Talk:Race (human categorization)

Edit questioned

Acaciosc What did you do when you performed this edit? Mitchumch (talk) 08:21, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Mitchumch Totally unnecessary from you to ask such question in a talk page. What I did is clearly shown, highlighted, when you compare the actual edit with the previous one. I removed extra round brackets/parentheses, if that helps you. Acaciosc (talk) 15:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Acaciosc: I'm specifically asking about . You added that along with removing the parenthesis. What is that? Mitchumch (talk) 15:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Mitchumch What is your problem? "[...] evolved out of African Homo erectus ((sensu lato) or Homo ergaster)". Clearly, there are two parenthesis together before "sensu lato", which is gramatically wrong, obviously. Along with this correction, I removed an extra parenthesis as well in "Virtually all physical anthropologists agree that Archaic Homo sapiens (A group including the possible species H. heidelbergensis, H. rhodesiensis and H. neanderthalensis) evolved out of African Homo erectus ((sensu lato) or Homo ergaster).". The removed extra parenthesis is placed after "Homo ergaster", if that rings you a bell. Acaciosc (talk) 16:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Acaciosc: This is in fact an appropriate place to ask such questions. Doug Weller talk 17:51, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: No, it isn't. As I already explained, there is no need to show what was changed in the edit, since it can be seen in history when comparing with the previous edit. Acaciosc (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Acaciosc The article's talk page is THE place to goto regardless if you think your edit is obviously correct. Secondly, you need to stop using "obviously", "Clearly" and "that rings you a bell". Whether it's your intent or not, it makes you sound arrogant, pompous or in my neck of the woods, highfalutin.

@Mitchumch: I can understand why Acaciosc is confused, because I was too until it dawned on me. The text went from no special unicode symbols to two "invisible" symbols with a space in between.

The text went from:

''[[Homo ergaster]]'').<ref>

to:

''[[Homo ergaster]]U+FFFC U+FFFC.''<ref>

The U+FFFC symbol is an "OBJECT REPLACEMENT CHARACTER, placeholder in the text for another unspecified object", where the unspecified object is a video, image, photo, etc. If you are doing a Word document and you will be placing an image in a certain spot, but don't have the image yet, the U+FFFC are used to mark the spot where the photo will go. Well, what a M$ Word document will actually do is unknown as the manual for Word resides in Hell (not my in-laws in this case). Invisible Unicode symbols are added to Wikipedia articles all the time (386 articles found yesterday) and 99.9% of them unintentionally added. Most of the time, it comes from copy/pate or a couple of scripts that shouldn't be adding them. So, Acaciosc's adding them could be unintentional or intentional.

Soooooo.... what I think Mitchumch is asking is, was adding the two unicode symbols intentional and if so, why? Bgwhite (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Bgwhite Oh, now I understood. Sorry, I'm writing through an Android device, which is probably why that "invisible" symbol has appeared. Not the first time, by the way, although that never happened to me when I edited in both Ubuntu 14.4 and Windows 10). No, it wasn't intentional and I have no idea why that happened. I'm not all that great in Wikipedia codes, especially when trying to edit with smartphones. My intent was exclusively to remove improper punctuations. In this case, it's DEFINITELY ("sorry" if that word also sounds arrogant to you, but I don't think a person's personality should matter at all anyway, as long as there is no pejorative terms being used) appropriate to talk here about the symbols per se, though. I thought s/he was only asking what was edited (because I didn't believe there had anything else besides my appropriate remotion of the punctuations because, as said, it's "invisible"). I considered the capslock in "the" arrogant as well, but I don't really care, because it is irrelevant and even if it were, I'm not offended by things like this. Almost everyone (except those in a coma, for example) is arrogant at different levels, including who reads this right now... why should it be different to me? Hypocrisy is much worse, and that is what is indeed harmful socially, but, again, it's irrelevant to this conversation. Acaciosc (talk) 23:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Deleted section initiated by another Mikemikev sock

If anyone objects they can of course replace it, striking through the sock, but it's seems more preventive to just delete it completely, so I've been bold and done that. If anyone wants to see how unpleasant and racist this editor can be, look at the edit summaries of Luftballoon (talk · contribs) to see why we don't want to encourage him by letting him think his posts will be allowed to remain. Doug Weller talk 21:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I may be unpleasant and racist, but at least I'm not a pseudoscientific liar. 193.61.28.47 (talk) 21:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, I would say that you definitely are. So would actual scientists.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 21:13, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Like Alan Templeton and Joseph Graves? 193.61.28.47 (talk) 21:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Or your heroes Franz Boas, Jared Diamond, Alan Goodman, Steven Gould, Melville Herskovits, Max Horkheimer, Leon Kamin, Otto Klineberg, Richard Lewontin, Leonard Lieberman, Jonathan Marks, Barry Mehler, Ashley Montagu, Steven Rose, Edward Sapir, Robert Sussman, and Gene Weltfish. It's so good we have these people who can rise above ethnic self-interest and give us a fact based view of things. The only problem is that White Supremacists own the media so one doesn't often get to hear their views, since they all happen to be Jews. 193.61.28.47 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Jared Diamond? Wtf? Anthropologists despise Jared Diamond. I didn't know Joseph Graves was jewish.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:05, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

The funny thing is most of those scientists Mikemikev lists are/were "race realists". Franz Boas for example believed in race, he never denied it. Montagu wrote in his Man's Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy Of Race (1942) that: "In the biological sense there do, of course, exists races of mankind. That is to say, mankind is comprised of many groups which are physically sufficiently distinguishable from one another to justify their being classified as separate races." For Montagu, the "fallacy" of race in his book title was not that races exist. Shouldn't Montagu be a hero to Mikemikev? IonianGreek (talk) 02:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

New survey of members of the American Anthropological Association

This asked them 53 questions on race, eg:

“The human population may be subdivided into biological races” - 86% of respondents strongly disagreeing or disagreeing.

“Racial categories are determined by biology”, 88% strongly disagreed or disagreed.

Anthropologists' views on race, ancestry, and genetics Authors Jennifer K. Wagner,Joon-Ho Yu,Jayne O. Ifekwunigwe,Tanya M. Harrell,Michael J. Bamshad,Charmaine D. Royal First published: 22 November 2016[1] - that's the full paper:

"Results demonstrate consensus that there are no human biological races and recognition that race exists as lived social experiences that can have important effects on health.

Discussion Racial privilege affects anthropologists' views on race, underscoring the importance that anthropologists be vigilant of biases in the profession and practice. Anthropologists must mitigate racial biases in society wherever they might be lurking and quash any sociopolitical attempts to normalize or promote racist rhetoric, sentiment, and behavior." Doug Weller talk 16:26, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Race denial is highest among American social anthropologists. It's low among biologists. 94.117.214.187 (talk) 13:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

The participants were mostly cultural anthropologists, who are not qualified to answer questions of biological validity.

Professional experience, N (%) N %

Archaeological Anthropologist 342 12.36

Cultural Anthropologist 1,032 37.28

Linguistic Anthropologist 108 3.90

Medical Anthropologist 235 8.49

Physical/Biological Anthropologist 201 7.26

Anthropology Student or Trainee 440 15.90 94.117.214.187 (talk) 13:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

A survey, taken in 1985 (Lieberman et al. 1992), asked 1,200 American scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were for anthropologists:

   physical anthropologists 41%
   cultural anthropologists 53%

In the same 1985 survey (Lieberman et al. 1992), 16% of the surveyed biologists and 36% of the surveyed developmental psychologists disagreed with the proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." 185.4.118.141 (talk) 16:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)