a physical anthropologist. Ralph Roadrash (talk) 23:18, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You are right, although forensic textbooks still claim to be able to identify race with high accuracy. The claim in the article was inserted as a concession to some "race realist" editors who used to be actively editing the page. It is of course true that forensic anthropologists are partly overstating their case (because they would be mostly out of a job if they claimed it was hard to identify race) and partly using some leaps of reasoning (i.e. identifying aspects of ancestry and then making claims about race based on how their society relates race and ancestry). I would be open to a rewriting with newer and better sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

This quote is probably relevant:

"The claim of 90% accuracy that has been reported for “race”- determination methods is unsubstantiated. Despite the relatively high-allocation accuracies (often more than 80%, but rarely more than 90%) and the strength of the statistical significance that are noted when various methods are first described, the comprehensive independent tests of “race”-determination methods consistently result in low-allocation accuracies." - Albanese, John, and Shelley R. Saunders. "Is It Possible to Escape Racial Typology in Forensic Identification?". (2006). In: Forensic Anthropology and Medicine. Humana Press: 281-316.

What Sesardic (2010) never took into account was the lack of consistency between different methods when applied to the same skeleton, e.g. "For example, one unknown was classified as “Black” with the Giles and Elliot method, “White” with the Gill method, “Japanese” with FORDISC using the FDB data, and “from the Philippines” with FORDISC using the Howells’ data." (Ibid). So when you look at a number of methods (Henneberg looked at 9) the overall accuracy for racial assessment of a skeleton is moderate to low, nowhere near the 80-90% claim cited commonly in forensic literature, or the 100% figure by 'race realists'.Ralph Roadrash (talk) 20:57, 12 May 2015 (UTC) :"What Sesardic (2010) never took into account was the lack of consistency between different methods when applied to the same skeleton"

Shouldn't that read "What Sesardic (2010) never took into account was the lack of consistency between different methods when applied to one cherry picked skeleton" 222.106.76.3 (talk) 04:33, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Struck post by block-evading racist Mikemikev. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

No. See Henneberg's study: "In 14 cases (70%), various methods identified the same individual as belonging to all three racial classes. This suggests that the existing methods for the determination of ‘race’ are compromised." 70% of of Henneberg's skeletal samples were identified as White, Black or Asian depending on the method. This is nothing new, and is what happens when you apply different methods to the same skeleton. As the 2006 study notes: "comprehensive independent tests of “race”-determination methods consistently result in low-allocation accuracies." Ralph Roadrash (talk) 07:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

The reason for the above is that there is far more variation within continental populations than between them: "We have shown that even with 20 non-fragmented sets of skeletal remains none could be consistently placed into a single racial category. Individual variability may have played a significant role leading to inconsistency of the results found in this study, which further confirms the ideas of Brace and Ryan (1980), Henneberg (2010) and Lewontin (1976); that most human variation occurs between individuals of the same population rather than being attributable to geographic distribution." (Sierp & Henneberg, 2015). Ralph Roadrash (talk) 07:38, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Cherry picked sources

Going through this article the sourcing is disgraceful and cherry picked to support the "race is biologically meaningless" POV. Where is Mayr, Dobzhansky, Rushton, Dawkins, Strkalj, Risch, Witherspoon etc.? Instead we have only Smedley, Keita, Montagu, Dorothy Roberts, Marks, Graves, Templeton, Brace, Lewontin etc., all referenced again and again with what can only be described as a censorship of contrary points. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)