Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 7

P0M: The same (?) anonymous user 195.92.168.177 mentioned above has made considerable changes in wording that s/he regards as "wishy-washy" and promises to do more. Checking out this user's "user contributions" s/he seems also to be one who says things like "Do not revert without discussion!" I think it would be a good idea to have a little discussion before making drastic changes.

'Split this article' debate

 * The article before I changed it was so wishy-washy as to be meaningless. Most of it could be spun off into a separate article 'Political Views of Race in the United States'. There was also a huge amount of 'weasel wording' which was so couched in disclaimers etc that it was rendered meaningless. I really don't expect an article on evolution to be written from the point of view of a creationist, which is why this article should be objective and non-political. [apparently by 195.92.168.175]


 * [To 195.92.168.175 from Peak]: Welcome to Wikipedia. Please add four ~ after your contributions on the Talk page. They will be expanded to text like this: Peak 18:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * With an article ilke this one, which has evolved into a delicate balance between multiple points of view (POV), you will probably find that large-scale deletions will not stick. The best generaly advice I can give is twofold:


 * 1) "frame and add" rather than delete; for example, rather than removing a block of text X, write: "Anthropologists have found evidence that X, but molecular biologists have found evidence that Y."  This way, you can easily also add  citations from molecular biology about Y.
 * 2) Use the Talk page to discuss proposed deletions, and don't make them until there is some kind of general agreement.
 * One other thing: think about logging in. You can still preserve your anonymity if you wish, but there are many advantages (to you as well as others) if you are not just an anonymous IP address.
 * Peak 18:08, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Your analogy between evolution and creationism is false: creationism reflects a non-scholarly sectarian religious bias; the sections you deleted reflect decades of research by social scientists. Since race is at least as much a social phenomena as it is a way of talking about heredity or physical appearance, the findings of social science must inform the article from the beginning. Slrubenstein
 * Then I suggest splitting this article up into Race_Genetics and Race_Politics (or Race_Social_Science). As it stands the article is about two separate things, so it has to constantly qualify and disclaim each statement which renders it vacuous and meaningless. You can't have an article which keeps having to say, as 'Peak' says, "Anthropologists have found evidence that X, but molecular biologists have found evidence that Y." It's ludicrous. Anthropology and biology are separate subjects. The 'Sex-determination system' article is not in the 'Feminism' article for a good reason - they are different subjects. This article should be split. Additionally, much of the political/social science aspect of the article is almost ludicrously America-centric, and of no general interest to anyone except the most inwardly-looking American. 195.92.168.173 22:40, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

It is not about two different things, it is about one complex thing that takes numerous forms and has been used and studied in different ways. To include all these different points of view of race is precisely what makes this an NPOV article. I do not see how separating into two POV articles would be an improvement. As for "America-centric" you mean "Americas-centric" since it also looks at Brazil. But your point precisely proves my point -- that there are many ways of looking at race. I agree that there could be a separate article on "race in the Unitesd States," "Race in Germany," "Race in England," and so on. But the point of examples from Brazil and the U.S. is not to say something about the U.S. and Brazil, but rather to illustrate the cultural variability of race. If you think that adding a third example would make this point more strongly, add it -- but don't delete! Slrubenstein


 * 195.92.168.173: No, this article is about several different things. I am astonished by your lack of scholarly objectivity. I am astonished that you think politics and genetics should be in the same article - a combination which was discredited by fascism, a combination which you consider acceptable, and worth rekindling. The article as it stands is a fraud, purporting to be about one subject, but in fact about several. You have failed to explain why the 'Sex-determination system' article is not in the 'Feminism' article, as it should be according to your strange philosophy. Instead, you have invited me to ADD to the confusion. Mr Rubenstein, do not tell me what to write, do not ask me to contribute towards a fraud. The article, as it stands, is illegitimate.


 * P0M: Let's keep the subjective element of our comments on other people, and our own shouts of indignation down a little. As one who has occasionally been on the receiving end of attempts to characterize either my processing equipment or the output thereof, I can tell you that I do not enjoy it. On the other hand I think I can comment with some degree of objectivity that such an approach is not productive of much else than ill will in the long run.


 * [Peak to anon]: On the one hand, you say that this article is about several different things, but on the other hand, your deletions seem to be based on a certain POV, and your previous suggestion about having different articles on Race also seems to based on there being multiple POVs (the social science POV, etc). The only way I can make sense of this is that you are proposing that Wikipedia should have several articles on "race", each dealing with a different meaning of the word. Could you elaborate on the distinct meanings? Or if my speculation is incorrect, could you elaborate on what the different topics should, in your view, be? Since some botanists use the word in a fairly specialized sense, I could image having a family of articles, e.g. Race (botany), Human race, etc.
 * Please note that I happen to agree with you that the article as it stands is unsatisfactory. My diagnosis may also be similar to yours - it is that the article oscillates randomly between two very different concepts of race - one based on the idea of shared ancestry, and the other based on attributes. This happens also to accord with standard dictionary definitions. Even the Wiktionary gets it about right:
 * a group having common ancestors
 * a classification of human beings on superficial traits such as skin color, and shape of facial features
 * I had tried to rewrite the article based on such a distinction, but my changes were reverted, much to my chagrin, which I'm sure you'll understand. However, I am still inclined to believe that it would be possible to write a single article on Human race, since it is important to be able to view the history of ideas about human races as a whole.Peak 05:06, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)

P0M: The whatever-it-is that we call "race" has been inextricably connected with the way that some human beings have conceptualized their relationships with other human being since the term came into currency. It derives (by way of Italian and French) from a Latin word meaning "a begetting," but it was very quickly applied to the (anti-)social task of rationalizing slavery.

P0M: To apply the most charitable interpretation, the people who brought the term into currency looked out at the New World, Australia, and other places where people looked and acted in ways that were superficially very different from people in Europe and areas colonized by European nations, and they perceived people who were so different from them that they imagined them to be innately different in ways that went beyond the superficial characteristics such as skin color. If we retain a neutral point of view on these early proponents of the view that humanity is divided into different {races}, then we simply record that such-and-so was the way that they categorized human beings, and such-and-so was their use of these categories in the pursuit of their own social and political goals.

P0M: When scientific scrutiny came to bear on the original simplistic ideas of {race} during the early decades of the 20th century, severe difficulties were encountered with the things about {race} "that everybody knows." One difficulty was that the supposed connection between the superficial characteristics that allowed human being to be categorized as belonging to this {race} or that {race} did not gain convincing empirical support. (Being a member of the Irish {race} was found not to be a very reliable predictor of red hair color, irrational fits of anger, alcoholism, and schizophrenia, for instance.) The second difficulty was that there were no clear boundary lines between this {race} and that {race}. The more stringent the requirements for membership in a {race} were made, the fewer the people included in that {race} and the more the people who belonged to no {race}. The more lenient the requirements for membership were made, the more of the "wrong" people were included in this {race} or that {race}. Ideology said that there were three {races} or five {races} or whatever, and that everybody belonged to some {race}. Science said that the variations in characteristics to be found when traveling from the heart of Africa to the harbor of Oslo were clinal. But the political and social uses of the ideologies associated with {race} would not permit the empirical evidence to go unchallenged, and the human misery caused by the very real phenomenon of racism means that it is an ostrich act to ignore the politics of {race}. If {race} were only some discredited view of the world, a view like that of those who believe that the earth is flat, it would only be interesting as an example of how a superficial study of natural phenomena can lead to simplistic empirical generalizations and counterproductive maps of the world.

P0M: At present it is a fact that there are still people who try to refurbish the idea of {race} on the basis of genetic studies. If the studies of genetic similarities were stated simply in accord with objective studies, then there would be no harm in them -- and probably not much interest in them either because they would not serve the ideological (political and social) programs of partisan groups. But the fact is that people are interested in {race} in two main ways. One way is to have a handy way of justifying axiological claims about groups of people on the basis of their skin color, nose shape, or whatever. The other way is that in medicine it has been learned that knowing which part of the world the great majority of one's ancestors came from can have some utility in predicting which diseases one may be subject to (sickle-cell anemia, for example). But even that kind of statistical prediction can be misused if doctors assume that, e.g., one person cannot have sickle-cell anemia because of his/her {race} or that another person's disease is surely sickle-cell anemia because of his/her {race}. The failure to check for a statistically unlikely disease in the case of any individual may be a fatal mistake for the patient.

P0M: So {race} as a set of categories used to group people for predictive purposes is something that is (a) still very widely and strongly held, with obvious social consequences, and (b) an idea that has been discredited by scientific study and has been replaced by concepts such as "population" that can stand up to scientific critique. There is not much reason to even have an article on {race} except as it continues to function in defiance of objective criteria of truth to motivate and to rationalize certain social and political campaigns.

P0M: I wrote these coments before I saw the ideas suggested by Peak immediately above, so don't take my remarks are a critique of his ideas.

Mr Moran, you are not only grasping at straws, but grasping at illusory straws. The article as it stands is a fraud, and judging from your comments above you wish to bolster this fraud. Let's take some of examples of your misinformation:

"but it was very quickly applied to the (anti-)social task of rationalizing slavery"

Mr Moran, there is an article on slavery. This is not it.

"To apply the most charitable interpretation, the people who brought the term into currency looked out at the New World, Australia, and other places where people looked and acted in ways that were superficially very different from people in Europe and areas colonized by European nations, and they perceived people who were so different from them that they imagined them to be innately different in ways that went beyond the superficial characteristics such as skin color."

Let's call this non-NPOV paragraph 1. I talk about this below.

"When scientific scrutiny came to bear on the original simplistic ideas of {race} during the early decades of the 20th century, severe difficulties were encountered with the things about {race} "that everybody knows." One difficulty was that the supposed connection between the superficial characteristics that allowed human being to be categorized as belonging to this {race} or that {race} did not gain convincing empirical support. (Being a member of the Irish {race} was found not to be a very reliable predictor of red hair color, irrational fits of anger, alcoholism, and schizophrenia, for instance.)"

Mr Moran, this is simply false. I would be willing to provide evidence that, for instance, Chinese people are more lactose-intolerant.

"The second difficulty was that there were no clear boundary lines between this {race} and that {race}. The more stringent the requirements for membership in a {race} were made, the fewer the people included in that {race} and the more the people who belonged to no {race}. The more lenient the requirements for membership were made, the more of the "wrong" people were included in this {race} or that {race}. Ideology said that there were three {races} or five {races} or whatever, and that everybody belonged to some {race}.  Science said that the variations in characteristics to be found when traveling from the heart of Africa to the harbor of Oslo were clinal."

I would hope that falsification and misrepresentation of science does not have a place on wikipedia. I would hope that genetics and politics do not get mixed up on wikipedia. And yet this is what you have done.

Let me quote from this article: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00055DC8-3BAA-1FA8-BBAA83414B7F0000&pageNumber=1&catID=2

"Other studies have produced comparable results. Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity."

This is not "Ideology" Mr Moran, this is biology. This is a 2003 article in a reputable science publication. By ignoring actual scientific fact you are concocting a fraud.

"But the political and social uses of the ideologies associated with {race} would not permit the empirical evidence to go unchallenged, and the human misery caused by the very real phenomenon of racism means that it is an ostrich act to ignore the politics of {race}. If {race} were only some discredited view of the world, a view like that of those who believe that the earth is flat"

Mr Moran, you are shaming wikipedia. I'm embarrassed on your behalf. You liken the reality of race to a belief that the earth is flat, contradicting scientific fact. By all means have article on The Politics of Race (though judging from your statements so far it would be laughably America-centric)

"At present it is a fact that there are still people who try to refurbish the idea of {race} on the basis of genetic studies. If the studies of genetic similarities were stated simply in accord with objective studies, then there would be no harm in them -- and probably not much interest in them either because they would not serve the ideological (political and social) programs of partisan groups .... The other way is that in medicine it has been learned that knowing which part of the world the great majority of one's ancestors came from can have some utility in predicting which diseases one may be subject to (sickle-cell anemia, for example). But even that kind of statistical prediction can be misused if doctors assume that, e.g., one person cannot have sickle-cell anemia because of his/her {race} or that another person's disease is surely sickle-cell anemia because of his/her {race}. The failure to check for a statistically unlikely disease in the case of any individual may be a fatal mistake for the patient."

Mr Moran, I refer you back to non-NPOV paragraph 1 where you question innate non-cosmetic racial differences. Now, in this new para above, you suddenly change your mind and say there are genetic differences... but that they are not interesting. I applaud your idea to state "genetic similarities were stated simply in accord with objective studies", but this runs contradictory to what you have said before. Let us separate Genetics and Politics. This article needs to be split. I don't want to read about Optics in an article about Picasso. i don't want to read about Decibels in an article about Mozart. These are separate issues which require separate articles.

Mr Moran, I'm a careful reader, and I've read your text very carefully. There's only one conclusion that can be made. Please don't take this as a personal attack, but I think your mistakes raise very serious questions about your intellectual honesty. I would find your poor scholarship astonishing coming a child, but it is simply astounding coming from an adult.195.92.168.179 19:49, 15 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * POM -- Don't take too much offense at the clearly personal attack by the above anonymous contributor -- this is not the first time s/he has tried to inject his/her own political views in the article, while distorting the science in the process. Note that s/he quotes a Scientific American article to support the case for race.  Of course, the quote does not use the word "race."  Indeed, s/he fails to quote the subtitle of the article, which asks if "races" exist and answers the question with "no."  Obviously this contributor either has not read the wikipedia article carefully, or does not understand the science.  The wikipedia article makes it very clear that there are significant genetic differences between groups of people -- but (as the Scientific American article makes clear as well) these groups are not "races" they are "populations."  Why do good scientists use the term population instead of race?  Well, for a variety of reasons that both natural and social scientists have documented.  I think all of us agree that the article needs to be better-organized and perhaps a little leaner (I think this is Peak's point; if I understand him correctly I agree with him).  But the issue with 195 is not reorganizing the article to make it flow better; 195 wants to delete one point of view s/he either doesn't understand or rejects (that most scientists reject the language of race and instead favor the notion of population, and that the difference between these terms is not merely semantic but conceptual) and delete the findings of social scientists and historians (that discourses of race are socially constructed, and that scientific research on race has been motivated by historically and culturally specific values).  POM, you and I have had plenty of disagreements in the past, but in this case I understand and appreciate your reflections and am sorry 195 is treating you in such a rude and dismissive way. Slrubenstein


 * Mr Rubenstein, you have failed to adequately address a single one of my points. You have also lied in order to support your claims. You say "Of course, the quote does not use the word "race."" What it says is "five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans." Race is a shorthand for this long-winded description. You also lie when you say "Indeed, s/he fails to quote the subtitle of the article, which asks if "races" exist and answers the question with "no."". The article's actual subtitle is "If races are defined as genetically discrete groups, no." No one here, least of all me, is defining race as "genetically discrete groups" - that would be ridiculous. You then say "195 wants to delete one point of view s/he either doesn't understand or rejects". Mr Rubenstein, I have explicitly stated that I want to SPLIT the article, not delete it. I am disgusted that you think Genetics should be associated with Politics, a link which should have been left behind with Mengele and Lysenko.

P0M:Slrubenstein, Thank you for your sympathetic response. Words, as well as sticks and stones, can injure me, but none of the three do any damage if they don't connect. If we express the truth so clearly that its force becomes compelling, then we will have given people some of the tools needed to protect themselves and others against damaging errors.

P0M:On another subject, the dual "standards" for {race} of common ancestors and superficial traits, it may well be that an underlying factor actually ties these two methods of categorization together. The people who argue that the {race} of a person can be adequately determined by superficial characteristics may believe that both the easily observable characteristics and the characteristics they believe can be anticipated on that basis are in fact the genetic heritage of the individual under examination.
 * You too have failed to repsond to my points, and have chosen avoidance instead. Respond to my points above. If you do not, I can safely infer that you implicitly agree with them and will take action to split this article up.

To 195.92.168.179 from Peak: Rather than splitting the article up without the benefit of prior discussion, I would suggest that you create a user account (let's suppose you choose the name 195), and create subpages corresponding to your proposal, e.g. User:195/Race_(Botany) and User:195/Race_(Anthropology). You can then work on these without fear of reversion, and when you're ready, you can make your proposal. Alternatively, you could create Race (Botany) etc right now, but such pages may end up on the VfD (Votes for Deletion) page.

In any case, please note that you are doing yourself a big disservice by:
 * hurling insults at some people who have a whole lot more integrity than you seem to have realized;
 * continuing to delete material that articulates facts and other POVs.

Regarding the above discussion about "five different groups of people" - you say that these are obviously "races" but fail to explain why this is so. If someone says they can classify people by eye color, does that prove that the groups so-defined are "races"? You seem to believe you have a clear idea of what "race" means, so please share it with us. Peak 06:15, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Mr Peak, read the quote.
 * Peak 16:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC):] You fail to realize that we are all familiar with this material; in fact, if you go back into the archives of this Talk page, you will find much discussion. I am not saying you should go back, but you should be aware that your comments are presumptous.
 * It says Other studies have produced comparable results. Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity. This is a scientific study. A genetic study. They're not looking at eye color, they're looking at DNA.195.92.168.179 18:53, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Peak 16:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC):] There's no need to point out the obvious. I would suggest that when you feel the need to point out the obvious, you ponder the possibility that maybe it is you who has failed to understand someone else's POV.
 * Mr Peak, you say "You can then work on these without fear of reversion, and when you're ready, you can make your proposal." I am not going to spend several days working on an article knowing that it will not be accepted.195.92.168.179 18:53, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Peak 16:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC):] How do you know? I am only suggesting what you yourself suggest regarding a "joint effort" below.
 * I think it's very clear it will not be accepted given the opposition to the idea on here.195.92.168.179 18:53, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is absurd. The article needs to be split up immediately, and a joint effort has to be made to create the new articles. You say "In any case, please note that you are doing yourself a big disservice by hurling insults". Mr Peak, all my comment have been scholarly judgements. I'm interested in the facts, in the science. If I were to start 'hurling insults', I would say something like 'Mr Rubenstein and Mr Moran need to go on the Wit-less Protection Program to save them from their own stupidity'. But i would never dream of doing something like that. Instead I can only wonder why Mr Moran, Mr Rubenstein and yourself have failed to dispute my points, and can only take it as a implicit agreement with my idea to split the article.195.92.168.179 18:53, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * Peak 16:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC):] I am still uncertain about what the titles of the proposed articles are to be, and how you propose to split the existing material. That's why I suggested you show us on your Talk page but by all means show us in some other way that does not involve changing what was there before your deletions.
 * As I have said, Genetics should not be associated with Politics, a link which should have been left behind with Mengele and Lysenko.
 * Peak 16:07, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC):] What you may fail to realize is that many people (including contributors to the article and to this Talk page) say that accepting the EXISTENCE of racial categories as SCIENTIFIC is to mix Science and Politics. Thus, by your own criteria, your contributions to this page are muddled. If you haven't realized this, then please reread the article and its links.
 * 195.92.168.172 11:38, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * I don't understand. Horribly nasty people like Mengele have associated the genetics of race with the politics of race, ergo the topics, even though they have been and continue to be closely related, cannot be discussed together? Please do explain. (And may I suggest, human variability desperately needs someone with your vast and erudite scholarly knowledge -- the article has far too much political, and far too little scientific, material.) &#8212; No One Jones (talk) 12:45, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * No One Jones makes a valid point (as have, of course, POM and Peak), but one other basic point remains: 195 keeps quoting a passage from an article that explicitly states in the title that this is not "race" and that these are not arguments for "race." All the quote argues is that there are groups of humans that are genetically different.  No one disputes that.  As our article reports, scientists call these groups "populations," and mean by the word "population" something rather different from what people mean by "race."  195 either does not understand the science, or is simply trying to irritate us and waste our time.  (Well, of course it can be both, too). Also, 195, if you really are trying to be polite, please do not address me as Mr. as it is not my title (thanks). Slrubenstein
 * Mr Rubenstein, please give me your title and I will use it. As for 'popualtion' and 'race', this is a semantic argument. You are arguing like a lawyer. But if it makes you happy, then and article can be called 'Race (population)'195.92.168.179 18:53, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Colleagues: In view of anon user's repeated reversions that insist on excluding other reasonable POVs by deletion, I have requested reversion/protection at Requests_for_page_protection. You may wish to weigh in there. Peak 15:52, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, it is the only thing we can do until s/he goes away. By the way, this kind of thing has happened before. Slrubenstein
 * Mr Rubenstein, I won't go away. I will stay until this falsification of scholarship in recognised and repaired. See below for an article which has evidence which supports my view that this article should be split up.195.92.168.179 18:53, 16 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * Page protected to stop edit war. Anon 195 please understand that this is a cooperative project and no one person should hold sway on any article. If you cannot work well with others, then you should not be working here. --mav 01:23, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations
this is a New York Times article from here: http://webdev.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/ppa730%20786/5-Pops.htm I have emboldened the parts which support my contention that this article should be split.

Gene Study Identifies 5 Main Human Populations By NICHOLAS WADE

Scientists studying the DNA of 52 human groups from around the world have concluded that people belong to five principal groups corresponding to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas.

'''The study, based on scans of the whole human genome, is the most thorough to look for patterns corresponding to major geographical regions. These regions broadly correspond with popular notions of race,''' the researchers said in interviews.

The researchers did not analyze genes but rather short segments of DNA known as markers, similar to those used in DNA fingerprinting tests, that have no apparent function in the body.

"What this study says is that if you look at enough markers you can identify the geographic region a person comes from," said Dr. Kenneth Kidd of Yale University, an author of the report.

The issue of race and ethnicity has forced itself to biomedical researchers' attention because human populations have different patterns of disease, and advances in decoding DNA have made it possible to try and correlate disease with genetics.

The study, published today in Science, finds that "self-reported population ancestry likely provides a suitable proxy for genetic ancestry." In other words, someone saying he is of European ancestry will have genetic similarities to other Europeans.

Using self-reported ancestry "is less expensive and less intrusive" said Dr. Marcus Feldman of Stanford University, the senior author of the study. Rather than analyzing a person's DNA, a doctor could simply ask his race or continent of origin and gain useful information about their genetic make-up.

Several scientific journal editors have said references to race should be avoided. But a leading population geneticist, Dr. Neil Risch of Stanford University, argued recently that race was a valid area of medical research because it reflects the genetic differences that arose on each continent after the ancestral human population dispersed from its African homeland.

"Neil's article was theoretical and this is the data that backs up what he said," Dr. Feldman said.

The new result is based on blood samples gathered from around the world as part of the Human Genome Diversity Project, though on a much less ambitious scale than originally intended. Dr. Feldman and his colleagues analyzed the DNA of more than 1,000 people at some 400 markers. Because the sites have no particular function, they are free to change or mutate without harming the individual, and can become quite different over the generations.

The Science authors concluded that 95 percent of the genetic variations in the human genome is found in people all over the world, as might be expected for a small ancestral population that dispersed perhaps as recently as 50,000 years ago.

But as the first human populations started reproducing independently from one another, each started to develop its own pattern of genetic differences. The five major continental groups now differ to a small degree, the Science article says, as judged by the markers. The DNA in the genes is subject to different pressures, like those of natural selection.

Similar divisions of the world's population have been implied by earlier studies based on the Y chromosome, carried by males, and on mitochondrial DNA, bequeathed through the female line. But both elements constitute a tiny fraction of the human genome and it was not clear how well they might represent the behavior of the rest of the genome.

Despite the large shared pool of genetic variation, the small number of differences allows the separate genetic history of each major group to be traced. Even though this split broadly corresponds with popular notions of race, the authors of Science article avoid using the word, referring to the genetic patterning they have found with words like "population structure" and "self-reported population ancestry."

But '''Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race. He said precautions should be taken to make sure the new data coming out of genetic studies were not abused.

"We need to get a team of ethicists and anthropologists and some physicians together to address what the consequences of the next phase of genetic analysis is going to be," he said.'''

Some diseases are much commoner among some ethnic groups than others. Sickle cell anemia is common among Africans, while hemochromatosis, an iron metabolism disorder, occurs in 7.5 percent of Swedes. It can therefore be useful for a doctor to consider a patient's race in diagnosing disease. Researchers seeking the genetic variants that cause such diseases must take race into account because a mixed population may confound their studies.

The new medical interest in race and genetics has left many sociologists and anthropologists beating a different drum in their assertions that race is a cultural idea, not a biological one. The American Sociological Association, for instance, said in a recent statement that "race is a social construct" and warned of the "danger of contributing to the popular conception of race as biological."

'''Dr. Alan Goodman, a physical anthropologist at Hampshire College and an adviser to the association, said, "there is no biological basis for race." The clusters shown in the Science article were driven by geography, not race, he said.'''

But Dr. Troy Duster, a sociologist at New York University and chairman of the committee that wrote the sociologists' statement on race, said it was meant to talk about the sociological implications of classifying people by race and was not intended to discuss the genetics.

"Sociologists don't have the competence to go there," he said.
 * So what? All of the points of view expressed in the above article are dealt with in greater detail and with greater nuance in the Wikipedia article. Slrubenstein
 * Mr Rubenstein, now you are simply lying. Nowhere in the article does it say "Scientists studying the DNA of 52 human groups from around the world have concluded that people belong to five principal groups corresponding to the major geographical regions of the world: Africa, Europe, Asia, Melanesia and the Americas". Nowhere does it say testing has "essentially confirmed the popular conception of race". Nowhere does it say that even sociologists have admitted that sociologists don't have the competence to judge the genetics. It fact the general tone of the article runs counter to these facts
 * Mr. 195, calm down, no need to get hysterical. If you slow down and actually read what I wrote you will see that I wrote that all the points of view are dealt with, not that all the "points."  The last two paragraphs of the "overview" of the article make it clear that some scientists use the term race in the way you do, and also makes it clear that genetically varied populations exist.  The difference between population and race is not semantic, it is substantive, by the way.  Didn't you read the quote from Dr. Goodman?  It is after all in the same article you seem to consider authoritative.  Also, it is not a fact that testing has not confirmed the popular conception of race; what is a fact is that Dr. Feldman claims this (you really need to read a little more carefully).  Yes, Dr. Feldman has this point of view, but it is shared by a small minority of scientists; this too is a fact which is expressed in the wikipedia article.  It is also a fact that the article you quote above does use the language of "population," which the wikipedia article also uses.  Nowhere does the wikipedia article suggest that sociologists are competent to discuss genetics -- the article does however acknowledge that sociologists have analyzed social facts, as does the article you have quoted. Slrubenstein
 * i give up, this article is just bullshit. you haven't addressed my points. keep your head in the sand195.92.168.176 04:26, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Point by point 1
Point-by-195-Point


 * 195: "I would be willing to provide evidence that, for instance, Chinese people are more lactose-intolerant."

P0M: I assume the remainder of your sentence was intended to indicate who or what Chinese people are more lactose-intolerant\ than. But your assertion suffers because it does not clarify whether all Chinese people are lactose-intolerant, or some Chinese people are lactose-intolerant. The facts, as I understand them, show that a random sample of Chinese people when compared to a random sample of Scandinavian people (for instance) would show a higher percentage of lactose- intolerant individuals among the Chinese. There are enough lactose-intolerant white people around to make it clear that can validly say, "Some white Americans are lactose-intolerant." The same goes for Chinese people. The rates are different, and that is the kind of statistical (not-absolute) difference that is well handled by the "population" concept. I'm not sure yet of how you define "race," but it may be that you mean to indicate that all of the lactose-intolerance rate differences are due to genetic factors. But, in the ordinary course of events, humans are lactose-tolerant before they are weaned. After weaning, there is a tendency for the body to stop production of lactase, the enzyme that makes digestion of lactose possible. And here we find, especially among people born before the end of World War II, great differences in the nutrition received by whites and Chinese: Cows milk has long been used as a staple of the diet of whites, and so whites may never be weaned because they switch from human milk to cow's milk and never cease its consumption. Some of those white people become lactose-intolerant anyway. In China, however, those whose nutrition has not been supplemented by store-bought milk will become "weaned" at a comparatively early age. When they cease milk consumption they may also cease lactase production. It would be possible to conduct a study comparing a Chinese cohort that was carefully monitored to assure adequate milk consumption with a similar cohort of whites, but it would have to monitor adolescent and adult milk consumption to make the time of development of lactose intolerance a meaningful observation. Alternately, if a gene or cluster of genes for early-onset lactose intolerance could be found then the rate of presence of that genetic "signature" could be found for Chinese and whites. But we already know that not all Chinese are lactose-intolerant, and not all whites are lactose-intolerant. We would end up with a finding of the percentage of lactose intolerance among each of the populations studied, and not a finding that, e.g., "The Chinese race is lactose-intolerant."

P0M: When writing on {race}, we all have a responsibility to avoid giving comfort to those who would like to believe that they can determine the moral an intellectual capabilities of any individual by looking at his or her skin color, eyelid configuration, nose shape, or whatever other "marker" characteristics they may favor. Most people, when they read the word "race" will likely assume that it means exactly what they have learned it means "on the street" -- a meaning that strips away the ideas of population, of mixed genetic heritage, and drags in any characteristics of a given {race} that they have learned on those same streets. We need to inoculate people against the flaws of reasoning that argue, e.g., from the fact that one great grandparent came from the Congo to the conclusion that the individual in question is "black," and then on that basis make further conclusions about intelligence or whatever.


 * 195:"Other studies have produced comparable results. Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem  repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying  frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were  typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas;  East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups  within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity."


 * 195: This is not "Ideology" Mr Moran, this is biology. This is a 2003 article in a reputable science publication. By ignoring actual scientific fact you are concocting a fraud.

P0M: Why do you assume so much? You assume that I have noticed this article (which happens to be true), and that I have ignored its conclusions. You insinuate that I deliberately discounted the scientific validity of the article in order to 'concoct a fraud.' You jump from my disagreeing with you to the conclusion that I am a fraud.

P0M: In fact, I have no quarrel with their conclusions. If I wanted to dispute them I would have to do my own study, have it vetted by savvy peer review people, etc. But I would not be motivated to do so because the article indicates something that is perfectly evident on the basis of personal observation, something that most if not all people would agree with: If you walk through an Mbuti village you will find people who are short of stature, who have a black skin tone, etc. If we didn't already know it we could easily conclude that these characteristics were all inherited from their ancestors. If you walk through a Chinese village you will find another group of people with their own set of inherited characteristics. All the material quoted adds to this picture is that there are certain short tandem repeats that are also inherited characteristics. It doesn't draw any illegitimate conclusions that I can see, certainly nothing that should give comfort to the "ethnic cleansing" guys.

Ethnic cleansing? What are rambling about? Read the fucking article.

I'll write it in capitals, since all you seem to do is ignore the the scientific findings SCIENTISTS STUDYING THE DNA OF 52 HUMAN GROUPS FROM AROUND THE WORLD HAVE CONCLUDED THAT PEOPLE BELONG TO FIVE PRINCIPAL GROUPS CORRESPONDING TO THE MAJOR GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS OF THE WORLD: AFRICA, EUROPE, ASIA, MELANESIA AND THE AMERICAS

'''THE STUDY, BASED ON SCANS OF THE WHOLE HUMAN GENOME, IS THE MOST THOROUGH TO LOOK FOR PATTERNS CORRESPONDING TO MAJOR GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS. THESE REGIONS BROADLY CORRESPOND WITH POPULAR NOTIONS OF RACE, THE RESEARCHERS SAID IN INTERVIEWS Can you read that? These regions broadly correspond with popular notions of race, the researchers said in interviews'''

DR. FELDMAN SAID THE FINDING ESSENTIALLY CONFIRMED THE POPULAR CONCEPTION OF RACE. Can you read that? Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race

DR. NEIL RISCH OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY, ARGUED RECENTLY THAT RACE WAS A VALID AREA OF MEDICAL RESEARCH BECAUSE IT REFLECTS THE GENETIC DIFFERENCES THAT AROSE ON EACH CONTINENT AFTER THE ANCESTRAL HUMAN POPULATION DISPERSED FROM ITS AFRICAN HOMELAND.

"NEIL'S ARTICLE WAS THEORETICAL AND THIS IS THE DATA THAT BACKS UP WHAT HE SAID," DR. FELDMAN SAID

DR. FELDMAN AND HIS COLLEAGUES ANALYZED THE DNA OF MORE THAN 1,000 PEOPLE AT SOME 400 MARKERS Can you read that? Not just 'certain short tandem repeats', but the DNA OF MORE THAN 1,000 PEOPLE AT SOME 400 MARKERS

BUT DR. TROY DUSTER, A SOCIOLOGIST AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY AND CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE THAT WROTE THE SOCIOLOGISTS' STATEMENT ON RACE, SAID IT WAS MEANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CLASSIFYING PEOPLE BY RACE AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO DISCUSS THE GENETICS.

"SOCIOLOGISTS DON'T HAVE THE COMPETENCE TO GO THERE," HE SAID. Can you read that? Sociologists don't have the competence to talk about the genetics. Which is why this article should be split. Sociology and Genetics are not 'two sides to the argument', they are separate subjects.

Point by point 2
P0M: In two earlier postings I said two things that 195 finds contradictory:


 * ...they [the first Europeans to visit the New World, Australia, etc.] imagined them to be innately different in ways that went beyond the superficial characteristics such as skin color."


 * If the studies of genetic similarities were stated simply in accord with objective studies, then there would be no harm in them.

P0M: What characteristics that are not literally superficial (right on the surface, subject to immediate inspection) could people back in the 1500s have determined? Certainly not their genetic identities.


 * P0M: Again, a small bit of progress 'twould seem. No denunciation.


 * Actually, 195 tried to erase this comment of yours instead of responding to it :-/ . Check the history or see this diff. &#8212; No-One Jones (talk) 01:12, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Attempt to apply "a soft answer"

 * To 195: This is an encyclopedia, and we expect better research than relying on NYT articles.
 * The article quotes reputable scientists. It's not written by a gossip columnist, or Jayson Blair. It's written by a reputable writer whose speciality is genetics - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1585745316/103-3141428-9939042?v=glance 195.92.168.174 20:31, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * If you had actually taken the time to read the actual article written by real scientists in a real scientific journal (viz., Science) you would have known that the scientists who conducted the study (Rosenberg et. al.) consistently use the word "population." People who read Wikipedia articles should leave the article knowing more than when they started out.  The Wikipedia article explains very clearly why scientists use the word "population" today rather than race.  It does note the fact that you have been getting hysterical over: some scientists use "race" and "population" interchangably.  As I said before, so what?  The wikipedia article acknowledges this and points out the fact that this represents a minority.  What is far more important is the fact that scientists publishing in journals use the word "population."  Do you think these scientists are stupid?  Do you think they are using the word "population" instead of "race" because it is less valid, less accurate, less precise?  Is it possible that having spent their lives dedicated to science they have good reasons for using the word "population?"  Maybe the Wikipedia article ought to give these scientists some credit, instead of rewriting their words to fit your antiquated political point of view. Slrubenstein
 * Mr Rubenstein, I feel sorry for you. You expend all this energy rambling about 'population' and 'race' as if the straw man you have constructed represents my thinking. You invent things that I have not said in order to discredit them. As I've said above, I would be perfectly happy for an article to be called 'Race (population)'. You then call articles written in 2002 and 2003 'antiquated thinking' simply because they don't fit your thinking. Only the most confused or ignorant scholar would make such mistakes. Below are the relevant parts of the article. Perhaps you could answer the points rather than making up fairy tales.195.92.168.174 20:33, 17 Jan 2004 (UTC)

SCIENTISTS STUDYING THE DNA OF 52 HUMAN GROUPS FROM AROUND THE WORLD HAVE CONCLUDED THAT PEOPLE BELONG TO FIVE PRINCIPAL GROUPS CORRESPONDING TO THE MAJOR GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS OF THE WORLD: AFRICA, EUROPE, ASIA, MELANESIA AND THE AMERICAS

'''THE STUDY, BASED ON SCANS OF THE WHOLE HUMAN GENOME, IS THE MOST THOROUGH TO LOOK FOR PATTERNS CORRESPONDING TO MAJOR GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS. THESE REGIONS BROADLY CORRESPOND WITH POPULAR NOTIONS OF RACE, THE RESEARCHERS SAID IN INTERVIEWS Can you read that? These regions broadly correspond with popular notions of race, the researchers said in interviews'''

DR. FELDMAN SAID THE FINDING ESSENTIALLY CONFIRMED THE POPULAR CONCEPTION OF RACE. Can you read that? Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race

DR. NEIL RISCH OF STANFORD UNIVERSITY, ARGUED RECENTLY THAT RACE WAS A VALID AREA OF MEDICAL RESEARCH BECAUSE IT REFLECTS THE GENETIC DIFFERENCES THAT AROSE ON EACH CONTINENT AFTER THE ANCESTRAL HUMAN POPULATION DISPERSED FROM ITS AFRICAN HOMELAND.

"NEIL'S ARTICLE WAS THEORETICAL AND THIS IS THE DATA THAT BACKS UP WHAT HE SAID," DR. FELDMAN SAID

DR. FELDMAN AND HIS COLLEAGUES ANALYZED THE DNA OF MORE THAN 1,000 PEOPLE AT SOME 400 MARKERS Can you read that? Not just 'certain short tandem repeats', but the DNA OF MORE THAN 1,000 PEOPLE AT SOME 400 MARKERS

BUT DR. TROY DUSTER, A SOCIOLOGIST AT NEW YORK UNIVERSITY AND CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE THAT WROTE THE SOCIOLOGISTS' STATEMENT ON RACE, SAID IT WAS MEANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SOCIOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF CLASSIFYING PEOPLE BY RACE AND WAS NOT INTENDED TO DISCUSS THE GENETICS.

"SOCIOLOGISTS DON'T HAVE THE COMPETENCE TO GO THERE," HE SAID. Can you read that? Sociologists don't have the competence to talk about the genetics. Which is why this article should be split. Sociology and Genetics are not 'two sides to the argument', they are separate subjects.
 * Again, please calm down, breathe. Yes, if you actually read my comments above you would have learned some time ago that I acknowledge that Dr. Feldman believes race is a valid term; as the article says, some continue to use the word race (obviously Dr. Feldman is one of them).  But many do not use the word "race."  An article called Race (population) would not be a valid alternative, since "race" and "population" mean different things to most scientists.  By the way, I do not understand why you keep shouting the quote about sociologists.  For one thing, you could use the same logic (biologists have no competence in sociology, therefore they shouldn't say anything about race) -- but really, why bother.  The fact is, the word "sociology" does not even appear in the wikipedia article, and the article doesn't quote any sociologists.  Really, did you not get any sleep last night?  Maybe you have some personal issues that are getting in the way of a calm rational discussion.  My advice is to take a rest for a few days and then perhaps you will be able to understand the article. Slrubenstein

Point by point 3
P0M: Actually, I seem to have run out of things said while trying to establish common ground with 195 that have instead unleashed his wrath against me personally. But s/he did use her/his evidence in what seems to me a strange way, so let me inquire about that:

P0M: The magazine article said:
 * Even though this split broadly corresponds with popular notions of race, the authors of Science article avoid using the word, referring to the genetic patterning they have found with words like "population structure" and "self-reported population ancestry."


 * But Dr. Feldman said the finding essentially confirmed the popular conception of race. He said precautions should be taken to make sure the new data coming out of genetic studies were not abused.

P0M: Dr. Feldman is a geneticist, isn't he? May I inquire as to his qualifications as a sociologist, and whether he has research to establish what "the popular conception of race" actually is?

P0M: Note that if the above is an accurate paraphrase of whatever he actually said to the reporters then it involves some weasel words: "essentially confirmed." Just what elements of the so-called "popular conception of race" are not confirmed?

P0M: 195, you have not surveyed the number and qualifications of the specialists in this field who are comfortable with using the word "race", have you? Why do you suppose that people with independent minds would accept the twice qualified judgment of a single specialist? (I say "twice qualified" because he not only says the popular idea of race is only "essentially" confirmed, but also because he urges caution so that "the new data coming out of genetic studies were (sic) not abused.") It isn't because that's the only authority you can find, is it?

I wonder why Mr Moron and Mr Rubenstein haven't written an article glorifying Lysenko and Mengele, as they are so interested in mixing Genetics and Politics?


 * Knock it off with the personal attacks. If you continue then you will be banned from editing any page on this website. Got that 195? --mav 03:31, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)


 * [Peak to 195.92.168.174] Since you say you don't want to mix "Genetics and Politics", and since you evidently have some interest in human phylogeny, why not start an article on Phylogeny of Homo sapiens? The Race article could then be revised accordingly.Peak 06:28, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Underhill et al: 20 groups based on Y chromosome
{The following is extracted from the archives, mainly for 195. The referenced article is readily available online at http://www2.smumn.edu/uasal/DNAWWW/pdfs/Underhill2000.pdf It is well worth reading very closely. Peak 06:38, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)}

Here is a summary of a phylogenetic tree based on analysis of the Y chromosomes of 1062 individuals from around the world. The tree comes from. It has 20 population clusters, but only captures 18% of the variation in the haplotypes. (That is, many of the haplotypes are spread in various ways amongst the identified groups. The details are given in a table in the paper.)

Underhill et al did not have adequate data on New Guinea and Australia, and so created a single group for them all. It looks as though they may have missed some interesting areas altogether.

In the following:

* "X, Y" means X and Y are leaves that are directly joined together; * A+B is just the name of a single group.

The tree has three main lobes (A,B,C):

A. Sardinia Sudan, Ethiopia B. America Mali Khoisan S.Africa, C.Africa New Guinea/Australia (grouped for lack of data) Cambodia+Laos Japan Taiwan, China C. Europe, Basque Morocco, Mideast C.Asia+Siberia Hunza Pakistan+India

Peak 09:04, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

{END}


 * P0M: To me it is fascinating that the Sardinians are grouped with the Sudanese and the Ethiopians. Looking at pictures on the WWW I can't see anything in particular that would set the Sudanese and Ethiopians apart from other people from Africa, and the Sardinians look like they could be Italians to me. So much for my ability to guess {races}. Do members of this group have any distinguishing characteristics that one could be aware of without modern devices for genetic screening?