Talk:Race (human categorization)

Wiki Education assignment: Evolution of the Genus Homo

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2022 and 3 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WordlyWaleed (article contribs).

The most important scientific information ever added here, Fst genetic differentiation

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

.The page is full of irrelevant mental gymnastics and no actual scientific data. Why is that? The page is full of irrelevant politically American subjective opinions and not actual scientific data. I added actual scientific data but my edit was reverted. Itisme3248 (talk) 11:20, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

@Rsk6400 @Rsk6400 How did you come to the conclusion that the data is not scientific? I cited actual objective scientific data from actual studies that i cited but you subjectively called them "unscientific" and have reverted the data i added without even checking the sources. Please do not revert my edit again unless you have a valid reason. I cited actual important studies on population genetics that this page completely ignored Itisme3248 (talk) 11:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The mainstream scientific position is that race is a social construct. Your proposed addition contradicts that (and the rest of the article), and does so via an improper synthesis of outmoded sources from the 1970s and papers about the genetics of wolves. We don't do that on Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 12:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no such scientific position, positions of news articles are not scientific positions. The "social construct" position is a position adopted by Western politics and have nothing to do with actual population genetics. Please do not bring your irrelevant politics into science. What i edited is supported by one of the leading population geneticists in Harvard, Iosif Lazaridis.

You haven't even bothered reading the citations. The data i have provided are modern scientific data that have only been reconfirmed many times. Fst is one of the most commonly used statistics in population genetics.

I suggest you give it a read

Fixation index

The genetics of wolves were simply an example of how animal subspecies are as as distant genetically to each other as modern human races are. The fact that you couldn't comprehend of why that was important to include means that you have no idea what you are talking about. Itisme3248 (talk) 12:07, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I request that these users are forbidden from reverting my edits again because they are politically biased. Actual data on modern human population diversity should not be removed. Itisme3248 (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You need to get consensus support for your edits. You cannot simply edit war and request that others be 'forbidden from reverting', that is not remotely how Wikipedia works. I also reject your suggestion that this has anything to do with politics - it has to do with your failure to follow WP:NOR and your attempts to add content not actually supported by the sources. MrOllie (talk) 12:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Modern population geneticists don't work with the concept of "human races" as a biologically meaningful entity, because it simply fails to capture the reality of human diversity. Most geneticists don't waste their time with discarded hypotheses of the past, and in cases when they actually do address the topic, they explicitly reject the concept of human races (with a few exeptions on the fringe, mostly ideology-driven and ring-wing think-tank sponsored). –Austronesier (talk) 12:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

"Modern population geneticists don't work with the concept of "human races" as a biologically meaningful entity" What the heck is a human race? I thought Homo sapiens sapiens has no known subspecies. Dimadick (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of isolated studies used to support original research. I notice also the section does not define race or name the subspecies of homo sapiens. The chart for example provides different population groups, such as English and Danish, which I assume are not races, but has no comparison of races.

In order to include this material, even as a fringe theory, we would need secondary sources that explain the theory and its degree of acceptance. TFD (talk) 13:41, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll add my voice in concurrence with all the above editors objecting to what Itisme3248 is trying to do here. It's patently WP:OR based on outmoded material and irrelevant material, and is clearly pushing a racialist agenda that is out of step with modern genetics and related science.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Referring to the material as 'outdated' is inaccurate. Fst, a contemporary method used to assess genetic differentiation among populations, is at the forefront of genetic research. The scientific consensus recognizes Fst as a valuable measure to determine if populations are genetically distinct enough to be categorized as separate subspecies. This is not a matter of antiquated concepts, but a current approach in population genetics.

Regarding the mainstream stance on race as a social construct, it's important to distinguish between scientific consensus and societal perspectives. The assertion that race is a social construct is indeed a widely discussed view, but it's essential to acknowledge that this stance doesn't reflect the entirety of scientific thought. Autosomal DNA data, such as Fst statistics, provide insights into the genetic diversity within human populations.

Highlighting variations in Fst values doesn't imply any form of superiority or inferiority among races. The intention is not to perpetuate historical American racism, but rather to objectively explore genetic differences without attaching any value judgments. Just because certain individuals held racist beliefs in the past doesn't automatically render any discussion of genetic diversity suspect. It's crucial to engage with the scientific evidence responsibly

The scientific consensus holds that a threshold of 5% Fst between two populations signifies the differentiation necessary to classify them as distinct subspecies, with a more significant 50% Fst indicating potential differentiation into separate species. Notably, numerous contemporary genetic studies have documented Fst values spanning from 15% to 40% within many modern human populations.

This demonstrates that substantial genetic diversity exists among human groups, shedding light on the intricate tapestry of human genetic variations. The utilization of Fst as a measure of genetic differentiation is intended to provide a rigorous framework for understanding and categorizing population distinctions, devoid of any implications of superiority or inferiority. Itisme3248 (talk) 09:16, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm requesting that Fst measurements be added to the page, along with a comparison to Fst values found in various confirmed animal subspecies. This addition will help demonstrate the significant genetic diversity among modern humans. This goes against the common belief that humans are genetically uniform. Itisme3248 (talk) 09:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

We can incorporate the actual numbers showing genetic differences between human populations and animal subspecies without drawing any specific conclusions about human subspecies on the page. Itisme3248 (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Please make yourself familiar with the relevant guidelines on WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:PSTS before commenting again on this page. Rsk6400 (talk) 09:33, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Revise intro

Of these two sentences "Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning." Only the second is true, as no geneticist would ever agree that heritable cultural traits are a social construction with no biological basis. Please, revise. 2003:A:A0B:4100:44C3:A7AE:28C0:71E5 (talk) 21:08, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

This is the view of the scientific mainstream. We're not going to delete it because an anonymous editor just asks. MrOllie (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

And no geneticist or anthropologist would agree there is any such thing as "heritable cultural traits". The anonymous commenter clearly does not actually understand what culture means. I think they probably meant "phenotypic traits that are heritable within a localized human population (which often but not necessarily loosely coincides with an ethnic group), including in descendants who move to another locality", or something like that, but this doesn't prove the existence of "biological races", only the fact that particular haplogroups exist, are heritable, were historically and to a limited extent still are geographically separated, and have effects on the phenotypic aspects controlled by the genes common to the haplogroup. But none of that has the slightest thing to do with cultures (and actually disproves "races", because we know from haplogroup divergence calculations that a particular haplogroup can sweep across a wide area in comparatively few generations while others remain unchanged in the same population, with a great deal of continuity even back to the Neolithic). The anon could save some cognitive dissonance by reading WP:R&E, especially the sections 'The "race" illusion' and 'Genes don't work the way the average person thinks they do'.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:55, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Missing "the"?

"do not support notion of genetically defined races" should be "support _the_ notion"? WilbaAtWikipedia (talk) 03:02, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Yep! Now fixed. Thanks! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:04, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Conflict between sources and practice

The article claims there’s a consensus race is social construct, and links to a few statements. However the concept is used all the time in medicine.[1] It seems to me that the references used to support this claim are just one point of view. Mercatorial (talk) 05:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)