Talk:Race (human categorization)

"Human races do not exist except as a purely social construct"

I find it curious how ardently and repetitively a blanket statement such as this is promoted in both this article and the associated talk page, while the intro of the same article cites Gill to the effect that this view is far from universally shared in the scientific community – and as the numbers given below indicate, not even by an overwhelming majority of researchers (to put it mildly) nor even all textbooks. Further down, however, Gill or anything resembling his view is never cited again, not even in the final, tiny section on forensic anthropology, where only Sauer, who does not believe in the reality of human races, is cited. Instead of quoting a well-familiar French phrase, I will state quite bluntly that this state of affairs really gives the impression that this particular POV is being pushed by a group of editors here, and that those would love to delete the – in their eyes embarrassingly misguided – opinion of Gill entirely out of the article or at least move it to a less conspicuous place, but are prevented from it by WP policy.

I remember a passage in this article that has been removed since:

"Scientists who maintain race as an important biological concept point out that in determining overall relatedness the entire genetic cohorts of groups must be compared. When this is done, a grouping pattern emerges that closely follows traditional race groupings."

Fact is, there are populations all over the world, or used to be in recent history, who have been virtually isolated for presumably several ten thousand years, as also indicated by genetic research, with very limited gene-flow with neighbouring populations if any occurring for many thousands of years, enough for quite distinct populations to form. Relic populations (whether historical or contemporary) are especially conspicuous along the shores of the Indian Ocean. Coon seemed to be well aware of them, as well as several of his precedents, who postulated an additional "brown" or "South Asian" race that has ever since been largely forgotten. Even the Australian natives have subsequently been ignored or simply been subsumed under "Asian/Mongolid" (or "Caucasian"), the San under "African/Negroid", and the natives of South Asia under "Caucasian" (or "Asian"), vastly simplifying the picture, and all of this seems to have happened out of principle: Reducing the picture to the familiar (and popular) Negroid-Caucasian-Mongoloid triad to make it easier to argue that differences are negligible or at best clinal, and (even relative) isolation has not taken place, given all the interchange that has happened in the last few centuries. However, going back a few centuries or millennia, the picture would be far less obviously muddled, with far more populations around the world strongly isolated due to far less mobility and interchange. Still the theorists of the 18th and 19th century lived in a much more strongly partitioned, fragmented world, not nearly as globalised as the modern world, which may have influenced their views. Many ethnic groups known to them have been marginalised and largely slipped out of the conscience of the vast majority of people, even anthropologists, and not infrequently have been actively airbrushed out of existence for political reasons, and as a consequence the (not only) phenotypical variety in many parts of the world that old books still display has been largely forgotten, as well as the fact that certain parts of the world are not only ethnolinguistically and culturally, but also phenotypically extremely varied. The prototypical "Negroids", "Caucasians" and "Mongolids", West Africans (or Bantu), Scandinavians and Central Asians (or Northern Chinese) respectively, make up for only a small part of human phenotypical as well as ethnolinguistical variety, both within Africa and without.

My conclusion is that the issue is not as clear-cut and decided as many people try to portray it, perhaps indeed motivated by a misguided understanding of "political correctness". Also, arguing against the validity of a popular or obsolete understanding of "race" as subspecies where "mixes" are treated as "hybrids" and even value judgments attached is indeed shooting down a strawman. Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That said, criticising the concept of human races and the classification of humanity into races as artificial and arbitrary downplays the fact that the species concept is artificial and arbitrary, as well, and even worse, the concepts of genus, family, etc. While cladistics provides a superior alternative, the use of species, genus etc. in practice is not criticised. Even if one does not agree with Gill and maintains that differences between human populations are entirely clinal, it's the same as the classification of dialects or colours: to some extent artificial and arbitrary, but not unscientific. Science can't take every individual case on its own; it's the very nature of science to make generalisations and proceed from them. It is no use to point out that every human being is different from every other human being and leave it at that, that no two persons talk exactly the same, that no two colours are exactly the same, that no two snowflakes are identical - that means splitting reality up endlessly and kills science. Viewed that way, it's the denial that is unscientific.

It is also notable that according to the article racism, opposition against miscegenation (as in the case of many far-right groups), without a belief in inherent differences of values between different races, is apparently not racism. On the other hand, it is pointed out that racial discrimination is nothing different from ethnic discrimination (especially given the insistence that races don't really exist), but then the question arises why such a loaded term is used in the first place. Isn't ethnic discrimination bad enough in itself? It seems that some people prefer the term "racism" because it implies that the belief in races is itself a bad thing, which is an extremely questionable and dangerous assumption.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with the belief in races. I do not see anything wrong with "miscegenation", but neither with the belief that "miscegenation" is somehow a bad thing, as wrong as it may be. Even the belief in the inherent superiority of one's ethnic group is not necessarily a bad thing. It's actions and laws that matter, not personally held beliefs. Without the alarmism and moral outrage regularly involved in dealing with such beliefs, it would be easier to deal with those beliefs on a one-by-one basis and assess its merits and drawbacks rationally, instead of lumping everyone who even considers any such position or the mere validity of the concept of human races into the "racist" pool. Presumably even Gill. I'm sure that it would be much easier to fight unwelcome supremacist tendencies widespread in the population if one did not dismiss ideas as inherently evil or misguided, but by calm discussion and explanation, sine ira et studio.

The best antidote to "racism", in my view, is inspiring fascination with the incredible diversity of humanity, and a stronger sense of how the most different ethnic groups all over the world have something interesting to offer, and how Europeans and their descendants aren't the is-all and end-all of history. (Anyone familiar with the achievements of Muslim, Indian or Japanese scholars in the centuries in which Europe was still busy catching up with the sophistication of Asian culture, as late as the 17th century? Or with the amazing adaptations and complex cultures of seemingly "backwards" peoples?) Acknowledging the popular concept of human races, despite its problems, can actually help popularising the awareness of ethnic-cultural diversity and its inherent value, broadening people's horizons, and lessening the prejudice against the strange and exotic. After all, one fears only what one does not know. Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Florian - talk pages are not the place to present extended discussions of content, outside of what's needed to change material on the article itself. if yu would like to edit the article, please feel free to add any sourced material you like. If you have a particular issue with article content, can you state it more succinctly? I'm not in the mood to read an essay. --Ludwigs2 17:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Though I quietly applaud Florian's comments, Ludwigs2 is right: while concrete and actionable suggestions for improvement are welcome, this isn't the place for open-ended discussion. --Aryaman (talk) 19:03, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How about the two of you steer the discussion back to where it should be: to a battle-plan to change the article. Let me be as clear as I can: the current article isn't worth much and has to be re-written. What Florian wants to hear is that if he were to re-write it, you'd back him up. Tell him that you'll help him! 80.219.22.194 (talk) 06:35, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Automate archiving?

Does anyone object to me setting up automatic archiving for this page using MiszaBot? Unless otherwise agreed, I would set it to archive threads that have been inactive for 30 days and keep the last ten threads.--Oneiros (talk) 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done I've also moved the old archives so they are accessible again.--Oneiros (talk) 20:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Restructure the article like the Enlightenment would want us to

This is not an article about human races, its the long throat-clearing before such an article. This article should be structured as follows:

# Introduction, listing of the races, with a link to each, pointing to picture Neighbor-joining_Tree.
# Minor throat-clearing (possibly with a reference to an article full of throat-clearing).
# More detailed discussion the modern taxonomy. If there's several ones, discussed they should be. 
# Historic taxonomies, briefly give an overview about older ways to classify humans, again pointing to a specialized article.

Please, for the sake of the enlightenment's ideals: stick your political agenda where the sun don't shine or keep in articles that discuss that. Of course you can write here that the models are debated, but an article on human races should primarily discuss, well, human races, and NOT the question how they came into place, if they're politically correct, lead to discrimination … those are all interesting concerns, but are ultimately their own subjects, and only pollute this article, which, I re-iterate, should be on human races. Mention the concerns and link to specialized articles on the topic. 80.219.22.194 (talk) 09:26, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is unusually long, and it probably ought to focus on the concept from which it gets its name. I'd suggest that Race debate, which currently just redirects right back to this article, be turned into a separate page and be allowed to adopt much of the "throat-clearing" from this one. Generally an article should not spend too much time questioning whether it has any basis in reality (although, for basic NPOV and context, some "minor throat-clearing" may indeed be necessary). As a matter of comparison, I've done a fair amount of work on the major depressive disorder article. There are some significant opinions that major depressive disorder does not exist, and some editors wanted to give those views particular emphasis. But no matter how much WP:WEIGHT those views may have, that weight impinges upon the intrinsic purpose of the article, which is to elucidate the concept after which the article is named. In the case of race, the debate may be even more prominent than that over depression, but the prominence of the debate could be all the more reason for it to have a separate article, and indeed to show up here in summary form (i.e., as "minor throat-clearing"). (All politics aside, this suggestion might present a reasonable way to trim this article into a WP:FA-worthy size. Again for a rough comparison, a significantly trimmed MDD page made FA, but even it left editors with substantial reservations about its length.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:15, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

This is an article about "race," not the specific human races, the very identifiaction of which has been rejected by most scientists and is under question by many more. What you consider "throat clearing" is what real scientists consider science. And this article is the product of considerable work by knowledgabl editors to present all significant views from reliable sources on the matter. And that is our policy . What is this "Enlightenment" bullshit? Do you think that your interpretation of the Enlightenment is the truth? The issue here is not whether we should be representing 18th century views of race - the Enlightenment established the importance of critical thinking as well as empirical research and scientists today do both, and as a result have learned things 18th century scholars did not know about human biology. But hat is not the point. The point is that Wikipedia does not present "the truth," not yours or mine. It presents all significant views from reliable sources. Point out a view that is not significant, or point out a source that is not reliable.

The exsistence of a Wikipedia article does not mean that the object refered to in the title exists. We have an article on God and that does not mean that God exists - or that he does not. We have an article on gravity, and physicists are really divided over how well they know what gravity really is, if indeed it exists at all - Newton thought it was a force, for Einstein it was just the visible sign of the shape of space-time. This article is on race, and if race is a controversial concept, we have to say so. If the meaning of race has changed over the centuries, we have to say so. if scientists debate whether the term applies to humans, we say so. This lagic that "we have an article on it so we have to talk about it as if it exists and everyone agrees about its definition or characteristics" is the worst form of sophistry. This is an extremely informative article on how scientists have used the term race. You do not like it perhpas for your own political or racial views. So what? We stick to significant vies from reliabl source. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally (for whatever it may be worth), I think that both 80.219.22.194 and Slrubenstein have worthy arguments here. But regardless of whose is stronger, I still think that the size issue needs to be addressed. At 71 kb readable prose, this article is really testing the limits of WP:SIZERULE. Creating a race debate article might be one way to address the issue. Perhaps there is a better way, but some route probably ought to be taken. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is a reasonable concern. My own view is that articles on controversial topics will necessarily be longer - to achieve NPOV and to be informative, they have to cover a lot of ground. But I agree this is a long article. Creating linked articles on specific topics is a common solution. But given the amount of time and effort that went into ensuring that this article is fully compliant with NPOV, V, and NOR, I think we just need to discuss proposed sollutions or changes first, and move cautiously. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:53, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Quote request

I have tagged the following assertion (currently in the article lead) as in need of a quotation for verification: "In the 20th century alone, race was the motivation and basis for genocide of tens of millions of people, including but not limited to Armenians, Australian indigenous people, Jews and Tutsis" (capitalization courtesy of yours truly). What is that even supposed to mean? For one thing, "race" is not a type of motivation. Power, hunger, pleasure--those are forms of motivation. They compel people toward action. But race?! Is there a race-devoid state that people yearn to fill? I thought the mere existence of race was up for debate. But now, not only does it obviously exist, but it's the driving force behind outrageous acts of human violence?! I have a hunch that, whenever the tagged statement is deciphered, it'll turn out to be a colossal oversimplification or distortion of the source material. Then again, maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it all really does boil down to "race = genocide", just like that. But the WP:BURDEN of evidence is not on me. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

P.S. The above doesn't reflect my usual tone on here, but it's discouraging to see not only what appears to be an attempt (however conscious or unconscious) to "smear" the concept of race, but what also seems to play the "genocide" card, period. Loring Brace, for example, can argue eloquently against the concept of race without ever invoking anything that dramatic. If nothing else, the tagged line emotionally outshines the rest of the lead, and this effect does not strike one as appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:57, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right. I deleted it. David.Kane (talk) 04:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Way too long.

There are articles within this article that can stand alone as their own pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrion20 (talk • contribs) 00:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

RACE AS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION

I feel like this section should be in the very beginning of the article. It shouldn't be tucked away in the middle of article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrion20 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Even before "history"? What would this accomplish--apart, that is, from taking things out of context and, in all likelihood, breaking WP:LAWS #14 (not a "law" in the sense of "policy", but the best summary of WP:NPOV I've ever seen)? I much prefer your suggestion that preceded this one: Take the stuff that isn't WP:SS with regard to race, and spin it out into daughter articles; make all key points arrive in better time. The challenge, of course, is figuring out where the heck to begin. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, after thinking about it, I do agree with your opinion. And yes, it is definitely difficult to pinpoint where to start. It's hard to organize concepts like this on a webpage when they are still are not fully understood by society. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrion20 (talk • contribs) 22:27, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Neanderthal admixture

Evidence has been presented of Neanderthal admixture in the DNA of non-African populations. --Millstoner (talk) 21:07, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion belongs in the article on human evolution. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps a new article titled Humanderthal Evolution. ;) --Millstoner (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Deletionism and race as basis for genocide during the 20th century

How could this article ignore some of the most known events of the 20th century into this article? You would be hard to pressed to find people alive who wouldn't have heard of the WWII holocaust, as an example. Significance/notability is clear.

There is no historical evidence of any ambiguity as to whether race was used to discriminate and target whole populations for genocide during the mentioned events, whatever it's particular definition was during each event. And no ambiguity as to whether in most cases race was the motivation at the same time for political and economical gain. A very accurate, verifiable contemporary reference is provided.

In other words, notability and verifiability have already been provided evidence for. Thus there are no credible, verifiable argument for deletion – although there might be room for alternate views if verifiable source can be provided. Casimirpo (talk) 15:51, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the statement again. I agree that the lead and the article should cover racist atrocities, but the cited examples ar enot really about race. Neither jews, armenians, or tutsis were persecuted on a strictly racial basis (ethnic and religious boundaries were equally or more important). The stolen generations doesn't really fit the description mass murder although it was clearly an attempt at cultural ethnocide (I think it was also culturally motivated rather than racially). I think we can get better examples of racially motiovated atrocities (e.g. eugenics). I also removed the statement that "race can be useful" based on the statement of one forensic anthropologist - we would need to show that this is a notable and widely held view and source it to more than just one person.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

The article already violated WP:SIZE. We need to shrink it, not expand it. Your additions may be correct and well-sourced, but they violate WP:UNDUE. If you wanted to substantially edit/cut other material so that WP:SIZE is met, I would have fewer problems with your addition. David.Kane (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

you can't violate WP:Size - that is a guideline and not a cause for removing material.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Maunus – your personal opinion on the motivation for genocide is not relevant. Please see WP:Verifiable. According to the source, race was the basis and motivation. --Casimirpo (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, if publication by Cambridge University Press containing referenced articles by 16 authors (historians) is not notable enough for you, feel free to try to find alternate or opposing views. Original research on "stolen generations" has no place here, please keep it to yourself. --Casimirpo (talk) 17:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Aaaand whats more: Note – the claim doesn't say "on a strictly racial basis" or as Cosmic Latte asked "explanation is... just race?". No, the source doesnt say strictly or only, but that the motivation behind the genocides was racial and that ideological basis was racial in all these cases (read the source on google books or research on these racist concepts: aryans, hamitic hypothesis, hamidians, half-caste koori.) How the acts were rationalized, or sold to the public, etc. varied considerably. It's a bitter pill to accept I suppose. --Casimirpo (talk) 17:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind providing the quote and/or the page number where it is explicitly stated that "race" was at the core of each of those genocides? I would like that because as the article demonstrates "race" can mean a nmumber of things and it would be relevant to know which meaning of race is used by the source when it states that those genocides were racially motivated.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

On page 51 Kiernan seems to conclude the opposite of what you argue when he says that "... virulent, violent mix of racism, religious prejudice, expansionism and the idealization of cultivation. Each of those factors is, of course, a relatively harmless component of nationalist ideology. Taken singly, non is a sufficient condition even for mass murder, but their deadly combination is a persistent feature of twentieth century genocide." This is exactly what I meant. It is incorrect and wildly reductionist to say that one single concept of "race" was at the root of the genocides mentioned, they were all much more complex phenomena that involved racial, religious, political and other ideological factors. Your own source draws this conclusion.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, read the sentence again. It doesn't imply that a 'one single concept of "race"' did anything – you are making things up. That reveals you are really not understanding the concept of "definition" in an Wikipedia article or the claim (sentence) at hand. In my opinion a little more background research would help you approach this.

It seems to me you think this is some simple arithmetical concept. The racially motivated genocides of the 20th century.

What Kiernan talks about is nationalism, not the dynamics behind racially motivated genocide. Please read the whole source. You are incorrectly quoting the source, and applying quotation into wrong context.

Look, just being motivated to delete this one claim wont get you anywhere, nor will Pick-and-mix-type editing. You have to read a quite few statements to get a historical perspective, not to mention perspective on century of racially motivated violence. --Casimirpo (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the generous serving of condescension. Kiernan's article is the only one in the article that explicitly has race as its topic and in the very last paragraph of that chapter he concludes that racism alone can not explain the genocides of the twentieth century. Perhaps you should provide other quotes where it is specifically mentioned that race and racist ideologies were the principal causes behind those genocides. You are accusing me of thinking this is some simple arithmetical concept, but I am the one arguing that you can't boil those genocides down to a single cause - and that is what the phrase in the lead does and that is why it is hyperbole.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

We have articles on both Racism and Genocide and it seems to me that those are the articles for a discussion of these views and sources. We can simply ensure that this article has links to those. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your point comes across as: never describe context or outcome, only link to it? Well, I linked from the statement describing context and outcome. Or do you have an actual argument? Well, the point here being - the concept of race leads to genocide and racism, and to provide historical perspective on how race as classification of human beings has served humanity. --Casimirpo (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be your point - but it is not the point of the source you use that "race as a classification of human beings has served humanity" in any particular way. It is the point of your source that race can be either a "harmless component of a national ideology" or participate in "a virulent and violent combination" with other concepts and then may eventually lead to genocide. You are making the source argue a point that the author of the source is not arguing - that is WP:SYNTH. And you are seemingly adamant about the article expressing a certain viewpoint about race as a classification of human beings namely "how it has served humanity". That is not objective science that is soapboxing. The definition in Wikipedia is when we describe the different views about a topic - "race is bad because it may cause genocide" is a view, but it is not the view argued by your source which is simply stating that racial concepts has been a participating component causing genocide - just like religion. Do you also argue that the lead of Religion should have a sentence describing the atrocities in human history in which religion has played a role? The purpose of this article is to describe what kind oif a concept "race as a classification of human beings" is and has been - not express a viewpoint about what the concept leads to.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Not quite correct. You can take your soap-box accusations to Cambridge University Press and the authors of the book. Even if my description of the claim is something, the claim itself is correct according to the source. Simply - race has been used as a motivation and basis for genocide.

The source clearly states many times, in different ways, that in each of the mentioned events, race was used as motivion or justification of some sort, as basis for actions against group of people perceived to belong to some "race". There is no ambiguiety about this, in the events mentioned. Verifiably.

The claim makes no statements as to whether the concepts of race are sometimes useful, harmless or not. Other parts of the article provide depth into that. It should be clear that genocide is never harmless. You also seem to think I should tackle all aspects of race in one paragraph? Or are you implying we focus only on the useful and harmless?

Also, note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles need to provide perspective and historical context, as well as definitions. Attacking claims that provide historical perspective might be justified in Wiktionary. I hope your zeal with this article will continue in regards to every otehr claim and statement. --Casimirpo (talk) 08:23, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you please provide those statements from the book then, at least the page numbers so I can verify it. As is now the claim is sourced to the entire book, and as I have shown the conclusion I have found in that very book contradict what you would have it say. And please quit twisting my statements or assuming that I am on some kind of racialist agenda if you knew just a little about my editing history you would know that that is not the case. ·Maunus·ƛ· 09:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to do that asap. I am not saying you have an racist agenda, or anything about your person, I am just countering or replying to your arguments here. Casimirpo (talk) 14:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I made this series of changes to the lead [1]. MathSci reverted them. I agree that the lead should summarize the article. I agree that this lead is a mess. My only claim is that my edits make the lead better than it was before. I did not expect that they would be controversial. What specific aspects does anyone object to? Much of it was just cleaning up the writing, better grammar, et cetera. David.Kane (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

This article goes on too much about what race is not

There a huge section about how human race is not a subspecies (maybe true), clade (true), or population (odd). But the article kind of forgets to mention that race is of taxonomic significance. Isn't this a bit backwards and unnecessary? Am I missing something? mikemikev (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the article should talk more about how race is basically a folk taxonomic system of social differentiation and stratification.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious I was talking about the biology section? mikemikev (talk) 19:28, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, then we could just cut the biology section. In biology race is a subspecies and biologists agree that there is only one subspecies of humans alive today, all humans are H. sapiens sapiens. People who use the folk taxonomy of race often believe they know something about biological differences among humans. So I see some reason to including a section on how scientists understand biological differences among humans. Besides, there is historical significance - it was only after scientists rejectes race as a robust way of studying biological difference samong humans, that social scientists developed theories of race as a folk taxonomic system of social differentiation and stratification. It certainly seems educational, which gets at the purpose of an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:07, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't "taxonomy" something that is used by zoologists? Just asking. Anyway, I was thinking about the first sentence as "The term race or racial group usually refers to the categorization of humans into populations or ancestral groups on the basis of various sets of perceived heritable characteristics" since the relevant characteristics (which are heritable) are ambiguous, and highly subjective. Steveozone (talk) 04:37, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

The word is probably most used by zoologists, but everybody uses taxonomic principles to classify beings and things as belonging to classes and subclasses of eachother. Most of these are "folk taxonomies" with no scientific basis. Racial classification of humans is one of those. ·Maunus·ƛ· 04:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Huh. Learn a new word everyday (today, I learned "syllogism" yet again) So, taxonomy as to humans is a matter of perception then, eh? Steveozone (talk) 04:57, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should drop the section. But it can be cut right down. A short discussion of how race is not a subspecies or clade, then a caveat that it is of scientific taxonomic significance.

This quote from Dawkins (The Ancestors Tale, 2004) seems eminently suitable:

We can happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes in forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn’t mean that race is of ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. This is Edward’s point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.

mikemikev (talk) 05:46, 17 May 2010 (UTC)