Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 25

A good point muted
In the section on "Scale of race research" there is a very instructive point that gets pretty well muted for lack of a few words of explication that I believe would be justified by the original material quoted.

The writere quoted uses the verb "to sample," which is fine in context of a professional journal, but it may suggest a rather trivial process of "taking a taste." That's not really what is being described here. The author is looking at the difference in characteristics, e.g., the palette of skin tones, that one would get by following two procedures. The first would consist of drawing a line from Sweden to Indonesia, drawing 1000 equidistant dots along that line, and taking a human specimen from each point on that line — which would result in an obviously clinal picture. The second would result from drawing four equidistant points on the line and taking 250 individuals from each of those four points. You would end up with a new population that could pretty reliably be divided into four groups of people with very similar characteristics. The author is saying that in the United States we find a population that is largely drawn from a few centers that are remote from each other. That fact may have practical consequences for public health policy and other such activities, e.g., "Devote part of the money to the white ones for skin cancer scanning and part of the money to the black ones for sickle-cell anemia scanning.

In other words, by taking people only from the peaks and valleys we artifically obscure the fact that there are inclines between those two kinds of extremes. We create a "clearly different kinds of people" from what was in fact a clinal distribution, and until the U.S. population reaches genetic equilibrium there will be some utility in treating people as though they belong to discrete groups.

Is there some way we can economically emend the text to bring out what the original researchers were trying to get across? P0M 07:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

There may be a way but it is going to be hard to come across. -Michaela M. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.217.24.127 (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Darwin spelling?
..."but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them." Should it not be shows or is that the magnificent wording of the time in where no one really gave a stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.4.56 (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

From memory,he spelled a lot stuff that way and that was not a singular typo but how he spelled "show" throughout at least two of his works. You can see the original scans and check for yourself with Google books. [usemasper] 65.8.157.26 (talk) 23:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Revert war regarding Harpending's criticism of Venter
The revert war is over the following addition to the second paragraph of the article: "This despite the fact that the human code analyzed was of only one person, hence could not, by definition, show any variation.". The claim of those reverting this sentence is that the link is to a discussion group and that this is therefore not a "reliable source". The wiki article "WP:RS" is cited as the guideline for "reliable source". That article, however, states: "Reliable sources are authors >OR< publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." and the source of the quote is Henry Harpending of the National Academy of Sciences -- specialist in population genetics. No one disputes the authenticity of Henry Harpending's comment and it would be unreasonable to do so since Harpending has been participating in the evolutionary psychology group for years and that group is among the highest traffic groups with the most reputable participants. Moreover, what Harpending is saying, on the face of it, can't be disputed by any reasonable person and therefore hardly requires citation. As Harpending says "my little kid can figure out that that makes no sense." The only reason it might be disputed is the whole point of the second paragraph of article -- which is that people like Venter are so averse to being caught up in the controversy over "race" that they can go to great lengths, in this case making absurd statements to highly regarded publications like the Washington Post, which then makes them the basis of major stories it carries. The whole intellectually dishonest situation is reflected, of course, in this revert war which makes up rules about "reliable sources" as it goes along to suppress the simple and obvious facts of the subject matter regarding "race". Jim Bowery 22:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You can only read it if you join the group. Can anyone maybe find an alternative source for the same thing? Anyhow, removing the sentence instead of just putting up the "citation needed" tag is kind of odd. Funkynusayri 22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only that you have to join the group, a message board is NOT a reliable source! Who knows the true identity of any of its contributors? If the quote is true, and from the "Nation Academy of Sciences", then get it from there, or another reliable source. Until then, it does not belong in the article. - Jeeny Talk 22:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. This fails at least two requirements for sources. Completely black and white, clear as crystal there in the text, unless you can come up with a WP:RS, do not add something. --L onging.... 22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What is crystal clear -- black and white -- is that I provided the text from WP:RS that supports my citation and neither you, nor any of your cohorts, have done anything but to argue by assertion. Jim Bowery 23:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an encyclopedia, a collaborative effort -- "cohorts"? That's what people are supposed to do, discuss, or "argue" as you say, unreliable and questionable material added to articles that are not backed up by reliable sources. Reliable sources are not on message boards! Therefore your source is not a reliable one, meaning it does not support your citation per WP:RS, as you say. Read my post above why it fails WP:RS, and then read WP:RS AGAIN! How many times does one have to say that to you for you to understand that? - Jeeny Talk 23:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * You are again arguing by assertion. Stop it.  Quote text from WP:RS as I have.  The only quotes from WP:RS provided thus far support my position.  You are merely asserting your position over and over again.  Moreover -- let's get real here and use a little common sense.  If Ian Pitchford's evolutionary psychology group is so unreliable then why did Salon do a feature article about it mentioning participants like Dawkins by name? Jim Bowery 23:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Your insertion did not have a reliable source! You stop it. Use something from that article you just linked to promote your idea then, and use that as the ref if you want. I haven't checked it, though, if it's reliable or not. That's your job to do the research on information you insert in the article. - Jeeny Talk 23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and WP:TINC. Also see WP:RS, which like I have said, you are in violation of. If you continue this hostile and anti-policy behavior and rudeness towards other editors, you could be blocked from editing. You might want to read WP:UHB, but refrain from making ad hominem attacks --L onging.... 23:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Looks like I have to quote from WP:RS so he may understand. Here's one:

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources  Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.    Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people." - Jeeny Talk 00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
 * Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
 * Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
 * Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.


 * No, that doesn't cut the mustard. It is *not* a "fringe theory" that it requires more than one genome to quantify variability.  It is so *by definition* of "variability".  Now, you can *try* making the argument that it is a "fringe theory" that Venter's conclusions were based on only one genome since there is, within the cited Washington Post article, the claim that he based his conclusions on genome sequences from differing racial groups and that a widely recognized authority in population genetics variability is not sufficient authority to counter the WP's report of Venter's claim.  If so, I can produce subsequent reports from the New York Times that corroborate Harpending's claim that Celera's analysis was primarily based on just one genome -- the genome of Venter himself.  This is controversial mainly in that *Venter's ethics* were questionable in using himself for the primary source of genomic data.  Venter's questionable ethics are consistent with Harpending's assertion that Venter was posturing against the biological reality of race for commercial if not political advantage. Jim Bowery 00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Both of you, stop this. Jeeny, this is not necessarily a fringe theory, and Jabo, this is not a reliable source. You don't need to go flinging shit around at each other, it's just making you look bad. Now calm down, go reread WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:RS and WP:NPOV a few times, this applies to both of you, you need to calm down and get a better understanding of policy --L onging.... 00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I'll add another quote from the guidelines.

'''The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable when they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered "best practices" under this rationale. For more details, please consult Citing_sources. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.''' Your original insertion was not backed by a verifiable source, it was a message board, one that people had to join a group to read. - Jeeny Talk 00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Cite the passage in WP:RS that disqualifies "message boards". Cite the passage in WP:RS that disqualifies "registration".  I've already shown sources such as Salon used elsewhere in Wikipedia that have cited Ian Pitchford's evolutionary psychology group as having authoritative comments from such widely recognized public figures as Dawkins.  Registration is required for the New York Times and that is not disqualified. Jim Bowery 00:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently I was thinking of WP:EL, but still, a forum is not a WP:RS, unless the forum in question is the subject of the article, and the post illustrates a notable part of it's history. If you really want this on the article, ask the person to have it published in a journal of some type, or at least post it on their web page --L onging.... 01:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll cite this one from Verifiability:
 * Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
 * I would say this qualifies as a "questionable source". Furthermore, the claim that the human genome is mostly derived from one individual and through a single source is in my eyes a very contentious claim and likely to be false unless backed by a very authoritative source. A single person claiming to be a well-known researcher on a user newsgroup certainly doesn't qualify as such.--Ramdrake 01:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, but you're getting close to a good argument. However, Harpending _is_ a recognized authority in the subject matter and the Wiki policy on self-publishing does say Verifiability "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."  This allows for self-published statements on race by recognized authorities like Harpending.  A good argument might be constructed from the next sentence: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP." Venter is a living person and Harpending is basically saying something about Venter.  I'll accept this argument -- tenuous tho it is -- for the purposes of this discussion and proceed to find another source for Harpending's claim that Venter really didn't have the data from the other racial groups he needed to make the claims made by him via the Washington Post article.  When I do -- and I believe it is likely due to Harpending's reputation and the growing body of peer-reviewed research contradicting Venter's statements to the press -- I'll provide the appropriate cite(s). Jim Bowery 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Also this one: "Are web forums and blog talkbacks reliable sourses?", which is linked in Questionable sources; which says:
 * "Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are not regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster." - Jeeny Talk 01:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That's not even a guideline, let alone a policy -- and even if it were it wouldn't be applicable to the present instance since Harpending's identity in Pitchford's group has been verified multiple times as has the identity of even more well-known public figures in the same group. 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Harpending's criticism is simplistic. Human Genome Project indicates that there have been several independent projects sequencing the human genome, including Venter and Celera Genomics. These iclude International HapMap Project, Applied Biosystems, Perlegen, Illumina, JCVI, Personal Genome Project, and Roche-454. I do not think we should give undue weight to an argument over one study that is from a forum. Also whose genome was sequenced gives an indication that there were several people sequenced.Muntuwandi 03:01, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No Harpending was not disputing the well known fact that there have been many sources of genome data other than Venter. He was disputing Venter's claim that Celera's genome data was supportive of the "no biological race" claim made by Venter to the Washington Post.  Moreover, the data that has come out of the other projects you cite directly contradict Venter's claim because phylogenetic clustering does show genetic groups that match with virtual perfection self-identified race -- so we have additional reason to distrust Venter's early claims made via the WP cited in the second paragraph of the Wiki article on race. Jim Bowery 03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That whole section needs to be removed from the lead and placed in the genetics section. There is no need to get into the debate of whether the human genome gives information on the existence or non-existence of biological races in the lead section.Muntuwandi 03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I disagree for the simple reason that the heart of the race debate is the historic classification of people into groups currently going by the name of "self-identified race" and there is now a clear trend in the peer-reveiewed literature analyzing genomic data vindicating the traditional taxonomy. Jim Bowery 03:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That is very much your opinion. Ask another scientist and they'll opposite. In fact new data is beginning to reveal that populations have been mixing significantly in the past for example when whites prove to be black. Muntuwandi 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's much more than my opinion. No one reputable buys into Lewontin's Fallacy anymore and the news article you cite is just a sensationalist rehash of that fallacy for circulation appeal.  No one reputable disputes Lewontin's claim that there is more variation within than between races when one looks at a single locus and no one reputable disputes that there has been a lot more admixture than many racists would like to believe.  But I suspect even Venter would like people to forget the stuff he said to the WP -- which is all the more reason to keep it up front of this article.  Yes it is terrible that so many people were mislead by Lewontin -- but their beliefs, however cherished, don't change the facts of the human genome and the biological validity of traditional racial taxonomy.  Jim Bowery 04:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Find an expert who says the same thing from a reliable, verifiable source, and it can go in, properly attributed. Nobody here has a real problem with what was said, just with the how and from which sources.--Ramdrake 14:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

second paragraph
I am very skeptical of this sentence: "whereas a new opinion among geneticists is that it should be a valid mean of classification, although in a modified form based on DNA analysis.[12][13][14][15]" The sources are newspapers, which at best tells you what journalists think geneticists claim. But this aricle itself cites a variety of recent peer-reviewed articles by geneticists and few if any of them advocate the validity of race, and when they do, they make it clear that they are not claiming that race is a valid way of classifying groups of humans. Some of the articles start with race as a way of classifying humans (in their sample) and then show how mtDNA or Y-linked haplogroups actually cut across self-defined racial lines. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above has been up for almost a month with no comment. Does anyone object if I delete the sentence? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Be my guest.--Ramdrake 14:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I strongly object. You haven't checked the sources apparently, read again, only two are from newspapers, and they're still valid. http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007 http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm: Funkynusayri 14:14, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Newspapers, including press releases, often get things wrong, certainly in the fields in which I have expertise. Be that as it may, the press release makes a pretty narrow claim - at least the sentence ought to be rewritten to reflect the source more precisely and accurately. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then you should prove that they "get it wrong" before removing it, don't you think? I haven't heard about a Wikipedia policy that supports your request. And check the first link, plenty of references to published studies. Funkynusayri 14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say Alun has already done a good job of prooving them wrong. Be that as it may, I would not exclude them as sources.  But i would be accurate: they represent not necessarily what scientists think, but how science is being represented by the media.  That itself is notable, but it should be presented as such.  I don't have to prove them wrong since Wikipedia is not about truth, and I am not asking you to prove them right.  I am saying that they reflect the views of journalists and in the case of the press release a corporation (University), which is different from the nature of views expressed in peer-reviewed journal articles. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Then again, which Wikipedia policy would justify that you remove these sources? And as I mentioned already, the articles use peer-reviewed articles as references. Read these references and point out how they have been misrepresented, otherwise I don't think there is a problem. Funkynusayri 14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What these articles demonstrate is that racial self-identification correlates with the distribution of certain genetic markers, and that it might be useful for certain epidemiological considerations. It doesn't speak about any "validity" of racial categorization. This isn't what that second paragraph sentence is saying.--Ramdrake 14:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I quote from the first article: "Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view." Please at least read the articles before dismissing them.Funkynusayri 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually this is simply stating that people from different parts of the world are detectably genetically different. So what? No one has ever claimed, to my knowledge that people are genetically homogeneous throughout the world. In the USA the main contributing groups to the modern population come from relatively isolated parts of the world. West Africa, North America and Europe. One would expect that people sampled from extreme distance would display a greater level of differentiation relative to people sampled from proximate regions. The authors of this article take self described categories which do not cover a very broad spectrum of the global human population, and show they are genetically different. Big deal. The article makes no claim for any taxonomic value to the concept of "race". Furthermore the people who wrote the computer programme used in the study, STRUCTURE, have stated that people are partitioned into clusters on an ad hoc basis, and that any results should be considered as a guide and a trial of the programme that used idealised data showed that structure has a tendency to underestimate the true number of clusters. Indeed Witherspoon released a paper only this year showing that it is possible for two people to be closer to each other than to the norm for their "cluster" and still be correctly assigned to their "cluster" which shows that in fact the clustering does not have any value in epidemiological studies. "We chose the most widely used clustering program (structure) to represent this class of analyses. The authors (Pritchard et al. 2000; Falush et al. 2003) admit that the procedure to estimate the number of populations is ad hoc and recommend that it be used only as a guide, but these caveats are often ignored." and "The complete inability of structure to correctly estimate the true number of populations using Low mutation markers is somewhat surprising but in agreement with previous observation regarding the factors primarily responsible for statistical power to detect population differentiation." Witherspoon states of clustering analyses "For example, an African individual x with qx=0.52 will be more similar to a European y with qy=0.60 than to another African z with qz=0.4. Yet that individual x will still be closer to the population mean trait value for Africans (qA ~ 0.48, the African centroid) than to the mean value of Europeans (qB ~ 0.68). It follows that many individuals like this one will be correctly classified (yielding low CC and CT) even though they are often more similar to individuals of the other population than to members of their own population (yielding high v)." and "Thus the answer to the question ‘‘How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?’’ depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, v, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is v=0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, v = 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes ‘‘never’’ when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.                      On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase v. This is illustrated by the fact that v and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of 10,000 polymorphisms....In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible." If you want to accurately present Risch's data then you need to explain that this is not a taxonomic excercise, you also need to explain that these samples represent relatively isolated populations and that they only apply to the USA, you also need to state that these samples do not represent a fair and accurate representation of the clinal nature of global genetic variability because they are not taken from an unbiased sampling of the global human population. Indeed to be fair all you can really say about these data is that they show than the populations used in the study are different, you cannot extrapolate to make a global conclusion. You should not attempt to introduce this citation if you do not fully understand what they mean. You should also avoid quote mining. You have tried to make this paper say something it does not, no geneticists are calling for human subspecific classification, these people are saying that self described race/ethnicity might have something useful to say regarding medical treatment, they do not discuss taxonomy, nor do they even attempt to define what they mean by "race" or "ethnicity", something that would be fundamental for rational taxonomic purposes. Folk concepts of race have no biological validity, and even if populations in the USA show a certain level of differentiation, this cannot be extrapolated to the global human community due to the considerations of the clinality of variation.. Also you wanted to know why you should not use newspaper citations, it is because in science try to avoid citing the popular press. Alun 16:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Again: I quote from the first Stanford article (http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007): "Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view." Please at least read the articles before dismissing them. It's crystal clear. If you don't agree, it doesn't matter, both POVs are represented. Funkynusayri 14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've read it a thousand times. It does not say what you want it to say. Besides you are wrong in saying that "whereas a new opinion among geneticists is that it should be a valid mean of classification". Classification is taxonomy. Where does this article discuss taxonomy? Read my response and also read the article sI have linked toy. You cannot possibly have done that. You do not seem to want to present genetic data in a neutral manner. This quote is not a consensus opinion amongst geneticists, let alone among scientists, you are merely misrepresenting the science. This appears to be little more than POV pushing. A single quote from a single paper is not proof of anything Alun 17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Categorising is taxonomy. If you don't like the word "classification", I'll change it. Simple as that. Funkynusayri 17:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see you removed it, Wobble. According to which Wikipedia policy? Funkynusayri 17:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Alun did not remove any content. he corrected it.  he made sure that it provided a more accurate account of the research, and actually added well-sourced content.  You can't cault an editor for clarifying and adding content. (I am not commenting on category vs. class, but the representation of current research by geneticists). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Dobzhansky misrepresented
Rubenstein reverted my last edit and replaced it with his false interpretation of the differences between Livingstone's and Dobzhansky's positions. Dobzhansky does not say in the paper that the "race concept" is "a matter of judgement." His actual views are more accurately expressed in his comment to UNESCO:

The Biological Concept of Race. Race as a biological term expresses the fact that there are populations of mankind like those of Africa and of Europe, for example, which differ in some of their hereditary characters. Anthropologists reserve the term “race” for those groups of mankind which regularly show extensive physical differences. Race, based on hereditary group differences has thus become a device for classifying and thereby describing in simpler terms the great variety existing in mankind. Biologists also recognize racial differentiation as a part of the process by which local populations become fitted or adapted to their environment. Race as a biological category is thus based on the most universal of biological processes, that of evolution. MoritzB 18:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0007/000733/073351eo.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoritzB (talk • contribs) 18:03, August 29, 2007 (UTC)


 * His actual views are more accurately expressed in his UNESCO comment? What kind of BS is that?  YOU provided a citation for a Current Anthropology article and I am referring to that article.  In that article he refers to the race concept, which he uses to refer to whether or not races are named and if so how many there are and he states, explicitly, that this is a matter of judgement.  I did not delete a point of view.  I just represented the exchange between the two scholars more accurately.  They agree on some things and disagree on others.  I made it clear what they agree on, and what they disagree on, and I included quotes from the article.  I am not changing the meaning or interpreting anything.  By adding material that you left out, I simply provide a fuller and more accurate view of the exchange. So suddenly Dobzhansky's own comment in one of the most prestigious anthropology journals in the world no longer represents his own views?  You cite one statement by Dobzhansky and provide one quote that supports your POV.  I add quotes and summarize the entire comment so people have an idea of everything he wrote, and suddenly the text YOU initially chose no longer represents his views?  I am sure that when Dobzhansky wrote that he was fully capable of expressing his views.  You are just going to have to accept that he wrote what he wrote. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the text you wrote does not represent Dobzhansky's views. You took a quote out of context. You deleted the Dobzhansky quotes I added which allowed you to misrepresent Dobzhansky's views.
 * Dobzhansky's clear opinion is that "race differences" are a biological fact and races remain useful categories.
 * Unlike you claim Dobzhanski does not say that "the use of the race concept to classify people is a matter of social convention". He defends the use of the racial concepts like Negroid or Caucasoid in science. MoritzB 19:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

My version states clearly that TD believes that racial differences are biological, so you are agreeing with me. But you are disagreeing with TD who does say that the decision to name races and the decision about how many races there are is a matter of judgement. That is his view, like it or not. Do not censor Dobzhansky's view. TD ALSO believes that in his judgement races are worth naming and my version says this too. But he makes it clear it is ajugement call. his judgement is just different from Livingston's. Your version is a bad faith edit and violates our policies. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, your edit was the bad one as Dobzhansky clearly does not say that "the use of the race concept to classify people is a matter of social convention." He defends the biological concept of race. MoritzB 21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * So what is the "biological concept of race" that he is defending? One of the problems with the biological concept of "race" is that there is no agreement about what it is. So actually he must be defending a specific version of the biological conception of race. Look at all the edits I have made at Talk:White people about this. During Darwin's time the number of "biological races" varied from 2 to 60 odd depending on which classification system one favoured. Physical anthropologists in the USA were some of the main defenders of a "biological race" concept for a long time, but even they gave it up because they realised that the number of "biological races" is arbitrary. Carlton Coon, who you seem to be a fan of was the President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, but this Association now disavows the existence of any biological races, this is for practical and scientific reasons and not for any politically correct reason as is so often claimed by proponents of "biological race". The AAPA "Statement on Biological Aspects of Race" is one of the best and most thoughtful statements on this subject available, and the fact that it's from the AAPA makes it more relevant than many other similar statements. Whether a group of people is considered a "race" is fundamentally dependent on the criteria used to determine what a "biological race" is. Stating that humans vary genetically and physically over geography is not the same as supporting any concept of "biological race". So if you want to claim that Dobzhansky is supporting a "biological race" concept, you need to be clear about which concept he is supporting, and also about the criteria used in this concept for classification purposes. If he is simply stating that human diversity is geographically distributed, then this is a different thing altogether. Alun 05:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * According to Dobzhansky races are defined as populations differing in the incidence of certain genes, but actually exchanging or potentially able to exchange genes across whatever boundaries (usually geographic) separate them. MoritzB 15:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * By this definition any local group of people could be considered a "race", it depends on the extent of differentiation, without specifying what extent delineates a different "population" or "race" we are really only discussing geographic variation. Which genes does he suggest should be used in this process? This implies that whether a "biological race" exists is dependent on which genes are studies. Different genetic elements give different results. If you use genes that have known to be adaptive then the result would be different to when you use selectively neutral polymorphisms. This is not a very good answer. Besides the section you gave for Dobzhansky seems only to be discussing the fact that there is variation and that it can be measured. Even showing that humans can be grouped together does not "prove biological race". One can classify people by eye colour, that does not make all people with blue eyes a single "race", any more than having dark or pale skin does. Variation is not evidence of discrete populations. Besides your edit was totally incomprehensible. I could not understand it because it was so badly written and expressed. Alun 18:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're entitled to your opinion; unfortunately, a simple reading of the reference proves your opinion wrong.--Ramdrake 21:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly what is wrong in what I say?
 * MoritzB 15:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Slrubenstein summed it up already.--Ramdrake 15:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, he didn't even attempt to address my arguments. Unlike Rubenstein claims Dobzhansky does not say that "the use of the race concept to classify people is a matter of social convention". He defends the use of the racial concepts like Negroid or Caucasoid in 'science MoritzB 16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

MoritzB is simply ignorant. H does not realize that it is possible for Dobzhansky to claim that racial nomenclature is a matter of social convention, and for him to argue for using a certain nomenclature. In fact, he does hold both positions, and I present both positions in my summary of his view. He makes it very clear that the race concept - whether people name races, and how many races if any people chose to name, is a matter of the judgement of a comunity. He further argues that in his judgement, his community ought to use a certain nomenclature. This is a reasonable argument, even if others do not share his judgement. But MortizB wouldn't recognize a reasonable argument if it bit him - evident in the fact that MoritzB has never made a reasonable argument at Wikipedia, just repeats dogmatic assertions. No wonder he misunderstand Dobzhansky. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 12:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:User11111
Okay, whose sock is it now?--Ramdrake 19:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm noone's sock. User11111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by User11111 (talk • contribs) 20:00, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
 * Then, can we have a discussion as to why you keep reverting, so we can address your concerns rather than wasting everybody's time reverting each other? Thanks!--Ramdrake 20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The talk page says that he is Aleksei from Moscow. Are you familiar with WP:BITE and WP:AGF?
 * MoritzB 20:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's discuss it. Rubenstein made a bad edit and I wanted to change it back. User11111.
 * I agree with him.MoritzB 20:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe Slrubenstein's edit put the matter more in perspective. The alternate phrasing, looking at the original source, looks like selective quoting to me, and that's forbidden by WP:NPOV policy.--Ramdrake 20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, the problem is that Rubenstein's text uses selective quoting and is in a logical contradiction with the source.
 * MoritzB 20:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, I have read Dobzhansky's article and SIRubenstein's version was inaccurate.
 * Yes, we agree. Please type four tildes to sign a comment with your own name. It is also good to make edit summaries before you edit. MoritzB 20:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're obviously agreeing with yourself. I'm not falling for that one.--Ramdrake 20:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again these stupid accusations although you are the one confirmed to use a sockpuppet in RFCU.MoritzB 20:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I totally agree with the first part of your sentence. It's funny that all your "friends" have been confirmed to be the most dangerous form of abuse of sockpuppetry. - Jeeny Talk 22:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Not my puppets.MoritzB 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean? I'm not MoritzB. User11111 20:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Sock-puppe or not, you clearly have not read the comment - it is not an article which leads me to think you really have not read it - and you certainly did not understand it. It is an exchange between two scholars, and the agree on some points and disagree on others. You cannot fully and accurately represent either position just by singling out what they disagree on, you need to be clear about what they agree on too. This is simple, accuracy. The only motive I can imagine anyone would have for deleting any mention of areas of agreement is if someone just wants to stir up conflict. Is that what you want? Don't say you want all points of view represented because the recent edits by me and Alun kept the points of view you refer to, and merely added more contextual information and other points of view. So you are not motivated by any love of NPOV. So is that what is motivating you, a desire to stir up conflict? If that is your motive please go away. If it is not, please make constuctive suggestions about edits we can all agree will improve the article, rather than simply reverting any edit to something you put in. NO ONE owns this article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, don't bite the newcomers. MoritzB 16:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * MoritzB, you're no newcomer.--Ramdrake 18:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Witherspoon
I added some information of their study: "When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups; the overlap in genetic similarity between these groups is ~ 0%"


 * "The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1893020 MoritzB 03:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes. Muntuwandi 03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Also, The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group. MoritzB 04:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * both statements are correct from the article but you have cherry picked only one statement that does not illustrate everything about the article. Muntuwandi 04:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * MoritzB is yet again quoting out of context with no attempt to be neutral or to actually present what the Witherspoon article states in anything like a balanced way. The article cannot be summed up in the simplistic ways that either Muntuwandi or MoritzB have suggested. The following quote from the article contains the basic conclusions of the research. I have highlighted the points that contradict MoritzB, his quote is deliberately misleading and biased to try and misrepresent the work in order to push a point of view this research does not support. "Thus the answer to the question ‘‘How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?’’ depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, v, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ~0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, v ~ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes ‘‘never’’ when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations. On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase v. This is illustrated by the fact that v and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of 10,000 polymorphisms (Table 1, microarray data set; Figure 2D). In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible. However, those studies lacked the statistical power required to answer that question (see Rosenberg et al. 2005)." Alun 04:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * However, European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African populations are geographically separated, not closely related or admixed. It was clear that Witherspoon was talking about these populations. "When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups; the overlap in genetic similarity between these groups is ~ 0%." You are welcome to add a comment about the closely related and admixed populations. The mixed populations do not belong to any traditional racial categories either. MoritzB 04:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Witherspoon's paper is clearly a response to Risch and Edwards, it addresses an important question regarding the similarity between individuals from different groups. The paper is disputing the claims by Risch and Edwards that clustering analyses have any medical application, Risch states "Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view." and Edwards claimed "It is not true that 'racial classification is .. . of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'. It is not true, as Nature claimed, that 'two random individuals from any one group are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world', and it is not true, as the New Scientist claimed, that 'two individuals are different because they are individuals, not because they belong to different races'" But Witherspoon shows that these observations are not as conclusive as Risch/Edwards claim, indeed Witherspoon shows that it is true that two individuals from very distinct geographic regions are quite likely to be similar to each other (even using 1000 polymorphisms two individuals from very different geographical regions are 10% more likely to be similar to each other than to someone from the same region), especially if one only uses 300 odd polymorphisms as Tang et al and Rosenberg et al. did. Witherspoon states this explicitly "The population groups in this example are quite distinct from one another: Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians. Many factors will further weaken the correlation between an individual’s phenotype and their geographic ancestry.... The typical frequencies of alleles that influence a phenotype are also relevant, as our results show that rare polymorphisms yield high values of v, CC, and CT, even when many such polymorphisms are studied. This implies that complex phenotypes influenced primarily by rare alleles may correspond poorly with population labels and other population-typical traits (in contrast to some Mendelian diseases). However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes." It is clear that clustering analyses do not account for the very real similarities between people from different clusters. Therefore it shows that medical treatment should not be based on "cluster" membership, because for significant proportions of the population these clusters are irrelevant. If you want to claim that individuals from geographically distinct regions can be perfectly discriminated from each other using >10,000 polymorphisms then please make this claim, but in order to be neutral you absolutely need to include the other qualification, or else it is merely taken out of context and POV pushing. You do not address my concerns about your obvious bias at all in your above post, which is that you are not giving a proper account of the article and you are taking quotes out of context. Indeed you seem to be proud of the fact that you are distorting this research by the use of contextomy. I wouldn't be, this is a clear case of POV pushing, and you have been constantly warned about this. It is not being clever to take quotes out of context, it is not being clever to try to imply some research supports a position when it is clear that the research actually supports a completely different conclusion, and it is not being clever to ignore the findings of the research in order to promote your personal beliefs. Alun 05:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I read the whole article and the quote is not in any manner inconsistent with it.
 * Their conclusion:

Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is  0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
 * This means that when the whole genome is taken into account "Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups; the overlap in genetic similarity between these groups is ~ 0%." MoritzB 07:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Having arrived here from ANI, I took a look at the passage in dispute: "'When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups; the overlap in genetic similarity between these groups is ~ 0%.'" The flaws of this passage are that 1) the second clause is very misleading 2) it is not attributed, but stated as a fact. "'Other geneticists however have shown that even when classification in such a way is possible it does not accurately reflect the clinality of global human genetic diversity and claim that classification of continuously sampled populations may be impossible.'" The flaws of this one is that 1) it misrepresents a (well-warranted) caveat as the central finding of the paper, which judging from what has been presented here, it is certainly not, but rather a caution against reckless construal of the central finding, 2) it falsely attributes (by footnote, as the in-text attribution is weasel worded) to Witherspoon et al. a conclusion that they mean to rebut: "In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible. However, those studies lacked the statistical power required to answer that question.'"Proabivouac 08:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually they are not attempting to rebut Serre and Pääbo, they say that continuous sampling would increase ω and that Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) draw conclusions that are in a similar vein. You missed out the sentence immediately prior to the quote you give "This is illustrated by the fact that ω and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms (Table 1, microarray data set; Figure 2D). In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Pääbo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible. However, those studies lacked the statistical power required to answer that question (see Rosenberg et al. 2005)." So they are concuring generally with these papers, that their observation regarding continuous sampling is in a similar vein to these previous papers. Then they state that the previous studies lacked the statistical power to answer the question. They did not state that the question could not be answered, or that the conclusion of these previous papers was wrong. Indeed Witherspoon goes a long way to support this assertion. What neither Witherspoon nor the previous studies have done is to obtain samples that are continuously sampled. To claim that Witherspoon is attempting to rebut these papers that they obviously agree with is incorrect. Alun 10:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. The authors state that "at ω = 0, individuals are always more similar to members of their own population than to members of other populations."
 * Further, they state that "when comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups ω approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group."

Proposal: When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups according to Witherspoon et. al. (2007).MoritzB 08:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You are just attempting to use weasel words to hide the fact that a thousand or so loci are required. Indeed this is loci not alleles. Therefore we say what they say, that when a thousand loci are considered for individuals from geographically distant populations such as Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans and east Asians then these individuals are nearly always more like individuals in their own population than to individuals from a different population. We also say that this is probably not true for continuously sampled populations, which is what Witherspoon states. This represents evidence for isolation by distance, and has a big impact upon the validity of clustering analyses for making medical and public policy decisions. It shows that individuals can be categorised into the correct clusters and still be quite likely to be more similar to other individuals from different clusters than to individuals from the same cluster. This is explicitly stated in Witherspoon et al. It is probably worth mentioning the observation that it is probably impossible to classify continuously sampled populations, which is also stated in the paper, and is also supported by several anthropological texts such as Ossorio and Duster, "Anthropologists long ago discovered that humans’ physical traits vary gradually, with groups that are close geographic neighbors being more similar than groups that are geographically separated. This pattern of variation, known as clinal variation, is also observed for many alleles that vary from one human group to another. Another observation is that traits or alleles that vary from one group to another do not vary at the same rate. This pattern is referred to as nonconcordant variation. Because the variation of physical traits is clinal and nonconcordant, anthropologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries discovered that the more traits and the more human groups they measured, the fewer discrete differences they observed among races and the more categories they had to create to classify human beings. The number of races observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races (Marks, 2002). Twentieth and 21st century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people." and by Darwin and his coauthor Alfred Russel Wallace. This observation is not new and continues to be the most important consideration when discussing human variation, whether it is physical variation or genetic variation. Alun 10:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, regarding admixed and intermediate populations Witherspoon states that "ω reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%". According to Witherspoon Europeans, East Asians and sub-Saharan Africans are indeed distinct, nonoverlapping groups of people. However, when considering only some number of loci there is potential for misclassification. MoritzB 10:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually this is not what Witherspoon says at all. The paper nowhere claims that any groups are "non-overlaping". This seems to simply be your bias. What Witherspoon actually says is much more nuanced than your opinion of what he says. What Witherspoon says is that in order for an individual from a group to always be more similar to another individual from the same group it is necessary to examine at least 1,000 loci. Furthermore this only applies to individuals derived from populations that are from geographically distant regions. For individuals from more geographically proximate regions this level of accuracy is not possible even with 10,000 loci, and may not be possible at all. Indeed the paper is explicit about this, humans variation is gradual and characterised by isolation by distance. Sampling from extremes will always maximise differences, sampling human genetic variation by geography indicates that change is gradual. This paper does not support your assertions whichever way you try to cut it. Its conclusions are precise and nuanced, you either do not understand this paper, or more likely you are trying to spin it to reflect a racialist point of view that it clearly does not support by any objective reading. Alun 13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Witherspoon:"We contrast two choices: sets of populations that have been relatively isolated from each other by geographic distance and barriers since the earliest migrations of modern humans out of Africa and sets that include populations that were founded more recently, are geographically closer to one another and therefore more likely to exchange migrants, or have recently experienced a large genetic influx from another population in the set. Sampling only from the more distinct populations yields lower -values, as expected. Figure 2, A, C, and E, shows the results of using only the three most distinct population groups (Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans). Figure 2, B and D, expands the samples used in Figure 2, A and C, to include recently founded and/or geographically intermediate populations (Indians in the insertions data set and New Guineans, South Asians, and Native Americans in the microarray data set) and “admixed” populations (i.e., those that have recently received many migrants from different populations, such as the African American and Hispano–Latino groups in the microarray data set). With just 175 loci, choosing to sample distinct populations vs. more closely related ones makes only a modest difference (insertions data set, compare Figure 2A to 2B; Table 1). The effect of population sampling becomes more pronounced when ≥1000 loci are available. In the microarray data set, drops to zero at 1000 loci if only distinct populations are sampled. With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, CC remains well above zero, and even CT does not reach zero (microarray data, Figure 2, C and D; Table 1)."MoritzB 13:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you have a point? This does not address the fact that you have consistently misrepresented this paper. The quote above clearly demonstrates that there is always overlap between geographically proximate regions, and guess what, all populations are geographically proximate to someone, so we get a pattern of isolation by distance. This quote supports what I am saying, not what you are saying. Alun 13:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that there isn't overlap between European, Sub-Saharan African and East Asian populations traditional physical anthropologists. The majority of humanity do belong to some of those populations. The overlap between geographically proximate or admixed populations investigated was only 3.7%. MoritzB 14:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again you have completely missed the point, or possibly ignored it to promote your POV. The populations sampled were not geographically proximate, they were intermediate. Geographical proximity and intermediate are different things. Witherspoon found a 3.7% difference in intermediate populations that were still really very geographically distant. Sampling continuously would not compare very different populations and some intermediate populations, it would compare continuous populations. The point is we know that Europeans are very different to Indians who are also very different to east Asians. What we don't know is how this difference changes between geographically close regions. If one sampled every 100km or so, then one would get an idea of how proximate populations vary. This would be equivalent to continuous sampling, and this would show that there is probably no such thing as an "east Asian population". Indeed it is just plain wrng to stste that Europeans form a "population" because they clearly do not, the chances of any two randomly chosen Europeans reproducing together are very small because populations are local, not continental. Alun 19:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is absurd. Witherspoon et. al. are talking about "populations," which are unequivocally not races or ethnic groups. Europeans do not constitute one population, Europe itself (and Africa and Asia) are divided into many populations. MoritzB, stop using the word group, which is imprecise, and use the word population, which is precise. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 11:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Witherspoon et. al. talk about major population groups: Europeans, East-Asians and sub-Saharan Africans. When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups. MoritzB 11:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, they state that the purpose of the article is to debunk certain claims surrounding the issue of race:

"DISCUSSIONS of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding?

All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and “race.” In particular, the American Anthropological Association (1997, p. 1) stated that “data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world” (subsequently amended to “about as different”). Similarly, educational material distributed by the Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world.” Previously, one might have judged these statements to be essentially correct for single-locus characters, but not for multilocus ones. However, the finding of Bamshad et al. (2004) suggests that an empirical investigation of these claims is warranted.

In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci." —Preceding unsigned comment added by MoritzB (talk • contribs) 11:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Correct: they confirm that the model developed by population geneticists, which makes populations their object of study and category of analysis, is scientifically valid and racial taxa are not scientifically valid.  All this article does is demonstrates the robustness of the population concept and supports the calim made in the article that virtually all scientists have rejected as unscientific the concept of race in favor of population.  So?  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Racial taxa are scientifically perfectly valid if major populations like sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans and East Asians form distinct clusters which don't overlap. Therefore, if a scientist seeks to prove that races do not exist he needs to show that these clusters overlap significantly, i.e. that a "Caucasian" person can be genetically more similar to a "Negroid" person than to another Caucasian. Many scientists have so far believed that this is the case but Witherspoon debunks that theory.MoritzB 12:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mixing up geographically circumscribed/defined populations and race. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 14:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No, because the study confirms that the Europeans, East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans form distinct genetic clusters. Thus, they are phylogenetically distinct and according to standard zoological criteria different races. See: O'Brien SJ, Mayr E. Bureaucratic mischief: recognizing endangered species and subspecies. Science. 1991;251(4998):1187-1189
 * MoritzB 14:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no standard criteria for races, all criteria used for defining races are arbitrary. Some propose an Fst of 25%, and human race has Fst of 10-15% for which they recognize a subspecies at Fst of 25%. But even these criteria are arbitrary and man made. The existence of race is in the eye of the beholder. Muntuwandi 16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mutuwandi is right, but FST can also be misleading. Some species have very low FST and some subspecies have relatively high. The criteria for subspecific classification are quite arbitrary and vary from species to species. There is, however, a consensus that human genetic diversity is far too superficial, our species far too recent and the level of gene flow between populations far too great, for us to be classified into coherent subspecies, when we are compared to classifications in other mammal species. It is a mammoth leap of faith to assume, against all academic opinion and extant subspecific classification systems, that any observed difference between populations is ipso facto proof of significant differentiation for subspecific classification. Indeed MoritzB's opinion is certainly not supported by academics, we are not classified into subspecies, we are all Homo sapiens sapiens, and this is a citable fact. In this case MoritzB's opinion is irrelevant to the article, and this is POV pushing and OR. Alun 16:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ernst Mayr's paper does not support your view when the method is applied to Witherspoon's data. Mayr himself writes: "And the geographic races of the human species - established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy - agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact." http://www.goodrumj.com/Mayr.html

However, we simply report what Witherspoon says and make no conclusions about subspecies. Proposal: "When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups. according to Witherspoon et. al. (2007) When more recently founded, geographically intermediate or admixed populations like New Guineans, South Asians, Native Americans, African Americans and Hispano–Latinos are considered the size of the overlap in similarity is 3.7%." MoritzB 17:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mayr is entitled to his opinion. But I don't see how he can not support my view, because I have not presented my view. I clearly stated that the criteria for defining subspecies tend to be arbitrary and different from species to species. Sometimes distinct genetic differences are used, sometimes subsepcies are genetically homogeneous and are classified by a few prominent physical features. This is one of the reasons why many biologists reject the concept of subspecies altogether. Some species are practically indistinguishable on the genetic level, whereas some subsepcies have a great deal of gentic differentiation within the species. Subspecies are classified on an arbitrary basis, that is what I said. I recently read a paper in which 36.1% of Leopard genomic differentiation was at the continental level, whereas only 63.9% of the variation was within continent, furthermore 68.9% of mtDNA variation was between continents with only 31.1% within continents. These figures dwarf the equivalents for humans 15% between continents for genomic and 24-27% between continents for mtDNA. Regardless of this humans are not classified into subspecies for very good biological reasons. Mayr may not agree with these reasons, but he is in the minority in this case, there is no subspecific human classification, and that is a fact, like it or not. You can huff and puff about it, but it is still a fact."'Race' is a legitimate taxonomic concept that works for chimpanzees but does not apply to humans (at this time). The nonexistence of 'races' or subspecies in modern humans does not preclude substantial genetic variation that may be localized to regions or populations. More than 10 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) probably exist in the human genome. More than 5 million of these SNPs are expected to be common (minor allele frequency >10%). Most of these SNPs vary in frequency across human populations, and a large fraction of them are private or common in only a single population. Other genetic variants are also asymmetrically distributed. This makes forensic distinctions possible even within restricted regions such as Scandinavia. Anonymous human DNA samples will structure into groups that correspond to the divisions of the sampled populations or regions when large numbers of genetic markers are used. This has been demonstrated with autosomal microsatellites, which are the most rapidly evolving genetic variants. The DNA of an unknown individual from one of the sampled populations would probably be correctly linked to a population. Because this identification is possible does not mean that there is a level of differentiation equal to 'races'. The genetics of Homo sapiens shows gradients of differentiation." Your proposal is no better than before, it lacks any attempt at impartiality because it does not discuss Witherspoon's conclusions, it only gives a few results. It is inappropriate to present the results of a research paper without also presenting the conclusions the authors have drawn. It also presents these results in a misleading manner. What Witherspoon does is claim that clustering analyses mask a great deal of similarity between individuals from geographically distant regions and show that a great deal more loci are required to produce anything approaching differentiation at the level of the individual, even from geographically distant populations. When intermediate groups are sampled this amount of loci is insufficient, and even 10,000 loci are insufficient to produce a very good distinction. But intermediate groups do not represent continuous sampling. Witherspoon concludes that the only way to fully understand the extent of variaion and how human groups relate to each other is to sample continuously, something no one has ever done. He also speculates that attaining anything like discrete populations may well be impossible if sampling continuously were to be done. The discussion and the introduction of any research paper are the key sections, not the results section. The only reason to go to the results section is to present the data in a misleading or confusing way and to avoid the uncomfortable (for you) conclusion that human populations do not form discrete groups. Alun 18:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups. according to Witherspoon et. al. (2007) When more recently founded, geographically intermediate or admixed populations like New Guineans, South Asians, Native Americans, African Americans and Hispano–Latinos are considered the size of the overlap in similarity is 3.7%. Witherspoon et. al conclude that "given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin". However, "even when hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population". Thus, Europeans, East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans '''do form discrete populations" when considering the entire genome, not just "hundreds of loci". MoritzB 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is another classic example of you taking quotes out of context. The fact that certain grops of people frm discrete populations is not evidence of the existence of "race". Given enough polymorphisms just about any group, down to the family group can be considered a "discrete population". It si perfectly possible for myDNA to be used to distinguish me from every single other person in the entire world, this is the basis of DNA fingerprinting. It is still incorrect to state that I am a "race" just because my DNA is unique. Witherspoon explains how it is possible to show that two individuals from very distant parts of the world are always more different to each other than to an individual from the same part of the world. Of course people from different parts of the world are from different populations. But then an Italian is from a different population to an Irishman. It is just much more difficult to show that an Italian will always be more similar to another Italian than to an Irishman. This is not evidence for the existence of "race", and Witherspoon et al. do not make this claim. Only you are making this claim. The existence of human populations is not disputed. The existence of genetic difference between populations is not disputed. What is not accepted is that the difference between human populations amounts to any concept of subspecies. You really are grasping at straws. You can repeat yourself ad nauseum but the paper does not state what I think you are stating. Indeed it is unclear what you really are trying to say because you seem to be ignoring the conclusions of this paper. All you are doing is saying that geographically disparate groups are more different from each other than they are to geographically proximate groups. No one disputes this. The problem is that you are extrapolating this observation to make unfounded and unsupported conclusions about "race" that Witherspoon does not make. Your personal beliefs are not important, but you keep trying to introduce them into the article, and you keep trying to take quotes out of context to support your personal beliefs. It is clear that you want to use these data to promote your own personal crusade, in doing this you ignore main conclusions of the article. If you want to include information from this article then you need to say what the paper says, and not what you personally want it to say. Your POV pushing and tendentiousness has recently been discussed on ANI, you appear to be conciliatory there, while continuing with tendentious editing and POV pushing here. Alun 19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you misunderstood Witherspoon's study. The value of ω depends on what populations are compared. When comparing Europeans, Africans and East Asians the value was 0. When the article compared other populations ω reached an asymptotic value of 3.6%. When comparing Italian to Irishmen the value may be e.g. 20% because of the proximity of the groups. Thus, your claim that "given enough polymorphisms just about any group, down to the family group can be considered a "discrete population" is false. Members of European populations can be more similar to members of other European populations than to members of their own population. This is not true in the case of Europeans, Africans and East Asians which was proven by Witherspoon.MoritzB 19:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I understand Witherspoon's study all too well, and you know that I do. I also think you understand Witherspoon but do not like their conclusions, and are choosing to make unfounded claims about it. For example just above you state "The value of ω depends on what populations are compared. When comparing Europeans, Africans and East Asians the value was 0." This is simply not true. Witherspoon does not say this anywhere. What Witherspoon actually says is that the value of ω depends both on the populations studied, the number of loci studied and the type of loci studied. So actually for these three groups the value of ω is not 0, the value of ω is dependent on the number of loci used in the study. The value of ω is only 0 when the number of loci is high enough. Furthermore your comment about intermediate populations reaching ω=3.1% is for the microarray data, this is a result for a specific type of locus, as type of locus also has an effect on results, SNPs give different results to STRs for example: "In the microarray data set, ω drops to zero at 1000 loci if only distinct populations are sampled. With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, ω reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, CC remains well above zero, and even CT does not reach zero (microarray data, Figure 2, C and D; Table 1)." Likewise the value of ω would also be dependent on the number of loci used when comparing Italians to Irishmen. It certainly would be 20% at some point, but when it reaches that figure is dependent upon the number of loci studied. It might even be the case that it can never reach as low as 20% between these groups however many loci studied, because individuals in these groups are naturally going to be more similar to each other than they are to say Han Chinese individuals. Conversely it may be possible for ω=0 between Italians and Irishmen if millions of loci were used. The article states that ω reaches 3.1% when geographically intermediate and admixed populations are added, but these intermediate populations are still a very large distance apart. Besides ω=3.1 for the whole sample when geographically intermediate populations are added, showing that when these populations are added it is impossible to perfectly distinguish between individuals for the whole set. "Thus, your claim that "given enough polymorphisms just about any group, down to the family group can be considered a "discrete population" is false." This is a non sequitur, it does not follow that populations are only populations when ω=0, Witherspoon does not make this claim. Populations can be defined in many different ways, Witherspoon's paper does not imply that there is no gene flow between these groups and that this is the definition of a population, as you seem to believe. Irish people and Italian people are different populations due to the fact that they are historically, linguistically, geographically and socially distinct, all of these factors makes it much less likely for an Italian to meet an Irish person, they are distinct populations because they are not panmitic, i.e. because there needs to be migration between these groups in order for genetic mixing (thinking about a small island model). Indeed your claim that "Members of European populations can be more similar to members of other European populations than to members of their own population." is also true of Europeans and east Asians according to Witherspoon himself, it is entirely dependent upon the number of loci used in the study. When 10 loci are used an east Asian individual and an European individual are more similar each other than they are to a person from their own population 30% of the time, when 100 loci are used it is 20% of the time and using a thousand loci it is 10% of the time. "Thus the answer to the question 'How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?' depends on the number of polymorphisms used to deﬁne that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, ω, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ω~0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ω ~10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes ‘‘never’’ when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations."
 * Your claim that I do not understand this paper is condescending and without merit. Indeed what you wrote following this statement displays a distinct lack of understanding of the paper yourself. You do not appear to even understand the simple fact that ω is dependent upon the number of loci studied. Alun 20:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I said hours ago that ω is dependent on the number of loci studied: "However, 'even when hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population". Thus, Europeans, East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans do form discrete populations" when considering the entire genome, not just 'hundreds of loci'" -MoritzB 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite, and later you just state that ω is 0 for these three populations, which is not true. If you wntr to make a point, then make the correct point, do not make incorrect assertions. Alun 07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Witherspoon says that ω approaches zero for these populations.

In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero. ... The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group. In general, CC and CT decrease more rapidly and to lower values than ω


 * When taking the whole genome into account ω reaches an asymptotic value >>0 in the case of closely related populations. When Europeans, East Asians and Africans are compared it approaches zero. You make the error of confusing an empirical measurement and biological reality. In empirical measurements ω >> 0 when a small number of loci are studied. However, in biological reality ω approaches 0 in the case of Europeans, East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans. The study makes a methodological suggestion that hundreds of loci may not be enough to reliably determine the geographic ancestry of an individual. It also states that :"The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group."


 * When taking the whole genome into account ω reaches an asymptotic value >>0 in the case of closely related populations.
 * This is incorrect. You are not addressing the point of the paper. Besides the paper does not use "populations" it uses "population groups" because it pools data derived from different populations. see below.
 * How can you possibly say so? I am just trying to help you understand the study. ω reached an asymptotic value 3.7%>>0 when the more closely related populations were compared. ω always reaches an asymptotic value when closely related populations are compared.


 * You make the error of confusing an empirical measurement and biological reality.
 * This statement is irrelevant.
 * No. The methodology of population genetics and biological reality are two different things.


 * The study makes a methodological suggestion that hundreds of loci may not be enough to reliably determine the geographic ancestry of an individual.
 * No it doesn't, the study is discussing the genetic similarity of individuals to other individuals
 * "It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population."


 * It also states that :"'The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms.''
 * For microarray data, not for all data.
 * The ω curve of all data sets did not reach an asymptotic value when comparing Sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans and East Asians.


 * This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group.
 * No it says that when three very geographically distant groups are studies then individuals will ''nearly always" be more similar to other individuals in their own group than to individuals in other groups.
 * Always was the word Witherspoon used, not nearly always. Witherspoon was also right. :"The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group."


 * Comment. You clearly do not understand what this paper is actually saying. The purpose of this paper is to answer the question How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations? This question cannot be answered directly because we do not have the data. In order to model this question it is necessary to look at the data that are available, this means changing the question somewhat. In order to do this Witherspoon et al. have produced two data sets, one in which they model three very distinct groups of populations (not populations) and another in which they modeld eight groups, the original three and some other less distinct groups. The paper finds that when very distinct population groups are modeled, individuals are nearly always more similar to other individuals from their own population group than to individuals from a different population group when a large number of polymorphisms are used (>1000 "Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ω ~ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ω ~ 10%". Witherspon et al. then go on to model this same question for eight less well geographically distinct population groups, though these population groups do not represent anything like a continuously sampled population. In this analysis it is very much more difficult to to show that any individual is nearly always more similar to another individual from their own group than to an individual from a different group, even though these groups are still relatively different from each other. The original question cannot, as yet be answered, this is because it can only be answered by continual sampling. This is obvious because if we want to understand whether a randomly sampled individual from the entire human population is more similar to their an individual from their own population than to a randomly sampled individual from the rest of the human population will increase ω to a very much greater extent. They then go on to say that this observaton is "In a similar vein [to] Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) [who] have suggested that highly accurate classiﬁcation of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations maybe impossible. The results of this paper depend on the value of ω, but this statistic is shown to be very innert, and the addition of even a small number of intermediate populations affects the statistic quite dramatically. The conclusions are obvious, to show that an individual is always more similar to someone from their own population than to someone randomly sampled from the global population requires continuous sampling, this involves a very large effect on ω, which means that many more than a few thousand, or even a few tens of thusands of loci need to be studied. The question is not, and never was, how often in an individual from one distinct population more similar to an individual from another distinct population than to an individual from their own population? this is just an artifact of the study design. Witherspoon makes no claims regarding the relevance of being able to distinguish individuals from such distinct populations such as you are claiming. He does not make any claim other than what is already known to any person with eyes in their head, whcih is that people from very different parts of the world tend to be more different from each other than people from the same part of the world. Your conclusions are unwarranted and not supported by the this paper in any way shape or form. This paper is not about "race", it is not about distinguishing "populations" and it does not make any claims for "racial" classification. You are misrepresenting this paper and ignoring it's main conclusions to draw biased and incorrewect conclusions which are entirely your own and are not made in the paper whatsoever. Alun 07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I reported Witherspoon's conclusions almost exactly. "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes."


 * Witherspoon clearly informs the reader that an aim of the study was to provide answer to the question how often in an individual from one distinct population more similar to an individual from another distinct population than to an individual from their own population which was different from the previous opinion of AAA. He thus shows that the established view of the non-existence of races was based on false foundations and major human populations form completely distinct genetic clusters which don't overlap at all.

DISCUSSIONS of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding?

All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and “race.” In particular, the American Anthropological Association (1997, p. 1) stated that “data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world” (subsequently amended to “about as different”). Similarly, educational material distributed by the Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world.” Previously, one might have judged these statements to be essentially correct for single-locus characters, but not for multilocus ones. However, the finding of Bamshad et al. (2004) suggests that an empirical investigation of these claims is warranted.

'''In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.''' Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci.

Witherspoon establishes that three major human populations are genetically completely distinct and there is no overlap between them except in studies which examine too few loci to reliably determine the population membership of an individual belonging to aforementioned three major human populations. MoritzB 12:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

A new compromise: "When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups. When more recently founded, geographically intermediate or admixed populations like New Guineans, South Asians, Native Americans, African Americans and Hispano–Latinos are considered the size of the overlap in similarity is 3.7%. Still, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, enough genetic data is needed to assign individuals of European, East Asian or sub-Saharan African ancestry correctly to their populations of origin." Witherspoon et. al. (2007) MoritzB 21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * given enough loci any a person from one village will always be more similar to members of his own village than to members of a village that is 1000 miles away. Does that mean the two villages are separate races. Muntuwandi 19:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That is simply not true as in that case 0<ω.MoritzB 20:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you hinge your information on fringe theories. OK say hypothetically Race does exist, so then what. Most of the traits that make us human vary so much between individuals within the same race that racial classifying them as one race in this regard may seem pointless. Unless you say that all humans are robots to their race. That is everyone in a particular race, acts the same, behaves the same, thinks the same. Most people I know behave differently even from their own siblings or parents. To imply that race exists indicates that people have little individuality and are dependent on their race for their character ,personality or physical ability. I am sure MoritzB that you don't even agree with most people in your own "race", whichever one that may be. Of course in different cultures certain behaviors are emphasized but these are cultural not necessarily genetic. So then what use is subspecies classification other than for social reasons.


 * The definition of a species is simply a population that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Humans are one species, they have never had any problems interbreeding, historically human populations have actually been very eager to interbreed whenever two groups encounter one another. Just take a look at Latin americas 600 million people, the majority are of mixed ancestry. What this means is that even if race existed, it is not a stable entity, since all it has taken is less than 500 years to produce new mixed populations that number in the hundreds of millions. following the invention of the airplane genes can criss-cross around the globe in days, so a fundamental breakdown is expected in the coming millennium for the rigid geographical racial structures that existed in the past.  So what does one hope to gain by classifying races other than boosting one's ego with the right to belong to the "best race". Muntuwandi 17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing the idea, that there was no contact between the races prior to European discovery is also incorrect. Contact between the races has waxed and waned throughout time. For example the Banana is indigenous to Oceania, but somehow it reached West Africa long before European Exploration. There has always been contact between Africa and Europe through North Africa, so genes have been exchanged through this route several times. Haplogroup E3b (Y-DNA) arose in Africa and spread to Europe in the Neolithic for example and 25% of Southern Italians have the y chromosome of an African man. Chinese pottery has been found at the Great Zimbabwe etc. The mystery of the Sweet potato as well, It originated in South america, but is found 3000 miles away in the polynesian, all this prior to European discovery. Muntuwandi 18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Rubenstein for introducing Mayr's opinion although it was different from your personal point of view.MoritzB 18:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think if we are going to introduce Mayr's opinion we should introduce more of what he said rather than just the he argues for the geographic race. My understanding of the article is that he is arguing against the existence of races. Muntuwandi 18:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * MoritzB, you are welcome. Muntuwandi: he is not arguing against the existence of races.  But he is arguing that geographic races, understood biologically, have nothing in common with 19th century notions of race, and cannot be understood hierarchically.  He is definitely arguing against racism - but not the idea of race itself. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Witherspoon in the current version
Let's examine this version and compare it to what Witherspoon actually says:

Conversely Witherspoon (2007) has shown that while it is possible to classify people into genetic clusters this does not resolve the observation that any two individuals from different populations are often genetically more similar to each ther than to two individuals from the same population:

Discussions of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding? All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and "race"...The Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that "two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world."[14]

Risch et al. (2002) state that "two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian", but Bamshad et al (2004) used the same data set as Risch to show that Europeans are more similar to Asians 38% of the time than they are to other Europeans. Witherspoon et al. conclude that the answer to the question "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?" depends on the number of genes studied. With ten loci and three distinct populations the answer is about 30%, with 100 loci it is about 20% and with a thousand loci it is about 10%. For individuals from within a group to never be more different to each other than to members of a different groups, thousands of loci need to be studied form geographically separated populations. Witherspoon also concludes that if the world population were studied with it's many closely related groups varying clinally, the use of even 10,000 loci does not produce the answer "never". Witherspoon also makes the observation: "In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and there fore closely related) populations may be impossible."[14]

"Conversely Witherspoon (2007) has shown that while it is possible to classify people into genetic clusters this does not resolve the observation that any two individuals from different populations are often genetically more similar to each ther than to two individuals from the same population: Discussions of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts..."

Witherspoon really says that these major populations are completely distinct and two individuals from different major populations are never genetically more similar to each other than to two individuals from the same populations except in studies which fail to use enough loci to be reliable.
 * No he doesn't, I can find no statement that supports this claim in Witherspoons paper.. No human groups are completely distinct. This claim would be treated with derision by the scientific community. No human populations can be completely distinct. For one thing all human are very similar to each other by dint of our recent common origin, all humans are very similar because there is evidence of large amounts of gene flow between groups of people and the levels of genetic differentiation within the human species are very low, which is why hundreds of loci are needed before any differentiation can be detected between groups and tens of thousands are required for differentiation between individuals. If these populations were as distinct as you seem to think Witherspoon is claiming, then it would require only a few loci and not tens of thousands. Witherspoon makes no claim that these populations are "distinct". Your claim is absurd and is drawn from you bias and bizarre attempts to push unwarranted racialist nonsense. You either do not understand this work or are deliberately misrepresenting it to promote your own personal agenda. Alun 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please, ad hominems and original research don't help.
 * Quite, lease stop introducing OR. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I already explained major human populations are completely distinct because according to Witherspoon because ω approaches zero when comparing them and never reaches an asymptotic value and their members can thus be classified correctly to their populations of origin. MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a definition of a distinct population, and Witherspoon does not claim this, only you do. It is therefore your opinion, it does not derive from an correct understanding of Witherspoon. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Individuals cannot be correctly classified to their populations of origin if the populations are not genetically distinct. MoritzB 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Witherspoon's actual results: "The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group. In general, CC and CT decrease more rapidly and to lower values than ω."
 * A single result, this is not "whitherspoons results". It is unwarranted to take a single result from a paper and claim that this is representative of the paper as a whole. This is at the very least dishonest. Alun 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless Witherspoon made a mistake when writing the sentence your position is logically unsustainable. "This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group." MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes and? When enough loci are examined individuals from any group will be genetically more similar to their own group, when geographically isolated groups are examined. It may also be true for populations that are geographically close if enough loci are examined. It does not follow that these are "completely distinct", and Witherspoon does not make this claim. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Then we say simply that when enough loci are considered individuals from the major population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group. MoritzB 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion: Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is  0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci,  10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations. If genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations."
 * Quite. This does not support what you claim. Alun 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It does as I am simply reporting Witherspoon's findings honestly. It is hardly relevant in this article what kind of population genetical methods (how many loci) are needed to establish that the dissimilarity fraction approaches zero when comparing major populations. MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course it is relevant how many loci are used. The number of loci is important because it is possible to distinguish any group given enough loci and only a few groups. It may not be possible if continuous sampling is used, however many loci are studied, though this cannot as yet be tested. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

And conclusions:"In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci."
 * Quite, this supports what I have been saying. No mention of "major populations being completely distinct" as you claim.Alun 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the genetic clusters of populations are not completely distinct individuals cannot be correctly assigned to their populations of origin as the possibility for misclassification remains. Witherspoon concludes that they can be correctly assigned. MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a clustering analysis. Witherspoon does not discuss clusters, he discusses individual differences. Witherspoon does not claim that "they can be correctly assigned. Individuals are not assigned to clusters in Witherspoons data, they are compared to other individuals. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them."
 * Again no mention of population groups being completely distinct. Alun 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If the genetic clusters of populations are not completely distinct individuals cannot be correctly assigned to their populations of origin as the possibility for misclassification remains. Witherspoon concludes that they can be correctly assigned. MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a clustering analysis. Witherspoon does not discuss clusters, he discusses individual differences. Witherspoon does not claim that "they can be correctly assigned. Individuals are not assigned to clusters in Witherspoons data, they are compared to other individuals. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

''Discussions of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding? All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and "race"...The Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that "two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world."[14]''


 * Quite, he is saying that multilocus allele clusters are not as powerful as claimed. If they are not as powerful as claimed, then what advantage do they have in medicine? Alun 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He is precisely disputing these claims. See the article. MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Seen it lots of times, he shows that multilocus allele clustering hides a great deal of between individual similarities. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here Witherspoon describes certain established views he intends to prove false. They are not Witherspoon's views although the article attributes them to Witherspoon.

He continues:

All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and “race.” In particular, the American Anthropological Association (1997, p. 1) stated that “data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world” (subsequently amended to “about as different”). Similarly, educational material distributed by the Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world.” Previously, one might have judged these statements to be essentially correct for single-locus characters, but not for multilocus ones. However, the finding of Bamshad et al. (2004) suggests that an empirical investigation of these claims is warranted. ...

In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above.
 * This is not a conclusion, it is their method, hence in what follows Alun 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly and the use that method to debunk the above claims you claim they are supporting.
 * You claim this si a conclusion, it clearly is not. What do you mean by "debunk"? Which claims are "debunked"? It is unclear what you are talking about. Be precise. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The claim c that "pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population".
 * MoritzB 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population.
 * So not defined as individuals from geographically distinct populations then. Alun 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The same artifact can be used when comparing geographically distinct populations and all kinds of other populations. MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not clear what you are talking about. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long.

It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations:
 * But ω is not defined like this, ω is defined '''as you show above, as : we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population.
 * Please don't shout. ω can be used and is used in the article when comparing any populations.MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * ω is defined in a specific way. It has a different value due to sampling strategy and study design. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. Thus, claim c breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations:MoritzB 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In such cases, ω becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci.
 * Meaning that they mask a lot of between group identity, because classification with only a few hundred loci, such as Tang and Risch use (approx 350) is not sugfficient to differentiate between the similarities between individuals, '''even from extreme geographical regions.
 * Nonsense.MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Good answer, you obviously can't dispute this comment. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It was nonsense because Witherspoon precisely says that classification statistics which make use of the aggregate properties of populations can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci. They approach 100% accuracy and don't mask anything. MoritzB 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

"''Risch et al. (2002) state that "two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian", but Bamshad et al (2004) used the same data set as Risch to show that Europeans are more similar to Asians 38% of the time than they are to other Europeans. Witherspoon et al. conclude that the answer to the question "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?" depends on the number of genes studied.
 * No they don't, it depends on the number of genes studied and the distinctness of the populations studied.: "With ten loci  and three distinct populations  the answer is about 30%, with 100 loci it is about 20% and with a thousand loci it is about 10%. For individuals from within a group to never be more different to each other than to members of a different groups, thousands of loci need to be studied form geographically separated populations .
 * Thousands of loci are needed to empirically measure it which doesn't change the biological fact that individuals from within a major population group are never be more different to each other than to members of other major population groups.
 * No it doesn't, but this is not the question, the question is between population and within population identity, and not between distinct populations. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Witherspoon also concludes that if the world population were studied with it's many closely related groups varying clinally, the use of even 10,000 loci does not produce the answer "never".
 * No he concludes that 10,000 lloci are not enough even for the small set of intermediate and admixed populations used here, "This is illustrated by the fact that equation M48 and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms (Table 1, microarray data set; Figure 2D)." This is refering to this study, which does not sample the "world population" Alun 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Now you are confused. According to Witherspoon "with geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, ω reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, CC remains well above zero, and even CT does not reach zero." He does not conclude that 10 000 loci are not enough. They were perfectly enough to prove that ω reaches an asymptotic value 3.1%. However, in the case of major populations his conclusion is that ω approaches zero. MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is you who is confused. ω reaches the value of 3.1% for these specific loci and population groups. This does not represent anything other than a result for these data, he does not claim that this datum can be extrapolated to the inclusion of other populations. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Very true and thus this data should not be extrapolated to the inclusion of all human populations in the article.MoritzB 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Witherspoon also makes the observation: "In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and there fore closely related) populations may be impossible.''"

This refers to the excellent observation Witherspoon makes: "On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase This is illustrated by the fact that  and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms."

Of course, when comparing any closely related and admixed populations like Germans and Englishmen ω >> 0. This is a trivial issue in the context of this article.
 * This seems to be where you are hopelessly confused. Witherspoon is not saying that it is more difficult to distinguish between close geographical populations (although it obviously is). He is saying that if all human groups are included in the same analysis, then it would increase ω because ω is not defined as how similar two people from defined geographically distinct populations are from each other, or two people from close geographical populations are from each other. we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. So if the whole of humanity is sampled (that is continuously sampled, therefor including individuals from all populations), this figure becomes very high, because each individual is compared to every other individual in every other population to see if they are more different to that population than to their own population. This means that an English person would need to be compared to every person from every single other population, including all European populations, all African populations, all Asian populations etc. ω is the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population.. Alun 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * These are your conclusions. Witherspoon's study does not give any support to your claim that the dissimilarity fraction would become "very high" when the whole of humanity is sampled. He simply notes that "on the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase the dissimilarity fraction". The effect of the possible inclusion of these populations depends on their size which was not studied by Witherspoon. MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * These are not "my conclusions", this is what Witherspoon states clearly. "On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase ω. This is illustrated by the fact that ω and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms....The population groups in this example are quite distinct from one another: Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians. Many factors will further weaken the correlation between an individual's phenotype and their geographic ancestry. These include considering more closely related or admixed populations, studying phenotypes influenced by fewer loci, unevenly distributed effects across loci, nonadditive effects, developmental and environmental effects, and uncertainties about individuals' ancestry and actual populations of origin. The typical frequencies of alleles that influence a phenotype are also relevant, as our results show that rare polymorphisms yield high values of ω CC, and CT, even when many such polymorphisms are studied." Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The observation that the dissimilarity fraction rises when admixed and intermediate populations are taken into consideration is trivial and Witherspoon does not even empirically examine this question in the paper. You are mistaken if you think that the passage quoted is some kind of counter-argument to Risch's findings. Your own conclusion is based on your belief that lower values of dissimilarity fraction are obtained in the US than in the world which is original research. Witherspoon never says so and the largest admixed populations in the world (African Americans and Hispanics) are included to Risch's study. MoritzB 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No anthropologist has ever claimed that such closely related and admixed populations don't have common racial elements. The question is whether the racial definitions of traditional physical anthropology (Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid) are consistent with the findings of modern population genetics. Witherspoon conclusions regarding them are clear: the major populations of Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia form discrete genetic clusters. MoritzB 14:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He nowhere makes this claim, indeed these are not his conclusions, they are your conclusions, because you want to push a racialist pov. Where is your quote here? Why can you not quote Witherspoon's paper to support this comment? You claim these are Witherspoon's conclusions, well if this is correct, then you should be able to quote the section in the article where he concludes that the major populations of Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia form discrete genetic clusters.  I've read Witherspoon's paper several times, and I can find no conclusions regarding these groups forming distinct clusters. Please quote this "conclusion". If it is made, then it should be easy to quote, it should be explicitly stated. It is not, because these are not Witherspoon's conclusions. Alun 06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, the paragraph above related to the general structure of the article: 1) Traditional racial definitions, 2) Whether modern population genetics supports these definitions. It didn't relate to Witherspoon's study.MoritzB 08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You clearly state in the paragraph above that these are Witherspoon's conclusions. But they are not. Alun 08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, Witherspoon did not mention this Wikipedia article in his study. MoritzB 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Moritz, why don't you just cut and paste the whole article here? I am being sarcastic: you can quote as much as you like but unless you quote the entire article -which is patently absurd - you are quoting selectively.  So what is above is not wha Witherspoon et. al. "actually said," it is part of what they said.  And what it means depends on the context in which the article was written.  As long as you just quote selectively you can quote all you want and you are violating NOR.  To represent a source accurately we need to understand its context and only use it in the article to make the point that the authors were making, not a point you want to make by selectively quoting. Now, stop wasting space on this page, or we will have to archive every day. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the paper to confirm that Witherspoon was indeed misrepresented. As Wiki is not paper I quoted enough to make this fact clear to those who read only the talk page.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1893020 MoritzB 17:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In all honesty witherspoon presents nothing new. Using enough loci any two endogamous groups can be distinguished from each other, even if they are within the same race. Two groups living on separate islands after a several generations can be easily distinguished. Just as one can distinguish any two individuals with enough loci. That is the basis of DNA fingerprinting. You can use this technology to distinguish two families, or for paternity testing. It does not change anything. The fact is that people who live nearer to each other will in general be more related than those who live further away. With enough loci there would be no overlap. One could probably distinguish the chinese from the Japanese, or North Chinese from Southern chinese. Does that mean that these groups are all separate races, well if you believe Moritz. Nobody disputes that there is human variation, it exists or that europeans and africans and east asians will have different gene frequencies. But if we apply any standard for race, then we will find that there would be several races within the so called races. Muntuwandi 17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Simply untrue. For example, comparing Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans, New Guineans, South Asians, Native Americans, African Americans and Hispano–Latinos the size of the overlap in similarity is 3.1% and it cannot be smaller regardless of how many loci are used according to Witherspoon et. al. 2007. MoritzB 17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You really don't get this at all do you? The size of ω is 3.1% for the microarray data used by Witherspoon he does not claim that these data represent an absolute value that can be extrapolated. Besides this is not the size of any overlap. Witherspoon is not discussing populations, he is discussing individuals. This has got nothing to do with overlap. This figure shows that for microarray data and these samples 3.1% of the time an individual will be more like another individual from a different group compared to an individual from their own group. It has got nothing to do with overlap because this is about individuals and not about populations. Indeed you are wrong to claim that it cannot be smaller. I would bet money that for this set of data the use of say a million loci would produce better resolution. It can be smaller because as Witherspoon says in his paper ω depends on the number of loci used and the distinctness of the population groups. For less distinct groups we just need more loci. For continuously sampled groups it mmay be impossible to get  ω to zero, but it may not if we used tens or hundreds of millions of loci. Alun 06:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you familiar with a mathematical concept called asymptote? Witherspoon says that "With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, the dissimilarity fraction reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%". You are saying that Witherspoon was wrong which is original research.MoritzB 08:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * So it will never reach less than 3.1% even for relatively distinct populations that are used in this study. Which rather undermines your argument. If more populations are included this figure will rise, so it may well be impossible to distinguish any individual from any group if more populations are studied. Alun 08:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Two hours ago you still had the opinion that the size ω could be smaller if more loci were used. Now you change your opinion to different factual interpretation of the article because this particular view of facts seems to suit your present argument best. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. MoritzB 12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Blah blah blah... This looks like talks from ALUNatic asylum. Is there anybody, who can grasp it with common sense? Can't you understand that people, who share common ancestry and exchanged their genes due to geographical isolation are more related to each other than to people from other groups? Am I more related to my brother than to an Eskimo? Yes. Am I more related to the vast majority of people from my country than to an Eskimo? Yes. Since race is a form of an extended family, this blah blah blah hogwash has no practical sense. The findings of modern genetics show that phenotypic differences described by traditional anthropology have very deep roots going to the Middle Paleolithic - for example, Khoisan, Nilotes, Pygmies and Somalis actually make up separate racial groups. The two main migrations originating from Africa 50-60 000 years ago gave rise to modern Caucasoids on one hand and to Australoids and Mongoloids on the other hand. From their occasional mixture, several intermediate groups came into being (Polynesians, Papuan highlanders, American Indians). This is evident from the haplogroup lineages. But why is there such a silence around it? I have never read a scientific article that would try to analyze it. Do we really live in ALUNatic asylum? Centrum99 82.100.61.114 04:56, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What piece of research would clarify and simplify this article? What is the question that needs answering? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Witherspoon (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This article basically needs no research. It is a sophistry lesson led by Mrs. Alun and Slrubenstein. Between two human races, you can find Fst values exceeding 0.25, yet they can't be considered as races, because humans are not animals. Do you understand? Everybody, who disagrees with this is a troll. Centrum99 (talk) 02:01, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, basically, this article would need a basic information like this:
 * Fst distances based on 150 autosomal genes (Cavalli-Sforza 1994):
 * Danish-Basque 0.02, Danish-Southern Chinese 0.13, Danish-Malaysian 0.16, Danish-Pygmy Mbuti 0.15, Danish-Bantu 0.17, English-Bantu 0.23, Australian-Bantu 0.33, Australian-Pygmy Mbuti 0.43, Australian-Eskimo 0.20, Korean-Bantu 0.27, Bantu-Thai 0.34.
 * Tishkoff, Kidd 2004:
 * "Estimates of FST (or equivalent measures) within and between main geographic regions (Africa, Europe and Asia) typically range from 0.11 to 0.23 for protein polymorphisms, blood groups, RFLPs, SNPs and autosomal microsatellites..."
 * FST comparisons based on 369 SNPs for pairs of populations within and across global regions:
 * Africa-Europe 0.15 (0.11-0.20), Africa-East Asia 0.23 (0.18-0.28), Africa-America 0.23 (0.17-0.31), Europe-East Asia 0.12 (0.09-0.18), Europe-America 0.16 (0.08-0.23), East Asia-America 0.16 (0.09-0.23).
 * FST within regions:
 * Africa 0.05, Europe 0.02, East Asia 0.04, America 0.09.
 * Yang et al. 2005: Fst based on 199 "ethnic difference markers", i.e. genetic markers best distinguishing racial clusters:
 * European Americans-Africans (Nigerians) 0.33, -East Asians (Californian Asians) 0.39, -American Indians (Maya) 0.31, -US Indians 0.08.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centrum99 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * However, humans are not animals and Fst values of this sort can't be taken into account. Do you understand? (I don't. However, I am a minority, so it doesn't matter. Furthermore, I am a troll.) 15:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

HUP 2-3-4
These long-winded passages on this talk page could be avoided and more beneficial work could be accomplished in other ways in Wikipedia if editors would recognize the fact that the strongest people on earth are able to make whatever claims about race that they please because the weak people cannot control what the strongest people say or do.SgtVelocicaptor 11:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I support Moritz
Let's not turn this into an edit war. Moritz seems to have the most reasonably worded position.

71.197.5.27 15:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Me too. But sadly, it all comes down to POV, not facts, when it is about topics like this. Funkynusayri 16:19, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * User:71.197.5.127 has been blocked. You do choose strange bedfellows. --Mathsci 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I expressed support for Moritz, not anon. What's it to you? Some people who share the simple view with me that biological race exists might also have other, more unsympathetic views, which they do not share with me. I don't give a damn, because I'm not supporting said opinions simply if I support this one. Funkynusayri 18:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I just added a lot of new information. MoritzB 22:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Klein and Takahata on human races
"The proposal to scrap the concept of race altogether is currently only one extreme in a range of views. It is certainly not shared by all anthropologists and is by no means the majority opinion of the public at large. It appears to be a conclusion reached more on the basis of political and philosophical creeds than on scientific arguments. Correspondingly, anthropologists who do hold this opinion often attempt to shout down their opponents rather than convince them by presentation of facts. Their favored method of argumentation is to label anybody who disagrees with them as racist. The public, however, seems unimpressed by their rhetoric."

"Where Do We Come From? The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent, 2002, p. 384"

I will add their comment. MoritzB 18:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Heh, that citation pretty much summarises our problems here. Funkynusayri 22:59, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah. "There is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings" -- James Serpell: "The Domestic Dog", p. 33 MoritzB 00:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of specious? Artificial selection and natural selection are apples and oranges. The dog and the wolf are classified in the same species; it's not surprising that there is little variability in dogs compared to humans, which do make up a species of their own. FilipeS (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Quite, the domestication of the dog occurred a mere ~10000 ybp, so not a great deal of time for much genetic divergence to be established. On the other hand classification of Canis lupus familiaris into a separate subspecies from Canis lupus lupus makes some sense from a biological point of view. Although these subspecies can and do interbreed and produce viable (i.e. fertile) offspring (proving they are the same species) there is some evidence that some behavioural and anatomical differences have restricted gene flow. So on the one hand we see little genetic difference between the groups, but on the other we see limited gene flow due to the ecology of the organisms. When one thinks about groups of organisms that may be undergoing a parapatric speciation event, it is clear that the first isolated populations must always be more genetically similar to each other than different. Or to think of it another way, at the point when gene flow ceases between two populations (basically one definition of a speciation event, the two groups of organisms do not interbreed at all), these populations are still genetically very similar, but over time these populations will become much more diverged, due to a lack of gene flow and differential selective pressure. This is obvious. Domestic dogs have been selectively bred for specific behaviours and anatomy, they do not represent a natural population and can never be used as anything like a representative model for how selection functions in natural environments. None of human ecology, culture, social organisation, anatomy and the distribution of human genetic variation can be claimed to be represented by any model derived from artificial selection. Indeed wolves represent a paraphyletic group to dogs, but an artificially selected group that is not the product of nature. This applies to all domesticated organisms, they exist because we invented them. Alun (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * and is by no means the majority opinion of the public at large.
 * So when has the "public at large" ever had a say in science? Science is not a democracy, creationists cannot claim that "intelligent design" is true just because most people in the USA believe it. Lay people with little understanding of scientific principles cannot claim that "wave particle duality" doesn't make sense so we are going to say it doesn't exist. Alun (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Their favored method of argumentation is to label anybody who disagrees with them as racist.
 * This is untrue, there is a consensus amongst anthropologists that "race" as a biological phenomenon is simply a very poor model for they way human diversity, both genetic and physical, is distributed. Only the ignorant would make the claim about racism, because clearly they have never really investigated the evidence fully. The fact is that the large majority of anthropologists (about 2:1) who reject the concept of biological race do so from the point of view of a thorough scientific investigation of the facts, and the facts are that what little variation exists in human populations is gradual and clinal, not discontinuous and clustered, classifying people therefore becomes arbitrary and subjective. One can have as many "races" as one likes, and one can draw one's "racial boundaries" where one likes. I can see no evidence of "name calling" in this analysis. Clearly the authors have no sensible response to these observations and so revert to ad hominem attacks. Alun (talk) 07:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthropology?
I undid an edit with the comment''Don't remove authentic anthropological plates from the relevant section section. That is vandalism.'' They are not. It is not. Cygnis insignis 23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They are authentic anthropological plates. Why did you remove them? They should be in the article. MoritzB 23:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * They are antiquated images from a select document. They are being used to advance one POV. Why should they be in the article? Cygnis insignis 23:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And you are being disruptive in returning them. Cygnis insignis 23:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I haven't returned them. They illustrate historical, 19th century racial concepts which are relevant. MoritzB 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For one, the plates are not in English. Two, it doesn't state which race is which. They, do though, included different ethnicities, which is different from "races". They are not authenic anthropological plates on races. - Jeeny Talk 23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Some people ...'; overly simplistic statements followed by a baffling invocation of irrelevant terminology; better throw in some pictures and distribution maps to give the reader the 'right' idea. All critics will be met with circular arguments, claims of censorship, and personal denigration by enlightened edit warriors. A model of bias and manipulation of editors, and the reader. This fugitive position is being reinserted, into various pages of the document, in a cycle that is causing significant disruption. It is an embarrassment that it should appear in an encyclopedia.  Cygnis insignis 00:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to tell those who are knowledgeable in Anthropology to help out in the whole Race discussion. Please, if you know about Anthropology, do a little section on the four major races (Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid and Australoid) and edit anything that suggest "Latino" being a RACE. So many folks are confused about what is a Race versus a Cultural/Linguistic group and they end up pouring all their confusion on Wiki. So let's try to do a nice discussion on the four races. Thanks. Prophetess mar (talk) 07:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Latino is certainly not a 'race' as traditionally defined. But i think that proponents of the 'latin race' idea are not trying to argue inside the same definitions of race that you or knowledgeable anthropologists have. I think they are attempting to reinvent the definition of 'race', to move it towards meaning the 'human' race, rather than a section of it. Thus, a person who derives from every sub-racial group (Mongoloid, Caucasoid etc) is more 'human' than one who is 'purely' one sub-race. this new 'human' race is as far as can tell the ideal of the 'new latino'.

I don't know how scientific this idea is, but it sounds nice. Unassuming09 (talk) 12:06, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The phylogeographic concept of subspecies
Jeeny deleted it and said that it was "POV-pushing" which is strange because most mainstream biologists use that concept in taxonomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race&diff=157493085&oldid=157486104 MoritzB 23:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You used that material and added your POV by telling the reader that "...subspecies is widely accepted today, rather than let the sources do that. It was better to delete it all, rather than claiming races are separate species. It is more complex than that. The whole paragraph needs to be re-written to support the sources in that complex way. Therefore I saw it as POV pushing in that cherry picking sources, and taking little bits from them, to support your view that races are separate species. - Jeeny Talk 00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, the phylogenetic concept of subspecies is widely accepted today and generally used in animal taxonomy. Your comment that it supports the view that "the races are separate species" is misguided. MoritzB 00:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * A 2006 paper using the definition: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2007.03397.x
 * MoritzB 00:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The way it was written read as if it was speaking of human being populationss, and races as subspecies is widely accepted today. Unlike the next paragraph that says organisms, as in non-human. Don't be coy. - Jeeny Talk 00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that how a layman understands that paragraph? Then I change it to: "The phylogeographical definition of subspecies is widely accepted in animal taxonomy" MoritzB 00:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The finest accepted level for a taxon is species, as subspecies implies. BTW, red is not blue either. But there is a bluey-red position being advanced here. Is this an elaborate sociological experiment? Or are you for real? Cygnis insignis 01:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See: subspecies.MoritzB 01:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? Cygnis insignis 01:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * He's trying to pretend he knows biology, science, et. al. Look at his contributions. They're all there to POV push that white people are superior, over other races, species, etc. And being coy as to say "is that how the layman understands it? LOL. Who else is going to read this crap? - Jeeny Talk 01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sociological experimenting, or British colonialist hegemony. Take your pick. Cygnis insignis 01:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL. Thanks. :) - Jeeny Talk 01:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * What kind of problem do you have with Ernst Mayr's definition of subspecies? MoritzB 02:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Phylogeography is the most accepted way to identify subspecies in modern taxonomy. It uses systematics and a range of evidence to support the existence of subspecies. It has greater validity over previous systems because it requires so much more evidence for subspecies to be recognised. Both genetic and morphological data are required, together with evidence for the subsepcies being geographically circumbscribed. The best definition I have come across goes: On the other hand there is the Phylogenetic Species Concept, which is gaining popularity in taxonomy. In this concept the idea of subspeces does not exist at all, only species exist, but there would be many more species. All species would have to be geographically restricted though. In this concept all humans would be the same species, and no subspecific classifications would exist at all. I think we should change the section on "subspecies as clade" to a discussion about the phylogeographic subspecies concept. The main thing about the phylogeographic subspecies concept is that it is not a "one size fits all" concept, evidence that is relevant for some populations may not be for other populations, there are no hard and fast criteria, it recognises that species of organisms are all ecologically unique, and so we cannot use the same set of criteria for all classifications. hence discussion about what is the appropriate level of FST to identify differentiation are pointless, the level of differentiation both morphologically and genetically that is considered significant will depend on the environment and ecology of the populations being studied. Alun 06:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * "Members of a subspecies share a unique geographic range or habitat, a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Because they are below the species level, different subspecies are reproductively compatible. They will normally be allopatric and they will exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning, because of the time-dependent accumulation of genetic difference in the absence of gene flow. Most subspecies will be monophyletic, however they may also derive from ancestral subspecies hybridization." O'Brien and Meyr. (1991)

pov images
Let us avoid using pov images in this article, there will just be an unnecessary distraction from the article. If users have expressed concern, they are better off not used. The insistence on using these photos is counterproductive. Muntuwandi 18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The images are encyclopedic as long as they are put in their historical context. In that way, they are in no way POV. Wikipedia is not censored.--Strothra 18:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * However, I'd like to point out that using 20th-century images (albeit early 20th century) to illustrate the concept as it was in the 19th century may not be the most appropriate thing to do. Also, since these are the only two images in the entire article, this gives them undue weight. That the only first illustrations this article carries of the concept of "race" is an illustration of an obsolete concept isn't appropriate. I believe this should be discussed further before the images are reinserted.--Ramdrake 18:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's why I moved the images to the 20th century section. Undue weight does not apply, these images are not the only images in the article. It wouldn't apply even if that were the case. The image is a description of the text and perfectly appropriate in that sense. You can't exclude images from an article simply because there are no other images there already. If that were the case, Wiki articles would never have any images unless you automatically had 5 or 6 to include all at once. --Strothra 18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * the famous "wikipedia is not censored" should not be an excuse for the use of innappropriate photos. We should work on consensus, relevance, and stability.We have already had this debate, with some of the same users on other articles. If photos trigger an unnecessary emotional response, they are not valuable to the article and instead a distraction. The photos are in some cases gratuitous and stereotypical and are unworthy of a meaningful discussion on race. Also many of the editors who are supporting the use of these photos have dodgy trackrecords Muntuwandi 18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The images are appropriate. Note Wikipedia's content disclaimer.  Wikipedia may contain items you find offensive.  This same discussion was held over the Muhammad article due to its inclusion of images of that individual.  The result was a long and heated debate where WP:CENSOR prevailed. Further, comment on content, not on editors - see WP:NPA. --Strothra 18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I have already heard that argument before, and my answer is if you had choice to have your coffee with sugar or coffee without sugar, what would you choose. Muntuwandi 18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Let's include the images. MoritzB 18:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before... the plates are not in English. Another, they do not state which race is which. They do, though, included different ethnicities, which is different from "races". They are not authenic anthropological plates on races, but compilations of ethnicities and a couple of races. They do nothing to help define the term "race" then or now. Not censored has nothing to do with the photos. Sheesh, they are not offensive, but they are not appropriate in an article about race. - Jeeny Talk 18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would further add that they are not appropriate in an article on race where they are the only example of racial types (except for the US picture). They give undue weight to an obsolete view on race, and seem to be retained much more for shock value than for genuine educational purposes.--Ramdrake 18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's actually a very good essay on offensive images at the Islam wikiproject here WikiProject Islam/Images of Muhammad--Strothra 18:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're pulling for straws with the undue weight argument. It fits perfectly with the text and is set in an historical context and is not advocating anything, thus undue weight does not apply since it is not attempting to express a viewpoint. The image is also not adding anything excessive to the historical text on the subject.  Rather, it is demonstrating it visually. --Strothra 18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * We are comparing apples and oranges. In that topic it is directly about islam and various sensitivities about it. We do not even know the context associated with these photos since they are from some german publication. Just to give some context on some of the photo supporters.Muntuwandi 18:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It wasn't comparing apples to oranges since your comment was about their offensive nature, not their context. Seriously, again, stop trying to attack editors - it does not advance your argument. If you wish to participate in this discussion in any real sense then please comment substantively in regard to the article. --Strothra 19:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You, Strothra, are pulling at straws. And comparing apples to oranges. The conection to Muhammad is insane. The images themselves are not offensive to me, but inaccurate and do not support the definition of races. Sheesh. - Jeeny Talk 19:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Strothra, I have several issues with them. There is no associated text to know what they are talking about and what is defunct about their classifcation system. They are just a collection of old photos, many taken stereotypically. I am not attacking editors, they made those edits themselves, with their own fingers. I am just letting you know of the editors that you are agreeing with Muntuwandi 19:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Um, Jeeny, I think that you're misunderstanding me. I pointed to the Muhammad article because Muntuwandi argued that the images were offensive and thus should not be included. He also stated that this had been argued before in other articles. The Muhammad article is an example of how offensive images were kept in the article due to WP:CENSOR regardless of how Muslim editors felt about it. --Strothra 19:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Muntuwandi, making such references is a violation of WP:AGF and not relevant to this discussion. You don't see Mortiz making reference to your block log or the warnings on your talk page. --Strothra 19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * AGF applies to newbies. I will assume good faith for you, since this is first time I have encountered you. But for the editors with known agendas it is not necessary. Muntuwandi 19:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:DUCK If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck.... There are ducks on wikipedia, I am not naming anyone though. Muntuwandi 19:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I assure you, my only agenda is to apply policy to content. I do not in anyway condone pseudo scientific methods that are used in the contemporary present or that were used in the past. Note, however, that I am not a newbie, but WP:AGF does apply to everyone until they prove otherwise hence WP:DUCK (although it is not even a policy or a guideline). However, it might be wise for some individuals to refrain from calling the kettle black. --Strothra 19:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The images show what a book from 1932 presented as "human races" in a section about race in the 20th century. Could had been the section about the 19th century as well, because the ideas are clearly a left over from that time. Very appropriate. If the images had been moved to the section about the view on race today, it wouldn't have been inappropriate. It's as simple as that, if you ask me. Claiming that they're "stereotypical" is completely missing the point, yes, they are, but that's how they were made to be.

Af for this argument: "They are not authenic anthropological plates on races, but compilations of ethnicities and a couple of races. "

I can tell you, "Menschenrassen" means "human races" in German. And please trust me on this, and don't accuse me of making up false translations, which you have done before. Funkynusayri 19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the information from the image upload log the book was published in 1932,(see Image:LA2-Blitz-0263.jpg) where does the idea come from that it is 1914? Alun 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Menschenrassen' certainly means 'human races'; however the word 'race' was essentially indistinguishable from the modern term ethnicity at the time. Paul B 23:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I trust you that it comes from a German book, and I trust you that it illustrates races. But I have yet to hear any facts about who compile dthis book and for what audience.  It could be the German version of Encart or Nazi propaganda or folk-beliefs or an anthropological treatise based on work by Virchow ... we need to know more about the source. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think the Nazi party existed in 1914. It's entirely mainstream. Paul B 23:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * According to the upload log this book was published in 1932, not 1914, when the NSDAP certainly did exist and was close to the pinnacle of it's electoral success. See Image:LA2-Blitz-0263.jpg Alun 05:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * It's from a regular lexicon. This type of information was considered pretty objective back then, but if you want to check it, you can find the entire lexicon if you check the source of the images, just click 'em. [[Image:LA2-Blitz-0263.jpg|thumb|Examples of "human races" in a [[German language|German]] Lexicon from 1932 (1). This type of racial classification is considered discredited nowadays.]][[Image:LA2-Blitz-0264.jpg|thumb|Examples of "human races" in a [[German language|German]] Lexicon from 1932 (2). This type of racial classification is considered discredited nowadays.]]Just for the record if the images are removed from the article again, the images in question are on the right. Funkynusayri 20:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat ambivalent about the disputed photographs. On the one hand they serve to give an historical view of how physical types were perceived, on the other hand they may be seen as little more than presenting a group of individual people as "examples" of a given population or ethnic group, but it is known that there is great variability within group for all human groups. As an example of old fashioned anthropology that concentrated on "physical types" I think these photos could be considered appropriate, though it should be noted in the text that the concept of "physical types" is not currently accepted anthropological orthodoxy, I also suggest that this should be clearly stated in the caption to the photographs, i.e. that this is an out of date perspective. I wonder how it is necessarily so different to the set of photographs that exists in the Race in law enforcement section? On the other hand people complaining about Wikipedia being "censored" like Strothra does is inappropriate, Wikipedia works by consensus, if these is a consensus not to include these photographs then there is no point in complaining about "censorship". If an individual editor wants to include some point of view that is not supported by a consensus position, then they have to accept it, like it or not. Wikipedia is not censored in the sense that there are any rules banning any given point of view or image, on the other hand Wikipedia editors are entitled to omit any image or information if there is a consensus to do so. Alun 04:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I still doubt that these pictures add any value. Naturally we all like to look at pictures but we have to ask whether this picture adds any value. It is in black and white, with low resolution and has tiny pictures. We can hardly make out anything. The people who have placed this image haven't even bothered to give a translation of the captions underneath each photo. So we do not know who belongs to what race. We have no idea of the context under which these photos were compiled. And the photos are not linked in anyway to the text from the headings. It is just random pictures of people. I can look out on the street if that is what I would want to see. Muntuwandi 05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, and you make excellent points. I think there are probably better examples of this sort of thing that could be added to the article to provide some historical perspective for antiquated anthropological concepts. Indeed it could well be argued that an image is not necessary to explain this in historical context. As I say I am ambivalent, I can see merits for both points of view. What I am absolutely opposed to is any attempt to clam that these are somehow accepted ideas of modern anthropology, and I think we need to state in an unequivocal manner that these classifications are derived from early twentieth century concepts of anthropology that were mixed up with all sorts of unsavory ideas like eugenics, segregationism and anti-miscegenation laws etc. I'm not strongly in favour of these pictures and I'm not strongly against, I am strongly in favour off putting them into the correct context if they are included. All the best. Alun 05:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the book may have been published in 1932, the lexicons and "words" (as the books intro page states) and many of it's sources are from different time periods. Again, using a source that is not in English causes confusion. Also, Paul B stated, and I also believe to be true, "race and ethnicity is interchangeable" in this book. It should not be used in the race article because they do not provide an accurate description of race, then or now. The book contains many other things, old and new at the time of publication, not only of races, but inventions, people, authors, zoology, and many others subjects. Again, because it is in German and not English it should not be included as a reference for anything. Please read the book, that is, if you understand German. Here is one page, I can't find the one on "races". Just look at the different dates. - Jeeny Talk 05:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The whole reason that the image is important is that it shows how race was understood at one time - which was, yes, conflated with ethnicity. Simply because the image does not show how race is understood today does not mean the image should be excluded, particularly from a section discussing historical methods of studying the subject. --Strothra 06:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No it wasn't race that was understood at the time. This is the problem. There were only three races understood, at that time, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid. Ethnicities where different and were included in the different races, even then. Don't you see that? - Jeeny Talk 06:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strothra what have you learned by looking at the picture. I haven't learned anything and I bet you have not either. It is always difficult explaining images because the only requirement for using an image on wikipedia is that it should be free. I may seem overenthusiastic about removing these images, and they may seem innocent to some. But you see when you look at many of the xenophobic websites out there on the web, these are the sort of images that are used by them. I could easily provide some links of some sites that I have stumbled across that use such images but I do not want to help the xenophobes spread their message. Wikipedia shouldn't resemble those xenophobic sites. Funkynusayri, the chief protagonist in this has a love affair with this ancient book and he keeps trying to propagate these obsolete images all over wikipedia. The unfortunate thing is that the book is free, so many will say it is free so there is no harm in using them. Muntuwandi 06:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, and those races are represented in the image. The work is comes from is a larger encyclopedic work at the time that describes these races and attempts to describe them by breaking them down into "types." Classification is common among even the most basic of scientific studies both pseudo scientific and otherwise. --Strothra 06:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well at least how "race" was understood in Germany in 1932. The images may be from 1914, but the book was published in Germany during the rise of the NSDAP, this must have affected the way the image was portrayed. Does it reflect a general idea of how "race" was perceived in 1932, or does it reflect the way "race" was perceived in Germany at that time? I suggest that we try for a better image, there must be something that is more appropriate out there, something by Earnest Hooton for example? I think Jeeny makes a very good point. Alun 06:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you, Muntuwandi, if it were placed in any other section or if it were being presented as fact or a representation of contemporary viewpoints. --Strothra 06:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You maybe underestimating the power of an image. Why do you think the media is so powerful. Muntuwandi 06:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There's actually a very good history on that period of Germany called "Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis" by Robert Proctor who among many other things shows that the scientific views of the period actually gave rise to the NSDAP's racial ideology as opposed to the other way around.  Also, much of the scientific work conducted in Germany in this period and on this subject flowed from Germany through Europe and across the Atlantic to the states giving rise to global eugenics movements.  This isn't a view limited to Germany. If you follow that argument, one would believe that works published in America represent only an American view--Strothra 06:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Muntuwandi, you are going back to your argument about the offensiveness of the image, which simply does not pull weight with WP:CENSOR. As much as you don't like it, it is still policy. --Strothra 06:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think Germany needed to give any lessons to the USA when it came to eugenics. The USA had it's own very active eugenics movement as early as the turn of the century. Given the US history of exploitation of African and African American people for centuries, prior to this and US antimiscegination laws etc. it seems odd to claim that US eugenics derived from German eugenics. Indeed one of the main criticisms of the NSDAP's racism from the USA wasn't that racism was wrong, but that it was the German "version" of racism that was wrong. In the USA it was held that Jewish people were Caucasian for example, and so from a USA eugenic/anthropological point of view it made no sense to persecute them, on the other hand the USA eugenic movement thought that persecution of people of African origin was just fine. Jonathan Marks has a nice discussion of the US eugenics movement in his book "what it means to be 98% chimpanzee", it certainly wasn't learned from the Germans. Alun 06:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said that the US movement was completely derived from the European movements. The American one very strongly rose out of the American Progressive movement, many of its scientific underpinnings, however, were reinforced and advanced by German research from the 1920's on.  During that period you find many American textbooks that cite German scientific literature. Although I do see where confusion could have resulted from my statement on giving rise to global movements.  That was to imply that there are global connections, no scientific community in any country develops in isolation. --Strothra 06:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * See Eugenics for information regarding the compulsory sterilisation of people in the USA as early as 1907. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wobble (talk • contribs) 06:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, I never once stated that the U.S. did not create it's own eugenics movement and I even linked it directly to the Progressive movement which formed at the end of the 19th century. --Strothra 06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes you did, sorry, we edit conflicted and I didn't read what you said properly before I posted this. On the other hand Marks claims that while eugenics was a large movement in the USA prior to 1929, it lost most of it's support after 1929. He claims that this was because many affluent people supported eugenics because it implied they were rich because they were "better". After 1929 a lot of people became very poor, and it became much less supportable to claim that wealth was gained for any other reason than due to luck. I can't comment on the veracity of this, just that this is Marks's thesis in his book. It therefore seemed unlikely to me that 1930's German eugenics could have had such a great affect on US eugenics, though I suppose quite a lot of people in the US still clung on to this belief even after 1929. Alun 09:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that Wobble's suggestion of a replacement image is likely going to be the best compromise here. I doubt that Muntuwandi will agree because he seems opposed to a graphic representation of historical viewpoints.  However, if there is something comparable and in english then there is no reason to oppose. --Strothra 06:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * "No it wasn't race that was understood at the time. This is the problem. There were only three races understood, at that time, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid."

That's wrong. There were several sub-races of the main races too which scientists believed in then, even in America, where you have countless divisions of Caucasoids, for example. Back then, when this German book was published, only "Caucasoids" had been studied enough, and had been given "scientific names" (Nordid, Mediterranid, so on), other peoples (or "races" then) were just named after their ethnicity. So please, people, ask about the context instead of coming up with wrong interpretations.

If you read the accompanying text in that German lexicon, the peoples on the images are referred to as sub-races of the three main-races, Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.

To Wobble, the reason why we use a German image is because it's the only one we can use for free. There simply doesn't seem to have been released such books in English early enough for their copyright to have been expired, but the German plates are pretty much identical to what would had been in an English one, apart from the names (later, names like "Capoid" were invented, but not in the 30s). I've seen some in English, but they're all from much later. Funkynusayri 06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No it's not, we can use just about any image for free that is older than 70 years (so before 1937), this is US law and wiki servers are in the US. Given the very great age of much of this material we can certainly find better images that are equally ancient. Hooton and Coon published much work before this time, I'm sure there are plenty of examples in English that are available. Just about any encyclopaedia published before 1937 in any country with English as the dominant language will probably have similar pictures. Much info from the 1911 version of Britannica is used on wikipedia, I wonder if there are similar photographs in this encyclopaedia? I wonder how we could check? Alun 08:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

So far the only defense I see for including these images is that they illustrate a point of view. I have asked people to specify the point of view and have gotten only vague answers (like "mainstream") which I can only interpret to mean "I do not know." We need facts about the point of view. Who compiled the photos? Who wrote the article in which it appeared? Who edited the book in which it appeared? What do we know of its audience? How was the book marketed? Until we can properly identify the point of view it represents, i do not see how we can include it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Wobble, I agree, find images from English sources if you can, but I repeat, they don't hang around everywhere. The book doesn't simply have to have been published 70 years ago, but the author has to have been dead for 70 years if the book can be considered to be in the public domain. This can't be said for either Coon or Hooton, and neither of them published such a book before 1923 (every American publication from before this year seems to have gone into the public domain in America), as far as I'm aware. Therefore, the German book is a perfect alternative. But again, just find other plates if you want.

And Rubenstein, the images represent what the scientific opinion was at the time, which the text is also about. And yet again, you simply have to click on the images, and you'll be lead to the lexicon itself through them. But just to be sure, here is a direct link: Funkynusayri 12:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I followed the link, and I googled the Lexicon, and that di dnot give me the information I would need to make an educated judgement. Do you have the information, or not?  It sounds like you do not.  Clearly, one would have to do real research.  Please tell mw how you know that the images represent scientific opinion at the time?  Please tell me what scientists were involved in putting the chart together.  Please tell me their methodology.  Was the publication peer-reviewed, or did it have an editorial board?  Who was on it?  How about some facts?  or are you just making it up when you claim, with no evidence, that the chart represents scientific knowledge at the time?  NPOV asks us to identify the POV expressed.  You can't just make it up.  Whose POV does it express?  really? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What is it that you want me to do? It's a lexicon, not an anthropology book, the info in it just reflects the scientific opinion at the time. Your tone seems pretty hostile for some reason.

Anyhow, here's an introduction to the lexicon, in German: "Meyers Blitz-Lexikon ist ein sehr kompaktes Nachschlagewerk in einem Band, das mehrmals zwischen etwa 1928 und 1940 erschien. Hier wird die Ausgabe von 1932 präsentiert. Dieses Buch ist als gemeinfrei zu betrachten, weil es keine angegebenen Autoren oder Illustratoren hat und vor mehr als 70 Jahren erschien.

Das digitalisierte Exemplar wurde in einem Antiquariat in Frankfurt während der Wikimania-Konferenz im August 2005 gekauft. Es kostete nur 12 Euro, ist aber sehr gut erhalten. Es hat an einigen Stellen Bleistiftanzeichungen, die nicht entfernt wurden, z.B. bei Österreich: "seit 1938 deutsch" — und danach wieder durchgestrichen!

Die 443 Seiten wurden von LA2 in September 2005 als 300 dpi JPEG Farbbilder mit hohem Kontrast eingescannt und auf Wikimedia Commons hochgeladen. Die Papierseiten sind 155 mm breit, die Bilder etwa 1830 Pixel. Der präsentiert sie 700 Pixel breit, einer Bildschirmauflösung von etwa 120 dpi entsprechend. Um die Bilder hoch aufgelöst zu sehen muss man zweimal auf sie klicken. Der OCR-Text ist noch korrekturzulesen. Als Hilfe dafür gibt es zwei Kategorien: völlig und noch nicht völlig korrigierte Seiten. Die Textmasse ist etwa 2,8 Megabyte (ohne Markup; 6,4 Kilobyte pro Seite), die Bilder sind zusammen 700 Megabyte (1,6 Megabyte pro Seite).

Dieses Werk ist das erste, bei dem Wikisource mit Faksimile-Bildern kombiniert wurde. Das zweite ist The New Student's Reference Work, Chicago, 1914. Eine weitere Diskussion gibt es auf Meta, Digitizing books with MediaWiki."

As for public domain templates:

Funkynusayri 12:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not speak German, but your link just send sme to an explanation of why it is fair use. My questions have nothing to do with fair use but rather with understanding what POV it represents and questioning your claim that it was mainstream science.  Since this is English Wikipedia, would you be so kind as to answer my questions in English please? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The captions of the images simply state that they are examples of human races in a German lexicon from 1932. That's what they are, no one claims they're anything more than that. I could see the problem if the caption was "examples of human races provided by objective scientists", but it isn't. Anyhow, all I can do is translate the explanation text I have provided, or you could get some native speaker of German to do it for you. Do you want that?

And how is it only an explanation of why it is fair use? In short, it is described as having several authors, and just being a lexicon. I can't answer who wrote it, because of this. Funkynusayri 12:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One grave concern: the text Funkynusayri provided states clearly that the authors and illustrators of the lexicon in question are anonymous: primary sources for the work are thus not indicated, and opinions and assertion can't be attributed either. I would very strongly doubt the fitness for inclusion of these illustrations based on WP:RS and WP:V, and we can't verify the original sources, or say whose interpretation of the original sources yielded that result.--Ramdrake 12:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * WP:RS or WP:V do not require to verify the author of a particular encyclopedia article. A mainstream encyclopedia is a reliable source. MoritzB 16:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, Funkynusayri has not done any research. All he knows is, "The captions of the images simply state that they are examples of human races in a German lexicon from 1932." If this is all we know, here is the solution I suggest: we work on a new section called "Social Construction of Race in Germany" and really find out what the different views were and how this discourse emerged out of the nationalist project with its origins in Herder and perhaps Goethe and Von Humboldt, and how it developed through the 19th century and debats among Germans in the early 1900s. This would provide a menaingful context for the image. I realize it would require actual research, but this is an encyclopedia after all so how could anyone object to that? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, we're not showing factual illustrations, simply what the caption states, "examples of human races from a German lexicon", nothing more than that. That's what they are. This is besides the point, as we have already included a disclaimer in the caption, which states the images are defunct in any case. If it's a very big problem, I suggest you request that the entire lexicon should be deleted from Wikisource, and that all images used from it are removed from all Wikipedias, as any info from it would be useless according to you. Funkynusayri 12:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * We could find another image if it's that much of a problem to use an image from a lexicon, but I've already explained why it's hard. And again, I suggest you go remove every image on all Wikipedias which originate in that lexicon, otherwise I'm not sure why your criticism should only apply to these particular images. Anyone up for a non-free image? We could use Coon's if no one objects. Funkynusayri 13:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Man, you really seem to resist any suggestion that requires research - an odd view for someone who wants to write an encyclopedia. Anyway, you are missing the point. What point of view will the image illutrate? I see no reason to illustrate Coon's image of races in this article, given that his views are marginal (maybe in the article on Coon). if you want to illustrate scientific debates about race in the 20th century, we would need a variety of contrasting images to illustrate the multiple points of view effectively. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No, they were not marginal in the 1930s. Coon's model was definitely one of the most popular typological models. MoritzB 15:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I've provided all info I could find about the images, and I don't think the pictures are important enough to justify creating a whole new section for them, so what's with the allegations? If you want to write a new section, feel free, I ain't stopping you. But for the sake of convenience, it seems that too many of the regular editors here object to having any images in the race related articles, and I simply don't care enough about the subject to keep putting them in, so if you want to remove them again, I can't stop you. Not because I find your arguments particularly valid, mind you.Funkynusayri 13:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Similar images. These pictures are from the Fischer Lexicon (1970 edition):

http://www.amazon.de/Das-Fischer-Lexikon-Anthropologie-Gerhard-Heberer/dp/B0000BQZIH/ref=sr_1_1/303-5010161-7699429?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189785021&sr=1-1

http://www.snpa.nordish.net/bilder/FischerLex1.jpg ~ http://www.snpa.nordish.net/bilder/FischerLex2.jpg

http://www.snpa.nordish.net/bilder/FischerLex3.jpg

http://www.snpa.nordish.net/bilder/FischerLex4.jpg
 * MoritzB 15:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * These 1959/1970 images confirm that the images in Meyer's lexikon represented a mainstream point of view. MoritzB 15:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * No they don't, they just prove that some people held these points of view. Just providing images does not prove that they have ever been "mainstream". I could provide images from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't prove this is "mainstram", whatever that means. By the way these images are very funny, might as well introduce Lamarckian evolution or Spontaneous generation, after all both are relevant to evolution and Lamarckism is relevant to "race". Both were also seriously held scientific theories in the past. Alun 18:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Strothra, you see people are already fishing similar stuff from some of these xenophobic websites like Nordish.net. Just as I had mentioned earlier on. While wikipedia is not censored, it is also not a platform for promoting xenophobia or racism but a platform for education. I suggest that if we are to use an image, we can use a map of the world that does not show human faces.Muntuwandi 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * With regard to wikipedia not being censored once again, if you look at articles that could be potentially graphic such as pornography or sexual intercourse you will not find any graphic images in those articles. But if wikipedia is not censored why aren't there any. Because common sense dictates that such images distract from encyclopedic text, so the editors have opted for cartoons, artwork or diagrams instead. Nobody will complain about the use of such images. Strothra, I also hope you can see the kind of people who are heavily in favor of using such images. You may end up being guilty by association. Muntuwandi 16:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * One more thing Funkynusayri broke the 3rr rule on this article yesterday. Muntuwandi 16:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There is an image of an erect penis on the penis page. There is an article called Nigger. There are images of Muhammad. Please stop your extreme calls for censorship, Muntu, if they only apply to the race related articles. Please be consistent. Funkynusayri 18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe this is a discussion to try to attain consensus on whether or not to include the images. While your point about censorship is taken, WP:CENSOR doesn't trump WP:CON, AFAIK. If the consensus of editors decide not to include the image, then that should be it, unless someone can produce an overwhelming reason (NFC, NPOV) why the images should be kept, but I haven't seen any of that so far.--Ramdrake 18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * The images have already been removed, and if the majority of editors here don't want an image which illustrates the text, well, there's nothing I can do about it. I find it bizarre that something so simple can stir up so many emotions in certain individuals, and I find it odd that this is suddenly a problem several weeks after the images were added to the article. So well, who gives a damn, end of discussion. Funkynusayri 19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Ramdrake is correct, while Muntu's arguments regarding offensiveness are completely irrelevant due to WP:CENSOR, it seems that consensus is almost impossible to reach here. Regardless, WP:CON states, "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a Wikiproject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The project cannot decide that for "their" articles, said policy does not apply."  Thus, WP:CON cannot override WP:CENSOR because a few editors on one article cannot override an accepted and preexisting policy that has been imposed by the larger community. Again, Wobble proposed the inclusion of a different image which I think is an appropriate suggestion.  Also, the images were not removed, it's still there but was moved down to the 20th century section. --Strothra 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, I beg to interpret this another way: it seems that there is no consensus for the inclusion of the image being discussed, and several editors opposing the inclusion have brought forward points that have nothing to do with censorship. Also, it seems there are slightly more editors against the inclusion than there are in favor (based on current info about the origins and documentation of this picture). Thus, I would say the motivations for exclusion aren't based solely on WP:CENSOR, but also on other arguments. However, I believe there needs to be a clearer consensus about the inclusion or not of these pictures so we can act on it. I don't think belaboring the point of WP:CENSOR helps in any way at this point, as there are other arguments against the picture's inclusion. I believe a consensus, even if non-unanimous would carry appropriate weight, though.--Ramdrake 03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand and agree with that point. The other arguments, if I remember correctly without scrolling up, involved the language of the source and accuracy in representing historical understanding of race.  Those are worthy of discussion, which is why I'm agreeing with the suggestion that perhaps the image should be replaced with something else. --Strothra 04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I see, I just assumed it had been deleted because Rubenstein did a revision where he wrote "okey dokey" or something like that, but seems like he just reverted my inclusion of "ethnic" instead of "ethnicity" for whatever reason. But the first half of the image which is still left shows supposed "Europäid races", not ethnicities, so the "racial/ethnic system", as I changed it to, is more correct. Funkynusayri 22:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I reverted to what the page was like when it was protected, no more, no less. Of course when the page is unprotected I want to see the image removed for the obvious reasons. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

So we seem to have arrived at a situation where we are discussing whether we need consensus for removal or consensus for keeping the image. I'll give my opinion. Funkynusayri claims that these images have been on the page for some time and that it is strange that they should suddenly become a bone of contention. I'm not sure that this point is valid, these images have been on the page since the 20th of August, and considering that this is sill a time of year when many people in the northern hemisphere are busy doing Summertime things I don't think one can claim that a couple or three weeks represents anything like a stable inclusion. On the other hand there seems to be no consensus one way or the other. Opinion seems about equally divided. Strothra's comments about censorship are totally irrelevant as I stated earlier, wikipedia works by consensus, it is illogical to claim that consensus doesn't overide censor because censorship is not the issue, consensus is the issue. It nowhere claims in the censor policy that a consensus not to include any image or text must violate CENSOR and therefore be included anyway, this is akin to claiming that anything, however irrelevant should be included because any objection to any inclusion is automatically censorship. Personally I suspect that it is best to keep the images out of the article until a better images can be included. I am relatively ambivalent about this, I don't think these images are particularly illuminating, except perhaps to illustrate the absurdity of the concept of "racial type", how can any single individual be considered "representative" of the whole gammut of local diversity seen in any human population? After all it is well known that diversity is greatest at the population level, however it is measured. But in this case the image should probably be used to illustrate the point about diversity in it's historical context, including a discussion about how environment affects morphology. This is a bad image because it comes from a "lexicon", which as far as I can tell just means encyclopaedic dictionary, these sorts of sources are not necessarily written by an expert, and may well be factually incorrect. In this case we do not even know what it is supposed to be illustrating not who actually wrote it. So some sort of primary source would be much better. On the other hand the utility of any such images is also important, what do they illustrate? How is it relevant? What is the political/historical/cultural background to the image? At the least I think we need to find a better example. Alun 06:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for stating what has already been said. --Strothra 13:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Gentle reminder: Be civil. FilipeS 13:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * And, on that note, are there any actual suggestions for a new image? Preferably from an english source, the fact that these are generally too late for free use does not mean that can't be considered fair use because of that. --Strothra 13:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well quite, MoritzB has claimed that this point of view was mainstream in the first half of the 20th century, in which case it should be a doddle for those editors who think the inclusion of such images is important to find many free images. On the other hand if they can't find such images, possibly this point of view wasn't as mainstream as they claim, and if they are not prepared to do the research in order to find alternative images then the inclusion of such images cannot be that important to these editors. Alun 16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * There are countless such images. [[Image:Deniker's Races de l'Europe (1899).jpg|right|thumb|250px|Deniker's "Races de l'Europe" from 1899, including la race nordique.]]
 * MoritzB 17:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Heh, that's a pretty odd conclusion, the fact that free images of that kind are hard to find somehow means that they weren't mainstream? Doesn't make sense, but yes, such images exist in abundance, most were just published after 1923 (all the way up to the 70s and beyond), so they can't be used for free. Funkynusayri 16:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually I didn't draw any such conclusion. Nowhere have I ever claimed that these ideas were not mainstream, neither have I ever claimed that they were mainstream. I am not an historian, nor an anthropologist and I certainly am not old enough to have been alive at that time. I simply state that if they were mainstream then they should be available in abundance. Indeed there is absolutely no reason why there should not be an abundance of pre 1923 English language images in this case. Besides MoritzB keeps including images of so called "European races" which are not really relevant. We need something that is relevant to humanity as a whole surely? Alun 17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this image on the left. If only the text on the image was readable. And here's a mirror of an older revision of this very page, seems to have had a lot of maps: Funkynusayri 18:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a nice image and we know where it comes from, we can even read the full text of the article here. This sort of thing would be good to show the numerous different "racial" systems used at this time, I think the number of "races" varied from 2 to about 63 depending on the "authority", which is the reason people like Darwin rejected the concept of "race" classification altogether. Alun 04:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually this is not an older version of the Wikipedia "Race" article, it is an older version of the Race (historical definitions) article. Recently these maps were removed, from the article, but they do illustrate the difficulty people had with developing any coherent concept of "race" from "physical types". All the best. Alun 05:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I support the use of the map. Muntuwandi 18:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)




 * Could anyone try to find a version in higher resolution? The text cannot be read. I'm searching myself. By the way, the reason the number of races increased so drastically is because different authors kept dividing them into sub-races, independently from each other, so after a while the systems simply didn't make sense in relation to each other.
 * Well it's partly true, mainly the reason the number of races kept expanding is because the morphological types of a given feature may be distributed over different geographic regions to the morphological types of other features. So every time someone used a new feature to assign to a "race", they found that any particular morphological classification for this feature it was not necessarily restricted to any preexisting "race", but was spread about, meaning that more and more "races" had to be invented as more features were measured. This is a well known and documented phenomenon and is also seen in genetics. I think the one thing that almost everyone agrees on is the arbitraryness of "race" concepts, where one stops classifying or draws a boundary is always going to be a matter of opinion. It's ultimately why biological "race" concepts were abandoned by mainstream anthropology, and also why many biologists do not recognise the validity of subspecies in biology at all. Alun 06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

And hey, why don't we just revert this piece of crap back to the version which was featured? Funkynusayri 18:36, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I could have a go a redrawing the map, there are plenty of free use world map images available from the commons. I think it's possible to see how the colours correspond to the map, and the key has been added into the text of the article that I linked to above. Might take a couple of days though. Alun 06:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The introduction
The intro is a mess and Wobble just reverted the latest improved version I made. The current version is factually inaccurate (see discussion about Witherspoon's article) and far too technical for the general audience. MoritzB 10:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Improved? I don't think so, you have added your opinion and removed what the sources actually say. For example you replaced the statement "It has also been suggested that accurate classification of continuously sampled populations may be impossible." with "Populations which exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions can be difficult to categorize simply." Presumably because you personally believe that there exist something like "discrete races" that "overlap" and that it is the regions that "overlap" that are difficult to "classify". But this is not the claim of the paper, it is your opinion. I note that you have consistently misrepresented sources to push your personal opinion, and that several editors have noted this behaviour of yours. Please do not include your opinions and then cite sources that do not make these claims. When you cite a source you must say what the source says, you seem to think it is acceptable to include your opinion of what the source means, you cannot include your interpretation of a source in Wikipedia, this is original research and is not allowed. This has been a persistent habit of yours and you have been asked repeatedly not to push your own personal pov while editing Wikipedia. Alun 11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The source (Risch): "Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply". My version: Populations which exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions can be difficult to categorize simply There is no misrepresentation and the other studies cited support this view. MoritzB 15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * MoritzB's version states "Populations which exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions can be difficult to categorize simply." which implies that the Serre and Pääbo (2004) supports this statement, he has used it as references for the statement after all, he states this above as well. But Serre and Pääbo (2004) state explicitly in their paper "It is noteworthy that the discrete clusters described by Rosenberg et al. (2002) from analyzing more than one thousand individuals of the CEPH diversity panel might be caused by discontinuities in the sampling, because when samples that have equal numbers of individuals of each population are analyzed (Fig. 2), the inferred populations yielded by Structure do not match continents or geographical regions but represent theoretical “populations” in which all individuals show admixture to at least two such “populations.” Therefore, when the aim is to investigate genetic diversity on a worldwide scale, we recommend an approach in which individuals from as many localities as possible are sampled. Sampling schemes based on populations should only be used if the aim of the study is to unravel the history of these specific populations or their relationship with surrounding populations... It has recently been claimed that 'the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level' (Risch et al. 2002). Our results show that this is not the case, and we see no reason to assume that 'races' represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history." This is at best dishonest. The concept of "clustering" is stated and cited in the introduction, this is a controversial concept that has it's critics as well as it's supporters, in order to maintain neutrality we need to put both points of view. MoritzB was attempting to remove the alternative point of view, while citing Serre and Pääbo (2004) as a supporting reference for Risch's statement, but Serre and Pääbo's paper clearly does not support Risch's statement. The argument is really about whether human genetic diversity is better represented as a small island model or by isolation by distance. A small island model would support clustering, isolation by distance would support clinality. The current understanding of human genetic variation is incomplete and different analyses support different conclusions. We need to present both points of view, and not ignore those points of view that we disagree with. It certainly cannot be considered impartial to claim that a scientific paper supports a position that it categorically contradicts. Alun 16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The article has a section on race in biomedicine; I think discussion of this study belongs there. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that the introduction is unclear, inaccurate and too technical for the general audience:

"...clustering analysis of 326 microsatellite markers can accurately place individuals in the USA into different groups.[12][13] Other geneticists, however, have shown that many more than 326 loci are required in order to show that individuals are always more similar to individuals in their own population group than to individuals in different population groups, even for three distinct populations" MoritzB 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks perfectly clear to me. You provide no evidence that it is inaccurate. This is the introduction, personally I don't think this level of detail belongs in the introduction, but I did not put this in the introduction, if it does go into the introduction then we need to put the work into it's correct context. This work is being used to support the concept of "biological human races", but it does not do so. It uses clustering analysis as a proxy for continent of origin for biomedical purposes. On the other hand "race" is a completely different concept in biological terms, and is synonymous with subspecies. Alun 16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I forgot to remove the Serre reference when I edited the article. Anyway, the current version is in contradiction with the Witherspoon article. I will correct that now.MoritzB 20:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it was not in contradiction to the Witherspoon article, only in contradiction to the tiny little part of the Witherspoon article you want to quote because you think it supports your racialist pint of view. Clearly it does not, Witherspoon states absolutely that his paper supports Serre and Pääbo. You are introducing primary data rather than relying on the interpretation of the data from the paper and we should avoid use of primary sources as they lack proper context, see Primary sources. Your pov pushing and deliberate misrepresentation of scientific papers is damaging Wikipedia, you have been warned about this before several times by several editors. Alun 06:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:LEAD for guidelines on the content of the lead. Muntuwandi 21:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The Marketing of Race: genetic lineages as social lineages
This page is huge, and this section is bloated; so, I'm proposing a split to Personalized genetic history and leave the section with a summary of the concept, but move the bulk of the detailed content onto its own page. Lemme know if you have any objections. Cheers =) -- slakr \ talk / 11:35, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Change that to merge... I just found Genealogical DNA test. I suggest it be moved there, instead. -- slakr  \ talk / 12:16, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Genealogical_DNA_test? -- slakr \ talk / 05:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed. This section is not about genealogical DNA tests. It is about discussions among anthropologists who see gnealogical tests as evidence of a new concept of "race" in the West, and is thus an essential part of this article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, then the name can be changed. What new article name do propose?  There's clearly too much information to put all in one section, and the article is in serious need of being trimmed back. Keep in mind, I'm not asking that the information be stripped from this article, only that the main points be summarized and pointed to a new article (for people who want to print it out and read the full details). -- slakr  \ talk / 05:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I also restored the tag.  Please allow it to remain for at least a week so that other editors can be alerted to the proposed change and consensus can be established.  If other editors feel that the section, in its entirety, is absolutely essential/critical to the article, then I'm totally fine with leaving it.  As for now, it's borderline ready for a  as well.  The article is crawling toward 200kb (currently 174kb), and we should be aiming for 100kb or less.  Please keep non-broadband users in mind.  -- slakr  \ talk / 05:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed some text
In an effort to trim the page back some, I removed what seemed like a philosophical blurb. Feel free to restore if it's crucial to the section, as I'm not an expert in this area. -- slakr \ talk / 11:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Merge Race to Race in the United States
I added a for Race to Race in the United States, as the former is absurdly long and needs to be summarized, with the detailed information being moved to Race in the United States. -- slakr \ talk / 11:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)