Talk:Race/Archive 23

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 NPOV challenge 2 Restructuring 3 Jargon and article size 3.1 scale and research 3.2 popular concepts of race 4 The rejection of race and the rise of "population" and "cline" 5 Current views across disciplines 6 Is there a clearer formulation? 7 multiregional hypothesis 8 Fst and Cladistics 9 Race_and_genetics#Genetic_variation_and_human_populations 10 Article has been xxxxx 11 false content 12 Another puzzling formulation 13 This really does need a source 14 Article size and reduplication of information undue weight 15 some of the issues 15.1 Scale of research 15.2 Rejection of race 15.3 Human skin color 15.4 Human genetic variation 15.5 models of human evolution 15.6 Single origin 16 Request for comment 16.1 Article Size 16.2 article size2 16.3 Organization 16.4 Technical Jargon 17 Mediation 18 The distribution of genetic diversity 19 Wobble's edits 20 Nature Genetics 21 Race and racism section problems 22 Archiving 23 Mediation2 24 This Article is waaay Biased toward the Anti-Racist side. 25 Race in Brazil 26 Social interpretations of race 27 Population discussed as though it were a euphemism 28 Descent of Man 29 Diagram swapped out, but text refers to the old diagram and needs to be fixed. 30 Incoherent paragraph 31 How can anyone explain this sentence? 32 What is the rest of this paragraph? 33 Non sequitur 34 More confused argumentation. Lead para. Sect III 35 Throw the reader a life preserver 36 Instance of "race" taken as a word with an agreed upon referent 37 Ambiguous formulation 38 Using an ax to chop an ax handle 39 Ancient history 40 mediation3 41 Graphics/charts/maps 42 Races as lineages 43 Forensic anthropology 44 K what? 45 Many to one mappings, a potent troublemaker

NPOV challenge

I'm challenging the neutrality of this article. FilipeS 16:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Please state your issue with NPOV as pertains to this article.--Ramdrake 16:48, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms and concerns raised by various Wikipedians here. FilipeS 17:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

"Dumbing down" is not a neutrality challenge and I do not see anyone in that section suggesting (let alone demonstrating) that the article violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I do. FilipeS 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that you do see how this means there is a NPOV problem with the article isn't enough. Please explain what you see as a NPOV problem at length. "The criticisms raised by various Wikipedians" doesn't cut it either, as nobody raised their issue specifically as a NPOV issue. If you want to do this, please expound on the issue you perceive.--Ramdrake 16:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Pretending that the discussion I linked to only contains criticisms of the level of language used in the article is disingenuous. FilipeS 18:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As is removing a NPOV tag without any discussion. FilipeS 18:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as you don't come up with anything less vague than "criticisms and concerns raised by various Wikipedians", the NPOV tag is also very likely to stay off. This sounds like objecting for the sake of objection.--Ramdrake 19:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

And the NPOV tag wasn't removed without any discussion: it was removed after you failed to come up with anything more substantial that the sentence quoted above.--Ramdrake 22:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. I could make a complaint about Slrubenstein's censorship (with your complicity), but I probably won't bother. Have it your way. This article will go on being a joke. FilipeS 22:18, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not censorship. You have been asked time and again to formulate a specific reason why this article had NPOV issues. The only thing you could do was point to a discussion that's a mile long, has at least four different topics in it and expect everybody to understand which specific point made the article fail NPOV guidelines. You need to define the problem in your own terms, and you've utterly failed to do that, therefore failing to justify the NPOV tag. No censorship there.--Ramdrake 22:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how my re-adding the section on scale of research is censorship. So far I have mostly been restoring deleted text, how on earth is this censorship? I did make some cuts, but to text that several editos considered too complex; my cuts were solely to simplify, not to eliminate any content. For FelipeS to characterize this as censorship is beyond disingenuous. Anyay, I removed the NPOV tag again. It is absurd. The only edits I have been reverting recently have been by someone deleting content. I have not voiced any objections to anyone adding content and I do not understand Wobble's explanation for the tag as having anything to do with some users preventing anyone from adding scientific content. What does this accusation refer to? I know I have not reverted or deleted any scientific content added by Wobble or anyone else. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein sez: "Anyay, I removed the NPOV tag again". Then he fails to notice any censorship. Hilarious, or what? FilipeS 12:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You care more about my removing the NPOV tag, then about others removing content and my restoring it? Talk about hilarious. If you cared about censorship you would care about what actually goes on on the article page. Removing the NPOV tag censors nobody. If you think it does, you do not know what censorship is and are trivializing it. Start taking things seriously, why don't you? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Or what, indeed. I am at a loss to understand you. Removing a POV tag has nothing to do with censorship! Paul B 12:50, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Will anyone who is supporting the NPOV tag actually 'state the NPOV issue which needs to be addressed on this article. I see several content disputes, I see diametrally opposed viewpoints, but nobody so far has stated: "there is an NPOV issue, and here is what it is". The only thing I've heard is, "there's an NPOV issue, somewhere in that section". That's not specific enough if we are to address the issue.--Ramdrake 18:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, here is how Wikipedia defines NPOV:

The (NPOV) policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

Again, my question, how does this article not meet this requirement?--Ramdrake 18:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well for a start the conflicting views are not presented fairly. It is not neutral to claim that in science all points of view are equally valid. There would also be no point in testing scientific models by experimentation, what would be the point if we never rejected any model? Your whole argument is based on a miunderstanding of the Scientific method. If it were then all scientists would accept the teaching of Intelligent design in the science classroom. It is not neurtal to say that multiregionalism is as valid as ROA. It is not neutral to claim that multilocus allele clustering supports the concept of race as it is usually defined by biologists. Undue weight is being given to certain concepts, they are presented as if they represent the views of a significant minority of the scientific comunity, but they don't. If concepts are given undue weight then this breaches the neutrality policy. I don't understand why this isn't obvious. I've said this in the above section several times. These issues need to be addressed. Alun 04:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alun,

It is not neurtal to say that multiregionalism is as valid as ROA.

I agree. I do not believe the article does this. However, if you think the article does this, please tell me what edit you would suggest? I feel pretty confident that as long as your edit does not involve censoring any content, but simply clarifying, I will support it. But please provide a propsoed edit.

Why don't you believe this? I find it strange that you say this. The multireginonal hypothesis has a whole section to itself, unlike the ROA model. Nowhere in the section about multiregionalism does it state that modern anthropology and biology do not support this model. The only thing of relevance that this model can contribute to the article is that it is a very good model for subspecies, so it could form a good example for explaining what subspecies are. I really don't see why this model needs a whole section to itself, I don't really see why this model needs to be included at all, a small mention in a section discussing human evolution would suffice for an article about "race". There is very little support for multiregionalism, former multiregionalists favour a model whereby there was admixture between archaic and modern Homo sapiens.[1] The debate is now about how much mixing, not about multiregionalism and ROA. It should also be noted that even the hybrid hypothesis is a small minority hypothesis with most genetic (though nnot all) supporting an exclusively out of Africa origin for all modern Humans. It should be noted that even if there was mixing between mdern and archaic humans this does not necessarily mean that these hybrids necessarily contributed to modern human populations, sequencing of the Neanderthal genome may indicate gene flow into Neanderthals from modern male humans, but not the other way, so far they think the X chromosomes of Neanderthals and AMH are more diverged than the rest of the autosomes, which would explain this.[2] There are massive problems with the ROA section as well. Why does it begin by discussing multi locu allele clustering? This doesn't make any sense, it should begin by discussing the evolution of our species in Africa about 200,000 years ago. Why does it claim that our species left Africa 270,000 years ago? I think this is just plain wrong. It's confused and confusing and does not really address the subject properly. It's simple, we evolved in Africa about 200,000 years ago, we left Africa about 70,000 years ago. We populated the world by a series of bottleneck events, each subject to genetic drift etc. Some scientists think that different "races" became apparent only during the last Ice Age, so about 30,000 years ago. Some scientists think that human remains from before this time do not possess the anatomical differences that we associate with different "races". Alun 12:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It does not matter why I do not believe this: I have stated that I am open to your suggestions for editing it and dwelling on why my view is different from yours when I am open to your proposals is just tendentious. You raise questions that get back to my original point about NPOV: the article does not claim that people left Africa 270,000, it claims that Cann has claimed that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa and displaced Homo erectus between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago. If you want to include another view that is different from Cann's, add it with a proper citation. Same for the other stuff. My question and invitation remains: put forward your proposals. You seem to prefer arguing thatn making actual proposals. Am I wrong? Then don't argue, make a proposal! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If you believe that the article does not present certain subjects in a biased light, then you have a duty to explain why you think this is the case. You cannot simply say: the article is OK because I say it is OK. You need to explain why you think this. I have been explaining why I think it is not neutral, but you seem to think that your opinion is equivalent to fact. So everyone needs to explain themselves except you? I mean come on. I don't prefer arguing, I want to make changes, but as Muntuwandi has found out a small group of apparently biased editors is refusing to allow sensible changes to this article. So we do it by discussion on the talk page. Alun 13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already explained why, and you either do not understand my reasons or do not accept them. But I have stated, twice already, now is the third time, that despite our disagreement I am open to your suggestions about how to improve the article. It does not matter why I disagree with you or why you do not accept my reasons when I am inviting a proposal to change the article and express my willingness to work with you. Once again, rather than make a concrete suggestions, you chose to argue. Obviously you prefer arguing rather than improving the article. I told you: I disagree but am not going to continue about the undue weight and I explained why above, but I am not arguing with you. You want to imporve the article, I want to cooperate. A second time: make a concrete proposal!Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You have not actually responded to my suggestions at all. You have explained nothing at all. I have provided quite detailed reasosn why this article is not neutral, you have simply stated that you disagree, but give no real explanation. If I make these changes I will be most annoyed if you revert tham without a good reason as you have had plenty of chances to explain your position here, but you seem incapable of framing a coherent argument, you just hide behind your belief that the NPOV policy allows anyone to include any nonsense on an article because it is a point of view. Alun 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It becomes clearer and clearer that you would rather just argue than actually make suggestions. What are your "suggestions?" You want to get rid of the section on multiregionalism? I oppose this, because having a "whole section to itself" (I am quoting you) does not suggest undue weight. NPOV demands that verifiable views be included, so it will be included - the section is well-sourced and should not be deleted. However, if you have more recent sources that criticize the model, or that state that today mainstream evolutionary scientists reject it I have no objection to your adding that. Doesn't this address your concern? You want to reorganize the section on Out of Africa so that it begins with human evolution rathe than multiple allele clusters. I have a suggestion to make: we could put multiple allele clusters before both sections (multiregional vs. out of Africa) and state that this is something observed today and that there are two models, one which most evolutionary scientists now reject and one which most accept. If this does not appeal to you, where would you want to put the information on multi locu allele clustering? It is a sincere question, I am asking for your proposal, which you have not yet made. As for the rest of the out of Africa section, I have no objection to your adding verifiable sourced material as long as you do not delete verifiable sourced material. There. i have fully responded to your suggestions above - they are still vague to me, but it is clear to you now that I am open to your suggestions and indeed want more specific suggestions from you. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not neutral to claim that multilocus allele clustering supports the concept of race as it is usually defined by biologists.

The text on the multiregional hypothesis could be moved to Subspecies or to Race (biology). FilipeS 12:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiregional is separate from subspecies, it is one important though small minority and dated model of human evolution that claims to explains the variation of phenotype around the world. ROA provides a more recent and better model. Both views should be included in the article and in the same section Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Some editor, not I, claimed this. It is important that we Wikipedia:Assume good faith which is what I have done. Can you clarify your point: is RIK flat out wrong? Or is he oversimplifying the matter? Again, what edit do you propose? Please propose something we can discuss?

Well if some editor claims this then I would suggest that this editor needs to find a citation from a reliable source to support this statement. It is wrong, clustering does not support the concept of discrete lineages. Many individuals may belong to numerous clusters even when these individuals belong to indigenous groups. If population A represents a sub-set from population B (due to a migration event for example), then due to the bottleneck effect of the migration the resultant populations may predominantly belong to different clusters, even though it is evident that one population simply represents a sub set of the other population. For example five clusters can be identified in Europe according to Bauchet's paper, do all these clusters represent different lineages? No they don't, and with the advent of more and better sampling techniques and the use of greater resolution more clusters will be found. Does this "prove" there are five "races" in Europe? I think RIK actually agreed with me earlier didn't eh? He certainly said that populations are different to lineages, which is what I was saying. Alun 12:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely fair for you to ask for a citation. In the meantime, if you have an alternative view, you are welcome to add it as long as you have a verifiable source. Let me again point out that your language here at least violates our policy: the issue is not whether or not the claim is wrong (the language you use in your second sentence) the issue is whether a verifiable source make the claim. If RIK or someone else can provide a verifiable source, then it stays whether you think it is wrong or not. If you have a position you believe to be right, that is insufficient grounds for adding it. But if you have a position you believe to be right and can provide a verifiable source, then by all means, add it!! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My language does not violate anything. This is a talk page in case you had not noticed. In science it is possible to be wrong. In science it is possible for people to misunderstand or distort or simply lie about what data mean. This is particularly true when scientists engage with non scientists. It is also true when non scientists think they understand scientific concepts when they clearly don't. Let me say this again in simple English. It is incorrect to claim that multi locus allele clusters are the product of discrete lineages, this is not a point of view, it is a statement of fact because multi locus allele clustering is a statistical measure, it is not a measure of discrete lineages, it is a measure of how often certain alleles are associated with each other. This is a fact. Please don't try and clam that Neutrality is equivalent to including incorrect information in articles. Indeed i find it patronising and offensive that you continually claim that it is acceptable to include lies in the article because that makes the article neutral. You see to be unable to understand the simple idea that in science it is possible to be wrong. Besides which why haven't we included creationism here then? Why don't we have Intelligent design? It would be perfectly valid according to you and your personal belief that every and all pseudo-science is equivalent to proper scientific research. Alun 13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have already responded to these points, all you want to do is argue. Obviously you prefer your own hot air over working on articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No you havent, you are just avoiding the issue now. Don't make vacuous accusations, it is impossible to breach NPOV on a talk page. Alun 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Undue weight is being given to certain concepts, they are presented as if they represent the views of a significant minority of the scientific comunity, but they don't.

This is why I have been fighting the censorship of the material supporting the clinal/population view. I keep fighting to include this material in the article. But you accuse me of bad faith and seem to support censoring this material. i do not understand. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I have accused you of bad faith. I have been slightly annoyed because I get the impression that you just do not accept that there are any problems with this article, even though there are quite a lot of people on this talk page who seem to disagree with you. I don't know what you mean by "censoring" material. I am all for including relevant material, I am against the article portraying certain minority points of view as if they represented the scientific consensus or have equal validity to other points of view. I am against the article making claims that are not supported by science. Alun 12:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Do my most recent responses to you above make you less annoyed? I sincerely hope so. What I mean about "censoring" material is this: FelipeS has accused me of censoring views, but all my recent edits have been to restore cuts that Muntawanda has made. He has cut huge amounts of material on why scientists turned away from race and began using concepts like population and clines to talk about physical variation. I do not understand why FelipeS accuses me of censorship when it is Muntawanda who is deleting it and I amd restoring it.Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously you aren't engaging in censorship. Filipe feels your are censoring his opinion (that the article doesn't conform to NPOV) - keeping the opinions of a Wikipedia editor out of the article is a good thing, not a bad thing. It's fair to challenge the neutrality of the article, it's also fair to change the article - but really, if you don't come up with specific explanations of what the problem is...there's nothing anyone can do to improve the article. Alun's points are a little more specific, but they are still too vague to sort out. We need specific issues, specific examples. Guettarda 13:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Guettarda, your buddy Slrubenstein above asked Alun to Assume good faith. You guys would do well to practice what you so vociferously preach. FilipeS 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Filipe, I don't see anything in Guettarda's reply where he isn't assuming good faith. He is just pointing out objections lack specificity. You, on the other hand, are very close to lacking civility. Please be more careful.--Ramdrake 14:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Assigning wicked motives to me is not assuming good faith. That is obvious to anyone, even you, I'm sure. And who asked you what you "see" or "don't see", anyway? FilipeS 14:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, please state which "wicked motives" you feel you've been accused of, and for the record, this last quip definitely was incivil. Please watch your language.--Ramdrake 14:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Assigning wicked motives? Sorry if I did - it wasn't my intention, though, of course it's easy to misread things. If there's some part of what I said that's offensive, I will happily remove/restate it in a less offensive manner. What I meant by "inserting your opinion" into the article was the NPOV tag - as I read it, it's your opinion that the article is non-neutral, and that you saw Steve's removal of the tag as "censorship" from the perspective that it censored the view that that article was NPOV. The thing is that an NPOV tag belongs when a dispute cannot be settled - but without clearly outlining exactly what you see as violating NPOV, it's impossible to move towards resolving the dispute. The sooner we can get something concrete, the sooner we can move towards agreement. Guettarda 16:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at least Muntuwandi has displayed some evidence of actually knowing what he is talking about, when will you? Alun 13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Vague? What tosh. I have specifically said what I want to do. I want to remove the section about multiregionalism completelly. It has little bearing on the article. We should ahve a section about human evolution, multiregionalism can be briefly mentioned there. This should discuss the ROA model, we should not be waffling, the section is rather poor at present and is confusing. It begins, bizarrely with a discussion of multi locu allele clustering and goes on to discuss cladistics. Oddly there is a section that says Chimpanzees and humans belong to different genera, indicated in Blue. But i have no idea what it is talking about, where are there any blue chimpanzees in the article? The section needs a complete rewrite and it should concentrate on how human evolution is relevant to the concept of race. The section on multi locus allele clustering should not imply that these clusters are lineages becase they are not. This is not a point of view, i science we do not have points of view, we have theories that are either supported by observations or that are not supported by observations. The sections on distribution of genetic diversity and human genetic variation should be combined and copy edited for readability. They could also probably do with a good fact check. Indeed this whole article could probably do with a fact check. Alun 13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alun, I honestly don't understand why you (and Filpe) get so worked up. In science it is possible to be wrong, for sure. That's not special. In history, or any other discipline it's possible to be wrong. But we can't say that respected scientists are lying or are wrong. It's not up to us, no matter how convinced we are. We have to give all alternative points of view. Paul B 14:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well at least Muntuwandi has displayed some evidence of actually knowing what he is talking about, when will you? Alun 13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Mutuwandi has displayed only ignorance and a desire to keep out verified content. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Alun 14:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Alun, please don't be silly. If you think that comments like Steve's are personal attacks, then you have made repeated personal attacks in the last hour or two. If you consider comments like that to be personal attacks, you need to start by deleting your own personal attacks. You can't complain about the behaviour of others, when yours is worse. Start by fixing your own comments, then you can discuss with Steve how you might want him to improve his. Guettarda 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, let's be clear: the only reason Alun wrote that Muntuwandi has displayed some evidence of actually knowing what he is talking about was in order to make a personal attack against both Guettarda and Paul B. As to my own remark, I do not mean to say that Muntuwandi is an ignorant person, only that he has made ignorant comments specifically about Foucault and the matter of the scale of race research. And I stand by my claim that he has expressed a desire to delete verifiable content. At 15:12 on May 4 I did my best to respond to Alun's request that I respond to his specific suggestions. I sincerely hope that he uses that as a basis for dialogue and collaboration rather than continued argument over intentions. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein and Guettarda, quit ganging up on Alun, and then whining about civility. FilipeS 12:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

I am still for some restructuring of the article, all arguments that have been raised above should be maintained but in a more summarized form. We should start with the lead, i think it should make as little reference to genetics as possible because genetics is a new field, probably less than 50 years old, and race as we know it has been around for quite a while. For example the lead does not mention what the "major races" are.Muntuwandi 21:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a whole problem you've got right there. FilipeS 21:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I have shortened the lead, I know it will be controversial but I do not think the lead is where we should discuss "clines, clusters and populations" or "multilocus allele clusters". These belong in the body possibly under population genetics.Muntuwandi 14:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

but Slrubenstein you agreed that the lead isn't the appropriate place to mention multilocus allele clustersMuntuwandi 15:17, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I thought I said I agreed with you in reference to the first paragraph. That said, i am open to removing it from the intro - but not by deleting huge amounts of content. Would you mind if I tried editing it to "simplify" and see what you thyink of my approach?Slrubenstein | Talk 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily deleting, they can be moved to appropriate sections. My opinion is the lead is highly theoretical and scientific. I think an articles complexity should reflect its common usage, for example an article on the theory of relativity will be expected to be complex. But even people with no education understand and are affected by race- thus the article should reflect that. Complex terms like biogeographic ancestry, identity politics, or essentialism are mentioned which i think should not.Muntuwandi 15:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I just did some editing. "clusters" is still there but I seriously tried to make the whole thing more readable. I think it is important that the introduction mention every major view in the article, and I think the current introduction does just that, in a fairly direct way. I think most readers understand that something they do not understand in the introduction will be explained in greater detail in the body. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason I am not for genetics in the lead is because this is what attracts controversy and POV. There is still much research to be done in genetics and even the "experts" are still very far from understanding the full human genome. this is still a new field, the double helix is still only 50 years old. the most important thing about race today is racial prejudice and not necessarily genetics. the lead also does not mention the major or traditional races.Muntuwandi 15:54, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You can find a list of traditional races at Race (historical definitions). All are scientifically obsolete, though, so there's no place for them in this article. If your concern is with the socially constructed notion of race, I suggest the articles Racism, Social interpretations of race, and Race (United States Census) FilipeS 16:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

yes the historical definitions are still obsolete, however in everyday life people are still identified largely by continent of origin, Africa asia, europe, americas and australia. this is not mentioned in the lead.

I propose sumarizing genetics debate. to the following

• human genetic variation does exist but the differences are not abrupt and they grade into each other with geographic location
• scientists agree that human genetic variation is small relative to other species.

what they disagree

• some scientists believe that this small variation has some significance whereas others believe that the differences have little value or use.

this is the argument I propose and it does not use clines, populations, clusters or multilocus allele clusters. the reason i am not for the use of these terms in the lead is that they are the jargon of today, in future these terms may not be used.Muntuwandi 17:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If Katie Couric or Brian Williams were reading the news, i don't think you would hear them using terms like clines, clusters, or multilocus etc. These terms are technical and geeky so they should be used in the relevant subsections not in the lead which should mainly be about defining what race is.Muntuwandi 20:12, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank God that in a world where the news is reported by Katie Couric and Brian Williams, we also have sophisticated encyclopedias where people can learn what they won't learn from TV. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:11, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Clines and clusters belong in the lead. They are the essence of the contemporary understand of human population genetic structure. With so much in transition, it's not possible to say what the "mainstream" view in 2007 is, but this is what H. Allen Orr recently wrote in the NY Review of Books that "human races are real and they correspond reasonably well to our folk distinctions between peoples from different continents", in describing "conclusions that are broadly accepted by human geneticists". --W.R.N. 06:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What does a biologist know about human races? I agree, though, that clines could be mentioned in the intro -- as a refutation of the idea of race. FilipeS 08:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

What does a biologist know about human races? -- LOL! -- population genetics, evolutionary genetics, genetic epidemiology, HapMap, etc. -- Ernst Myer, Cavalli-Sforza, James F. Crow, Neil Risch, etc. -- Wikipedia describes what scholars believe, not what editors think is true. --W.R.N. 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The guy you mentioned works with fruit flies. FilipeS

Jargon and article size

I think we all agree that this article is too long. It is 114.9kb and 16,757 words long. Wikipedia policy recomends articles with 6,000-10,000 words or 30-50kb recommended is 32kb. see Article_size#Readability_issues.

• "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases;"

Therefore we need to start removing some content. I know we all dearly cherish the contributions we make. But some sacrifice and compromise is needed. Some info has to be shortened or deleted.

With regard to technical jargon this is what wikipedia policy

• "When writing technical articles, it is usually the case that a number of technical terms or jargon specific to the subject matter will be presented. These should be defined or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used by scientists" Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions
• "Explain jargon when you use it (see jargon). Remember that the person reading your article might not be someone educated or versed in your field, and so might not understand the subject-specific terms from that field. Terms which may go without a definition in an academic paper or a textbook may require one in Wikipedia.Wikipedia:Explain jargon

Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible says

• "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience."
• "Put the most accessible parts of the article up front. It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first. Linked sections of the article should ideally start out at about the same technical level, so that if the first, accessible paragraph of an article links to a section in the middle of the article, the linked section should also start out accessible." it is for this reason why the lead should be more accessible, not including clines, multilocus etc

• "Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. In addition to explaining jargon and expanding acronyms at first use, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed)".

Therefore we need to seriously consider its summarization. Just sticking to the old version is not going to improve its readability and accessibility. Muntuwandi 12:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

is there any justification for using terms like F_ST. I think this term is useful in a classroom or laboratory environment. but on wikipedia it is of little value because its calculation is beyond the scope of the article on race.Muntuwandi 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

scale and research

Is Race#Scale_of_race_research this sub-section necessary. I think it is not because there have probably been a million studies done on race. Thus i do not think it is necessary to analyze how much research has been done. I propose removing the section. I think the results of the protagonists in these research topics are mentioned elsewhere in the page, so we will not lose information.Muntuwandi 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand what you are talking about. What differnce does it make how many studies have been done? This paragraph is not about the results of the studies, so I do not see how the content here is anywhere else on the page. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The subhead says "scale of race research". scale means size or scope. My interpretation is how much research on race has been done. My feeling is this is irrelevant because we already know that race is a well researched topic. So there is no need to mention what the scale of race research is. the section mentions the research of rosenberg, paabo and Tang. They are mentioned elsewhere in the article. so there is no need to mention them here.Muntuwandi 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The scope of race research is not necessary. Races exist all over the world so a study of race has to scope the whole world. the section is just taking up space because the results of rosenberg paabo et al are detailed throughout the article. It is thus a duplication of information. this article should not be written as a research paper where one has to outline the scope of research. Furthermore the scope of race research is only focussed on the studies of rosenberg paabo et al. Surely if we are to include information on the scope of race research it would include thousands of researchers from around the world who have studied race not just those mentioned.

Once again wikipedia recomends article size should be 30-50kb long, with an optimum of 32kb. Currently this article is more than twice that size . In short in order to make this article readable it needs to be almost halved. So we need to consider removing marginally necessary information. Muntuwandi 22:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Then maybe we should port some of the information to sub-articles rather than deleting it. It seems strking to me that the section about the scope of race research points out that some of the research has been done strictly on the national level, in direct contradiction to what you say it should be (which by the way makes perfect sense). Stating that race research has been done on several scales (not just global) and for different purposes is necessary background information to understand the aims od these research endeavours; the three examples, if they are duplicated, possibly should be merged back into the sections where they are discussed, with intra-article links. I have no issue with this kind of modification of the section, as it does not lose any information.--Ramdrake 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes the information can be moved to race and genetics article, so that in the ongoing debate about whether race exists genetically, it can be used as a factor. For example the research of Risch has been criticized for only sampling african americans and not africans because african americans are from west africa and are thus not completely representative of all african peoples. But since this article is about race in general we do not necessarily need the info on the exact research methodologies. This article leans too heavily on genetic studiesMuntuwandi 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Muntuwandi, but when you write "The subhead says "scale of race research". scale means size or scope. My interpretation is how much research on race has been done." all you are saying is that you do not understand English well, or did not read the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 08:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

popular concepts of race

This section is Race#Popular_concepts_of_.22race.22 is incoherent because it mentions so many different groups who existed at different times in no particular order or structure. I also notice long words like "phenomenological" and "environmental determinism". Various people who are not household names are thrown in to the mix like Edward Coke, Michel Foucault, John Lilburne Nicolas Fréret, Sieyès, Augustin Thierry and Cournot. Who are these people. This section is candidate for shortening. The only thing that i can gather is how the Ancient societies viewed race, which is that they were more tribal than observing actual physical appearance. Also the etymology of the word race is useful. Apart from that it is interesting stories that should probably be in other articles not this one.Muntuwandi 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The term phenomenological is not just long it's wrong. I guess the author meant phenotypical. The fact that Foucault is not a household name says more about the ignorance of certain households than what should be here. We have blue links so people can look up these people if the want to. For heavens's sake and encyclopedia is suposed to be educational! Paul B 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

With regards to readability, it helps to have household names. For example someone will easily identify with a reference to charles darwin and understand the implication of it. But throw in an unknown name with no background info on the person is quite unhelpful. You would have no context, on the person, was he or she important, and if so how important. How did the person influence race relations today. I can understand if its Abe lincoln, martin luther king. but i do not know the rest of these guys, they may be important but just throwing in their names once and forgetting about them.Muntuwandi 23:16, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

No "household names" are utterly irrelevant. The article is supposed to provide useful information. If you have nopt heard of Foucault you have no business editing historical material. Paul B 08:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul is completely right! Foucault was in his day the most important intellectual in France and he has had a tremendous impact on history, philosophy, comparative literature, and the social sciences in the United States. Look, Lorenz may not be a household name but does that justify leaving his name out in an article on physics? You are just grasping at straws to censor views you do not want included in the article. Do not censor us! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

is there any justification for using terms like F_ST. I think this term is useful in a classroom or laboratory environment. but on wikipedia it is of little value because its calculation is beyond the scope of the article on race.Muntuwandi 22:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a children's book. Please do not try to simplify everything to that level. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.106.210.44 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

The rejection of race and the rise of "population" and "cline"

This section is very long and needs some summarization. It is even longer than the Cline (population genetics) article, indicating that information should probably be moved from this article into the cline article in line with Wikipedia:Summary style.Muntuwandi 13:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

FelipeS and Alun, help! He wants to censor the major scientific arguments against the biological validity of the concept of "race" and an account of how mainstream scientists instead talk about phenotypic variation, and why!!!! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No censorship, the goal is readability. I am not for deletion of information just reorganization. if there is too much information in an article, many people will not be read it in which case the value of the information is lost. this section is very long, longer than even many articles, thus summarization of the arguments is necessary. And synchronizing the major race subarticles with a navigation template.Muntuwandi 14:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Readability justifies rewriting sentences, not deleting! This is the amin article on race! And you are talking about a section that explains why mainstream science rejects race as a biological concept! And a section that explains how scientists actually look at the things people often use race to talk about! And you want to censor it! Don't cut content! That's censorship!! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving to a subarticle is not censorship, the information is still available on wikipedia. Guide to writing better articles states.

"The idea is to distribute information in such a way that Wikipedia can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. It is up to the reader to choose how much detail they are exposed to. Using progressively longer and longer summaries avoids overwhelming the reader with too much text at once. This is the style followed by such featured articles Cricket and Music of the Lesser Antilles.

There are two main reasons for using Summary style in Wikipedia articles. One is that different readers desire different levels of details: some readers need just a quick summary and are satisfied by the leadsection; more people need a moderate amount of info, and will find the article suitable to their needs; yet others need a lot of detail, and will be interested in reading the subarticles. The other reason is simply that an article that is too long becomes tedious to read, and might repeat itself or represent writing that could be more concise."

If we examine the subsection it consists of approximately 20 paragraphs. this is enough warning that the subsection need some summarization.Muntuwandi 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the main article on race! Many users of Wikipedia will not go to these more specialized articles, they will look to this article to learn about race! How and why mainstream scientists have rejected the notion of biological races is very important, and you want to censor any explication of the scientific arguments against a biological notion of race!! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

because it is the main article is precisely why the article needs to be reorganized. Race is too large a topic to fully cover in one page, it has to be subdivided. I agree with you about the mainstream scientists rejection of biological races but do we need to mention every single one of the scientists in this page, or simply summarize what all have agreed on and redirect the nitty gritty of how they came to these conclusions to other pages. In this way those who want detailed explanations can follow the trail.Muntuwandi 15:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do not give due weight to the mainstream view, you are giving undue weight to the minority views! This is a controversial topic and readers need to know the scientific evidence and arguments for the mainstream view in this article. Do not censor it! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your misunderstanding. this is not censorship. there is an infinite amount of information on race, we cannot accomodate everything. Where we draw the line is arbitrary but it should be the least amount of information that can convey meaning the concepts.

Slrubenstein wikipedia recomended article size is 32kb of readable prose. this article is 71kb which is more than double the recommended size. what then do you propose if this article is to be brought in line with wikipedia recommendations.Muntuwandi 16:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, some articles are 150k in length, and nobody tries to shorten them, because the consequences would be worse than just an overlong article. And no, the line should not be drawn at "the least amount of information that can convey the meaning of the concepts". It should be drawn at representing viewpoints proportionately to their importance. If you tremendously reduce the size of the section on human-genetic-variation-by-cline-and-the-reasons-why-race-is-now-rejected-as-a-biological-concept, you give proportionately more importance to lesser viewpoints. We need to keep the balance.--Ramdrake 17:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

if nobody tries to shorten them that does not mean that they are not too long. By analogy If people don't stop drug dealers from dealing in the neighborhood does not make drug dealing good.

Wikipedia states that readers begin to tire when reading articles that are longer than 30kb. this article is 71 kb of prose and total size of 114kb. see Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Size. This is wikipedia's recommendation so we should make an attempt to adhere to it.Muntuwandi 17:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

We could make several articles from this one. Better to reduce this article though. The whole section dealing with ROA and multiregionalism could be combined into a single section and cut down a lot, There are wiki articles for these subjects, we only need to give bare bones here, they are not directly relevant to the article, rather constitute background. All we need to say is a) multiregionalism would give subspecies b) the vast bulk of evidecne is in favour of ROA and this is currently the dominant hypothesis for human migration out of Africa c) Anatomically modern humans (AMH) evolved in Africa about 200,000 ya d) AMH migratied out of Africa about and 80,000 - 60,000 ya. We don't really need that much info. Alun 17:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

exactly there are other articles that can deal with the information more effectively. For example the human skin color map is in there but there is no subarticle providing a link to it. It is mixed up with clines and population but skin color warrants a seperate section of its own. this makes navigation difficult.Muntuwandi 17:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

skin color is one of the most divisive issues regarding race and thus deserves its own sectionMuntuwandi 19:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it's a divisive issue, but it's certainly a very misleading one. There was once a section on human physical variation in this article (an important point that it fails to make is that physical variations that correlate with geography vary in clines, rather than discretely), but that inconvenient discussion was quietly swept under the rug. FilipeS 19:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

According to those who see race as a social construct, in different cultures people see the relationship between skin color and race differently. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So what? FilipeS 16:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So skin color may be very divisive in one context, but not in another. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not making any sense. Again, the article used to have a better discussion of human physical variation, as it should. FilipeS 17:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not making any sense? you mean you do not understand my point. I will try to simplify. We need to distinguish between two different issues. First, physical anthropologists study human genotypic and phenotypic variation, and one thing that varies objectively is skin color - most scientists explain these variations in skin color using concepts from population genetics specifically "population" and "cline." Social scientists also study race as it is social constructed, and in some societies skin color is an important element of race, but in all societies social scientists study, perceived skin color varies (it is culture-bound, not objective) and the significance of skin-color in racial concepts varies (it too is culture-bound). We need to be careful to keep these discussions separate. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Current views across disciplines

How necessary is it to discuss current views on disciplines since most race related research is multidisciplinary by nature.Muntuwandi 05:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a clearer formulation?

The last section of the Race article says:

The difference is that ancestry-informative DNA markers identify continent-of-ancestry admixture, not ethnic self-identity. Hence, they cannot match the U.S. "races". For example, the DNA of an Arab-American, an African-American, and a Hispanic of precisely the same Afro-European genetic admixture would be "racially" indistinguishable. And a "White" woman with, say, 25% African ancestry such as Carol Channing would show exactly the same BGA as a "Black" man of the same admixture (like Gregory Howard Williams)

What is the writer really trying to say? Ethnic self-identity is not necessarily related to genetic characteristics at all. Somebody could claim pure Vulcan ancestry, and might be sincere in making that claim. Ethnic self-identity and DNA are two entirely separate orders of existence, although an individual's self-identity may well depend on his/her beliefs about his/her DNA. Is [race] being equated with ethnic self-identity here? That is the way I would read this passage. (If that is what the writer is trying to say, I like it because it is trying to make it clear that [race] is a social construct with very skimpy requirements for objective content. But I don't think that is the take on race that the majority of the writers of this article adhere to, so I'm wondering what is really going on.) If that is not the intention of the writer, then what was the intent? Either way it needs to be made clearer.

Is the "fact" that [race] is a matter of "ethnic self-identity" the reason that "racially" is put in scare quotes in the next sentence? Or have I misconstrued the entire first part? Is the writer actually trying to equate [race] and DNA?

This passage has the first occurrence of the acronym "BGA." What in the world does this term mean, and why does the writer assume that anybody will be able to figure it out? "Behavior Genetics Association?" or "Ball Grid Array"?

Found it. Biogeographical ancestry.

It speaks of "the DNA of an Arab-American, an African-American, and a Hispanic of precisely the same Afro-European genetic admixture." I keep having to revert my own comment to a more polite "What in the world is that supposed to mean?" If the "genetic admixtures" are precisely the same, the individuals would be precisely the same, in effect you would have three individuals who would appear to be identical triplets. That's theoretically possible, but the odds against finding three such individuals are astronomical. So what are the alternatives? Is this passage speaking of an Arab-American who has 50% of his/her genetic components from Africa and 50% of his/her genetic components from Europe? Is there also an African-American who has the same admixture" and a Hispanic with the same admixture? So it would seem, but what does this formulation really mean? Somebody born in the U.S. of one parent from pure Mali stock and one parent from pure Swedish stock would seem to fit this description (assuming that these parents are really "pure"). For the Arab-American and the Hispanic-American, it's more difficult to specify an easy way to come up with a 50-50 mix of African and European genetic materials. For either case it would seem that there would have been a generations-long history of gradual incorporation of genetic material that happened to come out right on the 50% line. And the granularity of the inherited characteristics would be very much different when the Mali-Swede individual is compared with the other two.

"A "White" woman with, say, 25% African ancestry such as Carol Channing would show exactly the same BGA [=biographical ancestry] as a "Black" man of the same admixture (like Gregory Howard Williams)." Isn't the part about one person having 25% African ancestry and another person having 25% African ancestry being of "the same BGA" purely tautological? ( I'm assuming there is some trivial translation of "BGA" that means genetic marker mix or something like that.) So what is the significance of the capitalized words "white" and "black"? And why are they in scare quotes? I'm guessing that it's trying to imply that Carol Channing defined herself as being "white" and Gregory Williams defined himself as being "black." That's what the writing makes it seem like, anyway. But the truth is probably that not only Gregory Williams recognized a "black" grandparent, but that Channing also recognized a "black" grandparent. But what in the world does that stuff have to do with law enforcement? If the FBI were looking for somebody with 1/4 "black markers" and 3/4 "white markers" that organization would be about as likely to put Williams in the line-up as they would be to put Channing in the line-up. They presumably would not be going around saying, "We are looking for a criminal with one-fourth African ancestry. Do you fit that description, Mackie Messer?" They would be going around looking for suspects, looking for any slightly Africanish characteristics that might help them nab somebody quicker, and then in any case taking DNA samples and looking for more than a group membership. Arresting somebody simply because s/he is 25% African in ancestry is not any more responsible than any other form of racial prejudice.

This passage is probably one of those that the writer can defend as being correct. The writer will say, "I meant to indicate that X, and the materials I have cited indicate X." No problem except that the average well-informed reader doesn't get X out of the passage, but a murky Y, Y, Y??? P0M 16:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe they get a Y D L reaction. ;-) P0M

Found meaning of the acronym. No reason to make things harder for the reader for the sake of a couple dozen keystrokes.

Doesn't it all boil down to saying that people with very similar biogeographical attributes may define themselves as members of two different [races]? If so, so what? P0M 19:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to delete the paragraph quoted above if nobody is concerned to indicate what the intended message was. P0M 02:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

multiregional hypothesis

does not mention polygenism. furthermore the links are all to material that cannot be accessed from the web. so better to use links that someone can read instantly Muntuwandi 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

So let's introduce a specific section about human origins. We can briefly cover multiregionalism and polygenism and have a more comprehensive discussion of ROA. These are all relevant to human origins, and essentially the existence or non existence of the concept of human subspecies is determined by human origins. In science it is correct to claim that the dominant theory is that of ROA, the biological and anthropologial evidence strongly supports this theory, so the article should say this. Agreed? Alun 14:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that an overarching section on human origins - in the context of this article, it would really be on how human origins is related to the origin of contemporary human (genotypic and phenotypic) variation - that subsumes sections on specific models of human origins such as multiregionalism and out of Africa, and current research/debates, is a good idea. If you have a reliable verifiable source that states that the dominant theory is ROA, then please provide it. If there is such a source then the point should indeed be made and clearly. This of course does not mean that minoirty views should be deleted. I think it is important that in each section that provides a different model, there also be an explanation of how the model is supposed (by its proponents) to help explain contemporary variation. It is also important to include evidence that supports and challenges the model, and perhaps an explanation of who the model appeals to and why (e.g. physical anthropologists working with fossil evidence may be biased towards one model, and population geneticists to another). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Much of the multiregional hypothesis hinged on the theory that humans were descended from neanderthals because neanderthals displaced other homo erecti in Europe. But because Neanderthal mtDNA shows significant divergance from humans mtdna this has been proved to be untrue. All DNA lines seem to have arisen from africa. Scientists have not found any evidence to date indicating non-african or non-homo sapien lines. Multiregionalists still adhere to the philosophy they have not provided any evidence based on DNA as proof. that is why it is a minority theory.

Furthermore one also needs to look at the motivations behind multiregionalism. They tend to biased towards ethnocentrism and in some cases blatant racism Muntuwandi 21:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Polygenism is a pre-Darwinian theory that is completely unrelated to multiregionalism. We have to be careful about ascribing motives to scientists who may have been following the evidence as they saw it at the time. Multiregionalism is AFIK virtually dead these days. Paul B 22:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Carlton Coon has been described as a polygenist and he is post-darwinian[3]

Muntuwandi 22:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Fst and Cladistics

Using these advanced statiscal methods is too complicated for this article.Muntuwandi 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

God help us if you ever decide to edit Maxwell's equations. 11:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if someone included Maxwell's equation or Euler or Einstein or Leibniz or Frobenius in a discussion of race, I would feel the same way.Muntuwandi 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Race_and_genetics#Genetic_variation_and_human_populations

The info is almost an exact duplication of stuff at Race_and_genetics#Genetic_variation_and_human_populations. hence it is redundant.Muntuwandi 03:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The former name of that section was "arguments for race as lineages" or something and was there to balance "argumenst against lineages" section. Therefore it is not redundant as it balances the article out.

Sign your postings, please. P0M 03:25, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

it is redundunt because it is almost a copy and paste from in another article to which this article is already linked to. No need to duplicate information in an article that is already too largeMuntuwandi 20:41, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Article has been xxxxx

I see that several editors made huge changes and deletions, making the article unbalanced. This should be corrected.

Sign your postings. Do not use bad language on talk pages. P0M 03:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

If there is any Wiki policy on f-word, by all means, direct me to it. Until then, I will continue to use it since, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not PG-13 and it is a commonly used word. I also reject primitive notions which associate words connected with sexual intercourse with bad/"evil"/etc as if sex is bad. And my nick or IP number is not important, only my arguments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.254.138.105 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Actually, using profanity may well fall under WP:CIVIL. And yes, I would also suggest you sign your posts, as unsigned posts are at greater risk of being ignored, as well as those that use foul language.--Ramdrake 20:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

false content

The article currently says, "The IQ scores vary greatly among different nations for the same group. Blacks in Africa score much lower than Blacks in the US." But according to the Race article, "African populations living south of the Sahara, in North America, in the Caribbean, and in Britain typically have mean IQs from 70 to 90." The simplification of the material in this article is clearly tendentious. P0M 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

These are some of the difficulties in measuring race and IQ. I had mentioned in the other article that few countries actually recognize or use IQ tests. the estimates that are available will only reflect local conditions. in one place blacks will score high, others lower indicating environmental factors. I think that giving a full discussion on IQ would be out of scope for this article. Maybe a summary indicating conflicting results.Muntuwandi 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no reason to accept a statement that implies that black people are uniformly less intelligent than other groups regardless of any local conditions that might influence measured intelligence. The misrepresentation of research presently in the Race article ignores the better information in the Race and Intelligence article, and whether intentional or not, the Race article currently supports the view that [racial] factors determine low intelligence. I'm commenting here before changing, but only because I am afraid of the implications of the long-term presence of this misinformation. An article on [race] should not support racism on bad evidence. P0M 03:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it needs then to be removed. That is the problem with articles that are too large, misrepresentations can easily slip through the cracks without anybody noticing.Muntuwandi 03:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I went back to fix it and was pleasantly surprised to discover that the problem had disappeared. P0M 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Another puzzling formulation

Currently the text states:

Some, for example Thomas Sowell, bypass the issue of the origins of categorization and seek to explain test score gaps in terms of social differences that affect how much of one's innate capacities any individual person might achieve.

The "origins of categorization" do not explain test score gaps do they? So what is this sentence actually intended to convey? What is getting "bypassed?" Some people believe that [race] is a matter of biology, some people believe that it is a matter of culture (but they won't let me claim to be Chinese no matter how well I get myself enculturated), and those people therefore hitch intelligence levels to either biology or to biology + enculturation issues. Sowell would appear to be suggesting that it's really an enculturation issue, no? Or at least he is saying, "To hell with whether somebody's group has an average intelligence that is higher or lower than somebody else's group. That's not doing anything other than making racists happy and other people more miserable. Let's concentrate on maximizing whatever potential is there and making as sure as we can that no individual's potential is denied to himself/herself (and to the rest of us) because of some dysfunctional societal function."

Or have I got this all wrong? Help my ability to read English, please. P0M 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If nobody will take responsibility for this passage I'll have to try to fix it or delete it. P0M 07:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just had a look at the article on Sowell. The article is not an adequate citation in supported of the position attributed to Sowell in the sentence quoted above. So what did he really say, and where is the citation that proves he said it? P0M 07:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it should removed, because as it sounds it is an alleged opinion without a source and data to back it upMuntuwandi 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I did some reorganization and rephrasing to clarify the positions. It shouldn't be too hard to find a good citation for Sewell. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This really does need a source

"Genetic evidence shows that all human beings may have been descended from one single couple who lived in africa about 150, 000 years ago. If a generation is approximately 20 years, then the human race is only 7500 generations old. The first exodus outside Africa took place less than 3500 generations ago."

I am not saying we should delete this. I assume that it is supported by genetic and fossil evidence. I assume that the scientists who have analyzed the evidence have published in Science or Nature or physical anthropology journals such as Journal of Human Evolution or American Journal of Physical Anthropology - these are the major journals and if the research is significant it is likely to have appeared in one of them . We ought to provide citations and references to such articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is incorrect, not just missing a citation. The extant male lines don't trace that far back if I recall correctly. Obviously the "first female" had one or more mates, and so on, but the "first (traceable) male" was evidently a mutant. :-). However they are estimating time (by how long it takes to pick up little variations times the numbers of little variations in any major line, isn't it?), they are coming up with markedly different figures by looking at mitrochondial DNA vs. by looking at Y-chromosome changes. I don't remember which book this information was in, but I have it some place.

Don't most people count 30 years as a generation? Regardless, it would appear that whoever wrote that paragraph made his/her own calculations. P0M 07:01, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't Africa capitalized above? P0M 07:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I propose we remove the paragraph until someone can provide an accurate account from a reliable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It may be a garbled version of the evidence concerning population bottlenecks.[4]. Paul B 12:14, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it makes several claims - a general claim about bottle-necks is only one of them. We need to make three claims: when Homo sapiens evolved, when the main bottleneck ("eve") was, and when humans left Africa. Three distinct claims, and we ought to have the best sources for each one. I would be shocked if they are not in articles in one of the top journals. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Article size and reduplication of information undue weight

we should keep in mind what that the recommended size of an article is 32kb of readable prose. This article is more than twice that, and much of the information is redundant and present in other articles. Too much information makes it difficult to navigate, and is tiresome to read. Also giving undue weight ot genetics is inappropriate. Some of the diagrams that are more useful in a laboratory setting than on a discussion on about race because they communicate very little in this context. This article still needs some more trimming to remove the redundancy.

For example these

From a communications perspective are really poor representations for race in this perspective. its like going to someone and on the street and saying you belong in this corner of the triangle or on this part of the graph. I think that does not communicate anything about race outside of the lab where this was originated.Muntuwandi 14:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not paper. People can use the table of contents to skip to those sections they find interesting - no one is ever forced to read all of anything (whether a book or an article). Most important: this is a complex and controversial topic and it needs to bel explained fully, and in an NPOV way. I am all for rephrasing sections to make them read more clearly. But I am opposed to wholesale deletion of content that is fully compliant with our major policies (NPOV, V, NOR) and relevant to the topic. You believe that it gives undue wight to genetics - after you cut half of the stuff on the social construction of race! It is balanced as is. And genetics is essential to understanding all current debates about race. Some of these diagrams represent important views of race. You do not have to like them, but NPOV insists that we include them - what you CAN object to is their being misrepresented or presented as fact - but I do not think they are; they are presented as evidence some people draw on for one POV. The article goes into detail about other points of view. It seems to me that all you want to do is delete views you do not like - and, since you do not want to appear to give undue weight to views you do like, you delete massive amounts of detail from those views too. The result is an impoverished article. Have you looked at other articles on scientific topics? Would you delete all mathematical formulae from articles on physics? I hope not! Similarly, graphs about genetic data belong in an article on race. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein you still have not addressed the issue of article size. The recommended article size is 32kb. wikipedia recommends using summary style when an article gets too large. As you mentioned race is a controversial and complex topic and thus it cannot be covered in one article alone. All the information that you would like can be summarized in a few paragraphs, there is no need for this article to include the nitty gritties and calculation methods because this article is aimed at a general audience. Thus other articles that could better handle this information are being neglected but this article is getting clogged. the main race article should be a portal to different areas that better address specific needs. Most of the information that was removed was either already in another article or moved there, so that in the end there is no loss of information just better organization. Basically quality not quantity.Muntuwandi 19:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi, I think Slrubenstein's point is, as you stated, that the recommended size is 32 kb. Not mandatory, just recommended. Some articles are way longer than this one (a lot of GA and FA, for example). I believe Slrubenstein's contention is that it doesn't absolutely need to be shortened beyond that, as even though it is larger than the recommended size, it carries a good balance of the different viewpoints and doesn't try to oversimplify matters.--Ramdrake 20:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not mandatory but is recommended, because more than 30 kb some readers start to tire and lose track and focus and eventually lose interest. once again a quote from Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Size

"Articles themselves should be kept relatively short. Say what needs saying, but do not overdo it. Articles should aim to be less than 32KB in size. When articles grow past this amount of readable text, they can be broken up into smaller articles to improve readability and ease of editing."

see also Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Summary_style.

At some point we need to come to a consensus over the structure of this article, not its present state it is a bit of an eyesore to read. For example this section Race#The_rejection_of_race_and_the_rise_of_.22population.22_and_.22cline.22 has 17 paragraphs. This is bad structure. if you take a look at featured articles such as Music of the Lesser Antilles, no section has more than four paragraphs. Another recommended article is Cricket, most sections have less than three paragraphs. summarizing is not an impossible task.Muntuwandi 20:53, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

May I suggest you start by checking if you have consensus that the article is indeed too long, and then gathering consensus on which sections to condense and how. Post your suggestions to the talk page, and if they gather consensus, then change the article accordingly. So far, the edits you do seem to be done mostly unilaterally and without much consensus. --Ramdrake 23:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I have on several occasions made requests for suggestions on summarizing the article. Each section highlited for summary has a subsection on the talk page for comments. Slrubenstein himself said the article is too long but has not made any effort to summarize the article.

Wikipedia already has well thought guidelines on writing better articles and in my opinion these guidelines are sensible and reasonable. Depending on the individual, readers generally tire going through more than 30kb of prose. Ofcourse serious bookworms will have a higher tolerance and will be able to take in much more information in one sitting, but not everyone is an avid bookworm. If an editor has a high tolerance for a lot of information he or she has to understand that not everyone is as tolerant. If an editor is a technical expert he or she has to understand that not everyone is. Hence summary style is a win-win situation for everyone. Because the more detailed information is moved to other articles.

Furthermore scrolling through a large article is really tedious. If an editor has some useful contribution that he or she would like people to read, they would have to capture the attention of readers quickly and easily. if the information is hidden in one of the seventeen paragraphs, on a subsection three pageDowns, it may not be read. Muntuwandi 00:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In addition I am not the only one raising concerns

• As we cannot agree, we should consider bringing in other editors for their opinionsMuntuwandi 03:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that bringing in other editors should help resolve this situation and make a better article. What I was objecting most to were your unilateral changes to the article, removing entire sections (rather than summarizing them as needed). I would suggest you make or reiterate your points precisely (which sections to remove and which sections to condense and how) and the community can come to a consensus on it. I believe ythat would be the best course to follow.--Ramdrake 11:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

that said you seem to be avoiding or sidestepping the issue. other editors have complained and this article was downgraded because of the same issues I am raising. It seems that editors are frustrated with a lack of co-operation from the few editors have been overseeing this article. I feel this is based on resistance to change, even when changes may be for the better.Muntuwandi 13:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

When exactly did I say that the article is too long? Also, you say "other editors" - you mostly mean one other editor, Alun. And the reason I and other editors resist change is because you seem to be a POV pusher who does not understand the scholarship on the issue, and does not care to see an article that presents the scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

some of the issues

Scale of research

• scale of race research- this section is inapropriate because it is about genetics research and it is about the research of just a few individuals,ie rosenberg, serre and paabo. it reads like the intro to a research paper outlining the scale of the research. It is not necessary for a broad topic like race, maybe more suitable in race and genetics debate.

It is crucial because it explains why some scientists find race a useful biological category and why other scientists do not find it useful - it is not that they have opposing beliefs about race, but for this reason. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is not crucial because it is about the technical aspects of research. In this article we do not need to know for instance whether 3000 people or 4000 people were sampled, that is specific to the research.Muntuwandi 16:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

It is however crucial to let users know that race researh is a world-wide phenomenon, but has been much more of a concern in some countries than others. This gives a much-needed perspective to this controversial matter.--Ramdrake 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Rejection of race

• The rejection of race and rise of population and cline -to start with this section head is POV because it implies that cline and population are more popular than race, which may not be the case. The word cline is not used in everyday language. But most importantly this section is too long, 17 paragraphs-this is undue weight. In addition the same information is available on the article on Clines. So there is no need to duplicate it here, a short summary and a link to the main article will do

Alun/Wobble argued the other point - that the problem with the article is that is gives undue weight to those scientists who think that race is a valid biological concept; he argued that mainstream scientists reject the concept of race to explain biological difference. So you see the NPOV issues: you think most scientists think race is valid; he thinks most scientists do not. Let us leave aside the fact that in this case Alun is right and you are wrong. What is important in an encyclopedia, if we want to educate people, is not just to say what most people think but to give their reasons - to explain why many scientists came to reject the concept of race. That is what this section is about. Do you think that it somehow silences the opposing view, that race is a valid concept? The case for that position is given in the following section on race and cladistics. Both POVs are represented - and, most important they are not represented as charicatures, but in terms of the science they use to support their positions. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I won't discuss the argument of race and clines, just the subhead is leading. it is better just to say "clines and populations", instead of forcing an impression that clines and population have taken over from race.Muntuwandi 16:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it is demonstrable (Lieberman, 2001) that the clinal view currently enjoys a strong majority view in anthropology, which is the discipline in which you will find experts on "race".--Ramdrake 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

This is a matter of historical accuracy. This section is not just about laying out one approach taken by scientists, it is about how a change in scientific research occured and why. The language is perfectly reasonable. The article is not saying that "race" is wrong or does not exist, it is saying that "many scientists have rejected the notion of race" and this is accurate and NPOV compliant. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Human skin color

• Human skin color- I had created a separate section on skin color because skin color is one of the most divisive issues with regards to race. However in the long version that Ramdrake and Slrubenstein are proposing Human skin color is in one of the 17 paragraphs on clines. If someone wanted info on skin they may not easily find it. In the version i propose it is available and gives details on the vitamin d hypothesis.

Skin color is a major issue in race in the United States at a certain period of time, but not in all countries and certainly not at all times. Be that as it may, the article clearly explains why scientists reject the relationship between skin color and race. Here you give undue weight. For most scientists race is not a central issue in race, and you want to put your own point of view in the article rather than educate people as to how researchers see things. Why not creat a separate article on skin color if you think many readers will be interested just in skin color. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

skin color deserves a separate section, because race is generally defined by skin color terminology, ie whites, blacks, browns, etc.Muntuwandi 16:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What about Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids, etc.? These are defined at least as much by features as by skin color. You may have been right 100 or maybe even 50 years ago, but today, that view is a dwindling one.--Ramdrake 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"race is generally defined by skin color terminology." Who defines it this way? Where? And how do you know that black and white refer to skin color? I have seen many people labeled "black" and their skin color is not black, and I have seen people labeled "white" and their skin color is not white. In fact, many scientists (biological and social) have written about this and the article provides their findings. But YOU would rather just put in your own point of view - violating NPOV and NOR - rather than read an article supported by scholarly research. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Skin color is a superficial trait, a secondary adaptation that is one of the least important determinats of racial classification. 82.100.61.114 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Human genetic variation

• Human genetic variation - I propose using this because it clearly explains this in simple terms. No book on the human genome fails to mention that commonly sited numbers that humans are 99.9 % alike of the .1% variation there is only 8% btw races.85% of genetic variation occurs within a population. Please search your version, it does not mention this most important aspect of human genetic variation.

The current version provides this statistic along with the name of the researcher who originally published the finding and a citation, complying with our V policy and Cite Sources guideline. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

models of human evolution

• Race and Models of human evolution-multiregional hypothesis comparelong version and the you can see in the long version all the references have no websites, they cannot be accessed through the web, so there is no way of immediately verifying their authenticity. Contrast short version all the links are immeadiately available.

You think websites are better sources than books and journals? You are way out of line. Websites are often unreliable. Articles in journals go through peer-review, as do books published by university presses. These are the original and mainstream sources for the research and the article should draw on them. Your version simply ignored what actual scientists are publishing and doing research on in universities today. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no way of immeadiately verifying that the journal is correctly cited if it is not available on the web, someone could easily fabricate a citation. Preference should be given to what is immeadiately available.Muntuwandi 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

While there may be no way to verify some journal cites over the web without a subscription, a lot of journal articles can be found, at least in summary form on such sites as Medline. As far as fabrication is concerned, I must stringently remind you to assume good faith in citations as well. Preference does not need to be given to what is immediately accessible, if less acessible references are more germane and more reliable.--Ramdrake 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

And what is the point of an encyclopedia anyway? To recycle stuff already on the web? If it is already on the web, you do not need to put it in Wikipedia, people could just read your pet-theory web-pages. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should aspire to high standards of research. Especially if someone has no access to a good library, Wikipedia has an obligation of sharing with readers what good scholarly research shows. How anyone could want to delete a citation to a scholarly article in an encyclopedia is beyond me. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Single origin

• the displacement form Africa model and the rise of cladistics -this heading is POV because it is implying the cladistics are a popular concept, when infact they may not be commonly used. This section is quite long 10 paragraphs. It gives very little detail on the out of africa model instead focuses on nitty gritty details of how geneticists measure human variation. Example the use of the Neighbor joining method or phylogenetic tree. These details are beyond the scope of an article on race, better placed in race and genetics article.

The article is not on human evolution, it is on race. The information from human evolution should not be given undue weight - it is important only insofar as it informs debates on race which is precisely where genetics and cladistics come in. You want to cut the science that has to do with race and put in science that at best belongs in another article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Compare this with the single origin hypothesis which gives details and dates. It explains how fossil evidence is corroborated with genetic evidence. All this is missing in the long version.

Your version provides no citations or sources. Moreover, it is not about race. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

• Race#Race_in_the_United_States this is copy and paste from Race in the United States, it is thus a duplication of information. A summary and link to the article will do.Muntuwandi 16:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Wrong, you have it backwards, race in the US was cut and pasted from this article. The Race in the US article is really just a stub because all it does is provide one case study concerning race in the US. That is a problem with the race in the US article which needs development. But in this article, the race in the US is not meant to be all about all races in the US, it is a case-study in the social construction of race. The view that race is socially constructed is a very important POV and you have no right to try to minimize it. It needs to be explained bully in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Either way the information is better in another article.

Based on what? The United States is probably the country which has done the most race-oriented research (along with Great Britain), so a section on this would seem germane to the subject.--Ramdrake 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Request for comments on the article size, organization and use of technical jargon.

1. Two editors have been making massive cuts without consensus: Wobble/Alun, and Muntuwandi. They have provided three different reasons (listed in this RFC) but I think this kind of scattered complaints confuses the issues. I think that each one ought to be considered separately, because each one may have an independent solution.

Article Size

1. I believe that the current article size is a appropriate. Muntuwandi has argued that the recommended article size is 32 Kb. But this is merely a recommendation. Wikipedia has a wide range of articles on a wide range of topics. Surely we do not want to take a "cookie-cutter" approach and try to make articles on, say, "Evolution," "Frodo," "Ghandi," and "water" all be the same size with the same format. Different topic call for different treatments. In all my experience at Wikipedia, this is one of the most controversial articles on an obviously controversial and complex subject. It is controversial because it is a matter of debate among scientists and politicians and civic leaders. It is complex because it has been studied from a wide variety of approaches, even within the academy, and because the word itself means different things not only to different people within one society; it has meant different things at different times and continues to mean different things in different parts of the world. It is in my view simply impossible to represent all important points of view concerning all important dimensions of the topic accurately or adequately in a short article. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. In fact, when pressed, Muntuwandi and Alun have justified their actual cuts by claiming that they are cutting material to which the article gives "undue weight." This is not a length issue, it is an NPOV issue. Their claim of "undue weight" is just a way of saying that they do not take seriously the views they are cutting. But other people take those views very seriously!! This is a controversial topic. I understand why many editors are passionate about their views. But NPOV demands that articles include views that we passionately disagree with. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Compare approximate readable prose.

• Evolution - <48kb
• water- <47kb
• Ghandi <52kb
• Cricket <45kb featured article
• Race <77kb

there is no justification for this article to be so long. you can make two articles out of it using a recommended 32kb size. All other articles including featured articles are generally below 50kb. Quality is better than quantity. all arguments can be summarized in a few paragraphs.

see Wikipedia:Featured article review/Race

• the race article was originally featured article status in 2003 It was 33kb long.
• In august 2006 this article was demoted from featured article status, because of poor structure and article size. The article that was demoted is pretty much the same version that Ramdrake and Slrubenstein are supporting as it is 110kb long.
• the version that I am proposing is still long, about 63kbavailable here, but I think it is a start on the path to a better article.Muntuwandi 15:32, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

However, two articles of about 32k in length each may not be able to present a full picture each; a single, longer article might succeed in doing that.--Ramdrake 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I was asked to follow up on my comments on the Featured Article Review. For those quoting article size stats, there are two things you might want to be aware of:

1. Dr pda (talk · contribs)'s article size script to calculate readable prose and other measures of article size, and
2. Guidelines on overall vs. readable prose size at WP:LENGTH.

There is some mixing of apples and oranges in the size discussion above. The old, 32KB overall size was based on outdated technical restrictions and is no longer applied; guidelines suggest keeping articles in the range of 30–50KB of "readable" prose, which can be calculated by Dr pda's script. Summary style should be employed to keep articles focused if they exceed length guidelines.

This article is far too long, with 68 KB of readable prose based on Dr pda's script (I don't know what the numbers cited above are based on). The article which originally passed FAR was a concise, well-written article; the article has grown since then in a chaotic, disorganized manner, which is why it was defeatured. This is often a consequence of competing POVs attempting to assert their points. This article needs to re-organize and focus, which should be accomplished in less than 50KB of readable prose. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you looked at the featured article? This version is much better - better sourced, better organized, better written, more accurate. Wikipedia has improved a lot in the past few years and our standards are higher. For the record, I do not in principle oppose shortening the article and spinning off content to linked articles. But I am utterly opposed to the reckless way Muntuwandi is doing this. Minimally we should discuss it step-by-step. But M. is not despite his/her claims cutting it for readibility - s/he is cutting it in order to remove any discussion of scholarly literature that supports views s/he does not like. That is not the way to move forward. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

article size2

Muntuwandi is a he. The numbers are based on copying from the screen and pasting into the edit window and using the page preview, its a quick way to get an estimate but then it includes the headings and image texts. dr pda is more accurate but it omits texts in bullets and prose in this table (Race#Summary_of_different_definitions_of_race) which should count because it is not data but paragraphs. in which case the prose size is about 71kb. The estimates for all above will also reduce when dr pda is used. so relatively speaking this article is still large. Using dr.pda these are article sizes of some topics that are equally complex or even more complex.

• Evolution 42kb
• water 42kb
• ghandi 42kb, 48kb with quotes
• Cricket 35kb and 38kb with bullets-featured article
• human 46kb
• Isaac Newton- 26kb- featured article
• Albert Einstein-34kb
• Music - 30kb
• Race 68kb and 71kb with bullets and table

on average the Race article is about 30kb larger. I do not see any justification for this because these topics are of equal complexity.

The issue I have with the established editors is that these same issues were raised in August 2006. So I am questioning their commitment to reviewing this article if after 10 months no effort has been made, it remains pretty much the same in structure and size.Muntuwandi 12:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you really think "water" is as complex or as controversial a topic as "race?" Why would you even consider its length as a standard for this article? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you brought up the topic of water so i included if for comparison. Maybe it is not controversial but it can be complicated since almost every known living organism is dependent on it. However topics like Evolution and Human are more closely related to race and are still much smaller. Evolution is extremely controversial. But the article is still smaller. Muntuwandi 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Organization

1. I welcome a discussion of better ways to organize the article. personally, I believe the article is well-organized. After the introductory section, it does through the history of the term, then it goes through debates among evolutionary biologists and physical anthropologists (those scientists who study race), then it presentes views on the social construction of race (drawing on the work of another set of scholars: historians, cultural anthropologists, and sociologists), then it discusses the use of race outside of the academy. I think this is a structure that accommodates all points of views and that covers all dimensions of the topic. If someone can suggest a better way to organize it, let's discuss before making wholesale cuts. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein that the overall structure is adequate and should be preserved; I also agree that some sections may gain from being condensed. However, the edits I've seen so far from the two editors of the opposite viewpoint were in vast majority wholesale deletions of sections, with little effort given to condensing information while preserving it.--Ramdrake 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

The rambling Table of Contents — which frequently goes to the third level — is a tipoff to competing POVs that are dominating the article rather than being meshed into a well-organized, NPOV whole. The article appears to have grown piecemeal by attempting to incorporate competing POVs, rather than presenting the well-thought-out encyclopedic entry staying tightly focused on the issue that was present in the original FA version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by NPOV. NPOV does not mean meshing everything together into a whole - it also includes presenting competing POVs when they really are competing. Indeed, NOR forbids us from making our own new synthesis. We cannot synthesize different POVs. If there are arguments among scientists, we need to lay them out. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

If we take a look at the table of contents, from before this controversy began

• table of contents april 29-three level 3 headings
• Race-two level 3 headings
• table of contents for proposed intermediate version one level 3 heading. which i propose eliminating.Muntuwandi 12:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Technical Jargon

1. I agree that all articles should be as clearly written as possible. We should simplify when we can - but not at the price of being simplistic. The articles on DNA, Special relativity, and Maxwell's equations have technical language. Should we ban the use of algebraic equations or calculus from articles, because not all readers understand calculus? That is absured. We should strive to explain things as clearly as possible. But some topics are complex. Many evolutionary biologists study race in terms of genetic clusters. A good encyclopedia will include an account of their research. It will not cut such discussions because some people may be intimidated by science. This is an encyclopedia, for goodness' sake. But as I said I am all for clear writing. As a matter of fact, last week I rewrote the introduction to make it clearer, more direct and simple. Let's discuss paragraphs that editors think can be improved. Let's not have wholesale deletion of elements of the article one or two editors do not like or think important. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Since we dispute we should seek mediation or arbitration to help resolve this impasse.Muntuwandi 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest you let this RfC run its full course (about 2 weeks) and then maybe call for informal mediation. I really don't think this is a case that should be up for formal mediation yet.--Ramdrake 20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

If this eventually does go to formal mediation, I would like to know the mediator(s)'s credentials, political views, or in place, of (or addition to) political views, a clear and thorough history of being impartial, with above average credentials for a subject such as this. Not anyone can do this, fairly, in my humble opinion. I've seen some "mediation" that happened so quickly, and before (but a few) others knew what was going on, a decision was made...like that, snap. I would hate to have that happen to such a complex, controversial, multi-opinionated, multi-scientific, scholarly subject as this one. To have it be "judged" by just any mediator on-call, or however it's done here, and most importantly to be totally unbiased, is something that needs consideration. I doubt you'd find any one person, in fact I know one cannot do this. We'd need a jury of 12, at least, and even then, it would/should take a while to arrive at consensus, if ever. JMHO - Jeeny ^Talk 04:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just clicked on the mediation link at the top of the page. It's a committee, whew. I'm still concerned though. I want to see their licenses, social security cards, or whatever is used as ID in other countries, degrees, all diplomas, plus their pictures and the names and credentials of their ancestors. In addition to all that, a 500 word essay on why the individual feels they qualify to mediate this type of subject in at least two different languages. :p - Jeeny ^Talk 04:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Jeeny, I think you misunderstand the mediation process. It is not supposed to judge who is right or wrong about a particular topic (like, "race,"), it is meant to use our policies to help resolve conflicts between editors - i.e. more about the process by which articles are edited than the comments. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:29, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, thanks for explaining to me. Yes, I was misunderstanding, and became concerned. But, I really added the last bit with my tongue in my cheek. (my attempts at humor are better in person than I can ever translate with written words) After ... I thought things can never actually be deleted entirely. And the mediation may help, it may not, it may help for a while, and then start all over again. That's OK, though, as this is Wikipedia. Again, thanks for taking the time to explain the process, in a very short and simple way, so I get it. (so I wouldn't have to read many articles and check references, etc. lol) Cheers. :) - Jeeny ^Talk 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The distribution of genetic diversity

thumb|600px|right This image chart, under the above heading in the article, is interesting, but in my opinion it would be much better if it were rotated so one does not have to tilt one's head to read it. It's a simple "rotate" maneuver and may fit better in the article too, if it needs to be there at all. I've done a sample, but the hosting site limited the size, so it is not clear, but the point is made by the rotation. You can see it at this link Rosenberg's 6 clusters of human population chart - Jeeny ^Talk 06:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

done. Paul B 10:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The image was covering text, so, since it has already been changed I just collapsed it.P0M 20:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wobble's edits

I have reverted Wobble's edits, for the following reasons:

1. It is often considered bad form to make major edits to an article undergoing mediation.

But it is considered good form to include your own personal opinion? Please provide specific citations that state unambiguously that multi locus allele clustering is evidence for discrete lineages for "races". No such citation exists in the literature that I know of, because it is simply the personal opinion of a few editors. Alun 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't put it in there, but I can probably find you citations, if that's what you want. I just reverted to the state it was in when the mediation was requested.--Ramdrake 11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Go on then. Alun 13:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Many of the edits contained editorializing: It should be noted that clustering does not represent support for the existence of "biological races". While this is rightly the opinion of Rosenberg, and he's quite possibly right, we can't come out and present it as being "the truth".

This is not the opinion of Rosenberg, it is a fact. Clustering is the observation that certain alleles tend to correspond to each other. A lineage is a discrete population that is directly descended from the same ancestral population but not from any other ancestral population. If clustering supported lineages then all populations would belong to discrete clusters that do not overlap. No genetic data support this model. If you ca find one then please give a citation. Alun 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it is the opinion of Rosenberg, and possibly the main theory now, but it can't be presented as incontrovertible fact, as there are competing views. A lineage is a group which claims common ancestry. It doesn't have to be to the exclusion of any other kind of ancestry, as you'd be looking at subspecies or even different species quite rapidly.--Ramdrake 11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide evidence of these "competing views" then. It seems to me that it is you who are trying to proclaim as incontrovertible fact that multi locus allele clusters support the concept of discrete lineages, I am saying that the science behind this does not make this claim, it is you who are making this claim. Nowhere in this edit does it say that only some scientists think that these data support lineages, nowhere does it give a citation that from a paper that states that these data support discrete human lineages. Nowhere does your edit say that multi locus allele clustering does not support the concept of discrete lineages. Indeed it is plainly daft to claim that I am trying to claim something incontrovertibly when it is clear that it is you who are trying to do this. The title says "Arguments in support of lineages", and then the section discusses multi locus allele clustering as if it is an absolute fact that these data support the existence of discrete human lineages. Besides lineages have to be discrete, otherwise they are part of the same interbreeding human lineage with all humans having very recent common ancestors. Indeed you should probably read this paper from Nature Modeling the recent common ancestry of all living humans but you might need to have a little lie down afterwards (given your weird ideas of some sort of ancient human apartheid) calculates that the most recent common ancestor for all living humans lived about 3,500 years ago. Alun 13:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure if you are being tendentious or deliberately thick. "The title says "Arguments in support of lineages", and then the section discusses multi locus allele clustering as if it is an absolute fact that these data support the existence of discrete human lineages." First, the section provides arguments in favor of a view - by definition, it does not present the view as a fact, it is making it clear that it is a view. Second, the following section is arguments against this view, in other words, providing an opposing set of arguments - further proving that the lineage view is just a view. You have revealed yourself to be nothing more than a POV pusher who is intent on removing all material that you personally do not like. Our article has to comply with our NPOV policy - this means including views we do not like. It is Wikipedia. get used to it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually the section does not provide arguments in favour of a view. This is simply untrue. I can find no argument whatsoever in favour of the view that multi locus allele clustering is evidence in support of the concept of lineages. In fact I can not even find one mention of the word "lineage" in the entire section, not even to discuss what a lineage is. If this section really does make such arguments can you point them out to me please? I'd also still like a cite that claims that allele clustering supports lineages. There is no evidence whatsoever presented that clustering supports lineages. If you are making this claim then I can only point out that it is not me who is being thick. I'll put it simply, you may believe that multi locus allele clustering supports lineages, it may actually be a "view" that you support. But that's not good enough is it? Your own personal opinion doesn't count. I want a proper citation from a reliable source that states categorically that allele clustering is evidence for lineages. None is provided in this section, whatever you personally think. I have asked for this time and again, but you do not seem to be able to find any real evidence, all I get is evasion and some half baked nonsense about "neutrality" and "points of view". Well this "point of view" you keep defending is not actually supported by any citations in the article, it seems just to be your and Ramdrake's point of view. Alun 18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

1. Other new passages, while not that drastically editorializing, present one particular theory as being "the truth". Even though this particular theory may be the most popular currently, we just can't do that.

Please provide evidence, this is just your opinion, of my writing style. Or maybe it's just because the evidence doesn't support your obviously biased point of view. This article is a joke, misrepresenting genetic and scientific data in order to try and argue that race is a biological construct and that races are discrete lineages. What is very disturbing is that you and rubenstein insist on presenting evidence as if it supports your personal opinion when the evidence clearly does no such thing, I think the technical term for this is lying. Alun 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, I suggest you bring all your points to the mediation, along with solutions we can discuss. Unilateral editing of vast sections of the article will get you exactly nowhere.--Ramdrake 11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it is you and slrubenstein who are editing vast parts of the article to reflect your own biased racialist points of view. I have not edited unilaterally, I suspect that there are at least three or four other editors out there who would support the removal of the biased drivel that currently constitutes this so called "article", though propaganda piece would be a better description. Alun 13:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to remind editors that, according to WP rules, we must present all significant viewpoints in this debate (in proportion to its importance), and we must not present any one viewpoint in particular as being "the truth". For all these reasons, I have reverted these edits.--Ramdrake 10:28, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it is you who are introducing half truths, distortions and actual lies into this article, apparently in order to introduce your own personal racialist ideology. Please stick to citing reliable sources, and more specifically accurately reporting what those sources say, and not lying about what they say to try to present them as if they support your weird ideas. Alun 11:19, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Funny you should think me a racialist.--Ramdrake 11:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well if the hat fits. Alun 13:32, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alun, even I do not know what Ramdrake's views are. And I know that you have no idea what my views are. One thing is clear: you do not know how to read. You claim that the article argues that "race is a biological construct and that races are discrete lineages" and that this is the truth. The article does not do this at all. Learn how to read English, then come back to see if you can help. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to read? Is this the level of discourse you stoop to when someone disagrees with you? Very mature. Will you next claim that your dad is bigger than mine I wonder? You are misrepresenting what I am saying. I assume you understand what I actually wrote, therefore I also assume you are simply distorting what I said in order to make a cheap comment. This is not the first time you have deliberately distorted what I actually said in order to change the argument or to avoid actually addressing the point I was making, it seems to be a tactic of yours that allows you to avoid the actual point in hand, change the subject. What I actually said is that the article has a specific section called "Arguments for races as lineages", but this section does not actually provide any arguments for races as lineages at all, it provides a discussion about multi locus allele clusters, with no mention about how these clusters are supposed to present an actual argument in favour of lineages (which they don't). This section takes the attitude that it is self evident that this clustering supports the concept of lineages while giving no actual explanation regarding why this is supposed to be self evident. None of the sources cited actually say this. It is absolutely possible that geographically proximate regions can be more genetically similar to each other than they are to geographically distant regions without this being the result of membership of different lineages. Taking my comments out of context is not a very constructive way to gain consensus. I am assuming you are not stupid, therefore I can only assume that you are a POV-pusher who deliberately distorts what other editors say and what sources say in order to promote your own personal opinion, this seems to include making derogatory remarks about other editors, presumably in the hope of belittling them. I would tell you to grow up, but I think that would make my comments no better than yours. Alun 05:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Alun provided me with two citations. I have added them to the article. FelipeS reverted me the first time because he felt major revisions should not be made while we are in mediation. Aside from the fact that I view adding material Alun brought to my attention as a conciliatory move, the page is not protected and we are not prohibited from editing it. More important - adding a citation is not a major revision. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean you have added them to the article? Citations are there to support a POV. Did you actually read them and make an edit? If not are you just adding references to the article willy nilly? Alun 05:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

What do I mean? Find a good dictionary, and look up the words I - have (auxiliary verb used to form perfect tenses) - add (tr. verb; added = past participle) them - to - the - article and you should be able to figure it out. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ahh, humour. Well very nearly. Alun 18:04, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Wobble, I believe much of this confusion and argumentation can be resolved if one does not hold fast to the concept that "lineages" must be mutually exclusive. For example, one may be said to be of "royal lineage" without all of his or her ancestors being of the royal family; likewise, one may be of "African" lineage and still have some admixture of European ancestry. Then, multilocus allele cluster might indeed be considered a possible argument that races exist based on ancient ancestry (race then becoming a fuzzy rather than a clear-cut concept), including those people (in fact the majority nowadays) who are of mixed ancestry to any degree, as those individuals who would be of equal continental ancestry in several continents might logically be considered relatively rare (there's usually one dominant ancestry for most people). So, you are right if you stick to a definition that says lineages must be mutually exclusive, but if you figure that many people don't commonly think of lineages as mutually exclusive, what the article says then actually makes sense; I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's consistent with a particular train of logic.--Ramdrake 18:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

And exactly who subscribes to that train of logic out there in the real world, if I may ask? Has anyone actually come forward and said "this is what race means to me"? Which percentage of the general public agrees with that fuzzy definition of "race"? FilipeS 19:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

The simple fact that there are several definitions of races, that different authors do not even count the same number of races on the planet means that there isn't a single, monolithic definition of "race" by which everyone belongs with certainty with one race to the exclusion of all others. Racial self-designation is usually based on majority ancestry. Otherwise, if you take that "lineages" must be mutually exclusive, you come the conclusion that Negroids must have only Negroids as their ancestors, Caucasoids only Caucasoids, and so on. It should be self-evident to anyone that this is just not the case "in the real world".--Ramdrake 23:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You are imposing your own notion of what you think race should be on everyone else, rather than listening to what real people have to say for themselves. Find me anyone who defines races as fuzzy interweaving lineages, and tell me how many such people there are in the general population, and you may have a point. FilipeS 23:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's self-evident to everyone of course, even racists. If it weren't there would have been no concerns about "miscegenation". Filipe's comment is rather odd. In the "real word" everyone is fully familiar with the "train of logic" that people can be of mixed race - hence concepts like Mestizos, Mulattos etc. Everyone with half a brain knows that race is a fuzzy concept and treats it as such. The problem with these debates is that people are speaking at cross purposes most of the time, but some editors create such a poisonous, bullying atmosphere that it becomes difficult to work together to clarify the actual issues. The result is that this article has deteriorated to the point that it now contains some quite remarkably silly and simple minded comments. Of course popular notion of mixed races built on popular/social constructs such as the black/white distinction, but even the traditional "Caucasoid/Mongoloid" etc model often took account of the possibility that multiple ancient lineages might have fed into the various "oids". Even Coon has elaborate models of numerous hypothetical lineages leading to his various observed "races". Paul B 23:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

It's interesting how much these three guys (Slrubenstein, Ramdrake, and Paul Barlow) rely on "self-evidence", rather than, I don't know, actual evidence?

Ever heard of the One-Drop Rule, Paul? FilipeS 11:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a profoundly racist concept that doesn't hold logically to evidence an diverges significantly from self-identified race. According to this concept, most "Whites" wouldn't even be really "Whites" (whatever you make that out to mean). What is your point?--Ramdrake 12:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not up to Wikipedia to moralize reality, or rationalize irrationality, or decide what people think for them. FilipeS 12:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Then let me reiterate: what was your point in bringing up the one-drop rule?--Ramdrake20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Why, Ramdrake, that's self-evident. FilipeS 18:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

What is "self-evident" to me may not be "self-evident" to other people, but to me the "one-drop rule" is an extreme case of imposing a non-fuzzy definition of "race" on a situation in which the person being categorizes fits the definition of the alleged [race] only in the most fuzzy of ways. P0M 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

If it means what I think it means, then this is a self-contradicting principle, as according to this principle, nearly no one could be considered of any one race, as the vast majority of us are admixtures of one kind or another.--Ramdrake 23:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Name anybody as "pure" and the rest of us are admixtures. The implication of what I said is that the separation into infraspecific groupings can go two ways, non-fuzzy and fuzzy. If one chooses non-fuzzy then the categorizations into [races] sometimes turn out to be what most people would regard as arbitrary and capricious. If one chooses fuzzy, then the categorizations are arbitrary in the sense that one must choose the level of granularity imposed on the data. We can have a small number of [races] the members of which do not necessarily resemble each other closely, or we can have a large number of [races] the membership of which is more self-consistent. Suppose that we had everyone graphed out on a gigantic family tree. We could decide to divide the tree between the trunk that goes straight up from the ground and the big branch that grew out of the main trunk 4 feet off the ground and became, in effect, a second trunk. That would give us two [races]. Or we could split the main trunk into its three big branches higher up and the "second trunk" into a half dozen or so big branches that ramify from it. Or we could call all the little twigs [races]. And all of this discussion ignores the fact that unlike most real trees, branches can contact each other and splice together. As you said, we are all admixtures. Maybe the graft occurred with our parents, maybe the grant occurred with our great-great grandparents, and maybe the juncture that links us to other people is at a point of ramification. They are all connections. Nature just does sexual reproduction. It is we humans who divide things up into "us and them." P0M 00:23, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I just had another look at what you wrote. Did you mean to suggest that fuzzy definitions of [race] make it possible that many of us will belong to more than one [race] due to our possessing traits that qualify us for two or more? I think that could easily be possible. It depends on what the precise definitions are, I guess.

Actually, I was trying to make almost the opposite point, that being that the one-drop rule makes it mandatory that most of us belong to two or more racial groups. This kind of non-fuzzy definition of race leads to the eplosion of racial groups into a quasi-infinity of racial admixture types, making for an unmanageably high number of possible combinations and levels of admixtures. I feel that only some level of fuzziness allows for people to be classified in (most of us at least) a single racial group each, notwithstanding the fact that most of us also have remote ancestors of a different racial group somewhere. Hope this explanation makes sense.--Ramdrake 12:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be easier to give up on the idea of [race] for a moment and ask how we would group people if we had everyone's complete genome. If we required only one genetic trait, we could have at most two [races]. The more genetic traits we specify, the greater the number of [races] and the fewer the members of each of them. We could be exclusive or non-fuzzy and say that if one genetic tag was colored the wrong way then membership in a certain [race] would be excluded. (He is in every way a perfect modern Englishman -- except for the Vulcan ears.) But the result would be that products of inter-[racial] reproduction would be ruled out of the [races] of both parents. Or we could say that possession of a certain percentage of the required genetic markers would be enough. That would arbitrarily rule in or rule out the individual with, e.g., "one drop of Maori blood", to some [races]. What would we do with an individual who had a 50/50 distribution of "marker traits" from his/her two parents? Is that person then a member of both or of neither? If neither, what is the appropriate [racial] category?

The essential point is that division by genetic factors into a larger number or a smaller number of [races] would be arbitrary. Unless one did a total genome scan, assignment to [race] would in any case be by some sort of probabalistic process. If one did a total genome scan, then one would already know the genetic traits of the individual and so would not need the idea of [race] to give a probabilistic prediction of as-yet unmeasured traits. The "one drop rule" looks at an individual that is at least alleged to have a black great-great grandfather and says, "He has to be a slave because he is black." The "one-drop rule" is an extreme case of imposing a non-fuzzy definition of "race" on a situation in which the person being categorized fits the definition of the alleged [race] only in the most fuzzy of ways. On a genetic level, if the aggrieved slave owner is correct, then the white-looking individual in irons will turn out to have something like one out of eight of the genetic marker characteristics identified with the vast majority of people coming out of Africa. That's a very fuzzy/tenuous connection, but it is of the same kind that argues that, e.g., "Tiger Woods is black." (A view that he does not subscribe to, of course.)

Where (level of ramification) and how (fuzzy or precise) one cuts the tree is a matter of choice. If people forget that fact they will make bad mistakes in arguing about [race]. (See the argument below on lineage where the same stuff is argued out in other terms and the result is that we need to keep everything explicitly defined.)P0M 01:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake, if lineages are not mutually exclusive then they are not lineages, isn't this obvious? Take a look at the article Lineage (evolution), it states that An evolutionary lineage (also called a clade) is composed of species, taxa, or individuals that are related by descent from a common ancestor. and A lineage can be distinguished from a mere collection of species by the fact that it contains only and all individuals that share a common ancestor. Whereas these definitions are fine there is a big problem when one thinks about lineages in human terms. The image in the (lineage) article is misleading because it implies that the differences between the chimp/human lineages is equivalent to the differences between the various human "lineages". The reason it is misleading is because there was a speciation event between the human and chimp lineages that prevented gene flow between the lineages. These are lineages because they are discrete. When one considered humans no such barrier to gene flow exist, but the image still portrays the "African", "Caucasian" etc branches of the tree as discrete, by rights there should be an indication of gene flow between these human populations because they are not actually lineages. In effect you are arguing that lineages do not exist when you claim that we are all descended from a multiplicity of "lineages", by your argument we are descended from as many lineages as we have ancestors, it is therefore apparent that human lineage has no real meaning under that assumption, or a better way of looking at it is that, by your definition there is only a single human lineage, with all modern humans belonging to it due to the fact that out common ancestor is so recent. I think Kittles and Weiss said it best in their 2003 paper RACE, ANCESTRY, AND GENES: Implications for Defining Disease Risk when they said:

Dendrograms are a visual convenience for presenting data, but it is easy to lapse into accepting the populations thus portrayed as taxonomic rather than merely statistical spatial spot-sampling units, and equating these population samples to colloquially defined races as if the latter have the same kind of biological reality. However, careful geneticists know that if we had more geographically comprehensive samples, human genetic variation is actually characterized by clines (spatial gradients) of allele frequency rather than categorical variation between populations, and the pattern varies among genes for the historic reasons of drift, selection, and demographic history (18). Even defined in the usual ways, races do not correspond to discrete, much less monomorphic, human types.

The section we are discussing is titled "Arguments for races as lineages", but you are arguing the opposite, you are arguing that "races" are composed of multiple lineages. When you say that multilocus allele cluster might indeed be considered a possible argument that races exist based on ancient ancestry I agree with you. It fundamentally depends how one decides to define race, Neil Risch defines "race" as the distribution of genetic diversity, so by this definition "race" is supported by multi locus allele clusters, but here's the rub, this definition does not support a definition of "race" as lineages, it is a completely different definition. When we discuss race as lineage we need to stick to the point. You are making two different arguments that are incompatible at the same time. It correct to claim that multi locus allele clusters can be used to support a particular (but rather fuzzy) definition of "race", it is incorrect to claim that this definition is synonymous with the concept that races are composed of lineages and it is not true that multi locus allele clusters support a lineage definition of "race". Besides we have perfectly good genetic markers that are transmitted patrilineally and matrilineally. Y chromosomes are transmitted from father to son with a large section that does not undergo recombination (the NRY), mtDNA is transmitted from mother to child and also does not undergo recombination. These markers would strongly support the concept of "race as lineage" if the pattern of distribution strongly correlated with "race", but as Keita et al. say in their 2004 paper Conceptualizing human variation:

Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA genealogies are especially interesting because they demonstrate the lack of concordance of lineages with morphology and facilitate a phylogenetic analysis. Individuals with the same morphology do not necessarily cluster with each other by lineage, and a given lineage does not include only individuals with the same trait complex (or 'racial type'). Y-chromosome DNA from Africa alone suffices to make this point. Africa contains populations whose members have a range of external phenotypes. This variation has usually been described in terms of 'race' (Caucasoids, Pygmoids, Congoids, Khoisanoids). But the Y-chromosome clade defined by the PN2 transition (PN2/M35, PN2/M2) shatters the boundaries of phenotypically defined races and true breeding populations across a great geographical expanse. African peoples with a range of skin colors, hair forms and physiognomies have substantial percentages of males whose Y chromosomes form closely related clades with each other, but not with others who are phenotypically similar. The individuals in the morphologically or geographically defined 'races' are not characterized by 'private' distinct lineages restricted to each of them.

Alun 10:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wobble, if you use the word "lineage" to have the same meaning as it does in evolutionary biology, which is that of a clade and close to the concept of a "sub-species", then of course you are undeniably right, I'll grant you that. But, as I was trying to point out, when applied to humans, lineage in the anthropological sense has a slightly different meaning, closer to the concept of "ancestry" (see royal lineage), meaning descent from a single apical ancestor. In this sense, lineages are not mutually exclusive. One possible way to resolve this issue would be to properly define our terms before we start, so as to avoid this kind of ambiguity. Does this sound reasonable to you?--Ramdrake 12:26, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do strive for proper definition of terms throughout. P0M 16:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Please address me as Alun, I'd appreciate it. I am using the word lineage as it is used by biologists, this section provides only genetic evidence, and genetic evidence is biological and therefore is based on the evolutionary biology definition, therefore it is appropriate to use this meaning. Kinship and descent is a completely different thing. Kinship and descent can be perceived and does not necessarily equate to actual biological origin. In this sense it is also a social construct. I also note that an apical ancestor can actually be fictional or even non-human. So of course in a section that is about biology we use biological definitions. The link you provide is a little misleading, you link it as lineage (anthropology) but this redirects to Kinship and descent. So of course in a section that discusses "arguments for race as lineage" we do not use a social construct of lineage, especially when all of the discussion in the section is about genetics. I also note that the article on kinship and descent makes no reference to "race" but defines lineages as a descent group that can demonstrate their common descent from an apical ancestor there is no evidence whatsoever that any "race" can demonstrate it's common descent from an apical ancestor, in this section of the article, nor do I think there is any evidence for this in the literature. This is a social construct, to demonstrate such a descent one would need an actual genealogy surely? Besides the section in question does not claim that multi locus allele clustering supports the concept of an "apical ancestor" for each of the "lineages" or "races". Neither do any of the sources cited claim that their data support the existence of an "apical ancestor" for any "lineage" or "race". You may believe that these data support the existence of such an individual who you believe was the "founder" for each "race" or "lineage", that is your prerogative, but it is not what the sources that are cited claim, and it is not what the section of the article claims. No evidence is provided that a "Mr. (or Ms), Caucasian" existed millenia ago who is the direct "apical ancestor" of all modern day Caucasians, and this section does not make this claim. Alun 13:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear that very early on the pioneers in this field realized that any definition for "race" that applied to reality would be a fuzzy one. The problems for society, medicine, etc. come when people use the word without knowing/remembering the fuzzy definition. So we need to keep reinforcing the idea of fuzziness and avoiding formulations that would imply "scientific" clarity to the general reader.P0M 16:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Whereas the term "race" has no concrete biological meaning and remains fuzzy, the word lineage has a specific meaning when used in biology. In terms of human genetic variation the only sure thing is that we are all part of the same lineage, that of our species. Alun 17:09, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

And I believe I just provided evidence than "lineage" may indeed have two distinct meanings. It is clear to me that when someone says "races as lineages" he/she has to mean "races as anthropological lineages" as "races as evolutionary lineages" hardly makes sense, as you've pointed out time and again.--Ramdrake 18:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I've also just pointed out that "biological race" as "anthropological lineage/kinship and descent" is also makes no sense. Please keep up. If you want to imply that "race as a social construct" is equivalent to "anthropological lineage/kinship and descent" then I don't have a problem with this at all, but at present you are conflating social constructs with biological constructs. So let's say this clearly. "biological race" is not equivalent to "evolutionary lineage" and is equally not equivalent to "anthropological lineage" (because anthropological lineage is a social construct, it is about "perceived descent"). This is why the argument for multi locus allele clustering supporting the concept of lineages is incorrect. The social construction of race may very well be predicated upon the belief that each "race" has a common descent/kinship/apical ancestor. But I stress the section entitled "arguments for races as lineages" provides no actual arguments in favour of this concept, and this is the problem. I do not want to have a long conversation about what is essentially original research on your part. As I said earlier you can believe what you like, I'm more interested in you providing verifiable and reliable sources to back up your claims. So far you have failed to do so. The section about "Arguments for races as lineages" still provides no actual arguments for this concept. Besides which this part of the article is under the major heading of "Race and models of human evolution", you are talking about creation myths for bands, tribes and nations which are not relevant to evolution, the concept of anthropological lineages is a cultural concept and not a biological one, the very first sentence of the article Lineage (anthropology) states Kinship and descent is one of the major concepts of cultural anthropology. For instance you might as well claim that the data presented in the article support the belief that the Emperor of Japan can trace his descent from the Sun Goddess Amaterasu, as she would be his apical ancestor. Please try to avoid conflating "biological race" with "social race". The section we are discussing is clearly and specifically about evolution and biology, it is about hard science, not about social science. Alun 05:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is as simple as (perhaps) any of you think. Many people start out with a religious and/or a scientific basis for believing that all humans are related. In fact, it is hard to find many people like Carolus Linnaeus who believe that subspecies of homo sapiens were created as such. So in some sense, yes, everybody knows that [race] is a fuzzy concept. On the other hand, when people use it in their everyday life they often seem to want to have the absolute distinctions. If they find an atypical member of some population, e.g., a Mongol with blue eyes and curly hair, they will be apt to assume that it is the child of some white guy passing through town, even though if the dice fell our right the child may be that rare combination of the rarely present genes required for someone of that appearance all present right there at home. Similarly, it seems easy for people to think in terms of a "half-breed" individual, but perhaps not so easy to think about somebody with eight great-grandparents of the following ethnicities: Amerind I, Amerind II, Chinese I, Chinese II, Sri Lankan, Mali, Algeria, Iceland. So people know that race is a fuzzy concept, but they want to treat it as though it is a precise concept, and they will throw out evidence to the contrary. (What, me 30% African? That's impossible. Just look at all four of my white grandparents!)

The real problems come about when people want to go from fuzzy categories to absolute predications. They want to go from identifying somebody as belonging to a given race to predicating everything from whether the person can use arch supports to whether their hair is kinky. But because of the fuzzy nature of the categories, the predications based on category membership can only be given in terms of statistical probability. If you are Dutch there is an xy% chance that your height is over 6'. If you are San there is an xy-rp% that your height is over 6'. But Rip Terwinkle may be only 5' tall.

The history of 20th century physics showed how much people resist theories that only give probabilistic predictions. P0M 01:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Most recent common ancestor of everyone may have lived 1000 years ago. The identical ancestors point may have been 5000 years ago.At that point everyone who has an unbroken line of descent is an ancestor of everyone alive today regardless of whether the ancestors were black, white or green. As physical appearance is dependent on climate, natural selection would hone in on the ancestors with traits that are suitable for their environment, like dark skin in the tropics. But Natural selection would ignore traits that are not affected by the environment and traits would be selected randomly from any of the ancestors. The result is a sometimes discordant relationship between visible traits and invisible traits such as blood groups.

People such as those of the Andaman Islands may have inherited their dark skin from the same ancestors as Africans but inherit their invisible traits from the same ancestors as other Asian peoples.Muntuwandi 20:46, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake had a very good suggestion (see above) and that was to work on the clarity of our definitions. Disagreeing with somebody and being open enough to see that there is not necessarily a real disagreement rather than trying to make the other person wrong is very positive.P0M 20:52, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I very much believe part and parcel of the disagreement here is that we all use somewhat different definitions and many of us won't budge that "their" definition is the right one to the exclusion of all else. Well, unfortunately, "race" as a concept has tremendously evolved over the last few centuries, leading to several reinterpretations of this concept and several other related ones. While Wikipedia won't allow us to come out and say "this is the correct definition of race, and there are no others" (and I don't believe we should even try to do that), maybe what we need here is something on the evolution of the concept of race (part of it is already in the article, so that's not even a big stretch), so people don't trip over the flower designs in the carpet (to paraphrase a saying in my native language). What say everyone?--Ramdrake 22:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with the spirit of what you say, but I must disagree with the idea that "'race' is a concept." There is a single word, but much of the problem we keep having is that there are about as many concepts as there are humans who use the word. The exceptions would be people working on a group project where there are clear rules for determining how individuals are to be categorized.P0M 16:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the popint of this section is to address precisely the issues you raise: it sums up the major distinct understandings of race; I think that the preceeding sections should largely be a history of the development of these different approaches and as Ramdrake says i think it already largely is. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

IF Alun above is suggesting that when cultural anthropologists talk about lineages as social institutions, and evolutionary scientists talk about lineages as biological phenomena, they are using "lineage" in very different ways and the two usages cannot be mixed up, he is correct. However, he says three other things that are erronious: (1) "Ramdrake, if lineages are not mutually exclusive then they are not lineages, isn't this obvious? Take a look at the article Lineage (evolution), it states that An evolutionary lineage (also called a clade) is composed of species, taxa, or individuals that are related by descent from a common ancestor. and A lineage can be distinguished from a mere collection of species by the fact that it contains only and all individuals that share a common ancestor." This definition of lineage - at least, the part Alun quoted - does not mean that lineages are by definition mutually exclusive. (2) Alun seems to refer to anthropologists as meaning only cultural or social anthropologists. But there are also physical anthropologists who have done a great deal of research, and continue to do a great deal of research, on human evolution and population genetics - the views of these anthropologists and not just biologists are relevant and appropriate to any discussion of race as a biological concept. (3) Alun is wrong to think that when anthropologists call races social constructs they are referring solely to how non-scientists talk about race. Anthropologists (and sociologists) have studied science as a social practice and see biologist's notions of race as socially constructed too. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(1)An evolutionary lineage (also called a clade) is composed of species, taxa, or individuals that are related by descent from a common ancestor. and A lineage can be distinguished from a mere collection of species by the fact that it contains only and all individuals that share a common ancestor. Can we stick to the point. The point is that the section entitled "Arguments for races as lineages" does not actually make a single argument for races as lineages. No part of the section even mentions the word lineage, nor does it provide any arguments for lineages. Can you address this issue? Evolutionary lineages are discrete, they tend to address speciation events. The human species does not break down into such discrete non-interbreeding groups, lineages are all of the descendants of a common ancestor, no such common ancestor has been be found for human "races", genetics shows that the concept of "lineages" breaks down quite rapidly when applied to humans. I am asking you to show me where in the section "arguments for races as lineages" the argument is given, and cited, that each "race" is descended from a common ancestor. I'd also like to know how it is possible for people in the same "race" to be descended from different common ancestors and still be in the same lineage, because this seems to be what you are implying. Alun 11:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(2)I refer to cultural and social anthropology for the simple reason that we were talking about Lineage (anthropology), this article redirects to Kinship and descent, the Kinship and descent article states, in it's very first sentence Kinship and descent is one of the major concepts of cultural anthropology. Please try to keep up. There are only two relevant articles here, Lineage (evolution) and Lineage (anthropology) I have attempted to discuss both. Neither of these concepts is addressed at all in the section of the article we are discussing. As I have repeatedly stated, I don't really care what your opinion is, I want this section to give proper arguments for the existence of lineages, currently it does not, and even after repeatedly requesting such citations from you and Ramdrake, none have been forthcoming, even though you have both stated in the past that you could provide such sources. Now you have reverted to trying to discuss the concept of lineage, but this is not the issue, the issue is the fact that no arguments in favour of "race as lineage" are given in this section of the article. As far as I can see your objections are only so much hot air, you both fail to stick to the point in hand and both fail to address the fundamental problem, you discuss the concept of lineage rather than the fact that this section of the article provides no actual arguments at all regarding lineage. Alun 11:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

(3) I don't know what you are talking about here. I don't think I have made any comment about how anthropologists are only referring to non-scientific concepts when they describe "race" as a social construct. You have not understood what I have said. You see it is possible for us to misunderstand each other without resorting to personal insults, I don't think you are illiterate just because you have misunderstood me, and I don't feel the need to insult you either. Concepts of "biological race" are social constructs. Indeed it is obvious that biologists see humans as a single "race" or subspecies, hence Homo sapiens sapiens. Alun 11:51, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Alun, it looks like several editors here have no problem seeing the multoilocus allele cluster analysis as being a possible argument in support that race might be seen as anthropoloigical lineages (at least), i.e. descended from a few remote ancestors. It seems you are deliberately picking specific parts of the definitions to try to prove your point and deliberately ignoring the "big picture" it paints. Remember that this isn't about truth, this is about verifiability and consensus.--Ramdrake 12:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not "trying to prove a point", I am asking for proper citations. I don't care if all editors think that multi locus allele clustering is support for anthropological lineages. They are entitled to their personal opinions. The personal beliefs of editors are irrelevant. None of the sources cited make this claim and the section itself does not make this claim, nor does it make any arguments in support of lineages, as far as I can see it is simply your own personal pet theory. I also don't see how a genetic analysis can be used to support a cultural belief system. You appear to be attempting to insert original research into the article when you claim that "some editors" think that multi locus allele clusters support cultural belief systems, because this is not what the citations claim. You'll have to do a bit better than "some people here think it's true", we need reliable sources that think it's true. Alun 12:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Alun, you wrote, "I want this section to give proper arguments for the existence of lineages, currently it does not, and even after repeatedly requesting such citations from you and Ramdrake, none have been forthcoming, even though you have both stated in the past that you could provide such sources" - please tell me when/where exactly I have stated that I could provide such sources. I am glad I misunderstood you on social construction. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't said this then I have remembered wrong, sorry for that. Alun 12:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

It is my recollection that User:WD RIK NEW wrote much of the section on race as "lineage." I agree with Alun that there should be proper citations, and I assume Alun is acting in good faith when he raises questions about the citations in this section. However, I believe that we must also assume good faith in RIK and give him an opportunity to reply. I think he is on a wiki-break which is bad timing but I assume he will be back and he should be given a chance to respond to Alun's questions and concerns. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I have never heared of any case where editing of a section by an editor was prohibited because a previous editor of said section is on a wikibreak. I made a change to the title of this section on the 26th of April, there is nothing very much wrong with the content of the section, but the content bears absolutely no relevance to lineage. My edit was specifically to the title of this section for the simple reason that the title was (and is) misleading, so I changed the title.diff No one seemed to object to this at the time, and my edit remained unchanged untill the 11th of May when the title mysteriously reappeared, introduced by Slrubenstein. diff Oddly enough when I made the original edit, and some subsequent edits to this section neither Slrubenstein nor Ramdrake seemed at all concerned about me changing the title of this section to "The distribution of genetic diveristy" from "Arguments for race as lineage". The problem here, as I see it, is that certain editors seem to be convinced that clustering is synonymous with lineage, no paper that I know of has ever made this claim, so as far as I am concerned this is not supported by a reliable source. Several of the papers discuss clustering in terms of geographic origin and ancestry, there is no doubt that this is true, but geographic origin and ancesrty are not synonymous with lineage. The section paraphrases Jorde and Wooding's 2004 paper Genetic variation, classification and "race": "Clustering of individuals is correlated with geographic origin or ancestry." But if this is meant to support the concept of lineages then it is taken out of context and can be considered quote mining. Jorde and Wooding's paper covers a lot of ground as a review paper and makes it clear that:

The picture that begins to emerge from this and other analyses of human genetic variation is that variation tends to be geographically structured, such that most individuals from the same geographic region will be more similar to one another than to individuals from a distant region. Because of a history of extensive migration and gene flow, however, human genetic variation tends to be distributed in a continuous fashion and seldom has marked geographic discontinuities

This is contrary to any concept of lineage as "race", but still supports the idea that genetic diversity is structured according to geographic origin and ancestry. I have had a look at RIK's user page where he has a plethora of quotes from "geneticists" (not all are actually geneticists) all supporting racialist ideas, so I am somewhat sceptical that this user is interested in neutrality. Unless there are any more concrete objections I am going to make some changes to this section tomorrow. As far as I can see no one has produced hard citations or evidence to support this contention that allele clustering supports lineages. Alun 17:37, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Nature Genetics

The most comprehensive and up to date discussion regarding race and biology was published in a Nature Genetics supplement in 2004. It is highly relevant to this article. Genetics for the human race Alun 06:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Also:

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17345638&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_DocSum

Race and ethnicity in biomedical research]:

Use of race and ethnicity terms in genetic research continues to generate controversy. Despite differing opinions about their basis or relevance, there is some agreement that investigators using these terms should: explain why the terms or categories were used, define them carefully, and apply them consistently. An important question is whether these recommendations are reflected in practice. Here we addressed this question based on 330 randomly selected articles published between 2001 and 2004 that reported on genetic research and used one or more words from a defined list of race, ethnicity, or population terms. The recommendation that authors using race or ethnicity terms explain the basis for assigning them to study populations was met infrequently (9.1%), and articles that used race and ethnicity as variables were no more likely than those that used them only to label a sample to provide these details. No article defined or discussed the concepts of race or ethnicity. With limited exceptions, current practice does not reflect repeated recommendations for using race or ethnicity terms in genetic research.

What is a population? An empirical evaluation of some genetic methods for identifying the number of gene pools and their degree of connectivity:

A recurrent theme of this body of work is the study of genetic structure of species in nature and elucidation of patterns of genetic and demographic connectivity among different groups of individuals, or 'populations'. The concept of a 'population' thus is central to the fields of ecology, evolutionary biology, and conservation biology, and numerous definitions can be found in the literature.....Given the central importance of the population concept, it might be expected that one could take a commonly used population definition and apply it directly to species in the wild to determine how many populations exist and characterize the relationships among them. Furthermore, one might expect that the definition would be objective and quantitative enough that independent researchers could apply it to a common problem and achieve the same results. In fact, however, few of the commonly used definitions of 'population' are operational in this sense; instead, they typically rely on qualitative descriptions such as 'a group of organisms of the same species occupying a particular space at a particular time.....First, availability of numerous, highly polymorphic DNA markers has spurred an explosive interest in genetic studies of natural populations. These studies have considerable power to detect population structure and routinely estimate population parameters without (generally) attempting to define what a population is.

Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations:

Discussions of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multi-locus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multi-locus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multi-locus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding?.....More recently, the Human Genome Project (HGP 2001) highlighted the basic genetic similarity of all humans, yet subsequent analyses demonstrated that genetic data can be used to accurately classify humans into populations (Bamshad et al. 2003; Lao et al. 2006; Rosenberg et al. 2002, 2005; Tang et al. 2005; Turakulov and Easteal 2003). Risch et al. (2002) and Edwards (2003) used theoretical illustrations to show why accurate classification is possible despite the slight differences in allele frequencies between populations. These illustrations suggest that, if enough loci are considered, two individuals from the same population may be genetically more similar (i.e. more closely related) to each other than to any individual from another population (as foreshadowed by Powell and Taylor 1978). Accordingly, Risch et al. (2002) state that “two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian.” However, in a reanalysis of data from 377 microsatellite loci typed in 1,056 individuals, Europeans proved to be more similar to Asians than to other Europeans 38% of the time (Bamshad et al. 2004; population definitions and data from Rosenberg et al. 2002)......Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, ˆ ω , can be read from Figure 2. Given ten loci and three distinct populations, the answer is ˆ ω ≅ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is about 20% of the time; and even using 1,000 loci, ˆ ω ≅ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations. On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase ˆ ω . This is illustrated by the fact that ˆ ω and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of more than 10,000 polymorphisms (Microarray data set, Table 1; Figure 2D). In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Pääbo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible. However, those studies lacked the statistical power required to answer that question (see Rosenberg et al. 2005).

Race and racism section problems

Has anyone looked at this section recently? Although it suits many of my own personal conclusions, I am afraid that it contains some assertions that are only that. For instance, those of us who believe that Hitler was a monster will be easily willing to believe that he knew nothing about biology, but I greatly doubt that there is any actual evidence for that opinion. Remarks that cannot be grounded and do not serve any useful purpose should be the first go go. P0M 22:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's personal knowledge of biology is irrelevant. He relied on work of supporters like Eugen Fischer, Fritz Lenz and Hans F.K. Günther. Paul B 23:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

So what are remarks like the one about Hitler being a better politician than biologist doing in the article (among other such tidbits)? P0M 00:39, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul, as your last edit summary noted there were still lots of problems with this section. I thought I could just tweak individual sentences so they would be o.k., but I found some things that I flat-out could not understand. I did the best I could to intuit what the original writer was trying to convey, but sometimes I could not salvage a sentence and in that case I deleted.

I hope nobody will put any of the deleted sequences of words back as is. If you think you understand what was meant, then please try to say it clearer. It is not enough that I write something that I understand and that I could defend with citations to prove that I was right in the first place. A writer has to be able to write things that the average well-informed reader will not have to guess the meaning of.

I question the value of some of this stuff because it seems judgmental even after I've done my best to NPOV it. Maybe what is missing is a coherent historical narrative of the history of this concept, or, actually, this family of concepts. I'm not sure what value it adds to say that in the third stage of development of some concept that went on to a fourth or fifth stage of development there were people who objected to the practical consequences or to the lack of proper grounding of the "science" at that stage of the game. But maybe I've at least got the meaning clearly stated enough that people can make a rational decision on whether what has been said is worth saying.P0M 07:17, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess what I'm saying is that much of what appears in this section seems to be a covert monition to the reader -- "Don't you dare accept this account of race because doing so will make you a bad person." That's what I'd say too, in a way, but I'd rather get the evidence so clear that it can speak for itself. P0M 07:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Talk page needs archiving, as is getting too long.

Mediation2

The mediators seem reluctant to take up this case, but in the mean time we still need to discuss condensing this article. It needs to come down to 30-50kb of prose as per Article size. In doing this all the controversies can be summarized, we may find that most editors are in agreement on many things. The more information we have the more likely we can find some little detail to disagree upon.Muntuwandi 22:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This article has already branched off into many daughter articles. Most of them have received little editorial attention. So I support the general drive to cut down on its size by moving stuff to more specialized articles, even if the 30-50kb goal is not quite attained in the end. FilipeS 13:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This Article is waaay Biased toward the Anti-Racist side.

For example why wasn't this research paper from world renowned scientists included ?

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=9530 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.4.233 (talk • contribs)

Two reasons:

1. The above URL is about race and intelligence. There is a separate WP article for that.
2. Rushton's theories are rather widely decried by most serious scientists in the field, and his methods have been strongly criticized as having serious scientific flaws.--Ramdrake 17:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, let's look at the articles this editor (User talk:74.72.4.233) is interested in.[5] Including Nordic theory, Nationalism, Swastika, Ku Klux Klan and many more such articles. And then there're two attempts to promote the work of White supremasist and notorious racist Arthur Kemp as if it were some sort of reliable source, rather than racist propaganda.[6][7] I suggest this user take a look at a critique of this "March of the Titans" gibberish.[8] Someone who wants to include this sort of material in Wikipedia as a reliable source has no right to claim anyone else is biased. Alun 17:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but what about actually looking at the article? You seem to just be attacking the person who made the comment, but that seems unrelated. He may be a racist with an agenda, but that also may be a legitimate article. This is how articles spiral down the path of POV. What if there IS some genetic difference between races? We ignore it and say the scientists are racist rather than examining it? Unless it can be proven that news-medical.net is a racist propaganda site, or that the study referenced has been found to be fatally flawed, then I think it IS relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.19.158 (talk • contribs)

I did look at the article. It is a tertiary source, so not very interesting. One wants primary sources, not twice-digested stuff.

The article already represents the conclusions as drawn by the people mentioned who support those who are not "anti-racist" (to use the original poster's words).

The function of an encyclopedia article is not to take sides, not to determine who is right and who is wrong. If you sense an anti-racist bias in this report it may be because the most radically racist positions, such as that of Carolus Linneaus, have been abandoned by all current academic students of the field. The slightly less radically racist positions have proven more and more difficult to uphold as the weight of evidence and analysis has built up. But the article still reports them. But both the idea of Linneaus that [races] are discrete groups, and the ideas of later figures that claim that the [races] are so near to being "pure" that "contaminations" can be ignored have been reported. All that the article does not do for you nameless people is to claim that Linneaus or some of the figures that the tertiary source mentions are the ones who are right, or deny that those who maintain that [race] is a myth, a delusion, a social construct with a minimal amount of real-world data to go on are the ones who are wrong. P0M 03:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

To User talk:96.224.19.158. I did not attack anyone, I pointed out that this user is quite clearly an extremist who has been including radically racist material on Wikipedia, and that as such I don't think we need to take his accusations of bias seriously. Indeed this editor has been blocked for spamming hate sites on Wikipedia.[9] Wikipedia has extensive articles covering the controversial subject of "race and intelligence", the omission of a single source in a single article is not proof of bias. Indeed the source cited isn't even a research paper as User talk:74.72.4.233 claims, it is a news article. This user seems to think this site is biased because it does nor conform to his personal point of view, this is not evidence of bias, no article should ever conform to an individual editors point of view. Alun 05:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Race in Brazil

This section has a long string of assertions about ideas of "race" in Brazil -- none of which is given a citation. A book or two happen to be mention in this section, which suggests that the writer was probably drawing conclusions from the mentioned sources, but it isn't enough to give the name of a book and imply the the reader might find some justification for the encyclopedia entry by reading that book. P0M 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Social interpretations of race

The text for this section currently says:

Historians, anthropologists and social scientists have re-conceived "race" as a cultural category or social construct, in other words, as a particular way that some people have of talking about themselves and others.

The term "social construct" seems to be used as a kind of "put down" here. The implication is that any social construct is an inferior form of conceptualization.

Is it true that a social construct is simply "a particular way that some people have of talking about" something? If so, what kinds of locutions are excluded from being social constructs? What is the distinction between, e.g., quantum mechanics and somebody's notion of "the races of man"? Isn't quantum mechanics a particular way that some people have of talking about something?

The real issue here is the proportion of empirical data to theorizing and the character of the bond between the two of them. The idea of a social construct or a social construction is a construction that someone builds on known fact, and it implies that another person might well put a different construction on the same facts.

The text needs to be corrected to better distinguish between scientific theories and "just plain theorizing." P0M 04:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's another example of how the article is biased, if you ask me. Historians and anthropologists did not reconceive race as a social construct. What they showed is that race has always been a social construct. FilipeS 10:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

We don't know how Linneaus understood what he was doing. The way I understand thinking, in common with the Vienna Circle, is that it is all "constructive," i.e., that we made our models to try to understand how things work. Whether our models are a 1:1 mapping of reality is something only God could tell us, and he isn't talking. But Linneaus seemed to think he was reporting on a reality. Later, people looked at the data, the "facts" if you will, and decided that one needs to be creative to get from the facts to what Linneaus thought—and actually most of them decided that the facts contradicted what Linneaus thought. But by the early 20th century they were probably quite clear that whatever your idea of "race" was, you had to be creative with the bare facts to get to it. My point was that there are varying degrees of arbitraryness and creativity in the various concepts that get named "race", and they are not all equally fanciful or ugly, so we should be careful not to create the impression that they are all "a tissue of fictions." P0M 08:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Felipe, you just do not understand English. Reconceive does not mean that the object has changed, it means that the way subjects think about the object has changed. By the late 1800s physicists had reconceived matter as consisting of atoms. This does not mean that before matter consisted of something else, it means that before scientists thoght differently. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not believe that I do not understand English. I think that's just an excuse you're making for the tendentious wording of the article, of which you are so protective. FilipeS 11:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you are just plain wrong when you write, "Historians and anthropologists did not reconceive race as a social construct." They most certainly did, starting in the 1900s. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

POM, tell me what in the sentence you quote is there a "put down." It is you who are doing the put-down. I think the sentence accurately expresses what anthropologists and sociologists think. And they do not think that social constructs are inferior forms of conceptualization, it is you who think that. But this is not an account of what POM thinks, it is an account of what anthropologists and social scientists think. You write, "The idea of a social construct or a social construction is a construction that someone builds on known fact," and you are dead wrong, and it shows when you go on to suggest someone else can put facts together a different way. You have somehow erased the word social construction and turned it into personal construction as if this is something individuals do and have control over. Please read Durkheim's The Rules of Sociological Method. He begins by explaining that social facts are things. They are not, not, not just personal beliefs or theories. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that both of you have a strong bias against anthropology and sociology. You think that what they argue is somehow trivial or less real compared to other scientists. Well, youare entitled to your points of view. But this article is not about expressing your biases. It is about expressing different verifiable views. The views of anthropologists and sociologists are verifiable and legitimate scholarship and your bias against them will NOT drive them out of this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that you and your other two buddies who keep popping up to defend each other have a strong pro-racialism bias, and that you've been trying to control this article as though you owned it (as in, reverting any change that doesn't conform to your opinion). You are not entitled to do that, according to Wikipedia's rules. FilipeS 11:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, you can't respond to my objections to your bias, so you change the subject. Fine - you have no response. But I would like to respond to your charges. However, I do not understand what you mean by "racialism" or "pro-racialism bias." Can you please explain what you mean, and can you please provide me with examples of what I have done that illstrates it? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Racialism. Jeez... FilipeS 12:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Racialism is an emphasis on race" So, how can an article on race not be racialist? You are working on the article, you must be a racialist too. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Historically "racialism" and "racism" have been synonyms. More recently the latter term has come to be used to refer to racial and/or ethnic prejudice. Hence we have "anti-Islamic racism" [10], for example. The former term has come to be used to refer to the belief that that races are biolgically "real" in some sense (in what sense is much debated) and, more importantly, that there are innate differences of some kind between races. So someone who said "I believe Africans have natural athletic ability superior to Europeans" might be described as a racialist but not necessarily as a racist, since the statement does not necessarily imply hatred or contempt for any particular race, but is just a claim concerning alleged innate differences. Paul B 12:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

If FelipeS calling me a coward? Please, no "jeez," this time - don't be a coward and if you want to accuse me of something accuse me flat out, and provide some actual evidence. Or, cease your personal attacks. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Felipe just likes to believe there is a clique of "racialists" dedicated to to imposing their views. I find this attitude tiresome and unproductive because it destroys open debate and corrodes good faith. BTW, I think what P0M is getting at with the "put down" argument is that the term "social construct" seems to be being used as a synonym of "fiction", as if to imply that if it's a social construct it is not real. The problem is that all scientific and medical terms are in some sense at least social constructs. "Genes" are a social construct in that they were constructed by scientists as a theoretic model to explain inheritance. Still, we also believe they are real. The problem here is in determining what claims about reality are implied by these social constructs and what specifically is meant when statements are made like "races are real" and "races are not real". How are the speakers using the term race? Can both statements be true (like "all humans are alike" and "all humans are different") if we tease out how the term "race" is being used in both instances? Paul B 13:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul, thanks. I'm glad somebody can read what I wrote. I was beginning to think that I spoke some variant of English that only works in Nebraska. I agree entirely with what you have said. P0M 07:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then, Wikipedia just needs a good article on social construction (I for one do not have the time to work on it now) to help POM clear up his confusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it would help if P0M suggesdted better wording. Paul B 13:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

See below.P0M 07:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, positivists almost always misunderstand social construction and think calling something a social construction trivilizes it. I don't think rewriting the section will change their minds. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Selective and out-of-context quoting -- how typical (and dull). Here's a bit more about racialism, the bit you swept under the rug:

Sometimes the term racialism refers to the belief in the existence and significance of racial categories. In racial separatist ideologies, the term is used to emphasise perceived social and cultural differences among races. [...] The relationship between the two concepts is expressed at length by Kwame Anthony Appiah in his book In My Father's House (1992):

"...the view – which I shall call racialism – that there are heritable characteristics, possessed by members of our species, which allow us to divide them into a small set of races, in such a way that all the members of these races share certain traits and tendencies with each other that they do not share with members of any other race."

FilipeS 17:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I see you are still to scared to respond to my defense of social constructionism. Well, at least you are no longer attacking it. But you are still being a craven baby by quoting articles without ever addressing the real issue. Okay, if by racialism you mean "...the view ... that there are heritable characteristics, possessed by members of our species, which allow us to divide them into a small set of races, in such a way that all the members of these races share certain traits and tendencies with each other that they do not share with members of any other race": where have I ever said anything that suggests I am a racialist? You made an accusation, now prove it. Or shut up. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Who exactly is engaged in selective and out of context quoting of what? BTW, Appiah's definition is absurd. No-one can deny that there are in fact "heritable characteristics possessed by members of our species which allow is to divide them into a small set of races." It's a truism, so by this definition everyone is a "racialist". The question is whether the divisions identify common ancient ancestry from a small foundational population, geographically specific adaptations, a combination of the two, or some other mechanism. Paul B 19:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

QED FilipeS 20:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And that's your "reply" is it? You show no comprehension or capacity to engage meaningfully with what you are responding to. All you seem to want to do is bolster your smug and complacent fantasy that you are a Warrior Against Racism. Did you even understand the point? Paul B 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, having looked again at the quotation the light of Slrubenstein's comment, I see that it is not Appiah who is absurd. It is your highlighting of half a sentence from his words as the full definition. My apologies to Appiah. Paul B 10:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Alas, where to start? People are telling me what I meant, and how I think. I will try not to characterize them as they have characterized me. Let's take another look at that passage:

Historians, anthropologists and social scientists have re-conceived "race" as a cultural category or social construct, in other words, as a particular way that some people have of talking about themselves and others.

First of all, I would want to change "re-conceived" to "reconceptualized" as being the more appropriate term.

I do not have any argument with the idea that some groups of people have changed the earlier essentialistic understanding of the phenomena that were explained by the idea of race. Linnaeus thought of the races as biological subspecies or maybe even as totally distinct, separately created, groups that had no hereditary connections. That view was strongly at variance with what could be learned empirically, and was quickly abandoned for that reason. So on that single foundation alone I would have to agree with the statement at the head of this paragraph.

I would object, however, to anything that would suggest that the "historians, anthropologists, and social scientists" have gone all the way to the other end of the stick and have adopted an idea that race is merely a "way that some people have of talking about themselves and others." To do so would suggest that race is an idea made out of wholecloth, as would be The Geography of the Planet Arrakis, or Traits Physical and Psychological of the Aborigines of Atlantis. A social construct has to be a construction placed on something that is already there.

People who are committed to the idea of "the reality of race" will point to observable facts. As our empirical observations continue to be done with increased rigor, the body of mutually agreed upon observations, let's call them "facts" for short, increase. The body of putative observations in dispute can be systematically reduced. In the end, the disputes about race are usually not disputes about the facts. If empirical observations are in dispute we know what to do about that problem. The disputes about race are generally about what constructions should be placed on the facts that everybody holds in common, and whether those constructions have the ontological status of "real entities" or of "convenient abstractions." (See the "taxo box" where the various kinds of definition of "race" are shown for some examples.)

I would rather the article said something like this:

Historians, anthropologists and social scientists have reconceptualized race ——or, have redefined the word "race" —— as a number of cultural categories or social constructs, in other words, as number of competing interpretations intended to mentally assemble individual humans together into meaningful groupings.

Phrasing things that way would make it clear that people are not making the facts up, but are making up various arrangements of the facts. P0M 07:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think what you are saying here differs significantly from what I thought you were saying. However, I think the passage you propose is a bit difficult to follow (what would Mutuwandi say!) since there are too many subclauses. I also think that it's too vague. There are many "meaningful groupings" that would not be called race: categories of class, income, personality type, etc. We have to be clear that there is some commonality in the kinds of grouping for which the word race is used. Most typically - I'd say almost exclusively - they combine assumptions concerning ancestry and geography (place-of-origin). However, this is not always the case. The term "black people" is often used for, say, both native Australians and Angolans, even though they share no recent ancestry or place of origin. How about,

Historians, anthropologists and social scientists have reconceptualized "races" as culturally produced categories into which human populations are placed on the basis of percieved common physical characterstics, ancestry or country of origin. These "social constructs" are intended to mentally assemble individual humans together into meaningful groupings.

It's not ideal either. I chose the word "country" because national identity is sometimes conflated with race and because I could think of no better geographical term that would not be misleading. Paul B 08:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As long as we both see that the tail end of the original sounds like a way of saying its a "tissue of fiction," I think we can work something out. I'm too tired to do any more work on it tonight. Maybe just adding an "etc" after "country of origin" would help. (Sometimes it's more of a geographical region thing, e.g., in the Middle East, too.) P0M 08:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with changing "re-conceived" to "re-conceptualized." I do think POM is being tendentious when he writes "A social construct has to be a construction placed on something that is already there" as if this were a criticism of the paragraph in question. POM himself quotes the paragraph accurately: "way that some people have of talking about themselves and others." The sentence has a clear and concrete object: "themselves and others." So it is quite clear that this social construction is being placed on something that is already there. It is obvious that "themselves" and "others" are "already there." To suggest that "themselves and others" is somehow equivalent to Arakis or Atlantis is just so absurd I cannot imagine what POM's motives are. I can only imagine that this is another example of his wanting to use the talk page as his personal blog, a soap-box to express his own views. The paragraph that follows is POM's own view about ontology and empiricism. Great. Write a blog article on ontology and empiricism. Here at Wikipedia we write not about our views but the views of others. It is accurate to say that most (virtually all) historians, sociologists and anthropologists have come to see race as a social construct. I repeat what I wrote above: you may not like the view, but so what? This is not an article on views POM does or doesn't like. It is a widely held view among many scholars and will be included in this article. I object to POM's rewrite not only because as Paul points out it is overwrought, but because it oversimplifies what people mean by social construct and then trivializes the idea of social construct by putting it in scare quotes. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I still think the existing paragraph is too vague. We can almost always fairly easily distinguish between a European and an East Asian. We commonly call these visible distinctions by the term "race". But does this make race any more of a social construct than the distinction between blondes and brunettes, or even men and women? The distinction is real. The question is what meaning and significance do we give to it, and how do we envisage the mechanisms by which we make these identifications? There are many ways we disinguish between "ourselves and others". Race is one discursive system for doing so. But simply to talk about "ourselves and others" is to blur race with class, sex, tastes and other mechanisms by which we distinguish ourselves from others. Yes, of course "historians, sociologists and anthropologists have come to see race as a social construct", but I think it's legitimate to for this introductory section to clarify what these writers mean or imply by that term. So I think it's reasonable to ask how the construction is "placed on something that is already there" and what that something typically is. After all, the following section actually contains very little about general definitions from historians or sociologists. Paul B 11:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You are right Paul that race as a social construction is different from gender or other social constructions. The thing is, there are so many different arguments about what distinguishes this particular social construct. Certainly all scholars I know of acknowledge that it uses the language of physical appearance and ancestry, and I wouldn't object to working those in as simply and generally as possible. Since race and races have been socially constructed in so many different ways, I think we should rely on the case-studies to flesh out the concept. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Population discussed as though it were a euphemism

The current article says that some scientists "use the word population as a less value laden synonym" for race. That statement is bad for two reasons. First, it does not explain what the word "population" actually means and how it specifically avoids putting any construction on the data relating to, e.g., the population (people living in) Madagascar. Second, it implies that the idea of "race" was fine with these scientists except that it was getting them into PC hot water.

The article on Population says it correctly:

In sociology and biology a population is the collection of people or organisms of a particular species living in a given geographic area or space, usually measured by a census.

P0M 07:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the definition of population is disputed. The question is whether "population" or "populations" is also now used by some scientists as a synonym for what they formerly called "race". Historically, of course, the two terms often were near-synonyms. Paul B 08:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Check the actual history of the term. One way of investigating things is to define your individual humans by race and then investigate questions with those divisions in mind. So maybe you want to investigate something like Kuru. You might divide people by race and ask which race(s) caught the disease. Or, you might divide the total population of the island(s) where the problem showed up into "the population of the highlands," "the population of the Onya creek drainage district," "the littoral population," etc., and to hell with what the presumed genetic groupings were. (Or, if you were really smart you would notice that it was religious and cultural groupings you wanted to be paying attention to. But I've got the typical excellent rear-view mirror.) If you look at "the population of sub-Saharan Africa," you don't have to wonder about what to do with the occasional white guy, the Indian merchants scattered here and there. If you are dealing with an area that has reached genetic equilibrium and hasn't gotten a large influx of strangers recently, then you may be looking at what somebody else would call a race. But you have to go beyond the definition of "population" to reach that conclusion. P0M 08:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The important thing is that population is a different way from race of segregating data and working with it. P0M 08:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

POM is making three points: (1) that in this particular passage population is not defined. I agree, but I believe an accurate definition of population is provided in the section on population. (2) that population really does not mean the same thing as race. I would agree with POM to the extent of saying that those scientists who first proposed using the term population, and many (most?) scientists who use the term population today, would not agree that it means the same thing as race. However, it is possible that there are some scientists who do believe it means the same thing as race. NPOV: we have to acknowledge multiple views. I assume that whoever added this had experience that some scientists use population and race interchangeably (and it doesn't matter whetner POM, I, or Lewontin do not like that). (3) this latter groups of scientists are motivated by "political correctness." I have no doubt that many people continue to think in terms of taxonomic races while using the word "population" to avoid being called a racist or intellectually old-fashioned. This is precisely the argument Walter Benn Michaels has made about how people use "culture" to mean "race" for reasons of "political correctness." Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at the part about population in context:

Some studies use the word race in its early essentialist taxonomic sense. Many others still use the term race, but use it to mean a population, clade, or haplogroup. Others eschew the word race altogether, and use the word population as a less value laden synonym.

The passage says that there are (at least) three groups who use the word "race" differently. § Group one gives it an essentialist definition.

Group two gives it a non-essentialist definition (list of samples follows)

The above two fit together, complement each other. The third group, below, goes off in another direction.

The third group is not described in terms of its use of a definition for the word race. It is described as using population as a substitute for that word. But what is the definition of (population =) race here? It could be essentialist, it could be non-essentialist. The non-essentialist list of samples includes "population, clade, or haplogroup."

The paragraph proposes to clarify the nature of the lack of consensus on the meaning and validity of the concept "race." Is it helpful to the reader to be given an indication that some scientists evade the "what is race, anyway?" question by swapping in the word "population"? P0M 17:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the later section on population makes it clear that the way population geneticists use the word, it cannot substitute for race. Are you suggesting that the definition of pupulation be in the introduction? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

No P0M 06:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If your point is that those people who use population as a euphamism for race do not even have a clear or scientifically defensible definition of race, well, I would agree with you. I image they would not, and while I knowthey exist, I have not given them enough attention to be sure how they defend their notion of race. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Start at § above. Think in concrete terms. The third part is disconnected and irrelevant. P0M 20:33, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

x = a,

y = b

z = function(a) or z = function(b)

The author is saying to the reader: "Take your pick."

I'm ready to delete "z" if nobody can clean it up. P0M 19:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Descent of Man

The article currently states:

In Charles Darwin's most controversial book, The Descent of Man, he made strong suggestions of racial differences and European superiority. In Darwin's view, stronger tribes of humans always replaced weaker tribes. As savage tribes came in conflict with civilized nations, such as England, the less advanced people were destroyed. The destruction of the weaker peoples seemed desirable to many scientists at the time. It was thought that "fit" people would replace the "unfit" and human evolution would be accelerated.

This is wholly unreferenced and seenms to be an extremely tendentious account of Darwin, who by the standards of the time underplays racial difference. This account differs markedly from our Descent of Man page. How about referring to writers who are clearly sanguine about inter-racial conflict and elinmination of "weaker" peoples - like Spencer? Paul B 12:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder when this krept into the article. Spencer is closer but I am not sure he used the language of race. As for Darwin, I would ask for specific page citations. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

yes he did make the quotes but it appears he was a little conflicted.Muntuwandi 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the existing races of man differ in many respects, as in colour, hair, shape of skull, proportions of the body, &c., yet if their whole structure be taken into consideration they are found to resemble each other closely in a multitude of points. Many of these are of so unimportant or of so singular a nature, that it is extremely improbable that they should have been independently acquired by aboriginally distinct species or races. The same remark holds good with equal or greater force with respect to the numerous points of mental similarity between the most distinct races of man. The American aborigines, Negroes and Europeans are as different from each other in mind as any three races that can be named; yet I was incessantly struck, whilst living with the Feugians on board the "Beagle," with the many little traits of character, shewing how similar their minds were to ours; and so it was with a full-blooded negro with whom I happened once to be intimate.

Please do not insert quotations into the middle of someone else's comment, completely changing its meaning. Is this quotation suposed to support what is claimed about Darwin? It doesn't. Paul B 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Diagram swapped out, but text refers to the old diagram and needs to be fixed.

The illustration

Neighbor-joining_tree.jpg

is now being used. It replaced the former illustrration

Human_evolutionary_tree.jpg

But the text was not changed and refers to the features and the location (above rather than on the right side) of the old diagram. For instance, the text says "Chimpanzees and humans belong to different genera, indicated in Blue." But the two more-or-less blue area on the chart that readers see refer to Africans and to American Indians. If you look at the original diagram it is clear that the blue box is labeled "genera," and the sentence quoted above is appropriate to the diagram. P0M 04:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Incoherent paragraph

The article currently says:

Studies of human genetic variation imply that Africa was the ancestral source of all modern humans, and that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa and displaced Homo erectus between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago (Cann et al. 1987). Most other groups, including Europeans, Oceanians, Asians, and Native Americans, were found to be a single related (monophyletic) group resulting from a later out-migration from Africa, which could reasonably be divided into West and East Eurasian groups.

Saying "most other groups...resulting from a later out-migration from Africa" makes it sound as though a prior group that resulted from an earlier out-migration. The first sentence says that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa "and displaced Homo erectus." But the text does not identify the locations where the Homo erectus populations lived, or why the migrating Homo sapiens should have moved in on them and nowhere else. Actually, I doubt that the writer intended that odd picture to be created. It sounds like the writer refers to what Spencer Wells details as the first wave of migration that followed the lands close to the ocean and ended up in Australia. But who knows? Will someone who know what was actually intended please see to fixing the passage so that it accurately and coherently represents the intended meaning? P0M 04:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that this is unclear. I can work on it, butnot until Tuesday ... Slrubenstein | Talk 10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have done some work on the section but hope to do more if not this week then next week. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

How can anyone explain this sentence?

The article says:

The main characteristic seen on this phylogenetic tree agrees with the relation of the system of the group of human clarified as a rule by the polymorphism of a past protein and the season of DNA of a recent nucleus.

Surely somebody has vandalized the text. I will refrain from characterizing it otherwise. P0M 04:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

An anonymous user added it with no explanation. I deleted it. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the rest of this paragraph?

Here is a paragraph that seems to be going somewhere and then just stops. Perhaps the reader is intended to supply the conclusion? The first part says:

[The foregoing] is interpreted to mean that the human species is relatively young, perhaps too young to evolve subspecies.

So the second half of the paragraph might be expected to end with a contrasting conclusion. Instead, it just trails off into nebulosity.

However, with a genome of approximate 3 billion nucleotides, on average two humans differ at approximately 3 million nucleotides. Most of these single nucleotide polymorphisms are neutral, but some are functional and influence the phenotypic differences between humans. It is estimated that about 10 million SNPs exist in human populations, where the rarer SNP allele has a frequency of at least 1% (see International HapMap Project).

So what? Context indicates that the reader is supposed to believe that the foregoing proves or at least indicates somehow that there might be or actually are subspecies, but the writer seems not to dare to say it. How does this kind of writing serve the needs of the average well-informed reader? P0M 05:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur

However, other researchers still debate whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races". These questions are particularly pressing for biomedicine, where self-described race is often used as an indicator of ancestry

There is some connection between the genetic argument reported above these two sentences (a rather long discussion of population bottlenecks, founder effect, etc.) and the idea that there is a class of phenomena that might be called "evolutionary lineages." Then there seems to be a suggestion that these evolutionary lineages are considered to be races by some researchers and are not considered to be races by other researchers. It is unclear whether the reported disagreement (which is uncited) is merely a matter of preferred terminology, or whether there is something deeper involved. The presumed fact that there is a debate on whether to call evolutionary lineages races is then asserted to be hot topics for people in biomedicine. It is not made clear to the reader why researchers in biomedicine should care what these evolutionary lineages are called. The last sentences implies that somehow another definition or usage for the word "race" interacts with the evolutionary lineages "race." I'm reduced to guessing what the writer might mean. Will the average well-informed reader be able to intuit the intended meaning where I fail? P0M 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have read articles on this, but none that I can remember let alone cite. What I recall is basically this: there are a number of MDs, pathologists, and forensic anthropologists in the United States who commonly use the word race, and American racial categories, to identify individuals at risk for certain diseases that have a genetic predisposition. These doctors are not directly engaging in any debates with evolutionary scientists or population geneticists, they simply are used (as Americans) to identifying people according to race, and have found that in their usual practice (and this I think is based on anecdotal evidence not actual studies) that identifications by race shared by the doctor and the patient - i.e. self-identification based on popular criteria match genetic populations close enough that it can be used diagnostically. I do not know if there have been studies documenting misdiagnoses because of assumptions concerning race. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• However, other researchers still debate whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races"

Ummmm....I don't think they do. Evolutionary lineages are called species and not "races". I think the "debate", is much more prosaic. Let's be blunt, and scientific, the reason science has a problem with the concept of "race" has bugger all to do with "political correctness" (as racialists like to imply) and everything to do with the fact that any concrete definition of "race" has proved elusive due to practical reasons. I am not discussing "race" as a social concept, I assume we all accept that "race" has a very real and definite meaning to all of us (though I doubt we could all agree upon a single idea of what social "races" are, because by the very nature of a social construct, the construct varies by society). But in science we demand specific and concrete concepts. We don't do this because we are bloody minded and want to spoil other peoples "fun", or because we lack "common sense", or because we "can't see the obvious" nor do we do it because we are "politically correct", as some would have us believe. No, the reason that scientists demand concrete definitions, or concepts if you will, is because one of the main tenets of science is reproducibility. This is fundamental to science, why do we not have cold fusion as a "safe and clean" energy source? Because cold fusion was not reproducible. It's simple. If we have fuzzy definitions in science then we have fuzzy (or unreproducible) science. I think a good case in point with regards to the biological concept of "race" is the idea of multi locus allele clusters. Do these constitute "races" or not? Do they constitute support for the concept of "race"? Well the underlying concept here is the concept of "race". We all understand the idea that the human population of the world has a certain amount of biological variation that is geographically structured and it's apparent to the least observant of us that people from different parts of the world look a bit different to each other. But we still have to have a good concept of "race", it's really not good enough to claim that people from different parts of the world look different to each other, this is not a "reproducible" concept. The reason why it's not reproducible is because it is always true that people from very proximate parts of the world are similar, always, but also that people form distant parts of the world are distinct. So reproducibility is dependent upon selection criteria, which may not be consistent. There was some discussion on this talk page about the concept of "population" earlier, but what is a population? Even this concept is not formularised. So we really have an undefined concept (race) being defined by an undefined alternative concept (population) being reinforced by prejudice. So this article should be discussing "concepts" of "race" and not what individual editors "think" race is. I think currently it discusses what individual editors think that race is. OK. bit incoherent here. love. Alun 22:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC). AKA Wobbs

"Evolutionary lineages are called species and not 'races'." If you believe that there was originally a single individual from which all humans derived, then humans would form one lineage. But I get the idea that not everyone agrees that homo sapiens came into the world as the result of a single mutation. Does only one genetic feature distinguish Homo sapiens from other members of the genus? How likely is it that one embryo suffered multiple mutations and all of those mutations were beneficial? If the process of evolution toward Homo sapiens was more gradual, then maybe the ancestors of all Homo sapiens might turn out to be a set of siblings or cousins. Assuming that several mutations managed to "gravitate" together somehow, would the carriers of these mutant traits seek only other carriers of these traits to breed with? Or would they have been more likely to share their traits with proto-humans and gradually enrich a larger population? It's probably my immoral nature, but my guess is always in favor of human males being willing to contribute their genes to all and sundry. The females might have had the foresight to seek out only the local males with the best traits, but even so it seems unlikely that the reality would be that there was one "Adam." What would it mean, then, if Y-chromosome results show somehow that everybody living today must have derived from a single male? My guess would be that by the Nth generation all the collateral lines had died out. Alternate female lines would not have died out at the same time as alternate male lines. On the male side we presumably know or can learn what happened to the Y-chromosome genes. But grandchildren can share traits from all four grandparents, from all eight great-grandparents, etc. So there could be great complexity on the line of male descent even though the Y-chromosome came down from a single individual. The same goes for the line of female descent since sharing the same mitrochondrial DNA says nothing about the source of chromosomal DNA. In whole or in part it may have come from the female ancestor's male ancestors. P0M 08:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I doubt that the two sentences deserve any comment. I don't see how they can be fixed.

When you say, "This article should be discussing "concepts" of "race," I agree. I have been working from the bottom up, trying to make the statements clear enough that the average well-informed reader can understand them. I have found an unexpected number of instances of very poor writing, but I have so far not noticed places where the writer either says, "Race as defined..... is real," or presents an implicit argument for the reality of race as the writer conceives it and leaves it to the reader to draw the conclusion the writer wants.

Let's start with one place where you believe that the text states "what individual editors think that race is.P0M 02:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide this information.P0M 08:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

One of the classic put-downs in the physics community is to claim of affirmation made by somebody in that community that "It isn't even wrong!" If something does not have a meaning that is clear enough that one can specify what experimental findings would make it wrong, then it fails the basic requirement of usefulness in science. If some statement or proposed theory is proven wrong, then science has made progress by paring away another rotten spot in the apple.

The basic problem with the non sequitur quoted at the top of this section is that even if one accepts Slrubenstein's gist of why some people in the medical community you are still left saying, "So what?" and "What the heck is this writer trying to convey?" Let's try to figure out what the intended meaning may have been:

Researchers, group one: "Evolutionary lineages are races."

Researchers, group two: "Evolutionary lineages are not races."

Missing premise: Self-described race is predictive of one's evolutionary lineage. (Some people might believe it is perfectly predictive. Other people might believe it is statistically predictive, i.e., you get better than chance indications of evolutionary lineage if you go by what people tell you they are. "Evolutionary lineage" is an ambiguous term because for some people it means, effectively, a subspecies, and for other people it means, effectively, a fuzzier group membership requirement that would lower the statical probability of the validity of any predictions based on genetic traits of the lineage.)

Medicos, group one, use "self-described race" because it is either identical to what researchers in group one call "race" or because it is close enough to still get above the level of chance predictions on that basis, and that predictions of that level of reliability are right often enough to be medically useful.

Medicos, group two, reject "self-described race" because they don't believe it yields predictions that are medically useful.

I can imagine that the original writer had some such scenario in mind when writing that passage, but just look at the amount of slop at each step in the way. For all I know, the writer might have had something entirely different in mind. And when you get to the end of it, does anybody have evidence to show that even one medical researcher is making his research approach depend on what some other researchers think about the possibility that "lineages" are really what everybody is talking about when they use the word "race"?

The only way we can keep these two sentences is by finding some notable scientist who is talking about whatever the Wikipedia writer had in mind and who is much more coherent in expressing the idea. P0M 01:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right. I have added the case of BiDIl to the section on medicine and I hope it clarifies things somewhat but I have the critics' views, not the proponents. I also have a fix to the problem you raise but it is more appropriate to the section on law enforcement. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

From what I have read, American health researchers define race according to self-identification. Clearly, this is not the same as lineages. FilipeS 19:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

But this is not a definition is it? It certainly isn't a scientific definition. One of the problems here is that there is some confusion between "biological race" and the social concept of "race" used in biomedicine. It's all very well to "self identify", but this is not a question of biological concept. If a researcher is studying two sets of people that self identify as belonging to different ethnic groups, and it is found that from a biological point of view these groups "cluster" independently of each other, does this indicate that they belong to different "races"? I don't think it does from a biological point of view, it just shows that there is enough genetic difference between these two sets for a statistical analysis, it does not mean that these groups are different "races" and it certainly does not mean that these two groups do not necessarily share a large amount of recent common ancestry. Self identification is obviously a social construct, there are African Americans who certainly have a greater degree of non African ancestry than of African ancestry, but they still self identify as African American, and I know of White North Americans with majority non-European ancestry who still identify as White. Biological "race" is not the same as biomedical classifications. In medicine researchers are interested in disease risks, which can be as much the result of lifestyle and culture as biology, studying the genes people have can help to identify risk, this sort of study can obviously show that social groups, like ethnic groups do have within group genetic similarities, but this is not a definition of "biological race", it is simply an observation that what small amount of human genetic variation that is distributed geographically can be identified. It does not support the discrete packaging of "genetic types" into non-overlapping subspecies, it does not show that these differences are the beginnings of speciation events between human groups (as some would like to claim) and it does not support the concept of biological race. The problem is that some people seem to think that any observation that supports the geographic structure of genetic variation is automatically support for "biological race", or that if a scientist suggests that"biological race" is meaningless due to the distribution of diversity, that somehow they are claiming that there are no biological differences between people from different parts of the world. For "biological race" to have any meaning then it has to represent "subspecies", but there is no evidence to support the conclusion that humans divide into the sort of lineages that subspecies or clades or multiregionalism would imply. So some discussion regarding genetic variation is desirable in this article, and it is desirable that we say that some researchers want to define "race" in terms of the "geographic distribution of genetic diversity", but it is also desirable that we are clear that this is a non-traditional concept for "race" and that other researchers have pointed out that the continuous variation seen in this distribution will mean that many so called "populations" will not fit into any clear "race" at all, and that ultimately this method of classification is no less prone to fragmenting than any other, when we end up with hundreds of "races" because any "line" is by its very nature arbitrary, and this is the fundamental problem if humans are not packaged into discrete lineages (or subspecies, they are the same thing) then any classifications are always going to be arbitrary, hence all the problems we see with any definition of biological "race" for the human population of the world. I don't think this issue is at all well covered in the text of the article. Alun 03:30, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"lineages (or subspecies, they are the same thing)" Really?

Subspecies are actually not very well defined, and some researchers who are asked to classify organisms have little patience with the idea of subspecies because there are so many marginal cases. One way that a subspecies might get started that would satisfy even these picky researchers if a founder population got transported to an isolated region (e.g., honeybees to the island of Cyprus millions of years ago) and that population retained a number of genetic traits that were lost in the rest of the world or gained one or more genetic traits by mutation. That way you would have, e.g, solid black bees in northern Africa that are relatively easy to get along with and yellow and black banded bees in Cyrpus that are very aggressive toward any mammal that moves in the vicinity of their hives. They would look and act different and the Mediterranean would keep them from sharing characteristics. But as I have described them these subspecies would not necessarily have derived from single apical ancestors. Two swarms from the same hive might have gotten swept out to sea, one landing in northern Africa and one landing in Cyprus, but over a million years or so all the nicer bees might have died out in Cyprus and all the yellower bees might have gotten snapped up in northern Africa. They could have the same apical ancestors, no? P0M 08:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. Is this a scientific article or what? What about putting all this scientific jargon jumbo in its proper place, such as here, it needs expanding, so put it there. This article is too long, forks in too many directions, is very confusing, even for an educated person, and is definitely too difficult to read for the average informed reader. It's best to keep it simple, (I know this is not a simple topic...but) as people have many definitions of "race", or get rid of it altogether. Branch off (disambig?) to different articles, do not make this one only a geneticist-scientist can understand. IMO. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Things get out of hand when we use the word "race" in an unqualified way, as though it were no more problematical than "bird." That's the nature of the beast, and I understand why Aun is concerned to deal with an aspect of the problem whenever it crops up.P0M

However, I'd like to try to stick with fixing the parts of the article that can be salvaged and deleting the parts that flat-out do not make sense. The part I quoted above either needs to be rewritten so that it means something in a coherent way or it needs to be deleted.

Equating evolutionary lineages (if there is any such thing) with race (if there is any such thing), or denying that there is an equation will have the same effect on biomedicine, no? Either way the medical world will do what it wants to do because what other people think about definitions and equations is trivial and irrelevant. So what the heck was somebody murkily trying to prove here? Nobody has offered to restate the stuff in question so that it actually becomes coherent. Nobody has said, "What the writer obviously was trying to convey was that..." Somebody just wrote something that fits my old college definition of a "snow job," i.e., something that sounds convincing but if the teacher actually delves into it will turn out to be a pile of fluff. P0M 05:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The way I see it one can equate evolutionary lineages with "races" if one is discussing "race" as "subspecies". What there is no debate about is that one can discuss "human race" as evolutionary lineage (ie subspecies) because the human population has been shown not to fragment into discrete inbreeding groups. So the question is how it applies to human diversity and not how it applies generally to biology. It's like this, subspecies form relatively discrete non-overlappong lineages, sometimes these are called "races" in biology (a "biological race"), but these can also be thought of a "clades". In many ways these are all the same thing.

'Race' is applied in formal taxonomy to variation below the species level. In traditional approaches, substantively morphologically distinct populations or collections of populations occupying a section of a species range are called subspecies and given a three-part Latin name. In current systematic practice, the designation 'subspecies' is used to indicate an objective degree of microevolutionary divergence....We argue that the correct use of the term 'race' is the most current taxonomic one, because it has been formalized. 'Race' gains its force from its natural science root. The term denotes 'natural' distinctions and connotes differences not susceptible to change. One is led to ask, therefore, whether everything that is called a 'racial' difference is actually natural....Although 'race' and subspecies are usually treated as equivalent, some zoological taxonomists reserve the word 'race' for local breeding populations, with subspecies being geographical collections of populations that are similar or the same in the defining traits.....If 'Caucasoid' is a subspecies, however, then an endogamous village population or ethnic group becomes a 'race'. This illustrates an inconsistency even in biological usage not found in scientific or sociopolitical practice: for example, how often are the Old Order Amish referred to as a 'race' in recent scientific literature? This group of people is a breeding population, based on a particular behavioral pattern of mate choice, as opposed to being defined by an anatomical trait complex....Avise and Ball suggest a definition of 'subspecies' that is consistent with the goals of evolutionary taxonomy: "Subspecies are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding populations phylogenetically distinguishable from, but reproductively compatible with, other such groups. Importantly the evidence for phylogenetic distinction must normally come from the concordant distributions of multiple, independent, genetically based traits." This definition is different from the previous one in that it emphasizes phylogenetics. It is, in theory, more objective and consistent with neodarwinian evolutionary theory and can be used as the basis for determining whether or not modern Homo sapiens can be structured into populations divergent enough to be called 'races'. We know that there is human geographical variation, but does this infraspecific diversity reach a threshold that merits the designation 'subspecies', as is true with chimpanzees?...'Race' is 'socially constructed' when the word is incorrectly used as the covering term for social or demographic groups. Broadly designated groups, such as 'Hispanic' or 'European American' do not meet the classical or phylogenetic criteria for subspecies or the criterion for a breeding population.....'Race' is a legitimate taxonomic concept that works for chimpanzees but does not apply to humans (at this time). The nonexistence of 'races' or subspecies in modern humans does not preclude substantial genetic variation that may be localized to regions or populations.from Conceptualizing human variation by S O Y Keita, R A Kittles, C D M Royal, G E Bonney, P Furbert-Harris, G M Dunston & C N Rotimi

Alun 06:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I do not think we are understanding "lineage" the same way. My understanding is that "a lineage" traces back to "a single ancestor." Your way of "equat[ing] evolutionary lineages with "races" if one is discussing "race" as "subspecies" would imply that "lineage" means (1) a ramiform structure depending from two (or a limited set of) male and female ancestors, (2) a ramiform structure that is characterized by possession of some traits that are not found elsewhere. It would be analogous to an asexually reproducing group that had become isolated somewhere and possessed one or more genetic features (mutations) not found elsewhere. Have you looked at the two articles on lineage? Maybe they are incorrect. P0M 08:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The two sentences will not connect, regardless of what we guess about what the original writer might have been trying to say. Compare:

However, other researchers still debate whether whales should rightly be called "fish". These questions are particularly pressing for biomedicine, where self-described "aquatic lifeform variety" is often used as an indicator of the best treatment modality.

It sounds like the writer has some idea that if some patient describes himself/herself as belonging to the group "aquatic lifeform C" then it should matter to his/her doctor whether whales are to be called fish.

Back to the original quotation, it doesn't matter to doctors whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races". Doctors are dealing with "self-described race" because that is all that is available to them in the short term, and they want to get some idea of what medication us the most likely to work with a certain patient, or whether to test first for sickle-cell anemia even though it looks as though something else might be a good bet. They would be reassured by anything that demonstrated that "self-described race" had statistical validity when trying to determine a patient's genetic "family." Does "races" mean the same thing as "self-described race"? Surely not if "races" is effectively synonymous with "evolutionary lineages." If the doctors had the "lineage" of the patient for several generations they wouldn't care whether the patient called himself/herself "white" or "black." They would be looking at the great-great grandparents and where they grew up.

The passage is a snow job, briefly episodic, but a snow job nonetheless.

What would matter was a convincing argument that "self-described race" is linked reliably to some traits that aren't obvious on the basis of a normal physical examination. That's all. Whether or not some undefined "race" is synonymous with some idea of "evolutionary lineages" doesn't have anything to do with anything. If it were proven that "self-described race" points with some statistical reliability to a lineage that is or can be known, then that would be a premise away from a good argument to show that "self-described race" pointed with some statistical reliability to a bunch of traits. But it would be entirely beside the point whether these lineages are "evolutionary." Why bring the theory of evolution into this? A creationist could say that the races were created as pure, that the members of these races mixed things up, and that you can trace the characteristics in a pure way as long as the races kept to themselves but that once they mixed you have to look carefully at who a patient's ancestors were -- all the way back to the generations in which mixture occurred. But so what? The doctor doesn't care about creationism or about Darwin, at least not as far as treating patients goes. The doctor wants to know, "If this guy says he is white, does that mean that I can forget about testing for sickle cell anemis even though it sure looks like that is the problem? Let's say I am willing to gamble with the comfort if not the life of this patient. What is the statistical chance that a person who claims pure white ancestry has or does not have sickle cell anemia?"

I certainly couldn't go into a court of law and say, "This writer meant to equate self-reported race with race as determined by the objective means of science." But, does anybody have another idea for what this writer's garbled mess is trying to express? (I should check back with the history. Maybe I wrote those words myself. :-/ P0M 07:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence only makes no sense in a general biological context, it does not make sense in the context of human biology. This sort of discussion belongs in Race (biology) as Jeeny points out because it is not relevant to this article. The second sentence is not accurate, the researchers concerned use "self describes race/ethnicity" and not self described "race". This is important to point out because the study concerned (and I can only think of a single study that uses this criterion, though others may exist) is clearly interested in biomedicine and not in taxonomy, so ethnicity is as valid a way to self identify as "race" is, but this should not be conflated with any concept of "biological race", self identification is clearly a social construct. Clearly from a taxonomic (ie biological) point of view self described ethnicity/race has absolutely no merit, unless someone is proposing asking non-human organisms how they self identify. I look forward to seeing how Oak trees self-identify when questioned. From a biological point of view it is the ecology of the organism that determines sub-specific classification, not how the organism "identifies". Alun 13:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

"The first sentence only makes no sense in a general biological context, it does not make sense in the context of human biology. This sort of discussion belongs in Race (biology) as Jeeny points out because it is not relevant to this article. " The point of the article

Here is the article I was thinking of: Sauer, Norman J. (1992) "Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races Don't Exist, Why are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying them" in Social Science and Medicine 34(2): 107-111. NB this is a top-ranked journal. The answer to the question (according to Sauer) is that forensic anthropologists apply racial labels to human remains not because they believe biological races exist but because they are "predicting" that when the person was alive that particular racial label would have been applied to them. I am not sure whether this is circular reasoning or just begging the question - but I think it as honest an answer to the question as one will get from forensic anthropologists and lots of MDs - muddled and in a way revealing. Question: where should this go: race in Biomedicine, or race in Law Enforcement, or someplace else? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Excellent question. I kept going back and forth with were it should go, ummm... and couldn't decide! I was leaning more to Biomedicine, but then thought Forensics in Law Enforcement. I guess my answer would be "someplace else". Where? I don't know. I haven't read the section yet, anyway, just your presentation here. Perhaps P0M will have a better idea. - Jeeny ^Talk 16:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No rush - I think I have presented an accurate account of the article, and it is an important and relevant source that obviously addresses an issue of importance (judging by the volume of discussion in this section). I have pretty much done what I can in terms of rewriting and reorganizing for now; I need a break and it makes sense for others to go over the changes I made and see how well I addressed POM's concerns, and see what new concerns come up. I appreciate your interest in this article and your concern that it be well-written (although we may disagree about the importance of drawing together research from different disciplines). I'd appreciate your thinking about it, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Forensic anthropologists don't identify them.

Yes, they identify them by race, using racial labels current in the US. The author states, "race identification continues to be one of the central foci of forensic anthropological casework and research." The article makes the explicit claim that forensic anthropologists are good at identifying races. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK then please give me their definition of "biological race" then? If you claim that these are consistent and non-arbitrary reproducible concepts of "race" then the very least you can do is define these "labels" for us? Please do, because I took a look at the abstract and they claim that these are social constructs and not biological constructs. Alun 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I said they identify them by race. You said they don't. I said they do. Are you now acknowledging that I am correct, that they do identify the remains using racial categories? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Eh? So you can't answer a question so you avoid it? As usual you resort to sophistry when the difficult questions come up. You claim that these people identify them by "race" but apparently neither you nor they can adequately expand upon what "race" is. Besides I actually did expand upon this, but it is a habit of your to take other editors comments out of context isn't it? Presumably this si simply some sort of device to avoid answering the original question. You engage in sophistry, evasion and rarely address the actual point in hand. Alun 21:42, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Forensic anthropologists make numerous measurements and infer the geographic ancestry of the individual based on the correlation of these multiple measurements.

What is your source? According to my source, they identify them by race. Whether this means "geographic origin" or not is an open question.Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm do you actually know what forensic anthropologists do? How do you think they actually identify the "racial categories"? How do you think the "race" of the individual concerned is ascertained? It's done by measurement. Take a look at Forensic anthropology and Physical anthropology and Craniofacial anthropometry. Alun 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This is analogous the multi-locus allele clustering in genetics. No one disputes that variation, both physical and genetic, is geographically structured, nor does anyone dispute that certain physical features or alleles correlate by geography. Being able to identify the geographic region a person's ancestors comes from by measuring physical or genetic variables is not the same as "proving" a "biological concept of race".

The source cited itself raises the issue of whether it proves a biological concept of race, and according to the source it does not - that is what "not because they believe races exist" means.Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Quite. Alun 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You have once again conflated geographic variation with "race".

No I have not. Where have I done that? Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You constantly refer to "race" as if we are all supposed to know which construct you are talking about, given that there are at least four different meanings for "race" it is sometimes difficult to know what you are referring to. I find your comments confusing because they often seem ambiguous to me. I don't mean to criticise you, and if you have not confused these issues then fair enough, but it does seem to me that this is the case. Alun 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

All I did was provide a brief summary of what the article says. The issue is not what do I think, the issue is what does the source say. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it is the constant refrain of the proponents of human "biological races" that any observable variation in humans by geographic origin is ipso facto proof that "biological race" exists. But any child can see that humans vary physically by geography. The question is not whether variation exists, but whether this variation amounts to any concept of "biological race".

Let's please stick to the point at hand, which is the Sauer article and where to place it in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I was quite clear i this, it belongs in the section discussing the distribution of variation, just like multi locus allele clustering. Alun 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Now it is apparent that any concept of "biological race" must be consistent for all biology, and cannot be different for humans than for other species. When "biological race" is used it is generally used to mean "subspecies". It has been established that humans do not fragment into subspecies. When physical anthropologists measure physical differences they are measuring human diversity, and can very well identify the geographic location of the ancestors of these individuals, but this is not support for a "concept of biological race". The problem with "biological race" is not that human variation does not exist, nor that it cannot be measured, the problem is coming up with a concept that can accurately account for the distribution of diversity as it is observed while accurately dividing the human species into consistent non-overlapping subspecific taxa. Physical anthropologists run into exactly the same problems as geneticists, they may easily be able to determine the difference between people from distant parts of the world, but would have difficulty distinguishing people from intermediate parts of the world, this is due to the continuous nature of variation, and is why classifications of humans into "biological races" always break down. We really need to distinguish between the concept of "biological race" and the fact of continuous/semi-continuous physical/genetic variation in the human population, they are not the same thing. In this sense the word "race" in this publication is not using any definition of "biological race", but is using "race" as a shorthand for variation. Alun 09:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wobble, talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles and I raised the question where to bring in the Sauer article. Nothing you have written is relevant, let alone constructive. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think what I wrote was specific and relevant, physical anthropologists use multiple observations/measurements in order to assign individuals into certain "groups" that they call "races". This is possible because of the way physical (and genetic) characteristics are distributed geographically. That is, it is because human variation is geographically distributed. We used to have a section called "distribution of human variation" but for some bizarre and unfounded reason someone with a POV to push keeps changing the name to "race as lineage" which is in fact scientifically wrong and is not supported by any of the citations in the section. This is the section where this info belongs. The distribution of variation, both genetic and physical, is continuous, this observation is repeatable and robust, but you and Ramdrake keep giving undue weight to concepts like multiregionalism and lineages/subspecies (all of these are effectively the same thing). This article is a joke and seriously distorts modern science, apparently due to the political posturing of just two POV-pushing editors who will stop at nothing to promote the concept of "biological race", often citing sources and writing about concepts they appear to have little to no understanding of. Alun 13:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

"race as lineage" which is in fact scientifically wrong" - this gets to the heart of the matter. Wikipedia has NOR and V and NPOV policies that make it clear that Wikipedia is not about what is right or wrong but what verifiable sources say. Wobble insists that there is one truth, which he knows. That is POV pushing. A couple of months ago this article had a section on race as lineage because one of the views of race is that it corresponds to a genetic lineage. "is not supported by any of the citations in the section" bzzzzz WRONG - the citations all refer to races as lineages. You just do not know this literature, or you do not agree with it. Too bad. Wikipedia is not about what editors do ro do not think is true. It is about representing different points of verifiable views. Cann explicitly talks about genetic lineages among H. sapiens sapiens, Wells' book goes into great detail about different lineages, Abu el Hag explicitly talks about races as lineages, and Palmie provides a nuanced critique of the view of races as lineages. Get over yourself, Wobble - it just doesn't matter whether you agree with these views or not. NPOV demands that they be included. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• 'Wikipedia has NOR and V and NPOV policies that make it clear that Wikipedia is not about what is right or wrong but what verifiable sources say.

But the sources you quote don't actually say what you claim they say. This is why you are wrong. Understand this very simple point, it is not the sources that are wrong, it is the fact that both you and Ramdrake consistently make claims for sources that the actual sources themselves do not support. Now you tell me exactly where the NPOV, V and NOR policies say that it is acceptible to claim that a source supports a point of view when it cleraly does not? We had this discussion several times with regards to "race as lineage" and I repeatedly requested either you ar Ramdrake to show me a quote in any of the sources that the secton cited that unambiguously said that their data supported the concept of "race as lineage" but both of you failed comprehensively to demonstrate this. So I changed the article due to your lack of ability to demonstrate verifiability. A few days later and yuo have reinserted your lies,a nd still ahve provided no verifiability. Alun 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• "is not supported by any of the citations in the section" bzzzzz WRONG - the citations all refer to races as lineages.

Then why are you unable to quote these mythical sections that specifically refer to "race as lineage"? Alun 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• You just do not know this literature, or you do not agree with it.

I do not agree or disagree with it, these are scientific observations, it is not a question of "agreement", it is a question of what the authors scientific papers themselves actualy claim. I know much of this literature very well, I have had numerous disagreements with a previous editor called Lukas19, who seems to have very similar opinions to you, I have spent a lot of time reading these sorts of papers and understand these concepts quite well. I also happen to have a BSc in Genetics and an MSc in biotechnology, so I think I know a little about genetics and am able to understand some genetics research papers. Alun 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia is not about what editors do ro do not think is true.

But this is what you do all the time. You seem to believe you have ownership of this article. Several times you have claimed that if I make edits you will not revert them, but every time I do make edits you always revert them. You make claims for science that the science doesn't support, and you remove perfectly good science that is cited which you do not agree with. For example both myself and Muntuwandi have included the theory that modern humans left Africa about 120,000-70,000 years ago, we both provided citations for this, and it is easily verifiable, but on both occasions you removed this information. I am increasingly fed up with your and Ramdrake's tag-team revert waring, you both seem to think that the only people worthy to edit this article are yourselves. Alun 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is about representing different points of verifiable views.

Many of the views presented are not verified by the sources that claim to support them. Alun 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Cann explicitly talks about genetic lineages among H. sapiens sapiens, Wells' book goes into great detail about different lineages

And? Don't you know what a mitochondrial lineage is? Don't you know what a Y chromosome lineage is? Can you please explain to me how you think Y chromosome linbeages and mitochondrial lineages are relevant to the concept of "race as lineage"? Mitochondria are passed from mother to child, if you claim that mitochondrial lineages are "races" then you are effectively saying that a person's "race" is inherited from their mother, and that a person will only have their father's "race" if their father happens to have the same mtDNA haplogroup as their mother. As for Y chromosomes, well only men and boys have them, so does it follow that girls cannot ever be part of their father's "race" because they can never inherit their Y chromosome? I know exactly what Y chromosome lineages are, and I know exactly what mtDNA lineages are. I have recently read Spencer Wells book, I have also recently read Stephen Oppenheimer's book and Bryan Sykes' book, all three of these deal with Y chromosomes lineages. To be blunt to claim that Y chromosome lineages and mtDNA lineages have any relevance to the concept of "race and lineage" is to show a breathtaking ignorance of both the literature cited and the science involved. I would go so far as to say that if you make this sort of claim then your level of understanding is so poor that you should really not be making edits to this section of the article. Alun 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Abu el Hag explicitly talks about races as lineages

I can only read the first page of this article, but she doesn't mention "lineage as race" at all in this. You should not confuse genetic lineages with "racial lineages". Even in the part of this article that gives quite a bit of space to this "Commentary" there is no evidence that she is saying that "race is lineage", certain genetic markers are inherited lineally, either from mother to child or from father to son, these lineages are not "racial lineages" and Abu el-Haj doesn't even say they are in the section quoted in this article. mtDNA is inherited only from a person's mother. Think of it this way, I have 2¹⁰ ancestors from ten generations ago (the number of ancestors doubles every generation we go back), that is I have DNA from 1024 people from that generation. According to your personal interpretation of this science my "race" is decided by the DNA I inherrited from a single one of these ancestors. Or to put it another way, if my direct matrilinear ancestor from this generation were an African woman, and all other of my ancestors from this generation were European, I would be "racially African", even though a mere 1/1024, or 0.098% of my DNA were African. This sounds suspiciously like the "one drop rule" to me. And this is not supposition on my part. See the paper Africans in Yorkshire? The deepest-rooting clade of the Y phylogeny within an English genealogy where a recent survey discovered seven men from Yorkshire in England who have a Y chromosome previously only reported in West Africa. These men know of no recent African ancestry in their family. According to you these men are racially "African" because they have a Y chromosome from an African lineage. I suspect you have a very limited understanding of the mode of transmission of Y chromosomes and mtDNA. I also suspect that you are conflating several different usages of the word "lineage" in order to promote an point of view that would be regarded as unsupported by anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of hereditary and genetics. Alun 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Get over yourself, Wobble - it just doesn't matter whether you agree with these views or not. NPOV demands that they be included.

I disagree with these views because they are not supported by the citations you give. The text of the section also seems to have been written by someone with at best a tenuous understanding of genetics. Indeed if I were to be blunt I would say that the person who wrote this text is displaying a breathtaking ignorance of both hereditary and genetics, and does not appear to have actually read the sources they are using to support this gibberish. For example: Work by Cann et. al. and others, such as Johnson et. al[26] on mtDNA has led some scientists to a new definition of race as lineage. I don't know of any scientist who has defined "race as lineage" based on mtDNA work, and this assertion is unsupported, the work of Cann is cited, but the part about it leading to a new definition is not supported by a citation. And what's this In the case of mtDNA research lineages consist of people descended from one female ancestor presumably from a time when there was a genetic bottleneck. eh? Unsupported speculation on the part of the editor here. And what's this nonsense Consequently, scientists can use the distribution of neutral polymorphisms among contemporary humans to map additional "lineages" (in the case of nuclear DNA, descent from an apical male ancestor). Actually they can't do this, and no scientist would ever claim that they can. Scientists can use neutral SNPs to infer lots of things, like clustering, but autosomal polymorphisms cannot be used to trace ancestry due to recombination. Besides the most absurd comment here is the claim that nuclear SNPs can be used to infer an "apical male ancestor". So this editor seems to think that all their nuclear DNA comes from their father? As I say, it is clearly written by someone with zero understanding of genetics, molecular biology or hereditary. Alun 21:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Alun, you're being offensively dismissive of anything we bring you as argument, and borderline uncivil. You seem to have "genetic lineage" nicely differentiated from "racial lineages" and "races as biological constructs" nicely delineated from "races as an anthropological construct", which is all fine and dandy. Why is it then that you assume that whenever people use the word "race" they must mean "race as a biological construct" and when they use "lineages" they must mean "genetic lineage" and not "racial lineage", even when lending such interpretation render what is being said nonsensical? Why must all considerations of "race" go through the looking-glass of biology, and there are no other correct explanations? (That is "the truth" as you see it, as far as I can tell from your writing.) Why can't there be any other truth but your own? That is what irks me senseless. Please, please stop being so dismissive about every argument anybody brings which you don't agree with, and try to work compromises. So far, I haven't seen anything much in the way of compromise coming from you. You may have a B.Sc. amd an M.Sc in biology and work in the field, but so what? I have a Ph.D. myself (in (Human) Neuroscience, admittedly), so please try to listen to the arguments and rebuttals presented to you as if they were presented by reasonably intelligent and learned people and try to answer in a way that shows you at least tried to understand what they were trying to say rather than repeating "I'm right and you're wrong" as now seems to be your mantra. I hope you will heed this warning.--Ramdrake 23:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Alun, you're being offensively dismissive of anything we bring you as argument,

I am requiring that you show conclusively that the sources you cite actually support what you are saying. Thus far it seems to me that we have a couple of people with absolutelly no clue whatsoever abourt genetics or biology who appear to be hoplessly confused about the most fundamental concepts of genetics anf hereditary. When I try to change the gross inacurracies, distortions and down right lies in the section about "race as lineage" you revert it. I ahve been extremely patient, but I am fed upi with the absolute bollocks written in this section. Anyone with a basic understanding of genetics can see that this section is basdky and incompetently written by someone with zero knowledge or understanding in thes field. I have been ridiculed and insulted by you and Slrubenstein, you treat this article as if it werre your own private property. Just a week or so ago Slrubenstein was claiming that no one should edit this article while it was under mediation,

You are lying. I never made any such claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

but apparently this "dictat" does not apply to our resident dictators, who feel that as their personal property this article can of course be edited by them, but not by anyone else. Slrubenstein was even demanding yesterday that Jeeny should not edit this article.

You are lying. I never made such a demand. I requested that Jeeny not make a specific edit and gave my reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:06, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Any improvements mad to this article by people who actuaslly know what they are talking about are imnediately reverted to confused mutterings of the uninformed and clueless. Yes I am angry, and yes I think I have every right to be angry with the pompous and arogant way you and your little revert-warrior tag team buddy try to monopolise and claim ownership of this article. Go away and think about how you are behaving towardds other people, and try to see that your behaviour is arrogant and offensive. Alun 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to have "genetic lineage" nicely differentiated from "racial lineages" and "races as biological constructs" nicely delineated from "races as an anthropological construct", which is all fine and dandy.

I am using deffinitions from reliable sources, which you are ignoring in your attempt to include your own personal pet theory, which is not supported by any citations at all. Kinship and descent (anthropological lineage) is not the same as subspecies as lineage, and neither are the same as mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages.

1. Anthropological lineage is cultural phenomenon, it is about identity, it is a method groups of people such as bands, tribes, ethnic groups or nations use to forge a sense of collective identity. A good example of this would be the Tribes of Israel, each tribe has an apical ancestor (sons of Jacob and sons of Joseph), but the question is not one of biology, it is one of culture. It is incorrect to claim that apical ancestors are equivalent to people carrying new mutations in Y chromosomes or mtDNA, there is no evidence that the sons of Jacob or of Joseph all carried de novo genetic mutations in their Y chromosomes, and therefore founded "new" haplogroups.
2. Conversely individuals who do carry de novo mutations in their mtDNA or Y chromosomes are not apical ancestors, they are the common ancestors of all individuals who carry their new lineage (haplogroup), but they are also the direct ancestors of people who do not carry their Y chromosome or mtDNA lineages. No one has "claimed" that mitochondrial Adam is their "apical ancestor", because no one knows who he was, there are no customs about him, he is not part of the custom or culture of any ethnic group. We did not even know that Y chromosomes could be used to traces patrilineal ancestry untill very recently, just as with mtDNA.
3. There is a perfectly good definition of "race as lineage" that is actually in this article, it is from a reliable source and is the only one we have. You have chosen not to use this definition because it does not support the original research you have included in the article. You have absolutelly failed to come up with an alternative definition of "race as lineage" that comes from a reliable source, but you also insist on not using this definition either. This is the problem, the definition of "race as lineage" that is given in this article is aperfectly good definiton, but it is a definition of subspecies, and this particular definition is incompatible with human subspecies. This is not to say that other definitions of "race" are incompatible with the existence of human "races".Alun 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why is it then that you assume that whenever people use the word "race" they must mean "race as a biological construct" and when they use "lineages" they must mean "genetic lineage" and not "racial lineage",

Take a look at the article, if you are going to discuss "race as lineage" then you have to be clear about what sort of lineage you are talking about. Currently the section is called "race as lineage", but it only cites biological sources, therefore it should discuss "race" as a biologcial construct and "lineage" as a biological construct. If you want to diccuss "race" as a social construct that is all well and good, and I don't ahve a problem with this, but biology and genetics have no bearing on "race as a social constrect". If you want to discuss "Kinship and descent" then I don't ahve a problem with it, as long as you don't try to erroneously conflate it with genetics or genetic lienages or biological lineage. It is the dishonest way you have deliberately confused and conflated at lease four different fields of academia and research in order to produce this "gestalt entity" of yours in this particular section of the article. It is a hideous monstrisity whith little basis in the real world, it is the product of your imagination. Alun 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Why must all considerations of "race" go through the looking-glass of biology, and there are no other correct explanations?

Who ever said that? Not me, I am perfectly happy to discuss race as a social concept. But it is you who are conflating biological and social concepts not me. If you want to discuss social concepts be my guest, but please do not attempt to use biology to support social concepts, because this is just dishonest. When you discuss "race as biology" you must use biological constructs, when you discuss race as a social construct you may use cultural anthropology, ethnology, sociology and social anthropology as your sources. Confusing several unrelated constructs that are coincidentally all called lineages in order to push original research displays a lack of objectivity. Alun 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• That is "the truth" as you see it, as far as I can tell from your writing.

In which case I can only urge you to read what I say more carefully, because I do not believe in "truth" when it comes to science, I believe in "theories" which may or may not be correct. I do think it is illegitimate to claim that published research supports a contention when it clearly does not on any objective reading. To basically lie about what researchers are saying, as you and Slrubenstein are doing, is to deliberately compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Most peple who read Wikipedia do not check the sources used here, when editors lie about what sources are saying people really do believe the source is making this claim. I don't know if you are distorting the research deliberatelly or if you are just ignorant, but it's the politician's dilemma when something dreadful happens isn't it? Do you admit to incompetence or to malice? Alun 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Please, please stop being so dismissive about every argument anybody brings which you don't agree with, and try to work compromises.

I am speechless with the hypocricy of this statement. One of the people least ready to compromise on this article. You have reverted every single edit I have ever made, you have even reverted when you do not have a coherent argument to support your contention. What annoys me is that I an not being dismissive, I am asking for reliable sources. The section on "race as lineage" is a massive lie, it is written by someone who is obviously hopelessly out of their depth and clearly does not have even the faintest idea what thet are talking about. It has got nothing to do with "agreeing" with anyone. You do not know if I agree with you or not, because you have not actually made any arguments that are supported by reliable sources. For example none of the sources that deal with multilocus allele clustering in the "race as lineage" section make any claims for "race as lineage", none even mention "lineage", but you continue to insist that these papers support the concept of human lineages. This is your opinion, but it constitutes original research because none of the actual citations say anything even remotely approaching this. It is your fantasy, it is not verified and it is not neutral. All I want to do is present what the actual scientists themselves say, if you don't agree that I should do this then I question your commitment to neutrality. Alun 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• so please try to listen to the arguments and rebuttals presented to you

When you make a clear argument that is actually supported by a reliable sourec then I will be overjoyed to support the inclusion of this point of view. When you claimt hat certain scientific data support a point of view which they clearly do not, then I am within my rights to point out that this is dishonest and appears designed to deliberately mislead readers of the article, again we're back to "ignorant or malicious" aren't we? Alun 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• rather than repeating "I'm right and you're wrong"

I've never said this. I do not claim to be right, I claim that none of the citations in the section "race as lineage" supports the text of the section. The section is written by someone with little or no understanding of biology or genetics. It makes falacious claims and misrepresents the science. It's not about "right or wrong", it's about presenting the information in the cited sources, currently there is a massive difference between what the sources actually say, and what the section of the article claims they say. Alun 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• I hope you will heed this warning.

Warning? Are you so thretened by me that you feel the need to make threats? Very mature. Alun 15:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Typical, isn't it Alun? INSTEAD OF PROVIDING VALID SOURCES as you requested, they resort to threats and insults. It never fails.

The only people who are "offensively dismissive" of anyone who doesn't toe their party line around here are Ramdrake, Slrubenstein, and Paul B. FilipeS 15:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me where I have threatened or insulted any of the editors here. And, for the record, Alun has threatened on my talk page to open an RfC on me (which he is quite welcome to do). In my humble opinion, it does look as if you have it backwards.--Ramdrake 19:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

What's an "RfC"? A request for comment? Why should that be threatening?

Compare and contrast with "I hope you will heed this warning." Who are you to "warn" anyone here?

As for insults, I'm such a sucker that I actually went back and reread part of the discussions in this page, to see if my memory had deceived me; can you believe it? But I must admit that it was worth it in this case. Overall, you have not been as belligerant as Slrubenstein and Paul B. I take back my remark about insults in your case, and apologize for my bad memory and undue generalizations.

I'll tell you what, let's quit discussing personalities. That's surely not what we're all here for. What do you say to Alun's objections? FilipeS 20:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I'm all for discussing improving the article and not discussing the editors. And my sentence was put in as a simple warning, with no implied threat whatsoever, although I'll concede the choice of word could have been better; no offence was meant, and if some was taken, I apologize for the bad choice of words. My main objection to Alun's position is that it comes across that all definitions (whether it be "race" or "lineage") must be the ones used in biology in order to be considered "scientific". It is my belief that anthropological definitions of the same terms, which are somewhat different are much more than mere "social" constructs and are scientific definitions in their own right. Of course, I will acknowledge that one of the most grievous problems on this topic (and the source of much controversy) is that researchers, even very good ones, may at times conflate different definitions of the term in their speech or writing. Whenever that seems to happen, Alun seems to want to dismiss whatever it is they are saying (using a number of phrases) rather than pointing out that this conflation occurs. That it occurs is part and parcel of the controversy; it doesn't exclude the opinion from being cited (for cited opinions), and it should be a heads-up to look for a rebuttal in the literature which points out this conflation. I believe there is a way to do this, logically, even dispassionately. While I admire Alun's passion for the subject, I perceive it sometimes gets in the way of productive discussion, as it eats at his credibility... 'nuff said. Sorry if I again brought some comments on the editor in the subject, but I'm trying to explain to the best of my ability why a lot of Alun's proposed changes don't fly, IMHO.--Ramdrake 21:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It is my belief that anthropological definitions of the same terms, which are somewhat different are much more than mere "social" constructs and are scientific definitions in their own right.

I think I rest my case. Ramdrake says:

It is my belief that anthropological definitions of the same terms, which are somewhat different, are much more than mere "social" constructs and are scientific definitions in their own right.

Well I personally don't give a fig for Ramdrakes belief. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. It is not supposed to represent Ramdrakes's belief. This is clearly nothing more than Ramdrakes's personal opinion, by his own admission it is "his belief" and not a verifiable proposition from a reliable source. Now what have I been saying all along? Oh yes, that this is Original research. At least Ramdrake now admits it. Alun 21:55, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Then, please explain why the anthropological definitions of "race" and "lineage" should not be considered scientific, given that anthropology is a science just as much as biology is? So far, you come across loud and clear that anthropological considerations should be dismissed out of hand, but it fails to make any sense to me, and my guess is to several other editors as well. If we could undertand that coming from you, it would already be a start.--Ramdrake 22:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Then, please explain why the anthropological definitions of "race" and "lineage" should not be considered scientific

When have I ever said that anthropolgists definitions should not be considered scientific? There are at least two branches of anthropology, physical anthropology and cultural anthropology (called social anthropology in Europe). I don't dispute that either of these are scientific. I have never stated that these aare not sciences. I have stated that their concepts do not represent "biology". I think I actually said that when we discuss biological lineages we should stick to biological definitions. I think I also said that when we discuss social constructs we should stick to definitions of social constructs. In effect I think my suggestion was that we should not conflate social constructs with biological constructs, and that is exactly what the "race as lineage" section does at present. Please stick to the point in hand, trying to distort what people say isn't going to get us anywhere. The discussion is not about what is "science" and what is not science. The discussion is about what the sources in the "race and genetics" section of the article actually support or don't support. Alun 00:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you gentlemen noted the recent Science articles discussing the change in skin pigmentation in Europeans: Science. 2007 Apr 20;316(5823):364. American Association of Physical Anthropologists meeting. European skin turned pale only recently, gene suggests.Gibbons A.; and the significance of gene expression in race:Science 12 January 2007:Vol. 315. no. 5809, pp. 173 - 174. In Asians and Whites, Gene Expression Varies by Race.Jennifer Couzin. From what I have been trying to decipher above there maybe a conflation of ideas confusing different questions, the different means of addressing those questions, and the results of those studies. The main problem I see is that once again disagreements on this Wiki resort to personal assaults rather than constructive discussion. Most of the studies mentioned are a window into the questions concerning race not dogma and facts with impunity.GetAgrippa 21:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Ramdrake (and all), I do think one of the things that this article is badly lacking is a section that patiently explains the main definitions of "race" which have been used throughout history: biological definitions, socially constructed definitions, and even obviously nonsensical yet popular definitions such as the One-Drop Rule. In a topic so controversial, emotional and convoluted as this, precise distinctions and clear definitions are crucial. Other have stated this already, but I want to insist on it. Without it, I fear that we will just keep going round in circles and talking past each other.

Let me also come out and say, in case there was any doubt, that I have the utmost respect for the social sciences, and believe that when all is said and done they have the lion's share of the task of explaining race -- not biology, not genetics (which nevertheless provide very important data). But before biology and before anthropology, I think we need a dose of a third science called history. Only a historical retrospect can show how many different notions of "race" have existed in the past, which ones have been most prevalent, and how they have changed. All this is important. We need to know what we're talking about when we make a statement about race; we need to make clear which concept of race we're referring to. I don't think the article will become intelligible until the issue of definitions is addressed. FilipeS 22:18, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Hear bloody hear. Well said. Alun 00:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Filipe, I couldn't agree more with you that this article still needs proper definitions, properly put in the lead of the article. If you read the article carefully, you will find that for the best part, these definitions are provided (in part, not necessarily in totality, granted), but they are currently pretty much scattered over the whole article, which for the first impression this gives, means they might as well not be there (even though they are sorely needed, if we are to make sense of this mess of multiple meanings!). So, AFAIK, I agree 100% with what you just said. However, to my utmost dismay, I am one of the lousiest writers you could find on the face of this Earth (although I consider myself quite decent at rephrasing and copyediting).--Ramdrake 22:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no biological construct of race (except as a genetic, socioeconomic, and cultural enigma)nor is there any peer reviewed publication that acknowledges subspecies of humans (in fact just the contrary). Most researchers see "race" as limiting in this regard. There is an abundance of literature to support this claim. Here are some recent articles: Whaley AL. Ethnicity/race, ethics, and epidemiology.J Natl Med Assoc. 2003 Aug;95(8):736-42. Review. Benn Torres J, Kittles RA. The relationship between "race" and genetics in biomedical research.Curr Hypertens Rep. 2007 Jun;9(3):196-201. Bonham VL, Warshauer-Baker E, Collins FS. Race and ethnicity in the genome era: the complexity of the constructs.Am Psychol. 2005 Jan;60(1):9-15.Alun I would kindly encourage you to tone down the arrogant attitude as it does little to make your arguments (although I can appreciate your frustration). Good luck gentlemen it appears you'll need it. 74.171.83.219 19:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Biological race certainly exists as a concept, in various ways. This concept, or concepts, should be defined and discussed by the article. However, the concept finds no correspondence with the reality of modern humans. Biologically defined human races exist as ideas, but only as ideas. FilipeS 16:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I said construct not concept. Of course it is a concept, but not a very useful one considering all the problems inherant in such divisions.

More confused argumentation. Lead para. Sect III

Part III. Race and Models of human evolution

The lead paragraph says: “Any biological model for race must account for the development of racial differences during human evolution.” Is that so? If so, why? If so, why is it worth recording here?

Back-engineering from the second paragraph, it seems that the real intent of the author is to say that to understand infraspecies differences among humans it would be useful to have a picture of how those differences development across time, and that if there is such a thing as a biological model for race then it ought to include as a part of that model a clear picture of how evolution or other factors produced those infraspecies differences.

Several kinds of evidence have become available. Fossil records were the earliest kind of records used. The results from that body of evidence were inconclusive. More recently, molecular biology has filled in more and more of the picture across time.

As it stands, the lead paragraph is badly garbled. It needs to be changed. P0M 04:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; but, I wouldn't know where or how to begin. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel bad and also apprehensive about trying to guess what was in the minds of the people who wrote some of these things. If the people who wrote them would take responsibility to try to explain in plain English what they were trying to say, then it might be possible to fix things without a lot of trial and error.

I can generally repair physics articles because I started as a physics major and I generally either know or can quickly find out what the person must have been trying to say. I don't have that depth of background in this field.

The reason that I feel apprehensive is that others are so quick to revert and quick to ridicule. Right now I'm trying to state very clearly what I think is very obvious on the face of it--much of this stuff flat-out does not make sense.

Maybe for the future what you can do is continually to read the new stuff and complain when somebody writes something that is incoherent. If we wait for a year or so and then try to find out what somebody meant, that person may have quit paying atention to this discussion page. As for the article in its present state, I guess all you can do may be to try to support what appear to you to be sincere attempts to make things better. P0M 05:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have modified the sentence that you rightly have problems with, and have rewritten the section to both bring it up to date and hopefully to clarify it. If you think it can be simplified make a suggestion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you've done a great job, Slrubenstein, with the lead paragraph. Well done. Thank you. - Jeeny ^Talk 17:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!!! I am going to try to address POM's concerns as best I can over the next week, it may take me some time and of course pretty much anything I write is like a "first draft" and I am sure can be improved upon. I am trying to find the original sources in order to clarify what they say, mostly. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Throw the reader a life preserver

People who are writing this article should remember that they are writing for the average well-informed reader. The sub-section that comes up for attention next (I'm basically working backwards by major sections) is so bad that it's easy to explain the problem:

Race, clade and lineage

Rachel Caspari (2003) argued that clades...

This is the first place ever in the article were the word "clade" is mentioned, and it doesn't even get a wiki-link. If one were to write the argument out in junior high school English it would be perfectly clear, but throwing curves with technical language makes things mystifyingly "professional" and implies to the reader that it must just be over his/her head. That is a double disservice to the reader. P0M 05:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I've linked to clade and add a little to give the reader some idea of why we are even talking about clades. P0M 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I have added a definition of clade. Cladistics is meaningful in relation to taxonomies, so I moved the section on clades to follow the one on subspeices. It is my understanding that the concept of clades and subspecies are closely related, and I think it makes more sense where I put it. What do people think? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Instance of "race" taken as a word with an agreed upon referent

"The Multiregional model" says:

Leiberman and Jackson (1995), however, have noted that this model depends on several findings relevant to race:

Here is one for Aun. I believe that this passage assumes that the word "race" has a clear referent, in other words that there really are [races] in the world

The text continues:

Regional variations in these [morphological] 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 does not qualify the word “race” in any way. It does not say which of many possible definitions of the word “race” is intended. Leiberman and Jackson presumably give their definition somewhere, and the text ought to make it clear that they are taking the morphological features as support for their own particular theory of race. P0M 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell they do not define race, which dissappoints me. If anyone else can read the article and find it, great. In the meantime I have at least tried to clear up what they are saying in this case. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ambiguous formulation

With the advent of the modern synthesis in the early 20th century, biologists developed a new, more rigorous model of race as subspecies.

The reader can interpret this passage two ways, and the more natural interpretation is the wrong one (or so I would guess).

biologists developed a new, more rigorous model of 
((race as subspecies)).

biologists developed a new, more rigorous model of race 
((as subspecies)).

The section title is "Race as subspecies", which suggests that now we are going to see how the word "race" was newly equated with the word "subspecies." If you start with that misconception, then the passage quoted above would be interpreted to mean that race used to be some other kind of idea, but at this early 20th century point scientists decided that "race" = "subspecies".

Linnaeus effectively divided Homo sapiens into "four varieties" or "four races," (depending on which source you read) and he thought of the "differences as expressive of divine intent." (home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Race--Oxford%20Companion.doc)

Structurally it is clear that he listed four groups indented below Homo sapiens.

So equating "race" with "subspecies" was nothing new by the early 20th century, and the text presumably meant to indicate that this "race = subspecies" idea was given a more rigorous treatment. That interpretation is actually supported by the context of the entire paragraph and the entire section, but the reader should not be put in doubt if s/he has gained some correct idea that some earlier writers treated "race" as a biological sub-division, an infraspecific designation. P0M 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I rewrote the opening and I think I partially address your complaint. I have two problems: first, while I am sure that some scientists who have identified "race" with"subspecies," there are no citations (and since I did not write this section, I do not know who the main proponents are). This leads me to my second problem: I wonder whether the identification of race with subspaces predates the rise of population genetics and the modern synthesis. Does anyone know? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Except for people who stick with a 20th century definition of "race" used in biology, where it is taken as a synonym for "subspecies" (as in "races of honeybees"), the word "race" has been used only for infrasubspecies groupings of humans. I.e., we are all of one subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens, and among us are found the races A, B...X. Apparently the last major scientist to think that black people, brown people, white people, etc. were subspecies was Linnaeus, who thought that God had made them separate. Everybody who came after him and had a substantial reputation as a scientist thought something like, "Too messy. Too gradual. Not discrete." P0M 00:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Using an ax to chop an ax handle

Alun and others (myself included) have questioned whether this article presumes the validity of [race]. I still have to work through his arguments with regard to lineages, etc., but the changes he made that were immediately reverted do not seem to me to have been unreasonable or to have done anything more than replace some outdated information.

Except for the many spots, cited above, where the article is simply very badly written, I do not see any obvious places where the article creates a presumption for the reality of [race].

On the other hand, it has always been very difficult to discuss the meaning of the word "race" without assuming one way or another something that should not be assumed or conceded. A passage may appear to any given editor to be neutral because the way it is stated fits his/her preconceived notions. As I have time I will bring these cases up one by one and suggest ways of NPOVing them. P0M 19:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Ancient history

I think there are two issues here: we should not use a word anachronistically, and we also need to acknowledge that the meaning of a word can change. For example, the Romans did use the word "race" but what they meant by it was different from what Europeans meant in the late 1800s. "Race" does not have one meaning and one purpose of the history section is to show that. That said, I think FelipeS is right that the use of "race" applied to ancient Egyptians appears to be speculative and anachronistic. I read the linked article too and I saw one quote from an anthropologist or archeologist that was speculative and introduced the word "ethnicity." That quote does not clear things up - it could be just as anachronistic to project the word "ethnicity" back to the Egyptians. But based on that quote it seems fair to say that at least one scholar thinks that the way ancient Egyptians classified different groups may have been more like our concpet "ethnicity" than race. Is there another scholar who argues that the Egyptians thought more in terms of races? I think felipeS is right - we need to see if there are any sources to support that claim. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

We have discussed this in detail in the past without a clear resolution. Firstly, all modern words dealing with complex and ambivalent concepts like race and ethnicity are anachronistic when applied to such an ancient and alien culture. The question is which word is the least worst quivalent to what the Egyptians were addressing. The fact that all ancient cultures had a view that compares to the modern idea of ethnicity is undisputed. Romans and Sabines were different "ethnicities" until they united and - in effect - became Romans. Yes, the modern word race - in some of its usages - can also be used to describe the difference between Romans and Sabines, but on the whole it's less useful than ethnicity. With the Egyptian model illustrated by the picture from the Book of Gates we are dealing with something that seems to be better described by the concept of race, since the Egyptians are depicting groups of peoples populating different parts of the "world" as they know it, divided by physical characteristics including the classic ones used to type races in the modern sense of the word (skin colour, nose shape, hair type etc). Here, though the quasi-anthropological typing of "race" is not clearly distinguished from ethnicities (marked by clothing, hairstyles etc). The point of this passage is try to describe this ambiguity as clearly as possible. By saying absolutely that "it's not race it's ethnicity" the central point is lost. This passage is also important because it shows that even at this stage there is a kind of "racial hierarchy", since the "four race" model is intended to demonstrate that the Egyptians occupy the centre of the world. Their physiologies are central (including their mid-range skin colour) just as the Nile is the centre of the world, and their culture is central to the Divine Plan. Indeed there is even the view that the physical differences are a sign of differences in temperament, as in 19thC racial ideologies ("Their tongues are separate in speech, And their natures as well; Their skins are distinguished..." Great Hymn to the Aten) Paul B 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well said. P0M 17:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The central point is that the division of humanity into distinct ethnicities can be traced back as far as we have any records at all, since there have always been distinct, often conflicting, tribes, but the first evidence we have of something that begins to look like "race" is here. Paul B 13:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand the point and it makes sense to me - but I assume people have published on these. The citations at the main article page are not very illuminating - can you cite the main sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

(edit confict, now the heading is gone)

This is getting out of hand. Is this a scientific article or what? What about putting all this scientific jargon jumbo in its proper place, such as here, it needs expanding, so put it there. This article is too long, forks in too many directions, is very confusing, even for an educated person, and is definitely too difficult to read for the average informed reader. It's best to keep it simple, (I know this is not a simple topic...but) as people have many definitions of "race", or get rid of it altogether. Branch off (disambig?) to different articles, do not make this one only a geneticist-scientist can understand. IMO. Or add this "stuff" here! Sheesh. - Jeeny ^Talk 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Others have raised the possibility of having two separate articles on race as a biological concept and race as a concept in the social sciences. I think this is a bad idea because it reifies academic disciplines - biologists and sociologists do indeed do different things, but they both hapen to look at race and any reasonable account of what race is or isn't or how it has been studied needs to draw on several bodies of literature. Believe me, geneticists and social scientists actually do read one another's work. I am NOT saying the article is perfect. It can be better organized and I have just tried some reorganization. Let's keep isolating problems, as POM has done, and addressing them, and see where it gets us. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I must disagree with part of what Paul said. Describing the picture in the Book of Gates as 'the first evidence we have of something that begins to look like "race"' is original research, until sourced otherwise. The concept of "ethnicity" is broad enough that we can find it in all human cultures and historic times. As for race, I think we have all come to the conclusion that it can mean many different things. Some of the meanings assigned to "race" are so strict that it is very doubtful that the ancient Egyptians were trying to refer to them. Did they believe in "races" as defined by the American One Drop Rule? As defined by Carleton Coon? As defined by Gobineau? Unless the claim is made more specific and sourced, it does not belong in the article. FilipeS 22:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

mediation3

A mediator has agreed to take on this case if all the parties involved are agreable to mediation. for further info see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race.Muntuwandi 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Graphics/charts/maps

I'm not commenting on the content, but the graphics. Yes, they are good, but for vector shapes/text it should never be saved as a JPG. If the person who created them would use the original and save them as GIF or PNG so they are clearer and do not have artifacts, would be ideal. But do not save a JPG as a GIF or PNG as doing so would still produce the artifacts. It should be originally saved as such, after making the vector shapes. If I had the original I could do it, but since it is in JPG format, it would be a lot of work as I'd have to recreate the whole graphic. Of course WP says SVG is preferred overall, but I do not have a capable program for that format. GIF or PNG would be much closer, than JPG. This may seem trivial, and it may be, but presentation is important too, and formating graphics the best way is simple, really (if one had the original, and if it were not JPG format). :) Of course, this only applies to the vector shapes/text, not images which is another thing. - Jeeny ^Talk 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't diagree. However, I think I figured out the appropriate place to put the charts and am returning them to the article. I didn't make the charts and if you ever figure out a way to improve them by all means make the change. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Races as lineages

I know Jeeny wanted to effect a reasonable compromise and acted in good faith. nevertheless, there are two reasons why the section should keep the title it has (and had before Wobble changed it). First, shortly after this section is a table of competing definitions of race and the organization of what precedes it follows more or less that table. The last definition is of "races as lineages" so naming this section races as lineages follows the structure of the article, reviewing different approaches to race. Second, this is only one view of race. that is what the section is about. Genetic variation is another matter - race is one way of describing genetic variation, and race as lineages are one way of discussing genetic variation. But there are other ways of discussing genetic variation, for example the section on populations and clines. The point is that this is not an article on genetic variation as such but debates over one set of ways (the set being circumscribed by the language of race) of talking about genotypic and phenotypic variation. Genotypic and phenotypic variation are not the main topic, race is, and the article ought to be organized according to different views of race. But genetic and phenotypic variation will run through many different sections, and shouldn't be concentrated in just one section. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The real problem here is not the inclusion of a section called "race as lineage", the real problem is that none of the material included in the section is at all relevant to the concept of "race as lineage". The information in this section is a mishmash of unrelated articles that have little or no relation to each other and none of which has any relevance to "race as lineage". Some of these articles discuss genetic lineages, Y chromosomes and mtDNA, this is hereditary and familial genetics, it has little or no bearing on any concept of "racial lineage". Other articles deal with genetic variation and how it is distributed and can be mapped using multi locus allele clusters, but these do not represent "racial lineages" either. A racial lineage would be identical (or at least extremely similar) to a "clade" (if you understood biology you would know this). Some definitions of subspecies would also conform to the concept of "racial lineage" and would also conform to the concept of "clade". The section seems to have been written by someone who is very confused on this issue and who is conflating at least three different and unrelated uses of the term lineage. 1) It mentions Apical ancestors, this is a term used when lineage is used in cultural anthropology and not in biology or genetics. 2) mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages, these are matrilinearly and patrilinearly inherited bits of DNA, they do not represent "races" and "race" cannot be infered from studying mtDNA or Y chromosomes. 3) lineage when applied to populations, this is the definition mostly used by biologists, it is synonymous with clade and sometimes subspecies. The table you are talking about is based on Long and Kittles 2003 paper Human genetic diversity and the nonexistence of biological race. It is interesting to note that Long and Kittles give only four definitions (essentialist, population, taxonomic and lineage), whereas the wikipedia article gives five, even though the table is attributed to Long and Kittles. Clearly the definition based on "Clade" is not from Long and Kittles. The other important thing to note is that Long and Kittles give a definition for "race as lineage", it is from Templeton's 1998 paper and is included in this article, it goes

A subspecies (race) is a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. This definition requires that a subspecies be genetically differentiated due to barriers to genetic exchange that have persisted for long periods of time; that is, the subspecies must have historical continuity in addition to current genetic differentiation.

Why can't we use this definition in the section, after all the only reason we are discussing race as lineage is because it was included in the Long and Kittles paper in the first place, and from there it was cited in this article? And I'd like to know where any of the cited articles in the section claim that there are barriers to genetic exchange, that have persisted over long periods of time, between human populations? This implies that these lineages are discrete does it not? Barriers to genetic exchange over long periods of time define seperated populations that form discrete non interbreeding lineages. I'd also like to know how this definition is at all relevant to mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages. Alun 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Wobble has stated several times that he thinks the view that races are lineages is wrong. I am afraid that rewording the title of a section is not going to solve this problem. the problem with Wobble is not a problem of how best to organize the article or what is the proper name for a section. The problem with Wobble is that he rejects Wikipedia's NPOV policy and the associated dictum, "verifiability, not truth." The conflict between Wobble and myself is simple: I want an article that reflects all major points of view concerning race, each view drawing on verifiable sources, not my own views. Wobble wants an article that represents only his point of view. He picks sources that are of course valid, but he picks only those that conform to his view and insists that the article provide only that view. His attempt to create a section on genetic distribution is simply his accepting data from certain articles while eliminating the actual views the authors of those articles have on race. It is those views however which I think this article has to include - not because I like them or because Wobble doesn't like them or vice versa, but because those are the views that are out there. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:38, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

• Wobble has stated several times that he thinks the view that races are lineages is wrong.

No, what I have stated is that none of the evidence presented in this section is at all relevant to the concept of "race as lineage". I have also stated that our current understanding of genetic and physical distribution of human diversity has led most scientists to regect the concept of human "racial lineages". Indeed if human racial lineages did occur then it would support multiregionalism. Alun 21:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well about the title, but I feel the move of the disputed sentence helps the section flow, while still providing the different views. Also, if you reverted me, you kept the spelling mistakes, even though they were minor - calims=claims? "r" left off "matter". So, can you revert please, yet keep the current title as you have it? - Jeeny ^Talk 15:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

PS, on second thought, comment here and I'll revert as you could be reaching the 3RR. eek. - Jeeny ^Talk 15:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If you feel that it really flows better I will go along with that. Can you make those changes and just keep the title? (sorry about the typos!!) Slrubenstein | Talk 15:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I kept the title, but in addition to the typos the revert removed all the other work I did. :( Even if it was minor, such as wiki-linking tech terms, so we can get rid of another tag. Anyway, please do not revert the whole article, (copy and paste is your friend ;-)), since there are a number of us working on this right now, and if you have a problem with something, just change that something, OK? :) Of course that doesn't apply to deliberate vandalism. - Jeeny ^Talk 16:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't made any other changes to this section, other than to elaborate on (and hopefully clarify) Abu el-haj's arguments. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Forensic anthropology

I ended up putting the Sauer citation in the section on law enforcement. Sauer, Norman J. (1992) "Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races Don't Exist, Why are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying them" in Social Science and Medicine 34(2): 107-111. NB this is a top-ranked journal. The answer to the question (according to Sauer) is that forensic anthropologists apply racial labels to human remains not because they believe biological races exist but because they are "predicting" that when the person was alive that particular racial label would have been applied to them. This is relevant to the section on biomedicine but forensic anthropology applies mostly to law enforcement, so it seems most relevant there. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Muntuwandi deleted the racial crania from the lead - a deletion I agree with. But I have put that illustration in the section on law enforcement because it illustrates three quotations. I hope M. and others see it is appropriate in that context, however if M. feels strongly that they should beremoved I won't object. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

K what?

The chart at the top of the section on lineages refers to K = 2, etc., without giving any indication of what K stands for. Give the poor reader a break. P0M 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

K is the number of clusters. This work uses a complex computer programme to search the data for alleles that tend to group together (cluster). Scientists can set the k value to the number of "clusters" they want the data to be partitioned into. Often "clusters" don't produce any discernible geographic distributuin, but when they do people get very excited and start talking about "race". This is multi locus allele clustering, and it has nothing to do with lineages, anyone can see that in fact these clusters are diffuse and are shared by many different individuals and populations. Alun 10:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I tweaked the caption text a little so it will be clearer to first-time readers. P0M 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Many to one mappings, a potent troublemaker

The section on "lineages" has provoked much heated comment. Let's cool it.

lineages consist of people descended from one female ancestor.

What is the factual, citable, basis for this otherwise quite dogmatic statement? Is it intended to refer "lineage" as defined in anthropology, or to "lineage" as defined in evolution? Either way, since all humans are descended from one common female, all humans belong to one lineage that is the same, right? At the very least, the term deserves a wikilink to the articles on "lineage."

The factual citable basis for this statement is the source provided, Cann et. al. I am not sure it makes sense to link it to the lineage article because they are not using lineage in the way that social or cultural anthropologists use it. They are using it in a new way, as far as I can tell, as it is used by molecular geneticists. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

But that citation only gives the view of Cann et al., and I'm betting that it is clear whether Cann is a geneticist (as you imply) or an anthropologist. All I'm asking for is that the reader might not be made to guess what the heck they are talking about. Later on in this section the writer settles down on what I would call the geneticists' or the evolutionary biologists' definition, i.e., we are discussing genetic heritage here and not one's status as a descendant of King Arthur or whoever. The average well-informed reader may not even get as far as looking up "lineage" in Wikipedia, where this information on different ways of using the term is given. P0M 23:57, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

::Actually this is not true. No living person can be descended from "one female ancestor" can they? Cann cannot possibly have claimed this because it is clearly nonsense. Everyone is descended from multiple female ancestors. Indeed we all have a mother and two grandmothers and four great grandmothers etc. So this is clearly an example of the confused nonsense that represents the entirety of this section. What Cann says is that when one examines mtDNA it is possible to infer matrilineal ancestry. That is we can trace the female line from each generation back through thousands of years. Because of the way mutations accrue on mtDNA and because mutations occur at predictable rates (due to the known average error rate of the DNA copying enzyme DNA polymerase) we can find the oldest mutations and the youngest mutatiuons on the mtDNA molecule and we can estimate the age of these mutations. When we get to about 200,000 years ago we lose all diversity. Because of the biology of matrilinear inheritence for mtDNA it is very common for lineages to be lost. Over time older lineages tend to get lost in a process known as genetic drift. The upshot of all this is that at about 200,000 years ago we lose all diversity, this does not mean that other women did not live at this time, and it is almost certain that all modern humans alive at that time are the direct ancestors of all modern humans alive today (except for thos who have not left any descendants at all in the modern era), it just means that the mtDNA molecules of other women in that ancient ancestral group have been lost. But yes, we all form part of that direct lineage, she is the direct matrilinear ancestor to us all. Of course new mutations have arrisen on the molecule which form many and numerous sub-clades of this ancestral molecule. But it is incorrect assert that "lineages consist of people descended from one female ancestor", this claim misrepresents Cann's work. Any given mtDNA lineage represents a series of mutations that have occured over the millenia on the molecule. For example if we start with the ancestral molecule itself, 200,000 years ago it was "pristene", at some point a mutation occured in this molecule, now there are two mtDNA "populations" in the human group, one set of people carry mtDNA that lacks the mutation and the other group carries mtDNA contains the mutation. Because the mutation would only have occured in the mtDNA of a single woman it is only her matrilineal descendants who carry this mutation. If there is then a mutation in this second molecule, then we have a lineage, the ancestral molecule (with no mutations call it Haplogroup 1), the first mutation (call it haplogroup 2) and an additional mutation in haplogroup 2 (call it haplogroup 3). It is evident that haplogroup 1 is ancestral, that haplogroup 2 is a sub-clade of haplogroup 1 and that haplogroup 3 is a sub-clade of haplogroup 2 and of haplogroup 1. These form a lineage. If a later mutation (call it mutation c) occurs on the ancestral molecule then this will form a new distinct lineage starting with what we can call haplogroup 4, likewise any new mutation (call it mutation d) on the haplogroup 2 molecule will form a distinct lineage from that of haplogroup 3 (call it haplogroup 5), though these lineages will share a common ancestor in both hg2 and hg1. By the way for Y chromosomes we lose diversity as recently as 70,000 years ago. This is thought to be because of the historically different social roles of men and women, men are far more likely to die before reaching child bearing age, and some men are very reproductively succesfull (possibly having hundreds of children), while others are reproductively dead ends. Fundamentalist Christians have claimed that because "Adam" lived some 130,000 years after "Eve" it disproves evolution. Of course this is nonsense. Alun 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is excellent, and it belongs somewhere in another article so that it can be linked to this article.I added emphasis to one point, and a question mark at another point where it is unclear to me what "it" means. P0M 00:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning is interesting: if one takes it to the extreme, it means that 50,000 years ago and assuming on average 20 years to a generation, you had a number of ancestors on the order of 10⁷⁷⁰ (give or take a few orders of magnitude)!!! Indeed, it is known that species are often derived from just a few individuals who somehow got separated from the rest (this is especially true of insular speciation). So yes, it *does* make sense to say that some (or all) living persons today are descended from a small group of proto-humans (maybe as few as two, but that is unlikely) some millenia ago.--Ramdrake 18:25, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do a family tree starting with a theoretical "Adam and Eve" and working downward you will end up with a population in the billions by our generation. If you do the family tree working backward from yourself, it has to look something like a diamond. What happens in the middle (and all along) is complicated by deaths and by varying degrees of inbreeding.P0M 01:04, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This was my point exactly. I am sorry for using the hyperbole (10⁷⁷⁰), but I wanted to make it clear that it was indeed quite possible for one to trace one's ancestry back to a small group of people, far back in time. Whether we can trace it all the way down to a single female or male or a single couple is dubious (a single pair is usually insufficient to found a whole new population that will endure - the genetic pool being usually too small). Also, this line of reasoning makes me realize that this small group of people to which one can trace one's ancestry (or a group's ancestry) might under some circumstance indeed be seen as some population bottleneck (a subgroup becoming isolated, or some kind of natural catastrophe wiping out most of the population - the possibilities are numerous) and it's not a major stretch of the imagination to think that some researchers may indeed have inferred that a real population bottleneck of some sort did indeed exist at that time based on such results. If this is the case and they acutally said it, we need to cite them appropriately, and maybe look for other researchers' opinions that would state they don't think there was a population bottleneck at that point.--Ramdrake 13:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that our species is descended from a smallish group of anatomically modern humans that lived in Africa. Most of the estimates I have seen are for there to have been about 10,000 individuals in this population. We are all descended from all of these people, and obviously it is from this pool of people that all modern genetic diversity derives. I think about 10,000 individuals would constitute a population bottleneck. We can certainly find cites for this, but I do not believe that any researchers are claiming that "races" are mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages derived from a single pair. of humans. Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution and "Both mitochondrial DNA and the Y chromosome coalesce within the last several hundred thousand years, and they cannot provide information about the population before their coalescence. Several nuclear loci are informative about our ancestral population size during nearly the whole Pleistocene. They indicate a small effective size, on the order of 10,000 breeding individuals, throughout this time period. This genetic evidence denies any version of the multiregional model of modern human origins. It implies instead that our ancestors were effectively a separate species for most of the Pleistocene." Genetic traces of ancient demography. Alun 15:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether one is dealing with the reports of informants to anthropologists (e.g. someone might say "Our group descended from 'she with many husbands' who came to this valley at the dawn of the world."), or is dealing with evolutionary biologists (Perhaps something like, "The mitochondrial DNA seen on this island all carries a marker that appears to have gone extinct in the rest of the world."), examination of maternal lineages produces a ramiform structure.

The anthropological lineage can ramify whenever an informant reports that a certain group of people descended from a particular woman in a particular generation. Five generations ago, two identical twin women could have founded two separate matrilineal lineages that would be indistinguishable in terms of mitochondrial DNA.

The lineages in evolutionary biology can ramify only when there is a mutation that is observed in all descendants of the original mutant woman.

Therefore it probably is important to know which kind of lineage one is talking about in this passage.

When I edited the section, it opened with a paragraph explaining Cann et. al. I believe that paragraph makes it clear that they are basing it on mtDNA. Jeeny felt that the section would flow better if the paragraph were moved further down in the section. Perhaps you think it should be put back up top? I think that would answer your objection. By the way, your distinction between anthropologists and evolutionary biologists doesn't go far enough. Anthropologists are divided and include social anthropologists who indeed use the term "lineage" the way you suggest anthropologists, and physical anthropologists who do not use lineage this way. Also, I suspect evolutionary biologist too is too broad. Wobble identifies lineages with species, which is indeed how some evolutionary biologists use the term. But molecular geneticists (who are also biologists, and who also study evolution) use identify lineages with descendants from an individual who share some genetic distinction. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Just something to steer the reader onto the path of genetics might be enough. Just don't let the reader flounder around. One wrong guess in interpreting something can cause one a little confusion. Two or three wrong guesses can leave the reader totally bemused and feeling that the subject is way too deep for him/her to understand. P0M 00:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

POM is absolutelly right, this is a succinct and accurate comment on the section of the article. This section conflates several different concepts of lineage and seems deliberately to misrepresent these in order to promote some bizarre theory which consitiutes original research. Alun 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I am prepared to be less judgmental on the intent of the writer(s). But the section has to be much more helpful to the reader to be worth anything.P0M 00:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right. I am not assuming good faith, I appologise. I do think that Ramdrake and Slrubenstein are good faith editors. But I also think that they have miunderstood and grossly misrepresented the science. I think this is simply due to a lack of knowledge of genetics and biology. Ramdrake earlier claimed that he holds a PhD in neuroscience, good for him, he's obviously a clever bloke, but he's not a geneticist and he does not appear to have anything like a good grasp of the subject, the same goes for Slrubenstein. I have been angry and frustrated because I know I have a much better grasp of this subject than either of these editors, but they refuse to let any other editor edit this article and revert every edit they don't like, irrespective of whether the edit made the article more neutral and accurate. I would not dream of editing any article about neuroscience, I know I am far too ignorant in the field. I would never dream of telling Ramdrake he is incorrect when it comes to neuroscience and I would not try to present research I did not understand in an article about neuroscience. I have avoided editing anything other than biological sections of this article because I know I don't know enough about anthropology or sociology or ethnology to contribute to "race" as a social construct. Genetics is not something that anyone can read a single paper on and understand the complex processes involved. Genetics take years of study, and of course geneticists have their own peculiar turns of phrase and technical jargon. There is obviously some massive confusion regarding lineages in this section. If we want to cover every possible interpretation of "race as lineage" then I think we need to start by disentangling the various different concepts of lineage. Firstly there is "lineage" as a discrete inbreeding geographically isolated population that is differentiated due to it's long isolation. This is the subspecies definition, it is Templeton's definition and it exists in the article. Here is an article discussing Templeton's work. He uses the same criteria for humans as are used for other mammals to determine race, unsuprisingly he says that "In many other large mammalian species, we see rates of differentiation two or three times that of humans before the lineages are even recognized as races. Humans are one of the most genetically homogenous species we know of".[11] The abstract of Templeton's paper states

Race is generally used as a synonym for subspecies, which traditionally is a geographically circumscribed, genetically differentiated population. Sometimes traits show independent patterns of geographical variation such that some combination will distinguish most populations from all others. To avoid making "race" the equivalent of a local population, minimal thresholds of differentiation are imposed. Human "races" are below the thresholds used in other species, so valid traditional subspecies do not exist in humans. A "subspecies" can also be defined as a distinct evolutionary lineage within a species. Genetic surveys and the analyses of DNA haplotype trees show that human "races" are not distinct lineages, and that this is not due to recent admixture; human "races" are not and never were "pure." Instead, human evolution has been and is characterized by many locally differentiated populations coexisting at any given time, but with sufficient genetic contact to make all of humanity a single lineage sharing a common evolutionary fate.

He clearly uses "lineage" to mean a genetically isolated population. He is not refering to molecular lineages like mtDNA, nor to Kinship and descent. We can expand upon this. Then we can discuss mtDNA and Y chromosomal lineages, though these are not associated with "race" normally, and I know of no research that would support the claim in the article that "races" arrise when a man with a de novo Y chreomosome mutation and a woman with a do novo mtDNA mutation reproduce. Indeed I think this statement derives from confusion and not from any objective reading of the relevant literature. Then there is Kinship and descent (anthropological lineage), from my understanding of this it is not a biological concept, it is far more relevant to ideas of ethnicity and identity than to those of "race". If Ramdrake wants to discuss this then that's fine, but this si a social construct, it is not a biological construct, and gfenetics and biology cannot support this concept. None of the cited genetic literature mentions this or claims to support this idea. Alun 11:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The same two different forms of ramiform structure are produced on the male side, but they are totally asynchronous. (I'm pretty sure that "asynchronous" is the wrong word, but I hope people understand that the pattern you get would be like what you'd get if you laid a blue lace curtain of one design over a red lace curtain of a totally different design.)

 presumably from a time when there was a genetic bottleneck.

This part of the sentence is clearly defective. It admits that the writer is presuming to tell us what researchers should have/must have been depending on. Actually, female lineages are female lineages regardless of whether there was a bottleneck or not. A bottleneck just explains why one lineage is present somewhere where another lineage is not found or seldom found. Whoever wrote this probably was not thinking clearly. Hopefully the real researchers in the field can think more clearly. Either way we should have some proof.

Nevertheless, Cann et. al. and Johnson and others hypothesize that there was a bottleneck. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So what? We have "one female ancestor" and "a bottleneck". Is that not a tautology? If the surface meaning is correct it asserts the rather amazing idea that at some point the sea came up and destroyed all but one woman, or maybe one woman and her identical twin, but there were loads of guys around and the women were generous. It sounds like a great idea for the flip side of "the last man in the world" novel plot.P0M 00:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There are believed to have been several genetic bottlenecks in the evolution of modern humans. Some scientists think that "races" are the result of sampling errors during founding events that each would represent a bottleneck event. Whatever, the loss of mtDNA lineages has nothing to do with bottlenecks, it is due to the biology of matrilinear descent. Cann may discuss bottlenecks, this does not mean that they state that the bottleneck was the cause of the loss of diversity at this time. Alun 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I got into trouble with an Arab friend of mine one time by claiming that the idea that the Arabs descended from Abraham was a myth. I didn't mean that it was a lie; quite the contrary, the linguistic and genetic signs of a split are all over the place. But the idea that one woman would head off, live in isolation with one husband (or even several) and found a whole female lineage seemed rather improbable to me. (If cheetahs are endangered because of lack of genetic diversity, what would the inbreeding of the children of one woman, no matter with how many husbands, have resulted in?) Let's find out what Cann really said. P0M 00:17, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

This work is being supplemented by recent research
by molecular biologists

The writer leaves it to the reader to guess exactly what "this work" refers to. No "work" has been mentioned yet in this section. And how would anyone know anything about mitochondrial DNA except through the work of molecular biologists?

See my comment above: when I wrote this, I started with an account of Cann et. al.'s research. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

So why is it the reader's responsibility to be able to figure this out? Surely you don't expect the reader to have to dig through the history of the article to figure out what can be fixed by using suitably precise language.P0M 00:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Besides what does "supplemented" mean? Does it mean supported? Is it implying some sort of collaboration? This si confusing to say the least. Alun 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There follows a long discussion of recent investigator work. It is not very clear because the original definition of "lineage" was messed up and did not clarify the idea of sub-lineages that this long section indirectly exposes. Sometimes relatively simple ideas can be obscured by the use of obscure and "scientific" vocabulary that creates in the mind of the reader the impression that his/her incomprehension is due to his/her lack of intelligence. (See FDR on goobledegook.)

Next there is a little gratuitous sniping at Spencer Wells. There is no need to mention his valuable work at this point, much less is there any reason to trivialize it.

I am not sure what you mean by sniping. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I get the feeling from the tone of the essay that the writer wished Spencer Wells had stayed home. It sounds like there is this vanity research agency by means of which dilettantes can titillate themselves by tracing their ancestry back somewhere, and then there is this guy Spencer Wells who shills for the operation. What does this new industry have to do with the subject under discussion? It's too long and tangled as it is. P0M 00:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Again POM's comments are prescient, the multilocus allele clustering has no relevance to the concept of biological lineage, this seems to be Ramdrake and Slrubenstein's personal opinion and is not supported by the citations. Alun 15:47, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Genetic data can be used to infer population structure
and assign individuals to groups that often correspond
with their self-identified geographical ancestry.

This passage sounds very "scientific," but what is the point? In particular, why is the weasel word "often" included? What do the researchers make of cases where individuals are assigned to groups located somewhere in a population structure on the basis of their genetic data, but the individuals report an inconsistent geographical ancestry? Why has the writer written around that part of the picture? Could it be because it points to the fact that some individuals from a particular "geographical ancestry" are atypical to that ancestry? What would researchers really make of a situation in which some individual got classified as Japanese/Korean on the basis of some genetic markers but the individual came from a family of American Indians in South America whose grandparents and whose family recollections showed no trace of a Japanese/Korean connection?

Has "population structure" been defined anywhere? No. Give the reader a break. Is the reader supposed to guess that "population structure" means an interlaced picture of maternal lineages and paternal lineages? Or what?

I agree with you that population structure should be defined. I did not write this section. Can you find out what the current definition is of population structure, since you bring it up? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~ucbhdjm/courses/b242/MigEvol/MigEvol.html

Why make it my responsibility? I didn't "bring it up," I criticized the writer for using an undefined terms. The problem with this section, in large part, is scientification, and this gratuitous use of a resonant term is an example of that fact.P0M 00:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Lukas19 wrote this section. I know this because he repeatedly used this edit on lots of articles. The point I would like to make here is how is population structure relevant to "race as lineage" I have made this point repeatedly and no one can answer it. If we cannot even define what "population structure" is then how can it be infered in the article that this "structure" supports the concept of "race as lineage"? This is about genetic diversity and not about lineage. Alun 16:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Is the concept of a "snow job" familiar to everyone? It's an old term of art among undergraduates at a once modest university, and it means to get a B- or better on a paper that doesn't actually have any content by writing lots of impressing sounding stuff that hopefully will sound like what the professor likes to hear. P0M 00:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

When one pares away all of the "scientific" language, does the passage mean anything more than the following?

Given a finite list of genetic characteristics pertaining to one individual, one can find a place in the world where the same mix of genetic characteristics is most predominant. On the basis of that comparison, one has a high probability of predicting the place(s) of origin of the individual according to his/her own account of family history.

If it means something more than the above, what? And what, if anything, does this part of the section have to do with lineages?

This is more or less exactly what it means. But there is a proviso, this sort of analysis is not only dependent upon the number and type of genetic characteristics chose for the study, it is also dependent upon the regions sampled, "populations" (undefined) from more distant parts of the world will appear more distinct from each other than populations from proximate parts of the world. Or as Kittles and Weiss put it samples of size N (Nigeria, Norway and Navajo) can give a false sense of differentiation. Alun 16:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, if one measures peak altitudes and valley altitudes in Montana and then graph them in 3-D you will get something that looks like a museum room with lots of pedestals in it. Cut out the evidence that demonstrates clinal variation and you get stark oppositions. P0M 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The inference of population structure from multilocus genotyping depends on the selection of a large number of informative genetic markers.

Again, what does this part have to do with lineages? It is part of a more general discussion that says that if somebody has certain traits there is most likely a genetic explanation for that fact, and that people with similar ancestry share many of the same traits.

The section has departed from a discussion of matrilineal lineages and patrilineal lineages, and it has avoided a discussion of how the two different ramiform structures of lineages and sub-lineages are superimposed on the same individual. The next paragraph is a mess. It starts with:

Genetic techniques that distinguish clustering between continents can also be used to describe clustering within continents. However, the study of intra-continental ancestry may require a greater number of informative markers.

The paragraph uses a lot of wind and a lot of smoke to convey the idea that if people are relatively recently connected genetically they will tend to share the same group of most general distinguishing factors so that to sort them out one will have to use further characteristics. All the grandchildren of grandma and grandpa Kane look pretty much alike, but grandchild Freddy is the red head.

Absolutely, again this is Lukas19 (banned for tendentious editing and POV pushing). Although Slrubenstein and Ramdrake continually claim that this is relevant to "race as lineage" this is not actually claimed by the authors themselves.

As Click or Clack is likely to say, "Doesn't anybody screen these calls?" I don't care particularly about which writer wrote this stuff. What bothers me is that such garbled writing can have persisted so long. P0M 00:35, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

The passage finishes with a real kicker:

A large majority of researchers endorse the view that continental groups do not constitute different subspecies.

The logical implication of that statement is that a minority of researchers maintain that there is more than one extant subspecies of Homo sapiens. I know about Homo sapiens sapiens, but what are these other subspecies?

A point I keep making, there is no taxonomic classification besides that of Homo sapiens sapiens and yet people keep trying to imply that "biological races" are real and recognised, well they are not recognised in our classification system. Alun 16:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Next it says:

[Work] on mtDNA has led some scientists to a new definition of race as lineage.

Here is another instance in which this article confidently accepts the existence of [race] as an intersubjective object just waiting for us to get the right description of it out to the world.

Let's assume that the writer meant to properly qualify the use of the word "race" here. So, one of the multitude of definitions that map to the word "race" is "a lineage of human beings." The assertion is that these unidentified scientists say something like this:

"All members of the lineage of which the apical member is the female mutant bearing genetic marker XYZ are the race that we shall, for convenience, call the XYZ race."

Or maybe:

"All members of the lineage of which the apical member is the male mutant bearing genetic marker UVW are the race that we shall, for convenience, call the UVW race."

The definitions for "lineage" that we have uncovered so far would make it seem analytically true that such a definition of "race" would disattend to half of the genetic heritage of each individual. Check my reasoning. Suppose identical twins Judy and Jane go their separate ways. One end up in Iceland and one ends up in Madagascar, both unpopulated at that time. Along her way Judy and her daughters and granddaughters pick up a bunch of Swedish husbands, and along her way Jane and her granddaughters pick up a group of San husbands.

I'm not arguing that nobody could make such a definition, but I'm puzzled by it and by how one would plan to use this system of categorization for any practical purpose. Offhand it would seem that for many practical purposes where one might want to infer guidance on practical matters one would need to know the "patrilineal race" and the "matrilineal race" of the individual. If you had very good medical information about a patient's maternal relatives, that would give you only half the picture, no?

I added a quote from Rotini whose objections are I think similar to yours. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Also this seems to be implying that mtDNA haplogroups are in fact "races" this is clearly nonsense as it would mean that every child is of the "same race" as their mother but a different "race" to their father. I don't think any scientists have ever defined race as mtDNA lineage, and this assertion is not supported by a source either. Alun 16:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We need a list of all of the different definitions (= schemes of categorization) that map to the one word "race." And we would definitely need citations for all of them. "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." Maybe we would need to see how somebody has actually made such a definition of "race" do anything useful. Think about it: "Aaron Minton Zinkoski, 50th President of the United States, bears the Y-chromosome signature of Genghis Khan. When asked whether he is white or not, Zinkoski replied, 'Hell no. I am of the race of the Khan! We rule!'" P0M 00:41, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

However, other researchers still debate whether evolutionary lineages should rightly be called "races".

For the first time in this section the author lets us know that "evolutionary lineages" have been intended above. So all along we should have been looking not at "Who was your famous Mayflower relative?" but "Which strain of mutants do you belong to on your father's side? Which strain on your mother's side?"

Besides there is no debate about this at all. If there is a debate it is about how "subspecies" should be defined and whether "race" is equivalent to subspecies. The jury is out, but most biologists think race and subspecies are the same thing, but there is no agreed upon definition of subspecies. So the "fact" of human "biological races" is moot to say the least. Alun 16:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

A year or two ago we had one contributor who adamantly insisted that "race" is a synonym for "subspecies," and that is all there is to it. But the problem has been that since the idea of "human races" fell apart almost immediately after Linnaeus proposed them people have been trying to find an infrasubspecies definition that they could equate with "race." Each new definition of "race" has its partisans, but there have been no winners in the struggle among them.P0M 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Genetic lineages .... are not connected to claims about human behavior or character.

It is unclear what the discussion that follows this dogmatic assertion is intended to accomplish. It seems to indicate that some researchers are trying to purify the idea of [race] of its older affective contaminations. The result would be to add one more definition of "race" to our many-to-one mapping chart. If it is important to give a long list of different definitions that individuals have applied to the word "race," then it is even more important to prepare the reader to understand that none of the members of this long list comes with a seal of approval from God, and that, in fact, the danger is that one may hypostatize (reify) one's personal favorite.

I am just trying to provide an accurate account af Abu el-Haj's argument, which involves an interpretation of the "race as lineage" approach. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

If Abu el-Haj says that genetic lineages "are not connected to claims about human behavior or character," then quote him. You give it as your own conclusion. Or you could avoid naming him ahead of time by changing the above to "are claimed by some not to be connected..." P0M 00:49, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, POM, you have given a cogent and incisive expedition of the fundamental problems of this discussion. I am in awe. I cannot give enough respect to your precient observations. I can only say that you have expressed in a lucid way that which is identical to my reservations, but which I lacked the eloquence to portray. I am in awe....Nuff respect as you Americans say....Alun 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Something is wrong here:

[Junk DNA sequences] are "marks," signs of religious beliefs and practices ...

Huh? I don't have the article. Maybe the full context would make this remark comprehensible.

I will go back over the source when I can Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

It's bollocks. Wonder if this is a "personal attack"? Alun 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The question is, how highly do genetic lineages correlate with self-identified races? Scientists are divided. Some recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile,

Again, the writer of this section of the article conflates genetic lineages with "an individual's [total] genetic profile." What the assertion in the article boils down to is that if individual A knows that his apical male ancestor is mutant UVW then that information will give a clear indication of his "genetic profile." But that ignores the genetic heritage on the maternal side, and it also ignores all of the complexity of the DNA on both sides of the picture that was absorbed from female relatives on the patrilinial descent side and that was absorbed from male relatives on the matrilineal descent side.

I'm not arguing with the researchers, who presumably all know what they are talking about and write carefully, but the following assertion is laughable:

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.

If ancestry does not determine one's genetic "structure", then what on earth does? I can guess at what this writer was trying to say, but I know that to do so would constitute (1) thinking, and (2) be tantamount to original research. But, good grief, let's cut out the tautologies, o.k.?

I did not write the sentence, and I agree with you that it is nonsensical, but I think what the person who wrote it mean is that the racial profile of the United States, as indexed by self-described race, more reliably maps on to genetic ancestry than socio-economic status ... I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Please be clear. Do you mean "than does socio-economic status" or "than to socio-economic status"?P0M 00:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah Lukas19 again. But then Slrubenstein always wants to keep Lukas19's edits, see previous discussions on the talk page where he makes a long winded defence for keeping the unsupported contention that multi-locus allele clusters support "race as lineage" even though none of the sources support such a contention. All of this multi locus allele stuff is Lukas19's contribution. He was banned for tendentious editing and POV pushing by the way. Alun 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Another goobledegook passage:

However, in analyses that assign individuals to groups it becomes less apparent that self-described racial groups are reliable indicators of ancestry.

We've been assigning individuals to groups all along, so what in the world does this passage mean? The passage above has created the impression that if one knows an individual's self-described "place of family origin" one can reliably predict genetic information about him/her. Is the difference that the bicycle chain has slipped a cog and that we are now talking about the individual's self-described race? The individual knew very well that she came from India, and on that basis we could give a good "genetic profile," but the individual also knows that she is a member of the warrior caste and on that basis we try to give a "genetic profile" and it turns out wrong? Is the implication that by giving a "racial" group we came to expect more precision, made a narrower "genetic profile," and had it turn out wrong? As far as I can tell, this passage could mean just about anything, so it means nothing. P0M 08:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

POM, the whole section is gibberish. I have pointed this out over and again. But certain POV pushing editors keep defending this nonsense, apparently whithout any knowledge of the fundamental science behind this subject. Indeed I get lambasted for actually knowing something about this subject by people who are ignorant of it. Why do I bother? And now I get accused of "personal attacks"?(without any evidence provided I might state)[12] Considering the crap I've had to put up with it seems like a rum deal to me. Alun 22:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's keep calm and try to get a version that actually means something. I've started to try to straighten out the language of the whole article without changing any real meanings. Maybe when we get a series of statements that are either right or wrong we can separate the right one from the wrong ones. As it stands, there is enough static that in the mix that I often don't know what is intended.P0M 01:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Moreover, many have criticized this notion of lineage which is based on the identification of one male or one female apical ancestor at the time of a population bottleneck, while disregarding (because unavailable using genomic technology) countless other ancestors every individual has and shares with others, including people of different "lineages."

If this passage is accurate and means what the writer intended to convey, then it can help us to restate the things said above.

I wrote it so I hope you are right! In my opinion this is indeed a powerful argument against those who identify genetic lineages with race, especially self-described race. Since I believe in NPOV I think this argument "against" has to be in the section. But since I believe in NPOV I think the argument "for" - that is, the view that this criticism is aimed at - must also be included in the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:56, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

We need a clear list: Race is defined by group x as y, by group v as w, etc. We do not necessarily need to give the counterarguments, but I think on balance that it would be more useful to the readers to do so. P0M 00:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

• Moreover, many have criticized this notion of lineage which is based on the identification of one male or one female apical ancestor at the time of a population bottleneck

What nonsense. Firstly the only notion of lineage that is based on apical ancestors is that of cultural anthropology, which is anathema to biology. Second when or who ever stated that apical ancestors (a cultural phenomenon) or "de novo" mtDNA/Y chromosomal mutations are more likely to occur during "population bottlenecks"? This is total bunk and has no support in any academic paper whatsoever. It is based on conflating different academic works from different academic disciplines, and pretending that their focus of research is identical, whern in reality the focus is unrelated. This is the worst sort of original research. It is piffle. I'm so glad I don't have to try and defend this. Alun 22:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Err, maybe that's one of the many reasons why it's been criticized? And please, please stop using words such as "nonsense", "bunk", "piffle", etc. You are damaging your credibility by attacking that which is already under attack, in less than civil words.--Ramdrake 23:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Err...actually you have to show that there is any evidence that "lineage is based on the identification of one male or one female apical ancestor at the time of a population bottleneck" before you can even claim that it has been criticised. What I mean is this, where is your citation that claims that this is actually a definition of lineage? Then you can claim it has been criticised, but of course you havr to provide a citation for the crtiticism as well. You see you have two peoblems here, you don't actually have citations for either the original claim, nor for any "criticism" of the original claim. Alun 23:26, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two Wikipedia articles on lineage, one as the term is used in "evolutionary biology" and the other as used in anthropology. Is the one on evolutionary biology incorrect?

The idea of a "race of the descendants of Ghengis Khan" seems strange to me, but that is no guarantee that some people are advocating such a position. I don't think that such a [race] would give people much useful genetic information because for anybody in that line of descent any chromosome except for the Y-chromosome could have come from anybody, male or female. If Ghengis Khan went to the moon with a as many women as he could inseminate, it would still be the case that any descendant could carry chromosomes all of which except for the Y-chromosome came from some ancestor female. Even so, maybe some people have used the idea.

One use that has been made of this "line of descent" is to trace the movements of populations, and that kind of tracing might have something to offer to people who want to know about the relationship of extant human populations. For instance, Wells and others have worked out a hypothesis by which the first wave of migrants out of Africa moved through lands close to the ocean more or less directly from Africa to Australia. But to say anything about the other genetic characteristics of Australian aborigines one has to look at the real genetic evidence of current groups in Australia and in Africa. P0M 01:32, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

There are two Wikipedia articles on lineage, neither of which mentions population bottlenecks or patrilineal and matrilineal descent. I don't know where this comes from. The idea that "race" comprises the descendants of one man or one woman and the idea that this needs to be during a "population bottleneck" seem to be original research. For example does the "race" have to be descended from a man and a woman who actually met? Presumably the man and woman in question need to both have carried do novo mutations in their mtDNA and Y chromosome lineages respectively or we would not know this constiututed a "race". Also one would assume that this deffinition is dependeny upon the descendants of the "man and woman" in question forming a reproductively isolated group, or their descendants would "leave" the "race" because they would then have different mtDNA or Y chromosomes. I'd like a proper citation for this because I do not think it complies with any deffinition of "race" I have ever seen before. Indeed it seems to be little more that the unsupported opinion of a couple of Wikipedia editors intent on supporting some dubious contention regarding lineages whatever the actual science says. Alun 04:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the part starting with "presumably." If it can be supported, then it should be supplied with a citation at the time it is replaces.

"De novo" mutations. It sounds like Olaf Stapledon's Odd John.

Let's leave the claims of bad intent out of the picture. A demand for citation is sufficient to take care of this problem.P0M 04:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

de novo mutation. I didn't mean to claim bad intent, so sorry if I did, it's borne of frustration of having all of my edits reverted for no good reason when this section of the article does not represent any sort of coherent discussion whatsoever. This whole section makes various totally unfounded claims but any attempt to rectify the serious confusion of the text gets imediately reverted. Very frustrating Alun 06:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Odd John was a mutant born of normal parents. He assembled a group of similar mutants and tried to form an isolated breeding group. Unfortunately the world would not let them stay isolated, so they blew themselves up, the first Atoll in the Pacific that was the victim of a nuclear explosion. (In fiction of course. The fictional event was before Bikini I think.)

I get frustrated too. P0M 06:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

What we need to do now is to expand the materials in the next section where it lists several different ways of defining "race," and we need to go over the instances I've listed where [race] appears to be reified (hypostatized) and make sure that readers understand that there are very many competing definitions of the word as well as denials that any definition can produce a useful result. P0M 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)