Talk:Race (human categorization)

Include Darwin's definition of race in the article to balance the strawman definitions

WP:EVADE/WP:DENY EvergreenFir (talk) 18:54, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Grant all races of man descended from one race; grant that all structure of each race of man were perfectly known—grant that a perfect table of descent of each race was perfectly known.— grant all this, & then do you not think that most would prefer as the best classification, a genealogical one, even if it did occasionally put one race not quite so near to another, as it would have stood, if allocated by structure alone. Generally, we may safely presume, that the resemblance of races & their pedigrees would go together."[1] Слагмастер (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2018 (UTC) Yes, and so what? Of course Darwin also thought "races" were ancestry based groupings. But we know that he was wrong in that belief. We know know that it is not possible to know perfectly the structure of each "race" or to could have a perfect table of descent. So whether he is right in that under those circumstances a genealogical understanding of race would be logically preferable, is irrelevant. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:57, 23 April 2018 (UTC) He defined races as ancestry based groupings. How could that be "wrong"? That's his definition. Would you apply the same arguments to other ancestry based groupings in biology? That we may not be able to get a "perfect" table of descent? Flatly asserting that the definition is "wrong"? How about you take your absurd sophistry to the phylogenetics page? Tell them their definition of classifying by descent is "wrong" and their results aren't "perfect". Слагмастер (talk) 15:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC) The definition was wrong in that it does not correspond to the reality of the groups we talk about as "races". It is not wrong a priori, but only in its lacking correspondence with empirical reality. I have no problems with phylogeny or ancestry based classifications, but human racial groups are not taxa, and much less are they monophyletic taxa..·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:39, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction (paragraph on France) and lack of references

The article currently says "approximately five percent of the French population is non-European". This is arguably a false statement as by definition French citizens are European. You may rephrase it for example by saying that the contemporary French population has various origins, some of which come from its former colonies.

Another point of contention is that the five percent figure is not justified by a reference. There are no ethnicity information in national French census, so I don't know how the author came up with that number. If it comes from a statistical survey, the reference should be mentioned.

Lastly I suggest that the sentence "Since the end of the Second World War, France has become an ethnically diverse country." could be revised as follows: "Ethnic diversity in metropolitan France has increased after the second world war and the rapid dismantling of its colonial empire." The current version seems to imply that it wasn't ethnically diverse before the war. The colonial empire brought ethnic diversity early on. A famous example of a metis in nineteenth century Paris is Alexandre Dumas. And though possibly rare it was by no means an isolated phenomenon.

But more than anything, I believe that the article wouldn't suffer if we would remove that paragraph on France entirely. Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:C50E:89BE:C800:2164:5432:F048:946 (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I think you may be confusing European as defined by location and as defined by ancestry. And I think you need better sources for "diverse" than one person. 99.999999999...% ethnic European isn't "diverse". John Burgundy (talk) 10:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Lede tone is un-encyclopedic

Currently the lede section does not talk about what race is but instead sets up unflattering targets to knock down to persuade the reader not to think certain things about race.

This is an inappropriate tone for an encyclopedic article, it reads like the forward to an undergraduate 'intro to social philosophy' chapter.

The article seems to be written mostly from within the sphere of a particular brand of social anthropology. It uses snarl words to describe other approaches. Even if population genetics does not primarily deal with the language and concepts used to discuss race in a social context, it nonetheless deserves great weight and prominence since its findings are the primary evidence by which any past or current theories implicating race can be evaluated.

The lede section needs to neutrally explain the modern concept of race in the relevant disciplines and as a heuristic in medicine, government censuses. The historical theories can be laid out later. We would not begin an article on disease by laying out an ancient theory of evil spirits. If nobody works to reform the lede, after an appropriate period I will begin rewriting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beepborpwhoorpp (talk • — Beepborpwhoorpp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. contribs) 17:37, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah the article is maintained by American sociologists not biologists. Han Jo Jo (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

First sentence is clumsy

The first sentence of the article is very clumsy. I don't have a quick fix, as I'm not an expert and the topic may be contentious. Nurg (talk) 01:43, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yep, it is clumsy, and yes we have worked very hard on it and not found a better way to phrase it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:50, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I suspect it's clumsy because the concept of race is itself such a clumsy one, and has many different meanings to different people. To me, the words "generally" and "society" epitomise those problems, both being words with no certainty attached to them. But if you get any more certain, you will be guaranteed to upset somebody. HiLo48 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Although I questioned the current lead sentence, as seen at Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 34#As a social construct, before later tweaking it, I think it is fine. I also said it was fine back then. It's supported by the source the wording is based on. I don't find it clumsy at all. Perhaps Nurg will explain why he or she finds the line clumsy. As for "generally," it is synonymous with "typically" and "usually" (in most cases at least). I see no problem with using it, especially when reliable sources do. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Give us precise definitions of "generally", "typically" and "usually". We are aiming to be a quality encyclopaedia, and sloppy language doesn't help anybody. HiLo48 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, and I will not be arguing perfectly fine use of "generally," "typically" and "usually" with you, as if readers do not know what those terms mean, and especially not when those terms are supported by reliable sources. We do not need to spell out what "generally" means for readers. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the controversial nature of this topic, and the diverse views on it around the world, I find that response particularly unhelpful. And don't just resort to the sources as an excuse. They write for much narrower audiences than we, as a global encyclopaedia, must.— Preceding unsigned comment added by HiLo48 (talk • contribs) 05:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

"Generally" is used by the source. I really don't see a problem here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm from a country where people are not labelled according to their race at all. We simply don't use the term. Can you see the problem that someone with my perspective might have? HiLo48 (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Truly fascinating EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You need to read where that link takes you more carefully. It's from 1991. The word "race" occurs twice. The first use is misleading because the document is 27 years old. There has been no question mentioning race on the census for many years. Respondents are asked to self-declare their ancestry. That's a very different thing. HiLo48 (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

My response is particularly unhelpful? Your response is particularly unhelpful. You are not making a bit of sense on "generally," or even on "society." "Generally", "typically" and "usually" are common sense words, and there is no way to define them other than citing them as a synonym of the other, or stating "mostly" or something like that. Go ahead, Google is at your disposal. We use "typically" in our medical articles as well. Should we try to define the common sense word "typically" in those article too? You only started watching this article because of this and/or this discussion, and I am not interested in the same type of non-arguments and aggravating antics you pulled in either of those. You stating "don't just resort to the sources as an excuse" makes me want to point you to WP:Verifiability. At times, I honestly cannot tell if you are trolling. This is my last response to you on this matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think you have any idea of why I watch this article? That I disagree with you? You're wrong about why and how long I have been watching it, BTW. Personal attacks won't help. HiLo48 (talk) 05:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Exercise extreme caution. "Yep, it is clumsy, and yes we have worked very hard on it and not found a better way to phrase it" is entirely correct. It's taken a great deal of stress and struggle to get even to this level of agreement on the wording, and this article has long been covered by discretionary sanctions. Any changes to that sentence really need to have a thorough consensus discussion, I would say.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:28, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Infrasubspecific divisions have taxonomic significance

WP:POINTY and not the place to opine on statements in article EvergreenFir (talk) 04:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance by pointing out that all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and (as far as applicable) subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens." But it's policy here to copy paste self-evidently false material from "reliable sources". Han Jo Jo (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC) Do infrasubspecific divisions have taxonomic significance? Yes Han Jo Jo (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC) WP:NOT#FORUM. Wikipedia polls do not determine reality. As for RS: infrasubspecific taxa are used in botany, but not in zoology; see MOS:ORGANISMS for bullet-point summary of how this stuff works across various fields. If zoology were to adopt the idea, it would probably start with livestock breeds, but the real world has not done anything like this; such fine distinctions are entirely outside zoological nomenclature.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC) The poiint is moot since there is a general consensus among paleoanthropologists and population geneticists that racial groupings are not a taxonomically significant subdivisions of Homo sapiens.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

"The ICZN deals with nomenclature, not taxonomy. So it is not up to the Commission to declare whether something has taxonomic significance or not." ICZN, personal communication.

Why are the sociologists here cherry picking extreme minority views from 2004 to represent the ICZN when the ICZN themselves disagree? Han Jo Jo (talk) 07:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Me: "So it would be fair to say the referenced statement is incorrect? That the ICZN don't record a taxon is irrelevant to whether it has taxonomic significance?"

ICZN: "Yes" Han Jo Jo (talk) 08:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you show us where that has been published? See WP:VERIFY's nutshell:" Readers must be able to check that any of the information within Wikipedia articles is not just made up. This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources." Doug Weller talk 08:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal communication. Contact them and check. Clearly your sources are not reliable at all. Han Jo Jo (talk) 08:14, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Repeat: Personal communication isn't a reliable source. No matter who it comes from.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

This is pointless hairplitting. Professional consensus among anthropologists and geneticists is against the notion. More to the point of this new wave of blather: ICZN sets nomenclature; there is no nomenclatural level (no taxonomic rank) to which human "races" are assigned in modern science, by any body that deals with taxonomy, i.e., with assigning particular subspecific or infrasubspecific names – taxa – at ICZN taxonomic (nomenclatural) ranks. That is, Han Jo Jo is barking up the wrong tree, in the wrong forest. PS: As I think I mentioned earlier, this is exactly the same "un-taxonomy" situation as with breeds and landraces of domesticated livestock. (However, they're otherwise not very comparable – no one is selectively breeding humans to fix particular traits; humans mate with whoever they feel like and can get away with mating, and we move around, a lot).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Please stop making the argument that because there's a "consensus among professionals" that "race does not exist" (which is completely dubious incidentally) that any race denial statement is justified. Whether there is a consensus or not, the argument that because the ICZN do not record an infrasubspecific division that it's therefore of "no taxonomic significance" is without question false. You're just making a non-sequitur assertion, repeating what I already said, that the ICZN deals with nomenclature not taxonomy, then randomly accusing me of "barking up the wrong tree". The statement is simply wrong. If you don't have the integrity to admit that because of your "race does not exist" POV there is little I can do. Sad article, sad website. Han Jo Jo (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)