Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 26

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 → Archive 30

External links

I hate to say it, but the external links section needs to go on a diet. Please keep in mind that wikipedia is not a repository of links, we're not a directory, not a textbook, and not a portal for opinions. Moreover, we don't publish nor help publish your research. Before adding more links, please discuss it first. --slakr\ talk / 05:45, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Bibliography section cleanup.

I removed a bunch of sources that weren't referenced from the text. Also, I commented out (i.e., for non-html people, surrounded them in <-- html comment tags --> so they won't be displayed) a few that were questionable (or ambiguous), which will probably be deleted unless someone says something. If a particular source got deleted but you feel it should be in the text, please consider using footnotes so that I don't have to do this again (hehe, what can I say? I'm a slakr :P). Most of what remains should be referenced somewhere, so the next step is converting them to footnotes. Cheers. =) --slakr\ talk / 05:05, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Removed POV tag

I noticed that the {{pov}} tag is still on the article, yet the pov image discussion (above) seems to have ended. I'll remove the POV tag for now, since on controversial topics (i.e., where someone will always have an issue with POV), I would argue that unless there's an active POV discussion, there shouldn't be a POV tag. Feel free to discuss/undo if this is horribly wrong or I missed something in the discussion page. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 05:12, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of research papers section

I tried to remove eduspam but it was reverted by Ramdrake (talk · contribs). If the problem is with the two sources I left, those can easily be deleted as well, so long as the one that's mentioned in the text is added to the bibiography or footnotes section. Long story short, there are several reasons for this change-- some practical, some based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines:

  • Policy. Wikipedia is not a repository of links. The removed links were either already cited in the footnotes/bibliography sections or were not mentioned at all in the article. The ones that were left are accessible, relevant, simple, or referenced in the article (I added html comments).
  • Policy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. If the research article/viewpoint that is linked is significant and relevant to the article, cite it in the article; otherwise, it doesn't warrant a link.
  • Guideline. Overlinking of research presents a conflict of interest for members of the academic community whose salaries depend on their research being noticed, so non-essential, non-referenced links should be removed if they're not cited in the text otherwise it's essentially edu-spam.
  • Guideline. Please see article size. The page is huge and urgently needs to be trimmed back. Redundant/unneeded things should be the first to go, and that includes trivial external links. Check out the external links sections in other general subject articles.
  • Guideline. Please see links normally to be avoided. I remember a couple of those links being direct links to magazines/portals that want money to view the article.
  • Practical. Cutting back the fat. There were four total places for references. One is in the article itself (frowned upon), another is in the bibliography section (less ideal), another is in the external links section (less ideal), and finally, the footnotes (the ideal place).

If anyone has any other ideas, I'm all ears; otherwise, I suggest the links simply be removed. --slakr\ talk / 21:19, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Personnally, I wouldn't mind removing all the references (the choice of those two left behind seemed dubious to me). However, I'd like other people to give their opinion on this removal as well. If nobody care one way or another, we could remove them all so no one wonders why these particular two were left behind. Hope this makes sense.--Ramdrake 22:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Ah, nothing dubious. The only reason I left "The Race Concept: A Defense by Michael Levin" behind was because "Levin" wasn't mentioned anywhere else on the page as a reference (i.e., in formal cites) but it was in the article (hence the reason I added the html comment saying that). I hate doing cites myself, so it was one of those "argh, I'll do it later" kind of things. :P The other one was a *.gov thing that related to the human genome project and race, which I figured was safe to leave at cursory inspection, but I didn't really read the thing, so if it's inappropriate, we can yank it too. --slakr\ talk / 00:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I'm definitely not an expert on this subject, so if anything I do is horribly wrong, then please feel free to gimme a heads up. I'm mainly just trying to condense the page, since it's kind of turning into a novel. :D --slakr\ talk / 00:21, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible split: Race debate

Again, going back to the large article size and possible pending splits, it might solve a lot of problems to simply split the modern race debate sections into a new article: Race debate-- much like what was done on Abortion to give rise to Abortion debate. There's simply too much detailed (well, more critical: excessively lengthy) information to cover in one article. See Wikipedia guideline on article size. --slakr\ talk / 21:56, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea, split this pompous title "Race (classification of human beings)" into something like "race debate" and "race biology". Race biology contains little debate as race is simply defined as continent of genetic origin. There is so much new scientific information coming out these days it's a shame to have to mix the new with the tired old controversies. The controversies may be driving away potential contributors who have a lot to add.

The "race debate" people need a place too. Jclaer (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearly there is an abortion debate-- it's a prominent feature of conversations about the topic. I don't know if it's equally clear that there is a "race debate" -- there are fringe theories about race, but I don' know if "debate" is the right way to frame it. futurebird (talk) 15:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
This article was actually split into several smaller articles by Slakr, but there was a general consensus that this didn't really work. The split lead to a general confusion about what information should go where. The idea that concepts of biological "race" can be disentangled from the social construct is untenable, they are inextricably bound together because biological concepts are derived from the social constructs that were invented in the seventeenth century. When we look at biological variation in the human species we do not see it partitioned into "races", rather we see small gradual changes in populations over geographical distance, there are no major biological discontinuities in the distribution of variation. The idea that there are such discontinuities are derived from social concepts developed by inconsistent sampling of global human populations. To understand this one needs to explain things in context. The context in this case needs to address several aspects of human thought, including genetics, anthropology and history and so takes some time to establish. As for the title of the article, well originally it was called simply "Race", but the "race" article became a disambig page at the time Slakr split the article and when it was all merged back into one article the disambig page stayed and this article became "Race (classification of human beings). I'm not a fan of this title so any suggestions for a better title would be welcome. Alun (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Models of Evolution Section

The two paragraphs at the end of both the OOA section and MH section need to be removed, whether cited or not, because they are ultimately superfluous information—irrelevant to the majority of the article. In fact, I would argue that almost ALL of the sections discussing the two models on evolution should be removed and leave only a brief mention of what they are with links to the relevant pages of each model. This article is far too long the way it is.

Furthermore the comment under the MH section is just all-out false: "The most important element of this model for theories of race is that it allows a million years for the evolution of Homo sapiens around the world; this is more than enough time for the evolution of different races."

As stated in the comments, MH does not posit isolated populations independently evolving from H. erectus. Instead, it maintains that from the time H. erectus first expanded from Africa it has remained a single interconnected—albeit large—group. Because the populations are not isolated, they remain AS ONE, after ten years, ten thousand years, and a million years. Check the Wiki article on gene flow for more information on this. Whoever put the section together did a horrible job in the first place, as the MH section was originally a description of Polygenism. Wiki strives for objectivity; misrepresenting opposing view points to push an agenda is highly academically dishonest. I've also had to remove large incorrect portions of the OOA section. Neither one was well-done, and the whole section was sloppy, inaccurate, biased, and just all-out no good.

Again, though, all of this is FAR too detailed for this article. It, and most of the rest of the article, needs to be removed, as most of the information can be found elsewhere on Wiki in much more detail—and much more accurate. Simple summaries and links replacing the large blocks of text in most areas will greatly improve the quality of this article. 172.136.165.82 12:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)J

The article cited, to which you refer, is one of the few recent discussions of the relevance to models of evolution to discussions of race and for that reason alone must be included; indeed, if we remove that material, we ought to remove all discussion of models of evolution. But we shouldn't: relatively recent scholarship discusses the relationship so our article should provide an account of that discussion. If you disagree with the article, go write your own article and get it published in a peer-reviewed journal. if you disagree about the importance of the article, buy yourself a time machine, travel back in time, become editor of American Anthropologist or whatever journal it is from, and reject the article. For you to remove it on any other basis is to violate our Wikipedia:No original research policy. As for details - Wikipedia is not paper, and I for one think it is good that there is one on-line source of information that is thorough and takes scholarship seriously. This is a complex topic and any claim that it is simple is pushing some POV at the expense of an NPOV article (another of our core policies) Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
That's all irrelevant. If the study really says what it is claimed to say, then it is a clear misrepresentation of the MH model. As composers of these articles, it is our duty to ascertain the relevance and quality of our sources that we cite. When we cite sources, or studies, that have been written or performed by groups with a clear bias, and that clear bias is represented in their misrepresentation of a particular model, then it is our duty to see to it that such low-quality information is not included in articles that strive for integrity, objectivity, and freedom from bias.
Now, I just went and read the relevant portions of the study that had been cited, and as it turned out, the current Wiki write-up is a misrepresentation—what we lay people call a lie—of the otherwise reasonable and relatively objective study as cited in AA. I think you should also be pointed out to the fact that the AA article is cited before the final line of the paragraph: "Against these assumptions, they argue that regional variations in these features can thus be taken as evidence for long term differences among genus Homo individuals that prefigure different races among present-day Homo sapiens individuals, and do not necessarily support the multi-regional model."
There is a reason this was done, I'm sure; it's because the information presented in that final paragraph appears no where in the original AA article. It was made up by the biased writer of the Wiki article and passed off as having come from the AA article so that the writer of the Wiki article could increase its credibility. What I will do, is include a verbatim quote from the original article that deals with the first part of the paragraph, and then remove that final sentence of the paragraph, and if anyone wants it to be added, they can read the article and show that it was actually part of the concluded findings of Lieberman & Jackson. Then, it can be included, and the superscript footnote reference can be moved to the end of the entire quote. I will do the same with the section on OOA; find the original part of the article that deals with it, give a quote of Lieberman & Jackson's actual conclusion, and remove the inaccurate parts. I think this seems to be a fair way of resolving the issue.172.133.41.117 19:52, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
Please wait for more consensus for this. Jeeny (talk) 21:19, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
How long will we wait?172.133.41.117 22:05, 20 October 2007 (UTC)J

172 may be naive about how Wikipedia works. There is no one author. Since the AA article material was introduced these sections have been reworked by many authors. Thee is no reason to think that the current version is close to the original version. If the AA article is misrepresented it surely should be represented accurately, no one would argue against that. But you deleted the material three times because you think it is wrong. That is a simle violation of our policies. And do not tell us our policies are irrelevant. Violate them and you will be reverted every time, until you are banned. Do you want to stay and contribute? Follow our core policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


How long will we wait? How about three or four days? that is very litle time but ought to be enough for others to read the article and propose aloternate edits or have an open discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I could care less if the information is right or wrong; it is a misrepresentation of the article that it cites. Someone wrote something, then cited an unrelated article as support. The problem is that the information presented was not actually obtained from the article that has been cited. This is evident to anyone who actually goes and reads the cited article. In the end, I didn't delete anything. I simply quoted the actual part of the AA article that had supposedly been cited. The fact that it looked like a deletion/substitution is evidence that the original content was a complete misrepresentation of the article. I do wonder, though, have any one of you read the article yourselves? If not, on what grounds do you judge its relevance?
But, we shall wait and see what comes of this. Likely, no one will care to respond and/or bother with this and the change will not get made; but let us hope that does not come to pass.172.133.41.117 01:13, 21 October 2007 (UTC)J

Please be clear: are you objecting to the inclusion of the article, or claiming it was misrepresented? Above you claim that the article was misrepresented. But your actions suggest that you do not believe tis, because you did not edit the passage to make it more accurate, you simply deleted passages referring to the article. You claim that these passages misrepresent the article but they provide direct quotes with page numbers. Are you denying that Lieberman and Jackson state that the MH relies on three assumptions? You deleted that, and a page reference was provided for that. Are you denying that they claim that the sampling was biased? You deleted that, but a page number was provided. Are you denying that they said some people can use the data to support claims of racial difference? You deleted that but a quotation was provided and a page number. It seems obvious to me that you are so intent on pushing your own point of view that you will delete verifiable and reliable sources simply because you do not like them. Above, you wrote that Wikipedia policies are irrelevant to Wikipedia articles. I repeat: you are wrong. Our policies are very relevant. In this case NPOV and NOR. Keep violating them, and people will keep reverting you - not because people do not care. People care about producing a quality, NPOV and well-researched article. We just do not care about providing POV-pushes with space to publicize their own views.Slrubenstein | Talk 02:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

It is looking as though there is only one reference to the article in the paragraph in question, not one for each point. In the AA article it says: "involves the time depth of a million or more years...", yet the current Wiki page says: "...a million years..." (emphasis added). The current Wiki page also says: "Against these assumptions, they argue that regional variations in these features can thus be taken as evidence for long term differences among genus Homo individuals that prefigure different races among present-day Homo sapiens individuals, and do not necessarily support the multi-regional model.", though this argument does not appear anywhere within the article that is cited.
It appears that the article does state that the MR model relies on several assumptions, though these assumptions seem relevant only to the MR model, and do not really serve any function in linking it to the concept of race. It would be better, in my opinion, if this section of the Wiki article did not end up being a place to debate these two theories, and so discussing them in such depth seems unnecessary. Rebuttals made to each theory (OOA and MR) should be placed in the respective Wiki pages. As has been stated, it would be better if there were only a brief explanation of each theory, a summary of how they are related to race, and then relevant links to the more detailed (less controversial) Wiki pages on each theory. This view point, I believe, is also supported by the requests made for the page to be shortened; which all seem well-warranted considering its massivity at the moment. The section, in my opinion, should be formatted:
Multiregional model is... xxx, based on studies in skeletal morphology. Mutliregional model says about race... xxx.
Out of Africa model is... xxx, based on studies in population genetics. Out of Africa model says about race... xxx.
Instead, we see detailed references to evidence regarding these two theories. From the MR side, we see references to fossils and physical features. From the OOA side, we see references to studies in population genetics. Such detailed references are not required, in my opinion, in this article.Esdraelon 05:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

This article is not about MH or OOA, it is about race. And the only reason MH and OOA are in the article is because scientists - such as Liebeman and Jackson - published in prestigious journals have explored the relevance of these models to discussions of race. Let us not put the cart before the horse. In an article on human evolution, MH and OOA would be the horse, but in this article it is race, and the Lieberman and Jackson article (and any other recent article published in a notable journal directly addressing MH and OOA in relation to race). That said, of course Leiberman and Jackson's views on race vis-a-vis models of evolution should be represented accurately. As I said, this is Wikipedia - anyone can edit and while we hopt this leads to general improvement sometimes it leads to signal degredation. I welcome any constructive attempt to help clarify Lieberman and Jackson's views. But anon. user 172 was simply deleting them. And that is flat out wrong. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:08, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Very well, then. I am going to propose a change to the MR section, and if it is acceptable, I will make similar clean up of the OOA. I've gotten rid of most of the MR references to polygenism and the detailed evidence. I've also removed the section dealing with the assumptions of the theory, since that is better to have in the article about MR. Like you said, there is no reason to deal with the cart here in the horse's section. If you both like it, I will do likewise to OOA section. Enjoy.Esdraelon 21:35, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, that was rather immature of you. Could you please explain why you keep saying that if the information is a misrepresentation of the source that the information should be changed, yet when anyone has made such attempts, you change it back? What was wrong with my changes? Can you explain why what is written in the current article is relevant? If you cannot explain why it is relevant, then it needs to be changed. Before you go and change things, you could also offer some insight in the talk pages as to why. Right now, no offence, but you're just acting like a troll.Esdraelon 22:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Now, I think it is only fitting that you leave my edits remain for a few days until we can get more comments on whether they show improvement over the old page or not.Esdraelon 00:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you, Esdraelon in that you have made the topic simpler to understand by proposing removal of the polygenism references. I am no expert in this field and need to be able to follow along with basic premises. Good job. 06:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)(JCL)

I would tend to say that SLRubenstein's version reads and flows better, and is just as accurate, from what I could check in the references. I'm concerned that Esdraelon's version removes explanations needed in this section; the fact that some of it may already exist in another article isn't really good enough, as most readers won't read the other articles to know what they're missing, and comparing both versions, I find that Esdraelon's removes important passages needed for understanding the section. The only caveat I would make would be that I would move the polygenism explanation to a footnote (rather than removing it altogether).--Ramdrake 10:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask if anyone who's commented here has actually read the article in question? And instead of saying "explanations needed in this section", can you explain why they are needed? I value your opinion, but only if you can add some reasoning to your view. I still do not think this should be a place to air out the scientific laundry of these two theories; there are other articles for that. This should tell the nature of the theory, its bigger arguments, and how that all relates to race. The hypotheses, assumptions, specific African exodus dates... all are totally irrelevant other than in the scientific aspects of the theories, which this article is not meant for. Furthermore, the article is so blasted long (even the section in question has been flagged) that it's completely false to state it is more readable the other way; the sliver-sized scroll bar and the endless block of text of this article make it extremely off-putting the way it is. If it's not shortened, you're bound to have even fewer people who even read this article, let alone the others.

"most readers won't read the other articles to know what they're missing" Good. What they're missing has no relevance to the race article. There's lots missing in this article—when was the first Viking conquest? Who's the president?—but to include such things is not justified simply because some readers don't want to have to click their mouse to do further research. If the readers come to learn about race, then that is what should be included. If they want to learn about the science, then there are links plenty for them to do so.

Also, as has been said numerous times: "Against these assumptions, they argue that regional variations in these features can thus be taken as evidence for long term differences among genus Homo individuals that prefigure different races among present-day Homo sapiens individuals, and do not necessarily support the multi-regional model."

This sentence implies that Lieberman and Jackson have argued against these assumptions, though anyone who has read the article can see that that is clearly not the case. If nothing else changes, that sentence must be deleted, as if violates the Wikipedia verifiability rules. Plain, and simple. Esdraelon 16:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


Slrubenstein, I am asking you to please provide argumentation indicating why you keep reverting the article back to its older form. Your argumentation should show that you have read the article in question. Your argumentation should show that you understand the context of the report and can therefore judge relevance of materials. Your argumentation should be in support of the current article version; simply attacking the edits I have suggested does nothing to validate any other versions. Your argumentation should relate to the content of the article, and should not address things such as how it sounds, or how it flows—such superficial details can be dealt with later.
If you cannot come to the discussion and present this information, then I can view your re-edits as nothing more than trolling, no offence. Wikipedia guidelines maintain that you should provide a summary indicating the reasons behind your edits. Please allow the page to remain for some time so that more opinions can be given. Thank you,Esdraelon 21:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think there is some need to differentiate between the two multiregional models. Clearly the modern concept of multiregionalism is different to that accepted in the past. In the past multiregionalism represented the evolution of Homo sapiens independently in different regions, this is what Templeton calls the "candelabra" model. Indeed Templeton points out that the candelabra model for multiregionalism is similar to the RAO model, except that the RAO model posits a very recent migration out of Africa by AMHs, whereas the multiregional candelabra model posits a very ancient migration out of Africa, followed by the evolution of full AMHs independently from H. erectus. The modern multiregional hypothesis (which isn't strictly speaking multiregionalism because it does not propose independent evolution of modernity, but rather treats the whole Hominin population as a single massive interbreeding population with gene flow between these groups continuing over long periods of time) is characterised more as a trellis model by Temleton. I think Templeton's 1998 paper can serve some purpose to clarify here. See Templeton (1998) Human Races:A Genetic and Evolutionary Perspective. [1] Is it clear which model Jackson and Lieberman are referring to? I'm currently plodding through this paper and may have more to say when I get some time to finish reading it. Cheers. Alun 05:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Alun, I encourage you to add the distinction if you have verifiable sources AND if the distinction is relevant to discussions of race. I think Leiberman and Jackson identify MRH mostly with Wolpoff. The key thing is to focus on what if any rlevance these models have to do with race. That is the focus of Lieberman and Jackson. if, after plodding through it, you can improve upon what we have in the article - kudos!! Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


Proposal for renaming

Because "race" in the sense of "social construct" is not the primary definition of "race", readers typing race in the search box should not end up on this page but on the disambiguation page where their first look at the word is not a POV. This would help encyclopedic principals and the principal of least surprise.
Consider this a Call for name change proposals--Tallard 16:54, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Tallard, what do you figure is the primary definition of "race"?--Ramdrake 16:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I may have answered your question at the Wikipedia helpdesk.--Ramdrake 17:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

According to Collins dictionary, 1.race noun, competition, 2.race verb, competition, 3.race human grouping. Yes it important to anthropologists, but the vast majority of wikipedia readers typing «race» want the event, not the humanities :) So we should not artificially impose this anthropoligical debate as the primary definition of the word.--Tallard 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

hahahaha! Okay I think I agree. I was in a foot race last sunday and I was thinking about just this when I was working in the wiki afterwards. BUt then what the hack to we call this page? futurebird 18:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Well because this article is for humans only, we need to distinguish it from any biological sense, and let race on its own be a disambiguation page. Here are some ideas to start:

I prefer this one--Tallard 19:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
How about disambiguating between Race (competition) and Race (anthropology)? It's not obvious to me that one should have unqualified preference to the term, so I would qualify both terms. How about it?--Ramdrake 19:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
That seems very reasonable IMO, with race on its own being disambiguation :)--Tallard 20:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am not convinced that more people come to WP interested in articles on race (competition) than race (category of people). That said, obviously we don't want to mix people up. Currently, the article leads with a link to a disambiguation page. It sounds to me like the solution fo Tallard's concern would be to have "Race" go straight to the disambiguation page. We would need to make no other changes. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

You read my mind! :) --Ramdrake 20:50, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I went ahead boldly and did it.--Ramdrake 21:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I even more boldly changed the name to race (classification of human beings) for three reasons: First, I think this is a more direct and accurate descrition of what the article is about: it is about a concept, race, that is used to classify human beings. It is not about some strictly anthropological concept of race - race is a concept that has ong been studied by anthropologists but it is not an anthropological conept as such. Second, the article does not rely exclusively on anthropological sources. It relies heavily on anthropological sources for obvious reasons, but it also relies on evolutionary biologists, molecular geneticists, historians, and sociologists. Third, one could argue that anthropologists and historians and evolutionary biologists look at race in slightly different ways (I think there is a strong mainstream view shared by scientists, which is why there are vast areas of agreement - but different discipines focus on diffeent questions and apply different methods and in these ways we can say they take specific points of view) - but Wikipdia prohibits POV forks. race = competition versus race = classification of humans is an entirely permissible content fork, but race (social sciences) versus race (natural scientists) vesus race (humanities), or anything like ths, would be a POV fork and against policy. I think "classification of human beings" is clear enough so that anyone interested in this topic will have no problems zeroing in on the right article. Slrubenstein | Talk 01:12, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Agree, I like the new title. futurebird 02:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


I'd like to suggest a slightly different approach. I think we should have two separate articles. One article would be Race (social construct), the other Race (biological). In the first article would be all the information from the current article that deals with race in terms of as a social construct, based on the superficial features such as skin colour, hair colour, etc. and how that has impacted society. In the second article would be race in terms of morphological differences and regional variations, such as average height, skull shape, etc. and how that has altered scientific understandings of race. Then, have a third article Race, that introduces race as being applicable to either, gives a summary of both with links to their main pages, and then concludes with information on how the two ideas relate and have been impacted by one another.

This would help in trying to name an article that deals with somewhat of a topic too wide to pin to one aspect, as well as shortening the current article and solve the length problem. Any takers?Esdraelon 10:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that would be very much a POV fork, at least as applied to humans. There is I believe an article about race (biology) that discusses race as a subspecies concept (but one which is not applicable to humans).--Ramdrake 11:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Definitely agree with Ramdrake, it is a total POV fork and forbidden. We are not talking about two kinds of races, we are talking about two approaches to or understandings of race. inter alia I am not concerned about the length of this article as long as it is properly introduced and clearly organized. Wikipedia is not paper, and while we have an optimal size for articles we shoul dnot be surprised that some are far shorter and others far longer. this is a complex and controversial topic and the article ought to be longer than the optimal. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
"we are talking about two approaches to or understandings of race."
Exactly, we are talking about a biological approach and a sociological approach, which is why they should have two separate articles, with the main race article serving as a connecting device between the two. When biologists talk about race (humans), they are referring to things that are scientifically rooted based on the evolutionary history trend of a particular group of people. When sociologists talk about race, they are talking about stereotypical assumptions people make and groupings they make based on superficial physical/cultural/religious/etc. characteristics. These are two different understandings of race, and to include them in the same article is to confuse the two, and is why this article is so long and messy, and frankly, impossible to read or organise.Esdraelon 12:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the very existence of race as a meaningful biological construct for humans is controversial at best, and actually largely discredited by modern science. There is basically no biological basis for the existence of "races" among humankind, based in part on the fact that genetics has foudn more variation within "races" than between them, and also on a better understanding that the traits by which we usually define "race" tend to have a clinal variation. The best analogy is this: walk from Oslo to Nairobi, and tell me when people stop being "white" and start being "black". You can't, as it's a gradual variation.--Ramdrake 12:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Esdraelon, what you call the "biological approach to race" sociologists of science call a social construction. You seem to think that biologists are not human beings. They are, they belong to society, they have culture, and they are as involved in social constructions as other people. You may reject this point of view but it is a valid point of view and you cannot remove it from the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
according to your line of argument, then, physics must be a social construction because physicists are human? dab (𒁳) 13:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not my line of argument, it is the strong version of the social constructionist argument. And whether yo like it or not, it is a notable view that needs to be included in the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
the "strong version of the subjective constructionist argument" is solipsism, and we don't dedicate a section to that in every article: this would be absurd. dab (𒁳) 16:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Do not change the topic. I am talking about social construction, I did notuse the word "subjective" which is not relevant to this approach, nor am I talking about solipsism. And the argument that races are social constructs is a very important POV. Say whatever you want but it will be represented in this article. Period. You will do nothing to take it out. And do not keep changing the subject, we are talking about this article on this talk page. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
this is a misunderstanding then. I wouldn't dream of disputing that aspects of the notion of "race" include social constructs. There are biological facts, and then there are social constructs involving these facts. The notion of "race" involves both aspects, even though they can be discussed independently. dab (𒁳) 17:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

No way. Total POV fork. Keep it all in one place. futurebird 13:25, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

  • race (anthropology) seems best: this still includes both biologist and sociological approaches. futurebird is right that the two aspects cannot be split as if they were orthogonal: any forking must be by WP:SS (branching out sub-articles), not disambiguation. The current title (classification of human beings) is certainly correct and well intentioned, but it is unwieldy and sounds clumsy. dab (𒁳) 13:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
No, anthropology is one academic discipline; this article draws on research from a varity of disciplines because different disciplines offer different views of the same phenomenon. An article should be on one phenomenon, and include multiple views of that phenomenon. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope, point ov view forks are against policy, and with good reason. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about POV forking

Section break from directly above.

I support dab's motion to, at the very least, chop'n'summarize up the article (hence, the original reason I placed the split tags and article length concerns up on several sections in the first place). Furthermore, I can assure you that my only POV bias on this article is trimming it down, as I'm totally disinterested in the article's subject matter. I mean, not to denigrate other peoples' interests here, but bones, lineages, and race, in general, is boring to me. I'm a computer programmer and a wannabe doctor, and anthropology and sociology is relatively boring to me. But, that's the exact reason why I'm trying to help here.

So, while it might not be worth anything for me to say it, as some people might assume bad faith, I assure you that I could very much care less which point of view is correct or incorrect, but a simple fact remains: less needs to be said about all of them on this page. Check out the Manual of Style entry on summarizing sections and forking them for more info on how this is done.

As it stands, there are a few things we need to keep in mind:

  1. There might be a conflict of interest. Several editors here, judging by some contributions to the talk page and the article in general, may have a vested interest in keeping citations to their works in the most highly-visible locations. This article appears to be a heavily academic article, and, from what I know of the world of academia, things like tenure and citation counts factor in heavily to a researcher's self interest. As such, I would implore all academics involved in editing this article to critically read Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy so that actual work can be done on the article without objections based on perceived devaluing of one's contribution to the field.
  2. The main concerns in forking are article size and accessibility. In my opinion, this trumps neutral point of view policy allegations temporarily, because people can't even be subjected to a neutral (or alleged non-neutral) point of view if they can't even load the page. Don't get me wrong-- I do not support content forking one viewpoint over another, but rather the entire content area of a viewpoint (like "Race in the United States" needs to be forked, but not solely John Doe's research on it). NPOV allegations should more come during the summarizing phase, as it is frequent that the end summary might over-emphasize one field or another, use an inappropriate tone, use weasel words, or any number of other things. However, the actual fork of these huge section blobs of highly-detailed information should not be viewed as a POV-related fork any more than splitting a long paragraph into smaller paragraphs in a novel should be either-- just so long as there isn't clear bias in the forking lines.
  3. There is a main article fixation as some have pointed out. That is, there is a tendency for editors on extremely general, highly-visible topics (like Race) to over-emphasize the importance of highly-detailed minutiae rather than simply summarizing it, making a new page, making a subsection on the parent page, and potentially placing it in an article series. If someone is interested in creating an article series, I'd be more than welcome to get the ball rolling and/or help you out, and I was considering doing it myself anyway once we chop back the main article and the dust settles.

--slakr\ talk / 00:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC) I agree with the concept of chopping down the article for improved readability. Most of the articles are already in existence, all that is required is to summarize and move the content. We could create a race template that shows all the race related articles. Muntuwandi 01:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any issue per se either against splitting out viable sub-articles, as long as all viewpoints are presented on debated issues wherever applicable, i.e., that WP:NPOV is respected throughout. And just as a side note to Slakr, NPOV is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia and as such, far supersedes any concerns of size and even supersedes accessibility. For the record, I would, however, specifically and strongly object to splitting out this article into one of "race is a social construct" and one of "race is a biological construct", as it would be a very obvious POV fork.--Ramdrake 11:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
What are the POV forks? In other words, how do you see it as a POV fork? Also, the article at its current length is unreadable. It would be one thing if it were simply long, but it presents such a wide and detailed aspect of the issue that it's just impossible for any reader to digest. I find the idea of splitting and creating an article series to be terrific, and the best chance of cleaning this article up.Esdraelon 18:24, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Believe me, I totally already know the importance of NPOV (lol), but this is my point exactly. Even I don't have the patience to sift through the article to learn more about it and why particular things might be POV over another (in its current state), because it's hard to even discern between the subjects and what they're all talking about and what biases each might have. Section two is particularly ridiculous in size and incomprehensibility. That's what I'm talking about when I say that NPOV takes a passenger seat to accessibility, because when even potential POV issues can't even be discerned amidst the hodgepodge of information, there's a big problem.
Most importantly, I cannot emphasize this enough: any information removed from this article should be summarized with a link to the new article. That is, I would not argue that this article be dissolved and two new articles be formed. Instead, the goal is to summarize the various divisions (there could easily be more than three-- in fact, there probably will be) into a paragraph or two, then stick the highly detailed information into the new pages, providing a clear link (either through an article series table placed at the top of the page, or simply using {{seealso}} and its relatives.
Again, the goal is not to dissolve this article, only to make it shorter and move important, topic-specific details into their own articles for better and more encyclopedic accessibility.
As a side note, the article titles wouldn't be "race is..." but almost certainly "race as...," as the titles would avoid thesis-like presentation, since I agree, saying "race is" would, no matter what the topic, be POV, much like saying "abortion is (moral|immoral|whatever...)." Thus, I definitely understand concerns about article wording. On the upside, it's easy to change article names by simply moving them, so we shouldn't have to worry too much about the name, so long as we present all relevant viewpoints within the particular article fairly.
Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 20:56, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Article series template

FYI, I went ahead and made a starting point template for an article series using {{Race}}. Feel free to edit accordingly. Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 04:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Major revamp

Since nobody else volunteered to do it, I've made a very bold series of edits to the page. In sum, it took around two straight hours of cutpaste. Basically, I gutted it, moved highly detailed information elsewhere, and summarized it as best as I could. Before knee-jerk reverting, please take a few minutes to look over all of the things I did. I can't really enumerate every edit, but long story short, the page is now in line with WP:ACCESS and should hopefully eliminate nearly all NPOV concerns with this page.

This is by no means a complete/final edit, and everyone is encouraged to help make it better. However, if you do have an objection, instead of reverting and spending the next few months arguing, simply go and fix it yourself (see {{sofixit}} for the gist of what I'm trying to say). I'll summarize what was done:

  • Split all of the anthropological stuff into new article Race debate and left behind what looked like some sort of summary/tie-together. I figured that this was the only way to make the split as neutral as possible. Feel free to edit as necessary, but please keep the specific details in the Race debate article.
  • Merged "marketing of race" section into Race debate article. I wasn't 100% on that one, but I figured it was detailed enough to assume some sort of genetic point of view or something, so I stuck it there. Feel free to move or whatever.
  • Demoted regional sections toward end of page (as general race issues trump local race issues).
  • Sectionified "Race in law enforcement". I don't really know what to do on this one. Neither Racial profiling nor Race and crime really apply, so I considered splitting it into a new article. I'm undecided. Maybe someone else has an idea?

I think that's most of it. Check out the articles, make changes, etc. Again, ideally, use this as a starting point and readd/delete information from here. I selfishly say this because I don't want to have to sift through mounds of text again. :P We're sitting at 57 kilobytes total page size, which is ideal for accessibility. The edges are still a bit rough, but I'm hoping we can smooth it all over, since we've got a lot of bright experts editing this page. In my opinion, with only a small bit of extra work from here, we can get this article back to featured article status.

Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 01:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Its a bold effort, I question the term Race debate and whether the article really reflects a debate, rather than scientific concepts. In principal I am for shortening the article. Muntuwandi 01:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, feel free to change, obviously. I simply fashioned it on Abortion debate. I'm not familiar with all of the points of view with regard to the various theories, so I figured I'd just assume it was some sort of debate *shrug*. :P --slakr\ talk / 02:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Just brainstorming: maybe "Modern race theories"? --slakr\ talk / 02:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Granted that we will not agree on everything, I think you did a pretty good job! Thanks! Just a few points:
The historical definition of race was an immutable and distinct type or species, sharing distinct racial characteristics such as constitution, temperament, and mental abilities. These races were not conceived as being related with each other, but formed a hierarchy of inherent value called the Great Chain of Being with Europeans usually at the top.
The word "race", along with many of the ideas now associated with the term, were products of European imperialism and colonization during the age of exploration. (Smedley 1999)
Classical civilizations from Rome to China tended to invest much more importance in familial or tribal affiliation than with one's physical appearance (Dikötter 1992[Cite]; Goldenberg 2003[Cite]). Ancient Greek and Roman authors also attempted to explain and categorize visible biological differences among peoples known to them.
I think the chronoloy of this account is messed up and needs fixing. I think "th historical definition of race" is vague and vulnerable to being understood in too broad a sense. There is considerable evidence that the Romans did not think of rae as immutable ans as a distinct type or species. This so-called historical definition in fact, fits better with the second (one sentence) paragraph describing the concept of race as it emerged in the 16th-17th centuries.
I think it is espeically important to be clearer about the chronomolgy and the historical framnework within which races were seen as biologically immutable - that period is as the second sentence suggests largely associated with the time of European colonial expansion, but just as importantly, it is before Darwin - because it helps us better understand and perhaps more appropriately name and describe) the "race debate." The race debate is actually two (or three) debates. The first debate was a debate over whether races are biologically immutable among scientists and during the time of the rise of evolutionary theory i.e. a period of major transition - a paradigm shift - in the biological sciences. This debate largely was resolved among scientists with the rise of the modern synthesis (the resolution being, no, races are not biologically immutable). However, this debae continues outside of scientists or at east outside of evolutionary scientists i.e., it may include some scientists who are not specialists in evolution, but it mostly involves a popular audience (so is it the first debate continued, or a second debate?). The other major debate - if we are limiting ourselves to scientists, then the second debate, is not over the meaning of race, but rather over how best to account for biological variation among humans. This second debate is very similar to the first debate and non-specialists can easily be confused by it, which is why i think some people including myself are uncomfortable with the phrase "race debate." it is similar because on both debates people are talking about human biological variation. But it is ultimately fundamentally different for a couple of reasons: (1) in the 19th century debates, race was assumed and accounting for human variaton was a problem that needed explaining. But within the Darwinian framework, biological variation is not a problem at all but indeed normal and desirable. In the Darwinian framework, understanding human variation is ultimately linked to explaining how species - not just subspecies (arguably, race for 19th century biologists = subspecies) but whole species - are mutable and further all related to one another. (2) the first debate (especially in its 20th century popular form) is about the meaning of a word, "race," whereas the secoind debate (20th century scientists) is relatively unconcerned with the word race, let alone its meaning, and rather focuses on mapping human phenotypic and genotypic variation and accounting for it. This is not really a debate for or against race; it is a debate about the relative roles of natural selection and drift, the relationship between environment/geography and phenotype (important in natural selection) and the history of interbreeding populations (important when drift is more salient). IF "race" is a way of talking about immutable groups, this second debate has nothing to do with race. IF "race" is a way of talking about phenotypic variation and mutability, the second debate is related to race. In other words, it is ambiguous, an ambiguity involving semantics, and this ambiguity perhaps could be explained better. Slakr, you have put a lot of good work into it recently and if what I wrte makes sense to you I would invite you to make the changes (and feel free to cut and paste anything I wrote but I think for the sake of consistent style, you should rewrite what i wrote.
My third issue is, I think tht more of the material on the social construction of races - case studies - need to go in because i think these case-studies actually get to theheart of what race is today. So, my initial comments on Slakr's efforts. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Eek. Sorry if I made any errors or misunderstood anything. If you see stuff that needs changing, is incorrect, vague, or otherwise could do with differentness, please definitely change it up. Even if the tone is inconsistent, the more important part is that the information reflects the research/text. For me, it's a whole lot easier to go back and copyedit and correct for manual of style-type things, just so long as the information is correct. :P So, obviously, if there's something that needs changing, I'd rather defer to someone who knows a bunch about the field. I just wanted to get the ball rolling. :D So again, if you find something that needs changing, please change. I'm much more of a fixer-upper anyway. :P Cheers =) --slakr\ talk / 22:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your being bold but I tried my best to improve it and came to the conclusion that we need one omnibus article, see explanation below. If sections of this article should be linked to other sections - on population genetics, on molecular genetics, on the social construction of race - we should not remove content from this article to those. Rather, those articles should go into much more detail and be much broader than what has been written in these articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

let's slow down

I have spent the past month going over all of the various spin-offs of this article and have concluded that while they were very well-intended, it was a big mistake. Race is a controversial topic and we simply have to expect an article to be longer than articles on simple and non-controversial topics (i.e. there cannot be an absolute standard for the length or simplcity of an article; the length and simplicity of an article is an index of the simplicity or complexity of the topic).

I do not think there was sufficient consensus for the split of an article that was fairly stable given the controversy of the topic. Also, some material was lost in the split. In my view, many of the spun-off articles were poorly organized and unclear - i do not say this to disparage Slakr or anyone else, who I am sure had good intentions, I just think that it was a failed experiment; it produced smaller articles at the sacrifice of clarity and quality. Finally, the split could function as a POV fork, providing people with a way to read about material from their own point of view without seeing its relation to other points of views.

I am convinced that the current structure provides the best framework for a high-quality NPOV article on a very complex and controvesial topic. I am trying to add to this article things that were recently added to the spin-off articles that comply with NPOV, V and NOR and hope others will help. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I think splitting the biological information from the "social" information is, mostly likely, a POV fork already. It will only get worse over time. futurebird (talk) 18:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Slrubenstein. This is a very difficult, complicated, controversial topic, and should be in one place to avoid the POV forks that have sprung about. It deserves to be longer, because, heck, it covers the human race! Not branched off into other articles to apply another POV. I don't have the patience to work on this right now though. There has been too much controversy and backlash from all the POV fork articles as it is -- so much so, that I have become disillusioned, and caused myself a poor reputation on Wikipedia as a "disruptive, problematic user". Yes, lets slow down. - Jeeny (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

When you say "race"

When a person says race it can mean one of many things. The "controversy" is over what the "true" meaning of race really is. Hence we can't split these things up--There isn't an academic consensus that there is something called "biological race" and something else called "socially constructed race" rather there is an academic argument where a small minority still supports "biological race" but the majority view race as socially constructed, beyond that, among those who see it as constructed there is another equally important argument about its usefulness in disciplines such as medicine: this is an argument about the usefulness of socially constructed race in medicine. We need to cover all of that in one article and not give the impression that the terms are really split-- they aren't the argument is about if there is a split, by splitting this up we're representing the POV that such a split is possible and makes sense. futurebird (talk) 18:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice analysis. Alun (talk) 20:10, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I don't know if this is where Futurebird was heading, but I think it's dangerous to reduce this debate to a matter of semantics. There are differences of opinion and perception, to be sure, but there is a little light that science can shed on the matter, too. Preconceptions and reactions to race are definitely social, subjective, and fluid, but claims about race can sometimes be made testable, and judged against the evidence (in which case they invariably end up getting convicted). When we say that "there is more physical variation within large human populations than between them", this isn't just semantics. It's factual, it's scientific, and it's biological. My fear is that reducing the discussion simply to a he-said-she-said "different people have different ideas about what race should be" might obscure the important fact that many people have believed, and still believe, in notions of "race" that cannot be. FilipeS (talk) 20:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes we definitely need biological research here. The biological research done into human variation generally contradicts concepts of racialism. Indeed racialists have started to cling to the fig leaf of clustering analyses, even though these analyses are really about how a very tiny amount of variation is distributed. Currently the problem is more about how to sample human populations in an unbiased way. The HGDP has had all sorts of problems due to it's insistence on sampling by "ethnic group", which has produced biased results. If we include a balanced discussion of clinality, clustering and gene sharing between groups then the reader can make an informed decision about how human variation is distributed. On that note I have just done a big revamp of the clustering section and the lineage section, these almost certainly need copy editing (I found it quite challenging and much of the info may need further clarification). I have tried to keep all of the relevant info in the section, while removing redundant text and adding further relevant information. On another note we probably need to have a section about haplotypes. There has been quite a lot of work recently on this subject and it is relevant to genetic variation. Especially interesting is a paper about a specific segment of DNA on the X chromosome. I'll have to have a bit of a read about it and see what is pertinent. I'm glad this article is back together again, it makes much more sense to keep it all together. Cheers, Alun (talk) 09:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
In other words, clustering studies don't confirm your silly fantasies, so you must find some way, how "to sample human populations in an unbiased way" and get politically correct results. A brief look at world's populations could tell you that except some intermediate mixed groups, the racial areas are not touched by any significant gene flow from other racial areas, so the racial clusters will always be clearly separated and your hopes are futile. But you can't obviously use common sense, because you don't have any. 82.100.61.114 (talk) 03:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"A brief look" - and that is your "scientific method?" Hah hah!! You must be joking. Clustering studies are very clearly about a small amount of information. That is no fantasy. I don't know what you mean by adding the word "politically" - correct results are correct results and this article needs to avoid original research and report accurately, even if it disturbs your view of the world, based, as it is, on only a "brief look" at all the populations of the whole world. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Your only "advantage" in this dispute is your ignorance of human interracial differences. You probably think that all racial differences are limited to skin color, hair form or the form of the nose. If you knew something about anthropology, you would know that even groups that show to be very similar in clustering studies represent the largest physiological opposites documented on Earth (e.g. West Africans x Nilotes). Since I have studied this topic for many years, I know how large these differences are in muscle development, muscle distribution (or even muscle type!), bone structure and density, hormone levels, hemoglobine concentration, lung capacity, fat distribution, and the whole body structure - from body widths to body lengths. (And I could continue even further, if I were interested in other physiological differences.) You can't imagine, how incredibly comical you are with your claims about "very tiny differences". Many of the PC clowns refuting the race concept are well-aware how large these differences are - e.g. Mr. Loring Brace - but they want to swim with the PC current and claim the exact opposite of what they find in their studies.
The debate isn't about if human races exist - such debates are appropriate only for lunatic asylums - , but how to find the best way to classify human beings - what groups can be classified as "main/great races", what can be classified as racial subgroups, what are intermediate/mixed groups. The clustering studies don't differ much from the classification of traditional anthropology, but they are certainly more accurate and markedly improve our understanding of human genetic differences. We should only wait for a detailed study of populations in Sub-Saharan Africa and South-East Asia, where the situation will be "more complex" than in Eurasia and America with their relatively simple Caucasoid/Mongoloid/Native American division. Centrum99 (talk) 21:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
SLR, may I respectfully suggest that you do not feed the troll?--Ramdrake (talk) 13:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
You are quite right! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I am a "troll"? And who are you? It is a disgrace for Wikipedia that a page about human races is filled with obsolete, discredited science of certain "scientists" with political agenda.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/222389599v1?ijkey=f3uGSmr3wB0r
http://www.goodrumj.com/Edwards.pdf
The whole page is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, clearly reflecting the fact that it is edited by two groups of people, who can't come to an agreement. The desperate attempt of Serre and Paabo to "blur" Rosenberg's clusters was already convincingly refuted by Rosenberg et al. in 2005:
http://genetics.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pgen.0010070
I wonder, why someone can't understand that populations that have been separated for 45 000 years and mixed in peripheral regions only during recent thousands of years (but mostly only during recent centuries), still must make up distinct clusters? Perphaps a lack of basic school education?
Why does the article state that "'Race' is a legitimate taxonomic concept that works for chimpanzees but does not apply to humans", when the preceding paragraph shows that human autosomal variation (0.06-0.10) is moderate in comparison with other mammals and thus sufficient for racial classification? Correct me, if I am wrong - I am not a geneticist - but didn't Cavalli-Sforza (1994) show that autosomal Fst in humans can be as high as 0.43 between Pygmies Mbuti and Australian Aborigines? Not speaking about that the variation in cranial morphology in humans and great apes is comparable. 82.100.61.114 (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The desperate attempt of Serre and Paabo to "blur" Rosenberg's clusters was already convincingly refuted by Rosenberg et al. in 2005:
That'd be the 2005 paper in which Rosenberg et al. state: Serre and Pääbo argue that human genetic diversity consists of clines of variation in allele frequencies. We agree and had commented on this issue in our original paper ([3], p. 2382): “In several populations, individuals had partial membership in multiple clusters, with similar membership coefficients for most individuals. These populations might reflect continuous gradations across regions or admixture of neighboring groups.” So it's not a refutation at all, they agree with Serre and Pääbo. Have you actually read what Rosenberg et al. actually wrote in 2005? You link to this paper above, but it does not support your claim at all.
Well, now you showed that I should find better ways, how to spend my time than talking to a wall. 82.100.61.114 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • The whole page is full of inconsistencies and contradictions, clearly reflecting the fact that it is edited by two groups of people, who can't come to an agreement.
Or possibly it simply reflects the fact that all points of view are given? This is a requirement of Wikipedia as per the neutral point of view policy. What you are actually saying is that this paper conforms to one of Wikipedia's core policies. That'd be called a compliment normally.
The quotes in the article are grouped in such a way that it makes no sense. How can you counterbalance an argument by another argument that is based on nothing or on obsolete science that is no more valid and refuted by the previous argument? What about if you had a page about Planet Earth and you would list "opinions" of medieval scientists that Earth is the center of the Universe and Sun moves around it? Would it be maximally objective for Wikipedia? 82.100.61.114 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I wonder, why someone can't understand....
Wikipedia is not the place for personal opinion, this is not a blog, nor a chatroom, nor a forum. Keep this about the article, the article needs to reflect all points of view, the fact that you only want it to have a single point of view displays both a bias and a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policy on your part. Alun (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
As for "a single point of view", I observe it very frequently here on Wikipedia. What about the page about Franz Boas? Despite his clownish science, he is portrayed as a genius of anthropology, while Carleton Coon is almost depicted as Hitler's court racial advisor and his opinions are simply refuted by a hint at the "work of Franz Boas, Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, Leonard Lieberman and others", whose opinions are, curiously, taken as an undisputable truth here without the need of listing other scientists' points of view.
All the fuss around Boas' "cranial plasticity" actually only concerns skeletal changes that occured in European immigrants in America (and later in Europeans theirselves) as a consequence of improved nutrition during the 20th century. The harsh conditions during the medieval "Little Ice Age" caused a decrease of body height coupled with brachycephalization (decrease of cranial index). What we observe today is nothing more or less than a return on the genetically determined level. So, for example, Czech men "plasticly" increased their body height from 167 to 180 cm and cranial index from 85 to 80% during the past century, but I would guess that even genius Boas didn't think that one day in the future all people in Europe will have the same cranial index and the same body height. Improved nutrition didn't help Southern Europeans to markedly increase their body height over 175 cm, as well as it didn't help Japanese, one of the richest nations in the world, to increase body height more than on 171 cm (and their high cranial index doesn't change - well, it has actually increased!). 82.100.61.114 (talk) 16:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree that this article is laughable as it is. Races are extended families. What in that statement is so difficult for the modern average Joe to understand? I wonder... In any case, now someone needs to bother to look for and find a couple of good sources that make this statement while perhaps even elaborating on the implications of it, and then that someone can proceed to make at least some improvements to this article.
"Races are extended families"... wonderful revisionism! FilipeS (talk) 13:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
Of course, the desperate comrades present here on Wikipedia dig every obsolete quotation to counterbalance the growing evidence against their silly fabrications, and fill the article with unnecessary ballast, which creates a true mess of it. They even nonsensically want to define race as species (because only species can't mix and hence they can create "non-overlapping zones"). Why don't they list the recent study of Bastos-Rodriguez (2006) showing how well the quotation of Serre and Pääbo about "the absence of strong continental clustering in the human gene pool" reflects the reality? Centrum99 (talk) 01:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
Please see wikipedia is not a saop box. We are here to represent all points of view. Thanks. Alun (talk) 22:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
But the views must be based on some solid facts. The article quotes obsolete science that could be cited 10-15 years ago, but now it is not valid anymore! This makes the whole article unnecessarily messy. But still, in comparison with the parodic article on CITIZENDIUM, WIKIPEDIA is the model of objectivity! Centrum99 (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
No, articles must be based on information that is verifiable. That is a policy, it is a core policy and clearly states that wikipedia is based on verifiability not truth. When we verify things we do so from reliable sources. If we verify from reliable sources then we need to also take note of neutrality, so that we ensure that all relevant points of view are given, but we need to remember not to give undue weight to some points of view, which means that tiny minority points of view do not need to be mentioned. In addition to all of this we need to make sure that we do not include original research. Wikipedia is not here to promote your or my point of view, but published points of view, this needs to be the case or we cannot verify them properly. No matter what you personally think, these are the core values of Wikipedia, if you cannot accept them then I can only conclude that you are in the wrong place. This talk page is not here to discuss the validity of the concept of "race" as a biological reality, it is here to discuss the article and the article needs to discuss what "race" is in different contexts. The validity of human genetic variation is not some sort of coup de grâce as you seem to be implying, and I know of no reliable source that claims that this information invalidates all previous published academic thought on the subject. Even if you can provide a reliable source that makes this claim, then we certainly can cite it in the article, but it does not mean that we should ignore all other published work, that would not be encyclopaedic. These core policies and guidelines are fundamental to editing Wikipeda, you do not seem to understand them in the least, nor do you seem to be prepared to follow them. You seem to think that the article should give only a single point of view, i.e. your point of view. That's never going to happen and insulting people is just going to get you blocked, especially if you continue to make overtly racist comments like this and this. Alun (talk) 21:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Dear Wobble, you can't probably understand that I wonder, why these "published points of view" are not strictly listed on some pages like e.g. that about Carleton Coon. Here, the PC view of race seems to be proven without doubt. Interesting. You naturally have a right to list all the PC babble, but I remarked that an excessive number of such unnecessary, obsolete quotations made the article needlessly messy. Note please, that I have never made any changes in the article on my own. I only came with criticism and suggestions on this discussion forum. For example, the whole paragraph starting "It has also been noted that:" could be erased without any loss of objectivity and important information. If you think that it is necessary, so let it there; it will become outdated soon or later anyway.
And as for Gypsies, I forgive you the blatant insult of all decent people in Central Europe because of your obvious unfamiliarity with Central European realities. Centrum99 (talk) 01:50, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:DNFTT Slrubenstein | Talk 19:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

What about some arguments, dear Mr. Rubenstein? What if we talked a little about racial differences in humans? I suppoose you are virtually loaded with knowledge! Centrum99 (talk) 03:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Splitting article into smaller articles

Hello all. I would like to suggest splitting this article into smaller articles. As you can see, the article size for this article is currently at 163 KB, which is quite a big size. I think many of the sections can be split into a separate article.

Yes, although some of the sections have a 'See Also:...' and 'Main article:...', I feel more sections can also follow suit. Seeing that this article is substantially long, it would be a better idea for the sections to have its own article, so that the article size can be reduced.

Thank you. Angcr (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Slakr did just that and there was a strong consensus that noble effort though it was it did not work. This is a great article on a very controvesial and complex topic and we just need to accept that complex and controverisal topics require longer articles Slrubenstein | Talk 22:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thank you for your comments. Angcr (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Angcr. This article is impossibly long--no one could read this in a single sitting--and in dire need of some WP:SS. I may do some cutting down here and there soon. Calliopejen1 (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

yes! the article weighs an insane 163k. It needs to be trimmed dramatically. Try to review it for redundancy. What is left over should be branched to sub-articles per WP:SS whenever possible. This article should not be more than a collection of concise summaries of dedicated sub-articles. It is an old fallacy that "complex and controverisal topics require longer articles". that's simply not the case. Or Universe would be an article of several gigabytes. this edit was a step in the right direction, but it isn't nearly enough. dab (𒁳) 14:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Dbachmann, there was already an attempt to split this article into sub-articles, and the result was the creation of several quite undesirable POV-forks. If you have suggestions as to how to trim down this article without creating POV forks, please feel free to present them. However, given the controversial nature of this subject, it might be best to discuss any major changes to the article here before making them.--Ramdrake (talk) 17:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:SS says it all: pov-forks have nothing to do with it. There is really no alternative to that, because obviously the whole topic cannot be treated in a single page. There is nothing controversial about this suggestion. The difficult part is of course how exactly to do it: a clean ToC is needed, with unambiguous scopes for sub-articles. A summary-style article needs stable sub-articles it can summarize. Disputes should be settled at the talkpages of the respective sub-articles first. Come on, it cannot be that difficult to give a sane and coherent account of "race", other encyclopedias manage it as well. In any case, a monster article such as we have at present is useless. Any reduction will be an improvement. The actual danger of WP:CFORK arises when we have a full {{main}} article and a lengthy section here: viz., the same material is treated at length both here and at the sub-article. This leads to redundancy, and is a nightmare to maintain. dab (𒁳) 18:10, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Articles on complex and controversial topics will be longer than the average. Remember, Wikipedia is not paper, and a good TOC helps guide people to the sections they care most about. That said, I would not be opposed to edditing and creating sub-articles but I think we ought to have some discussion about how best to do it before actually cuting and moving - given how disasterous the last well-intentioned effort was. And I agree with Ramdrake, strongly: POV forks must be avoided, period. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:58, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
POV forks must be avoided, period. Which is why we are blanking material treated here which is also covered at sub-articles: Covering the same stuff here and in the sub-article constitutes a content fork, which is only a small step away from a pov fork (it becomes a pov fork as soon as one version is edited but not the other. Avoid POV forks, remove content covered elsewhere. Glad we agree on this. dab (𒁳) 12:19, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

An article can be split into several subarticles without POV forks of the sort "Race (scientific)" versus "Race (social)" versus "Race (animals)" versus "Race (19th century scientific racism)" versus "Race (my aunt Ethel's opinion)". Just make the main article a very short summary of the main issues, concepts, and perspectives to take into account. As a model, I suggest taking a look at the Gender article. Initially, some users wanted to make it just about Grammatical gender. Others seemed to have a certain bias to make it purely social. See what it looks like now. FilipeS (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Felipe, dividing an article into one subaticle on aunt Ethel's view, and another subarticle on another view, and so on, is by definition POV-forking. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you understood my point. I'm saying you don't have to do that. FilipeS (talk) 21:59, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My apologies ... I am tired. Perhaps it would be productive if you said a bit more about how the Gender articles could be a model for how to handle this one ? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me think about this more carefully. But I just want to add that I am worried about the splits I see at Race currently. I don't think it should be a disambiguation article. Race (classification of human beings), Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Race and genetics, Historical definitions of race, Race (biology), Scientific racism and Social interpretations of race (the latter two got lost already) should not be treated as disconnected articles. They are different, but related notions — sometimes confounded notions. There should be one common "omnibus" article that linked to all of them, and had brief summaries of what each one is, how they developed historically, how they relate to each other, how they differ from each other, and what they may teach us about folk notions of race and the race concept in general. The Gender article does this. It explains where the word came from, how it was originally used, how its meaning has changed with history, which different meanings it has today in several sciences and fields... Just summaries, with a link to the main articles about each "gender" notion. Granted, "race" is going to be a lot harder to tidy up than "gender". FilipeS (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

can everybody please review WP:SS before continuing this debate? It's not about content forking, it is precisely about avoiding content forks. This article is too long. It has sub-articles, such as Race and ethnicity in the United States Census. Seeing we have a full Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, we can only have a brief summary of the topic here. Keeping a lengthy discussion of Race and ethnicity in the United States Census here is, by definition, a content fork. We don't want that. I have no opinion on the actual content, but the detailed discussion must be kept at Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, with only a brief summary kept here, both for reasons of article length and of WP:CFORK. This is what WP:SS tells you. Avoid content forks, do not keep more than a brief summary here. This is what we have been trying to do. Disputes on actual content have nothing to do with it. People reverting these edits are obviously suffering from a bad case of Wikipedia:Main article fixation. thanks, dab (𒁳) 12:25, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that having subarticles is not a POV-fork. In fact, that's obvious, I'm not sure why you even brought it up. Nevertheless, the current form of the article Race is not very good, and care needs to be taken not to create POV forks when moving what is currently at Race (classification of human beings) to other articles. FilipeS (talk) 13:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up because Slrubenstein right above nearly had a fit at the suggestion, implying that "main article" means "pov fork". Obviously, when we export material to the sub-articles (which already exist, and are already linked), we might find that some material is in contradiction to what is already there. Viz., we might find that we already have "pov forks" as the situation currently stands, and we will then be able to clean it up. Realizing we have contradictions is not the same as creating them. Indeed, since the article at its current length is practically unreadable, I will not be surprised if we should discover that we used to have "pov forks" all along, as we clean it up into something more accessible. dab (𒁳) 15:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any really good arguments in favour of shortening this article. Ok so it's very long, but so what? Besides it's not that long, it can probably be read from beginning to end in ten to twenty minutes. So it is much longer than the recommended article length, so what? I don't understand the obsession with conforming to the letter of any and all recomendations, guidelines etc. The only hard and fast rules are those regarding neutrality, verifiability and no original research, all else are guidelines, recomendations and essays. There is no authority here, and recomendations and guidelines should be taken as just that, not treated as hard and fast rules. This is a very contentious subject with a great deal of material and many different povs, to produce anything worthwhile is always going to lead to a very long article. So what's the motivation behind this push to gut the article of any detail? I'm struggling to believe that shortening the article will improve it, it is a very weak argument. I can't believe that anyone could ever feel strongly about something as superficial as the article being too long, whereas of course some people are going to feel strongly if they feel a great deal of the important material here is shunted off into obscure side articles never to be read again, for purely cosmetic reasons. People come here to read about "race", the more information we cut, the less good their understanding is going to be. So Wikipedia works by consensus, here we have an article that, though far from perfect, is relatively stable, to make big changes we need to have a very strong consensus in favour in my opinion. If we're in a situation where there's no real supermajority in favour of a big change, then I think we really have to keep it as it is. In a contentious article, big changes are going to be contentious and there's no real "killer" argument in favour of a change. Alun (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"People come here to read about "race", the more information we cut, the less good their understanding is going to be." - this sums it up, for me. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Not true. The more information we cut, the less they stop reading before they get to the end! This is supposed to be an overview - that is what an encyclopedia is for. I studied this topic and I can't read through the whole thing. Readers are going to slog through the article to about, uh, Subspecies as isolated differentiated populations, and not read the last 2/3. And the content here is repetitive beyond belief. I tried to summarize the race in the United States section, because it's already and Race in the United States (where it should be, because the US view is only one view of many of what race is) but was summarily reverted. I may start an RFC on this if I don't see improvement soon, because I think outsiders' opinion would be that this, like every other article, should follow WP:SIZE. Calliopejen1 (talk) 23:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I think an RfC is a bit premature, but it may be useful. Remember Wikipedia works by consensus. I don't have a problem per se with your observation that the article is very long and difficult to read. My problem lies with the fact that this is a contentious subject which is not easily summarised. The question arises "is it always possible to condense contentious articles so they conform to some artificial concept of "too long"?" What is very long for some articles may in fact be a relatively good summary for other articles. Anyone really interested in covering the vast depth and breadth of this subject will always have to plough through a great deal of information. What is covered in this article is already a very abridged synopsis of the subject at hand. My concern is to get consensus before we make drastic changes. Make specific proposals here on the talk page first and let's discuss the changes before making any. I suspect we can abridge much of the genetic material, there is a long discussion of why molecular lineages are important, we may be able to discuss what molecular lineages are in another article and just make reference to them here, for example, leaving the reader to go and find out what Y chromosome and mtDNA lineages actually are for themselves. I'm more than happy to work towards a consensus and am in no way taking an absolutist approach. Sorry if I implied I was. Cheers. Alun (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

I haven't participated much in this article and don't really plan to since it seems to be in great shape. I am concerned about this statement though which User:Slrubenstein re-verted:

"Stephan Palmie has responded to Abu el-Haj's claim that genetic lineages make possible a new, politically, economically, and socially benign notion of race and racial difference..."

I've read all the information from Abu el-Haj in the paragraphs prior to this one and there is no statement at all about a "politically, economically, and socially benign notion of race and racial difference". This statement sounds like POV does it not ? Epf (talk) 04:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a POV. It is Stephan Palmie's POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Epf, the article is in pretty good shape. Just a reminder Epf that NPOV doesn't mean no point of view, it means neutral point of view. Palmie's point of view is relevant if he constitutes a reliable source, we should of course include other different points of view to make the article neutral. It seems to me that you are confusing what Abu el-Haj said with Palmie's opinion of what this implies. Cheers. Alun (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't the concept of race in direct disagreement with the Bible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.153.49.41 (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge / rearange?

What is the difference between this page and Historical definitions of race or what is the point of having a seperate article for that if this article has a history section bigger than the other article?--89.212.75.6 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that page should just be a basic resource, a compendium of definitions, whereas this article whould explain the history. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Questionable sources

Hi everybody, a proposal has been made to ease our current restrictions on the use of questionable sources. I think editors here might have a useful viewpoint on this proposal. See Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_(human_categorization)/Archive_26&oldid=808299494"