Talk:Race and genetics

Dawkins quote.

The Dawkin's quote is an example of quote mining, and has been taken out of context. The quote comes from the chapter "The Grasshopper's Tale" from the book "The Ancestor's Tale". From the book:

The Grasshopper's Tale is about races and species, about the difficulty in defining both, and what all this has to say about human races.

The chapter then goes on to make the case that races are not a genetically useful term.

Whatever we may think as observers of superficial appearances, the human species today is, to a geneticist, especially uniform. Taking such genetic variation as the human population does possess, we can measure the fraction that is associated with the regional groupings we call races. And it turns out to be a small percentage of the total: between 6 and 15 percent depending on how you measure it - much smaller than in many other species where races have been distinguished. Geneticists conclude, therefore, that race is not a very important aspect of a person.

And concludes with the genetic significance of superficial traits:

Inter-observer agreement suggest that racial classification is not totally uninformative, but what does it inform about? About no more than the characterisics use by the observers when they agree: things like eye shape and hair curliness - nothing more unless we are given further reasons to believe it.

The paragraph from which the out of context quote is mined starts with the observation that most human variation occurs within a race, not between races. The quote itself is used to refute the very fine point that while races are not genetically important, their taxonomic significance is non-zero. The specific statement being refuted here is that race is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.' Dawkins is saying that while race is not genetically meaningful, it still has some taxonomic utility. aprock (talk) 10:39, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I concur. The Dawkins source is (was) being used improperly. The whole "Lewontin's Fallacy" fallacy is getting a bit old. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:59, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

"But that doesn't mean that race is of ‘virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance’. This is Edwards's point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

There was no misuse of the Dawkins quote. Octoink has provided the quote with some of the preceding comments, which clearly indicates the context of the Dawkins quote as being the question of race and genetics. Indeed, it is quite implausible to imagine anyone reading the surrounding pages of material could come away with the impression that his quote did not concern race and genetics.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't know where any doubt might have come from but Dawkins definitely covers race and genetics in the source. And therein lies the rub... Given the fact that Dawkins is in complete agreement with Lewontin's science, which is highly respected and not in doubt, using a single quote to "debunk" said science without any explanation as to Dawkins reasoning is not appropriate and is, by definition, cherry picking. As Dawkins says: "Some people may find the evidence of biochemical genetics unsatisfying because it seems not to square with their everyday experience. Unlike cheetahs, we don't 'look' uniform. Norwegians, Japanese and Zulus really do look rather dramatically different from one another. With the best will in the world, it is intuitively hard to believe what is in fact the truth: that they are 'really' more alike than three chimpanzees who look, to our eyes, much more similar." — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Presenting Dawkins' discussion in The Ancestor's Tale as a refutation of Lewontin is cherry picking at it's worst. To the extent that Dawkins disagrees, it is to say specifically that the visible traits that we use to distinguish race are indicators that can be used to predict the visible traits which we use to distinguish race. aprock (talk) 02:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear to me from reading the source that Dawkins was saying that racial classification does have genetic significance as it correlates with observed differences in races. The position is that the differences are not particularly extreme, but are still there. As opposed to the position that race is so muddled that it is useless as a genetic classification this is a noteworthy point of disagreement between two mainstream academics on the issue.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

"Dawkins was saying that racial classification does have genetic significance as it correlates with observed differences in races": If the Dawkins source were being used to say that observable characteristics are genetic, there wouldn't be much of an issue. That's not what it's being used for. aprock (talk) 04:56, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I am saying that the source supports presenting Dawkins as disputing Lewontin's claim about the validity of race as a genetic classification.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:50, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that Dawkins is disputing Lewontin's "inference that race is therefore a meaningless concept" cannot be used to infer Dawkins supports "the validity of race as a genetic classification". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:55, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

If the experiment were to be done, I do not think Lewontin would expect any other result than the one I have predicted. Yet an opposite prediction would seem to follow from his statement that racial classification has virtually no taxonomic or genetic significance. If there is no taxonomic or genetic significance, the only other way to get a high inter-observer correlation would be a worldwide similarity in cultural bias, and I do not think Lewontin would want to predict that either. In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong. Lewontin did his sums right, of course: he is a brilliant mathematical geneticist. The proportion of the total variation in the human species that falls into the racial partition of variation is, indeed, low. But because the between-race variation, however low a percentage of the total variation, is correlated, it is informative in ways that could surely be demonstrated by measuring the inter-observer concordance of judgement.

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

If Dawkin's position wasn't accurately portrayed, the solution would be to adjust it not delete relevant content. Dawkin's position appears to be that the majority of genetic differences are within population and not between population, and that genetic differences between populations is small. But he clearly states that it doesn't mean that race is not of genetic significance. He makes it repeatedly clear time and time again that race is of genetic significance however small the genetic difference may be. BlackHades (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Aprock or ArtifexMayhem, what would your suggestions be in regards to accurately representing Dawkins. Aprock stated "If the Dawkins source were being used to say that observable characteristics are genetic, there wouldn't be much of an issue." Any suggestions on how you would like to draft this? BlackHades (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of the important bits would be:

1. No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine if any two people are of the same race or not.
2. No objective criterion exist that would allow us to determine how many races there are.
3. Racial classification is informative 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 that are correlated with race — perhaps especially facial characteristics."
4. The "superficial differences that helped our ancestors to prefer insiders over outsiders have been enhanced out of all proportion to the real genetic differences between us".
5. Individuals are "far more different from other members of their group than their groups are from each other".

It would not be appropriate to infer from Dawkins that "between-race variation" is or might be of genetic significance in relation to any complex trait (e.g., intelligence) or that said variation supports the concept of genetically defined races. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins clearly agrees with Edwards. No argument to the contrary has been presented, so I think the original content should be restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.165.78 (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Aprock previously stated that there would be no issue with the source if it refers to observable characteristics. So I added text that better explained Dawkins' position using the example he gives to why he disagrees with Lewontin based on observable characteristics. BlackHades (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, what I wrote was: "'Presenting Dawkins' discussion in The Ancestor's Tale as a refutation of Lewontin is cherry picking at it's worst.'". It appears that you are now cherry picking my comments as well. aprock (talk) 22:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Explain exactly what am I cherry picking? Not to mention you are completely wrong. Dawkins DOES disagree with Lewontin. This is not a cherry picking. It is a mere fact that he makes repeatedly clear. I don't understand how anyone can misinterpret the line by Dawkins.

"In short, I think Edwards is right and Lewontin, not for the first time, wrong."--Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins also makes this repeatedly clear on his website where he gets into disputes against other readers that do not accept biological races here:

"I was concerned to disprove Lewontin's assertion that there are no racial distinctions in the human species."--Richard Dawkins

"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. I gave a simple demonstration of the validity of the concept of race in The Ancestor's Tale."--Richard Dawkins

"OK, but all I need in order to disprove Lewontin, is to show that there are SOME races that are unequivocally distinguishable."--Richard Dawkins

This fact has now been expressed to you by several different editors which you continue to ignore. Your cherry argument fails. Dawkins does agree with Edwards and disagrees with Lewontin and you've provided absolutely zero evidence to the contrary. If the text actually was WP:CHERRY, you should be more than capable to alter the text in accordance with WP:V. But you've been unable to do so despite being encouraged to. Why? Because there is no WP:CHERRY and Dawkins was already being accurately represented in regards to his views on Lewontin. This is a classic case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. BlackHades (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the chapter from which your quoting? All indications are that you have not. If you think that that chapter is relevant to the article, by all means include a discussion of the chapter. Selecting only the short portions of the chapter that you can twist to your own POV isn't going to cut it. Refer to the opening comment in this section if you need help finding the broad theme of the chapter. aprock (talk) 01:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Your entire premise is based entirely on straw man arguments that has nothing to do with the underlining fact. That Dawkins agrees with Edwards and disagrees with Lewontin. Difficulty defining races is a straw man argument. When you're quoting Dawkins that he believes in between genetic variation of races is small, this is another straw man argument. This is both Edwards and Dawkins position, which is in agreement with Lewontin, and was clearly stated as such in the article. All this is unrelated to Dawkins' specific criticism of Lewontin's claim that race has 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance' which Dawkins is heavily critical of. When provided repeated evidence that Dawkins disagrees with Lewontin, you ignore it. When given the opportunity to freely edit and represent Dawkins view on Lewontin the way YOU want, you don't use it. Instead you've now made SIX reverts to remove Dawkins from the article entirely simply because it doesn't align with your POV. Do I really have to explain why Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin is relevant in a section titled "Lewontin's argument and criticism"? This should be pretty self evident. BlackHades (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

"Difficulty defining races is a straw man argument." Actually, it's the thesis of the chapter. If you deem the chapter thesis to be irrelevant, there's nothing left to discuss. aprock (talk) 06:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes it is straw man argument as the difficulty defining races has absolutely nothing to do with Dawkins' specific criticism of Lewontin. You keep bothering to make points nobody is even disputing. None of which even remotely conflicts with Dawkins' criticism of Lewontin position that race is 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance.' While not giving a single shred of evidence to dispute the actual text in question. Do you or do you not realize "difficulty defining races" does not equal "race has no genetic or taxonomic significance"? Because it doesn't seem like you do. BlackHades (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

In summary, Dawkins agrees with Edwards and the deleted section should be restored. This particular part of the article is about Lewontin's argument not an attempt to precisely summarize Dawkin's views on race and genetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.61.181.253 (talk) 13:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

@84.61.181.253: You have been added as a party to the dispute resolution case pending at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Race and genetics. This notice is being posted here in addition to your talk page due to the dynamic nature of your IP address. You are not required to participate; however, you are invited to help find a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! (If other editors in this dispute have been missed and wish to participate, please feel free to do so as well.) — TransporterMan (TALK) (as DRN volunteer) 14:30, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed Chart

I've removed the cluster tree chart. The source used for that chart is nearly 20 years old, and the presentation of the data appears to be based on editor synthesis, not on a presentation from the book. There is no page number citation, or indication that the authors find this particular presentation of the data to be representative of their conclusions. Current presentations of similar data tend to be multidimensional, and inclusive of more population groups than the ones selected here. However, even those present genetic distance of a subset of the genome, not the entire genome as a whole. It's important that graphical presentations of data be supported, not just by data, but also by high quality secondary sources which give weight to whether such a representation is appropriate for the topic at hand. aprock (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The cluster tree chart is on page 80 of the book. It is not editor synthesis. Such presentation of data is supported by high quality secondary sources. Including:

Jorde, Lynn B., and Stephen P. Wooding. "Genetic variation, classification and'race'." Nature genetics 36 (2004): S28-S33.

Nei, Masatoshi, and Arun K. Roychoudhury. "Evolutionary relationships of human populations on a global scale." Molecular Biology and Evolution 10.5 (1993): 927-943.

Livshits, Gregory, and Masatoshi Nei. "Relationships between intrapopulational and interpopulational genetic diversity in man." Annals of human biology 17.6 (1990): 501-513.

As the chart and data is supported and similar to other high quality secondary sources and the original assertion of "editor synthesis" has been shown to be wrong, I am restoring this cluster tree chart. BlackHades (talk) 21:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The ordering of the population labels by skin-color, African, New Guinean ... European Caucasoid, Non-European Caucasoid, was violently misleading. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't by skin color but by genetic clusters. BlackHades (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Really? What numeric property of a genetic cluster was used to determine the ordering of the population labels? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 07:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's in the source. It's actually quite an extensive amount of genetic data. The formula itself is two pages long. Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi Luca (1994). The History and Geography of Human Genes. BlackHades (talk) 08:01, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You stated the ordering of the population labels "wasn't by skin color but by genetic clusters" and now you've stated that "It's in the source" and now I'm asking you to backup your claims (and yes I do have a copy of the source). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have the source, look through chapter one. You want me to name every piece of the formula used? It consistently mentions polymorphic markers. Where's your evidence that it's by skin color? BlackHades (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

L. Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza (1994). The history and geography of human genes. Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-08750-4. .copy for all.Moxy (talk) 22:12, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Moxy. Let's all please drop the WP:OR argument now. BlackHades (talk) 22:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Other than the problem that the chart has been re-ordered from the source, there is the problem that this article is specifically about Race and genetics, not Population clusters and genetics. The source is being used to imply population clusters and "race" are equivalent when the source explicitly states that this is not the case (Internal footnotes omitted, emphasis mine)...

The nine clusters chosen differ in their genetic homogeneity, but we are interested in establishing history and not in generating a classification scheme. A criticism raised by Bateman et al. (1990a) on this point misses the difference between taxonomy and phylogenetic analysis. Even if we were interested in taxonomy, calibrating the homogeneity of clusters on the basis of genetic distance in a tree would still generate an arbitrary classification that would inevitably depend on the sample of populations chosen. Lest there be no misunderstanding, we, unlike others do not give to the clustering obtained in the tree of figures 2.3.2 or 2.3.3 any "racial" meaning, for reasons discussed in the first chapter. Clusters were formed for reducing the complexity of the data and were given specific names in order to simplify discussion.

And some of the "reasons discussed in the first chapter" are (emphasis mine)...

The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin. ...snip... Although there is no doubt that there is only one human species, there are clearly no objective reasons for stopping at any particular level of taxonomic splitting. In fact, the analysis we carry out in chapter 2 for purposes of evolutionary study shows that the level at which we stop our classification is completely arbitrary. ...snip... All populations or population clusters overlap when single genes are considered, and in almost all populations, all alleles are present but in different frequencies. ...snip... By means of painstaking multivariate analysis, we can identify "clusters" of populations and order them in a hierarchy that we believe represents the history of fissions in the expansion to the whole world of anatomically modem humans. At no level can clusters be identified with races, since every level of clustering would determine a different partition and there is no biological reason to prefer a particular one.

How do the sources make the chart relevant to the topic of this article? Without sources that make the connection assertions of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH still stand. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

The re-ordering is a non issue. It doesn't change the presentation at all and likely was done to avoid any potential copyright conflicts. As far as the graph's relation to the article, the terms 'human population' and 'race' is used interchangeably constantly throughout this entire article as well as in the science community. These population groups are called "races" for those that accept the concept of biological human races, and are called "human population groups" by those that don't accept the concept of biological human races or even by those that accept the concept of biological human races but choose to avoid the politically sensitive term of "race". But regardless of what they are calling it, they are all referring to the same exact population groups.

If little trivial technicalities like this are going to be used to justify removing relevant content then perhaps we should look into renaming this article "Human Population and Genetics" as Aprock as suggested. Because to anyone that doesn't accept the concept of biological races, none of the material in this article is then relevant and your exact same argument can be used to justify removing any and every content of this article. BlackHades (talk) 03:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Nearly identical charts and data exists in other published mainstream scientific journals that specifically refer to these population groups as "races" rather than "human population groups". So if this trivial technicality is your only objection, we can simply replace this chart with a similar nearly identical chart by another author that refers to these exact same population groups as "races". BlackHades (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

• The re-ordering is an issue because it changes the visual perception of the data in a misleading manner.
• As stated very clearly in the source above, "race" and "population" are not synonymous and the scientific community does not use them interchangeably.
• According to reliabale secondary sources scientists are not just being " politically correct" on this issue. Scientists (e.g., most biologists and anthropologists and nearly all geneticists) know for an absolute fact that there is absolutely no biological basis for the belief that humans can be grouped by "race" (other than by trivialities such as skin color and overlapping allele frequencies). Your opinions on what scientists really mean have no place here.
• As currently written the article should be renamed or redirected (I don't know how I missed adding my support to Aprock's proposal above).

A similar chart that is supported by modern mainstream sources would be fine. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:46, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Please explain specifically how the re-ordering is an issue as the chart is simply a mirror image. What possible misinterpretation are you insinuating could occur? The science community 'does' use the term 'race' and 'human population' interchangeably. The sources I listed above in response to Aprock is a clear example of this. Cavalli-Sforza also does mention that Bateman et al 1990 uses that specific chart for 'racial' meaning.

The big problem with your argument for removal of the chart is that based on your argument, not only would the chart need to be removed, but the entire section of Cavalli-Sforza would need to be removed, as well as likely nearly the entire article. I would advocate a better solution than nuking the entire article to essentially near blank. If renaming the article will prevent the complete nuking of the article, then I will support the renaming as previously stated by Aprock. BlackHades (talk) 05:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and again removed the chart. As noted above there are several problems with the chart:

• It does not refer to races, but population groups.
• It represents cherry picking, failing to summarize Chapter 1.6, Scientific failure of the concept of human races.
• It is very old data for such a fast moving field.

The introduction of the specific content culled from the book, and the chart in particular are precisely the sorts of edits used to push specific POV. As it currently stands, the section should be rewritten based on the books treatment of race and genetics instead of misusing primary source data and images to present a false impression of the books themes. aprock (talk) 16:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Based on your 1st argument of 'population groups', why not just move the graph to the 'population genetics' subsection of the article? You've previously stated that you feel most of this article is primarily about population groups so this doesn't appear to be a valid argument unless you're arguing for the removal of the primary aspects of the article. If you felt text from Chapter 1.6 should be added for balance, then the solution would be add the text not remove existing data. If 1994 is going to be the cutoff for sources allowed to be on this article, we are going to have to remove a lot of sources and text from the article. Lewontin's argument would have to be removed. When exactly was it established that 1994 is "too old"? BlackHades (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

1994 becomes " too old" for any data or representation of data whenever the mainstream of academia no longer accepts the data of 1994 as accurate or appropriate. Do you have any evidence that the graphic is still representative of current thought of mainstream scholars? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:25, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I listed several sources that support the chart or similar charts. Including Jorde, Lynn B., and Stephen P. Wooding. "Genetic variation, classification and 'race'." Nature genetics 36 (2004): S28-S33.. I would be okay with replacing the Cavalli-Sforza graph with the more recent graphs published in Nature Genetics. BlackHades (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It's clear that the figures from Jorde/Wooding only bear a superficial resemblance to the removed chart. Similarly, selectively choosing to present charts without proper context is a misuse of sources. If you think any source is worth including in the article, it is up to you to read and use the source properly. For the Jorde/Wooding paper, the high level conclusions is that while race may be sometimes useful for biomedical applications, direct genetic analysis would be more accurate. Presenting the chart in a context which isn't supporting the paper's conclusions is original research. aprock (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to say the chart shouldn't be there stating it is undue but for the Cavalli-Sforza text that directly corresponds to the chart to remain. The chart is an accurate representation of the text that is already in the article under "Ancestral populations". If the argument is that the chart data is undue, how does the text that directly describe the chart data still stay? Is there a reason why the corresponding text should still remain? Or should it be removed? If it is removed should it be moved elsewhere?

The big problem is that there is no consistency to the approach of editing. If the argument is 'population groups', then all the other text attributed to 'population groups' should also be removed. If the argument is 'too old', then all the other text sourced to references older than 1994 should be removed. But it appears the reasons stated for removal of the chart is only applicable to the chart and the same reasons are somehow invalid for anything else in the article. BlackHades (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Any thoughts? We need to establish firmer guidelines on what content should belong in this article or this issue will continue to be a problem. BlackHades (talk) 04:49, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Our fellow Wikipedian aprock makes a good point here about reading the reliable secondary sources deeply and then owning your edits by being able to communicate a rationale for choosing one source rather than another in a way that is fair to what the sources say and not giving undue weight to obsolete or minority conclusions. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:06, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Aprock's reasons for removal remain extremely problematic. If it's because the source refers to 'population groups', then why does the corresponding text remain when it's the exact same source? What sense does that make? He previously stated that most of this article is related to population groups and not race. The question then becomes why isn't he advocating for the removal of all these sections based on his reasoning? His other reasoning of being "too old" also is problematic as there are many references here from before 1994. If we consider Aprock's reasoning for removal valid, then we should be moving to make extremely drastic changes to the article. There's a lot of text and references that needs to be removed if his reasons are valid. If we consider the reasons invalid, then we need to set the proper course going forward. But we simply can't nitpick which text will fall under these rules and which are exempt based completely arbitrarily. This is what's currently going on. Either his reasons are valid and we need to work on stripping the majority of the article or his reasons are invalid and we need to set a proper course going forward. BlackHades (talk) 22:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I can support moving the article as suggested by Aprock above. If it stays here the off-topic material will need to be removed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking over how we should precede with this article and here is my proposal. We could move/merge text relating to human population genetics in this article, such as Cavalli-Sforza above, to Human genetic variation. Then have this article focus primarily on whether human genetic variation constitutes race. This should shorten the article to about half the size or so. Thoughts on this proposal? BlackHades (talk) 00:42, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

That strikes me as a very good proposal. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:06, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello, from a DR/N volunteer

This is a friendly reminder to involved parties that there is a current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard case still awaiting comments and replies. If this dispute has been resolved to the satisfaction of the filing editor and all involved parties, please take a moment to add a note about this at the discussion so that a volunteer may close the case as "Resolved". If the dispute is still ongoing, please add your input. aprock (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Source list for improving this article and related articles

Hi, everyone, I see in the busy talk page discussion here, it has been hard to keep track of links to the Anthropology, human biology, and race citations bibliography that I have compiled and kept for several years in Wikipedia user space for all Wikipedians to use in verifying articles. I thought I should draw your attention to the bibliography again as I prepare to update the bibliography (I invite your suggestions of current reliable sources to add to it). I have found by frequent visits to academic libraries that there is a HUGE and ever growing scholarly literature on the topic of this article, so those of us who like to look things up and read carefully written writings on difficult topics should be able to find plenty of sources to make sure that this article does the current literature justice in its encyclopedic treatment of the topic. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:45, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment: Dawkins' position on Lewontin in Race and genetics

Should Dawkins' position on Lewontin's argument be included in the section "Lewontin's argument and criticism" of Race and Genetics? BlackHades (talk) 20:26, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Introduction

In the chapter "The Grasshopper's Tale" of the book "The Ancestor's Tale", Dawkins mentions Lewontin and the lines by Lewontin that he agrees with and disagrees with. In the paragraph following the lines by Lewontin, Dawkins writes:

"We can all happily agree that human racial classification is of no social value and is positively destructive of social and human relations. That is one reason why I object to ticking boxes in forms and why I object to positive discrimination in job selection. But that doesn't mean that race is of'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'. This is Edwards's point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." pg. 407 [1]

The following pages, Dawkins goes on to explain his positions on Lewontin.

Instruction for expressing preferences

Please read the following proposals, focusing on the spirit rather than the letter - the wording will be tweaked if needed before the proposal is inserted into the article.

State your preference for a proposal at the bottom of the "Discussion" section, for example * '''Support A.''', followed by your rationale, ending with your signature (~~~~).

If you have a new proposal you would like to make, add it in a new subsection after the ones already present, provided that it is significantly different from the ones already made and not a minor tweak of one of them.

Proposals

Proposal A: Support Dawkins' text originally in the section

The following is Dawkins' position on Lewontin that has been in the section "Lewontin's argument and position" since it was added 2 years ago.

"Richard Dawkins (2005) agreed with Edwards' view, summarizing the argument against Lewontin as being, "However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlate with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

Proposal B: Support Dawkins' revised text

The following is a rewritten version suggested in WP: Dispute Resolution noticeboard.

"Richard Dawkins 2005 agreed with Edwards' view. Dawkins accepted Lewontin's position that our perception of relatively large differences between human races and subgroups, as compared to the variation within these groups, is a biased perception and that human races and populations are remarkably similar to each other, with the largest part by far of human variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. But Dawkins disagreed with Lewontin that this means race is of 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance' and summarized Edwards' point that 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."

Proposal C: Support deletion of Dawkins' position on Lewontin

Deletion of Dawkins' position of Lewontin in the section "Lewontin's argument and criticism" of Race and Genetics.

Note that Dawkins' himself clearly holds Lewontin's view as representative of the mainstream consensus:

Lewontin's view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles. pg. 406, The Ancestor's Tale.

Discussion

Please read the instructions above before posting.

• Support B - Appears to have more detail which should keep everyone happy, and relying less on knowledge you may have from reading the book - :) -- Nbound (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
• Support B Gives an appropriately nuanced summary of Dawkins's view, which will avoid it being misunderstood. Neljack (talk) 04:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I suggest publicizing this Rfc in order to get a wider range of opinions. See Wikipedia:Rfc#Publicizing an RfC and Wikipedia:Publicising discussions for instructions on how and where to advertise. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Neither of the proposed versions addresses the issues of WP:UNDUE. What we have here is the promotion of editorial remarks that Dawkins' acknowledges are outside the mainstream, and which only represent Dawkins' view. Dawkins' spends much time going over many of the issues related to the genetics of race which broadly reflect the mainstream understanding of race, and this broader view is not even mentioned in either of the summaries. This is a classic case of cherry picking, and a violation of WP:NPOV. It's difficult to see an RfC overturning core policy. aprock (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

No Dawkins does not ever state his position is outside the mainstream. Please try reading it again. You don't seem to understand core policy, in particular WP:NPOV. WP:NPOV states that all significant views, in reliable sources, must be fairly represented. It does not say censor it just because you happen to not like it. Note that you've repeatedly been given the opportunity to edit the proposed text the way you deem fit which you declined every single time. Why? You also declined to participate in Guy Macon's proposal. Why? Your constant refusal to assist toward an edit and your lack of participation of Guy Macon's proposal during WP:Dispute Resolution makes it harder and harder to WP:AGF. BlackHades (talk) 23:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins clearly states: "Lewontin's view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles." (pg. 406)'. This exact quote was already highlighted on WP:DRN, and you responded directly to it in this comment. aprock (talk) 15:37, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I've already explained this. It's very clear what part of Lewontin's statement Dawkins is referring to when he says "view of race has become near-universal orthodoxy in scientific circles." You are still misinterpreting Dawkins' words. BlackHades (talk) 22:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Diff please. aprock (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Please go through our discussions in WP: Dispute Resolution. [2]. Dawkins is not trying to state Lewontin's entire view of race is "near-univeral orthodoxy". BlackHades (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think he clearly is saying that Lewontin's view of race is near universal orthodoxy, and it is. Almost all "race realists" complain about the dominant status of the view they disagree with - they realize that regarding race their views are outside of the mainstream.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes Dawkins is stating Lewontin's view of race is near universal orthodoxy. But this is in regards to the view that between race variation is much smaller than within race variation and that the perception of large differences between races is a biased perception. Lewontin is the one that made this view of race near universal orthodoxy in science today. Dawkins is not stating this about the statement "virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance". Which would be factually incorrect. This view in science today is heavily contested. Note that in the Lieberman survey, the majority of biologists accepted the existence of biological human races with only 16% of biologists stating there is no biological races in humans. This does contrast with the field of anthropology where the majority of anthropologists today do not accept the existence of biological human races. But even with the majority of anthropologists in the field, it's still certainly not 'near universal orthodoxy'. Dawkins was never referring to "virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance" in regards to "near universal orthodoxy". BlackHades (talk) 17:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you are correct in your interpretation of what Dawkins means here, and the other option strikes me as a much more logical reading. Also the fact that biologists believe there are human races does not equate believeing that they have any taxonomic significance, so your reference to the survey is a non-sequitur.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:08, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

If I'm not correct, we would have to update all the race articles of wikipedia since all the race related articles of wikipedia consistently state the use of race as biologically meaningful in science is "contested" or "controversial" or "disputed" etc. (e.g. see Race and medicine) None of the race related articles in wikipedia currently make the claim that it's near universal orthodoxy in science that races is biologically meaningless. So if I'm wrong, that would imply all the articles in wikipedia related to race is wrong. BlackHades (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It is surely both controversial and disputed - but it is also near-universal orthodoxy in the field that Dawkins is criticizing. He very clearly sees himself as a heretic to an established orthodoxy as does Edwards and many other race proponents. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:35, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

It can't be both controversial and disputed in science, and at the same time, near-universal orthodoxy in science. Near-universal orthodoxy implies there is little to no dispute or controversy. Positions that would fall under this category in science would be evolution, anthropogenic global warming, as well as Lewontin's view that human races are mostly similar with the largest part of variation being accounted for by the differences between individuals. I wouldn't even consider Big Freeze near-universal orthodoxy even though it is the overwhelming majority view in science today. Near-universal orthodoxy implies essentially no dispute or controversy. BlackHades (talk) 18:56, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Then Dawkins must be wrong, and it wouldn't be the first time.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately I have not had time to fully read and digest this particular discussion but it seems to me that you are torn between two matters of opinions, if this is the case why not just state them both onto the article? Again I have not read this properly, more like scanned over it so I cannot say whether the views are personal interpretation of text or factual. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 19:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Even if hypothetically we accepted Aprock's argument that 'near-universal orthodoxy' is referring to race has 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significant', this doesn't even change anything in regards to the RfC. It certainly doesn't mean Dawkins should now be censored and not mentioned. It seems like this is a distraction from the primary focus of the RfC. But let me attempt to clarify this since there seems to be some confusion on what has near-universal orthodoxy in science and what does not. See below. BlackHades (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins is not wrong. When Dawkins state "near-universal orthodoxy" he is referring to the rejection of the notion of large genetic variation between races or the idea of racial distinctions. Here's another example from a similar debate that occurred in Talk:Race and Intelligence regarding Foster & Sharp 2002.[3] In this paper Foster & Sharp states:

"Debates about race and ethnicity have changed in one important respect—today nearly all geneticists reject the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions. Geneticists have abandoned the search for “Indian” or “African” genes, for example, and few if any accept racial typologies."

This is correct and accurately represents the scientific position today but look how it continues:

Even so, although simplistic biological interpretations of race and ethnicity have been discredited for decades, studies in clinical and population genetics continue to associate biological findings with the social identities of research participants. Thus, although the simplistic biological understanding of race and ethnicity associated with the eugenics movement may be dead, the far more subtle presumption that racial and ethnic distinctions nonetheless capture “some” meaningful biological differences is alive and flourishing...Ironically, the sequencing of the human genome has instead renewed and strengthened interest in biological differences between racial and ethnic populations, as genetic variants associated with disease susceptibility (Collins and McKusick 2001), environmental response (Olden and Guthrie 2001), and drug metabolism (Nebert and Menon 2001) are identified, and frequencies of these variants in different populations are reported.

This is where Aprock is constantly confusing what view of race has near-universal orthodoxy in the scientific field and which does not. The view that scientists reject the notion of large genetic variation between races or the idea that biological differences belie racial and ethnic distinctions? Absolutely. This has near-universal orthodoxy and this is exactly what Dawkins was referring to. But the view that scientists hold that race has 'virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'? Absolutely not. The controversy and dispute of this exists to this very day in science. But Dawkins was never referring to this when he was stating 'near-universal orthodoxy'. I hope this clarifies what view of race has near-universal orthodoxy, what does not, and help understand what Dawkins was actually stating. BlackHades (talk) 20:49, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it clarifies your opinion about what Dawkins is saying. I don't think you have any evidence to support the idea that there is not a general consensus that race has virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance. I think there very clearly is such a consensus. I don't know of a single serious paleoanthropologist since Carleton Coon who has argued that race has taxonomic significance, or tried to bring race into a taxonomic genealogy of humans. I know of dozens of genetic paleo-anthropologists who have argued specifically that it is insignificant. Cavalli-Sforza has approached the idea of geo-genetic clusters being kind of similar to race, but still arguing distinctly that it is not in fact race that is genetically significant, but genetic ancestry - and he does not attempt to establish a taxonomy. Haplogroup maps do establish taxonomies of a kind, but again do not correspond to race. And finally the very idea that racial genetic differences can be significant or have taxonomic significance suggests that there the racial categories we make (again - the question is muddled: which racial model of the many different ones we use?) correspond to genetic differences - so if that is what Dawkins means then his view is not internally consistent, and in fact seems to be circular (as most racial thinking is).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:16, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't have any evidence? The peer review journal above. Not evidence? How about the fact that every wikipedia article on race states exactly what I just stated? That race as biologically meaningful is "controversial", "disputed", "contested" and all the citations attributed to those text. Not evidence? Or the fact that none of the wikipedia articles currently state what you're claiming that "there is scientific consensus that race has virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance". Not evidence? How about the growth and boom that occurred in the scientific field of Race and medicine since the mapping of the human genome. Not evidence? If this is still not enough evidence, I'd be happy to go through my scientific journals and cite you countless papers from peer review journals claiming race is biologically useful or using race in a biologically meaningful way. Just to be clear, I'm not even claiming one way or another that race is biologically useful. But the assertion that there is scientific consensus that race is biologically useless is absurd. You also acknowledged above that the use of race as biologically useful is "surely both controversial and disputed". The argument that the scientific position on whether race is biologically meaningful, is both in dispute, and also in consensus, is incomprehensible. It's a complete contradiction. Your view is not internally consistent and in fact seems to be circular. BlackHades (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I think your befuddlement stems from your conflation of terminology "biologically meaningful", "genetically significant" and "of taxonomic significance" are not synonyms. It is possible to say that race has a biological basis while rejecting that it is taxonomically significant. It is a question of DEGREE. Most anthropological geneticists agree that certain genetic markers have different frequencies in different selfidentifying racial groups - they just don't agree with Edwards and Dawkins that statistical correlation alone is enough to be significant, unless it has some kind of meaning (e.g. as a clue to evolutionary history). Dawkins' and Edwards' view - which I do believe is a minority - is that ANY identifiable correlation between gene frequencies and populations is automatically significant.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:27, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

You're using your own definition for what the threshold is for "biologically meaningful", "genetically significant" and "of taxonomic significance". Which is okay and understandable. There is no concrete scientific requirements for what qualifies as "biologically meaningful" or "genetically significant". Terms like "meaningful" or "significant" are subjective. The same goes for the definition of "race". Which is why there is such controversy in science whether human races exist or not because so much depends on how you want to define race. If the definition of race is distinct specific genes, then no races do not exist and you would have a scientific consensus that races don't exist. If the definition of race is any distinguishable clustering of genes, then yes races do exist and you would get a scientific consensus that races exist. The problem is that there is no concrete definition for any of these terminologies. Which is why there is no consensus for any of them. Same goes for the definition of species. There is a controversy in science whether Neanderthals are a subspecies of Homo sapiens or a separate species from the same genus. Lastly, I disagree that Dawkins' and Edwards' view is the minority. Their positions have widespread support and there is essentially universal agreement at least regarding the facts that lead to their positions. Such as there is near 100% accuracy in determining geographical ancestry when one takes into account the frequency of the alleles at several loci at the same time. The controversy enters when, once again, we begin to bring in subjective terms such as "significant" or "race" which causes the lack of consensus for the mentioned terminologies. BlackHades (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

My point is exactly that it is a question of different definitions for the threshold of what is meaningful and significant. And yes we are all in agreement about the facts - the difference is about whether they have a significant relation to race. And here I must say that I know of no evidence suggesting that Edward's and Dawkins' view (i.e. that the fact that geographical ancestry can be reliably determined means that "race" is biologically "meaningful" and "taxonomically significant") is not in the minority. In facty as I do continue to maintain, even their own writings readily acknowledge - perhaps even relish - their status as a minority view. If it were not we would find genetics textbooks, and textbooks on human evolution stating that race is biologically and or significant, but we don't. The vast majority of the literature distinguishes between "geographic ancestry", "genetically differentiated population" and "race" as different things. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. I think Aprock has a point. The only reason to include Dawkins' opinion is to lend authority to one view - but his opinion is no more authoritative than either Edwards' or Lewontin's - and the fact that he agrees with Edwards is hardly surprising given that they both share the same approach to biological classification based on correlations of gene-frequencies (which incidentally enables us to classify any randomly chosen three people into two different "races". What is the reasoning behind seeing Dawkins' opinion as notable for inclusion? As far as I know he has never published any research on race or classification of human genetic variation. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Including Dawkins' position is not meant to gain authority toward one view. I agree with you that Dawkins' position is no more authoritative than Edwards or Lewontin but neither of the proposed text is trying to give Dawkins more authority than Edwards and Lewontin. This is about giving fair weight to Dawkins in accordance with WP:NPOV. Is there a good reason why Edwards, Lewontin, Risch, Harpending, Sarich and Miele, Brace, Weiss and Fullerton are all in the section and all deserve weight but Dawkins somehow deserve zero weight? What exactly would be the rational behind that? BlackHades (talk) 23:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You also have a point there, I hadn't considered that there is an entire cavalcade of quotes by researchers. Then I would think that B is the more accurate and fair treatment of his view.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:10, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

While there is certainly a diversity of opinion on the nuance of the issue, what we have here is an attempt to "teach the controversy" in an attempt to insert race realism into a topic where experts largely agree that race is not a genetically useful concept. The fact that there are genes for blue eyes does make "race" genetic. aprock (talk) 15:46, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with that Aprock, but the question is on what basis we include some notable opinions and exclude others. Geneticists like Edwards and Dawkins are trying to redefine the word race to mean any distinguishable cluster of allelles. This is obviously a really bad idea because of the social and political implications, and there is no scientific necessity in referring to such allele clusters as "races" - but they don't seem to care more about not being PC. But in any case their view exists and needs to be included - the question is how and how much.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:57, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support B That's definitely a more rounded description of his viewpoint on the topic that addresses both sides. And Dawkins' viewpoint is very obviously of equal authority with the others and he should definitely be represented in this article. Silverseren^C 23:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• No direct opinion on these proposals I would rather have more discussion in the article of the more directly related sources like the book chapter (Chapter 20) "Genetics and Genomics of Human Population Structure" by Sohini Ramachandran, Hua Tang, Ryan N. Gutenkunst, and Carlos D. Bustamante in the Vogel and Motulsky genetics textbook, fourth edition.[4] That kind of better, more on-point source would do much to improve the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support B Does give more information but I wouod suggest to put the 2005 at the very start of the extract in brackets like in Option A. Rainbow Shifter (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Support B Dawkins' opinion cannot sensibly be reduced further. Martin Hogbin (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)