Talk:Race (human categorization)

Cherry picking in the lede?

The statement "Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries" chosen from [1], as a prelude to a however, under the heading: "Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population." mikemikev (talk) 18:30, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I used another source, but if you would like to include the additional statement (2), please do.Biophys (talk) 18:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph in the lead

According to biological studies, all human populations derive from a common ancestral group. There is also a greater amount of genetic diversity within regional human populations[21], with the geographic pattern of variation between these groups presenting less discontinuity in genes. This disproves the antiquated understanding of races as almost uniform groups of people that can be identified by a few visible traits[22]. Therefore other scholars in the fields of anthropology, sociology, biology, and genetics prefer to group shared traits along ethnic lines which correspond to a history of endogamy. [23][24][16]

According to biological studies, all human populations derive from a common ancestral group.

All living-things derive from a common ancestral group. So what?

There is also a greater amount of genetic diversity within regional human populations[21]

This is cherry picked, see above. It doesn't even make sense. "A greater amount of genetic diversity within regional human populations" than what? The fact that "two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population" is a more relevant fact, and a fact this sentence appears to be attempting to obscure.

with the geographic pattern of variation between these groups presenting less discontinuity in genes.

This doesn't make sense. "Less discontiniuity" than what?

This disproves the antiquated understanding of races as almost uniform groups of people that can be identified by a few visible traits.

While I agree that racial groups are not uniform (who thinks that?) this synth nonsense proves or disproves nothing. This sentence is sourced to P. Aspinall's Language matters: the vocabulary of racism in health care. Is that appropriate?

Therefore other scholars in the fields of anthropology, sociology, biology, and genetics prefer to group shared traits along ethnic lines which correspond to a history of endogamy.

Sourced to Loring Brace, who misses the wood for the trees in failing to see that taxonomic significance is a product of trait correlation, as do the AAA (a quasi-political body) in their endless parroting of Lewontin's fallacy. I find it hard to see how this complies with NPOV. Additionally the sentence is not supported by the sources.

Am I missing something? mikemikev (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not object any changes. It seems that the dispute is mostly about the politically correct terminology. Nothing will change if one replaces word "races" by "human populations" or "ethnic groups". Can they be distinguished genetically? Yes, certainly. Right? Does it mean "racism"? No, until someone makes a judgment that one ethnic group is better than another.Biophys (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

In zoology, mainstream opinion equates "race" with "subspecies" (see here as a good example). However, mainstream thought also recognizes that there isn't enough genetic diversity within the human species to form distinct subspecies, i.e. races. This is where Lewontin comes in: while about 85% of genetic variation present within the human species occurs within population groups, differences between population groups (the "classical races" for example) only accounts for 1-15% of the total genetic diversity of the human species. There are also dozens if not hundreds of excellent secondary sources which say that the "classical races" are in fact a social construct rather than a biological one, much less a "valid biological construct".--Ramdrake (talk) 17:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be making this up. Your reference for "mainstream opinion" is a WP article about cats. Is it a joke? Even if the between group difference was 1%, or 0.0001%, if it was observable and informative we would give it a name. The name we give it is "race", and in this sense it is not synonymous with subspecies. Now if it has no biological validity, why would it be a factor in medical indication (using terms 'black' and 'white'). What is the 85% within group variation anyway? Is it junk DNA? Do you have any idea? Why would this affect classification? Making stuff up. I intend to rewrite this paragraph. mikemikev (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re to Ramdrake: Please see my explanation above. As Ernst W. Mayr said, "a subspecies is a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name" [2]. Here, we talk about geographic races or populations that are taxonomically not worthy of a separate name. Nothing more, nothing less. All geographically isolated populations, which came from the same ancestor population, are genetically different and can be identified as such, no matter if they are people or animals. I can agree that there are some "classical races" (what it means? please provide definition!) which are in fact social constructs, but this has nothing to do with biology.Biophys (talk) 19:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not think you know what "social construct" means. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:07, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can console ourselves with the thought that we know what "objective reality" means. mikemikev (talk) 20:35, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re to Slrubenstein. Ramdrake and Mikemikev talked about Genetic divergence, not about social constructs. The "Genetic divergence" article correctly tells that "Genetic divergence will always accompany reproductive isolation, either due to novel adaptations or due to genetic drift, and is the principle mechanism underlying speciation." Are you disputing this? Biophys (talk) 20:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope. But this is precisely why race doesn't apply to humans. Humans occupy enough different geographic niches so that there are differences in gene frequencies among groups, but these groups are never clearly bounded. Unlike Darwin's finches, no human population has been genetically isolated long enough to diverge to any great degree. Take babies born in Ecuatorial rainforests and the Arctic, and switch them - they will adapt and survive in their new niches. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If you mean that there are no genetically divergent human populations (do you?), this is disputing the basics of population genetics when they apply to human populations. Such views belong HERE. "Switch babies...". Switch tiger and leopard. That's not an argument. Biophys (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are confusing clustering with divergence. aprock (talk) 16:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I talk about divergence of populations as basic evolution units, and others probably talk about clusters. This baby-switching argument reminds me scifi satire about aliens who switched two mothers by moving them from their own family to family of another women who lived in a remote location. After being surprised, each women realized where she was, fed children from another family and then moved back to her home town. The conclusion from a scientific study by the aliens: humans can not recognize their own children (otherwise, why would they fed children from another family), but they are territorial animals (moved back). Just kidding. The talk is becoming too tense.Biophys (talk) 22:59, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Biophys is thinking along the right lines: i.e. current scientific thinking rather than Neo-Lysenkoist rhetoric. Nobody thinks races are clearly bounded. Nobody thinks races are "diverged to a great degree" (where's the reference point there anyway?). But why then assert that "race does not apply to humans". It does not follow. mikemikev (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Just curious as to what we accept as isolation and long periods. I would think there are differences in physiques which make the equatorial baby and Arctic baby each more suited to their own environment, certainly the two populations they come from have been separated for a very long time. Whether the differences are race or merely adaptation is a different topic. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. A Maasai baby would have big problems in the Arctic. mikemikev (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement of Cavalli-Sforza et al misrepresented

These authors make the following statements:

1. We believe that there is no scientific basis for any claim that the pattern of human genetic variation supports hierarchically organized categories of race and ethnicity
2. We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population
3. We urge those who use genetic information to reconstruct an individual’s geographic ancestry to present results within the broader context of an individual’s overall ancestry
4. We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time
5. We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores, tendency towards violence, and degree of athleticism
6. We encourage all researchers who use racial or ethnic categories to describe how individual samples are assigned category labels, to explain why samples with such labels were included in the study, and to state whether the racial or ethnic categories are research variables
7. We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group
8. We encourage the funding of interdisciplinary study of human genetic variation that includes a broad range of experts in the social sciences, humanities and natural sciences
9. We urge researchers, those working in media, and others engaged in the translation of research results to collaborate on efforts to avoid overstatement of the contribution of genetic variation to phenotypic variation
10. We recommend that the teaching of

genetics include historical and social scientific information on past uses of science to promote racism as well as the potential impact of future policies; we encourage increased funding for the development of such teaching materials and programs for secondary and undergraduate education

In his multiply reverted edit Mikemikev stated finding number 2 and concluded, using another source (Dawkins): "Therefore, "race", when applied to humans, is of genetic and taxonomic significance." Perhaps Mikemikev could explain why he chose to misrepresent Cavalli-Sforza et al in this way. Mathsci (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's also worth mentioning that's he's misrepresenting Dawkins as well. aprock (talk) 01:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that you're now adding meaningless nonsense to WP? Why didn't you address my points? I haven't misrepesented anyone, I used almost direct quotes. This is disruptive. mikemikev (talk) 04:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

"“Race” is not a clearly defined word." That quote is from your Dawkins citation. The idea that you would cite Dawkins to support what you inserted is fantastic. aprock (talk) 06:45, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What I wrote was almost a direct quotation. You're basically saying that my source doesn't support itself, based on your own strange idea that things have to be defined with infinite precision to be of significance. mikemikev (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The word "therefore" has no meaning as used in Mikemikev's concatenation of two phrases for the lede. As quoted by Richard Dawkins (p 406-407), Richard Lewontin made the statement, "Human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of human and social relations. Since such racial classification is now seen to be of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance either, no justification can be used for its continuance." Dawkins discusses at length Lewontin's 1972 statement in his popular science book, but again he never makes the statement that Mikemikev has written. In fact, while personally disagreeing with it, Dawkins precedes this quote and a previous longer one from Lewontin with the statement, "Lewontin's view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles." Mikemikev does not seem to have used a direct quote from Dawkins. If Mikemikev is trying to paraphrase a personal statement of Dawkins, then he should give a precise quote with attribution and the pages on which that quote appears. In any event it cannot possibly be used in the lede if it is just Dawkins' personal opinion. Could Mikemikev please clarify himself? Mathsci (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm astonished that Mathsci has the audacity to expect a response to his ill-informed query. Perhaps Mathsci could address the more pressing issue of the huge logical holes in his train-wreck of an insertion above, before we discuss my use of the word 'therefore' (which I can justify) and the page number of the quote (which I can provide, are we looking at different editions Mathsci?). mikemikev (talk) 09:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I have the book in front of me. By all means cite the page number. aprock (talk) 14:32, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Responding to [3] in the appropriate place ...

If you read the entire section, instead of cherry picking quotes, you'll see that Dawkin's is specifically discussing whether or not you might infer qualities like hair color, etc. From page 410 of the hardcover (about three pages later). Inter-observer agreement suggests that racial classification is not totally uninformative, but what does it inform about? About no more than the characteristics used by the observers when they agree: things like eye shape and hair curliness - nothing more unless we are given further reasons to believe it. For some reason it seems to be the superficial, external, trivial characteristics which are correlated iwth race - perhaps especially facial characteristics. With respect to his "refutation" of Lewontin's fallacy, it's mostly about what the word virtually means. The idea that such a fine point be presented in the lead as an absolute refutation is synthesis. In fact, you will find that Dawkin's agrees that Lewontin's view is mainstream. From a half a page before your selected quote: Lewontin's view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles. aprock (talk) 19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Of course I read the section. The part I quoted is about genetic variation, the part you quoted is about observable traits.

The lead currently presents Lewontin's fallacy as fact. If you prefer we can use Edwards' paper as a source.

And no, the argument that there is 15% genetic variation between groups, therefore race is of no taxonomic sigficance is simply flawed, virtually or otherwise. mikemikev (talk) 20:18, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It's clear that Dawkins is well aware that that particular view is not mainstream. aprock (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can be sure that the word 'orthodoxy' from Dawkins isn't approving. It's been 7 years since Edwards released his paper, I would imagine most are familiar with the fallacy by now. But are you actually suggesting that we present Lewontin's fallacy as mainstream? mikemikev (talk) 20:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting anything beyond the fact that you are misrepresenting Dawkins. aprock (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Ridiculous. mikemikev (talk) 21:04, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to have gone out of your way deliberately to misrepresent two sources. Why did you do that? Mathsci (talk) 23:19, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Mathsci misrepresented Sforza.

His edit was from: Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups

The full statement: Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population

Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries [3,5,13,14] . Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution [14-17] . This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns.

My edit was from :We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population, which is clearly the intended point.

Why doesn't Mathsci acknowledge this so we can move on? mikemikev (talk) 05:41, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cherrypicking from a source as a means of proving the opposite of what is stated there is just disruptive editing. It's what's called misrepresenting the source. Users continually making disruptive edits or suggestions of this kind normally end up having restrictions imposed on their editing privileges. Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

(I saw this at that Arbom case here) Mikemikev is BLATANLY misrepresenting the source by cherrypicking the text. This text is against using races as a classification, and at least calling that these classifications are carefully evaluated.

All the places where the source says that using races for complex traits is naive, that current evidence points at environment factors, that science has being used to push racist ideologies, etc.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
(Statement 5) We caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in complex traits, especially for human behavioral traits such as IQ scores, tendency towards violence, and degree of athleticism Among the most pervasive and pernicious claims of genetically determined traits are theories on the racial ordering of intelligence [21,22] . Despite the weak scientific basis for such ordering, the consistent return to the rhetoric of racial hierarchies of IQ reflects the powerful role that science has historically played in promoting racist ideologies [23] . Current evidence suggests that for most complex behavioral traits, contribution of any one gene to normal variation is small and these traits may be more fully explained by variation in environmental factors. We therefore caution against making the naive leap to a genetic explanation for group differences in a complex behavioral trait, where environmental and social factors clearly can and do play major roles [24,25] . (Statement 7): We discourage the use of race as a proxy for biological similarity and support efforts to minimize the use of the categories of race and ethnicity in clinical medicine, maintaining focus on the individual rather than the group. Overemphasizing the genetic contribution to complex human disease or behavioral traits can promote not only racism, but also a naive genetic essentialism - the notion that genes determine health status or behavior [28-30] (Statement 9): We urge researchers, those working in media, and others engaged in the translation of research results to collaborate on efforts to avoid overstatement of the contribution of genetic variation to phenotypic variation Scientific data are often quickly politicized and incorporated into specific policy agendas without extensive explanation of the scientific research and its details [33-35] . Often lost in the announcement of scientific findings is discussion of the limitations of the research. Our hope is that scientific data about human genetic variation might undermine spurious popular beliefs about the existence of biologically distinct human races and beliefs that support racist ideologies. (Statement 10): We recommend that the teaching of genetics include historical and social scientific information on past uses of science to promote racism as well as the potential impact of future policies; (in conclusion) History reminds us that science may easily be used to justify racial stereotypes and racist policies. (...) chances that scientific research inadvertently contributes either to inequities between groups or to the abuse of human rights. Disagreements did arise during these discussions. For example, biomedical scientists tended to accept that such labels could be used as neutral descriptors of groups of individuals, whereas scholars in the social sciences and humanities tended to question whether such labels could be stripped of embedded sociohistorical meaning. However, dialog and the discovery of language that worked across disciplinary boundaries enabled us to clarify our perspectives and find many points of agreement. This workshop statement constitutes one step in an ongoing, open dialog that takes into account the potential for misinterpretation or misuse of research in human genetic variation.(...)

--Enric Naval (talk) 11:55, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll reply with what I wrote in the Arbcom case:

What you need to bear in mind is that my edit was an improvement. If "We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population" was cherry picked, "Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups" was even more cherry picked and out of context. All I was trying to do was bring the article closer to the intended meaning of the source, which I did. What you're doing now is comparing my edit to some perfect imaginary interpretation, and not applying the same standard to Mathsci. This[4][5] edit verges on the embarrassing. I'm trying to engage in dialogue in order to improve it, in order to improve WP, and all I'm getting is pure hostility, nothing constructive. I gave a thorough deconstruction on the talk page, why has nobody responded? I mean, are you all such experts in genetics that what I wrote doesn't deserve a response? Or is the reality that I'm facing the "races only exist as social constructs" club, who feel that their self-assumed moral authority excuses them from any kind of knowledgeable discussion? Proper sourcing does not mean cherry picking statements out of context to synthesize a POV, whether that POV is mainstream or otherwise. mikemikev (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

That is NOT the intended meaning of the source, as anyone who reads beyond the second statement can perfectly see. If you are misrepresenting sources, like you did here, then you can only expect that people complains about your edits. If you keep misrepresenting sources, then of course people will complain even louder. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:09, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

You're not addressing the point. I don't claim that my edit was perfect, but it was closer to the wider meaning of the source than what was before. Instead of attacking me, why don't you suggest something better, and/or apply the same criticism to Mathsci and Ramdrake for supporting a worse example of the problem you're referring to. This is a double standard. mikemikev (talk) 12:07, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Your edit was NOT closer to the meaning of the source. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm prepared to go over this as many times as necessary. You can be as "loud" as you want. This is the statement in question:

"Statement 2: We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups, where those groups are defined in terms of linguistic, geographic, and cultural boundaries [3,5,13,14] . Patterns of variation, however, are far from random. We recognize that human population history, including major migrations from one continent to another as well as more short-range movements, has led to correlation between genetic variation and geographic distribution [14-17] . This finding is particularly true of indigenous peoples; populations characterized by a high degree of interaction with neighboring groups adhere less to these patterns."

Is the intended meaning of this statement:

A) "Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups."

B) "We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population."

Note especially the however, in "Patterns of variation, however, are far from random." It's quite clear that Sforza wishes to indicate that "Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups" is commonly misconstrued to be of importance, when it actually indicates little.

Whether or not "Mainstream POV" is that "race is not scientific", you need to use a source which reasons to that conclusion from first principles, not randomly pick quotes which in your opinion support that hypothesis.

My use of We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population was closer to the wider meaning of the source than Research in human genetics has highlighted that there is more genetic variation within than between human groups. mikemikev (talk) 09:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that your interpretation is at odds with the rest of the document. In one of my posts above, in a collapsable section, I highlighted some of the parts I considered relevant. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you think "We recognize that individuals of two different geographically defined human populations are more likely to differ at any given site in the genome than are two individuals of the same geographically defined population" is at odds with the rest of the document, your problem is with Sforza, not me. mikemikev (talk) 13:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll just observe that the quoted sections you provide do not mention race. Using the above quotes, which are about population groups, to make inferences about race is WP:SYNTH. aprock (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The seeming "contradiction" between the two statements is easily sorted out if one reads the references cited by Cavalli-Sforza paper. The paper basically sez there are no existing distinct biological races in homo sapiens, but there are culturally defined races. On average, when comparing some site on the genome for any two individuals of different geographical groups we are more likely to see greater genetic variation than when comparing any two individuals of the same geographical group, but only slightly more. "Geologically defined groups" are not the same thing as "biologically defined races". Human genetic variation is not purely random, -- naturally small population groups that are reproductively isolated will be expected to have less genetic variation compared with population groups which have reproductive contacts with other population groups, so there is no surprise to find some correlation between geography and genetic variation. So it's not that there is absolutely no relationship, but mikemikev's is over-emphasizing it exactly as the paper cautions should not be done.

Does anybody else think this lead needs work? One, it quickly fixates on the current biology of race issue, and fails to summarize key points that are covered in most of the rest of the article. And two, all this tweaking has left it a bit confusing. For example, "self-identified race/ethnicity" and "forensic anthropology"? The subjects of forensic anthropology can't "self-identify" anything, right? And I don't understand what the sentence "Race serves to indicate essential types of individuals or fuzzy sets of people's traits" is trying to say". Professor marginalia (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I did over-emphasize it. But it was a nudge in the right direction.

Yes, the lead needs work. "The subjects of forensic anthropology can't "self-identify" anything, right?" Lol, it's just bizarre. Slrubenstein has reinserted Lewontin's fallacy and synthesized an argument from it again also. I've explained this enough I think. I could help fix it, and I'd be happy to cooperate to do that, but I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall. To be frank I'm hoping Arbcom will apply a restriction. We shall see. mikemikev (talk) 10:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your definition about what the right direction would be doesn't qualify, and you're not allowed to slip it into place and disguise it with cites which claim the reverse.

And I don't see how the confusing sentence has anything to do with the Lewontin fallacy either. The words are simply tangled up. Forensic anthropologists use clusters of morphological features to try and come up with reliable assumptions to identify the ancestry of skeletal remains. They will use SIRE in studies testing the reliability of their methods, and then can apply tested methods to subjects that can't self-identify. Professor marginalia (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes it qualifies, I've explained how. More?

The connection is Slrubenstein, the common factor in the garbled mess that is this article. Are you sure that your highly dubious insight into the methods of forensic anthropology, even if true, is a notable enough fact to be in the lead? mikemikev (talk) 16:13, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, your opinion of biological race does not qualify. I'll assume you misunderstood my statement here rather than presume you're defending substituting your own opinions for those made in the reference given. My "highly dubious" insights come from the sources attached to the claim. Do you bother reading the cites, or do you treat them as frivolous baubles we merely attach to claims to give the illusion they are referenced therein? Professor marginalia (talk) 17:22, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall editing my opinion into the article. I recall replacing a misrepresentation of Sforza with what he actually meant. I don't think there is much to understand in your statement, just the usual context free disparagement that you copy paste in when you don't like someone's edit.

Why would I read the cites to know that self-informed race is not a big part of forensics? It's just obvious. Can you reference the place in the cites where this is expressed? mikemikev (talk) 17:32, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You did not replace a misrepresentation of Sforza. You infer "race" where it says "geographically defined" populations, and when it comes to whether or not "biological races" exist today in the human species, most agree the measured differences between even "geographically defined" populations are too slim for "geographically defined" human populations to qualify as "biological races". In other words, because the ratio between "similarity" and "difference" weighs so heavily on "similarity", then by the definitions of race which are applied to other biological organisms, the consensus is that human beings today do not descend from nor can be sorted into separate or distinct biological races. (This opinion is shared by Cavalli-Sforza who is a widely cited reference for published analyses of F_st statistics and genetic distances between such populations). You can't quote mine Cavalli-Sforza et al to cherry pick a statement which implies they're confirming race in human beings as biological-the text clearly does not. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I will be happy to discuss this, but just for future reference, can you clear up whether or not the cites support the use of SIRE or something similar in forensic anthropology? mikemikev (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No? OK.

I know some people don't agree that the differences are too slim for geographically defined human populations to qualify as biological races, because F_st statistics are calculated using mainly neutral loci, which have no bearing on the phenotype, and haven't been subject to selection. Basically, we all share pretty similar junk DNA. So what? The simple fact is that we just don't know yet. mikemikev (talk) 18:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

But actually I'm getting your point about inferring "race" where it says "geographically defined" populations. This would also mean the phrase "There is a greater amount of genetic diversity within regional human populations than between those groups" is irrelevant, right? mikemikev (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

"In his article about nonmetric skull racing, Rhine designed a study to test the various methods that had until then been in use by members of the Mountain, Desert and Coastal group of forensic scientists. He gathered a list of morphological traits (blah blah) then documented their occurrence in 87 skulls of "known race" (blah blah) Rhine never explains how the race of the individuals in the sample became known but one is led to believe that it was either self-reported or attribution based on soft-tissue appearance shortly after death." Self-identification or self-reported specimens are available for study when bodies are donated to science after death.

And no, it isn't irrelevant that the genetic diversity is small. From another of Cavalli-Sforza's papers, he lays out that using standards biologists typically apply to all other populations of organisms, the diversity is too small (it's approx half the necessary threshold) for "race" to have taxonomic significance in biology. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There's no official arbitrary threshold. How could there be when we don't understand what most of the genome is doing? Taxonomy is flexible. mikemikev (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, they have set some standard criteria, for example an F_st statistic of at least .25 (see the article's section "Subspecies genetically differentiated populations"). Oh, what fools these experts be. But ours is not to reason why. So maybe instead of superimposing what the experts should be concluding with our own hypotheses about where to draw these lines, we should just accept that, fools though they may be, wikipedia's rules require us to remember how insignificant our opinion about the topic is here. Their opinions count. Ours don't. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, that's just my incidental opinion. I apologize for using WP as a WP:FORUM. You brought up F_st anyway. But I think we agree that both versions of the quote are undesirable, since they talk about "geographically defined" populations. So I removed it. mikemikev (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Restoring a much earlier version of the lede

This is not the way wikipedia is edited and displays an unhelpful cavalier attitude to other editors. In the present case Mikemikev has been been editing disruptively. David.Kane is not a disinterested party, since he has supported disruptive edits of Mikemikev elsewhere and his personal view that race is a biological attribute is also on record. Wikipedia is edited in a cumulative incremental step-by-step manner, not by a single user declaring themselves as some kind of arbiter on a preferred version. That is a waste of everybody's time and an irresponsible act not justified by any of wikipedia core editing policies. Mathsci (talk) 20:40, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Which specific aspects of my edit do you find incorrect? Please seek consensus on controversial changes rather than defending them reflexively. Better: Please allow other editors to chime in with their opinions. And, for clarification, a month ago is not "much earlier." (And, for the record, I find that version of the lead to be problematic at well.) David.Kane (talk) 20:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Mathsci. Everyone, let's work with last version and do minor improvements. I suggest for David.Kane to self-revert. People, you edit war during standing Arbcom case.Biophys (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Biophys's very wise suggestion. Please, David.Kane, could you self-revert? Mathsci (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Apologies. I was away from Wikipedia for day. In any event, Aprock has reverted. I will look at the specific issues involved later. David.Kane (talk) 19:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The version that David.Kane reverted to was supported by consensus for around two months. It was the outcome of this discussion in May, and wasn’t changed at all until July. If there hasn’t been any consensus for subsequent changes to the lead since this version—and that seems to be the case—reverting to the last version that had a clear consensus seems like a reasonable thing to do.

This doesn’t mean the version David.Kane reverted to has to be something we stick with in the long run, but before making any significant changes to it we ought to discuss them and obtain consensus for them. So far, that hasn’t happened yet. --Captain Occam (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Neither David.Kane nor you have engaged in discussion on this, and the default position at wikipedia isn't "article lockdown until mikemikev is satisfied". Care to explain why you'd defend holding this page in lock up until mikemikev gives his consent to changes? Professor marginalia (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

“Neither David.Kane nor you have engaged in discussion on this”

Yes, we have, and I linked to where we discussed it in my previous comment. The discussion which resulted in the version that David.Kane reverted to occurred from May 15th to May 20th, and the resulting version of the lead went unchallenged for two months.

If you look at the article edit history, you’ll see that the way the recent conflict over the lead started was that Biophys made several large changes to the lead without discussing them first. There was nothing wrong with him doing that—it’s just being bold—but it also meant that someone who disagreed with his edits might end up reverting them. What happened instead was that Adhan24 made several more large changes to the lead, still without discussing them. Finally, Mikemikev modified the lead a third time, resulting in his edit war with Ramdrake.

The underlying problem here is that there was never a consensus for Biophys’s and Adhan24’s changes to the lead in the first place. These changes have apparently resulted in an inherently unstable state for the lead, which had previously been stable for two months. What David.Kane has done is basically just a delayed BRD response: reverting all of the recent non-consensus changes to the last version of the lead which had consensus, and then stating that these changes ought to be discussed before they’re added back, presumably starting with the changes from Biophys and Adhan24. Since he’s reverted all of Mikemikev’s recent edits in the process, I don’t see how you think this is the same thing as taking Mikemikev’s side here. --Captain Occam (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

((Two handed face palms)).............Because the only parties locked in paralyzing stand-offs in any of these intervening months of editing are mikemikev and those objecting to his edits. Delayed BRD? That's an understatement, to be sure ... extremely delayed, since David.Kane's reverted twice within the space of days unwinding months of edits (he's only claimed one month, while you say two) but has yet at any point in these past two months to discuss any one of the intervening edits he's reverted. Nor have you discussed any of it substantively. G-A-M-E. Professor marginalia (talk) 07:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is it such a surprise that we haven’t contested any of Biophys’ and Adhan24’s changes until recently? Until the recent edit war between Mikemikev and Ramdrake, there was no evidence that these changes had resulted in any amount of instability, but at this point there is. The problems with both Mikemikev’s and Ramdrake’s preferred versions of the article have also been discussed extensively above, and it’s clear that neither version has consensus. The fact that we didn’t participate in this discussion isn’t no reason to avoid returning the article to the most recent consensus version.

Also, claiming that David.Kane undid “months of edits” is wrong, and you’ll see that if you look at the edit history. The version of the lead to which he reverted existed for two month, but it wasn’t modified until July 15th.

Like it or not, undoing a large number of changes which didn’t have consensus is a fairly common thing to do, even if it’s done by someone who didn’t discuss those edits when they were first made. Mathsci and Ramdrake have both done this on other articles, and argued that it was a valid thing to do in those cases, so unless they’re going to engage in hypocrisy they would have to feel similarly in this case. In light of your comments about this in the ArbCom case, I also have a hard time believing that your own opposition to this action is rooted in anything other your general opposition to Mikemikev as an editor, and your feeling that David.Kane and I are “taking his side”. If you aren’t willing or able to come up with any content problems with the version that David.Kane reverted to, the procedural issues that you’re complaining about appear to be nothing but WP:JDLI. --Captain Occam (talk) 07:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Have I spoken of mikemikev, ever, except in regards to the improperly sourced to Dawkins edit in the lead here? I know this is a confusing dispute, one that seems to continue to spread into ever more articles, and I just finished apologizing for a screw-up that I caught myself making. But how was the article "stable" for two months of editing until Ramdrake reverts mikemikev's bogus editing, which you then claim as evidence of "lack of consensus" for the intervening edits by Biophys’s and Adhan24's? My "opposition to this action" is that it's the same kind of flimflam, bluster, mischaracterization and obfuscation that's already wasted hundreds of hours of babysitting. Professor marginalia (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When I say that the lead section (I’m not talking about the whole article, just the lead) was stable for two months, what I mean is that everyone appeared to be satisfied with it and only minor changes were made to it during that time. Compare this version of the lead from May 16th to this version from July 12th. There have been some minor (and non-contentious) clarifications of the lead’s wording, but that’s all.

And the reason why the changes made by Biophys and Adhan24 didn’t have consensus is just because they weren’t discussed. Consensus can’t exist without discussion. I didn’t have a strong opinion about these changes when they were first made, but since they’ve ignited an edit war over a part of the article that had previously been stable for two months, it seems obvious to me (and apparently also to David.Kane) that these changes shouldn’t be included in the article until there’s a consensus for them. --Captain Occam (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Re to Captain. No, I do not have any serious objections to edits by Adhan24 [6]. We had consensus with him. But I object to edit by Davit.Kate, mostly because it was revert to an old version. If he wants to gradually improve article by staring from the last version, I have absolutely no objections. A consensus can exist without discussion, simply by default (that is if no one objects).Biophys (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's tell this differently. I am totally uninvolved and never edited these articles. I made a few non-controversial edits to NPOV the introduction (this version [7], 2nd and 3rd paragraphs). Second paragraphs tells that races do exist in biological sense. Third paragraph tells that the popular understanding of races as almost uniform groups of people is misconception. This provides some balance. Adhan24 decided to modify this version, although in a POVish fashion, and another editor added some refs. This is fine. Now it's my turn to modify something. But reverts to an older version force me to leave this article, because being involved in confrontations is something I can not afford.Biophys (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus exists by default when nobody objects to a change, then something is seriously wrong with the way Mathsci and Ramdrake have handled the editing of these articles. There have been examples of both of them deleting content that had been in articles for several months, without any consensus (and sometimes no discussion) about removing it, and the justification they’ve provided for doing this was the assertion that there had not originally been a consensus for it when it was first added. Both of them argued so vigorously that this is the standard way of handling situations like these that I’ve assumed that it is. Was I wrong to assume that?

Race and intelligence is the only article I’ve been involved in that’s controversial enough that anybody would even consider reverting this many changes at once, so the only thing I can use as a my basis for understanding of what’s “normal” in this respect is how I’ve seen it handled on these articles. If I’m wrong about this and what Mathsci and Ramdrake have been doing isn’t normal, I’d appreciate you letting me know how situations like this are supposed to be handled. In this case, when Ramdrake reverted around two months of changes with the justification that there hadn’t been a consensus for them, some of the content that he removed still hasn’t been added back to the article since then. If this wasn’t a valid thing for him to do, is there anything that ought to be done about the long-term effects it’s had on the article?

I mentioned before that I don’t have a strong opinion in terms of content about the changes that you made, nor do I think you did anything wrong by making them. As I said, you were just being bold. What matters to me is just that the lead be in a state that’s supported by enough of a consensus that there won’t be edit warring over it. If it can be stable with the most recent changes from Aprock, David.Kane and Enric Naval, then I’ll be fine with letting it stay in that state going forward, as long as it can be kept in a state that’s consistent with NPOV. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:31, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

<= Since I've only made 13 edits to the article, two of those in July and the rest in May, it's very hard to make any sense of what Captain Occam has written. Is Captain Occam expressing his approval of Mikemikev's edits? What else is he suggesting was deleted? As far as I am aware, I formulated the general statement about physical anthropologists and race-related medicine in the lede, although it has subsequently been slightly modified. Ramdrake and I are different users who both disagreed with the recent disruptive edits of Mikemikev, which were his own sole doing and misrepresented the sources. A whole series of other editors have expressed their agreement here and on the corresponding ArbCom pages. Captain Occam seems uneasy at accepting that. On this talk page he has appeared to support the actions of Maikemikev and David.Kane, both of which were disruptive. Note that David.Kane did not self-revert, despite the request.

Mikemikev's two sentences did not satisfy WP:V and misrepresented both sources, Those sentences have been removed and replaced with something sensible. David.Kane's disruptive rollback did not have the approval of other users: it was reverted by me and Aprock, with the approval of multiple editors. Mathsci (talk) 06:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

When I refer to your and Ramdrake’s editing of “these articles”, I’m referring to more than just this article individually. That should be clear from the fact that the example I provided in Ramdrake’s case involved the Race and intelligence article, not this one.

The rest of your comment doesn’t warrant a response, in my opinion. There’s nothing to be gained from my re-explaining what I’ve just explained to Marginalia in the comments above, and it appears to be a moot point now anyway. --Captain Occam (talk) 06:46, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is not a reasonable response. Please keep your reponses to edits to this article. Otherwise you are simply wasting time. I hardly edit any of these articles now, unlike you. Mathsci (talk) 11:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Aspinall

If this "rollback" is reverted, a second look should be given to the claim "This disproves the antiquated understanding of races as almost uniform groups of people that can be identified by a few visible traits" sourced to Aspinall. Maybe I'm just missing it, but I can't find this discussed in the text--the article seems to me to be devoted to discontinuing antiquated terminology, such as "Negro", "Oriental" etc. Professor marginalia (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I will remove this sentence. David.Kane (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hum, I had the nagging feeling that this was leaving a gap in that paragraph. I moved Cavalli-Sforza to source the "less discontinuity between groups" bit. Also from him, I added "and there is no scientific basis for hierarchically organized categories based in race and ethnicity". --Enric Naval (talk) 00:50, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I am going to try to clean up the lead a bit. Comments, suggestions and requests welcome. I may also take out the pruning shears by moving much of the history material into the various sub articles. Time for some boldness! David.Kane (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice one. Before I knew this I removed the most heavily disputed phrase entirely while you were in the middle of it. I'm hoping this will be an acceptable compromise. mikemikev (talk) 19:36, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to find an angle to prune the subspecies section. It needs to be done, but I can't work it out. Will keep thinking. mikemikev (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I think David's last removal of sources from the lede is a move in the right direction.

I see there are still plenty of edits going on here. Just as with the topic of human intelligence (a topic on which I do much of my professional research), for the topic of anthropology, human biology, and race I expect first of all to gather lots of sources in a citations list on my user space, and to hold off on most substantive edits of articles until I have more sources at hand. (For this topic, most of the sources I now have at hand relate mostly to human intelligence. Other sources will come into my office as I do more library runs or download more sources that have online full-text access.) But it is surely correct anywhere on Wikipedia to prefer mainstream secondary sources to newly published (possibly unreplicated) primary sources, so edits that go in the direction of removing sources (and attached statements) that not preferred Wikipedia sources will help Wikipedia articles shrink to reasonable size and help editors communicate more clearly about which factual statements belong in each article as NPOV, due weight representations of current scholarship. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Which "mainstream secondary sources" would you most recommend for this article? Ideal would be ones available on-line in some format. I don't know much about this literature. David.Kane (talk) 20:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The most prominent journals are all on-line, although usually only university libraries subscribe to them. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Alas, David's editing process in the lede (always the most contentious part of an article to edit in any long article on a controversial topic) ran ahead of the source-gathering process, and an edit subsequent to my comment that opened this section has been identified by an administrator as a disruptive edit. It's prudent to source first and edit later. There is a lot to be learned from the best sources on the topic of this article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Continued disruptive edits of first paragraph of lede.

It's long past time to discuss sources first, and edits later, for this article. I just picked up the latest biography of Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza at my friendly local academic biography while attending a conference of mathematics teachers this weekend, and once again I am appalled at how some of the recent edits misrepresent the findings of leading researchers on the subject and how much they push a point of view. The ArbCom decision in the Race and Intelligence case should clarify some of the editor conduct issues here soon, but meanwhile let's use the article talk page to lay out sources, and calmly discuss those before making substantive changes in the text of the lede. Wikipedia must rely on reliable sources by policy, so changes in article text not based on sources will have to stay out of this contentious article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

That's a serious accusation Weiji. Can you substantiate it? My edit was made in good faith. Also, do you think racial classification is based on "cultural and social" factors? It's BS and you know it. The first sentence was already unsourced. mikemikev (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You inserted an attempt to define by biological characteristics. That is one perspective, it would not be present in most of anthropology for example. The lede has to present a balanced view, not that of a particular faction or theory.--Snowded ^TALK 15:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded that the lead should be balanced. My understanding is that human race is based upon both social and biological characteristics. Isn't that widely accepted? That is, what is classified as "white" is different in, say, the US and Brazil (and so is social) but, at the same time, there are biological/genetic differences, at least on average, between different racial groups in all societies. That is, race is not purely social or purely biological. Comments welcome. David.Kane (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of race is subject to social and cultural factors, but the classification is always based on observed heritable traits. mikemikev (talk) 15:41, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

There is not going to be a single agreed definition. Some argue for biology, some for social, some for mixed. Some modern anthropology links to biological changes in the DNA within a few generations so inheritance is not the only determinant even of biology. It is a messy complex field and the best that can be hoped for is to indicate those differences. Classification is not always based on "observable heritable traits", that is just one school of thought. To be honest I think the debate here should be in suspension until the ARBCOM case on a related article is complete. To illustrate my point I recently set as an exam question (in relation to the Discworld series "Is Captain Carrot a dwarf". The answers covered a wide range (mostly well referenced) of answers--Snowded ^TALK 15:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, have a good evening. Over and out. mikemikev (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be useful to seek out reputable sources which in and of themselves discuss any given debate and objectively represent all sides to the debate so that we can relate what reliable scholarship states, not our self-constructed tit-for-tat / he-said-she-said versions under the guise of NPOV = "leave it to the reader" and which also inevitably lead to accusations of editorial infidelity to the topic. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:48, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. But the first sentence "Race refers to the classification of humans into populations or groups based on various factors such as culture, social practice or heritable characteristics" is unsourced. It seems obvious to me that racial classification is based on heritable characteristics alone (ie. it can be done with photographs). I'm pretty sure that in the absence of sourcing "various factors such as culture, social practice or" should be left out as the default position. We already have "Conceptions of race, as well as specific ways of grouping races, vary by culture and over time, effectively functioning as folk taxonomies" as the second sentence to clarify the matter. mikemikev (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your "pretty obvious to me" editing is causing everyone trouble. Gimme five minutes and I'll source it. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm really sorry about all the trouble. It just seems like absolutely obvious BS to me. Perhaps I'm just a dumbass. mikemikev (talk) 21:26, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I tell you what, I'll change it, and when you get a source, you can change it back. mikemikev (talk) 21:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - it took me 20 minutese. The citation was obstinately refusing to format for me nicely. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll assume you failed to notice my citation beat you. I recommend you revert your edit, thank you. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

mikemikev, when you write, "It seems obvious to me that racial classification is based on heritable characteristics alone (ie. it can be done with photographs)," you make a statement for which there are hundreds of thousands (perhaps tens of millions) of counterexamples. (I am a first-degree relative of some persons for whom your statement doesn't work.) But if you want to put statements that are obvious to you into an encyclopedia, it is first of all your obligation to find reliable secondary sources to back up the statements. I'll be doing some reading of some of the latest professional handbooks I've just circulated from my state's flagship university library over the next few days. Reading serious academic books is good for the mind, and I highly recommend it. Try to find some books that challenge what seems obvious to you, and see what you learn from those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:43, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

(I am a first-degree relative of some persons for whom your statement doesn't work.) How's that? Please stop patronizing me also. We got an unsourced statement sourced, I'm not arguing. mikemikev (talk) 21:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is quite amusing. Do think I could get a rough idea of the race of your first-degree relatives from looking at a photo, and no idea from knowledge of their language and culture in the absence of knowledge of heritable traits? You seem to be confusing fuzzy sets and classification criteria. mikemikev (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I recall seeing some studies about this a while ago: here, here, and here. According to these studies, when people attempt to judge someone else’s race based on visual appearance, it usually lines up with that person’s self-identification, although not 100% of the time. So Mikemikev is right that this is usually possible based on heritable characteristics alone, but WeijiBaikeBianji is right that there are notable exceptions where it isn’t. --Captain Occam (talk) 00:58, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev writes that he can determine race by looking at photographs. How is this relevant to this discussion? If the article on racial hygiene were being discussed, it would be relevant, since in the 1936 edition of Rassenhygiene easy-to-use photographs, frontal and in profile, were inserted to allow easy recognition of different races by ordinary Germans in the street. The book is viewable on archive.org but I don't think an English translation was ever made. Mathsci (talk) 04:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not really the point. It's just an illustration of the principle that language and culture are not considered in the classification. Some people seem to be bashing some kind of "100% certainty discrete classification from photographs" strawman (and even descending to "the Nazi's thought it therefore it's wrong"). The point is that language and culture are not factors in racial classification, it's obvious. But that's my opinion (and the opinion of medical science, which is apparently trumped by the opinion of cultural anthropology and the encyclopedia brittanica, who am I to argue?). Why don't you stop going on about it? mikemikev (talk) 08:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Its far from obvious and if you check up on medical science and biology you will find your views are not shared. Check up on the work of Odling-Smee and others on lactose intolerance if you want an example of culture and biology stepping hand in hand. The Nazi issue is a real one. Just cause they thought it does not make it wrong, but when it relates to issues of race it should trigger some caution before making bold statements. --Snowded ^TALK 08:49, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be totally irrelevant even if the racial differences were entirely caused by historical cultural differences (they aren't of course, but to some degree). The differences in themselves are genetic. mikemikev (talk) 10:07, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

On one theory of Race Mike, but its not the only one as you should know by now. If you look at the exaption literature you might see that some of your statements are increasingly been challenged --Snowded ^TALK 11:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Would you be so kind as to reference some of this paradigm shifting scholarship? mikemikev (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well exaptation is interesting, not sure its paradigm shifting. A quick search on Odling-Smee will get you material. Then of course there is mass of material on the biological end of anthropology. You might like to look up Not by genes alone by Peter Richardson. The merger of cognitive science with aspects of philosophy of mind and anthropology is also interesting. Neither Brain not Ghost by Rockwell will give you a starting point there. Of course you won't find it obsessed with race. Hope that's useful, unless of course, God forbid, you were attempting sarcasm. --Snowded ^TALK 15:37, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Mikemikev: "The definition of race is subject to social and cultural factors, but the classification is always based on observed heritable traits." Well, no. Just ... no. Untrue. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Better first sentence?

Thanks to Professor marginalia for providing such a good source from Encyclopædia Britannica for the first sentence. Looking at that source, the key sentence seems to be "“Race” is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history." I am thinking of rewriting our first sentence to be much closer to this. Comments? David.Kane (talk) 00:14, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:PSTS, Encyclopedia Britannica would be considered a tertiary source. I don’t think that’s necessarily a problem, but I know some people have been of the opinion that these articles should be based on nothing but secondary sources. Do other people think we should cite a tertiary source for this part of the article? --Captain Occam (talk) 00:44, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@David.Kane. This is the introduction and needs to be more encompassing. It's clear from reading the whole article that at times they're talking about what people tend to first presume race is, at others what scientists (physical anthropologists primarily) formerly defined race as, and now what is generally considered to encompass these and other shifting definitions within a broader, sociologically ("culturally") based classification which means different things in different cultural contexts. The outward physical characteristics needs to be there somewhere-it's obviously one of the more commonly used features-but maybe it should be incorporated better into a reworking of the "Race serves to indicate essential types of individuals or fuzzy sets of people's traits" which I still think is unclear. (Essential types and fuzzy sets are too conflated or something in the sentence. It don't know what this is meaning to say.) I also think the "subspecies" discussion needs a tweak as well. Race and subspecies do mean the same things in biology, but biologists will say that biologically or taxonomically humans cannot be classified into races. In other words, in biology race and subspecies are the same, but the diversity in humans today don't qualify as having any. But there's lots of time to talk this out, so let's nobody go crazy and start making changes yet.

@Captain Occam, tertiary is fine - EB is used throughout wikipedia. It's often one of the better ways to assess the most general or commonly accepted in topics where dwell devotees who may have more intensively researched specialities but bring very selective or narrow points of view and get too lost in the tall weeds. Professor marginalia (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

@Marginalia, Subspecies status is not decided by genome diversity accounting. It can't be since we don't know what most of the genome is doing. 'Subspecies' is a vague but informative term, much like 'race'. Subspecies applies to non-interbreeding but potentially interbreeding populations, with some noticeable difference (undefined). Race can be applied to clinally varied populations. I mean what do we call clinal genetic variation among humans? Race. It's not precise, but it can be informative. mikemikev (talk) 10:45, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Are you sharing more of your "pretty obvious to me" insights here? Because it continues to strike me odd how little correlation there is between your arguments and the claims in mainstream secondary sources, including ones you've cited in support of your edits. If scientists are studying genome differences it is in a sense irrelevant what the genome is "doing". So there's fairly strong consensus on this-as reflected in EB: most scientists seek to apply the same criteria to humans as the rest of the animal kingdom--the majority haven't agreed to apply some ad hocish exemption for humans for the interim while they try and dig up a novel justification to consider them distinct taxonomically. For example, though they find there to be geographic clines in human populations, known correlations such as between skin color and latitude tend to show relatively little co-variance with other traits, and it's not a meaningful stand-in for racial taxonomy. (Most population geneticists prefer to measure neutral genetic differences from multiple loci for this kind of taxonomic analysis for similar reasons--selected traits can be distorted measures of distance.) There's a good discussion of the various analyses evolutionists apply comparing populations in Fish's Race and Intelligence cited in the Race and intelligence article. Professor marginalia (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Utter crap. mikemikev (talk) 18:12, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I take it your answer would then be "yes", you were simply offering another one of your "pretty obvious to me" arguments. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:17, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

(The last I checked we're all the same species.) I don't have a suggestion for the lede at the moment, but it seems a bit of a hodge-podge—in fact, regarding the first sentence, the lede might be better off as only the first sentence. As soon as the lede strays into the "purpose" of race it's already in muddy waters. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhh, utter crap should probably be taken as a no. To save time, I will just copy paste (mostly) what I wrote in the Arbcom case:

[You (Marginalia)] said "In other words, in biology race and subspecies are the same, but the diversity in humans today don't qualify as having any", and I was making the point that genetic diversity cannot be used to decide whether or not race is of taxonomic significance. Taxonomy is based on phenotypic characteristics. Until we know what the genome is doing we cannot reason (Lewontin style) from genotypic to phenotypic diversity. So "If scientists are studying genome differences it is in a sense irrelevant what the genome is "doing"" is wrong except for a naive and valueless genome comparison, and it's certainly irrelevant to this discussion (ironically).

Certainly there is no ad hoc exemption for humans. For example flowers can be considered races just by having different colored petals. Peppered moths are races when they change color in dirty cities. In this case the phenotypic change in question is probably the only difference, and it is clinal. The genetic diversity within as opposed to between groups is absolutely huge, but they are still races and of taxonomic significance. Human races differ even more and in more ways, ways which are found to be correlated.

Concerning your point about skin color not correlating with anything, I agree. However race does correlate with things so I wonder why you throw in this red herring.

And I know that your sources don't support what you're saying.

Hence: "Utter crap." mikemikev (talk) 04:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

And if one is basing race purely on the phenotype then nobody would bother measuring genetic differences in the first place. So what kind of work do you think geneticists like Cavalli-Sforza and Lewontin are doing? Studying tooth cusps and femurs? See here for a source, quoted. And stop wasting our time here. This is not the place to share your theories, nor is it the place to post all the guesswork and wishful thinking you've been shoving out about what is actually said in the sources. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:59, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Well here's a paper about it.[8]

"In popular articles that play down the genetical differences among human populations, it is often stated that about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups. It has therefore been proposed that the division of Homo sapiens into these groups is not justified by the genetic data. This conclusion, due to R.C. Lewontin in 1972, is unwarranted because the argument ignores the fact that most of the information that distinguishes populations is hidden in the correlation structure of the data and not simply in the variation of the individual factors. The underlying logic, which was discussed in the early years of the last century, is here discussed using a simple genetical example."

I'm basically just repeating what's there, with some examples to make it easier to understand. I thought you would be aware of this paper.

I read your link, thanks. Templeton certainly isn't a major figure in genetics and taxonomy (as Edwards is in the paper above). I'm not sure his synthesis can be regarded as reliable here. mikemikev (talk) 10:00, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

From your link:

"(In analyzing criteria *a) "The validity of the traditional subspecies definition of human races can now be addressed by examining the quantitative patterns and amount of genetic diversity found within and among human populations. A standard criterion for a subspecies or race in the nonhuman literature under the traditional definition of a subspecies as a geographically circumscribed, sharply differentiated population is to have F st values of at least 0.25 to 0.30 (Smith et al., 1997). " (Human F st values are about .15.)"

"For example, when the analysis includes only humans, FST = 0.119, but adding the chimpanzees increases it only a little, FST = 0.183."[9] mikemikev (talk) 11:57, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Lede, sourcing?

Regarding the citation to American Anthropological Association Statement on "Race"". Aaanet.org. 1998-05-17 with reference to "When used as a biological term, race describes genetically divergent populations of humans that can be marked by common phenotypic and genotypic traits." I had read the AAA statement, authored by Smedley, some time ago, I didn't recall her supporting any kind of biological basis for race, nor did I see the same on rereading it. Perhaps editing over time without updating references has led to some anomaly? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time and it would be a surprising thing for an Anthropologist to support. May be better as "Race can describe ..." or similar? --Snowded ^TALK 05:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that something changed and the AAA statement no longer applies, I hoped my question would jog some memories. In fact, the more I read the lede, the more I think that "less is more," but that's another conversation! PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 05:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't checked the entire parade of sources but I suspect this is more of a wording stumble than a misrepresentation of sources. No, the AAA is not supportive of any biological basis of race. However "race" in non-human biology is (a now dying common usage or) synonym for subspecies or distinct evolutionary lineage--and the AAA will say by neither definition do human populations qualify as biological categories. The wording is too mixed up I think. Professor marginalia (talk) 06:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree in general less is more. But I also believe an introduction needs to introduce the article as a whole and this article reviews a range of approaches. That said, if we use any sources at all in the lead I think we should stick to AAA and AAPA, the largest professional arganizations representing scientists who study race/human evolution/human genetic variation. This article is chronically the target of people who rewrite the introeduction to insert their own views, so it is always degrading. Rather than argue over what the right view is, I propose we (1) keep any sentences sourced to the AAA or AAPA statements (2) make sure they represent those statements as accurately and concisely as possible and (3) make sure that any other major issue covered by the article is also introduced in the introduction. I am tring to propose general principles I hope we can all agree on; if we do I am sure that we can work out the specific wording through attentive good faith editing without much strife. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein that less is more. But contentious articles should, even more than most articles, be based on secondary/tertiary sources. The statements of professional organizations are, of course, important to include and reference, but they should not form the core of the lead or the article itself. Much better to use the Encyclopædia Britannica article or some other widely respected secondary (or tertiary) source. David.Kane (talk) 12:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of perhaps betraying some personal opinions, I would see points to touch on in the lede, were it to remain of similar size, as including (but not limited to):

1. the anthropological view of "race" as a social construct;
   1. I would see racial self-identification as congruent to that, i.e., SIRE should be mentioned;
   2. race as a historical tool supporting (self-anointed) colonial superiority justifying exploitation of other peoples—the science of classification as a useful contemporary to the expansion of colonial power;
2. racial classifications as they correlate to and reflect human geobiodiversity—notably, geobiodiverse mutations are also demonstrated to be shared across geographically adjoining racial groups, so, for example, sickle-cell disease being the downside of an otherwise beneficial mutation—which one escapes me at the moment—shared among peoples of African and Mediterranean descent.

As I've indicated elsewhere, there's no train leaving the station. As Audrey Smedley is the author of a wide swath of EB content regarding race, point #1 would be the most prominent regardless, as AAA's statement and EB content have been penned by the same individual. Fortuitous, no? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(Personally speaking) there are aspects of cultural life which are associated with "race" particularly in the U.S. which are more reflective of what one would typically consider cultural differences between ethnic groups, but another topic. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

WP competes with EB so I see no point in our quoting them in the lead. If people want to use another general encyclopedia they are free to, if they want to use Wikipedia let's give them WP. Vercrumba, with regards to your chart, social construction refers to ways knowledge is produced, not to a specific group of people who use knowledge. Scientists "socially construct" knowledge as well. By the way, the sickle- cell is the beneficial mutation. People with a homozygote have too many sickle cells, and suffer from anemia, which is bad. People with the heterozygote have a lower number of sickle-cells, which affords them some protection against malaria. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was the protection against malaria, I was recalling that it manifested as an increased likelihood of sickle-cell anemia, thanks. As I stated, my list is perhaps more my personal view, but even as such it might be useful for discussion. Since EB reflects AAA owing to authorship, I'm hoping we can largely avoid debate over prominence of secondary versus tertiary and focus on what are the essential points for the lede. Apologies to the long-standing participants at my opening the proverbial can again, but I do think the lede can be improved, not just focusing on the first sentence. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Now and then I should remember to scroll all the way down to remind myself what's already in the article in case I've forgotten! Thanks for your patience. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:23, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Returning to your opening question, this change is where the wording got mixed around. It was better before the edit. I'd twk it again to read, "When used as a biological term to describe humans, race should not be confused with subspecies because human races do not delineate unique subspecies. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I do see the phenotypes reference in Smedley's text. I'll take a look at the wording before/after and current to see if there is a more straightforward way of putting things. I'll try not to be too bold if I do, copy edit only. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I tried to condense down a bit of the lede into plain English while maintaining the refs and links. I won't take umbrage if it gets reverted as not having improved things (as long as it's reverted politely!). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I will also not assume any changes I make are acceptable if not immediately reverted or if there's no feedback within period X. Many a conflict has been exacerbated by "Unless I hear otherwise,..." (!) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:26, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Made the rest of the lede readable (IMHO), unfortunately the reference for the statement regarding the study of ethnic groups didn't apply. I moved the reference up and noted we need a citation. On the other recent delete and restore, it would help to find some citations at least, the passages have been tagged since 2007. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:53, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike's deletions

Mike deletes informative content. He then adds tags, saying that certain claims are unsuppoted. This article has extensive sitations and it is just absurd to think every sentence needs a citation after it. What is necessary is to include coherent explanations of major points of view. Remove informative content, as Mike delights in doing, and what is left will not make sense to readers. Nice tactic. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought there was a rule against vandalism on Wikipedia. I'm glad that at least you are restoring sourced content. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Even if one were to take Mike's characterization as correct, eliminating the entire discussion prevents any understanding of the context and significance of the final position. It might as well state "Elephants have no pink polka-dots." Such mass deletions are not helpful. Let's not revisit this manner of bold editing. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is significantly too long. If you disagree with Mike's deletions, what would you delete? Feel free to be bold and do it! His deletions seemed fine to me. David.Kane (talk) 02:35, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the result left me asking what's the point of the content that's left, it says nothing to the average reader without additional background. There's a lot that can be done to copy-edit to tighten instead of deleting and leaving readers scratching their heads. IMHO of course. (Copy editing the lede probably cut out 20% or more.)

If the article is too long then suggest some appropriate (additional) daughter articles, perhaps. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 03:30, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if everyone spoke for their own additions and subtractions as they are done so we can agree or disagree with the reasons given for an edit. Mike is absent from this discussion so it's one-sided at the moment. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 04:28, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was a useful cut and the result made perfect sense to me. I don't think we need an extended discussion of what race is not. The section is called 'Subspecies as clade', it's utterly off topic.

This:

"For anthropologists Lieberman and Jackson (1995), however, there are more profound methodological and conceptual problems with using cladistics to support concepts of race. They emphasize that "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model explicitly use racial categories in their initial grouping of samples". For example, the large and highly diverse macroethnic groups of East Indians, North Africans, and Europeans are presumptively grouped as Caucasians prior to the analysis of their DNA variation.

This limits and skews interpretations, obscures other lineage relationships, deemphasizes the impact of more immediate clinal environmental factors on genomic diversity, and can cloud our understanding of the true patterns of affinity. They argue that however significant the empirical research, these studies use the term race in conceptually imprecise and careless ways. They suggest that the authors of these studies find support for racial distinctions only because they began by assuming the validity of race."

is essentially babble. Who/What are "the molecular and biochemical proponents of this model"? No evolutionary scientist I know of supports human races as clades. It's a ridiculous strawman. We need to know exactly where all of this stuff was sourced from.

There's too much repetition here. Do we need to mention that races are best represtened as clines in the 'Subspecies as clade' section, when we have a cline section later?

Also, Weiji, next acusation of vandalism or disruption gets reported. mikemikev (talk) 10:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It is a reliable secondary source and the citation is provided so just go ahead and read it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:31, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I read it. The quoted sections are about the out of Africa model, not clades. This justifies immediate deletion. mikemikev (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

After breaking WP:BRD on this it would be interesting to see how your report of another editor would be taken. --Snowded ^TALK 10:20, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

How did I break BRD? I'm discussing now. mikemikev (talk) 10:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

You were bold on the 7th and were reverted, you then made the deletion again on the 8th without discussion/agreement. --Snowded ^TALK 10:26, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. One way to deal with long articles is more effective introductions that let readers decide which sections they wish to read carefully. Nothing forces a reader to read the entire article. WP not being paper means we do not have to be superficial and partial like most encyclopedias. And I do not think we should write as if our main audience all has ADD. People can skip around from sextion to section if they wish or as Vercrumba correctly points out follow links to learn moe. But our main job is to educate by explaining things. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

@Sl, thanks for that. Equally important is that we write for our audience, not for professors reviewing a thesis. The former, IMHO, is much more difficult on any complex topic. Some of the current writing is dense enough to make reader's eyes water.

   Lastly, we're not children. This is article talk, not AN/I, so let's please dispense with accusations and threats and threats of retributions on accusations. Personally, I've had quite enough of that at the toxic R&I arbitration proceedings.

• You have a problem, go to the arbitration while it's still going and diff away. Not here.
• Major changes require discussion beforehand. Period.
• Solicitous (engenders good faith and) trumps unilateral (which engenders bad faith). Always.

We can do better. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 14:54, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Peters wrote, "You have a problem, go to the arbitration while it's still going and diff away. Not here." Good point. Right now we have a forum that is very focused on the issue of constructive editing to build an encyclopedia, and anyone who has objections to editing practices on articles related to the ArbCom case can bring up those objections there. Here the goal is to read and discuss sources, and then in turn to discuss wording that makes a better encyclopedia article for a worldwide readership made up of persons of all backgrounds and varied presuppositions about the topic of the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting new source on subject of this article.

I just yesterday saw that my local library has acquired a new book, Race and Reality by Guy P. Harrison, which has some excellent reviews from knowledgeable reviewers. I have requested it from the library and will use it to oversee further revisions in this article. All of you are welcome to recommend other good, recent sources on this subject. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:06, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I received the book from my local library yesterday and began to read it. It cites some very good quality scientific literature, which I will consult. The book is interesting because the author changed his own point of view on the issue, and details what evidence he considered as he changed his point of view. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 13:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Next, history concepts and realities of race section

I won't assume that there aren't quibbles with my edits to the lede, but I'm done with my own tweaking, so moving on. My eyes tear over a bit just reading the history section, which isn't even that complex. It's a bit longer and more torturous than it needs to be, and there's some crisper background available on etymology, though not dissimilar per the single citation that currently appears. I'll also work to get the section fully cited as well. That's for over the next couple of days, pretty full up on "stuff". Just a note so we're not stepping on each other's toes. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

New section inserted, everything has a source behind it. Apologies for the boldness, but all the meat is still below. I've also tried to keep the tone a bit more conversational, but not too much. Comments welcome.

I should mention that I didn't come at this from any particular POV. Also, the paragraph which starts with: "This does not mean that genomic analysis..." probably needs just a bit more historical meat, but I'm not unsatisfied at the moment. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 23:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI the history section used to be much longer, starting in antiquity with distinct sections for the 18th, 195h and 20th centuries. I do not remember when it was pruned - David kane or mike Mike V. might know, but it was within the last year. Should it be restored? I ....... don't know. It is a long article and while WP is NOT paper, maybe we shouldn't cram everything into one article. If 18th and 19th century debates have no impact on the present, maybe they shouldn't be in this article. Anyway, if you want to know what was cut, go to the articles's edit history and go back about a year and you will see a much more detailed history section. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:50, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll go back to look, but we do have Historical definitions of race as a daughter article. I think we would look for this to be more the present day article as a companion to prior history. I might retitle the "History" section to reflect what's there now (as well as the rest of the article) a bit more accurately. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:37, 12 August 2010 (UTC) [Re-titled!]

I'm also wrestling with an appropriate organization of the content, as it jumps down evolution and subspecies, backs up to biological views, then follows with views across disciplines and then investigating in more detail.... The subject might be better served as

• Interdisciplinary summary (the table of definitions, assuming we're all good with it, is a bit far down, IMHO)
• Societal (anthropologists, etc.) = attitudes
• Biological (geneticists, etc.) = scientific findings and postulations

with appropriate subsections. I'd dispense with the "Modern debate(s)" title under which nearly everything is lumped (and what isn't lumped should be). PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I did some tweaking so it's more explicit regarding which discipline is making statements about what. That anthropologists call race a social construct is not the result of there being less genetic difference between races than within races, that (IMHO) is more a fortuitous circumstance. Were there major genetic differences, anthropologists would still call race a social construct. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 13:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

"This new science has led many mainstream evolutionary scientists in anthropology and biology to question the very validity of race as a scientific concept describing an objectively real phenomenon"

[10] [11]

Mainstream evolutionary scientists:

Baum, Bruce David.

Angier, Natalie.

Amundson, Ron.

Reardon, Jenny.

Also false allegation of vandalism. mikemikev (talk) 19:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

• Eh, perhaps you care to look at the article from The New York Times. What's that, almost a dozen geneticists and others in relevant disciplines? Drmies (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I count 4 supporting the statement, and an equal or greater number saying race is useful or reserving judgement. A quote mined New York Times piece "Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows" cannot be regarded as representing mainstream scientific opinion. We need to look at top scientific sources. Incidentally, here's a more recent New York Times piece (actually by an evolutionary biologist), reaching the exact opposite conclusion.[12] mikemikev (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

"LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!LA!..." you're not hearing that major changes with nary a comment directly prior or after on a topic in an area of contention are quite likely to be regarded as vandalism. Nor are you hearing why sometimes more is more and less is meaningless. Chill. You want to bring up allegations rightly or wrongly please take it up elsewhere. There's no train leaving the station here. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:56, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't be so childish. This is a ridiculous addition. These are not "mainstream evolutionary scientists", they're not even evolutionary scientists. Why don't you address the content instead of giving condescending procedural lectures. mikemikev (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I just checked Baum, he's source cited in studies on race. Perhaps you'd like to offer your categorization, along with your criteria, of these individuals instead of offering sarcasm and calling me childish. I suggest trying this again as a discussion instead of sneering. As for "condescending" I rather suspect you are projecting your conflicts with other editors on me. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 00:53, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for checking Vecrumba. Of course, it doesn't matter how much any one of us checks sources. One has to know how to use sources. No one ever claimed that these sources were written by evolutionary biologists. They were written about evolutionary biologistists 9among other things). This is typical of secondary sources. And of course fully in line withour policies. Sometimes I have to wonder whether mike ever looked at our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

[13] My categorization is "not a biological or evolutionary scientist". How can this guy speak for evolutionary science? A sociologist asserts "biological race does not exist" (Lewontin's fallacy no doubt). Who cares? He doesn't even explain why in the cite. mikemikev (talk) 09:57, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Then, maybe you'd like to take a look at the resume of Jenny (Jennifer) Reardon, who's a full-blown biologist, specializing in genetics and genomics and their impact on social identity. AFAIK, she fits the bill perfectly as an expert on race.--Ramdrake (talk) 15:10, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike, nor have you answered my request on your reasoning regarding the individuals mentioned and your associated criteria as they haven't dropped out of thin air. "NOT" something doesn't move the conversation along. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 16:33, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Why should I waste my time categorizing people who are not relevant? Sociologists? Political theorists? Bagpipe players? Who cares. The point is that the quote concerns "mainstream (evolutionary) biologists", and none of these people are. The only one of these who has a tenuous connection is Jenny (Jennifer) Reardon. She's now in a sociology department, hardly the place for a "mainstream (evolutionary) biologist", but let's play along. Specifically can you quote where she said something which supports this statement? mikemikev (talk) 18:38, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say she said something quite similar to this right here. Now, will you please stop this WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT attitude? The fact is that mainstream science considers race to be biologically meaningless (it is socially and sociolgically meaningful, though). That's it, that's all, move along, there's nothing more to see.--Ramdrake (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Ramdrake (from the journal of feminist and cultural studies). In that cite she was just saying that there have been a lot of claims about the biological meaninglessness of race. Nowehere does she say she agrees with it. From her other work it's clear she regards the claims as an oversight, from "anti-racists" quote mining and jumping the gun, usually with little understanding of biology. mikemikev (talk) 13:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Your interpretation that she doesn't agree with it is absolute, pure OR. Also, please note that nobody cares about your personal opinion; readers, however should care about her opinion as expressed in the source I provided, as she is a bona fide expert in genomics. I'm appalled and flabbergasted at how you can twist legitimate sources to try to make them say the opposite of what they're actually saying. Geesh. I'd also like you to provide the sources which demonstrate she regards the claims as an oversight, from "anti-racists" quote mining and jumping the gun, usually with little understanding of biology. I've been looking at her publications and can't honestly find such a quote.--15:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)--Ramdrake

So provide the quote. mikemikev (talk) 18:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC) I mean the quote I originally asked you for which supports the statement in question. Copy it out. mikemikev (talk) 18:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

At this point, your behaviour has become nothing short of trawling. As per WP:DNFTT], my question stands and if you can't answer it (produce a quote which verifies she endorses the biological reality of races, as you claim), it will just be a confirmation of your trolling trawling behaviour.--Ramdrake (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So I can put "citation needed" back in? mikemikev (talk) 19:00, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

No, unless you can get a consensus for it on this talk page.--Ramdrake (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll say, there is no rule that you have to be X in order to say "Most X think this". --Enric Naval (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It starts to look pretty lame when you can't reference one X saying it. mikemikev (talk) 18:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) @Mike: If you can't be bothered to "waste" your time explaining why individuals whose scholarly opinion would appear to be relevant are not other than to indicate as much in a derisive and uninformative fashion, then how is anyone supposed to understand your editorial POV? Not to mention your insulting everyone else here as being a waste of your personal life force. If you keep treating me like I'm your adversary, then that's what you'll eventually wind up with. Reductio ad Ludwigsium. Again, at least pretend that you are interested in my understanding your editorial point of view and answer the question. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:55, August 10, 2010

@Mikemikev, deleting sources and replacing them with a citation needed tag does not qualify as a discussion of your editorial point of view. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:50, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

I was previously discussing fully protecting this page after the last block, but did not do so. A long series of edits were made by Vecrumba (talk · contribs) since then - see this inclusive diff (two Slrubenstein edits are in the middle, but it's nearly all Vecrumba) [14]

Are there any objections to this series of edits from "the other side", including Mikemikev or David.Kane? If so, I will fully protect the article until Arbcom is done. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

No objection. (Note that I did not study these edits at all and, at least as far as I can tell, Vecrumba (talk · contribs) is not on the other side from me. But I see no harm in having this article protected. David.Kane (talk) 01:03, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not on anyone's "side" in the brouhaha. All that is required is discussion of intended edits as opposed to announcements of fait accompli. Feel free to temporarily block anyone who doesn't follow that, including myself. Leaving the article at most semi-protected allows editors trying to move on to demonstrate the capacity to cooperate. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 15:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that Vercrumba's recent edits constitute an improvement to the article.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

What is the article's point of view?

Far be it for us to synthesize our own, I think we've already seen the results of attempts to do that; even good faith eventually succumbs to contentiousness. On the other hand, unless we can have at least some agreement, the content will be a voluminous unfocused wandering. I've added a succinct—and I thought non-judgemental—quote from Graves which I thought useful. I'm not married to it, thoughts? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 17:46, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a well formed question since it can only really be answered by pointing to WP:NPOV - the larger issue, namely "what is in fact the most neutral perspective on this topic" is immense and cannot be answered simply. I think the quote is fine. ·Maunus·ƛ· 17:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Completely agreed. Perhaps my question is better asked as: what is the plot of the (NPOV) story we are telling here? I don't suppose we'll have a quick answer(!); it's more important we keep the question in mind as we work toward some consistent content. (Not just here, but at any article.)PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 18:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I guess I don't understand what the focus of the article is because there is another Race and genetics article (desperately in need of inline sources) and many many others that when taken altogether make the question "what is race" about as clear as mud. While "Race is a social construct" is considered the consensus view today, there is no corresponding "classification system" for socially defined races. So is this article meant to describe why race no longer is considered an official scientific classification, and the few "practical" applications such as forensic anthropology or race-based medicine where it continues to be used? Professor marginalia (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

WTF. The few "practical" applications, such as law and medicine? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the use of cultural anthropology, and how it's anything other than a self satisfied school of fiction writing. mikemikev (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll have to check, but it might be that this article and Race and genetics should be merged. If they are both about human races, not treating the issues together sounds like more than a little bit of a POV fork. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of view is "biological race does not exist" (you can't believe your eyes, Lewontin's statistics are the truth). Naturally you need to use "secondary sources" for that, which excludes all biologists. Ideally you should use sociologist who takes a quote from a biologist out of context to support this POV. mikemikev (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I mean, otherwise, people would be forgiven for thinking that sociologists are just a bunch of pointless harmful, fiction writing windbags. It's so impressive that actually, they are the authorities on biology. mikemikev (talk) 19:23, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@Mikemikev--you're no longer even pretending to edit constructively; if you want to rant or soapbox you need to find another website. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:54, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem. mikemikev (talk) 19:57, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thats not an ad hominem (an adhominem is a kind of argument) that is advice about your behaviour (a kind of speech act different from an argument). For someone coming back from a block - listening to such advice is ... adviseable.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's offered in place of addressing my point (that you continue to reference sociologists on biology), it's effectively ad hominem. mikemikev (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

If you had actually made that point instead of just making snide sarcastic remarks your comment would have been received differently. You have been offered quotes from a rather impressive number of geneticists and biologists (you seem to be confused about what is the nature of physical anthropology - but its a lot closer to biology than to sociology) who agree with that view, every time you're confronted with that you just dismiss them for one fanciful reason or the other.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Name these geneticists and biologists. mikemikev (talk) 20:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Mike I have. For the sake of courtesy only I will mention some of them again. Craig Venter, Francis Collins (geneticist), Robert Sussman[15], Jonathan Marks (biological anthropologist and geneticist)...Do they speak for all of biology? probably not, but until you show reliable sources to the effect that the dominant viewpoint within human biology and genetics study is that human populations can be reduced to a number of macro races that fit nicely with the social construction of continental racial groups in the US then there is not really much discussion to do here. ... Oh and your favorite pet peeve Lewontin is a doctor of zoology...And Steven Rose is a biologist. Maybe that could move the debate away from thisidea you have that if only people have the right academic background they will agree with you. ·Maunus·ƛ· 21:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(The earlier attempt to post this was apparently eaten by an edit conflict.) Let's not forget John Maynard Smith, who decried "g groupies" and disagreed with a computer science professor at Sussex University, with Maynard Smith saying "that there was no reason to believe that the gap in IQ scores between black and white Americans, to which the [professor] had also referred, was genetic in origin." -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 23:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Maunus: From Francis Collins, "Is race biologically meaningless? First, it is essential to point out that 'race' and 'ethnicity' are terms without generally agreed-upon definitions. Both terms carry complex connotations that reflect culture, history, socioeconomics and political status, as well as a variably important connection to ancestral geographic origins. Well-intentioned statements over the past few years, some coming from geneticists, might lead one to believe there is no connection whatsoever between self-identified race or ethnicity and the frequency of particular genetic variants 1, 2. Increasing scientific evidence, however, indicates that genetic variation can be used to make a reasonably accurate prediction of geographic origins of an individual, at least if that individual's grandparents all came from the same part of the world3. As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection. It must be emphasized, however, that the connection is generally quite blurry because of multiple other nongenetic connotations of race, the lack of defined boundaries between populations and the fact that many individuals have ancestors from multiple regions of the world."

Weiji: We're discussing whether mainstream biologists think race has a biological connection. Please stop with the irrelevant anecdotes. mikemikev (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No Mike we are not discussing whether race has a biological connection - it obviously has. We are discussing whether it has a primarily biological basis which it hasn't and which Collins clearly agrees that it hasn't when he concludes that the connection between selfreported race and genetics is one of a series of surrogate relationships.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Mikemikev-Francis Collins is offering argument that knee-jerk exaggerations that because, say, scientists have found there to be so much gene flow in the past 100,000 years that there never has been any clearly disconnected and divergent evolutionary lineages evident in human genetics today does not mean that there is literally absolutely no evident genetic patterns of differences among geographically proximate peoples compared to geographically remote peoples. No justification for exaggerated extremism, is essentially what he's saying. But notice he's largely consistently lumped ethnicity and race here...why? I would submit it's probably because the "fuzzy" categories can be similarly useful in a practical sense, as rough proxies, even while there's almost nobody that would say "ethnicity" is a legitimate biological category. Cultural genealogy, not race biology, is why the American Amish have such high prevalence of dwarfism, for example. "Connection" does not a "biological race" make--I have a biological connection to my parents, yet my parents, my siblings and I do not constitute a biological race. Professor marginalia (talk) 05:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(multi!ec) @Mike: Sigh. Once one gets past the shouting over "race is a figment of our construction," there are anthropologists, biologists, sociologists, et al. who have stated "race" as a concept has its place other than simply being denounced. I'm not here to push or censor any view. I can only speak for myself that if you have anything you'd like to say to me in a constructive manner noting your editorial concerns regarding any changes I propose or make, I'm happy to hear it and discuss it. And please do stop shouting about Lewontin. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Any issues with 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." for example? Owens is a geneticist and AFAIK a senior fellow at the University of Washington. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Owens seems like a reasonable source. mikemikev (talk) 20:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The current point of view of many scientists who are intimately familiar with the biological facts of the sole living hominin species, Homo sapiens, is that no system of "race" classification (among the many that have been proposed over the years) has day-by-day usefulness for scientific inquiry. Sources on this issue are abundant, and I am gathering them in my office for addition to one of the source lists to share with our fellow Wikipedians. I am familiar with people who already knew this years ago from foreign travel, including living in an international dormitory with students from all over the world, but it's interesting to know that many lines of evidence, especially molecular biology and evolutionary biology, are all converging on this conclusion. The basic biological unity of humankind amid individual biological diversity is a hard concept for some people to wrap their minds around, but I recommend

* Harrison, Guy P. (2010). Race and Reality: What Everyone Should Know about Our Biological Diversity. Jonathan Marks (Foreword). Amherst (NY): Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-767-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |laydate= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help)

as one good, recent source with plenty of citations of up-to-date scientific literature and discussions of what is puzzling about this issue. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:52, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I recommend throwing Marks in the bin and spending five minutes looking at the medical literature. mikemikev (talk) 20:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

No room for him there - its already full of your worthless "recommendations" based solely on POV and not on arguments and automated dismissals of every solid scientist that you are presented with.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

(multiple! ec again) I've taken a look at Harrison (forward by Marks). IMHO it's good for pointers but as Harrison is a journalist, I wouldn't use it as a secondary source in and of itself (regardless of its inherent value) other than representing views of race in the press. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree Harrison is useful, but many elements in it are unapologetically "advocacy" and personal, and those elements don't really belong here (however it's easy to separate his personal opinions and anecdotes from his researched claims). I don't think his own opinions are noteworthy enough to include in this article, even as a representative view of opinions in the press. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Recommended sources?

I have circulating access to a huge Bio-Medical Library, part of the university libraries system at my state's flagship research university, and I have visited that library on repeated occasions to gather books for editing Wikipedia articles. I have quite a few of those books arrayed in my office for entry into updates of the source lists for Wikipedians posted in my user space. Inasmuch as that library not only has a lavish collection, but also great interlibrary loan service, I'd be happy to hear from anyone on this talk page about sources that you recommend for the latest, most authoritative view of the science related to racial classification of human beings. I'll look up the sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:30, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

For editors new to the topic, it might be useful to have categories for both:

• appropriate for use/citation in the article
• recommended background reading, e.g., Harrison's

Just a thought. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually beginning to develop a two-dimensional rating system like that for the sources mentioned in my source lists. One rating axis is the "read this first" axis, mentioning the most readable, thoughtful sources that clarify the issues, and another axis is the Wikipedia reliable sources for medicine-related articles axis, showing which sources can generally be counted on as directly citable sources for Wikipedia articles. I'm in an early stage of rating the books I've already cited in the source lists, and would be glad to hear the opinions of other editors about what is already posted. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Harrison or other works in that vein necessarily must be relegated to mere "background reading", and when there is some question about whether or not some cited claim is controversial enough to require more authoritative sourcing then those can also be used to better settle the question. But books like Harrison and others which are good at presenting the topic in a way that may be more accessible, succinct, etc, then they are oftentimes a big help when writing these articles. And when they're used they should be cited with any other sources useful to bolster the claim authoritatively. It's important to give credit where credit is due, in other words. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:36, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Professor marginalia, for the detailed comments on how a popular nonfiction book (which I acknowledge Harrison 2010 is) can be used for sourcing a Wikipedia article. I definitely agree that there are more scholarly sources on this topic, and I'm glad to see suggestions of those. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Check out the entire volume of American Anthropologist Volume 100, Issue 3 September 1998. Also, Alexander Alland's very well-reviewed book, Race in Mind. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Slrubenstein, for the recommendations of sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2010 (Utc)

I agree with the recommendation of race in mind - I would also strongly reccomend Jonathan Marks "Human biodiversity: genes, race, and history" even though it was written at the onset of the genetic era it is still really good and gives a good understanding of genetics and how it relates to race. Marks has an MSC in genetics and did postdoctoral reserach in genetics so I wonder why Mike can't seem to stand him, maybe rather because he doesn't agree with him? ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Somewhere along the way we discussed a book by Harrison with a foreword by Marks, I'm not sure there wasn't a bit of mix-up in the commentary. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is slanted to a cultural anthropology viewpoint. Especially the key sections. Cultural anthropologists are referenced on genetics: not their field. mikemikev (talk) 15:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you give some specific examples of quotes by people whom you feel are used as authorities outside of their field of exertise? Preferably you would also include a quote showing that important figures within the field of genetics do not agree with them, in order to show that their opinions are in conflict with the general view within the field of genetics. ·Maunus·ƛ· 16:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

"Today, many anthropologists consider race, with respect to how individuals in society interact with each other, to be a cultural construct independent of biological or genetic variation. Having arisen as an ideology about differences between peoples, race is something to be analyzed apart from biological or genetic considerations."

"Anthropologists also point out that genomic analysis has shown that racial distinctions are "not genetically discrete, are not reliably measured, and are not scientifically meaningful.""

Both sourced to Smedley, a cultural anthropologist.

I referenced Collins above. Also hundreds of medical studies where race is a variable. "Racial distinctions are not scientifically meaningful and independent of genetic variation" is a fringe viewpoint. When made by someone out of field it does not belong in an encyclopedia. I'm disturbed that it is the theme of this article. mikemikev (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You misrepresented the claim in the Collins source btw. He did not say that racial distinctions are scientifically meaningful and independent of genetic variation. He said that they can be used for practical purposes but concludes that they are a series of surrogate relationships. In short there is a correlation that is big enough to be of practical use in comabting certain medical problems. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Smedly is summarizing the findings of the entire field of anthropology, cultural and biological anthropologists - we often rely on secondary sources for generalizations or synthetic statements as we cannot make them ourselves. It is not her claim that genomic analysis has shown that racial distinctions are not scientifically meaningful (one would expect one to be a biological anthropologist to make that claim). It is her claim that anthropologists believe this. And she is an entirely reliable source when it comes to what is the manstream view of anthropologists.

But if you want, from the same journal issue we could include biological anthropologist Matt Cartmill's view:

There are hereditary differences among human beings. Some of these differences have geographical correlates. Some genetic variants that produce physical or behavioral deficits occur significantly more often in some areas, or in some ethnic groups, than in others. However, none of these facts provides any intellectual support for the race concept, for racial classifications, or for social hierarchies based on ethnic-group membership.

The geographical element of the race concept is important in theory but is widely ignored in practice since it does not conform well to the facts of current human phenotype distribution. Much of the literature on supposed racial differences involves such geographically meaningless exercises as studying differences among "races" by subdividing a sample of North Americans. If races are defined as geographically delimited conspecific populations characterized by distinctive regional phenotypes, then human races do not exist now and have not existed for centuries,

There is no doubt that Smedly is giving an accurat report of the mainstream anthropological view.

Can you really not tell the difference between a claim about genetics, and a claim about what anthropologists have learned from genetics? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How delimited? How distinctive? It's the same again and again: "races are not non-overlapping homogenous sets, therefore they are meaningless". It's ridiculous. It's what Dawkins would call "the tyranny of the discontinuous mind". Races are fuzzy sets, but they are meaningful. Why on earth would medical science use them otherwise? So anthropologists believe this? Medical doctors don't. Are they not studying man? You can't say your source speaks for all science. In fact Smedley's source specifically states that it represents the view of the author. You seem to be trying to claim a much wider authority than your sources command. Do "anthropologists" trump Collins? Who is Cartmill? mikemikev (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

POV is already being discussed here on the talk page, so no article tag is necessary. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The tag stays up until issues are resolved. Self-revert please. mikemikev (talk) 17:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The complaint is ridiculous. The list of sources used are littered with population geneticists and other biologists, including biological anthropologists (even featuring a statement issued by the American Association of Physical Anthropologists). Smedley's qualifications are good enough irl,[16]-(she's the author of the official statement American Anthropological Association) so they're good enough here. On the other hand, Mikemikev's is a completely unqualified opinion and a broken record--it deserves to be ignored at this point. Professor marginalia (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

What list of sources? The References in this[17] Smedley paper used to source "Today, many anthropologists consider race, with respect to how individuals in society interact with each other, to be a cultural construct independent of biological or genetic variation. Having arisen as an ideology about differences between peoples, race is something to be analyzed apart from biological or genetic considerations" are almost entirely about the history of slavery. mikemikev (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to claim that the AAPA is an umbrella organization for human genetics, it isn't. mikemikev (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with WBB, the Professor, SLR and Maunus. The sources used to describe mainstream opinion look absolutely sound to me. It also looks like we have editors' consensus that there is no POV issue here. Mikemikev, please self-revert your tag. Not doing so would be yet another example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Thanks. --Ramdrake (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

This is insane. Smedley is not a biologist. You are simply lying. mikemikev (talk) 17:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is saying that and Audrey Smedley isn't giving the viewpoint of biology but of anthropology about a partly biological issue as you have been explained a few times already. ·Maunus·ƛ· 19:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's when biology, genetics and medicine express the opposite view that we have problems. Anyway, I brought it up here.[18] mikemikev (talk) 19:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

You haven't provided a single source that shows that biology medicine or genetics has the opposite view. The Collins source that you kindly presented does not disagree with Smedley.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It says "it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection." mikemikev (talk) 19:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(multiple!ec) Yikes. This is like a bad sci-fi movie where you step away for 10 seconds and when you come back to the TV there's another huge smear of blood on the wall and you're wondering what you missed. We all know Smedley's qualifications. Before shouting, is "slavery" any different from how the British treated the Chinese, for example? Colonialism pretty much cemented the negative aspects of race, it's not just American slavery. And, again, Mike, you are completely missing the distinction: "race is something to be analyzed apart from biological or genetic considerations" speaks to the anthropological view and does NOT state there are absolutely NO biological or genetic considerations. It is the geneticists, quoted later, who state that genetics DON'T LINE UP with our notion of race. There ARE differences, and those are what need to be dealt with in looking at geo-biodiversity, population clines, et al. (and as they correlate to current notions of race). I'll consider whether I need to add a bit more to the introductory section after the lede. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 19:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Slavery isn't an issue here, except in that it's not relevant to genetics. As for Smedley, I think you're promoting a fringe view. That's fine but I don't think it should have such a prominent place, or be unattributed. The source states that it represents the view of the author. I think most scientists and lay people are well aware that race is a biological phenomenon, in no way "independent of biological or genetic variation." The exact nature remains poorly understood, I don't think anybody has any illusions about that. mikemikev (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

How can it be a fringe view if she is telling what the view of anthropology is and has been chosen by the American Anthropological Association to do so on behalf of the discipline? Anyway Smedley is NOT saying that race does not have a biological connection - she is saying that it does not have a biological foundation which is something completely different. Denying that race has a biological "connection" would be to deny that having a parent that selfidentifies as black is likely to coincide with a dark skin color in the child. That is ludicrous, noone is saying that. Anthropologists are saying that race correlates to a degree with genetic frequencies but that it is not based on it but on varuying social conventions. It is really embarassing that you continue to be so confused about what anthropology actually means after ranting about it for this long.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Fringe with reference to the rest of academia. I think you may have rather too high an opinion of the AAA. If the medical profession use race, it must have a biological foundation. mikemikev (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(multi!ec) @Mikemikev: Race is a social construct goes back in mainstream anthropology at least 50 years. And as anthropologists deal with how we interact with each other, which would be the most important thing in a society, putting the anthropological view up front is entirely appropriate. "Race" as a biological phenomenon, at least with reference to the biological characteristics according to which we classify races, according to the geneticists deals with the most superficial aspects of our genetic makeup. And that is exactly what I wrote. You insist that I wrote something different, IMHO it's because you don't like having Smedley at top. Personally, there are anthropologists I "like" more than Smedley; the difference is, I don't need to feel warm and cozy to put her first, where she belongs as the primary author of major statements by the anthropology discipline. Smedley states nothing regarding any biological or genetic basis of race. She merely states that, in the end, where societal interaction is concerned, it's irrelevant.

   If the medical profession uses "race," it is as a useful corollary to something. Sickle cell anemia, often called a disease "afflicting blacks" is not that at all. However, that "blacks" are among the groups that need to be more aware, such a view has its uses, even if not accurate.

   Lastly, I believe I cover this in my mischaracterized section rewrite as well.

(multiple ec)You think the AAA are the "most important" scholars? I won't argue that right now, but I guess it's your opinion. Also, geneticists don't know how phenotypically significant or superficial racial genetic differences are, Smedley is wrong again. mikemikev (talk) 20:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I will say that the AAA tend to be left-leaning in Anthropology, which tends to be left leaning in academia. So you can imagine where the articles at from an NPOV. Maybe lefties have more time to spare ;) mikemikev (talk) 21:03, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(update/ec) I'm sorry, I quote a geneticist, verbatim, regarding the observable genetic differences of races. Also, you would contend that those whose life work and profession it is to investigate how you and I view races (and how our forebears classified them), would not be the most important? The article is about classification, no? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 20:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My mother told me I was a suppressed lefty. There's no serious disagreement here. Don't read into what I (re)wrote any more than what is there. Each sentence is part of the narrative, not a whole in and of itself. You're essentially quoting me out of context, accusing me of writing something I clearly did not, and going on about Smedley being some sort of radical, which is irrelevant. She's good enough to write on race in EB, she's good enough to be quoted on it. Let's move on. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

On "Also, geneticists don't know how phenotypically significant or superficial racial genetic differences are, Smedley is wrong again." Nothing to do with Smedley, "superficial" is based on geneticists analyzing the causes of observable differences:

"How, then, does genetics explain the

stereotypic features of “races”: skin color, hair color and texture, and facial traits? These traits are quite literally superficial, in that they affect exposed surfaces of the body. It is reasonable to suggest that variation in these traits may reflect differential selection by climate in various parts of the world. Recent analysis of the melanocortinstimulating hormone receptor gene (MC1R) suggests that various alleles of this single locus may underlie much of observed human variation in skin and hair color (21, 22). This variation is largely due to varied amounts of eumelanin (brown and black melanins) and phaeomelanin (red and yellow melanins) produced by melanocytes. Eumelanin protects against ultraviolet (UV) radiation, whereas phaeomelanin may contribute to skin damage, including melanoma, induced by UV. The balance of melanins is regulated by melanocyte-stimulating hormone, which acts through its receptor. Amino acid sequence variants occur at multiple sites in the second transmembrane domain, the first extracellular domain, and the seventh transmembrane domain of the MC1R protein. Variation at these sites was found in more than 80% of individuals with red hair and fair skin that burns rather than tans, but in less than 4% of British or Irish individuals with skin that tans without burning, and in no African individuals. Among Asians, still other amino acid substitutions in MC1R are common. Nucleotide diversity at MC1R is several times higher than the average nucleotide diversity in human populations. High nucleotide diversity, coupled with common variation at nonsynonymous sites, suggest that MC1R variation is an adaptive response to selection for different alleles in different environments, possibly to differences in day length and hence available sunlight at different latitudes. If true, variation at this locus, which encodes evolutionarily important but superficial traits, has been the cause of enormous suffering. Variation in other traits popularly used to identify “races” is likely to be due to similarly straightforward mechanisms, involving limited numbers of genes with very specific physiological effects."
21. P. Valverde et al., ibid. 11, 328 (1995).
22. B. K. Rana et al., Genetics 151, 1547 (1999); H. B. Schioth et al., Biochem. Biophys. Res. Commun. 260,

488 (1999).

Feel better? PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Right. So that's the only thing that varies. Internal organs all exactly the same. Sure. mikemikev (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Brain size for example. Exactly the same. Amazing. mikemikev (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

(multi!ec) And here's a summary regarding the abuse of race in medicine:

Hearkening back to the role of patents in the case of BiDil, we can see

how the cases of Bystolic (nebivolol) and warfarin response testing are both similar and different. The story of BiDil involved the use of race to recapitalize the value of existing generic drugs. The need to create a patentable product in order to convince corporate backers of the drug’s viability as a commercial product led to using race as a frame for interpreting existing science, developing clinical trial protocols, compiling regulatory filings, and designing marketing campaigns. Patenting and marketing strategies mutually incentivized the use of race independent of any specific scientific or medical utility. The new nebivolol patent application indicates a BiDil-like strategy to use race to extend patent life. In contrast, the Academia Sinica patent application process has not directly involved the reconfiguration of an existing product as racial in order to extend patent life, but it does show how race can be used to differentiate one product or process from another as a potential means to obtain initial patent protection. Both models involve the exploitation of race in order to enhance the commercial value of scientific research by creating race-specific market-niches for products. The story of warfarin testing further demonstrates that even after specific genes for drug response are identified, race continues to be commercially useful as a means to gain patent protection and carve out niches in a crowded marketplace. Biotechnology firms and biomedical professionals thus continue to embrace race as a central component of patenting and marketing strategies, even after it has

ceased to serve any scientific purpose.

From BEYOND BIDIL: THE EXPANDING EMBRACE OF RACE IN BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT by Jonathan Kahn.
   On the other, IMHO we're really much better off talking about populations, population clines, geobiodiversity, and then how "race" does and doesn't align.
   On the other other, and how much is it that we actually use of our cranial capacity? IMHO, it doesn't make much difference if I've got a 30 gallon tank and you have a 35 gallon tank if we're both only driving to the corner to get a quart of milk. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I'll ask at the MRI lab tomorrow. All of it I think. mikemikev (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, silly me, I'll be blocked. I'm sure you can email Smedley for the facts. mikemikev (talk) 21:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The talk page has deteriorated into soapboxing and rants again. There is no valid NPOV dispute to be made over the qualifications of the authors cited. If that's all you've got besides more of your perpetual personal opinionating over why you think races are biological then this discussion should be closed. Professor marginalia (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

@Mikemikev: All this stuff aside, with respect to biology/genetics: do you have any serious objections to investigating populations, population clines, geo-biodiversity et al. and then discussing how "race" maps/correlates and doesn't? @Prof m: Perhaps Mike can just answer my question. If it's positive, we can move on, if not, I don't see how to move the content forward without everyone in some sort of agreement on approach. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course, others might also seriously disagree with the sort of general approach I've suggested. Even an agreement to "wait and see" would help, but I'm a bit concerned at my little bit of rewrite after the lede which I thought was pretty uncontroversial. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 21:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

We are avoiding the real issue here, which is that any discussion wtih Mikemikev will literally be endless and unresolvable, since he dismisses any source that does not parrot his own POV as bull, stupid, or trivial. Anthropology is the scientific study of H. Sapiens, just as geology is the academic study of rocks. It is reasonable to turn to anthropology for principal views on people. MDs do research on a special subset of humans, sick ones. And in the US, they do research generally (but not always) on middle-class or wealthy sick people. MD's have no interest in seeing whether their claims are valid for ALL humankind, because most of the procedures they develop and most of the pills they test will be used on Americans and anyone else who can afford the technology or drugs, which is a small sample of humankind. Let's put things in context here. Anyway, immediately after dismissing a CULTURAL anthropologist I quoted a biological anthropologist. But Mikemikev just pooh-pooed that. Obviously spending your life researching a topic is not the way you learn things. Mike, waht is the secret of your depth of knowledge/ Really, how do you manage to know so much more than so many PhDs? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you wrote the part I pooh-poohed because you messed up the indent. Honestly. Drugs are tested on rich people? WTF? Mark Cartmill is an anatomist isn't he? Anyway, his refutation of "geographically delimited conspecific populations characterized by distinctive regional phenotypes" is not at odds with any notions of race I know of. Does this mean race is "meaningless", no. mikemikev (talk) 23:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

It's a fuzzy set. It's not black and white, and nobody thinks it is. It's a strawman argument. mikemikev (talk) 23:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Swelled heads

On a lighter note perhaps, I was going to joke about Latvians having big round heads just so we could afford to lose a few brain cells to frostbite, that it doesn't mean we're any smarter, et al. As it turns out, the brain cavity going more spherical decreases heat loss while the change in shape markedly affects brain volume; so the "driver" behind brain size is latitude and not some need to be smarter and grow a bigger brain to survive. (Taller = bigger brain too, so any studies of brain size which do not normalize for how tall someone is are statistically invalid from the get-go.) PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

On wiki-break until the weekend if not further, alas. PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►TALK 22:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. I guess an infinitely small brain would be just as smart in really hot weather, like on the sun. 128.40.97.30 (talk) 22:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Tobias 1977 makes this argument about brain size - brain size correlates strongly with height and height correlates with latitude and latitude correlates with skin colour. Those correlations of cours emake it possible to correlate skin color with brain size - but that could well be a coincidence as the correlations between height/latitude and latitude/skin colour are both stronger.·Maunus·ƛ· 23:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Skin color is really a red herring. The correlation of race with brain structure and causative gene patterns is the question, one which is still being investigated. Until then WP will have to written by a bunch of sinister character assassinating Marxists and their unwitting tools pretending that they have the answers. 128.40.97.30 (talk) 04:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)