Talk:Race

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a former featured article. Please see its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

	This article has been identified by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team as a Core Topic, one of the 150 most important articles for any encyclopedia to have. Please help improve this article as we push to 1.0. If you'd like help with this article, you may nominate it for the core topics collaboration.
A	Race has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the assessment scale.
Top	This article is on a subject of Top-importance within Medicine.

Race appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 26, 2004.

Race has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Socsci article has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale.

To-do list for Race:	edit · history · watch · refresh
condense redundant information, usually in the same section edit for stringent NPOV: delete unattributed, unnecessary opinions screen reference list for orphans; condense duplicates add/remove/fix inter-wiki links (They are the same as in french-german articles. NCurse work 16:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC))

Please add new content at the end. If several threads develop,

• they can later be moved to appropriate sections.

Archives
2002–2003: 1, 2, 3 January 2004: 4, 5, 6, 7 2004: 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 January 2005: 14, 15, 16, 17 2005–2006: 18

[edit] Cleanup!

This article is HUGE. It probably needs to be reorganized and seperated into various subarticles. The referencing is also horrible and has to be fixed.

Fixing all of these would take a lot of effort and time - but I'm affraid it's necessary. This article is likely to be explanded even more, but the way it is organized, there's no systematic way of expanding it other than adding new sections. This was probably the original problem and has led to the expansion of the article to this level.

Anyone willing to help? Any ideas about how the article should be divided out? Aucaman^Talk 04:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The article is really really HUGE but it's extremely comprehensive and involves huge research effort. Why does article wiki have to be short? What about an exception for this masterpiece of wiki page? --Yau 18:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The "race" notion is simply a mental scheme for classifying people. Whether it is useful depends upon the user. An enforcer of EEOC regulations will find this classification method more useful than will a molecular anthropologist. The problem with this article, or any article or a college course on the topic, is that those who find the "race" notion useful often justify it by confabulating appeals to authority: "science says," or "the bible says," or "the law says," or "history says." And so the article tries to teach what science (or the law or whatever authority) really says. It thus takes on the impossible job of teaching all human knowledge regarding all past and present human classification schemes to an uninformed reader. This, of course, is a hopeless task. Those who find the "race" notion useful want to persuade those who scoff at it, and those to whom it is useless want the others to abandon it. To avoid POV accusations, every conceivable argument for every conceivable variant of every mutually contradictory classification scheme that uses the term "race" gets text space. My advice? The article should be little more than a series of links:

• How "race" is used in biology.
• How "race" is used in genetics.
• How "race" is used in medicine.
• How "race" is used in cultural anthropology.
• How "race" is used in physical anthropology.
• How "race" is used in phylogeography.
• How "race" is used in the EEOC.
• How "race" is used in the census.
• How "race" is used in U.S. forensic anthropology.
• How "race" is used in U.S. history.
• How "race" is used around the world today.
• How "race" is used by criminal law enforcement.
• How "race" is used in politics.
• How "race" is used in education.
• How "race" is used in the military.
• Etc., etc. etc.

Semantically speaking, the term has so many different referents that debate over which is the "correct" refferent is bound to be both contentious and sterile. -- Frank W Sweet 16:31, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all of this, but it's a little too late to rewrite the whole article. I'm going to capture some of the independent sections into subarticles. Someone would have to go in there and summarize some of these back into this article. Aucaman^Talk 00:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

I'm going to be moving Human genetic variation to the article Human genetic variation. Also moving Social interpretation of physical variation, Case studies in the social construction of race, and Practical use of "race" to Social interpretations of race. Someone would have to go in and summarize some of these back into these articles. Aucaman^Talk 00:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! I have added links to Human genetic variation and Social interpretations of race in Negroid, Caucasoid, and Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, so that readers interested in one or the other aspect of the "race" notion can go directly to the information. I also left links to the main Race article for those who want an overview. -- Frank W Sweet 10:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no objection to creating linked articles, but without the material the Race article violates NPOV. Therefore, I urge Aucaman (or Frank Sweet) to work on the summaries before moving the content. Let's not leave the article full of holes, especially when you are taking out content fundamental to understanding what race is and is not. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree to this. The only part that needs summarizing is Human genetic variation. It's not going to be easy. I'm going to bring back the whole thing until it can be summarized. Aucaman^Talk 18:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

As for me, I am just an applauding, admiring audience. I have no intention of contributing until after the dust settles, and even then only after discussing any proposed tweaks with everybody. This is a (deservedly) featured article into which went a lot of work. -- Frank W Sweet 18:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. We all understand there is a general limit to the size of Wikipedia articles based on the capacity of servers. That said, I beg you to bear in mind one thing as you do this valuable work: despite the links, many readers will read only this article, and assess their understanding of race against only what is in this article. Given that many people are dogmatic in their belief that races are natural, biological things, and there are also people who have no idea how scientists view genotypic and phenotypic variation among humans, and, finally, that beliefs about race and biological difference have often times been a matter of life or death for huge numbers of humans, and continues to be a contested policy issue in many countries, well, you can see why it is so important to maintain stringent NPOV, and to communicate substantive information. This doesn't mean we cannot cut and create linked articles, only that we really need to be careful about what remains in this one. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm all aware of that. Valid concerns. I tried restoring the section, but some BOT removed it! I've contacted the owner of the BOT and the section would be restored pretty soon. Aucaman^Talk 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Through the 19th century, race was a unifying concept across several scientific disciplines, including language, anthropology, biology. Standard scientific theory presupposed racist explanations for culture and language politics and economy. As a student of biology in the 60s and graduate student of anthropology and linguiustics in the 60s/70s, racism as a theoretical construct was still part of the curricula, avowedly not a significant part by then, but a part. I don't think that race as a scientific idea was rejected in the 40s. Boaz was rejected by the scientific community for attacking racist science in the earlier decade of the century. However biological racism was still part of anthropological study when I was a student so I think the dates at which racism was scientifically disavowed should be changed and modified. Certainly not 1940s.

Some educators in Medical science and medical anthropology were teaching biological racism as science well into the 80s.

[isafakir: C Isa Kocher] 10june2006

There was a core agreement across many sciences throughout the 19th and 20th century so listing the differences as seperate entries without defining some of the core agreements would be a disservice of describing the role of racism in science history [isafakir C Isa Kocher 10june2006]

[edit] References

I have to add that the referencing of this article is pretty horrible. Although bibliography-style referencing is used widely in academia, using it here would probably be against WP:V. I personally recommend using footnotes, but other alternatives are fine as long as it's clear where each specific information is coming from. Aucaman^Talk 19:03, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I could go either way on this. Since Rikurzhen has really contributed an awful lot to this article, I would like to know what he thinks about this ... Slrubenstein | Talk 19:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

My anthro and soc profs wanted parenthetical in-line citations (like the article has now) and my history profs wanted footnotes, so I am pretty good at converting back and forth. If y'all decide to switch, I would be willing to volunteer to go through the article and change the existing citations. -- Frank W Sweet 19:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

m:Cite.php works pretty well, as long as I don't have to do the conversion. This should be done to the spin-off articles as well. --Rikurzhen 19:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I argued strenuously (and got my way) to have in-line citations whenever practicable. The trouble with footnotes is that the conscientious reader (me) feels compelled to look down at the bottom of the page and read each footnote as it comes along. It's a drag to discover that an in-line "ibid" would have taken care of the whole thing. When it on-line, the time delay can be considerable. Real footnotes should be reserved for when you have something to say that won't fit into the main article's flow, but that people are going to kill you for if you don't mention it. (E.g., "Many authors, semi-conversant with ancient Chinese philosophy(ftn.99), instruct their followers that yin-yang theory was developed by and remains firmly associated with Daoism when in actually the facts are quite otherwise (ftn. 100).) If you are trying to talk about how 4th century Buddhists tried to deal with the Chinese penchant for thinking in yin-yang terms, it may not be the place to go back into the history of a thousand or so years before. But summarizing the researches of Fung Yu-lan in a footnote may save readers lots of cognitive dissonance down the road. Don't give the Wiki reader yo-yo eyes. Give him in-line citations first, links second, and in the rare event that you have to say more than book nickname and page number, give the reader a footnote. Skipping over something like {Smith, 235) hardly even erupts into conscious awareness after a while, and your readers will thank you for your being so considerate. P0M 06:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BIAS

Coon already solved the issue of race, the article gives the imperssion he is not valid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 200.126.136.204 (talk • contribs).

[edit] Small change to Tang research

"near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile" has been changed to "near-perfect indicator of an individual's inclusion within a genetic cluster "

I think it is going too far (even if you don't dispute Tang) to say that his results give a "near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile". Macgruder 06:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] deleted allegory

I deleted a hypothetical for three reaons. First, the term " a mistaken social construction" is silly. Social constructions are not mistakes, they are social constructions; their "truthfulness" is evaluated by completely different criteria than other claims. Second, the hypothesis is poorly chosen. Population distributions between Paris and Peking do not clearly illustrtate clines because they have been shaped by political and economic forces. Finally, the whole thing smacks of original research. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:32, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] changes, May 25

I just made three big changes. First, I put the survey information on shanging use by scientists of the word race up front. I do not mind if others agree it belongs at the end of the article, but since the introduction points out that scientists disagree over how to use the word, it belongs up front. Moreover, I removed from this section argumentative material - the articel that follows goes into tall the issues at length. Second, I removed sections on ethnicity versus ancestry as ways of identifying people for two reasons: first, it is argumentative (and this topic is controversial enough without our going out of our way to feed the fire). The article goes over many different scientific discoveries that has led scientists to a more nuanced view of race, and that have led scientists to a variety of approaches - all of this is sophisticated in the best tradition of science, and our article does a good job explaining it. to then try ...once again ... to reduce research on race to two views (social versus biological) and then to try to sum up reasons for one and then reasons for the other is in my opinion the wrong direction and sets the article back four years. Second, it was superficial - the arguments on ancestry oversimplified much of the valuable content above to the point of silliness, and the section on ethnicity just ignores what drives most social-science use of ethnicity; together the two article mixed a lot of apples and oranges. Third, I reintroduced the sections on how race is used in law enforcement, in medicine, etc. I do this for two reasons: first, it is good science, as it shows how "race" can be operationalized and used meaningfully in the pursuit of different but clear ends. Second, it is good social science, because it shows how the valididty of race depends on the context in which it is used. The result is not a black and white argument (race is real, race is not real, or even sillier, race is social or race is biological) but rather a more sophisticated account of how different people in different fields use race in different ways for different reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:03, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] help with some reorganization - attn: Rikurzhen, Frank Sweet

Could Rikurzhen or Frank Sweet help here? I think some of this material should be re-integrated into the article, but in either section 4.1.3, or 4.2, or 4.3. Could you do what you think is best?

My main objection to the following is that it is a little polemical. Putting it in the section on cladistics is a way of reframing it as information rathe than as argument. I do have two objections to the contents as written. First, it should not be presented as opposed toor an alternative to "ethniciy," which mixes apples and orranges. I think there is no need even to mention ethnicity in this context.

Second, I think to be consistent with the article as it is, we should avoid the use of "ancestry" as much as possible and use "lineage" as appropriate. Thanks, Steve

Human population structure can be inferred from multilocus DNA sequence data (Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005). Individuals from 52 populations were examined at 993 DNA markers. This data was used to partitioned individuals into K = 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 clusters. In this figure, the average fractional membership of individuals from each population is represented by horizontal bars partitioned into K colored segments.

An alternative to the use of racial or ethnic categories is to categorize individuals in terms of ancestry. Ancestry may be defined geographically (e.g., Asian, sub-Saharan African, or northern European), geopolitically (e.g., Vietnamese, Zambian, or Norwegian), or culturally (e.g., Brahmin, Lemba, or Apache). The definition of ancestry may recognize a single predominant source or multiple sources. Ancestry can be ascribed to an individual by an observer, as was the case with the U.S. census prior to 1960; it can be identified by an individual from a list of possibilities or with use of terms drawn from that person's experience; or it can be calculated from genetic data by use of loci with allele frequencies that differ geographically, as described above. At least among those individuals who participate in biomedical research, genetic estimates of biogeographical ancestry generally agree with self-assessed ancestry (Tang et al. 2005), but in an unknown percentage of cases, they do not (Brodwin 2002; Kaplan 2003).

Genetic data can be used to infer population structure and assign individuals to groups that often correspond with their self-identified geographical ancestry. The inference of population structure from multilocus genotyping depends on the selection of a large number of informative genetic markers. These studies usually find that groups of humans living on the same continent are more similar to one another than to groups living on different continents. Many such studies are criticized for assigning group identity a priori. However, even if group identity is stripped and group identity assigned a posteriori using only genetic data, population structure can still be inferred. For example, using 993 markers, Rosenberg et al. (2005) were able to assign 1,048 individuals from 52 populations around the globe to one of six genetic clusters, which correspond to major geographic regions.

However, in analyses that assign individuals to group it becomes less apparent that self-described racial groups are reliable indicators of ancestry. One cause of the reduced power of the assignment of individuals to groups is admixture. Some racial or ethnic groups, especially Hispanic groups, do not have homogenous ancestry. For example, self-described African Americans tend to have a mix of West African and European ancestry. Shriver et al. (2003) found that on average African Americans have ~80% African ancestry. Likewise, many white Americans have mixed European and African ancestry, where ~30% of whites have less than 90% European ancestry. In this context, it is becoming more commonplace to describe "race" as fractional ancestry. Without the use of genotyping, this has been approximated by the self-described ancestry of an individual's grand-parents.

Nevertheless, recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race (white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.

Genetic techniques that distinguish ancestry between continents can also be used to describe ancestry within continents. However, the study of intra-continental ancestry may require a greater number of informative markers. Populations from neighboring geographic regions typically share more recent common ancestors. As a result, allele frequencies will be correlated between these groups. This phenomenon is often seen as a cline of allele frequencies. The existence of allelic clines has been offered as evidence that individuals cannot be allocated into genetic clusters (Kittles & Weiss 2003). However, others argue that low levels of differentiation between groups merely make the assignment to groups more difficult, not impossible (Bamshad et al. 2004).

To repeat, I do think this should be rewritten to (1) get rid of any discussion of "ethniciy," which these passages misrepresents and ends up mixing apples and oranges. I think there is no need even to mention ethnicity in this context. (2) to be consistent with the article as it is, we should avoid the use of "ancestry" as much as possible and use "lineage" as appropriate. I think by putting it in the section on cladistics, it will become less polemical and more informative. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that this needs any re-writing, especially on the "ethnicity" and "ancestry" points. Most of the text seems to have come from the public domain NHGRI review paper, which if it has a bias it against the importance of race. Ancestry has a relatively precise definition, whereas "lineage" is a less commonly used term. "Ethnicity" is being used to supplement "race" as a catch-all term for any group related by blood, however delineated. --Rikurzhen 11:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] source needed

Can we have a ciation for this? "As a consequence, inter-racial marriages are more common, and more accepted, among highly-educated Afro-Brazilians than lower-educated ones." I ask because it seems to contradict Goldstein's latest article on the topic. Maybe I am wrong ... so, can we just have a citation? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:07, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] About the Survey

A 1985 survey (Lieberman et al. 1992) asked 1,200 scientists how many disagree with the following proposition: "There are biological races in the species Homo sapiens." The responses were: [...]

Did they really ask about Homo sapiens, or Homo sapiens sapiens? It's not surprising that the Neanderthal man would be placed in a different subspecies from us... :-) FilipeS 22:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The current majority view is that Neanderthals were a separate species Homo neanderthalensis, rather than a subspecies of H. sapiens. -- 201.78.233.162 21:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Racism

Where should these go in the article?

Bernard Lewis, in “Identifying the Historical Roots of Racism” points to the “purity of blood” doctrine of the 15th century by which it was believed “the purity of the faith and of Christian society could be achieved.” Lewis identifies it as a “historically recognizable source” of “modern ideological racism.” “ In this we may see the beginnings of anti-Semitism, properly so-called; that is to say, a new kind of hostility to Jews” which is based on “racial or ethnic differences.” ^[1] Doright 08:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Robert Michael argues: “Not only did institutionalized racism begin in 15th-century Spain,” but “a Christian racism can be detected as early as the 4th century in Sts. Augustine and John Chrysostom.” “Moreover, is not the belief in inherent and inherited traits what characterizes 19th-century racism as well, the same emphasis on evil vs good blood occurs among the Spanish, and is implied in Luther, as well as 19th-century writers.” ^[2] Doright 08:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think it would be best fit under the article racism, or Anti-Semitism. For this article, you could try to put in section 2.1 around the part about the Inquisition. --Archon Wing 00:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Current" disagreement across disciplines (1985 !!!)

The title says "current", and the information is not current at all... You should talk about the more recent resaearch which show that there is no race when we study the genome. 1985 is a very old date when we speak about genetic.

i've updated this, despite disagreeing with the premise of your comment. --Rikurzhen 11:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The most recent research shows that the classical racial division has very old roots and is thus valid. The fact that some "racial groups" (e.g. American Indians, West Africans+Bantus, some mongoloids) are in fact racial mixtures stabilized during the last Ice Age can't change much on it. Centrum99 12:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] intro

I did some clearn-up from the intro, deleting a few sentences. The sentences I deleted pretty much just provided more detail about the complexity of using the word race. I think this level of detail is distracting in an introduction and can should and I believe is dealt with in the body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brazilian racial terms

I added quick definitions for the Brazilian racial terms moreno claro and mulato claro. I don't think that there's any point in adding long explanations of these terms to this article, but if anyone can improve on my quick glosses, please do so. -- 201.78.233.162 21:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] White (people)

[I'm posting this here because there's no Wikiproject for race.]

The contributors to White (people) have dwindled down to just a few over the past month, and they are locked in an unproductive edit dispute. One issue is whether some fringe views may be getting disproportionate space. The article would benefit from additional input and a broader consensus. I've asked for protection due to a revert war, but it should be brief. -Will Beback 09:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree. The White (people) article is fairly ridiculous in terms of its content to begin with, and is a HUGE article given how simple it is to summarize the entire article: "White people is a term used to describe Caucasians. Some people like the term and some do not." That's it. That's ALL you need for that entire article that is well over the normal length.

2 or 3 users have begun to flame one another and constantly undo and/or revert, create an incredibly insipid situation. The entire article should be removed and it can be summarized, if it isn't already addressed, in the Race article.--ThatBajoranGuy 05:06, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] continent of ancestry

I removed this from the page for further discussion:

The term continent of ancestry is gaining acceptance as a replacement for the word race[1].

I do not think continent of ancestry is yet popular enough to merit mention in the first paragraph. Moreover, the NYT article, while interesting, is not about continent of ancestry. It mentions it once but has no data on its "gaining acceptance." Slrubenstein | Talk 12:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed the "race" article, and did not mind its bigness nor its variety of approaches, so be circumspect in undertaking any massive re-editing just for slimness. I consulted this article (as a genetically-uninformed biochemist) because I had heard two things regarding race. The first was the claim that the human genome project has provided data that basically do not allow for the support of the "race" concept. Although the genome project and sequencing in general are mentioned in a number of places, the race article seems a little less grounded in genomic data than I would have expected, giving it a bit of an antiquated feel. Are there reasons for this? Should it be mentioned that the genomic work is not yet definitive or never will be? I do not know the answer, I only raise the question. Second, I had heard (read in Guns Germs and Steel?) that African populations showed large diversity between groups, with these groups not particularly more related to each other than to groups outside Africa - suggesting that the term "african" might not be tenable? One part of the article here differentiates west and northern african, but is this general claim correct?

I believe that your concerns are addressed (and anticipated by) those who argue that "race" should be replaced by discussing populations and clines - a view already well-expressed in the article, and not new. By the way, if you think you may contribute more to Wikipedia, please consider registring and also sign your name. If you are unregistered you should still sign your name with four tildes which will leave a time signature. thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

We should build a list of review papers in the external links section for academics. Maybe a further reading section. --Rikurzhen 20:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Done --Rikurzhen 20:57, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Slrubenstein | Talk 10:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] race differences in IQ link

I think that whole study is a load of non-sense and if there was that much difference between the intelligence or "cranial capacity" of races, then we would be classified as different species or sub-species. That link is really racist and is basically saying that certain races are stupid compared to others, even if they are speaking about "average differences". The article only outlines their claims/theories they make and arent backed by any referenced data whatsoever. I can tell you right now that those researchers are just plain wrong in much of what they say and their study is basically a load of crap (eg. I've never met a person in my life who could possibly have a brain thats 5 cubic inches smaller than mine, with the possible exception of people who have a certain mental diasbility or handicap). The link should be removed. 69.157.126.241 23:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

APA journals are citable by Wikipedia.--Nectar 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point. The article itself however remains to be nothing more than unfounded and misleading propganda from the researchers radical and biased agenda. There are differences between us, but not on the level they're speaking of and the large differences in IQ testing are by no means wholly or mainly genetic. The IQ test itself is a biased and unreliable measure of ones intelligence (itself hard to define) or cognitive ability/potential. 69.157.126.241 00:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

• Well, the economic difference between Japan and Haiti is just not big, the economic stats of these two countries are just biased and unreliable, aren't they? Centrum99 13:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
• If the IQ test is biased and unreliable, tell please all those blacks living in American ghettos that they should go to universities instead of selling crack and killing each other in the street. They are just perfectly equal to whites and Asians, so the only reason, why they stay there lies probably in their lazines or in the fact that they are so goodhearted that they leave all the places at the universities to other people. The same case is with Haitians or black Africans: They don't want to advance, because they don't want to increase world's pollution, global warming and the gas mileage! How nice! YahooMan, 22.10.2006

Wikipedia is probably not the place to try to spark spontaneous enlightenment, and a discussion on the content of an article on a social construct called "race" is not the place to engage in the elucidation of epigenetic determination of individual characteristics, prenatal nutritional and endocrine factors, early childhood nutrition and social nurture, the general dynamic of fist, stick, knife, gun and its relationship to a dysfunctional society, etc., etc. That being said, let me register my vote for saying to "all those blacks living in American ghettos" what my grandmother said many times in many ways to me, "When you get to college..." P0M 01:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Hateful and racist comments have no place in a Wikipedia article. Everyone knows that African Americans score low on intelligence tests. It is not necessary to mention that in the article. Lestrade 13:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Brazil part

In the text is mentioned a research, but it's not mentioned who done it, neither when or were it was published. I think, for an encyclopedia, it need to be removed, if no one REALLY find the research. Lemke --201.35.238.191 20:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

An excellent point. I added the citation for Harris, which covers this objection. However, I do not have access to more recent work - I wish someone else would draw on it to improve this section. Especially, Enrique Desmond Arias´s book, "Blackness Without Ethnicity: Constructing Race in Brazil, and Donna Goldstein´s book, "Laughter Out of Place: Race, Class, Violence, and Sexuality in a Rio Shantytown." Also, Donna Goldstein´s 1999 article in American Anthropologist, "Interracial Sex and Sexual Democracy in Brazil." I do not currently have access to these, but even just incorporating information from this article would be a vast improvement. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Gaps and Missteps: First, Blackness Without Ethnicity was written by Livio Sansone, not Arias. I have written an extensive master's thesis on race in Brazil, and particularly as it has been compared to the U.S. racial model since the time of Freyre (1930s). If someone is in fact interested in this, I'd be happy to add sources, but I'm not sure that my long list of references is really appropriate in this case. For the record, the most relevant and recent works would come from Michael Hanchard, Sansone, Thomas Skidmore, Donna Goldstein, Ed Telles, and Miguel Vale de Almeida, among many others. Further, acting as if Freyre's narrative was an end to the debate over racial democracy (another talking point we should be adding to this section) is ridiculous. Everyone from Thales de Azevedo to E. Franklin Frazier to Carl Degler and on and on have commented on this debate, but perhaps only a shorter summary of the argument is necessary. That being the case, Marvin Harris' work is far from recent or the only viewpoint, and really shouldn't be the only person cited here (ok, along with Freyre), as it seems Slrubenstein recognizes. And forgetting to link socioeconomic class to the discussion is a huge gap here. Please comment back if you'd like to see these kinds of things added to the article as I don't want to burden it with further length if no one cares to see it. -M.H.

MH, could you work on updating this section, drawing on the sources you mention? Be careful not to introduce your own argument, and keep the Marvin Harris stuff - just make clear that it is dated and needs to be supplemented with the recent research/debates. I think as long as add to (including adding anything about the academic or political context in which earlier researchers worked) father than flat out replaced what is there, and scrupilously comply with WP:NOR and WP:NPOV I think no one will object to and on the contrary appreciate your work. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] embryology

would sympathtic editors consider a positive vote here? [2]Slrubenstein | Talk 15:34, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Law Enforcement

I have concerns that many areas in this article don't represent a worldwide view, after looking at the section on law enforcement.100110100 04:40, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Since every country has its own laws, this particular section cannot synthesize a worldwide view. At best it can provide a sample of views from law enforcement in diverse countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For a good resource on this, it might be worth adding Ian Haney Lopez's work on White by Law: The Legal Construction of Race. -M.H.

Go ahead. You can even summarize it as a case-study. What is important is to do so in a way that leaves room for other points of view (as long as they too come from verifiable sources), and leaves room perhaps for case-studies from other countries. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] caucasoid, mongoloid, negroid articles

The Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid articles are in need of some major cleanup and rewriting. They're mostly filled with stuff from Carleton S. Coon and some 19th century racial theorists. If anyone on here has time to spare and more scientifically accepted information to contribute to those articles, it would be greatly appreciated. --Pravit 03:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

These races were defined by craniofacial measurements that were readily available in the 19th century. The anthropologists who measured skulls a century ago are still credible in their measurments.--Dark Tichondrias 00:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The sections of those articles I am opposed to are the ones that suggest that some of these races or their subgroups are more or less evolved than the other. As well as the ridiculous section about supposed Mongoloid mental traits, which I would imagine are not determined by craniofacial measurements. -Pravit 02:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what "ridicuous section about suppossed mongoloid mental traits" would that be? Also I don't see any suggestion anywhere that some groups are "less evolved" than others. Paul B 09:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Physical anthropologists rejected these categories quite some time ago. They are not scientific categories. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, physical anthropologists serving the official propaganda lost common sense and rejected these cathegories. There just exists nothing like 9-times higher violent crime rate of black Americans. That's only an illusion. As well as 8 black finalists of West African heritage in the 100 m at every world's athletic event since 1988 is only an illusion. And the flood of Kenyans at long distances, whose sprinters are so weak that they even don't enter first rounds. (Why?) And all the white men in weightlifting competitions. That's only a phantasy. All people are just equal in everything. P.S.: The king is naked! Yahooman, 22.10.2006

Or maybe the real reason why prominent anthropologists like Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and Jared Diamond deny the validity of race, is because given the fact that antiquated classifications by Blumenbach and Carleton Coon have been shot to holes (and the fact that there exists only one living subspecies of Homo sapiens, that human racial groups would be a taxonomic category below subspecies, and as such these races (divisions within the living subspecies H. sapiens sapiens) are not all that discrete due to constant gene flow) yet some racists and social darwinists (I refuse to capitalize the 'D' in social darwinism so as not to insult the legacy of one of the greatest scientists) including J. P. Rushton, Jensen, Steven Sailer, and *cough* Yahooman might distort their more objective and accurate studies of human biodiversity. Case in point, Yahooman's attempt at a modern racial classification is surprisingly progressive and seems accurate (though may have minor methodological flaws), AND his own classification system undermines his racist views. For instance, this hypothesis may lend support to moderate forms of afrocentricism... I think that studying human biodiversity would ultimately fight racism, but that some people are too damn stubborn and ignorant.

The official propaganda? What on earth does this mean? All of your sentences are non-sequitors and demonstrate nothing relevant to the issue. Good to see that whatever country you come from promotes a good education in basic science!!Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You want to deny that the current "official scientific view" is not a silly propaganda? While our knowledge of racial differences gradually advances, and due to modern genetics, we already know, how different racial types came into being, the servile American Anthropological Association states that "The biological concept of race . . . has no basis in science." I would say that with this statement, science returns back to the medieval era. But we all know, why "the biological concept of race . . . has no basis in science". It is because it has so big a basis that all attempts to create an equal multiracial society desperately fail. Hence we must eventually pretend (like the people in Andersen's fairy-tale) that there exist no races, only to prolonge the sure agonia of the social multi-culti utopias in the Western world. If you want to start studying subtle racial biology, you can look at pages that I just set up on WIKIPEDIA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_african_type If you don't want, I can offer a web site summing up results of the most progressive genetic research on race, officially permitted by the jezuites and the American government and thus the only correct: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm YahooMan, 23.10.2006

OH, i get it, the "official propaganda" is scientific research and findings you do not like. Too bad, science is not dictated by your own interests or desires. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Since your knowledge of these things is obviously very poor, I don't see any reason, why to continue in a discussion with you. You still must learn a lot. Perhaps sometimes in the future you wil recognize the difference between demagogy and science. YahooMan, 24.10.2006

I'm sure we could all learn a lot. You could learn that insulting editors acting in good faith is not appropriate. If you have recent sources in anthropological literature or in the work of geneticists that supports the ty[pology that you give here, please provide it. Other Wikipedia articles are not legitimate sources. Paul B 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Acting in good faith is no excuse for incompetence. Many - if not all - incompetent people act in good faith. But as I said, you will have a chance to read all my conclusions on my prepared page about archeogenetics. I will post a link to it at the right time. However, since I must work about 1000 articles, it won't be so soon. YahooMan, 23.10.2006

You do not get it. We do not care about "your" conclusions. Wikipedia articles must adhere to our NPOV and NOR policies. And no articles are "yourse." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that the page would be placed on Wikipedia. YahooMan, 23.10.2006

Now see I always thought that Nazi race science such as what you proclaim was official propaganda...After all, their science never helped them detect the instances of Jews who joined their ranks in order to survive before they had a chance to slap a Star of David on them and tattoo their arms. Funny that you claim western science is official propaganda. --Strothra 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To Strothra: It is not a western science. It is a Neo-Marxist science. Centrum99 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Caucasians, Mongols, and Negroes are all exactly the same as each other. Anyone who says otherwise must be a hateful racist. Caucasians love to run; Mongols readily respond to rhythmic sounds; Negroes score very high on SAT tests. There are no differences that are scientifically measurable.71.125.134.12 21:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Another way of classifying race?

This article doesn't seem to mention the antiquated form of race classification of Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Capoid, Australoid. Is that because it already has an article and/or doesn't refer to modern human classification? 66.229.182.113 17:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Modern genetic research has showed, how we should understand racial classification. I don't understand, why you always cite arguments that look like a science on the level of a basic school. Racial differences based on skin color?? A man, who wrote about it, has zero knowledge of anthropology! We just already know how different racial groups evolved and mixed, so why don't you write about it? Are you too lazy to find these new pieces of knowledge? So why do you then write a big article about race? The racial classification must start from the situation 35 000 years ago, because until that time, all human populations evolved isolated and developed basic racial traits that we see in main races today. The situation then was as follows:

THE AFRICAN GROUPS ("PALEONEGRIDS"):

1/ Proto-Khoisan groups in South Africa characterized by Y-haplogroup A and mtDNA haplogroups L1d/L1k (there are new discoveries of archaic mtDNA haplogroups and their system has been constantly changing). They are the oldest human group that diverged from the rest of mankind perhaps 100.000 years ago

2/ Proto-Nilotes in the south-east Sahara bearing a subclade of A (A3b2) - thus they were distantly related to Khoisan and represent a population that diverged from Khoisan a long time ago, headed for north, and developed extreme physical adaptation to the hot climate of the Sahara

3/ Proto-Pygmies in the forests of West-Central Africa (Y-haplogroup B+mtDNA haplogroups L1+L2). The second oldest human lineage; the dates of approximate divergence vary, but it was about 60 000-80 000 years ago

THE NON-AFRICAN GROUPS - belonging to the same Y-chromosomal lineage that separated maybe more than 70 000 years ago and - with one exception - left Africa:

4/ Neonegrids in the Sahara (E3a+L3), a dark population with somewhat Europoid traits that will head for south in the next 10 000 years and will play a key role in the formation of the "Negroid race". They were the only people of the non-African lineage that stayed in Africa.

5/ Paleoeuropids in the Near East (Y-macrohaplogroup F) that then massively expanded to Central Asia, Europe, India, even south-east Asia (New Guinea) and will continue to America

6/ Australoid groups in South Asia and Australasia (C+M) - a very broad cathegory for archaic forms, descendants of the first human wave (the so-called "Coastal Clan") probably more than 60 000 years ago

7/ Paleomongolids in east-central Asia (Mongolia, northern China) (C+M) - distantly related to Australoids, actually a cold-adapted form of Australoids that may have also penetrated to America 32 000 years ago

8/ Paleoainids in the Far East and also elsewhere (Andaman Islands) (Y-haplogroup D)

And how did modern "Europoids, Mongoloids, Negroids and Australoids" came into being?

1/ Archaic Paleoeuropids/Cro Magnons came to Europe from Central Asia and drove out Neanderthals about 30 000 years ago. Subsequently they mixed with another paleoeuropid wave from the Near East (the bearers of the Gravettian culture). Their mixture became a racial core of today's Europeans

2/ Another Paleoeuropids bearing Y-haplogroups N and O headed for Siberia and took paleomongolid women; the mixture became a core of today's mongoloids like e.g. Ugrofins, Chinese, Vietnamese or the Yakut. The real MONGOLIDS with the most extreme traits of the mongoloid race stayed in South-Central Siberia and their current descendants are Mongols, Buryats or Evenks.

3/ Another Paleoeuropids bearing Y-haplogroup Q, closely related to Cro-Magnons, headed for Siberia and, too, took paleomongolid women; however, the admixture was not as high as in the case of the bearers of N+O. These people then headed for north-east and about 20 000 years ago crossed the Bering strait. Today you know them well as American Indians.

4/ Another Paleoeuropids bearing Y-haplogroup H invaded India, exterminated or eliminated the Australoid (better said: Veddoid) male population, mixed with australoid women and became a core of the paleolithic population of India, from which, by the way, also European Gypsies come from

5/ Another Paleoeuropids bearing Y-haplogroup M headed for South-East Asia and reached New Guinea. Here they mixed with local australoids/negritos and gave birth to current Papuans

6/ The Neonegrid Saharan hunters were forced to vaccate the Sahara ca. 25 000 years ago and settled in better areas around the dessicating desert. One part of them (Y-haplogroup E3a) settled in West Africa and mixed with Pygmies. From this mixture, the modern West African populations and also Bantu groups come from

7/ Another Neonegrid group (E3b1) survived the last ice age in the Horn of Africa. Then it expanded to North Africa and the Levant, where it imposed their Afro-Asiatic languange on aboriginal populations. From the later mixture of Semites coming from Arabia, the so-called Ethiopid racial type came into being. In fact, its "Europoid" look is not only due to the mixture with Semites; the original Neonegrid population may have already posessed some "Europoid" traits, probably like in today's Somalis.

8/ Several europid waves after the end of the ice age further diluted the Veddoid racial substrate in India and pushed its paleolithic inhabitants down to the bottom of the social hierarchy. As a result of unbridgeable racial differences, the newcomers set up an "Indian apartheid" - the caste system.

9/ Neonegrids in North-West Africa mixed with Near Eastern women and became a core of today's Berbers. Later they even absorbed a post-glacial invasion from Spain, Capsian people from East Africa, Roman influence and the Arabic expansion. Hence they are a composite, unhomogenous people, but Europid genes in them still strongly prevail (ca. 80%).

10/ Archaic Pygmies and Khoisan in Africa were gradually pushed to the forest and desert, respectively, by more advanced people, and today they are facing the reality of extinction.

11/ Ainids in the Far East were absorbed by expanding mongoloids

12/ Mongoloids from Taiwan were forced to leave their island because of the pressure of old Hans (Proto-Chinese). On the New Guinean coast, they mixed with Papuans and from here the Melanesian and Polynesian types originate.

I think that from the outline above it is clear that the old racial division is still valid. The cores of the traditional races were formed 35 000 years ago, after 30 000-70 000 years of separate development. We must understand that some racial groups - or their parts - are in fact more or less stabilized racial mixtures that came into being during the last ice age: the mongoloids (not MONGOLIDS) in Asia, American Indians, Papuans, West Africans, Polynesians. On the other hand, some traditional racial groupings need revision: For example, Nilotes, Pygmies and Khoisan should be actually taken as separate races (they fully deserve it). It is absolute nonsense that modern genetic research denies the existence of races; to the contrary, it elucidates their origin and corrects errors based only on anthropology. Those, who spread this bullshit (pardon) usually know nothing about anthropology; they only repeat sentences that they heard from ideologically motivated "specialists" serving the official multi-culti/PC propaganda. Bye, Yahoo Man, 22.10.2006

The modern racial classification should look like this:

• 1. Khoisan (Capoid) type
• 2. Nilotic type
• 3. Pygmy type
• 4. Neonegrid type (Somalis) - should be confirmed by archeology and anthropology
• 5. Europid type (Europe, the Near East)
• 6. Mongolid type (South-Central Siberia)
• 7. Australoid types

Stabilized mixtures:

• 1. West African type (Neonegrid x Pygmy type)
• 2. Ethiopid type (Neonegrid x Europid type)
• 3. Europoid types (Europid x Neonegrid: Berbers, Europid x Australoid: Indians)
• 4. Mongoloid types (mostly Europid x Mongolid: West Siberians/Ugrofins, North-East Siberians/Yakuts, Eskimos etc., South-East Asians/Chinese; mostly Europid x Mongolid x Australoid: Austroasiatic+many Austronesian speakers)
• 5. Amerind type (Europid x Mongolid)
• 6. Polynesian type (Mongoloid x Australoid type)

and possibly

• 7. Papuan type (Europid x Australoid)

Please, don't take any "cladistics" of human races seriously; they are based on the selection of certain genes and hence they group together some partially mixed racial types that have absolutely different genetic roots, e.g. Nilotes with West Africans. It is only due to recent admixture of Neonegrid genes that sub-Saharan Africans as a whole seem to form a separate cluster in genetic studies. In fact, there exists nothing like a "Negroid race". The "Negroid race" as we take it today actually includes four separate racial types. If Nilotes, Pygmies and Khoisan shared no Neonegrid admixture, they would form very distinct, separate racial clusters (however, to be more exact: they still would be connected via Pygmy genes). YAHOOMAN, 22.10.206

First, please sign your posts, and indent to distinguish from other posts. Second, statements like this "The modern racial classification should look like this" do not belong in an encyclopedia. At best, there is (not "should be" a particular racial classification proposed or accepted by certain people. As long as these people are not representing a fringe view, and their views can be linked to a verifiable source, their view can be included in the article as a particular point of view with a proper citation. But if this is just what an editor thinks "should be," well, our views are not supposed to go into articles at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• The model that I presented above comes from the combination of anthropology and modern genetic studies. It needs no sophisticated deductive abilities, only the knowledge of anthropological differences and Y/mtDNA-haplogroups. To my surprise, I can't find anybody in the scientific world, who would try to combine it and produce a more modern racial classification. But this is very probably due to the fact that almost all authorities that could (and should) do this work spend all their time by babbling "race does not exist". I think that this classification should be discussed in a more detailed way somewhere and hence I plan to build a web site, where you can read my views and reasonings. YahooMan 23.10.2006

• If your model is accepted by accredited anthropologist, geneticists or other body of scholars please indicate your sources. Paul B 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am afraid that we will find few anthropologists and geneticists, who would be willing to discus this topic. As I said above, the majority of them (espicially the most known personalities) must pretend that there exist no races and racial classifications make no sense, otherwise their promising career would quickly end or they would be even fired from their universities. As for me, I am an archeologist by education, but I am not familiar with e.g. the archeology of Africa (but I am looking for sources on this topic). I plan to build a web site, where I will explain this classification in a more detailed way. At this moment, you can look at some pages dealing with Y-haplogroups (see Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups that I recently supplemented by new data and good maps (but the pages don't go into much detail as for racial classification, because I don't want to present it unless I broadly explain my opinions and conclusions.) You can also look at "my" pages dealing with basic anthropolögical types in Africa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_african_type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_type YahooMan, 23.10.2006

Just curious YahooMan but when do you plan to build this website so that your research and sources may be examined?

I will try to post a link to my web site, when it is finished. YahooMan/Centrum99 13:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I too would very much like to see YahooMan's site and I hope it will also list and perhaps illustrate the physical characteristics that distinguish these different groups of people. Shoebill 12:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems

[edit] 1

I saw the "cleanup" notice and had a look. So far I have seen mostly minor syntax and vocabulary issues, however one sentence leaves me clueless:

Darwin also pointed out the arbitrary use of any number of categories to divide up the human species, which is a major problem of racial theories.

Is this supposed to mean that Darwin remarked on the use of some number of categories by other people in a way that he considered arbitrary? Is the writer of this sentence saying that Darwin used an arbitrary list of categories in the course of his own writing? The sentence needs to be rewritten. P0M 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Shall I cut this part out?P0M 07:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It would help if someone could provide a citation for where Darwin said this. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See the bottom of this section. Darwin seemed to be partial to the idea of race, but, as the brilliant biologist he was, he could not deny that race distinctions were largely based on arbitrarily placed borders. FilipeS 13:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2=

Another passage:

Leiberman and Jackson (1995), however, have noted that this model depends on several findings relevant to race: (1) that marked morphological contrasts exist between individuals found at the center and at the perimeter of Middle Pleistocene range of the genus Homo; (2) that many features can be shown to emerge at the edge of that range before they develop at the center; and (3) that these features exhibit great tenacity through time. Regional variations in these features can thus be taken as evidence for long term differences among genus Homo individuals that prefigure different races among present-day Homo sapiens individuals.

This passage seems to assume a center (origin) and radial spread of humans from the center in all directions followed by mutations at various points near the perimeter. It reminds me a little of a schematic circuit for a radio that has little obvious relationship to the way components are actually arranged and wired. Is the presentation of Leiberman and Jackson really that abstract? P0M 07:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your query. Physical anthropologists often rely on the spatial distribution of human remains. There is nothing abstract about this, it is all very concrete. Based on dating techniques, the matrix, as well as features of the remains they can make claims about which remains are older and which are younger. These claims are perhaps a little abstract but they are all based on concrete data. Then, anthropologists try to make inferences about human evolution - this is more abstract. This is just how anthropologists work, I am not sure what more you are asking for. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3

I realize that the following definition has been formed by quoting Levin, but, is this statement the clearest that can be formed on the basis of what he actually said? To me it seems rather rough and disjointed.

In "Cladistic taxonomy ... the basic taxon [is] the genealogical unit, ancestors-plus-line-(or tree)-of-descent, what according to the present analysis races are."

At minimum I would rather it ended with "what, according to the present analysis, races are." Isn't the definition rather circular? "Race means the genealogical unit...which is what races are"?P0M 07:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A recent change.

Somebody changed disagreed to agreed or vice-versa, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race&curid=25614&diff=84584939&oldid=84573845

Which way is right? P0M 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The correct form is "disagree" (the way it stands now). The survey by Lieberman et al. was cited by a Finnish writer in an essay posted on his website on 28 October. A few days after that (on 30 October) someone criticized him via e-mail on the basis that the source text had actually said "agree", not "disagree". It turned out that just a few minutes before the e-mail was sent, a vandal had changed the word "disagree" in the Wikipedia article to "agree". The critic strongly rejected the charges of him being the vandal, but soon after the article had been reverted back to the original wording, someone changed "disagree" to "agree" again. The critic has later had to admit to being behind both of these acts of vandalism. - Weikko 23:22, 2 November 2006

[edit] Criticism

• The article is overly long and disconnected.
• In several parts, it sounds excessively apologetic towards racists, racialists, and neoracialists.
• It needs to be more focused. There needs to be a section where the common notion of race is presented and dissected, along with all the demolishing arguments against it systematically explained.
• The article needs to make a very careful distinction between ancestry, as measured by modern DNA-analysis techniques, and race. It needs to explain how they are different things, or it will risk giving the impression that genetics has vindicated racialism, when the opposite is true. As a matter of fact, it might be a good idea to have a separate article for fossil- and gene-based paleoanthropology. The tracing of the ancient migrations of human populations risks being mistaken for evidence of racial divergence.
• Race in Law Enforcement is a controversial topic which should probably have an article of its own.

FilipeS 13:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes, myself. I hope they've improved the article. FilipeS 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Filipe's changes

Will you please explain the change you made, and why you made them. Thanks. Guettarda 14:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I made several changes.

1. Most of them were just a reordering and reindexation of the various sections, to give the article a clearer structure and a more chronological order (IMHO, of course).
2. Most of the rest consisted of moving material which was less relevant or more technical from this article to more specific articles. (This is a long article, and from the Talk Page I see there had been talk of trimming it down.)
3. One or two sections I renamed.
4. I tried to add links to all the more specific articles which were split from this one.
5. I corrected one or two inaccuracies and doubtful phrasings.
6. I brought a Darwin quote from Race (historical definitions), as requested here.

Regards. FilipeS 15:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Validity of the race concept

In his book The Race Myth, Joseph L. Graves Jr. effectively disproved the biological concept of race. He writes:

What Does it Take to Be a Race?

To qualify as a biological race (or subspeicies or variety), an animal or plant has to meet one of two requirements:

1. it can have its own distinct lineage, meaning that it evolved in isolation that it never (or rarely) mated with individuals outside its borders, or 2. the genetic distence between population and another has to be significantly greater than the genetic variability that exists within the genetic variability that exists within the populations.

Both of these criteria are proven false in his book.

Dr. Graves is a renouned Geneticist and Biologist, who has had his articles printed in both the New York and Los Angeles Times, and is University Core Director and Professor of Biological Sciences at Farleigh Dickinson University.

As such, I think this article needs massive cleanup.

PC science is almost as bad as far-right-wing science. The truth is usually in the middle.

How pathetic! You should know that science describes many animals as separate species, yet these "species" freely interbreed and create fertile "new" species. And we can't speak about races in humans? What about Australian aborigines, who haven't mixed with other human groups for 50 000 years? Does dr Graves mention them? And what about Khoisans and Pygmies? Please don't list "New York Times" in connection with race. It is one of the most politically correct (and most demagogic) newspapers in the world. It tells much about the scientific level of dr Graves. Centrum99 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it will turn out that based on the scientific definition of race, there are no human races However, it is patently obvious that humans are physically diverse and that people from particular geographic areas with a shared genetic heritage tend to have a set of physical attributes in common. So I'm hoping at the moment that at least part of this debate could be bypassed by someone creating a new page called something like "Human Physical Diversity" in which this fascinating subject can be explored more easily. Shoebill 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Revert?

I think this edit by 71.227.70.237 should be reverted. What do you think? --NeutralPoint 01:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Genetic?

Race having a genetic basis? How can someone's race be the result of characteristics that were inherited from their parents? Are Muslims who reside in London members of the English race, Caucasian race, Western European race, Middle Eastern race, or Islamic race? Lestrade 13:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be displaying the deductive powers of your namesake! (sorry) How can someone's race not be the result of characteristics inherited from their parents? The term race as used in this article is specifically biological, because that's the most meaningful usage. It's a truism in one sense that race is genetic. It's a truism in another that it's a "social construct". The real issue is whether some or any of the categories that have been constructed tell us anything useful about human difference. Paul B 13:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This problem seems to be another example of the ambiguity of words. Laziness, inertia, lack of imagination, and general mental indolence have resulted in a situation in which humans are unable to create new words as designations of new concepts. They use existing words, words that are already signs for specific concepts, and they apply them to new concepts. This word race designates a multitude of different concepts and is therefore almost useless. The fact that it is related to a very sensitive, emotional issue does not contribute to the goal of cooly, rationally, and logically giving the word a precise definition.Lestrade 14:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

" This word race designates a multitude of different concepts and is therefore almost useless." This is a view held by many scientists, and I believe it is among the views represented in the article. Other scientists hold other views and their views are represented as well, as it should be. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sign with four tildes. You don't need to then add your name again. Yes, the word race is inherently ambiguous, and you're right - the terminological inexactitude leads to a lot of the unnecessary confusion in the debate, but we can't just create new words. In the nineteenth century it was common to use expressions like "the French race", meaning "the French people". Since then, the term has been more commonly used to refer to a codification of human physical types linked to ancestry and world geography. It's usually the link between geographical and ancestral patterns that is mostly at issue, and between that problem and the logic of the various models of codification that have been used. Paul B 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] organization

About a month ago someone did a massive reorganization of the article. The changes I made today reflect a partial return to the earlier state. My main goal was to divided the article into three main sections: first, debates among biological scientists about race, second, how social scientists use it, third, its application practically. The section on "current debates" follows the first section since it is primarily concerned with debates among life-scientists. I deleted a section on Jensen's view of Cavalli-Sforza. First, Jensen is a psychologist, not a biologist so the section was mislabeled. Second, if we want extensive coverage of Cavalli-Sforza, our source should be Cavalli-Sforza and critics, not Jensen. Finally, this stuff should - if anywhere - go into the section on genetics. I think there is not enough consensus yet on how the genetics data is applied to racial classification. Cavalli-Sforza's work on genetics certain belongs in an article on human genetics. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)