Talk:Validity of human races

Merge?
There has been some discussion on whether to merge Race and Validity of human races. Looking at both articles I'm having trouble deciding whether that would be a good idea. The "Validity" article has some good content, and I'm sure that most of it is covered in "Race", but should there be two seperate articles? Kerowyn 08:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Crap and Utter Shyte
I don't think this article is worthwhile. Race as a social phenomenon is very real, and has a strong effect. Race as a universal human characteristic is not real.

I don't think there are credible social scientists who argue that racial categories are anything other than 1)culturally relative and 2)arbitrary.

If this article isn't better in about five days, I'm putting it on VfD.

--Defenestrate 15:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)


 * An easier read than Edwards' paper that argues the same thing can be found here.

I don't think this argues the same thing at all, and isn't much to do with a genetic definition at all. I scanned around for a more appropriate place for it, but none lept out at me. Alai 07:52, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Invalid article
As it stands, this is just a repeat of the race article, which is essentially a mish-mash of arguments over paper-tigers. The article titled "race" should be retitled "Human race folk taxonomies" and the main article on "race" should limit itself to numerical taxonomy of human races. To do otherwise is to engage in strawman argumentation over the concept of race akin to saddling the article on "heat" with a long, drawn out argument over historic conceptions like phlogiston and relegating discussion of the statistical definition of heat to an article titled "validity of heat". Its intellectually dishonest POVing to structure a topic with the least consilient concepts saddling the primary article.Jim Bowery 02:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * What do you mean with a "numerical taxonomy of human races"? Surely the main article should also discuss race as a social construct, and a short overview of the history of the concept? Filur 01:42, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Folks taxonomies are social constructs. The distinction between the two is precisely the distinction between folk constructs and scientific constructs.  Compare and contrast folk taxonomy with numerical taxonomy.  Perhaps I should have said parsimony analysis rather than numerical taxonomy (PA is a subset of NT that deals with phylogenic taxonomy).  Folk taxonomy is the proper descriptive for the vast majority of the "race" articles.  This doesn't mean those taxonomies are completely erroneous -- just as any folk taxonomy will have errors but probably does have some utility else it would have died out.  But we shouldn't go around kidding ourselves about the state of science in race anymore than we should go around kidding ourselves about the state of science in heat or any other critical concept.  The fact that race is so widely misunderstood and so volatile means it is all the more important to dispense with folk taxonomy as the primary article and focus on standard techniques used for deriving phylogenic taxonomies from the data. Jim Bowery 19:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

BIAS
Totally one-sided. Should be re-titled "Flat Earthers' Explanation Of Why They Think Race Doesn't Exist."


 * Entire first paragraph makes no attempt at NPOV, instead putting forward the (incorrect) view that race does NOT exist.


 * Can you explain what you mean by this? What changes do you suggest for that paragraph?  How do you suggest re-wording it?  What sources do you have in support of your position?  Thank you.  Guettarda 21:48, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Red-haired race, albino race, Latino race, blonde race, or one race: The Human Race
We are all the same with varying degrees of melanin, bone structure, and facial features. DNA analysis shows that there exist more differences between two particular so-called "white" people than between a particular "white" person and a certain "black" person. Thousands of years ago, blonde people called brown-haired people a different "race". If there are races as described, then let us be logical: red-haired people with frekles and pale skin should be a "race", so should those whose hair grows blonde and whose eyes are pale blue or pale green (and, no, not all blondes are stupid, and yes, they do dislike those blonde jokes), and Latino people are a mixture of races or are a race, and albinos are a race or not, and what about those who are mixtures of these mythical "races"? We are the human race, a spectrum of color from palest beige to darkest brown, and we are more similar than different. The concept of race leads to misunderstanding and a reason to dislike each other. This entire article should be deleted, or drastically changed.MathStatWoman 08:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


 * DNA analysis shows that there exist more differences between two particular so-called "white" people than between a particular "white" person and a certain "black" person -- just fyi, that's a myth.
 * Thousands of years ago, blonde people called brown-haired people a different "race" -- no way.
 * This entire article should be deleted, or drastically changed -- it should probably be merged into race. --Rikurzhen 17:23, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

From the journals Science and Nature on the Human Genome Project
"just fyi, that's a myth" -- no it is not. "From the perspective of genes, it is often the case that two persons from the same part of the world who look superficially alike are less related to each other than they are to persons from other parts of the world who may look very different." Also see "Nova" (PBS report on this) transcript
 * The International Human Genome Sequencing Consortium. "Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome." Nature 409, 860-921 (2001).
 * Venter J.C. "A dramatic map that will change the world." Daily Telegraph February 14, 2001.
 * Venter J.C. et al. "The sequence of the human genome." Science 291, 1304-1351 (2001).

It is possible for people from the same part of the world to be more different than two people from different parts of the world, but on average this is false and the frequency of it occuring appears to be small because the the number of loci at which two people can vary is large (>10^6). The important publications which addressed this question directly are: The race article is a relatively good, but overly detailed summary of this data. For a brief overview, see the first few parargraphs of Neil Risch's latest editorial in NEJM, or his previous essays on this topic. --Rikurzhen 00:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rosenberg NA, Pritchard JK, Weber JL, et al. Genetic structure of human populations. Science 2002;298:2381-2385. (for the entire world)
 * Tang H, Quertermous T, Rodriguez B, et al. Genetic structure, self-identified race/ethnicity, and confounding in case-control association studies. Am J Hum Genet 2005;76:268-275. (for the U.S.)

Hmmm...thanks for the references; I need to read them (sorry I forgot to sign my message last time). What about the work back in 2001, e.g. by Venter et al? More statistical analysis? confounding?...fascinating. MathStatWoman 00:35, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I didn't look for context, but from that quotation, I assume they mean for a single locus. For any single locus, on average, 85% of variation is found within any population. You probably know the math better than I, but that works out to something like a 30% misclassfication rate for two populations if you make your judgment based on a single locus. A paper with the rather argumentative title Lewontin's Fallacy by a statistical geneticist named Edwards addresses this for the lay-scientist. --Rikurzhen 00:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Merge again
I propose to start the merge of this article with "Race", which is in many parts very similar by first eliminating the non-redundant parts from this article. DonSiano 03:52, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, the first pass of the merge of this article to "Race" is nearly complete. Some reworking, and esepecially, shortening of the article in Race is very much to be desired. Hope I wasn't too heavy handed--this isn't easy! DonSiano 05:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)