Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 31

The race concept in six regions

 * "The race concept in six regions: variation without consensus" states:


 * "Race, once the central concept in physical anthropology worldwide, now varies in the degree of support it receives in different regions. We present the currently available information on the status of the concept in the United States, the Spanish language areas, Poland, Europe, Russia, and China. Rejection of race ranges from high to low with the highest rejection occurring among anthropologists in the United States (and Canada). Rejection of race is moderate in Europe, sizeable in Poland and Cuba, and lowest in Russia and China. A discussion on the scientific and contextual reasons influencing these variations is presented. The tension between scientific evidence and social influences varies from region to region. The methods used in the studies reported here included questionnaires and content analysis. Response rates to questionnaires were often around 50 percent (with exception of the Polish studies). We discuss reasons for the low rates. Although a uniform method of data gathering is desirable, it may not suit scientists working in different traditions of theory and research. We conclude that it is once again timely to discuss the race concept in international meetings where all scientific and political changes occurring throughout the world in recent past decades are taken into account." --Maklinovich (talk) 04:39, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is the whole article: --Maklinovich (talk) 12:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Every one here is aware of this article. It has been mentioned and cited several times in the above. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

IQ gap/Heredity figure
Oh, dear, I notice when I added some facts to the vague statement "Some psychologists such as Arthur Jensen, Richard Herrnstein, and Richard Lynn, have argued that such differences [I.Q.] are at least partially genetic," that it was immediately redacted. What I added was that Herrenstein and Murray did not say that I.Q. differences are "at least partially hereditary." What they say is that I.Q is roughly 85% hereditary--which is a lot more than "partially." Tholzel (talk) 14:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as there is no objection, I will restore those two major works to the bibliography. I await an answer to why the 85% figure was taken out in place of "at least partially." Tholzel (talk) 14:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 85% isn't even the same figure as the one you added to the article that has been removed. And you've since changed it to a quote from The Bell Curve which should be sufficient.  The figure is essentially irrelevant to the topic.  What is arguably more relevant here are the issues and implications of how race is typically classified by those studying the IQ gap.  (e.g., race designation in these related studies is predominantly race as self-identified, is it not?  Professor marginalia (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"Self-designated"? What on earth does that sociological concept have to do with the biology of race? You cannot continue to fairly edit an article on the racial classification of humans if you continue to refuse to admit the "concept" of biological racial differences just because you personally don't like the entire idea. Why not edit some of the other race articles on race--Race as myth, The fallacy of Race, etc.--instead of continuing to gum up the works of this article with your personal predilections which are always off-subject? Tholzel (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * If you are unable to understand the ways in which biological and sociological factors intersect in the concept of race I am afraid it is you who does not have the sufficient knowledge background to edit this article. HErrnstein and Murray's data is based on selfidentification of race, not on any kind of biological criterion. ·Maunus· ƛ · 22:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)


 * For the purpose of illustration, let's turn this around and try it on for size: You cannot continue to fairly edit an article on the racial classification of humans if you continue to refuse to acknowledge these issues you'd dismiss out-of-hand as "sociological concepts" are the very same issues relating to race classification that the most notable references (including Herrnstein and Murray) take pains to deal with?
 * "We frequently use the word ethnic rather than race, because race is such a difficult concept to employ in the American context...The rule we follow here is to classify people according to the way they classify themselves. The studies of "blacks" or "Latinos" or "Asians" who live in American generally denote people who say they are black, Latino, or Asian--no more, no less." (Herrnstein and Murray, p 271)
 * This dilemma relates directly to the topic of the article. The heritability percentage they'd attribute to IQ racial group differences does not. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

"The rule we follow here is to classify people according to the way they classify themselves" is simply your opinion of what constitutes race, and is, in effect, an admission that descriptions of biological and genetic classifications will not be tolerated. So you are simply censoring them under various guises of fairness.

Could you then please explain what is the DIFFERENCE (not the similarities) of Negroes and Caucasians? That is what "race" is about. Or are you saying there are no differences.

BTW, if you have read anything I have put up here, you would be aware that I fully recognize the HUGE ideological problems any discussion of human races has. That realization does not mean that we simply give up in describing the nearly self-evident classification of humans by race--which is the subject of this article. Why do you insist in bringing in sociology and politics, when those sub-headings are wonderfully covered in other articles on race?

The heritability of I.Q. and race is precisely relevant because that is one differentiator among races, as are many other differentiators—susceptibility to various diseases, blood types, average size, skin color etc., none of which are “self-designated” differences. (Hey--could I apply for a minority scholarship because I “self-designate” myself as Black?) Tholzel (talk) 00:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My god... "the rule we follow is to classify people the way the classify themselves" is a quote from the Bell Curve It is the way Herrnstein and Murray classify races!·Maunus· ƛ · 00:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh, GREAT; thanks so much for giving us the page number of that fatutous "quote." Really scholarly." Tholzel (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The page number is 271 which was included in Professor Marginalia's original post, which apparently you didn't bother to read well enough to understand. You also claim to have read the Bell Curve. How can you not have noted that it didn't actually use the concept of race that you believe is universal? That is not just unscholarly, but a waste of other peoples time.·Maunus· ƛ · 01:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Let’s look at the actual quote under the heading “Ethnic Nomenclature.” “We want to call people whatever they prefer to be called, including their preferences for ethnic labels. As we write, however, there are no hard and fast rules.”

But Maunus is surely missing H & M’s point. They are not talking about what race these people are, but what they culturally wish to be called. H & M are trying to be polite to these people. They go on to say: “ Opting for common usage and simplicity, we usually us black instead of African- American and white (which always refers to non-Latino whites) instead of European-American or Anglo. Americans of Asian descent are called Asian when the context leaves no possibility of confusion with Asians living in Asia.”

Note they use the term “Asian descent.” That is a racial (or “ethnic”) term, not cultural. I will later look for what H & M actually say about racial classification, so we do not to continue to mislead our readers. (BTW, is it acceptable to insert as I am doing here after others have continued on?) Tholzel (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is somewhat confusing to insert this among old quotes. I would suggest that you start a new section at the bottom of the page and present all your arguments there. Then we can easily continue the discussion there instead of in many old sections and discussions. I do agree with you that the article have far too much undue weight to the opinion of the majority of US anthropologists. Those not rejecting race, like a minority of US anthropologists, a majority of anthropologists in several non-US nations, as well as other scientists than anthropologists, should be given more weight in the article, especially in the intro.Miradre (talk) 16:45, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Tholzel has an interesting point. Why cannot we talk about racial differences in IQ when we can talk about them for diseases and many other factors? I have not really understood how the argument "races are not biologically real" would invalidate IQ differences. Please explain. One cam describe IQ differences for any arbitrary groups, such as different professions/occupations which no one would claim are races or biological concepts.Miradre (talk) 02:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * That isn't a point he's made here, yet anyway. We are discussing why a heritabity figure that he pulled out of thin air, added to the article, and attributed (without citation) to Herrnstein and Murray was reverted.  There are no heritability figures identified for any attributes in this article. Professor marginalia (talk) 02:40, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Gould and Lewontin are supposed to have made this argument. Not that there are any source. What is their supposed argument?Miradre (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seems that you are discussing something else. We are discussing why we don't include in the middle of a section a figure taken out of context and placed out of context without attribution to its source. IS what you are asking by what reasoning some people see the non-biological status of race as invalidating the hereditarian hypothesis? That question is for another article, namely Race and intelligence.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:56, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the original issue, lets look at this statement "Still others such as Stephen Jay Gould and Richard Lewontin have argued that categories such as "race" and "intelligence" are both cultural constructs the definitions of which are wholly subject to the particular socio-political contexts in which they are used, which in turn renders any attempt to explain variation in one in terms of the other a meaningless exercise of circular reasoning." First, there is no source. Second, one can certainly study differences for social constructs. Such as the differences in income for different occuptions. Both occupation and income are social construct and not biological concepts. Third, if the argument is more limited, that it is not supposed to be possible to study "heritability" for social constructs, then that is also wrong. One criticism against "heritability" figures is that they may be different for different social classes due to different environmental forces and social classes are certainly not biological realities.Miradre (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What is your point? Do you want a source for the claim, you can have that. Do you want to discuss whether the argument is valid? That is not what we do here. We discuss how to improve the article.·Maunus· ƛ · 03:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sources would of course be appreciated. The question if not if the argument is valid, it is what the argument is. Since the argument, if it exists, is poorly explained, then this should be improved so the reader can understand it.Miradre (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Point taken. I'll find the source for the claim and construct a better wording of the argument.·Maunus· ƛ · 03:30, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to find an outright definition of "race" by H&M. They seem to assume that everyone knows what it means. The closest I could find is this:


 * There are differences between races, and they are the rule, not the exception. That assertion may seem controversial to some readers, but it verges on tautology: Races are by definition groups of people who differ in characteristic ways. Intellectual fashion has dictated that all differences must be denied except the absolutely undeniable differences in appearance, but nothing in biology says this should be so. On the contrary, race differences are varied and complex—and they make the human species more adaptable and more interesting.

…
 * The black-white difference receives by far the most detailed examination because it is the most controversial and has the widest social ramifications. But the most common question we have been asked in recent years has not been about blacks but about Asians, as Americans have watched the spectacular economic success of the Pacific rim nations at a distance and, closer to home, become accustomed to seeing Asian immigrant children collecting top academic honors in America's schools.


 * Do Asians Have Higher IQs Than Whites? Probably yes, if Asian refers to the Japanese and Chinese (and perhaps also Koreans), whom we will refer to here as East Asians. TBC, p.272.

In a way, this makes the "self-selected" paradigm moot that I had objected to so strongly because it turns out that people generally correctly know their race, even if ideological academics have such trouble with the many obvious distinctions. Tholzel (talk) 20:17, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Historical race concepts and Scientific racism
For some to me unfathomable reason Miradre is attempting to merge these two articles that clearly treat completely distinct topics. Together with an IP editor has already deleted a large chunk of information about racial theories in the age of enlightnment from the article on historical race concepts on the ground that there was overlap between the articles. I think we need some more eyes on these articles that few editors seem to have on their watchlists.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:20, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I have stated my reason. Two articles with very unclear differentiation will cause large scale overlaps and duplication which is bad for both reader and editors. As can be seen in the articles even now when the most glaring large scale word-for-word duplication is removed. A single article for the history of race concepts and racism would remove the confusion for both readers and editors. More input regarding how to resolve the current confusion regarding the articles would be welcome.Miradre (talk) 12:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * there is nothing unclear about the definition of the two topics. One is about how concepts of race have evolved over time. The other is about how science has been enlisted to further racial discrimination.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:45, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to explain racial discrimination without explaining the racial concepts behind. Most of those who have proposed racial concepts see them as correct, and when the word come in common use, scientific, also making it difficult to differentiate the articles. The IP editor thinks that everything after 1500 is scientific racism; personally I think the term "science" came in common use after around 1800 so that should be demarcation; Maunus has his own preferred sorting system as described above. So massive confusion regarding what should go where with the current two articles.Miradre (talk) 12:51, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes it is difficult to explain scientific racism without also giving the historical context. That is why there is and has to be significant overlap between these two articles. There is however no WP policy that suggests that this would be a problem. The problæem is solved by sourcing the content of the scientific racism article to secondary and tertiary spources that actually describe scientific racism and not to primary sources as the IP editor is doing.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:05, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously several people have different ideas regarding how to sort material into what article as per above. This will continue to cause large problems with overlap, duplications, material that is only updated on one article, and general confusion. I have not really understood what you have against merging the two articles since you yourself now say that there will be significant overlap between them.Miradre (talk) 13:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Overlap is not a problem, lots of articles have overlap between them. As long as each article is focused on its particular topic and the content isn't directly duplicated but described in such a way as to best describe its own topic it is not a problem. In this case the scientific racism article is not very focused and should probably be somewhat pruned, but that doesn't mean that it should be merged into an article about a completely different topic. Not all concepts of race are scientific, and they only become racist inso far as they are used to argue for discrimination. Scientific racism is certainly a part of the history of concepts of race, but it is also a notable topic in its own right.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Why is there such discrepancy in length in Race (biology) and Race (classification of humans) ?
As I understand we are just another species on this planet that undergoes laws of evolution and speciation. So first what we need to develop is a common definition of race, whatever specimen it concerns and then just apply it to all living things. No matter if they like it or not. This is science and there shouldn't be place for sentiments. I see the controversy with races in humans in much the same light as controversy if we are evolved from apes and if we are an ape still or if we are something very special and lofty that set us very distinct from rest of the world so boundaries that we drawn on the world are not applicable to us. I think the same indignation and disgust people felt when it was proven that vitalism is wrong so we are build by the same matter as even not alive but every other lifeless things outside us, or when Copernicus proved that we are not in center of the universe. What I see is that scientists tend to mark as races or even subspecies populations that are less different that humans are. Or even designate a different species where there is extensive mixing between them. Consider example of Pelophylax esculentus that is a fertile hybrid of Pelophylax lessonae and Pelophylax ridibundus. Again fertile -> so why there is division to three species ? Why there is no three subspecies of one specimen or three races ? Maybe we should ask the frogs if they feel offended by separating them into species ? I know that is a stupid question, but why then do not ask people if they feel offended by fact that Universe expansion is accelerating and everything is going to be "destroyed" in the heat death of the Universe ? This is a very depressing fact for some, so should we ban that multi-billion dollar research and put the money onto healthcare? And I do not pretend that the situation where we have races is not depressing and degrading for people's feelings especially in societies with long and tragic history of slavery and discrimination. It certainly is very depressing and people wish from their very hearts that this not be true. But this is science not teletubbies, and we should not be indisposed by such things. Science (in the sense of grasping reality around) is not for making people feeling good. pwjbbb (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The Wiki article "Race (biology)" manages to neatly sum up what race is in the animal kingdon in 153 words. This article on human race classification has taken 14,000+ words so far. Why do we have a situation here where 1% exposition requires 99% denial? Tholzel (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

May I offer the common man's definition of race? "Hereditary group differences in appearances among a single (inter-breedable) species." Nowhere in this long article is there any explanation of what the differences are between Negroes, Caucasians, Asians—not how they are all the same. There are obvious hereditarily transmitted differences, skin color, physiognomy, facial shape, etc., and it is these differences that people consider racial differences. All the incredibly complicated "explanations" seem to be inserted expressly to avoid having to come to grips with obvious hereditary differences among groups of people who have interbred for millennia

Secondly, I object to having had my single bibliographic entry edited, i.e., "approved," and then, after I was safely banned, removed. That book is: "Race" by John R. Baker, Oxford University Press, New York & London, 1974. I can only believe that it was removed because the author goes into great detail on the many various aspects of race, a point of view expressly eliminated from this discussion. Tholzel (talk) 19:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The book was removed along with nearly four dozen other texts during a mass cleanup, eliminated because they were not used to reference any claims in the article and the section bloated to over 150 unique texts. The article has been tagged as too big for 2 years, and clearing out the unused bloat is just common sense.  The reference section isn't a dedicated repository for listing an editor's favorite books. Professor marginalia (talk) 19:37, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

One book not included in the bibliography, but refrerenced in the article is Herrenstein & Murray's "The Bell Curve," which describes in extensive detail differences in I.Q. by race. Why is that magisterial work left out? Indeed, could you list ANY books in the pared down biliography that espouse the theory that there are substantive differences by race, a theory that a majority of geneticists believe?Tholzel (talk) 02:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that you haven't much editing experience at wikipedia, but plots and conspiracies are seldom the real explanation for content anomalies. So before editors proceed to assuming and accusing if something looks amiss, the first step is to investigate the edit history.  And the full edit histories are here for all to see.  Herrnstein has been alluded to in this fashion in this article since 2004, back when virtually no claims were fully cited. The allusion surfaced here (where I'd argue the entire topic "Race and intelligence" is out of place and should be removed except where methods of classification are the focus) during an article merge/split cleanup campaign between this and the main Race and intelligence article.  As far as I can see from my searches, the full reference has never been incorporated here, which suggests it's one of the increasingly few claims to escape deletion.  Few are allowed to sit in the article long now without a proper cite.  For many years now, full cites are almost always required and unreferenced claims are frequently eliminated on sight, which is ok.  Generally speaking, the burden for properly citing claims falls on those adding the claims to the articles, not removing them.
 * As for the 4 dozen references eliminated in the cleanup. Here is the edit:.  I didn't subject them to a "political correctness test".  These were simply the unused bibliographic entries culled from cross checking these complete list of works to the inline and mla cites in the article as it appeared on that date.  Professor marginalia (talk) 04:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I’m not sure I’m following your reasoning. This article is on racial classification of humans—not the lamentable mis-use of race classifications. Thus it would seem that a bibliography should include some important works which describe various classification schemes. Thus, the fact that I reference a central work on the classification of humans—“Race” by Dr. John R. Baker an Emeritus Reader in Cytology at Oxford University and the author of nine previously published books on biological subjects, which you say was not referenced in the text and was a cause of bloat, should suggest that perhaps this Wiki article needs to be brought in line with its title, rather than steered away to sociological theses.

Then, when a subject IS referenced in the article—race and I.Q.—“The Bell Curve” by Herrenstein & Murray is exclude from the bibliography because the entire subject of classifying humans by race and intelligence is “out of place” in an article on the classification of humans by race. This NY Times Best Seller was favorably reviewed in the NY Times by Malcome Browne.

Of the 43 works eliminated from the bibliography, including “Race,” 17 are works which seem to classify humans by race on various grounds—medical, ethnographically, etc.

Left in place are 19 articles which deny the very concept of human races, with titles such as:  "Do Races Differ? Not Really, DNA Shows,"  “Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race,” and finally the most subject-relevant citation left in: "Diagnosability versus mean differences of sage sparrow subspecies."

More tellingly, while there is no repetition of racialist authors, there are ten double and triple entries of anti-race authors. The winner—with four separate entries--is Smedly, one of whose works is: "Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race"

So while you may claim that you “didn't subject them to a "political correctness test," your unconscious result is that the bibliography shows a large numerical bias towards anti-race works at the expense of pro-race titles.

I suggest this lack of editorial balance be corrected—at least as a start--by including the Baker and the Herrenstein works in the bibliography.Tholzel (talk) 14:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Finally, another objective method to classify humans by race that is not open to the reflexive denials found here: "On page 211 of their book Race: The Reality of Human Differences (2004), (http://www.amazon.com/Race-Reality-Differences-Vincent-Sarich/dp/0813343224/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1301344683&sr=1-2 ) authors Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele explain the role of phenotype in racial classification. Unlike those biologists who make politically correct denials of the scientific reality of race without providing any standard of what is required for race to be considered real, Sarich and Miele do provide us with standards for race for non-human species that are accepted by biologists.

"There is no accepted genetic standard as genetic knowledge is still too incomplete (as the authors point out, until very recently dogs could not be genetically distinguished from wolves), but there is a long-accepted phenotypic standard based on "sorting accuracy."

"Basically, by this standard, if the biologists who specialize in the study of a species can sort two different populations of the species based on phenotype or physical traits with 75% or more accuracy they are considered to be separate races. The authors point out that although races, unlike species, are not discrete, so some phenotypic overlap is to be expected of them, the fact is that there are at least twenty human populations that can be phenotypically distinguished from each other with a sorting accuracy of 100%. By the actual standards applied by biologists to non-human species, that of 75% or more sorting accuracy, there are literally hundreds of separate human races. The authors state that most people could even achieve close to 100% sorting accuracy in distinguishing the populations of Athens and Copenhagen. […] This standard allows the authors to state: 'if we employ a straightforward definition of race -- for example, a population within a species that can be readily distinguished from other such populations on genetic grounds alone (that is, using only heritable features) -- then there can be no doubt of the existence of a substantial number of human races.'" From : http://www.racialcompact.com/Race_%20Realityand%20Denial.html Tholzel (talk) 20:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is another nonsensical paragraph in the title article:
 * One crucial innovation in reconceptualizing genotypic and phenotypic variation was anthropologist C. Loring Brace's observation that such variations, insofar as it is affected by natural selection, slow migration, or genetic drift, are distributed along geographic gradations or clines.[56] In part this is due to isolation by distance. This point called attention to a problem common to phenotype-based descriptions of races (for example, those based on hair texture and skin color): they ignore a host of other similarities and differences (for example, blood type) that do not correlate highly with the markers for race. Thus, anthropologist Frank Livingstone's conclusion, that since clines cross racial boundaries, "there are no races, only clines".[57]

First we have the term "cline," used as if it is some iron law of genetics. In fact "cline" is nothing more than a noun meaning continual shift in phenotype characteristics--say, the gradual color change of skin. A black man and a white woman might have white, tan, brown and black childen. That color spectrum is a “cline.”(So what?). Secondly, we have yet again the classic denial mechanism of saying that because some marker doesn't distinguish between two different things, therefore, there are no differences! (Even the much vaunted DNA analysis could not distinguish between dogs and wolves. Therefore, there are no differences between dogs and wolves?) We might just as well say that since all human races have eyes, therefore there are no races, only humans with eyes.

But, I see where this is going. Let us ventilate on this page as long as nothing untoward is allowed to appear on the article page. No matter how much evidence we racialists supply showing that there are a number of distinct races, and racial classification schemes, our evidence will continue to be met with editorial silence when we are obviously correct, or, at best, a niggling picking at some peripheral aspect which, in the eyes of the picker, renders the entire argument false. After all this bickering we have yet to permit the publication of a human racial classification listing, even though that is what this article is supposed to be about. Tholzel (talk) 15:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right that a very black skinned man and a very white skinned woman might have a baby of any of the colors in the spectrum. Race however is not just a function of skincolor, because even if that child had almost as white skin as his mother he would be likely to be classified as racially "black" in the US, but "colored" in Apartheid SouthAfrica and as "white" in Brazil if his parents had money. If he turned out almost as black as his father he would be classified as racially "black" in the US, "colored" in Apartheid South Africa and as "white" in Brazil if his parents had money. ·Maunus· ƛ · 16:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course race is not only based on skin color; it is usually based on a grouping of characteristics, another of which is physiognamy or facial structure that is very sensative to racial composition. So it is likley that the tan, brown and black children at least would exhibit negroid facial characteristics that segragationists were particularly adapt at spotting. And thus we have the whole spectrum of "half-cast" classification: "mulatto," "octoroon" for blacks, "Mischlinge" in various degrees for Jews in Nazi Germany.

None of these abhorent social practices changes the funadmental racial classification of humans into as many separate races and sub-races as humans skilled in the art can detect. And that, in the fianl analysis, is the determing factor. Without geting into how they do it, if skilled practicioners can successfully indentify people--say to the 85% percentile of wht they self-identify--than surely that grouping can be called one race, and, indeed, is our definition of that particualr race. Tholzel (talk) 20:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Completely Revised (and greatly shortened) Article
2900 Words (But no bibliography)

The classification of humans by race is a subject which touches as much on biology and genetics as it does on sociology and politics. The subject is strenuously debated on all fronts which makes discussing it highly contentious. This article will consider the subject from the two opposite aspects to discuss classification systems of humans by race, and the position that race is a nothing more than a made-up and bankrupt concept, i.e., “a social construct.”

“Racialists,” those scientists who believe humans can be classified by race as much as other animals, i.e., dogs, are classified by breed point to a number of classification schemes, one of which is shown below. The U.S. government has classified its citizenry by various racial classification that have been slowly collapsed from 16 to 5 main catagories:

The three separate identifiers for the American Indian and Alaska Native populations (American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut) used earlier have been combined into one category - - American Indian or Alaska Native. […] The Asian and Pacific Islander category has been split into two categories Asian, and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander. There are six specified Asian and three detailed Pacific Islander categories shown on the Census 2000 questionnaires, as well as Other Asian and Other Pacific Islander which have write-in areas for respondents to provide other race responses. Finally, the category Some Other Race, which is intended to capture responses such as Mulatto, Creole, and Mestizo, also has a write-in area. ( For Census 2000, 63 possible combinations of the six basic racial categories exist, including six categories for those who report exactly one race, and 57 categories for those who report two or more races. These categories will be the basic presentation for the PL 94-171 Redistricting File.

In some other presentations, the 57 combinations of two or more races will be collapsed into a category called "Two or More Races," resulting in seven mutually exclusive and exhaustive racial categories: American Indian and Alaska Native alone, Asian alone, Black or African American alone, Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander alone, Some Other Race alone, White alone, and Two or More Races. This approach is a tally of all respondents and sums to 100 percent of the total population.

By January 1, 2003, all current surveys must comply with the 1997 revisions to the Office of Management and Budget's standards for data on race and ethnicity, which establish a minimum of five categories for race: American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White. Respondents will be able to select one or more of these racial categories. The minimum categories for ethnicity will be Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. (http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html )

A history of the changing federal government census racial classification can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States_Census More complex classification systems describe a few major classifications under which numerous identifiable sub-classifications are broken out. http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA GROUP I. Capoid or Khoisanid Subspecies of southern Africa
 * A. Khoid (Hottentot) race
 * B. Sanid (Bushmen) race

II. Congoid Subspecies of sub-Saharan Africa
 * A. Central Congoid race (Geographic center and origin in the Congo river basin)
 * 1. Palaecongoid subrace (the Congo river basin: Ivory Coast, Ghana, Nigeria, Cameroon, Congo, Angola)
 * 2. Sudanid subrace (western Africa: Niger, Mali, Senegal, Guinea)
 * 3. Nilotid subrace (southern Sudan; the ancient Nubians were of this subrace)

4::. Kafrid or Bantid subrace (east and south Africa: Kenya, Tanzania, Mozambique, Natal)
 * B.Bambutid race (African Pygmies)
 * C. Aethiopid race (Ethiopia, Somalia; hybridized with Caucasoids)

"OUT-OF-AFRICA" GROUP II. Australoid Subspecies II. Mongoloid Subspecies
 * A. Northern Mongoloid racial group
 * 1. Northeast Asian race (various subraces in northern China, Manchuria, Korea and Japan)
 * 2. Ainuid race (remnants of aboriginal population in northern Japan)
 * 3. Tungid race (Mongolia and Siberia, Eskimos)
 * 4. Amerindian race (American Indians; various subraces)
 * B. Southern Mongoloid racial group
 * 1. Southeast Asian race (various subraces in southern China, Indochina, Thailand, Myanmar [Burma], Malaysia, Indonesia and the Philippines, the last four partly hybridized with Australoids)
 * 2. Micronesian-Polynesian race (predominantly Southern Mongoloid partly hybridized with Australoids)

III. Caucasoid or Europid Subspecies
 * A. Dravidic race (India, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka [Ceylon]; ancient stabilized Indic-Veddoid [Australoid] blend)
 * B. Turanid race (partially hybridized with Mongoloids; predominant element in Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan; common in Hungary and Turkey)
 * C. Indic or Nordindid race (Pakistan and northern India)
 * D. Irano-Afghan race (predominant in Iran and Afghanistan, primary element in Iraq, common [25%] in Turkey)
 * E. Armenid race (predominant element in Armenia and Azerbaijan, common in Syria, Lebanon and northern Iraq, primary element among the Ashkenazic Jews)
 * F. Mediterranid racial group
 * 1. Orientalid or Arabid subrace (predominant in Arabia, major element from Egypt to Syria, primary in northern Sudan, important in Iraq, predominant element among the Oriental Jews)
 * 2. South Mediterranean or Saharid subrace (predominant in Algeria and Libya, important in Morocco, Tunisia and Egypt, primary element among the Sephardic Jews, common element [circa 20-25%] in Spain, Sicily and southern Italy, minor element [circa 5%] in Greece)
 * 3. East Mediterranean or Pontid subrace (Black Sea coast of Ukraine, Romania and Bulgaria; Aegean coasts of Greece and Turkey)
 * 4. Dinaricized Mediterraneans (Residual mixed types resulting from the blending of Mediterranids with Dinarics, Alpines or Armenids; not a unified type, has much regional variation; predominant element [over 60%] in Sicily and southern Italy, principal element in Turkey [35%], important element in western Syria, Lebanon and central Italy, common in northern Italy. The ancient Cappadocian Mediterranean subrace of Anatolia was dinaricized perhaps as early as the Neolitihic and is a major contributor to this type in modern Turkey.)
 * 5. West Mediterranean or Iberid subrace (Spain, Portugal, Corsica, Sardinia, and coastal areas of Morocco and Tunisia; the Atlanto-Mediterranean peoples who expanded over much of the Atlantic coastal regions of Europe during the Mesolithic period were a branch of this subrace)
 * G. Ladogan race (named after Lake Ladoga; indigenous to Russia; includes Lappish subrace of arctic Europe)
 * H. Dinaric race (predominant in western Balkans [Dinaric Mountains] and northern Italy, important in the Czech Republic, eastern and southern Switzerland, western Austria and eastern Ukraine. Its distribution in Europe, and that of its derived Dinaricized Mediterranean type, may be associated with the expansion of the Neolithic Anatolian farmers beginning circa 6,500 B.C.)
 * I. Alpine race (predominant element in Luxembourg, primary in Bavaria and the Czech Republic [Bohemia], important in France, Hungary, eastern and southern Switzerland)
 * J. Nordish or Northern European racial group (various subraces in the British Isles, Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Belgium; predominant element in Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Finland and the Baltic States; majority in Austria and Russia; important in France, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary;

Dominant or predominant = over 60% majority Majority or major = 50-60% majority Principal or primary = 25-49% plurality; less than a majority, but most numerous racial type Important = 25-49% minority; not most numerous racial type Common = 6-25% minority Minor = 5% or less minority The central argument against the validity of any classification scheme is that variation within a so-called race is greater than the differences between these races. Another argument is that mixing of distinct racial gene pools has advanced to the point where there is now essentially a smooth continuum of identifying characteristics between any “races.” A final argument is that there is little, if any, DNA evidence of racial differences, making the entire question moot.

Another view against classifiying humans by race is the political/sociological position that attempts to classify humans by race has such a repugnant history, and serves no useful societal purpose that the entire effort if one that does not As people define and put about different conceptions of race, they actively create contrasting social realities through which racial categorization is achieved in varied ways.[16] In this sense, races are said to be social constructs.[17][18] These constructs can develop within various legal,[16][19] economic,[19] and sociopolitical[20][21] contexts, and at times may be the effect, rather than the cause, of major social situations.[20] Socioeconomic factors,[20][22][23][24][25] in combination with early but enduring[26] views of race, have led to considerable suffering amongst the disadvantaged racial groups. Scholars continue to debate the degrees to which racial categories are biologically warranted[10][27] and socially constructed, as well as the extent to which the realities[28] of race must be acknowledged in order for society to comprehend and address racism adequately.[16][27]

Models of human evolution See also: Multiregional hypothesis and Recent single origin hypothesis In a 1995 article, Leonard Lieberman and Fatimah Jackson suggested that any new support for a biological concept of race will likely come from another source, namely, the study of human evolution. They therefore ask what, if any, implications current models of human evolution may have for any biological conception of race.[40]

Today, all humans are classified as belonging to the species Homo sapiens and sub-species Homo sapiens sapiens. However, this is not the first species of hominids: the first species of genus Homo, Homo habilis, are theorized to have evolved in East Africa at least 2 million years ago, and members of this species populated different parts of Africa in a relatively short time. Homo erectus is theorized to have evolved more than 1.8 million years ago, and by 1.5 million years ago had spread throughout Europe and Asia. Virtually all physical anthropologists agree that Homo sapiens evolved out of Homo erectus.

Anthropologists have been divided as to whether Homo sapiens evolved as one interconnected species from H. erectus (called the Multiregional Model, or the Regional Continuity Model), or evolved only in East Africa, and then migrated out of Africa and replaced H. erectus populations throughout Europe and Asia (called the Out of Africa Model or the Complete Replacement Model). Anthropologists continue to debate both possibilities, and the evidence is technically open to debate as to which model is correct, although most anthropologists currently favor the Out of Africa model.

Lieberman and Jackson argued that while advocates of both the Multiregional Model and the Out of Africa Model use the word race and make racial assumptions, none define the term.[40] They conclude that "Each model has implications that both magnify and minimize the differences between races. Yet each model seems to take race and races as a conceptual reality. The net result is that those anthropologists who prefer to view races as a reality are encouraged to do so" and conclude that students of human evolution would be better off avoiding the word race, and instead describe genetic differences in terms of populations and clinal gradations.[40] Some geneticists argue that categories of self-identified race/ethnicity or biogeographic ancestry are both valid and useful,[66] that these categories correspond to clusters inferred from multilocus genetic data,[67] and that this correspondence implies that genetic factors might contribute to unexplained phenotypic variation between groups.[68] Neil Risch argued: "One could make the same arguments about sex and age! ... you can undermine any definitional system... In a recent study... we actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome [than] between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus [racial] self-description, [which had a] 99.9% concordance... So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism. And you can talk about age the same way. A person's chronological age does not perfectly correspond to his biological age for a variety of reasons, both inherited and non-inherited. Perhaps just using someone's actual birth year is not a very good way of measuring age. Does that mean we should throw it out? ... Any category you come up with is going to be imperfect, but that doesn't preclude you from using it or the fact that it has utility"[69]

Witherspoon et al. (2007) have argued that even when individuals can be reliably assigned to specific population groups, it may still be possible for two randomly chosen individuals from different populations/clusters to be more similar to each other than to a randomly chosen member of their own cluster. They found that many thousands of genetic markers had to be used in order for 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?" to be "never". This assumed three population groups separated by large geographic ranges (European, African and East Asian). The entire world population is much more complex and studying an increasing number of groups would require an increasing number of markers for the same answer. The authors conclude that "caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes."[70]

Races as social constructions Main articles: Social interpretations of race and Racialism As anthropologists and other evolutionary scientists have shifted away from the language of race to the term population to talk about genetic differences, historians, cultural anthropologists and other social scientists re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or social construct—a particular way that some people talk about themselves and others.

Many social scientists have replaced the word race with the word "ethnicity" to refer to self-identifying groups based on beliefs concerning shared culture, ancestry and history. Alongside empirical and conceptual problems with "race," following the Second World War, evolutionary and social scientists were acutely aware of how beliefs about race had been used to justify discrimination, apartheid, slavery, and genocide. This questioning gained momentum in the 1960s during the U.S. civil rights movement and the emergence of numerous anti-colonial movements worldwide. They thus came to believe that race itself is a social construct, a concept that was believed to correspond to an objective reality but which was believed in because of its social functions.[84]

Craig Venter and Francis Collins of the National Institute of Health jointly made the announcement of the mapping of the human genome in 2000. Upon examining the data from the genome mapping, Venter realized that although the genetic variation within the human species is on the order of 1-3% (instead of the previously assumed 1%), the types of variations do not support notion of genetically defined races. Venter said, "Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one. There are no bright lines (that would stand out), if we could compare all the sequenced genomes of everyone on the planet." "When we try to apply science to try to sort out these social differences, it all falls apart."[85]

Stephan Palmié asserted that race "is not a thing but a social relation";[86] or, in the words of Katya Gibel Mevorach, "a metonym," "a human invention whose criteria for differentiation are neither universal nor fixed but have always been used to manage difference."[87] As such, the use of the term "race" itself must be analyzed. Moreover, they argue that biology will not explain why or how people use the idea of race: History and social relationships will.

In biomedicine Main articles: Population groups in biomedicine and Ancestry and health See also: Pharmacogenomics, Race and health, and Ethnicity and health In the United States, policy makers use racially categorized data to identify and address health disparities between racial or ethnic groups.[114] In clinical settings, race has long been considered in the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions, because some medical conditions are more prevalent in certain racial or ethnic groups than in others. Recent interest in race-based medicine, or race-targeted pharmacogenomics, has been fueled by the proliferation of human genetic data which followed the decoding of the human genome in the early 2000s. There is an active debate among biomedical researchers about the meaning and importance of race in their research. Some researchers strongly support the continued use of racial categorizations in biomedical research and clinical practice.[115] They argue that race may correlate, albeit imperfectly, with the presence of specific genetic variants associated with disease:[115] Insofar as race "provides a sufficiently precise proxy for human genetic variation",[116] the concept may be medically viable. In addition, knowledge of a person's race may provide a cost-effective way to assess susceptibility to genetically influenced medical conditions.[115]

Detractors of race-based medicine acknowledge that race is sometimes useful in clinical medicine, but encourage minimizing its use. They suggest that medical practices should maintain their focus on the individual rather than an individual's membership to any group. They argue that overemphasizing genetic contributions to health disparities carries various risks such as reinforcing stereotypes, promoting racism or ignoring the contribution of non-genetic factors to health disparities.[117] Some researchers in the field have been accused "of using race as a placeholder during the 'meantime' of pharmacogenomic development".[118] Conversely, it is argued that in the early stages of the field's development, researchers must consider race-related factors if they are to ascertain the clinical potentials of ongoing scholarship.[116][119] See also• Breed •	Clan •	Cultural difference •	List of ethnic groups •	Multiracial •	Pre-Adamite •	Race and health •	Race baiting •	Race (fantasy) •	Race (U.S. census) •	Racial discrimination •	Racial stereotypes •	Racial superiority •	Racism •	The Race of the Future •	The Race Question •	Social interpretations of race •	Nationalism •	Ethnic nationalism
 * Bulleted list item

[Add bibliography here.] Tholzel (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Length and focus of article
The current Race article is 14,567 words (including footnotes, but not bibliography). Its subject matter veers all over the place, straying often from the discussion of racial classification of humans, to which the title refers, to a convoluted mish-mash of articles concerning the rampant mis-use of racial classification, or the political/sociological disagreements that because of its incendiary effect, demand that the term should not be allowed in public discourse.

Of course there are other many other aspects of the subject of human race and these are clearly referenced and linked in the article, e.g., Race baiting, Race (fantasy), Racial superiority, Social interpretations of race, Racism, Cultural differences, etc. So it is piling-on to introduce them here which serves only to dilute the title category.

There is another major flaw to the article as it currently stands: There is no full (or even partial) exposition of the title subject matter—the classification of humans by race. Instead we have hints, passing references to classification schemes followed by long expositions on the fallacy of such schemes we are not allowed to see.

Further, there is far too much piece-mealing of racial classification. In addition to not providing a summation of racial classification, when racial snippets are introduced, they are done so in a piece-meal fashion totally lacking any narrative to give a picture of the whole concept.

As an example of where the subject of racial classifgication of humans is clearly laid out, see:  http://www.racialcompact.com/racesofhumanity.html. Here is a 3200-wprd article that spells out an accepted scheme of racial classification of humans. Here is n exceprt of this article:
 * The human species is blessed with great variety and diversity. Its rich diversity resulted from its global distribution, which caused the different populations of humanity to be geographically separated and thus reproductively isolated. Reproductive isolation enabled divergence -- the process of divergent evolution -- to occur, causing the isolated populations to evolve in different directions, developing their own distinct ensembles of genetic traits and characteristics.


 * Divergent evolution is the process by which new life forms are created by the division and separation of life into different branches. Human evolution has seen its share of divergent branching. The generic name commonly used to refer to the genetically different populations, branches or divisions of humanity -- that share both a common biological ancestry and an ensemble of unique, genetically transmitted traits and characteristics which distinguish them from other populations -- is "race." But in the human species, as in any species enjoying a great degree of variety, the constant branching and dividing that characterizes the process of divergent evolution has created many different levels of branches and divisions, each of which possesses genetic traits which distinguish it from other branches or divisions at the same level. For purposes of taxonomic accuracy each of these levels should have its own specific name and definition.

The first or highest level is called the species, and it is simply and objectively defined as including all those populations which are capable of interbreeding with each other and producing fully fertile offspring, and which do in fact interbreed under conditions of close and extensive contact. The term race is commonly used to refer to a branch or division of the species possessing genetically transmitted physical traits which distinguish it from other branches or divisions of the same level. Adding to this definition, it will here also be defined as including only those persons who are capable of reproduction with each other without the loss or significant diminishment or alteration of the racially-distinctive genetic traits of either parent stock.
 * The genetically transmitted traits which distinguish a race from other divisions at the same level (i.e., other races) should not be diminished or lost by reproduction within the race. If racially-distinctive traits are lost or diminished by within-group reproduction then the population group is at a level of division too broad and inclusive to be accurately defined as a race. If it is too narrow to be defined as a species, as it does not include all those populations capable of interbreeding, then it is at a level between race and species, which will here be referred to as a subspecies.

This 3100-word referenced article alone would be all that the subject title calls for. (But I am not calling for that; I am calling for a similar, straight-forward exposition.) But, understanding the pressure to give equal weight to strenuous counter opinions, it would make sense to follow this straightforward exposition with a counter opinion section—and to do so without hacking-up the former with negative commentary, as if even a single racialist sentence may not be allowed to stand without immediate rejoinder. I leave it to the other contributors to come up with the actual text of this two-part article—pro & con on human racial classification--permitting, say 3100 words in rebuttal. Now, to anticipate reflexive objections: First, it is not meaningful to object to the excerpt because the author “is a known white supremacist” any more than to object because he might be a known Republican, to use one editor’s riposte. Nor is it valid to claim the article is more than 10 years old, or not peer-reviewed, or not within a mainstream of associations (e.g. American Anthropology Assoc.) which has officially declared that humans cannot be classified by race. What’s the point of allowing objectors to have absolute rule on theories they don’t like? Tholzel (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read our policy about reliable sources. Self-published, non-peerviewed works are not eligible for inclusion for this kind of statement.·Maunus· ƛ · 16:36, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess you didn't have time to read it. Most of it is a direct copy of the existing article. I only added a header of material what you have somehow not been able to bring yourselves to put in--to actually show two racial classfication schemes of humans. You know--to address the subject which forms the title of this article. Tholzel (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the "in biomedicine" section content
Miradre, you just deleted the content of the "in biomedicine" section with an edit summary saying it's too long for the article, yet incomplete. I don't agree with this change. The section was only two paragraphs, much smaller than the "commercial determination of ancestry" section, but the use of race in biomedicine is at least notable as commercial ancestry tests. If one of the subsections of the "political and practical uses" sections needs to be reduced to make the article shorter, I think it should be that section, not "in biomedicine". And if the biomedicine section is incomplete then it should be improved, not deleted.Boothello (talk) 17:28, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also said that this article is too long and that the material is covered in the subarticle. The size is not insignificant if including all the refs. This article needs pruning and this seemed an easy place to start since it is covered in other articles.Miradre (talk) 17:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

The article needs shortening. I think Miradre did the right thing, the biomedicine section is not of principal relevance for the main topic of the article which is to describe different ways to understand what "race" is and/or isn't. I also don't see what relevance the "commercial determination of ancestry" has to do with the topic of the article. I think it should also be drastically reduced or maybe completely removed.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If we're going to shorten the article, I think we should start with the sections that are least important and most bloated, like the commercial determination of ancestry section. If the article is still too long even after those have been dealt with, then maybe after that we can also shorten some of the other sections that have less of this problem, like the biomedicine section.Boothello (talk) 18:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

How about taking out these bibliographic references, which don't seem to have much to do with race? •	Meltzer, M (1993). Slavery: a world history (revised ed.). Cambridge, MA: DaCapo Press. ISBN 0306805367. •	Patten, MA; Unitt, P. (2002). "Diagnosability versus mean differences of sage sparrow subspecies". Auk 119 (1): 26–35. doi:10.1642/0004-8038(2002)119[0026:DVMDOS]2.0.CO;2. •	Patterson, N; Hattangadi, N; Lane, B; Lohmueller, KE; Hafler, DA; Oksenberg, JR; Hauser, SL; Smith, MW et al. (2004). "Methods for high-density admixture mapping of disease genes". Am J Hum Genet 74 (5): 979–1000. doi:10.1086/420871. PMC 1181990. . http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1181990. •	Pettener, D (December 1990). "Temporal trends in marital structure and isonymy in S. Paolo Albanese, Italy". Human Biology 62 (6): 837–51. . Tholzel (talk) 19:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

majority viewpoint, per commonly accepted reference text, Encyclopedia Britannica Online
Please see the Race (human) article on Encyclopedia Britannica Online. Per WP:OR, "If your viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts." EBO is a commonly accepted reference text (and probably one of the best). We should be able to take the viewpoints expressed on this article as the majority viewpoint. Egalitarians and fans of cultural explanations of race will be happy to read that '“Race” is today primarily a sociological designation, identifying a class sharing some outward physical characteristics and some commonalities of culture and history.' In other words, not sharing inward psychological characteristics. Editors trying to ground this page in solid, high-level analysis should mine the EBO article for all it's worth. Leadwind (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * See the section on Current views across disciplines. Many scientists outside of US anthropology accept that race as a biological concept including anthropologists in several non-US nations. Even for the US, many forensic anthropologists accept race.Miradre (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * If "[m]any scientists outside of US anthropology accept ... race as a biological concept," then you ought to be able to find "commonly accepted reference texts" that represent that view. If the commonly accepted reference texts are wrong, then we WP editors have a duty to be wrong in exactly the same way. WP doesn't describe what's actually true; it describes what the best sources say is true (even when those sources are wrong). I tell this to Christian apologists on religion pages all the time: if our best sources are wrong, then WP is dutybound to be wrong in the same way. It's frustrating (and maybe exhilarating) to be right when the "experts" are wrong, but WP is about what the experts say (right or wrong). Leadwind  (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There are sources in the section.Miradre (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Since there is obviously a huge debate on this very issue--whether "race" is sociological or biological--why are we amateurs trying to make the decison for readers which it is? What we need to do as disinterested editors is to present both sides fairly. That is what my suggested entry (above) tries to do. It puts up two racial classification schemes, followed by a copied section of that part of the current article which denies biological classification. there the claims are; let the readers decide what to believe. It seems to me the regnant editors here do not want readers to see any racial classification schemes whatever, even though that is the title of this article. (What is next? An article on flight, but we will not be allowed to mention airplanes?) Tholzel (talk) 14:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Gould and Lewontin claims
See this. I removed this since no source has appeared despite taking it up on the talk page and Maunus stating on the 27th March that "Point taken. I'll find the source for the claim and construct a better wording of the argument". Since none appeared I removed that statement. Please explain adding it back.Miradre (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I still will, but the books are checked out rigt now. Anyway I don't buy for one second that you actually doubt that they say this, you are just trying to make me spend my time on this rather than other stuff. I will get the books, but not right now. If you were interested you could show your good faith by getting the books yourself - who knows maybe it would be interesting for you to read something written by someone with whom you don't agree.·Maunus· ƛ · 17:22, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You make the claim, you provide the source as per Wikipedia policy. WP:V is does not state that V does not apply because someone may add material in the future. I have already given plenty of time which is not required by policy. Unsourced material can be removed on sight. I very much doubt they have stated that intelligence is a wholly cultural construct.Miradre (talk) 17:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't expect you to be helpful, so here is a quote we can use meanwhile: "In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends. No gene has yet been conclusively linked to intelligence, so attempts to provide a compelling genetic link of race to intelligence are not feasible at this time. The authors also show that heritability, a behaviorgenetic concept, is inadequate in regard to providing such a link." and (Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd 2005 American Psychologist 60:1)·Maunus· ƛ · 17:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You do agree to remove the Gould and Sternberg material? In regards to the Sternberg material that is undue weight to this one source and view. If going into such detail opposing arguments should be added also.Miradre (talk) 17:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No I do not and no it is not. I am not propsing to include this quote, I am showing you that not only Gould and Lewontin make this argument but also Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd. (and I can sure I can find more if I bother to look). This is a widely made and well known argument. Including it is not undue weight. Not including it would leave out a notable and prominent viewpoint.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * What are the books you have in mind, Maunus? I can see if I have them. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I believe the argument is made both in "Not in our Genes" and in "Mismeasure of Man".·Maunus· ƛ · 18:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, as I have stated before, even if IQ and race are completely social constructs, one could still study their relationships, including causal relationships, as one can do for income and occupations. It may be an argument against genetic explanations but it would certainly not be an argument against the relationship itself, which is what text currently claims.Miradre (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * @Maunus: Was there a reference needed for a particular view attributed to Sternberg? Professor marginalia (talk) 18:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No that view is pretty much established in the 2005 AP article - Miradre just claims it is undue weight to include it. I think when he wrote Gould and Sternberg above he meant Gould and Lewontin.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Anyway the claim we need to source is the one that since Race and Intelligence are both cultural "folk" constructions with no precise scientific definition it is scientifically invalid to propose to explain variation in one in terms of variation in the other. ·Maunus· ƛ · 18:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, I meant Gould and Lewontin. As most likely a minority view among IQ experts Sternberg's should not be given undue weight. Right again on the last part, source and an explanation is needed for why one can study the relationship between the social constructs income and occupation but not race and IQ, assuming they are social constructs. Miradre (talk) 18:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Sternberg's views are neither minority views among IQ experts nor Grigorenko and Kidd's among geneticists. As for your request for explanation you are asking for an answer to a question noone but you have asked. It is possible to study correlations between constructs but when those constructs are folk categories and not scientifically valid then neither is the correlation. It is like me studying the level of annoyingness in the population of people I don't like - it says more about me than about the objective world and hence is not science. ·Maunus· ƛ · 19:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the only poll ever done so was the partially genetic explanation the most common alternative. You are arguing that one cannot study for example race and income? Or race and voting? Regarding IQ, you are denying that it is good at predicting many life outcomes?Miradre (talk) 19:09, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not arguing I am summarising arguments by researchers. You know what those researchers think about "the only poll ever done" - which by the way says nothing at all about the scientific basis for believeing in biological race. Sternberg and other psychologists argue that the supposed predictive power of IQ is largely a circular construction - we define intelligence as that which makes someone succesful in our socity, then we measure it and see that people who are succesful in our society have more. Hardly revolutionizing science.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I know what a lot of hereditarians though about the poll. That it vindicated their views. Are you thinking of these thoughts or something else? Regarding IQ, your are mistaken regarding the argumentation. IQ measured in children and adolescents predicts their later life achievements.Miradre (talk) 19:18, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am alluding to what Sternberg, Grigorenko and Kidd as well as other researchers have said about the poll. Of course hereditarians would feel vindicated - that is what was the purpose of the poll. Silent majorities however do not count and I really think it would behoove you to stop parading that old red herring. When all those silent psychologists start publishing their views and presenting arguments then they will have an influence on science, as long as they just keep their views to themselves they can keep believing in the reality folk concepts without being challenged which serves them best. I am saying that is is unsurprising that IQ in children predict achievement since we have built a society where success is defined as that you can get with a high IQ and high IQ is defined as that which gives you success.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering that a Nobel Prize winner and discoverer of DNA was essentially fired for stating that one reason for poverty in Africa is low average IQ one can understand the fear of many lesser researchers of stating what they think. Does not invalidate the poll. Since IQ predicts later life achievement it would still be interesting to study its relationship to race even if both were social constructs. Just as race and voting, or race and income, are interesting to study and are studied by many.Miradre (talk) 19:32, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you keep saying...·Maunus· ƛ · 19:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * With good reason. That the IQ and race relationship would disappear if both were social constructs is just wishful thinking. The social construct argument is only an argument against the genetic explanation.Miradre (talk) 19:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

@ Maunus: I'll look for the Mismeasure and Not in Our Genes but it may take a few days given all the juggling busying me elsewhere. What might also be relevant to debate in this thread from Not in Our Genes is discussion of the misapplication of heritability measured within groups as any kind of relevant yardstick for findings about between group differences. (This also can be cited to Sandra Scarr, I believe.) Professor marginalia (talk) 19:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I have a very good presentation of that argument by Alan R. Templeton which Miradre accuses me of misunderstanding and states has been falsified as "lewontin's fallacy". That is of course incorrect, but let that rest.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Be aware that Leowontin has made two widely cited arguments. One is the one marginalia cites above regarding IQ. The other argument is the one regarding genetic variety in races being higher than between races.Miradre (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, we are all aware of this argument. A high heritability for individual IQ does not necessarily prove anything regarding average group differences. But the hereditarians argue that it increases the probability of genetic causes also for group differences and that the most likely alternative, "the default alternative" is that heritability for group differences are the same as for individuals.Miradre (talk) 19:38, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is nothing default about that assumption. It is based on specific premise that is not supported.·Maunus· ƛ · 19:55, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is the default. In order to avoid it the non-hereditarians has to invoke some implausible and not found x-factor that is not measured by heritability because it affects all blacks equally but does not affect whites or affects whites equally but to a lesser degree than blacks. Or else argue that the environment for blacks is incredibly poor compared to whites which would decrease IQ to the size of the gap despite the high heritability. Neither of these explanations are likely. More reasonable objections are that the heritability figures are overestimated, in particular for blacks, or Flynn's argument about feedback effects making the heritability figure unreliable.Miradre (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As you eloquently describe it is the default only for those who have already decided that being black is a biological class and that intelligence is mostly hereditary. It should be fairly easy to find support for ones default hypothesis when it is based on the very assumption one wishes to prove.·Maunus· ƛ · 20:12, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * There is actually another misunderstanding. Let separate out all people have who have a genetic disorder, say cystic fibrosis. Do these people constitute a race? No. Is it still correct to state that this group has a 100% genetic difference to other people? Yes. So genetic differences between groups does not necessarily depend on the groups being "races". So even if race was disqualified as concept there could still be genetic differences between blacks and whites. The race concept is a much more wider claim than simply genetic group differences. Any genetic disorder causes genetic group differences. The race concept also involves for example geographic ancestry.Miradre (talk) 20:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Genetic differences do not depend on races. Correct. That is the reason nobody would flinch at the comment that people with Downs Syndrome have generally lower IQ than people without, or that low IQ as a result of downs syndrome is genetically determined. That is because people with downs syndrom is a category that is defined genetically. Race categories have a geographic ancestry component, but not a strong enough component to provide a necessary and sufficient condition for membership. A person identified as black in the US could for example have three grandparents from Continental Europe and one from Papua New Guinea - if his skin was dark enough and his hair culry enough he would be classified as an "african-american", while he would be much less likely to share any genetic markers with a person from Nigeria than with any person from Europe. If we now decided to correlate his intelligence to other American "blacks" and it turned out to be similar what would that prove?·Maunus· ƛ · 20:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is like arguing that animals have no subspecies because there are individuals in border regions who are difficult to classify. How people self-identify does not change their their ancestry. Furthermore, in the US the correspondance between self-identified race and predominant geographic ancestry is extremely good. For other nations likely less so. But even for mixed-race individuals one can make predictions based on their degree of mixture. This is not controversial for physical appearance. Mixed race persons on average have physical appearance intermediate between their ancestral races. It is only when one goes under the skin it becomes controversial and uncomfortable for many.Miradre (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops: I am afraid I don't understand this statement at all: "So genetic differences between groups does not necessarily depend on the groups being "races". So even if race was disqualified as concept there could still be genetic differences between blacks and whites." The difference between "being black" and "having cystic fibrosis" is that it doesn't matter which doctor you visit they'll diagnose you the same (if they are qualified) - however if you go to a racialist and ask them to telkl you if you are black or not there is no guarantee that the outcome will be the same in each case, because there is no definition comparable to the genetic one. (there is a funny quote in a book I forget which is from a forensic anthropologist saying that forensic anthropology is so accurate that he can sometimes correct people  who thought they were one race but in fact were of another - believe that you've been discriminated against all your life and at your autopsy it turns out you were really white!) ·Maunus· ƛ · 20:56, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, for an individual race/geographic ancestry does not predict very well. Many blacks have higher IQ than the white average. Race is mostly interesting when looking at many individuals as an aggregate. Due to the Law of large numbers one can then see clear group differences which are important for society.Miradre (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Maunus now claims that Gould and Sternberg now supports his view. Please explain how they resolve the problem with that scientists often study two social constructs. Such as income and occupations.Miradre (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, I have looked at the Sternberg et all article. It is of course not as Maunus states. They only use the social construct argument against a genetic explanation. First regarding IQ they state "In summary, it is probably more accurate to refer to existing studies as assessing the relation between “IQ” or “psychometric g” and what is labeled as race than as assessing “intelligence” and these other constructs". I see no problem with that. No hereditarian has claimed that IQ or g measures everything that people think is part of intelligence. More importantly, in the conclusion they make a comparison to race and disease. Different races have different incidences of various diseases. They argue that to say that this is due to genetic factors is impossible. Then they compare this to race and IQ and say that the same thing applies there. The Sternberg article only argues against the genetic explanation. Not that one cannot study race and IQ.Miradre (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you are reading it rather selctively, indeed one might say that you are missing the main point entirely. Luckily they summarise that in the abstract of the article: "In this article, the authors argue that the overwhelming portion of the literature on intelligence, race, and genetics is based on folk taxonomies rather than scientific analysis. They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientific definition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientific ends."·Maunus· ƛ · 22:47, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It is you who are selectively quoting. More fully: "They suggest that because theorists of intelligence disagree as to what it is, any consideration of its relationships to other constructs must be tentative at best. They further argue that race is a social construction with no scientiﬁc deﬁnition. Thus, studies of the relationship between race and other constructs may serve social ends but cannot serve scientiﬁc ends." Thus, they are talking about other intelligence constructs. In the conclusion they make a comparison to the study of race and diseases which they they do not disagree with. Only the the claims that common diseases have partially genetic racial differences. This they compare to race and IQ studies.Miradre (talk) 06:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Here is what they state in the conclusion "Race is a social construction, not a biological construct, and studies currentlyindicating alleged genetic bases of racial differences in intelligence fail to make their point even for these social deﬁned groups" Thus again, they are criticizing the genetic theory.Miradre (talk) 06:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This doesn't contradict what I am saying, unless you twist the obvious meaning out of whack. They say that neither race nor intelligence is a well defined concept, but rather fuzzy folk ones, and that one cannot do science by correlating folk concepts.·Maunus· ƛ · 10:29, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then one could not study race and disease, which they do state is possible.Miradre (talk) 10:30, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Because disease is not a folk category, but a medical one?·Maunus· ƛ · 10:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * So you do admit it is possible to study the relationship of race to other variables? Miradre (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Of course I do, anything else would make no sense. You can study income differences between blacks and white e.g. And also you dodn't need to get me to admit anything. These are Gould and Sternberg et al.'s arguments not mine.·Maunus· ƛ · 10:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * As noted in the conclusion they compare race and disease research to race and IQ research and argue that in both cases one cannot conclude genetic explanations for differences. In the article they argue two somewhat different points. One cannot study "Race and intelligence" because "intelligence" as a concept is too diffuse. Secondly, while one can study race and IQ, the genetic explanation is false.Miradre (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That is also how I read the article. Glad we agree.·Maunus· ƛ · 12:17, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Then the article text should be clarified regarding the view of the Sternberg article.Miradre (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

About Strkalj
And I have reverted again. My contention is that user Quintuple Twiqt is misreding Strkalj when he contends 50% acceptance of the race concept in the US and Europe. In the same article, I read 70% rejection or so. And other quthors such as Lieberman go up to 85-89% rejection inntheir latest survey results (about 2002).--Ramdrake (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If we go by your figures, which I will dispute for several reasons, you need to provide a source demonstrating that there are twice as many biological anthropologists in the West than in Eastern Europe, Russia and China.
 * And do not revert my copy edits at the same time. They were in a separate edit and you need to revert separately. Anything else is simple vandalism. QuintupleTwist (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you wish to avoid your edits reverted in group, then structure them so they can be undone separately.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Fun, I'm being called a vandal by a POV-pushing sockpuppet of a banned user...;) As I haver reverted twice already, I'm not getting into an edit war, but if somebody can talk some sense into QT, and convince him/her to discuss on the talk page rather than launch in a pointless revert war, I would appreciate the help. I believe I gave it a good try.--Ramdrake (talk) 20:36, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Ramdrake keeps reverting copy edits along with the statement he disagrees with. "However as biological studies through the twentieth found biological basis for the classification it became clear that the primary factor in racial classification was social conventions developed in the colonial period." Is unsourced and makes no sense.

"Scholars continue to debate the degrees to which racial categories are biologically warranted[9][26] and socially constructed, as well as the extent to which the realities[27] of race must be acknowledged in order for society to comprehend and address racism adequately." Is repeated twice in the same paragraph.

It is not my responsibilty to structure my edits so that you can effortlessly revert what you disagree with. How could I even do that? Ramdrakes behavior is now so rude that it appears calculated to provoke a hostile response. I imagine that this would not be looked upon favorably should it be brought to the attention of administrators. This is a warning to desist before that becomes necessary.

Ramdrake asserts that I am "a sockpuppet of a banned user". Can he elaborate on that?


 * Are you kidding? An editor admitting to making a false charge? They do it to establish your illegal actions so they can add them up and ban you when it suits them, like when you catch them at it again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.42.226 (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

There is no source to imply that the concept of race is not often used since the early twentieth century ("In the early twentieth century it was often used as a biological term, race denoting genetically divergent human populations that can be marked by common phenotypic traits"). None of the sources for this examine Eastern Europe, China or Russia, where a near 100% acceptance is found (China recently surpassed the US in number of PhDs). In fact, the concept is alive and well, even in the West. Figures from Lieberman's study are cited, but he was looking at scholars from inappropriate fields, and only members of the AAA. Clearly this is a poor sample for an international overview, and even that showed a 30% acceptance, not supporting an implied demise. QuintupleTwist (talk) 12:44, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Definition
I have reverted Cosmic Latte's change to the definition. Race is not a "human variable" whatever that is - that wording presupposes the objective existence of "a variable" and is POV (and also cannot be supported by reliable sources). Race refers to many different systems of classification of humans based on intersections between phenotype, socioeconomic status, and ancestry - not just one such system. ·Maunus· ƛ · 01:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * And I, Cosmic Latte, have not reverted Maunus's revert. I have not even challenged it, and so I am confused: Why is a personal non-dispute being non-disputed on the public grounds for editorial dispute (i.e., on article talk)? Regardless, Maunus is an outstanding editor for whom I actually have so much respect that I would not knowingly revert without discussion or consensus anyway. Although, upon request, I could provide a ton of sources calling race a variable, I was aiming more for stylistic refinement than for substantive redefinition in the opening line. I've been approaching that particular sentence more from a copy-editing perspective than from anything else, and my main goal was to enhance its readibility through parallelism--e.g., trying not to define a noun as a thinly disguised verb, or splitting run-on sentences. Although racial semantics happen to be of great interest to me, they've been taking a back seat to sheer pragmatics when I've edited that line. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Im not making a dispute (or implying that you have reverted my revert) I am just explaining my rationale for reverting- trying to be polite as a matter of fact - especially given the fact that reverting here is often controversial and can be seen as edit warring. (I tried to go 0rr once, but it didn't work - but instead I try always to explain myself at the talkpage after reverting) I think most of your changes to the lead are fine- especially those that adress style. I think you went overboard with the redefinition, but I am glad we can have a calm conversation about that.·Maunus· ƛ · 02:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

"Today most scholars that study race see it as a social construct"
Race should not be defined by social 'scientists', but by evolutionary biologists, medics, etc. - in brief: science should trump ideology in an encyclopedia. The notion that a "social construct" generated people of different skin color, facial and skeletal features, different hair etc. is beyond ridiculous. -- Alexey Topol (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your opinion. Now go read some basic literature about the issue and we may be able to have a conversation.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:25, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I do have some res ervations about this claim. Of course, trivially, it is true. Race is a social construct, in the same way as species, or any concept. But I think the implication here is that it is just a social construct, and of no biological utility. While this opinion is doubtless expressed by most cultural anthropologists affiliated with the American Anthropological Association, it is a bit of a leap to "most scholars". In fact the paper by Strkalj, "The status of the race concept in contemporary biological anthropology", would indicate that the opposite is true. QuintupleTwist (talk) 09:25, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nonsense, AAPA, AAA and UNESCO says otherwise.·Maunus· ƛ · 13:50, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * UNESCO, Statement on the Nature of Race and Race Differences, 1951: "Human races can be, and have been, classified in different ways by different anthropologists. Most of them agree in classifying the greater part of existing mankind into at least three large units, which may be called major groups (in French grand-races, in German Hauptrassen)." QuintupleTwist (talk) 08:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Nobody is disputing the existence of races as a concept. It is the grounding of this concept in readily-defined biological differences which many scientists do not endorse anymore. But as a concept based in society, races are real (but end to cqnge from society to society).--Ramdrake (talk) 08:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Strkalj, The status of the race concept in contemporary biological anthropology, 2007, most scientists do endorse grounding this concept in defined biological differences. Without intention to patronize, there have been some developments in biology in the last 56 years. QuintupleTwist (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * According to Strkalj, acceptance of the concept varies, and is highest in China, Russia and Eastern Europe. It is lowest in Western Europe and North Americs (where most anthropologists are found).--Ramdrake (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No comment on your claim that most anthropologists are found in the West (should be easy to check). The original statement concerned biological anthropologists studying human variation, the relevant field. Strkalj reports utilization (not just acceptance) of the concept in this group at around 50% in the West, and near 100% in other parts of the world. QuintupleTwist (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, since you asked for it, here's some really "basic literature."

"Race differences in average IQ are largely genetic http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx A 60-page review of the scientific evidence, some based on state-of-the-art magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) of brain size, has concluded that race differences in average IQ are largely genetic. The lead article in the June 2005 issue of Psychology, Public Policy and Law, a journal of the American Psychological Association, examined 10 categories of research evidence from around the world to contrast "a hereditarian model (50% genetic-50% cultural) and a culture-only model (0% genetic-100% cultural)." The paper, "Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability," by J. Philippe Rushton of the University of Western Ontario and Arthur R. Jensen of the University of California at Berkeley, appeared with a positive commentary by Linda Gottfredson of the University of Delaware, three critical ones (by Robert Sternberg of Yale University, Richard Nisbett of the University of Michigan, and Lisa Suzuki & Joshua Aronson of New York University), and the authors' reply. "Neither the existence nor the size of race differences in IQ are a matter of dispute, only their cause," write the authors. The Black-White difference has been found consistently from the time of the massive World War I Army testing of 90 years ago to a massive study of over 6 million corporate, military, and higher-education test-takers in 2001. "Race differences show up by 3 years of age, even after matching on maternal education and other variables," said Rushton. "Therefore they cannot be due to poor education since this has not yet begun to exert an effect. That's why Jensen and I looked at the genetic hypothesis in detail. We examined 10 categories of evidence." 1.	The Worldwide Pattern of IQ Scores. East Asians average higher on IQ tests than Whites, both in the U. S. and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro-American culture. Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; for Whites, about 100; and for Blacks about 85 in the U.S. and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa. 2.	Race Differences are Most Pronounced on Tests that Best Measure the General Intelligence Factor (g). Black-White differences, for example, are larger on the Backward Digit Span test than on the less g loaded Forward Digit Span test. 3.	The Gene-Environment Architecture of IQ is the Same in all Races, and Race Differences are Most Pronounced on More Heritable Abilities. Studies of Black, White, and East Asian twins, for example, show the heritability of IQ is 50% or higher in all races. 4.	Brain Size Differences. Studies using magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) find a correlation of brain size with IQ of about 0.40. Larger brains contain more neurons and synapses and process information faster. Race differences in brain size are present at birth. By adulthood, East Asians average 1 cubic inch more cranial capacity than Whites who average 5 cubic inches more than Blacks. 5.	Trans-Racial Adoption Studies. Race differences in IQ remain following adoption by White middle class parents. East Asians grow to average higher IQs than Whites while Blacks score lower. The Minnesota Trans-Racial Adoption Study followed children to age 17 and found race differences were even greater than at age 7: White children, 106; Mixed-Race children, 99; and Black children, 89. 6.	Racial Admixture Studies. Black children with lighter skin, for example, average higher IQ scores. In South Africa, the IQ of the mixed-race "Colored" population averages 85, intermediate to the African 70 and White 100. 7.	IQ Scores of Blacks and Whites Regress toward the Averages of Their Race. Parents pass on only some exceptional genes to offspring so parents with very high IQs tend to have more average children. Black and White children with parents of IQ 115 move to different averages--Blacks toward 85 and Whites to 100. 8.	Race Differences in Other "Life-History" Traits. East Asians and Blacks consistently fall at two ends of a continuum with Whites intermediate on 60 measures of maturation, personality, reproduction, and social organization. For example, Black children sit, crawl, walk, and put on their clothes earlier than Whites or East Asians. 9.	Race Differences and the Out-of-Africa theory of Human Origins. East Asian-White-Black differences fit the theory that modern humans arose in Africa about 100,000 years ago and expanded northward. During prolonged winters there was evolutionary selection for higher IQ created by problems of raising children, gathering and storing food, gaining shelter, and making clothes. 10.	Do Culture-Only Theories Explain the Data? Culture-only theories do not explain the highly consistent pattern of race differences in IQ, especially the East Asian data. No interventions such as ending segregation, introducing school busing, or "Head Start" programs have reduced the gaps as culture-only theory would predict. In their article, Rushton and Jensen also address some of the policy issues that stem from their conclusions. Their main recommendation is that people be treated as individuals, not as members of groups. They emphasized that their paper pertains only to average differences. They also called for the need to accurately inform the public about the true nature of individual and group differences, genetics and evolutionary biology. Rushton and Jensen are well-known for research on racial differences in intelligence. Jensen hypothesized a genetic basis for Black-White IQ differences in his 1969 Harvard Educational Review article. His later books Bias in Mental Tests (1980) and The g Factor (1998), as well as Rushton's (1995) Race, Evolution, and Behavior, show that tests are not biased against English speaking minorities and that Black-White-East Asian differences in brain size and IQ belong in an evolutionary framework. http://www.charlesdarwinresearch.org/" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.47.237 (talk) 13:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, there you have it gentle reader--Maunus--in his full glory, asking for basic literature on a subject on which he considers himself the only authority, and when he gets it handed to him of a plate, rejecting it without a single reason given. Except he doesn't like it. So knock yourselves out satisfying him. Unless it's complete agreement with his "race is a social construct" fantasy, you are wasting your time. (And he is wasting ours.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.34.106 (talk) 20:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, Tholzel if I am not mistaken? I am not the one who struck Quintuple Twists arguments. They were stricken by someone else because it turned out he was a sockpuppet of a banned user. I didn't react to these particular arguments because they have already been covered in detail in discussions with his other sock accounts. If you bothered to read my detailed response to Chuck (now Hippo Frank) further down I think you might find it doesn't agree with the caricature of the censoring social constructivist you are trying to draw of me here. I also didn't ask for literature, I asked another user to read some basic literature. The literature provided by Quintuple Twist is neither new or basic. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Introduction
The introduction describes race as disproven by science. That is not a NPOV. It is the view of many American anthropologists. Anthropologists in some other nations differ. As do scientists in other branches. See the references for this in this section:. As such the intro should also mention such opposing views as well as describe the different views neutrally according to NPOV.Miradre (talk) 08:23, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ....sigh...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please explain why this sourced information was removed:
 * Regarding the gross incivility displayed by ResidentAnthropologist in the edit summary I have informed him of the discretionary sanctions on this topic. Desist from further such behavior.Miradre (talk) 05:37, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With all due respect his wording is apt. You come back after three month break (mysteriously begun just as your attempt to push your POV through was thwarted). In your absence we had to deal with a slew of sockpuppets pushing the same agenda and now weeks after the last of them was blocked, you come back playing the same game. Honestly, it gets tiresome. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any arguments for not including the sourced material? Miradre (talk) 19:11, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Read the archives.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:20, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing there since this is the first time I added these sources to the intro.Miradre (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are misrepresenting scientific consensus inside and outside of anthropology.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:28, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How? What is wrong with the peer-reviewed studies I cite? Miradre (talk) 19:31, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Spam filter
For some reason I can't close the ref tag for the Roger Lewin citation in the section on Evolutionary models. The spamfilter tells me I am trying to include a link to google. If someone else can get this to work it would be great.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Eyes
We need some eyes and attention from people familiar with contemporary literature on race at Mongoloid race, Negroid race, Caucasian race and Nordic race. They are all entrenched in a pre-1950es understanding of the concept of race and contain little if any references to contemporary literature or debates.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:30, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I just read one of the articles and the problems I see are (considering that these are obsolete concepts) contemporaneous writings cannot be used as secondary sources and modern writing about anthropology that does not use the obsolete categories cannot be used as if the categories were still widely accepted. The Nordic race says it "is one of the racial subcategories into which the Caucasian race was divided by anthropologists in the first half of the 20th century".  Then it says "Haplogroup I1 accounts for approximately 40% of Icelandic males...."  Of course 1950s anthropoligists did not talk about haplogroups.  But I think you need to resolve these problems on the individual articles' talk pages.  TFD (talk) 06:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Proving how some claims are illogical and inconsistent.
First we need to define races. In Wikipedia we have this definition for all of us to work with:

"In biology, races are distinct genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences."

The key words are distinct, genetically divergent, populations, and differences. What is implied are scientific claims about specific criteria, measurements, data collected, geographical areas, genetic testing, statistics, two or more groups, and the individual living beings that make up members in each category. All of this is also in relation to the cultural and historical context of race theories, opinions, and conventions that originate in the past.

It can be proven, using logic, (not opinion, not science, not appeals to majorities, not appeals to authorities), that human individuals can be grouped based on any known differences, but this does not prove that the criteria chosen scientifically divides humans into two or more genetic races. Races being defined as distinct genetically divergent populations, based on some precise measurements. Two groups, based on facial appearance, are not by definition two races by some precise measurements. They are simply the two groups with the criteria of face appearance alone. A group of individuals with a specific gene named X are simply the X gene group, not a racial, genetic group with divergence.

How many question the idea of races to the extent that is necessary and logical? Philosophy and logic can be applied to help prove that race theories are not showing significant differences in the human species to prove two or more very distinct, genetically divergent, specific, and geographical populations over a recent time period. Arguing that a human group has a certain color of skin and certain types of bones is simply the group with two traits. These two traits would have to be proven to be causally linked, and not just correlated. Until there is a proven correlation and causation between two traits, then the two groups of color of skin individuals and kind of bone individuals are two groups out of hundreds of possible groups to divide up humans into. Showing a correlation between color of skin and a kind of bones in no way proves more than two races.

Some first questions are these: Why does one want to divide up the human species, for what purpose? Define race specifically to start, to know what we are exactly talking about. What do we mean when we use the categories, groupings, or label of races.

Here are some examples to make this far more clear:

A human group with large feet is not a race. A human group with the longest toe nails is also not a race. A human group with any known difference is not a race. It must be scientifically proven, by definition, that there are distinct genetically divergent populations with some measurable and known differences.

For what goals or ends are there claims for races? In what ways is it helpful or important to point out any number of possible differences in humans especially across very large and often unspecific geographical areas of many nations? Over what time frames should one scientifically study to look for these races? Once one has chosen a specific criteria of what is different about at least two groups, then how many categories should there be, based on what exact measurement? For example, one group has a certain genetic marker, and another does not. Are these two races or simply two human groups that are different in that one and only way? What is proven to be causal with other known differences? Logically, correlation is not causation.

Many scientists such as Darwin have clearly demonstrated how there are any number of possible and therefore arbitrary criteria and categories that can be used to divide up the human species. For example, skin color is very popular, because of conventions, customs, and traditions, but ear canal length, amount of freckles, toe nail length, and thumb width are not used as common criteria. For what purpose does one use the label of "brown" to divide the human species into two races? What exactly is brown? What shade? How many unspecific and arbitrary categories will one use for any criteria chosen? Are the racial genetic groups easily found by studying unknown samples of DNA? Even if one can do so, this is simply a group with a certain gene or marker, and certainly not a proven race. A group of brown skinned humans is not a race, instead it is simply the group with the members that have a specific wave length of reflected light due to various possible causes.

Many expert scientists and thinkers throughout history have inconsistently proposed a wide number of possible races, which shows how difficult it would be to finally determine if there is only one race, 2 races, 4, 10, or any other number, and what arbitrary criteria would be best to do so out of millions of options. The search for specific genes using induction and statistics also has major problems. Again, which genes should one search for and why? Are these then racial categories, or simply individuals with or without a certain gene sequence? What about all the gradations, mixes, exceptions, and even the varied expressions of those with the same gene or gene sequences? What are the margins of error, the sample sizes used, the populations, the geographical areas used, and again for what goal is all of this done? In biology and medicine, is it best to treat each human as a unique individual with many unique environmental factors that can affect the way a gene is expressed or not? Two identical twins do not have the same exact expression of identical genes. Individual humans are not 100% genetically predetermined and materially caused. What to do about the percentages that are the exception to any rule?

The key ideas about false race theories are the definitions, groups mistaken as races, goals, criteria used, an arbitrary category, hundreds of categories, gradations, degrees, statistical errors, margins of error, improper sample sizes, biased studies, unspecific geographical areas, and imprecise timelines. With a bit of logic and careful thinking one can easily disprove the claims that races of humans actually exist. If it is proven that human racial groups exist, then how many races are there to start off, proven with repeated experiments of measured differences for how many individuals needed?

Another example: The known genetics passed along by eight great grandparents is the a way to determine what genetically caused medical problems one might inherit. Why try to find some longer lineage, of a so called race, or some genetically determined human group, to prove what medical problems someone might have? Why not carefully study the known genes of parents and grandparents instead? The use of a theory by some does not mean it is actually proven. There are many contradicting authorities on this topic. What is true?

Joseph Prymak (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I think you may be taking this line from Jared Diamond's "Race Without Color". If you can find the same logic in a peer reviewed source it can be considered as an inclusion. But I don't think you will. Race isn't actually based on one or two arbitrarily selected traits, but on ancestry, and is informative (but not definitive) for many traits, visible and otherwise. This is why it is used in medicine. Several traits indicate the race, which is then informative for other traits. I think you'll find an arbitrary "toenail size and hair curliness" "race" (of course it isn't a race in the sense of an inbred group) will be informative for nothing with any reliability. If it was it would be used in medicine.
 * Race is a tool, an operationalisation of semi-continuous variation. It is a blunt tool, but it is better than nothing, both in medicine and in description of geographic variation. In fact the groups are not totally arbitrary, but based on real patterns of endogamy, which correspond to nations and geographic boundaries. You can say "East Asians" are one race, and sub divide them into sub-races eg. "North East Asians", and further into Korean, Japanese, Chinese. So yes, there are many races. But nobody in their right mind would draw arbitrary lines including half the Bengalis and half the Burmese and say that it is a race. Some common sense knowledge of the phenotypes in the real world is involved. And modern genetics corroborate it.
 * Hope that helps. 스토킹 (talk) 16:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Please comment
People who watch this page ought to comment here on a race & IQ matter Slrubenstein  |  Talk 08:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Where is list of known races?
3 major ones are here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europoid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negroid along with less commonly know ones.

List them already. Dont be shy kids. Else the whole article does not have any mean, because it does not describe what "race" exactly is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.73.231.197 (talk) 02:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The everyday experience of racial perception
Wouldn't it be sensible to include something on the experience that the phenomenon, classification, folksonomy – whatever you'd like to call it – known as "race" is based on – where does it come from? I mean, it's a simple everyday experience: People who are in contact with people originating from all over the planet make the observation that people whose ancestry is from different regions of the world look perceptibly different depending on the regions their ancestors are from, and in a way that is actually (often – not necessarily always) easy and quick to perceive, even from afar – easier even than identifying the individual. Just like people can (often) tell from your accent or dialect where you have grown up, they can (often) tell your ancestry from your looks (not only or even primarily your skin colour, but also other features such as body shape, build/stature, facial traits, hair structure, hair and eye colour – most of these features are not connected). Both skills are considered somewhat useful, or at least interesting enough that many people bother at all. (Both skills also share in common that increasing mobility complicate and muddle the issue, but the differences don't completely disappear.) That's the whole "secret" behind race, and it's so obvious that I shouldn't even need to explain it. Does anyone deny that this experience exists? I doubt it. There is a strong predictive value to certain readily visible (as well as audible) features of human beings regarding their geographic origin, or that of their ancestors; I think that's uncontroversial and we aren't kidding ourselves here.

So, when biologists deny that there is such a thing as a "human race", the layman thinks his everyday experience is denied. How can that be? And that's where the incredulity comes from – "PC gone mad! Yeah right, there are no races, everyone looks the same and I can't tell if somebody is an African, European or Asian American, or mixed! Are you kidding me?!" That's certainly not a helpful approach. It doesn't make sense to say "races are ONLY a social construct of no objective consequence" – it's tantamount to calling the "race perception" an optical illusion, a figment of one's imagination that has arisen randomly. That's patent nonsense if its validity can be empirically tested. It makes sense to validate the lay experience explicitly. We perceive races, and this perception matters one way or the other.

The assertion that "races don't really exist" in an absolute sense is nonsensical; they exist in our minds, in the eye of the beholder, and in our self-perception. Many other things – categories – "don't really exist" in the same sense and scientists still work with them: that's how science works. Science makes categories up, categories that are to a sense arbitrary. "Race" is an abstraction, just like many other classifications, which doesn't make it invalid per se.

Science somehow needs to account for the phenomenon in question – I don't care if you talk about populations or phenotypes: something is clearly at work here, and it's the job of the scientist interested in human ethnic diversity, or the perception thereof, what exactly is happening when people perceive races and what they are observing, what criteria they use, and on which substrate of reality their perception is based.

I can't remember where exactly, but recently I read that people perceive another person's race within fractions of a second, just like the sex – before they notice anything else. (That's why you usually get victims or witnesses who will tell you no more than the sex and the race of a person they are reporting, of course.) There seems to be a lot of research in that field. That would be a useful addition to the article.

(I just found something here.)

Also, ignoring (or trying to ignore) people's race in certain cases simply doesn't work, or doesn't solve problems. It turns into an elephant in the room. "Colour-blindness" can also impoverish instead of enrich, by trampling over differences and diversity that human beings cherish. Whether you think they should or you don't. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
 * What you're talking about is called "ethnicity". The problem with pushing forward with human ignorance (like you suggest) is that people then use it to categorize people with other traits. The reason is was OK to have black slaves was justified by many because they were of a "lower race" or "different race" to white people. In actuality we're all of the same race, although we may be of different ethnicity. Also, can I just add a response to your quote: "Many other things – categories – 'don't really exist' in the same sense and scientists still work with them: that's how science works." This is the OPPOSITE of how science works. Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Today's NY Times (12/7/12) page A3 has an article about the racial composition of the "earliest Americans" who arrived 15,000 years ago via the Bearing Sea land bridge. Genomic data and race are used interfchangably, "interracial marriages--or admixtures" are noted. He also calls one group "Eskimos," another term frowned on by sociologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.44.176 (talk) 18:25, 12 July 2012 (UTC) block evasion Professor marginalia (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Confusion about the topic
Is this about the racial system of classification, the term "racism", or about races of people?

Perhaps the problem is that there is controversy about whether races exist? --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:01, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * All of that is actually answered in the article.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  14:35, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Racism cannot exist if races cant exist. neither can it exist to be anti-american,anti-brittish-anti-semetic,anti-arab,anti-african,anti-white nord european,anti-asian,anti-japanese,anti-korean. these things dont exists acording to those who believe in emotional fabrication such as "social construction" which ironicly enough is a emotional fabrication itself. hence the colour of hair and eyelids of asians go unoticed in the same way curly hair is mostly prodominant in african ethnic groups. or blondness in most northeuropean.77.53.83.229 (talk) 04:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Race doesn't exist in humans, which makes racism nonsensical. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist, it just means there's no scientific basis for it to exist (outside of the whimsical imaginings of racists). Does that make it clearer? Johnny &#34;ThunderPeel2001&#34; Walker (talk) 19:30, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Racial Groups and Ethnic groups are phenotypically distinct population groups derived from separate ancestral geographies. Not sure political correctness can be asserted as fact. Get with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.47.240 (talk) 15:49, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Race exists. See the familiar plot of the first two principal components of human genetic variation.    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.27.11 (talk) 00:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any classification here. From the looks of it, biologists seem to think races exist. I only skimmed this. Maybe I missed something? Maybe I misunderstood the subject and what Obsidian Soul wrote. I'm aware that this is a politicaly hot topic. Can anyone fill me in. Why is there no examples of racial classification? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.242.117.214 (talk) 04:48, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Although the very idea that humans may be and are classified by race in many scientific disciplines is anathema on these pages, we did a while back at least agree to list one text book on racial classification: John R. Baker, Race, Oxford University Press, 1974. Clines are discussed on p. 78. "A most impressive display of profound scholarship and vast erudition in every main aspect of this important topic." Arthur Jensen, University of California, Berkeley. Baker was a professor of cytology and the author of six books on this and allied subjects. I notice that reference has been removed. Why?

In addition, here a bbibliography of peer-reviewed articles on racial differences in medicine.

1.	Risch, N., Burchard, E., Ziv, E. & Tang, H. Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease. Genome Biol. 3, comment2007 (2002).

2.	Burchard, E.G. et al. The importance of race and ethnic background in biomedical research and clinical practice. N. Engl. J. Med. 348, 1170−1175 (2003).

3.	Wood, A.J. Racial differences in the response to drugs—pointers to genetic differences. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 1394−1396 (2001).

4.	Exner, D.V., Dries, D.L., Domanski, M.J. & Cohn, J.N. Lesser response to angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor therapy in black as compared with white patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N. Engl. J. Med. 344, 1351−1357 (2001).

5.	Varner, R.V., Ruiz, P. & Small, D.R. Black and white patients response to antidepressant treatment for major depression. Psychiatr. Q. 69, 117−125 (1998). block evasion Professor marginalia (talk) 15:00, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * A professor of cytology writing in 1974 is not an authority on how scholars understand race 4 years later. Arthur Jensen much less so. The specialized primary sources you cite don't seem relevant either - especially since the issue of possible relevance of race to biomedicine is already covered based on secondary sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:06, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, O.K. Here is much more recent data:

Two teams of geneticists at Stanford University compared the DNA of 938 people from 51 populations in order to better document human diversity and past migrations around the world. They focused on 650,000 DNA nucleotides to discover differences. This provided what they believe to be clear evidence of human origins in Sub-Saharan Africa and its subsequent dispersion into various parts of the world. They believe that it is also evidence of more recent migrations that resulted in genetic differences between populations today such as North and South Chinese. (Jakobosson, Mattias et.al., Nature February 21, 2007 and Jun, Z. Li et.al., Science February 22, 2007) http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_2.htm The Races of Humanity by Richard McCulloch — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.32.84 (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

And, of course, there's the U.S Government Census classification:

In October 1997, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced the revised standards for federal data on race and ethnicity. The minimum categories for race are now: American Indian or Alaska Native; Asian; Black or African American; Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander; and White. Instead of allowing a multiracial category as was originally suggested in public and congressional hearings, the OMB adopted the Interagency Committee's recommendation to allow respondents to select one or more races when they self-identify. With the OMB's approval, the Census 2000 questionnaires also include a sixth racial category: Some Other Race. There are also two minimum categories for ethnicity: Hispanic or Latino and Not Hispanic or Latino. Hispanics and Latinos may be of any race. http://www.census.gov/population/www/socdemo/race/racefactcb.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.104.32.84 (talk) 23:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC) Banned sock.Professor marginalia (talk) 17:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am sorry but I don't see how this is relevant for the article. The article already describes that genetic variaiton exists and sometimes cluster in ways that are similar, but not identical to, American racial categories. It also describes the use of racial categories in censuses. Richard McCulloch is not a reliable source for anything - he is a neonazi apologist who has written a White Supremacy manifesto.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:40, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you say that a source published in 1974 is too dated to be used, I guess that means you will be removing older citations that support your views?


 * "Henceforth, the Brazilian narrative of a perfect "post-racist" country, must be met with caution, as sociologist Gilberto Freyre demonstrated in 1933 in Casa Grande e Senzala."


 * Montagu 1962


 * Montagu, Ashley (1941). "The Concept of Race in The Human Species in the Light of Genetics" (PDF). Journal of Heredity 32 (8): 243–248. http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/8/243.full.pdf.


 * Morgan, Edmund S. (1975). American Slavery, American Freedom: The Ordeal of Colonial Virginia. W. W. Norton and Company, Inc..


 * "The Race Question", UNESCO, 1950 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.44.176 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC) block evasion Professor marginalia (talk) 14:53, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

WOW! (I guess crossing out someone's careful contributions with which the Admin doesn't agree is what passes for "discussion" on these pages.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.44.176 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC) block evasion Professor marginalia (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Modern debate
Regarding this edit by User:155.198.36.56.

Genomics or not, basing conclusions on a single "latest" study goes against WP:NPOV. You must take into account other studies. And for that, you need to retain the older information. Not simply go with whichever study happens to have the latest publication date.

You have basically excised vast swathes of text to make it seem as if the scientific consensus is united in a single conclusion (that humans have three races) when that is obviously not the case. The weight of the number of references you have obliterated with your edit is still heavier.

The section is entitled "Modern debate" for a reason. Again, add the new information, do not change text wholesale.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  22:24, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * User:155.198.36.56 continues to revert the article without discussion. Everything he's added so far is so blatantly WP:SYNTHESIS: the references all have different conclusions. None of them being that "these studies validate the division of humanity into three major races: Caucasoid, Negroid and Mongoloid." I'm now asking for third opinion as apparently this page being semi-protected prevents him from discussing anything and the BRD cycle is useless.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  23:25, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I'm responding to the request recently placed at WP:3O. Please sit tight and I will give my opinion shortly, which you may do with as you will. --FormerIP (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Obsidian. It should be noted that the content in question is copied and pasted from 'Metapedia.org' - all of it is word for word. If this user wanted to do anything but wax eugenics, they would get a wiki account. -Michael — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Isaiah Schmidt (talk • contribs) 23:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I've decided not to bother to give a full third opinion on this. It's completely obvious that such widescale changes to an article on a topic such as this one (I'm guessing it probably falls under the Race and Intelligence sanctions, but even if not) requires proper talkpage discussion for each significant change that the IP wishes to make. I would note that the IP is unable to do that because the talkpage is semi-protected but the article is not, which seems a bit daft. All the same, the mention of metapedia, I think, seals the deal that admin intervention should be sought if this carries on the way it has done. --FormerIP (talk) 00:08, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

True it should, you bias against the website shows that without it, it would be used for political control of your own political opinions.77.53.83.229 (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Michael Isaiah Schmidt (talk) 02:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Metapedia... I should've known. Anyway, IP appears to be blocked as a sockpuppet of a banned editor under sanctions. Thanks to the users who responded.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  10:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Page semi-protected, talk page unprotected
The edit warring was getting out of hand, but the IP should be allowed to state their case here. Favonian (talk) 00:24, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

pp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Racism lead to tragedies?
The opening stanza states that racism has lead to tradgedies like slavery and genocide. This is not wholly correct. Is the author using modern norms and values and applying them to a thousand years ago? Did the arabs enslave other arabs due to racism? Unfortunately the word 'slavery' still evokes images of Africans being shipped across the sea, to most European people- i.e most reading this wiki page.

Also not all genocides happened with racial intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.226.95 (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Flynn quote
I removed the following quote...

Because...
 * 1) It is incorrect.
 * 2) Once corrected; It makes no sense where used.

The actual quote...

Twisting sources to make a point does not serve the purpose of this project —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the "where it has been found that blacks suffer from a 15 IQ score lower than that of whites" isn't in the original. But the original makes the same point without it. Just take out that part, or put it outside the quote, or put it in square bracket. It is not twisting anything, just describing the deficit. 221.179.41.22 (talk) 15:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Cluster Analysis
Studies reporting continental clusterings of genetic diversity are only relevant in so far that they claim explicitly that this has relevance for the concept of Race. Nobody denies that genetic differences cluster between populations. The argument that is relevant for this article is whether this clustering vindicates the race concept or not. Simply including studies of genetic clustering and expecting the reader to draw their own conclusions is WP:SYNTH, and is not allowed. I suggest you add the material to Human genetic diversity in stead.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Blanqueamiento
Some strange edits have happened lately, each by a different throw-away account: Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Blanqueamiento •
 * Multiracial • and
 * Passing (racial identity) •
 * Race (human classification) •
 * Race and ethnicity in Latin America • and


 * WP:SPI time. Delete it as original research, sources need to actually mention Blanqueamiento, and links to the sales or publishers site of a book aren't exactly a source anyway. Dougweller (talk) 14:07, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting to weed it out, also see Sockpuppet investigations/Maritzaperez10. Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I must try to figure out that SPI interface one day. Johnuniq (talk) 23:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

People of color
At the end of lede is the following sentence: "A large body of scholarship has traced the relationships between the historical, social production of race in legal and criminal language and their effects on the policing and disproportionate incarceration of people of color." What does 'people of color' exactly mean in a global context?

I know it is a term used in the USA to mean everyone who is not 'white', but this term can't be used elsewhere. The sentence assumes that the race concept has effects on policing and disproportionate incarceration only of 'people of color', and that universally only 'people of color' are incarcerated disproportionately. The usage of the term is problematic as there is no universal definition of 'people of color', 'white' and even if there was, the above statement would be untrue. FonsScientiae (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

POV in the lead
The article tries to claim race is of no taxonomic significance. This is based on the debunked (by finding the same ratio between humans and chimpanzees) 1970s Lewontin's fallacy being parroted by the AAA in 1996 and Keita's 2004 article which claimed there were "no discontinuities" in human variation based on a debunked study by Paabo. There are several apex sources (Dawkins, Edwards) who explicitly state that race is of taxonomic significance.

Why is their view being censored? Why are you using sources from 1996 when the latest genetic studies have disproved them?

This is the AAA: http://www.aaanet.org/resources/A-Public-Education-Program.cfm

They are clearly nothing more than a political propaganda group, and this sorry article is an extension.

Here is another example of flawed logic to reach the preconceived conclusion: http://www.understandingrace.org/humvar/race_humvar.html

The new excuse is that more genetic diversity in Africa invalidates a race concept and that non-Africans are a subset of Africans. I guess they looked at Hunley, Healy and Long. I think an important caveat is that they looked at neutral variation. They used only 783 neutral loci, and did not conduct a principle component analysis. As far as I am concerned that is just noise. In plenty of animals a new species will show a nested pattern in the neutral genetic diversity, that doesn't invalidate the distinction. HUGO in "Mapping Genetic Diversity in Asia" used PCA on 600,000 polymorphisms. Coop et al mapped 50 alleles believed to be under selection and found they fractured along racial lines. The race concept is about those genes. I find it absurd to claim that "a nested pattern would be incompatible with independently evolving races". In fact that is exactly what you would expect to see when one population goes through a bottleneck and then starts to evolve separately. And as we know non-African populations are not a perfect subset of Africans. Maybe it would seem like that if you looked at a relatively small amount of neutral variation. How can non-Africans be a subset of Africans if non-Africans show Neanderthal admixture? How can non-Africans be a subset of Africans if only Europeans carry CCR5-Δ32? Obviously, they are not. And even if they were a race concept would still be valid if there was a distinctive pattern of variation. As Dawkins said:

"However small the racial partition of the total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance."

This article is nothing more than dishonest propaganda and the "AAA" ought to be ashamed of itself for twisting science for political reasons. SusanKravitz (talk) 14:28, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 1. The claim is not based on Lewontin's paper, but on the fact that the the way that the concept race is used does not correspond to any biological or genetic construction. Racial groups is used to classify phenotypical variation - it is entirely possible to be classified as "black" and have the same genetic markers of neanderthal admixture as someone classified as white. Because racial classification is done by cultural and visual inspection and not through gene tests. Gene tests classify ancestry and everybody is likely to have ancestry from several continents. Using a genetic classification of race would render the concept meaningless in the way that it is used in common parlance and the way it has always been used in anthropology, sociology etc. Dawkins and Edwards are trying to redefine the word "race" to mean something that it has never meant before - namely a fuzzy set defined by statistical correlations between allelle frequencies and continents. And they are defining taxonomy in strict genetic terms, which is also not the common way of using that sense - in Dawkins usage genetic variation between belgium and holland (as one could surely find if surveying enough loci and enough individuals) would be of taxonomical significance. Their viewopoints may be important in population genetics (although they are clearly not universally accepted since population geneticists still tend to talk about ancestral populations and geographic ancestry and not race). Untill their viewpoints are widely accepted as having replaced previous discourses about what "race" and "taxonomical significance" in generalist literature then the article will not be describing their views as the state of consensus.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That is not a fact and is in fact a bald faced lie. Race corresponds to observed genetic clusters which also correspond to clusters formed from phenotypic analysis a la Blumenbach. The concept of race has always referred to fuzzy sets since Blumenbach invented it, he was clear the boundaries blended into each other. Blumenbach used correlations in phenotypic traits. Now they are finding the same patterns with correlations in the genome. These are two lines of evidence for the same thing, not a "redefined concept". The "race concept" (giving names to geographic populations which show evidence of shared ancestry, whether one of them has higher "genetic diversity" or not) is of course perfectly valid and it is baffling that anybody swallows this nonsense. SusanKravitz (talk) 15:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blumenbach did not invent the concept of race, and people don't generally use his definition when using the term in either in academia or in colloquial usage. People do not say "the suspect was 57% genetically white/black" but they say "the suspect is white/black" - the way race is and has been used is not as a fuzzy concept. You are allowed to be baffled, but your baffledness does not determine how we write our articles. It is by the way also incorrect to suggest that this view of genetics and race is confined to Anthropology - geneticists like Joseph Graves, Alan Templeton, John Relethford and Jonathan Marks (also an anthropologist) who are every bit as familiar with human genetic variation as Dawkins and Edwards also hold these views.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:01, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually people do use this idea since they are generally aware that a small minority of people are mixed/indeterminate race. It is another lie to suggest anyone believes in an "essentialist" concept.
 * All Marks and Graves etc. do is parrot the fallacies (there are several of them) of Lewontin, as you can see here. Note how his "arguments" are exploded in the comments section and he fails to respond. SusanKravitz (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * A small minority? Hah. Thats ridiculous. Virtually everybody is "mixed race", and under Dawkins or Edwards definitions which would create hundreds of mini races correlating with every genetically discernible population even more so. I think Marks is just to smart to respond to people who don't know what they're talking about but are hellbent on proving that certain groups are genetically different. Unlike yours truly. Great talking to you again Mike.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes there are a very large number of races. At the highest level of clustering there are three: Caucasian, Negro and Mongoloid. Native Americans are sometimes separated but cluster closest to East Asians. The existence of lower level clusters doesn't negate the existence of higher ones. The majority of people are not "mixed" when applying these three clusters. Central Asians such as Kazakh and Uyghur are mixed, Ethiopians are mixed, African Americans are mixed. These actually represent a small minority of humans. And of course groups are genetically different, this much is obvious. SusanKravitz (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Sage Journals Publication with regards to the whitening ideology otherwise known as whitening branqueamento/blanqueamiento
I made a small edit to this page a few days ago and while reading threw this talk page I noticed something very odd. A section was removed from this page based on a false claim that certain words were not being mentioned (whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento) When in fact these words (whitening/blanqueamiento/branqueamento) were mentioned more than 50 times in different cites. The odd thing is that different editors seem to have come to the same false conclusion that these words were not being mentioned when in fact these words were mentioned more than 50 times in different cites. Based on the fact these words (blanqueamiento/branqueamento/whitening) are clearly being mentioned (despite being falsely claimed not to be) I intend to restore the section that was removed but before I do I would like to list some of the cites that were removed based on false claims that certain words were not being mentioned and than list the amount times they are in fact being mentioned. Having looked threw the editing histories of the pages above is quite clear that the section titled - blanqueamiento racial classification was first added to race and ethnicity in latin America. It was than removed based on a false claim (oddly by different editors) that the words whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento (blanqueamiento/branqueamento both mean whitening) were not being mentioned in any of the cites when in fact these words were mentioned more than 50 times in one cite alone. I will now list some of the cites that were removed based on these false claims. Source how it originally appeared - http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/members/congress-papers/lasa2009/files/RodriguezGriselda.pdf The cite above was removed (along with the section tilted blanqueamiento racial classification) based on a false claim that the words whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento (blanqueamiento/branqueamento both mean whitening) were not beong mentioned. In fact these words (blanqueamiento/branqueamento/whitening) are clearly mentioned more than 10 times in the cite above. It should be noted that blanqueamiento is spelled blanquamiento in this cite – http://lasa.international.pitt.edu/members/congress-papers/lasa2009/files/RodriguezGriselda.pdf Cite how it originally appeared - http://asr.sagepub.com/content/72/6/940.abstractrt Google search I did to find full cite – http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jmuniz/schwartzman2007.pdf The cite above was removed (along with the section tilted blanqueamiento racial classification) based on a false claim that the words whitening or blanqueamiento/branqueamento (blanqueamiento/branqueamento both mean whitening) were not being mentioned. In fact these words (blanqueamiento/branqueamento/whitening) are mentioned more than 50 times in the cite link above. Not only is whitening mentioned more than 50 times but whiten is in the cite title (Does money whiten) and whitening is clearly visible in the abstract. It really strikes me as somewhat strange that different editors seem to have read the title does money whiten, see the word whitening in the abstract, see the word whitening a further 50 times and than both come to same false conclusion that whitening is not being mentioned. There are also other examples of cites being removed based on false claims that the words blanqueamiento/branqueamento/whiening are not being mentioned when they clearly are.--CR.ROWAN (talk) 16:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Blanqueamiento •
 * Multiracial • and
 * Passing (racial identity) •
 * Race (human classification) •
 * Race and ethnicity in Latin America •  and


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


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

Recent edits by AlmightySalvatore
I've raised the issue of these edits at WP:NPOV. Dougweller (talk) 06:19, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by ArtifexMayhem
I've just undone two edits to this article and its template by ArtifexMayhem. I don't plan to become involved in the endless disputes over this article, but it seems clear from the Race and intelligence article that this is a notable topic. If ArtifexMayhem believes the topic to not be notable, the appropriate course of action would be to nominate the article about it for deletion, and to remove the links to it after it is deleted (but not before). --Mors Martell (talk) 15:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've removed it again. As is currently written it is better to not have a section since it mischarcaterizes the debate and the views of several scholar.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * There should be some mention of the topic, but I'm not particular how it's summarized. Would you be willing to rewrite the summary in a way that you consider accurate? --Mors Martell (talk) 15:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would. And I agree it should be mentioned somehow. I'll do it later today.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:03, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * While I disagree with the inclusion of fringe topics in this article per WP:ONEWAY, I'm ok with Maunus' edit. Thanks Maunus. I also find it odd that a fresh start account would have this page under observation. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:32, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Looking at the sources in the Race and intelligence article, I disagree with your characterization of the entire topic as "fringe". I see citations to papers published in Nature and American Psychologist, and books published by Oxford and Cambridge University press, all of which discuss the topic of the article directly. These are not publishers which normally cover true fringe topics, such as homeopathy or holocaust denial. --Mors Martell (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I do appreciate the WP:ONEWAY concern which was why I initially agreed with the removal, but I do think the body of literature is large enough to require some sort of mention, perhaps short of a full section.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

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


 * Since there are other (extinct) subspecies, it probably should read ""all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens and subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens." Professor marginalia (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that would be even better, but I didn't want to make it overly long, but clarity is more important, of course. That would also help placing humans in a context, since race and subspecies are often used as synonyms. If humans are a subspecies, along with Neanderthals or H. s. idaltu for example, the question of races within a subspecies becomes rather insignificant in comparison. FunkMonk (talk) 20:59, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I would suggest the use of "subspecies", while technically correct, is a red herring. The inference is that subspecies currently exist in the human race. It should probably be removed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:26, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Homo sapiens sapiens is the subspecies of modern humans, while there are also the extinct Homo sapiens idaltu, and perhaps Homo sapiens neanderthaliensis (and perhaps others). Just because the other taxa of Homo sapiens are extinct, modern humans don't suddenly cease to be a subspecies. FunkMonk (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry I misread the first bit, my mistake. Yes it should be Homo sapiens sapiens. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll add Professor marginalia's phrasing then. FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

The Mainstream view
What is the mainstream view of the status of the race concept? How can we determine that? BanjoBruce (talk) 11:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * By reading mainstream literature.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Are there any good surveys? BanjoBruce (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * College textbooks in Physical anthropology is a good place to start, for example try Sanford, Allen & Anton's "Introduction to Biological Anthropology". You could also try Relethford's "human biological variation", or Vogel & Motulsky's "Human genetics". And you should probably also look at something like Carolyn Fluehr-Lobban's "Race & Racism: Introduction" which gives an historical overview of the debates surrounding race in society and academia. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What do they say? BanjoBruce (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I found this in Vogel:
 * "While it is an undeniable mathematical fact that the amount of genetic variation observed within groups is much larger than the differences among groups, this does not mean that genetic data do not contain discernable information regarding genetic ancestry. In fact, we will see that minute differences in allele frequencies across loci when compounded across the whole of the genome actually contain a great deal of information regarding ancestry." BanjoBruce (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is correct and it is also in the article. Genetic analysis provides information about how individual ancestry is divided between different geographic populations. But that does of course not mean that it provides information about race, since racial classification is a question of how a specific phenotype is evaluated by other people in a specific social context. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, it doesn't. Whether race is a valid taxonomy is a separate question. So what in your source provides an answer either way? It's interesting you bring up "social context". The scientific community is a social context. This paper from Strkalj collates multiple surveys from around the world.

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


 * While I think we would agree that social and political fashions may influence the expression of the race concept, I hope we would also agree that it is possible to analyse human variation neutrally (in the same way as other animals) and arrive at an uninfluenced perspective. However, this source makes it clear that social and political fashions may influence both race affirmation, and race denial, even to the highest levels of academia. So where do we stand? Is it our place to choose one view? Shall we hash out the arguments here? The vast majority of anthropologists in China support the race concept. Do we ignore them all in favor of the US view? BanjoBruce (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Bruce. Would you please at this point say which accounts you have previously edited with? You are repeating almost verbatim arguments from banned users, argument which have been repeatedly shown to be false and tendentious, and which relies on fringe sources such as Strkalj and Sarich/Miele or misrepresrent sources such as Dikötter. The vast majority of scientists in North Korea believe in Unicorns. That doesnt really matter in terms of how Wikipedia should write about unicorns. It is not wikipedias place to support any one view but to show the range of views that exist in mainstream science - weighted in relation to their weight in mainstream science. Chinese anthropology is not a part of the mainstream science on race or on human biological variation. It is of course possible to stuydy human biological variation scientifically (If not neutrally), and people have done so and realized that human biological variation does not support the concept of race - humans vary but not in ways that correspond to racial categories, or which can be defined as neat mutually exclusive groups. This means that today human biological variation is studied independently of the study of race. Race is studied in sociology, political science and cultural anthropology by scholars who study how human biological variation is culturally and socially interpreted, and human biological variation is studied in genetics and physical anthropology, who work with how genetic variation maps onto geographical populations. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The quote is taken from a very obscure paper-google scholar suggests it's been cited 4 times, all of them also authored by Štrkalj. Nobody in mainstream anthropology today associates Chinese "racial identity [..] back into the evolutionary past to the Chinese Homo erectus." Professor marginalia (talk) 07:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The paper references a number of other surveys which can be checked. It's a meta review and the best evidence we have for the international status of the race concept. Any one of the referenced surveys (such as Lieberman or Cartmill) could be used on their own and would make essentially the same point, which stands. If you have better evidence to the contrary go ahead and present it. Also your claim that "nobody" in mainstream anthropology associates Chinese racial identity back into the evolutionary past to the Chinese Homo erectus is simply false, as examining the numerous references to Chinese scholars (via Q.Wang and L. Sun) in Strkalj's paper demonstrates. Why don't you check the references instead of making stuff up? BanjoBruce (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * No, Strkalj is a fringe scientist who is only cited by a little handful of socalled "race realists". There are dozens of very good surveys of the status of the race concept worldwide written by mainstream scholars. Wang and Sun are not mainstream anthropologists. Milford Wolpoff has argued for genetic continuation from Homo erectus to contemporary populations, but he is very clear in rejecting that this would support racial theories - and his multi-regional model is rejected by everyone but him and a couple of his students by now. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I see that BanjoBruce still hasn't disclosed his previous accounts, and he is still repeating the arguments of banned users? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * "No, Strkalj is a fringe scientist who is only cited by a little handful of socalled "race realists". There are dozens of very good surveys of the status of the race concept worldwide written by mainstream scholars. Wang and Sun are not mainstream anthropologists."
 * What is "fringe" or "mainstream" seems little more than your personal opinion. But to be objective, what surveys? BanjoBruce (talk) 18:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Please disclose any previous accounts under which you have edited. I have been rather generous in directing you towards useful literature. The mainstream is located by knowing the state of an academic field, including which are the main journals and who publish there and who gets cited. The fringe is whatever is not cited or which is mostly cited disapprovingly. That is the process through which science moves forward. Again I suggest you pick up a basic textbook in physical anthropology or an introduction to race such as the one I directed you to. Then you can see who are cited and who aren't.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you mention a handful of US books (failing to provide quotes that support your claims) and then reference "dozens" of nameless "very good surveys". So therefore the multiple surveys I have referenced showing significant race acceptance in the West and unanimous acceptance in the East are all wrong? That's your argument? BanjoBruce (talk) 10:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The claim "it has been demonstrated that race has no genetic basis" is referenced to "Steven A. Ramirez What We Teach When We Teach About Race: The Problem of Law and Pseudo-Economics 54 Journal of Legal Education 365 (2004)". Is this one of your highly cited anthropologists? BanjoBruce (talk) 10:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * You've now referenced that statement to Marks and Templeton (with three references to Templeton) who represent one POV in the debate. This is POV editing at its very worst. BanjoBruce (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * They happen to represent the mainstream POV. And they are both geneticists and anthropologists. Pther sources that could be added is Francis Collins and Craig Ventner of the guman genome project, Vogel & Motulsky, Relethford's "Human Biological Variation" etc. As well as of course the fact that geneticists worldwide have dropped the word races and now invariably talk about populations. There are an endless amount of references that could be put in support of that statement.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you agree that there is a genetically meaningful "Sub-Saharan African population", a "West Eurasian population", and an "East Asian population". BanjoBruce (talk) 14:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Collins: "Well-intentioned statements over the past few years, some coming from geneticists, might lead one to believe there is no connection whatsoever between self-identified race or ethnicity and the frequency of particular genetic variants1, 2. Increasing scientific evidence, however, indicates that genetic variation can be used to make a reasonably accurate prediction of geographic origins of an individual, at least if that individual's grandparents all came from the same part of the world3. As those ancestral origins in many cases have a correlation, albeit often imprecise, with self-identified race or ethnicity, it is not strictly true that race or ethnicity has no biological connection." BanjoBruce (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not claiming it has no biological connection but it does not have a biological basis' - the connection however goes through two links 2. phenotype and 3 cultural context. No "race denialist" denies that it is possible with a reasonable degree of certainty to guess whether a person in Detroit consider themselves to be African American or not by looking at them (although in Miami or LA it might be a lot more difficult). Whether a population is meaningful depends on which particular genetic trait is being studied, and "sub-saharan african population" is no more inherently meaningful than "a redhaired population" or "the belgian population", or "the population of people all of whose greatgrandparents are from from Manchester. Now this is not a forum and from now on I will respond to comments that have specific proposals for how to improve the article.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * But if "East Asian Population" (aka. Mongoloid race) did not have a biological basis, why would it be used frequently in the genetic literature? If it was arbitrary, as you imply, why never "Asian population", or "South and South East Asian population" vs. "North East Asian population"? My proposal is to modify the POV statement that it has been "demonstrated" that race has no biological basis, because it does and multiple sources assert that, notably the entire field of Chinese anthropology. I've seen genetics papers from these guys and they know what they are doing. All Chinese scientists (a greater number than in America) are "fringe loons"? Nice attitude. BanjoBruce (talk) 15:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That statement has already been modified by Dougweller.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Secondly, it hasn't been demonstrated that race categories have "no link" (or correlation) to non-superficial differences such as intelligence, as this Harvard psychology paper shows. BanjoBruce (talk) 15:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC) striking banned user Professor marginalia (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That paper does not contradict the current statement. There are no demonstrated links between any specific alleles associated with geographic specific populations and any of the characteristics mentioned.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Banjo Bruce turns out to be sock of one of our most despicable puppetmasters, Mikemikev
Thanks to MathSci. See Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev and Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev/Archive. We should delete his talk page edits but the problem is the intervening edits by others. Dougweller (talk) 17:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that he often uses IP addresses, one of them has also been blocked. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Strike-out applied (also to another of his earlier IP sock attempts above). Professor marginalia (talk) 17:57, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Maps
I think this map should be added. It seems the most accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.194.3.75 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Craig Venter quote reference
In the Social Constructions section 2nd paragraph:

the link cited as reference is obsolete, I suggest changing it to this one where his quote is present :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vS7AO9XYj4 --Lizukasan (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

It seems like it was a justifiable edit at the time it was made - a news source reported a researcher talking about their latest research and it was added here as a possible fact. Four years later however no corroboration (nor even a mention) of the claim has surfaced and it becomes more of a one-off statement with no factual basis. I suggest it be deleted. Tobus2 (talk) 02:50, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: I've change the ref to a more reliable one (NatGeo). Tobus2 (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see how the National Geographic reference is very reliable. It simply attributes the claim to "scientists", and has no citations backing up its claim.  The NPR piece attributes the claim to a particular scientist, Nina Jablonski, and cites her book for more detail.  It also has a lot more context and information about the mechanism by which this can occur.  Perhaps both references should be in the article, and possibly the book? It would be interesting to get more detail on the actual underlying studies that are being summarized. -- Beland (talk) 16:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
 * National Geographic, in my mind anyway, has a better scientific reputation to uphold and better editorial oversight (fact checking etc.) than this NPR story, so it's a more reliable secondary source as per WP:RS. If NatGeo says it then I'm not going to question that it's a genuine scientific theory, but I certainly questioned it when NPR was the only source I could find.
 * I'm no longer challenging the statement itself, although I'd too like to see the "More recent genetic studies" the article claims as opposed to the more general "scientists believe" that NatGeo says, I've looked but can't find any studies it's based on. I still have major issues with reliability of the NPR article in general - it's sensationalised from a heavily edited "interview" and we were unable to independently verify a lot of what it said, even in Jablonski's own books and papers. The outcome of the discussion at Human Skin Colour was to leave out the more radical and unverifiable claims and just state the verifiable ones (pretty much what the NatGeo says), and we used NatGeo and Jablonski as refs instead of the NPR ref. In terms of how it's used on this page I'm not going to argue or revert if you still think it's worth using as a second ref, but since it makes a lot of other claims that don't appear to be correct I'd prefer if it wasn't used at all - the editor at Human Skin Colour first found the ref here and then used it a source for the other, unverifiable claims.
 * Tobus2 (talk) 00:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

This reference is actually written by Troy Duster. I tried to revise it but I couldn't.
 * Confirmed and fixed. Tobus2 (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

Misleading Use of Citation 3
This paper was used in in this editto justify an alteration to the definition used in this article. Specifically, the quote "Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'".

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

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

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


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


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

European concept of "race"
The trouble with this article is that it is ethnocentric. It attributes English historical events to a whole continent. Accordingly, instead of being an attempt to understand the phenomena it purports to address, it seems designed to serve as a basis for some kind of political discourse. The article mentions a “European concept of ‘race’” but provides no sources to support the idea that such a European concept exists. Concepts are not free-floating entities, but instead are embedded in languages, and in each language, concepts are associated with terms, or words as they are also called. There is no European language. Consequently to determine whether a European concept of race exists, we must translate the English word “race” into all the languages of Europe and then see how the term is defined in each language. In Spanish, for example, the term that is usually considered equivalent to the English term “race” is “raza”. The dictionary of the Spanish Royal Academy defined “raza” as “Casta o calidad del origen o linaje”. Translating this would be tiresome, but suffice it to say that this definition 1. refers to purely hereditary aspects of humans, and 2. makes no reference to physical appearance. And as a matter of fact in Spanish “raza” CAN mean “race” as in Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid, Capoid, but need not have that meaning. It can merely mean a human group with a common ancestry. Consequently, if a “European concept of race” exists, either it doers not apply to all nations of Europe, or else it does not mean what the article says it means. PS The proof that this article is ethnocentric is its peculiar claim that “the hostility between the English and Irish was a powerful influence on early European thinking about the differences between people”. The “hostility between the English and Irish” was a matter that concerned solely and exclusively the English and Irish peoples. Nobody in Hungary, Portugal or Finland even suspected that any such conflict might exist until well into the 20th century. Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk) 22:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"No" or "little" significance?
Regarding this edit. The sentence is essentially saying that some biologists say race exists and some say it doesn't exist. There are two refs provided that backup the claim that some scientists say race has no significance. You, me, Dawkins or anybody else may believe that race has "some", "little", "lots" or whatever amount of taxonomical significance, but the article isn't stating the degree of significance as a fact - it's stating both extremes of the argument. The "no" in this context is correct, some people do in fact say that race has no taxonomic significance. Tobus2 (talk) 12:11, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Except the sentence, as it stands, is written in a way that suggests that the evidence is all on the side of those who claim there is no such thing as race. Richard Dawkins is a scientist, not a lay person with opinion, and so his opinion should be in there somewhere. I will attempt a re-write accordingly. Alfietucker (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Dawkins is not a specialist in Racee or human genetic variation. The book cited is a popular work, not a work of science. Also he does not say that race has taxonomic significance, he says that it may have - i.e. that it is not impossible.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:58, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That's as maybe, but he is a scientist and well qualified to present the findings of the geneticist A.W.F. Edwards in his paper "Human Genetic Diversity: Lewontin's Fallacy", which is what that quotation is referring to. As such, I decided to shunt that as a reliable secondary source (as per Wikipedia's guideline: "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources.") to the subsection "Cluster analysis". Just to save editors having to check it, the quotation runs: "However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance." The only "may" here is about how "small the racial partition of total variation may be", not whether it hypothetically exists or not. Alfietucker (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note how he starts with "if". Like Edwards' his definition of "taxonomically significant" also differs from that of most experts in race, in that it basically considers any identifiable variation to be taxonomically significant, whereas most specialists in race would not consider such subtle populaiton structure to have any resemblnce to what is noramlly called race, namely the idea of large scale population groups with a signficant amount of generally shared characteristics. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:16, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Fair point re "if". I'm not sure without having another look at the texts that Edwards is so lonely in his definition of "taxonomically significant" - what about Neil Risch (also in this article)? Anyway, the issue is whether Dawkins is to be used as a citation. My answer is surely yes, if (-) ) only as a reliable secondary source for primary source material. That's my thinking for now, anyway. Alfietucker (talk) 16:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * We had a largescale RfC at Race and genetics where it was decided to include Dawkins, and to include with enough context so that it doesn't seem as if he is supporting the classical definition of race. There are certainly other experts who support the view that genetic subtle population structures of the kind that Edwards talk about can be considered to be "race", but they are not the majority view at present I think is clear from the literature, which pretty consistently talks about "populations" and "poipulation structure" without suggesting that populations=races. Risch does not seem to be arguing in favor of Edwards view, but in favor of the more common view that selfidentified/phenotypical race can be used as a proxy for genetic makeup. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:32, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think this is a misrepresentation of Risch's position. See the last paragraph of the subsection "Social constructions":
 * "One of the researchers, Neil Risch, noted: "we looked at the correlation between genetic structure [based on microsatellite markers] versus self-description, we found 99.9% concordance between the two. We actually had a higher discordance rate between self-reported sex and markers on the X chromosome! So you could argue that sex is also a problematic category. And there are differences between sex and gender; self-identification may not be correlated with biology perfectly. And there is sexism."


 * Citation: Risch N "The whole side of it--an interview with Neil Risch by Jane Gitschier" PLoS Genetics, Vol. 1 issue 1 (July 2005), p. 14"
 * Alfietucker (talk) 17:01, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I dont se how that contradicts what I am saying. In the interview he is saying that selfreported race correlates highly with genetic structure in the US, which is an old argument and which is not surprising given the way the population history of the US. It only shows that the social construction of race in the US correlates with population makeup which is unsurprising to everyone. In the peer reviewed article he very explicitly says that racial and ethnic categories are useful in so far as they "explain" variation that is not explained by other traits. i.e. it is useful as a proxy.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with Alfietucker's edit which changed the poorly-written and questionable previous version.--Kobayashi245 (talk) 19:54, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Me too, it makes it clear that "no taxonomical significance" is being stated as some people's opinion, not as a fact. Good job Alfie. Tobus2 (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)