Talk:Race (human categorization)

Blanqueamiento

Some strange edits have happened lately, each by a different throw-away account:

• Blanqueamiento • diff
• Multiracial • diff and diff
• Passing (racial identity) • diff
• Race (human classification) • diff
• Race and ethnicity in Latin America • diff and diff

Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:SPI time. Delete it as original research, sources need to actually mention Blanqueamiento, and links to the sales or publishers site of a book aren't exactly a source anyway. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Starting to weed it out, also see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maritzaperez10. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I must try to figure out that SPI interface one day. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

People of color

At the end of lede is the following sentence: "A large body of scholarship has traced the relationships between the historical, social production of race in legal and criminal language and their effects on the policing and disproportionate incarceration of people of color." What does 'people of color' exactly mean in a global context?
I know it is a term used in the USA to mean everyone who is not 'white', but this term can't be used elsewhere. The sentence assumes that the race concept has effects on policing and disproportionate incarceration only of 'people of color', and that universally only 'people of color' are incarcerated disproportionately. The usage of the term is problematic as there is no universal definition of 'people of color', 'white' and even if there was, the above statement would be untrue. FonsScientiae (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

POV in the lead

Sock be blocked

The article tries to claim race is of no taxonomic significance. This is based on the debunked (by finding the same ratio between humans and chimpanzees) 1970s Lewontin's fallacy being parroted by the AAA in 1996 and Keita's 2004 article which claimed there were "no discontinuities" in human variation based on a debunked study by Paabo. There are several apex sources (Dawkins, Edwards) who explicitly state that race is of taxonomic significance. Why is their view being censored? Why are you using sources from 1996 when the latest genetic studies have disproved them? This is the AAA: http://www.aaanet.org/resources/A-Public-Education-Program.cfm They are clearly nothing more than a political propaganda group, and this sorry article is an extension. Here is another example of flawed logic to reach the preconceived conclusion: http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/race_humvar.html The new excuse is that more genetic diversity in Africa invalidates a race concept and that non-Africans are a subset of Africans. I guess they looked at Hunley, Healy and Long. I think an important caveat is that they looked at neutral variation. They used only 783 neutral loci, and did not conduct a principle component analysis. As far as I am concerned that is just noise. In plenty of animals a new species will show a nested pattern in the neutral genetic diversity, that doesn't invalidate the distinction. HUGO in "Mapping Genetic Diversity in Asia" used PCA on 600,000 polymorphisms. Coop et al mapped 50 alleles believed to be under selection and found they fractured along racial lines. The race concept is about those genes. I find it absurd to claim that "a nested pattern would be incompatible with independently evolving races". In fact that is exactly what you would expect to see when one population goes through a bottleneck and then starts to evolve separately. And as we know non-African populations are not a perfect subset of Africans. Maybe it would seem like that if you looked at a relatively small amount of neutral variation. How can non-Africans be a subset of Africans if non-Africans show Neanderthal admixture? How can non-Africans be a subset of Africans if only Europeans carry CCR5-Δ32? Obviously, they are not. And even if they were a race concept would still be valid if there was a distinctive pattern of variation. As Dawkins said: "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." This article is nothing more than dishonest propaganda and the "AAA" ought to be ashamed of itself for twisting science for political reasons. SusanKravitz (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC) 1. The claim is not based on Lewontin's paper, but on the fact that the the way that the concept race is used does not correspond to any biological or genetic construction. Racial groups is used to classify phenotypical variation - it is entirely possible to be classified as "black" and have the same genetic markers of neanderthal admixture as someone classified as white. Because racial classification is done by cultural and visual inspection and not through gene tests. Gene tests classify ancestry and everybody is likely to have ancestry from several continents. Using a genetic classification of race would render the concept meaningless in the way that it is used in common parlance and the way it has always been used in anthropology, sociology etc. Dawkins and Edwards are trying to redefine the word "race" to mean something that it has never meant before - namely a fuzzy set defined by statistical correlations between allelle frequencies and continents. And they are defining taxonomy in strict genetic terms, which is also not the common way of using that sense - in Dawkins usage genetic variation between belgium and holland (as one could surely find if surveying enough loci and enough individuals) would be of taxonomical significance. Their viewopoints may be important in population genetics (although they are clearly not universally accepted since population geneticists still tend to talk about ancestral populations and geographic ancestry and not race). Untill their viewpoints are widely accepted as having replaced previous discourses about what "race" and "taxonomical significance" in generalist literature then the article will not be describing their views as the state of consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC) That is not a fact and is in fact a bald faced lie. Race corresponds to observed genetic clusters which also correspond to clusters formed from phenotypic analysis a la Blumenbach. The concept of race has always referred to fuzzy sets since Blumenbach invented it, he was clear the boundaries blended into each other. Blumenbach used correlations in phenotypic traits. Now they are finding the same patterns with correlations in the genome. These are two lines of evidence for the same thing, not a "redefined concept". The "race concept" (giving names to geographic populations which show evidence of shared ancestry, whether one of them has higher "genetic diversity" or not) is of course perfectly valid and it is baffling that anybody swallows this nonsense. SusanKravitz (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Blumenbach did not invent the concept of race, and people don't generally use his definition when using the term in either in academia or in colloquial usage. People do not say "the suspect was 57% genetically white/black" but they say "the suspect is white/black" - the way race is and has been used is not as a fuzzy concept. You are allowed to be baffled, but your baffledness does not determine how we write our articles. It is by the way also incorrect to suggest that this view of genetics and race is confined to Anthropology - geneticists like Joseph Graves, Alan Templeton, John Relethford and Jonathan Marks (also an anthropologist) who are every bit as familiar with human genetic variation as Dawkins and Edwards also hold these views.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Actually people do use this idea since they are generally aware that a small minority of people are mixed/indeterminate race. It is another lie to suggest anyone believes in an "essentialist" concept. All Marks and Graves etc. do is parrot the fallacies (there are several of them) of Lewontin, as you can see here.[1] Note how his "arguments" are exploded in the comments section and he fails to respond. SusanKravitz (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC) A small minority? Hah. Thats ridiculous. Virtually everybody is "mixed race", and under Dawkins or Edwards definitions which would create hundreds of mini races correlating with every genetically discernible population even more so. I think Marks is just to smart to respond to people who don't know what they're talking about but are hellbent on proving that certain groups are genetically different. Unlike yours truly. Great talking to you again Mike.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC) Yes there are a very large number of races. At the highest level of clustering there are three: Caucasian, Negro and Mongoloid. Native Americans are sometimes separated but cluster closest to East Asians. The existence of lower level clusters doesn't negate the existence of higher ones. The majority of people are not "mixed" when applying these three clusters. Central Asians such as Kazakh and Uyghur are mixed, Ethiopians are mixed, African Americans are mixed. These actually represent a small minority of humans. And of course groups are genetically different, this much is obvious. SusanKravitz (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Attention to Mongoloid

Editors here should take a look at Mongoloid which uses cherrypicked outdated sources to make it look as if this concept still has scientific currency.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

"ArtifexMayhem" removing sourced material and misrepresenting sources

Dawkins says race is of taxonomic significance. Why is this view censored? The OED does not say race is no longer in use. Why does this article say that, which is sourced to the OED? The best meta-review on the subject I know of is "The Status of the Race Concept in Contemporary Biological Anthropology: A Review" by Strkalj.[2] Clearly the race concept is still in use in most places. Why does this user not explain why he is inserting false material rather than attacking volunteer editors with spurious accusations? 121.173.252.21 (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC) block evasion Professor marginalia (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Sage Journals Publication with regards to the whitening ideology otherwise known as whitening branqueamento/blanqueamiento

I made a small edit to this page a few days ago and while reading threw this talk page I noticed something very odd. A section was removed from this page based on a false claim that certain words were not being mentioned (whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento) When in fact these words (whitening/blanqueamiento/branqueamento) were mentioned more than 50 times in different cites.

The odd thing is that different editors seem to have come to the same false conclusion that these words were not being mentioned when in fact these words were mentioned more than 50 times in different cites.

Based on the fact these words (blanqueamiento/branqueamento/whitening) are clearly being mentioned (despite being falsely claimed not to be) I intend to restore the section that was removed but before I do I would like to list some of the cites that were removed based on false claims that certain words were not being mentioned and than list the amount times they are in fact being mentioned.

• Blanqueamiento • diff
• Multiracial • diff and diff
• Passing (racial identity) • diff
• Race (human classification) • diff
• Race and ethnicity in Latin America • diff and diff

Having looked threw the editing histories of the pages above is quite clear that the section titled - blanqueamiento racial classification was first added to race and ethnicity in latin America. It was than removed based on a false claim (oddly by different editors) that the words whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento (blanqueamiento/branqueamento both mean whitening) were not being mentioned in any of the cites when in fact these words were mentioned more than 50 times in one cite alone. I will now list some of the cites that were removed based on these false claims.

Source how it originally appeared -

http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/members/congress-papers/lasa2009/files/RodriguezGriselda.pdf

The cite above was removed (along with the section tilted blanqueamiento racial classification) based on a false claim that the words whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento (blanqueamiento/branqueamento both mean whitening) were not beong mentioned. In fact these words (blanqueamiento/branqueamento/whitening) are clearly mentioned more than 10 times in the cite above.

It should be noted that blanqueamiento is spelled blanquamiento in this cite –

http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/members/congress-papers/lasa2009/files/RodriguezGriselda.pdf

Cite how it originally appeared -

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/940.abstractrt

Google search I did to find full cite –

http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jmuniz/schwartzman2007.pdf

The cite above was removed (along with the section tilted blanqueamiento racial classification) based on a false claim that the words whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento (blanqueamiento/branqueamento both mean whitening) were not being mentioned. In fact these words (blanqueamiento/branqueamento/whitening) are mentioned more than 50 times in the cite link above.

Not only is whitening mentioned more than 50 times but whiten is in the cite title (Does money whiten) and whitening is clearly visible in the abstract.

It really strikes me as somewhat strange that different editors seem to have read the title does money whiten, see the word whitening in the abstract, see the word whitening a further 50 times and than both come to same false conclusion that whitening is not being mentioned.

There are also other examples of cites being removed based on false claims that the words blanqueamiento/branqueamento/whiening are not being mentioned when they clearly are.--CR.ROWAN (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Without commenting at the moment about 'whitening' being in the sources, the conference paper by Grizela Rodriguez does not meet our criteria at WP:RS. As of 2010 she was a Adjunct Assistant Professor in the Laguardia Community College division of the Laguardia Community College agency[3] which is about as low in the academic pecking order as you can get. Dougweller (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Please do not simply restore anything. I checked some of those myself and found either that the source didn't back the statement or that the edit was original research. A lot of it was by sock puppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Maritzaperez10/Archive and you should not be simply restoring sock puppet edits. Read WP:NOR, make sure that your edits are indeed your own based on your own research. Dougweller (talk) 17:28, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits by AlmightySalvatore

I've raised the issue of these edits at WP:NPOV#Race (human classification). Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by ArtifexMayhem

I've just undone two edits to this article and its template by ArtifexMayhem. [4] [5] I don't plan to become involved in the endless disputes over this article, but it seems clear from the Race and intelligence article that this is a notable topic. If ArtifexMayhem believes the topic to not be notable, the appropriate course of action would be to nominate the article about it for deletion, and to remove the links to it after it is deleted (but not before). --Mors Martell (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I've removed it again. As is currently written it is better to not have a section since it mischarcaterizes the debate and the views of several scholar.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

There should be some mention of the topic, but I'm not particular how it's summarized. Would you be willing to rewrite the summary in a way that you consider accurate? --Mors Martell (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I would. And I agree it should be mentioned somehow. I'll do it later today.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

While I disagree with the inclusion of fringe topics in this article per WP:ONEWAY, I'm ok with Maunus' edit. Thanks Maunus. I also find it odd that a fresh start account would have this page under observation. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I began paying attention to this topic following the arbitration requests about it from Sightwatcher and Cla68 last month. I get the impression that the disputes in this topic are among the most intractable anywhere on Wikipedia, which means the articles likely will have lots of room for improvement, but also be very hard on individual editors. I don't consider myself ready to deal with that, so I don't plan to become a regular here.

Looking at the sources in the Race and intelligence article, I disagree with your characterization of the entire topic as "fringe". I see citations to papers published in Nature and American Psychologist, and books published by Oxford and Cambridge University press, all of which discuss the topic of the article directly. These are not publishers which normally cover true fringe topics, such as homeopathy or holocaust denial. --Mors Martell (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I do appreciate the WP:ONEWAY concern which was why I initially agreed with the removal, but I do think the body of literature is large enough to require some sort of mention, perhaps short of a full section.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Subspecies

The intro states "all living humans belong to the same species (and subspecies), Homo sapiens." Since Homo sapiens is a species, this should perhaps be specified to Homo sapiens sapiens? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Since there are other (extinct) subspecies, it probably should read ""all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens." Professor marginalia (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that would be even better, but I didn't want to make it overly long, but clarity is more important, of course. That would also help placing humans in a context, since race and subspecies are often used as synonyms. If humans are a subspecies, along with Neanderthals or H. s. idaltu for example, the question of races within a subspecies becomes rather insignificant in comparison. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest the use of "subspecies", while technically correct, is a red herring. The inference is that subspecies currently exist in the human race. It should probably be removed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Homo sapiens sapiens is the subspecies of modern humans, while there are also the extinct Homo sapiens idaltu, and perhaps Homo sapiens neanderthaliensis (and perhaps others). Just because the other taxa of Homo sapiens are extinct, modern humans don't suddenly cease to be a subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I misread the first bit, my mistake. Yes it should be Homo sapiens sapiens. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll add Professor marginalia's phrasing then. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mainstream view

What is the mainstream view of the status of the race concept? How can we determine that? BanjoBruce (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

By reading mainstream literature.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Are there any good surveys? BanjoBruce (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

College textbooks in Physical anthropology is a good place to start, for example try Sanford, Allen & Anton's "Introduction to Biological Anthropology". You could also try Relethford's "human biological variation", or Vogel & Motulsky's "Human genetics". And you should probably also look at something like Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban's "Race & Racism: Introduction" which gives an historical overview of the debates surrounding race in society and academia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

What do they say? BanjoBruce (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I found this in Vogel:

"While it is an undeniable mathematical fact that the amount of genetic variation observed within groups is much larger than the differences among groups, this does not mean that genetic data do not contain discernable information regarding genetic ancestry. In fact, we will see that minute differences in allele frequencies across loci when compounded across the whole of the genome actually contain a great deal of information regarding ancestry." BanjoBruce (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct and it is also in the article. Genetic analysis provides information about how individual ancestry is divided between different geographic populations. But that does of course not mean that it provides information about race, since racial classification is a question of how a specific phenotype is evaluated by other people in a specific social context. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, it doesn't. Whether race is a valid taxonomy is a separate question. So what in your source provides an answer either way? It's interesting you bring up "social context". The scientific community is a social context. This paper from Strkalj[6] collates multiple surveys from around the world.

"Two multiethnic countries, the USA and China provide good examples. The USA is a country with a long history of racial problems. Historically ‘racial science’ in America, from Samuel George Morton to Carleton Stevens Coon, was often racist in nature and even contributed towards the implementation of segregationist policies (e.g., Barkan, 1992; Marks, 1995; Gossett, 1997; Jackson, 2001). In the words of Baker and Patterson (1994: 1) “the ideology of race has played a significant role in the development and professionalization of anthropology in the United States”. Although American society endured radical changes through the process of desegregation, the consequences of its racist past are still felt. ‘Race’ is therefore a very sensitive and politically charged issue. Consequently, even belief in the existence of human races is often seen, especially in liberal academic circles (Sarich and Miele, 2005), as a potential contributor to social disturbance. In China, on the other hand, race seems to be a factor for social cohesion. A strong message that emanates from the research on human variation is that the ethnically diverse populations of China are unified by belonging to the same Mongoloid race (Wang et al., 2002, 2003). This seems to have been a leitmotif in studies of human variation in China throughout history and this racial identity is often traced back into the evolutionary past to the Chinese Homo erectus (Dikötter, 1992; Wang, 2002, 2003; Lieberman et al., 2004). Simplifying matters again, it may be stated that the racial approach is not a politically correct one in the USA. Anthropologists might therefore not feel at ease (to say the least) should they employ this approach, as they might be branded as racists. In stark contrast the racial approach is politically correct in China and scientists seem to be ‘encouraged’ to use the concept both in public and scientific discourse (Wang, 2003). Social context, therefore, plays a significant role in anthropologists’ attitudes towards ‘race’ and in the significant differences between the scientists from these two countries."

While I think we would agree that social and political fashions may influence the expression of the race concept, I hope we would also agree that it is possible to analyse human variation neutrally (in the same way as other animals) and arrive at an uninfluenced perspective. However, this source makes it clear that social and political fashions may influence both race affirmation, and race denial, even to the highest levels of academia. So where do we stand? Is it our place to choose one view? Shall we hash out the arguments here? The vast majority of anthropologists in China support the race concept. Do we ignore them all in favor of the US view? BanjoBruce (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bruce. Would you please at this point say which accounts you have previously edited with? You are repeating almost verbatim arguments from banned users, argument which have been repeatedly shown to be false and tendentious, and which relies on fringe sources such as Strkalj and Sarich/Miele or misrepresrent sources such as Dikötter. The vast majority of scientists in North Korea believe in Unicorns. That doesnt really matter in terms of how Wikipedia should write about unicorns. It is not wikipedias place to support any one view but to show the range of views that exist in mainstream science - weighted in relation to their weight in mainstream science. Chinese anthropology is not a part of the mainstream science on race or on human biological variation. It is of course possible to stuydy human biological variation scientifically (If not neutrally), and people have done so and realized that human biological variation does not support the concept of race - humans vary but not in ways that correspond to racial categories, or which can be defined as neat mutually exclusive groups. This means that today human biological variation is studied independently of the study of race. Race is studied in sociology, political science and cultural anthropology by scholars who study how human biological variation is culturally and socially interpreted, and human biological variation is studied in genetics and physical anthropology, who work with how genetic variation maps onto geographical populations. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The quote is taken from a very obscure paper-google scholar suggests it's been cited 4 times, all of them also authored by Štrkalj. Nobody in mainstream anthropology today associates Chinese "racial identity [..] back into the evolutionary past to the Chinese Homo erectus." Professor marginalia (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The paper references a number of other surveys which can be checked. It's a meta review and the best evidence we have for the international status of the race concept. Any one of the referenced surveys (such as Lieberman or Cartmill) could be used on their own and would make essentially the same point, which stands. If you have better evidence to the contrary go ahead and present it. Also your claim that "nobody" in mainstream anthropology associates Chinese racial identity back into the evolutionary past to the Chinese Homo erectus is simply false, as examining the numerous references to Chinese scholars (via Q.Wang and L. Sun) in Strkalj's paper demonstrates. Why don't you check the references instead of making stuff up? BanjoBruce (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

No, Strkalj is a fringe scientist who is only cited by a little handful of socalled "race realists". There are dozens of very good surveys of the status of the race concept worldwide written by mainstream scholars. Wang and Sun are not mainstream anthropologists. Milford Wolpoff has argued for genetic continuation from Homo erectus to contemporary populations, but he is very clear in rejecting that this would support racial theories - and his multi-regional model is rejected by everyone but him and a couple of his students by now. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I see that BanjoBruce still hasn't disclosed his previous accounts, and he is still repeating the arguments of banned users? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

"No, Strkalj is a fringe scientist who is only cited by a little handful of socalled "race realists". There are dozens of very good surveys of the status of the race concept worldwide written by mainstream scholars. Wang and Sun are not mainstream anthropologists."

What is "fringe" or "mainstream" seems little more than your personal opinion. But to be objective, what surveys? BanjoBruce (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Please disclose any previous accounts under which you have edited. I have been rather generous in directing you towards useful literature. The mainstream is located by knowing the state of an academic field, including which are the main journals and who publish there and who gets cited. The fringe is whatever is not cited or which is mostly cited disapprovingly. That is the process through which science moves forward. Again I suggest you pick up a basic textbook in physical anthropology or an introduction to race such as the one I directed you to. Then you can see who are cited and who aren't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

So you mention a handful of US books (failing to provide quotes that support your claims) and then reference "dozens" of nameless "very good surveys". So therefore the multiple surveys I have referenced showing significant race acceptance in the West and unanimous acceptance in the East are all wrong? That's your argument? BanjoBruce (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The claim "it has been demonstrated that race has no genetic basis" is referenced to "Steven A. Ramirez What We Teach When We Teach About Race: The Problem of Law and Pseudo-Economics 54 Journal of Legal Education 365 (2004)". Is this one of your highly cited anthropologists? BanjoBruce (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

You've now referenced that statement to Marks and Templeton (with three references to Templeton) who represent one POV in the debate. This is POV editing at its very worst. BanjoBruce (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

They happen to represent the mainstream POV. And they are both geneticists and anthropologists. Pther sources that could be added is Francis Collins and Craig Ventner of the guman genome project, Vogel & Motulsky, Relethford's "Human Biological Variation" etc. As well as of course the fact that geneticists worldwide have dropped the word races and now invariably talk about populations. There are an endless amount of references that could be put in support of that statement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

So you agree that there is a genetically meaningful "Sub-Saharan African population", a "West Eurasian population", and an "East Asian population". BanjoBruce (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Collins: "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 variants1, 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." BanjoBruce (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not claiming it has no biological connection but it does not have a biological basis' - the connection however goes through two links 2. phenotype and 3 cultural context. No "race denialist" denies that it is possible with a reasonable degree of certainty to guess whether a person in Detroit consider themselves to be African American or not by looking at them (although in Miami or LA it might be a lot more difficult). Whether a population is meaningful depends on which particular genetic trait is being studied, and "sub-saharan african population" is no more inherently meaningful than "a redhaired population" or "the belgian population", or "the population of people all of whose greatgrandparents are from from Manchester. Now this is not a forum and from now on I will respond to comments that have specific proposals for how to improve the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

But if "East Asian Population" (aka. Mongoloid race) did not have a biological basis, why would it be used frequently in the genetic literature? If it was arbitrary, as you imply, why never "Asian population", or "South and South East Asian population" vs. "North East Asian population"? My proposal is to modify the POV statement that it has been "demonstrated" that race has no biological basis, because it does and multiple sources assert that, notably the entire field of Chinese anthropology. I've seen genetics papers from these guys and they know what they are doing. All Chinese scientists (a greater number than in America) are "fringe loons"? Nice attitude. BanjoBruce (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

That statement has already been modified by Dougweller.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, it hasn't been demonstrated that race categories have "no link" (or correlation) to non-superficial differences such as intelligence, as this Harvard psychology paper shows.[7] BanjoBruce (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC) striking banned user Professor marginalia (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

That paper does not contradict the current statement. There are no demonstrated links between any specific alleles associated with geographic specific populations and any of the characteristics mentioned.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Banjo Bruce turns out to be sock of one of our most despicable puppetmasters, Mikemikev

Thanks to MathSci. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive. We should delete his talk page edits but the problem is the intervening edits by others. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Note that he often uses IP addresses, one of them has also been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Strike-out applied (also to another of his earlier IP sock attempts above). Professor marginalia (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Maps

I think this map should be added. It seems the most accurate.

Global racial map by Eugenicist Lothrop Stoddard in The Rising Tide of Color Against White World-Supremacy.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.3.75 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Craig Venter quote reference

In the Social Constructions section 2nd paragraph:
the link cited as reference is obsolete, I suggest changing it to this one where his quote is present :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vS7AO9XYj4 --Lizukasan (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

The "Complications and various definitions of the concept" needs to be tossed out or extensively re-written.

Primarily this section does not do what its title suggests. It seems nothing more than an opinion piece from what would be termed in the United States a left wing political slant.

Misleading Use of Citation 3

This paper was used in in this editto justify an alteration to the definition used in this article. Specifically, the quote "Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'".

However, the paper goes on to claim that this usage is erroneous.

"'Race' is 'socially constructed' when the word is incorrectly used as the covering term for social or demographic groups. "

This source is being used to say something vastly different than its actual claim.

The paper expresses an opinion that that usage is "incorrect" (which is in itself ridiculous given that they have no authority to establish a particular usage as correct), but it also supports the claim that the "incorrect" usage exists which is what it is used to support in the paper. And most actual specialists in race don't agree with that particular group of scientists. I do agree though that we should find one of the hundreds of better sources in support for that claim. Ironically the conclusion of the paper is that the "correct" use of the word denotes something that doesn't exist - and they conclude the word shouldn't be used at all (an argument that goes back to Ashley Montagu)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:26, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The authors are making the point that, as applied to humans, the usage is erroneous if the word is defined in "the most current taxonomic" sense because, "Modern human genetic variation does not structure into phylogenetic subspecies (geographical 'races'), nor do the taxa from the most common racial classifications of classical anthropology qualify as 'races'." This does not change the fact that "common use of the term has come from sociopolitical discourse" in which "[r]eligious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:50, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Definition of Race defies English Oxford Dictionary

According to the definition in the English Oxford Dictionary, race has nothing to do with religion.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/race--2

Walterbyrd (talk) 22:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Speed of skin colour change

I have marked as dubious the claim that "More recent genetic studies indicate that skin color may change radically over as few as 100 generations, or about 2,500 years, given the influence of the environment". The ref to support the claim is an article based on a radio news story that was edited together from an interview or speech by Nina Jablonski. The transcipt is here and there is a link to listen to the audio on the original ref. Listening to the audio it is obvious that this is not a genuine interview but is a story by the reporter with soundbites from Jablonski added in to make it sound (a bit) like she's responding to him.

The same ref was recently used to justify questionable claims to the Human skin color page and I have flagged it as dubious here as well so editors can review its use. It was originally added by user:Beland back in June 2009, I will put a note on that user's talk page in case he/she wants input.

Although Jablonski does actually state the claim (unlike some of the other things the reporter attributes to her), the main issue I have is that this is the only place she makes it. Since the story in early 2009 she has published numerous papers in peer-reviewed journals as well as a book on the topic but I can't find any reference or support for the claim in any of them, nor in any other research by any other authors. My guess is that the research looked promising at the time of the interview but it didn't pan out and so was abandoned. If there were any validity to it I would expect there to some hard evidence or at least some repetition of the claim in her subsequent publications/speeches.

It seems like it was a justifiable edit at the time it was made - a news source reported a researcher talking about their latest research and it was added here as a possible fact. Four years later however no corroboration (nor even a mention) of the claim has surfaced and it becomes more of a one-off statement with no factual basis. I suggest it be deleted. Tobus2 (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

UPDATE: I've change the ref to a more reliable one (NatGeo). Tobus2 (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

@Tobus2: I don't see how the National Geographic reference is very reliable. It simply attributes the claim to "scientists", and has no citations backing up its claim. The NPR piece attributes the claim to a particular scientist, Nina Jablonski, and cites her book for more detail. It also has a lot more context and information about the mechanism by which this can occur. Perhaps both references should be in the article, and possibly the book? It would be interesting to get more detail on the actual underlying studies that are being summarized. -- Beland (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

National Geographic, in my mind anyway, has a better scientific reputation to uphold and better editorial oversight (fact checking etc.) than this NPR story, so it's a more reliable secondary source as per WP:RS. If NatGeo says it then I'm not going to question that it's a genuine scientific theory, but I certainly questioned it when NPR was the only source I could find.

I'm no longer challenging the statement itself, although I'd too like to see the "More recent genetic studies" the article claims as opposed to the more general "scientists believe" that NatGeo says, I've looked but can't find any studies it's based on. I still have major issues with reliability of the NPR article in general - it's sensationalised from a heavily edited "interview" and we were unable to independently verify a lot of what it said, even in Jablonski's own books and papers. The outcome of the discussion at Human Skin Colour was to leave out the more radical and unverifiable claims and just state the verifiable ones (pretty much what the NatGeo says), and we used NatGeo and Jablonski as refs instead of the NPR ref. In terms of how it's used on this page I'm not going to argue or revert if you still think it's worth using as a second ref, but since it makes a lot of other claims that don't appear to be correct I'd prefer if it wasn't used at all - the editor at Human Skin Colour first found the ref here and then used it a source for the other, unverifiable claims.

Tobus2 (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

A number of persons of the same race ?

A number of persons of the same race ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 113.199.169.148 (talk) 07:50, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

One reference has problem

Dobzhansky, T. (2005). "Race and reification in science". Science 307 (5712):

This reference is actually written by Troy Duster. I tried to revise it but I couldn't.

Confirmed and fixed. Tobus2 (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Intro

The intro states "because among humans, race has no taxonomic significance: all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."

Dawkins writes here: "Lewontin is right that the majority of human variation is to be found within races, not between them. One way to put this is that you could wipe out all human races except one, and most of the genetic variation of the human species would still be there. But Lewontin is wrong to suggest that therefore 'race' has no taxonomic meaning because, as Edwards points out, such variation as there is between races is correlated."[8]

Is it true that this article takes the position of Marxist pseudoscientist Lewontin? "Taxonomic significance" clearly extends beyond the single subspecies level named in the ICZN, as any number of zoological papers can verify. Ultimate Broseph Stalin (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)