Talk:White people/Mediation/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive 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.

Comments before Mediation

I'm here. The issue isn't whether or not I want to add information about the genetic side of the "white race". The issue is that I want both sides of the genetic context of race added if we are going to include the issue of genetics.

Genetics sources from authorities in the field which have presented one side of the issue have been removed and sources from the other side have been added. That creates a NPOV problem. I, personally, would be okay with removing the genetics context from the article completely and leaving that content to the Human race article, but since some people want to have that in this article, both sides need to be in the article. -Psychohistorian 18:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, may I ask what the two sides of the genetic context are? Also, may someone of different opinion than Psychohistorian say why they erased these links? | AndonicO Talk 18:29, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that first question was directed to me, but I'll answer it anyway.

The two sides are "there exists a clear and undisputable demarcation in the genetic profiles between all 'white people' and all 'non-white people'" and "there does not exist a clear and undisputable genetic demarcation in the genetic profiles between all 'white people' and all 'non-white people'".-Psychohistorian 19:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now we have your side's opinion in the matter. I would like to know whether or not the opposing side thinks the same. Was this mediation called for this reason? Also, I believe you are supporting the first of the sides you mentioned, because of your wanting to add links to the article in order to prove the first opinion. Am I correct in thinking so? | AndonicO Talk 19:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
I am providing links which support just the one side because I've been unable to find reliable sources which support the other side, though my personal viewpoint is that there is no clear, objective genetic demarcation which distinguishes white people.-Psychohistorian 19:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


  • As I said in my cabal request, I believe there are two sides to this issue:

1) White race is entirely a social construct. 2) It has genetic basis.

Currently, the article has only POV's from the first side. I want to balance this by adding the following text:

Nevertheless, recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States. Using 326 genetic markers, Tang et al. (2005) identified 4 genetic clusters among 3,636 individuals sampled from 15 locations in the United States, and were able to correctly assign individuals to groups that correspond with their self-described race (white, African American, East Asian, or Hispanic) for all but 5 individuals (an error rate of 0.14%). They conclude that ancient ancestry, which correlates tightly with self-described race and not current residence, is the major determinant of genetic structure in the U.S. population.[1]

However, Psychohistorian keeps deleting it, saying it's part of the race debate and if I'm to include such text, he should include his own. But as you can see, it's not part of the race debate. It doesnt say whites are a race. I just says self-described race has a strong genetic correlation. And there is no counter argument against this actually. Whether it is a race or a population or a cline, it has genetic correlation. And it is needed to balance the article. There are currently several references to social side but none to genetics. Thulean 13:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

If I have deleted it saying that it was part of the race debate (something I don't remember doing, by the way), then it was only because the consensus is that it doesn't belong in this article. The reason *I* have deleted it is because genetic evidence to the contrary has been deleted. We can't discuss genetic evidence which is pro without discussing genetic evidence which is con. If genetic evidence which is con is going to be deleted, then genetic evidence which is pro should be deleted as well. -Psychohistorian 13:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • What is the con evidence of what I'm posting? Thulean 14:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
The long list of sources I provided from genetics reseaerchers which was deleted.-Psychohistorian 15:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, why not create a new article, about the genetics of race, or more specifically, of the white race? | AndonicO Talk 16:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Well, I believe his represantation of what he posted is misleading. He posted things which said along the lines of "race doesnt exist", however he never posted anything saying that there is no genetic correlation with self inscribed races/"races". You see where I'm getting at? The text I was trying to add was just saying white people is more than a social and cultural contruct and have at least *some* genetic basis. An entirely social construct would be fashion, for ex. Surely, classifing white people as some "stereotype" is far too biased. Thulean 17:41, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Race does exist. It is a very powerful social force. But the preponderance of evidence from authorities on the subject is that it is socially constructed, not found in genes. As for "there is no genetic correlation with self inscribed races/"races"", I don't even know what you are trying to say here, so I can't respond to it. -Psychohistorian 18:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I meant that you were posting along the lines of "race doesnt exist biologically".
  • For the second part, I meant that you dont have anything against "Nevertheless, recent research indicates that self-described race is a near-perfect indicator of an individual's genetic profile, at least in the United States" and hence against the fact that "race" is correlated with genetics even if it is not *entirely* genetic. Thulean 18:28, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
What I was posting was quotes from noted authorities in the fields of genetics and anthropology who state that race has no genetic basis. I have no problems with quotes from reliable sources being added except when quotes from reliable sources supporting the other side are being removed.-Psychohistorian 18:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


  • Back to square one. AndonicO, we've had this debate before, and I believe Psychohistorian can not be neutral in this. Check this out:

"Uhhh? Are you just imagining what I say or do you read? I never said the article supported "racial categories." I said " The equation is that race is a complex issue. It's not biologically meaningless [8] therefore it's not totally a social and cultural construct." And the article DOES say race isnt biologically meaningless. Thulean 17:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And what I'm telling you is that the article you pointed to doesn't support that statement. It says that there is genetic variation across geography, but that that doesn't equate to race categories. Your confusion seems to derive from an assumption you are making that genetic variation equates to race. The article is saying that race is biologically meaningless and points out why genetic variation does not equate to race.. -Psychohistorian 17:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Direct quote from article:

Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inaccurate to state that race is "biologically meaningless."

Are you *reading* the article? Thulean 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)" [1] Thulean 19:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't even figure out what point you are trying to make now.-Psychohistorian 19:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I posted the two blocks below in the discussion page of the case. It seems their proper place is here:--Sugaar 19:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It's much more complex

I honestly wish it would be such minor issue the only aspect of the dispute going on in the White people entry. This page (that I personally prefered made a disambiguation page, though I'm a minority in that) has gone through intense POV disputes basically between a core of responsible wikipedians and a number of editors, mostly anonymous (though now I believe the page is semiprotected) that want it to fit to their "white nationalist" POVs.

After the semiprotection, a consensus was reached and the article cleaned up and briefly consolidated. The only registered editor with that specific POV (User:Dark Tichondrias) retired from the dispute after having advocated certain version because Stormfront and another white nationalist group thought like her. Then a new user, User:Thulean, appeared out of nowhere and fully focused on this article, trying to bring it to the "racialist" POV. Naturally, other editors, including myself, reverted and commented.

Thulean entered the discussion but did not accept compromises with the already estabilished consensus. While this discusion was going on, DarkTichondrias (another race-only focused user, btw) reappeared and started doing edits, first minor ones, then major ones under the pretext of minor ones. Thulean joined her.

Yesterday I reverted to the consensuated version and made an RFC. --Sugaar 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

The particular dispute discussed here

Obviously the real scope of the concept of white (European, Caucasoid, more or less light skinned, etc.) is in the background of this particular sub-dispute. But one important thing is that a majority of editors wants the article to be sucint and delimited, keeping the discussion on what's race in the Human race article and the particular issues concerning the USA in the White American entry, while Thulean and DT prefer to extend teh article indefintely in accordance with their particular POV.

I think that Psychohistorian is a responsible Wikipedian and that his position is in agreement with a wide majority of editors, now and in the "historical" context of that controversial page. Psychohistorian and I have not always been in agreement but both have tried to reach consensus and worked intensely to keep the article NPOV.

His edit is within the standard consensus-making and NPOV policies of Wikipedia, at least in my opinion. The attitude of Thulean is at least clearly POV. --Sugaar 18:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, so you are in accord, more or less, with PsyHis. I would like to hear from Thulean, who has not of yet visited this discussion. Why does he make edits which others consider POV? Are they NPOV somewhere in the world? Are there any sources which back his "POV" edits? | AndonicO Talk 20:45, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
The "consenssus" seems to be 3 people agreeing. Besides, many people before me said the article is biased (read the archives). That's why it has a "neutrality disputed" tag.


Just one point. I support Suggar. If we are to speak about the white race, then only Caucasian makes sense. All other attempts to classify white people apart from Caucasians has always been part of racist propaganda and agendas and hand in hand with White Supremacy, Nordicism and Nazism and as I have more than once said, genetics kick all those people in the ass. Population groups are to the concept of race what lineage to a person or family. Proven population groups cut across continents. Caucasian is not perfect either, but at least it is not such an arbitrary concept as the concept of white that some people here insist on using. I am also fed up with the ad populum argument. A lot of people say: In this country or that country people think this, in this place people think that. That is absolutely stupid in an encyclopedia. In the first place it is questioanble that all people think the same, and in the second place, so what? In a recent program I saw how kids are being brainwashed in some extremist Muslim societies at the moment. Kids were asked what Americans and Jews were and they responded that they were like Satan, a mixture of pigs and apes. The Muslim world is inhabited by 1 billion people and views like this are unfortunately not so uncommom at the moment. So, in the article about American or Jews I am going to write that, right? It is an opinion shared by a lot of people, right? Then why not include it? Come on, stop it. I was not born yesterday. Stop using ad populum arguments that are very questionable in the frist place, many of which even the guy here with the least experience in life knows where they come from.

Just too lines, examples that I have already deleted several times written by these disgusting Neo-Nazis (sorry but with this kind I am straightfoward): White people are manly Nordics....In Europe Jews, etc are not considered white. etc.

Veritas et Severitas 23:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment LSLM, however, you did break the first rule (above) by saying that. Even though your opinion is important and needed, personal attacks do not go here.
I still would like to hear from Thulean, to explain to others (and myself) his views on this. Also, has no one aside from myself read WP:NPOV? The sooner you do this, the sooner we can begin mediation. | AndonicO Talk 09:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I believe LSLM doesnt make sense. If there is a credible source, like a poll, saying majority of muslims think this, he can say "majority of muslims think this". Other than that the analogy of a tv program and wide held opinions is silly. Besides, if white race is a social construct, then only thing that matters is the opinions of the majority of whites. Thulean 13:07, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't help just now; I'll be back in a couple of hours. | AndonicO Talk 13:42, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't intervene further. Thulean has initiated an RFI against me for denouncing his political motivations and I have a warn. Whatever I may say could be used by Thulean against me to force a block, so I can't discuss openly before the warn is removed. Nevertheless I will keep protecting the article against unilateral harassment by Thulean, who obviously is not interested in reaching any consensus but just imposing his opinion and (unspeakable) ideology by any means at reach. --Sugaar 16:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Please do not insult Thulean. I don't care if he is or isn't Nazi (he probably isn't though), but you must respect him here. If you want to do that, do it on the main discussion page, not here. Also, please, could everyone read WP:NPOV by Saturday, so we may start this by then? | AndonicO Talk 17:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read most it and I'll finish it by then. Thulean 18:30, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Protest: Where in my comment do you see "insults"?
Protest 2 Thulean keeps harassing and trashing my user page me with that pretext. He's hiding his POV-pushing, non-consensual and disruptive behaviour behind administrators. He must be a lawyer in real life (is "lawyer" also an insult?).
Protest 3 I can't speak until I'm allowed to speak my mind with full clarity. Why some ideologies have such a high level of protection is something that eludes my understanding. I will deal with that at Wikiessay level and at ArbCom level maybe and will not continue in this discussion because it only can damage my position. --Sugaar 06:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, you said "imposing his opinion and (unspeakable) ideology". This is allowed outside of mediation, but here, things would get very complicated if we did that. About Thulean being POV, I don't know much about that; you probably know him better, but that's why I'm here. No, lawyer is not an insult (where I come from). Please stay in this discussion, if you want, you can come for the indirect part later; I can tell you when we begin. | AndonicO Talk 10:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know him much better: he's a new user and has already harassed two parties involved in this dispute with insistent legalist bogus threats of potential block. I can imagine he's one of the anonymous users that vandalized the page before it was semi-protected but I can't do an IP check.
In my humble opinion this mediation is doomed and this can only end in disciplinary action against Thulean. He hasn't the least humilty to accept that there's been a discussion before he arrived, the slightest ability for compromise and his mono-focused in spreading his own version of the "White race". He doesn't know what consensus or even supermajority may mean and the only thing he knows about Etiquette and Civility is what may be useful for his legalist manipulation of such gidelines.
I know Thulean only from a few days ago but, for me, he has already reached the status of Wikipedia's enemy number one. (I know there are surely others but well...) --Sugaar 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I've been involved in this a bit, though not to the extent of other editors. I do have a bias in this dispute, in that I think that Sugaar, PsyHis and Veritas are expressing a more neutral stance than Thulean. This is my reasoning:
  1. The statement on race having a genetic basis is a general one about race, it does not specifically apply to white people, so it seems logical that it should be included in articles discussing race generally. Indeed there is actually an article about the genetic basis of race Race and multilocus allele clusters.
  2. Scientific papers that I have read about classifying people into races using genetics never refer to a white race, they refer to a caucasian race, which is a different thing altogether. Indeed a paper that makes a very good attempt to genetically classify people into racial clades for medical reasons, Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease (which is published in a peer reviewed journal) makes no reference to a white race, only to a caucasian one which includes many people who would not be considered white, like people from the Indian Subcontinent:

For our purposes here, on the basis of numerous population genetic surveys, we categorize Africans as those with primary ancestry in sub-Saharan Africa; this group includes African Americans and Afro-Caribbeans. Caucasians include those with ancestry in Europe and West Asia, including the Indian subcontinent and Middle East; North Africans typically also are included in this group as their ancestry derives largely from the Middle East rather than sub-Saharan Africa. 'Asians' are those from eastern Asia including China, Indochina, Japan, the Philippines and Siberia. By contrast, Pacific Islanders are those with indigenous ancestry from Australia, Papua New Guinea, Melanesia and Micronesia, as well as other Pacific Island groups further east. Native Americans are those that have indigenous ancestry in North and South America. Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply.

So even if we include information about how some scientists are attempting to define races genetically we should mention that they do not use white people as a racial classification.
  1. The whole concept of using genetics to define race is a contentious one. If we are going to include a statement that genetics correlates with race then we need to go into detail about it and make it clear that there are many problems with these classifications, namely that human populations form a continuum and are not discreet, many naturally occuring populations do not fit neatly into the pigeonholes that these hypothetical taxa create. For example here is a paper that explains some of the problems with using genetics to classify people by race Genetic variation, classification and ‘race’:

Data from many sources have shown that humans are genetically homogeneous and that genetic variation tends to be shared widely among populations. Genetic variation is geographically structured, as expected from the partial isolation of human populations during much of their history. Because traditional concepts of race are in turn correlated with geography, it is inacurate to state that race is biologically meaningless. On the other hand, because they have been only partially isolated, human populations are seldom demarcated by precise genetic boundaries. Substantial overlap can therefore occur between populations, invalidating the concept that populations (or races) are discreet types....Race remains an inflammatory issue, both socially and scientifically. Fortunately, modern human genetics can deliver the salutary message that human populations share most of their genetic variation and that there is no scientific supportfor the concept that human populations are discreet nonoverlaping entities..

  • So what I am saying is this: In order to include Thulean's statement we need to expand it, to say clearly that it applies to large geographical areas like continents, and actually excludes white people as a category. We also need to include the other point of view, which is that the deffinition of races is arbitrary, that there is significant genetic similarity between races and that there has been significant gene flow between races. We also need to state that many naturally occurng populations do not fit into any race because they contain equal contributions from so called different races. All in all I think that to include a comprehensive review of the various points of view with regard to genetics and race would cause a significant deviation from the subject of the article, and would not address the concept of white people anyway, as these people are not considered a race even by those scientists that accept a genetic classification of race. This argument should be had over at Race and Race and multilocus allele clusters as it seems to have little relevance to white people. Alun 07:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
This is a good opinion; I might read it again later during mediation. | AndonicO Talk 10:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


1) What he is saying is not always true or perhaps rarely true. US National Library of Medicine's new headings for "Caucasoid Race" and "whites" are "European Continental Ancestry Group". [2]

2) And here, Indians arent included as Himlayas extend into Pakistan and west of Himalayas wont include India:

Other studies have produced comparable results. Noah A. Rosenberg and Jonathan K. Pritchard, geneticists formerly in the laboratory of Marcus W. Feldman of Stanford University, assayed approximately 375 polymorphisms called short tandem repeats in more than 1,000 people from 52 ethnic groups in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas. By looking at the varying frequencies of these polymorphisms, they were able to distinguish five different groups of people whose ancestors were typically isolated by oceans, deserts or mountains: sub-Saharan Africans; Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas; East Asians; inhabitants of New Guinea and Melanesia; and Native Americans. They were also able to identify subgroups within each region that usually corresponded with each member's self-reported ethnicity.[3]

And as we can see, even in Caucasian group, sub groupings can be made.

3) Finally I dont understand how Alun makes comments about my suggestion, which he apperantly didnt read. I've never said we should write: white people is a biological race. I've said it couple of times to him and couple of times here. I'll repeat it again one last time so my position is clear. All I'm saying is that, after numerous references to white people being a social construct, we should also include a reference to genetic correlation. It is there so it should be included to reflect NPOV. So I'm suggesting the following part added to USA section:

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

Thulean 15:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can have a new section or article describing sub-groupings, another Caucasians, and a third genetic differences. | AndonicO Talk 18:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There is already a Caucasian article. And genetic differences in racial context are mentioned on race page. However if there wont be any genetic reference in white people article, then there should be no references to white people being social and cultural constructs. If all genetic information is to be discussed on Race page, then all social and cultural references should be moved to Social_interpretations_of_race. Thulean 18:59, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • So I'm saying that instead of debating if races exist or not, we should just concentrate if white people grouping has any genetic basis or not. So I should add what I'm proposing to add. If the opposition have any argument against this along the lines of "white people grouping isnt correlated with genetics", they should post that as well. Thulean 20:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
There was intense debate before you arrived and we reached a consensus that the article should be limited precisely to prevent POV, redirecting to more specific entries such as "White American", etc.
Thulean is just trying to build up the article according to his own perception of whiteness which is not defined by any international institution (UN or UNESCO don't waste their time in that).
The bulk of editors instead is trying to keep the article acceptable for all sensibilities in the issue. --Sugaar 21:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


  • What is their definition? I was using the definition of Oxford English Dictionary. Thulean 22:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Response to Thulean: I think Thulean's analysis of my comment supports my contention that a full and ballanced account of correlating genetics and race would produce a significant deviation from the main point of the article. Here's my reasoning:

1) I didn't say that human population classification is consistent, indeed I specifically made the point that it is arbitrary, human populations do not form discreet groups, but rather form a continuum. Because of this there are many ways to define a race depending upon the arbitrary divisions used. However one defines these divisions they always lead to some naturally occuring populations being excluded from certain races due to the clinal nature of genetic distributions. The US National Library of Medicine groups he refers to don't actually specify what group Indians fall into at all, they simply state that the previous Caucasioid Race and Whites categories are now designated as a European Continental Ancestry Group. This is a simple reclassification as far as I can see.

2) The article Thulean quotes (above in his point no 2 [4]) does not exclude people from the Indian subcontinent, but rather includes Europeans and Asians west of the Himalayas, the Himalayas are clearly to the north east of the Indian Subcontinent, and clearly do not stretch to the western coast of India or the Pakistani coast. The other racial category for Eurasia in this paper is East Asians, which clearly excludes any part of the Indian subcontinent. The wording is ambiguous to say the least, but my understanding is that the geographical region they refer to is identical to the one quoted in the paper I cited earlier, ie that this is a caucasioid race.[[5] The exclusion of people from the Indian Subcontinent by Thulean seems to be little more than sophistry and creative geography. Indeed the paper quoted by Thulean earlier goes on to state

But caution is warranted. The groups easiest to resolve were those that were widely separated from one another geographically. Such samples maximize the genetic variation among groups. When Bamshad and his co-workers used their 100 Alu polymorphisms to try to classify a sample of individuals from southern India into a separate group, the Indians instead had more in common with either Europeans or Asians. In other words, because India has been subject to many genetic influences from Europe and Asia, people on the subcontinent did not group into a unique cluster.

This indicates again my point that many naturally occuring groups will not fit nicely into discreet races. Both this paper and the one I quoted stress that large geographical regions are required in order to produce the most unambiguous results, this is why they use such large deffinitions of races, indeed they repeatedly refer to continental and geographical origins, and all papers include many comments on the limitations of such deffinitons. When geneticists use much smaller groupings, like the sub-groupings Thulean refers to it becomes much more difficult to produce meaningful results, as there is less heterogeneity (and consequently more homogeneity) between groups the smaller they become.

Himalaya's DOES extend into Pakistan. The mountains near Karachi is Himalayas. Here, Pakistan tourism board:

"Pakistan is endowed with a rich and varied flora and fauna. High Himalayas, Karakoram and the Hindukush ranges with their alpine meadows and permanent snow line" http://www.tourism.gov.pk/ Thulean 13:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is irrelevant, it is unclear in the article whether they consider the Indian Subcontinent to be included. I think the infrence is strongly that they do, because they only refer to asian populations west of the Himalayas (an ambiguous deffinition I grant) and east Asians, which clearly excludes the population of the Indian Subcontinent. Pakistan in a state, the article does not refer to states or nations, merely to relatively poorly defined geographic areas, this may be deliberate, because races are also poorly defined. I can't help but feel this is little more than creative geography. Alun 14:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

3) I have indeed read Thuleans suggestion, many times. My feelings are that it is something of a distortion, the paper he cites does not attempt to define races, rather it attempts to determine whether self defined race/ethnic group correlates to the observed genetic diversity of the people being studied (ie do people claiming to be white show more genetic similarity with each other than to other groups etc.), here the labels used were white, African American, East Asian, and Hispanic

My point was, whether you accept whites as a race or not, Their grouping is correlated with genetics. Thulean 13:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
My point is that the inclusion of this reference distorts the purpose of the paper and attempts to define white people as an accepted race by medicine. This is clearly not the purpose of the paper you quote. Alun 14:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


[6] In the diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions sometimes it is important to know a person's background, this paper is an attempt to establish whether self-identified ethnicity/race is an accurate indicator of background. White people cluster together in this paper because they are from the same caucasioid race, one would expect different people from the caucasioid race to also cluster with the same group, but none were included in the study. So this study rather than defining a white race, was merely attempting to identify whether self defined race/ethnicity are reliable indicators of descent. It does not claim that white people form a distinct race. Looking at the paper he cites I think the wording he uses, especially in this article, is missleading. In this sense the review article I quote above is better, review articles are a good source because they review all relevant advances in a particular scientific discipline and attempt to define the current level of understanding at the time of writing.

I will repeat myself somewhat and say again that this sort of general statement about race does not really belong here, it is not specific to white people and a full and neutral review of all the available academic points of view in this article would lead to significant deviation from the main point of the article. Indeed the main academic sources for defining race from a genetic point of view mainly support the caucasioid concept rather than the white concept. Alun 07:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, race debates don't belong here. However we should point out to the correlation between white grouping and genetics. If you have something about caucasoids, add it to caucasoid page. If you think we should remove all genetic references in white people page, then we should remove all social and cultural construct references and move it to the page I suggested. Thulean 13:05, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
Why should we point out the correlation? The phrasing indicates that white people are identified as a race in this article and by medicine and genetics generally, this is not the case, it is a distortion of the paper. If you want to include a reference to race, then it should indicate that white people are mainly/often considered to be Eurasians of the caucasoid race that live in Europe, or their descendants in North America. Something like this could be cited quite nicely, but it should also include all of the if, buts and provisos that all of the reputable published papers also include regarding this subject, as per neutrality. That is that races are not exclusive discreet populations and that there is considerable overlap between them. This might considerably detract from the specific thrust of the article. You have been keen to have a discussion about race in the article as per your contributions to the talk page Talking About Race is Necessary, but if we do this it needs to be thorough to maintain neutrality, it should not give a single distorted point of view that IMHO seems not to be supported by the citation. You cannot claim to want a discussion about race, and then only accept that a single point of view be included. It is cleraly not the case that there is a consensus amongst biologists, geneticists or anthropologists, hoe do we have a discussion about race without going into too much detail?

You are entitled to your position, but there needs to be compromise here, and we need to accurately reflect the correct scientific position on this if it is to be included. Alun 14:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


  1. Media:*"DNA Studies Challenge the Meaning of Race" Science 282 (23 Oct 1998): 654-655.
  2. American Anthropological Association's Statement on Race and related documents.

"DNA Studies Challenge the Meaning of Race" Science 282 (23 Oct 1998): 654-655.

  1. For an overview of recent writing: Howard Winant, "Race and Race Theory" Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2000. 26:169-185].

Stanford University listing of related sources

  1. Additionally:Shanklin, Eugenia. 1994. Anthropology & Race. LOCATION: IC/Green Library Stacks GN269.S43 1994. A concise textbook that provides a historical perspective on various issues of race and racism up to 1992.
  2. Media:Faye V. Harrison. 1995. "The Persistent Power of 'Race' in the Cultural and Political Economy of Racism." Annual Review of Anthropology. 24:47-74. LOCATION: IC GN1.A47. Literature review of recent anthropological writing.
  3. Allan Goodman. 1995. "The Problematics of "Race" in Contemporary Biological Anthropology." In Biological Anthropology: The State of the Science. LOCATION: Green Library Stacks GN50.B56 1995. Topics covered include: The Scientific Myth of Race, Forensic Anthropology,Race and Medicine, Race, Racism, and Human Genomics Genes, Fossils and Human Evolution
  4. Yearbook of Physical Anthropology, 1945-. LOCATION: Green Library Stacks GN60.Y4 (Latest three years in IC) regulary publishes relevant reviews.

"Melanin, Afrocentricity...," 36(1993):33-58.

  1. "Clines and Clusters vs Race: a test in Ancient Egypt and the cause of Death on the Nile," 36(1993):1-31.
  2. Spencer, Frank. 1986. Ecce Homo. LOCATION: IC Z5118.S7S64 1986. Extensive notes and references on such topics as comparative (racial) biology, craniology, and human population biology.
  3. Boas, Franz. 1934. "Race," Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences. XIII-XIV:25-36. LOCATION: IC H41.E5.
  4. Harris, Marvin. 1968. "Race," International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences.13:263-269. LOCATION: IC H41.I5.
  5. Stephens, Thomas M. Dictionary of Latin American racial and ethnic terminology. Gainesville: University of Florida Press, c1989.LOCATION: IC GN564.L29S84 1989.Edditor 15:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC)