Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 35

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30 ← Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35

Hilarity

"Wagner et al. (2017) surveyed 3,286 American anthropologists' views on race and genetics, including both cultural and biological anthropologists. They found a consensus among them that biological races do not exist in humans, but that race does exist insofar as the social experiences of members of different races can have significant effects on health.[154]"

Races do not exist, but social experiences can have effects on health! That's maybe the best article of ridiculousness I have ever read. Different races of people have different illnesses, need different doses of medications, and have propensities for certain things. Otherwise, humans are the only animal that is exempt from laws of nature. Historiaantiqua (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

There is broad consensus across the social and biological sciences that groups of humans typically referred to as races are not very different from one another. Two individuals from the same race could have more genetic variation between them than individuals from different races. Race is therefore not a particularly useful category to use when searching for the genetics of biological traits or even medical vulnerabilities, despite widespread assumptions.[1] Generalrelative (talk) 17:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
Diet effects health. Housing effects health. Stress from discrimination effects health. All of these things are effected by social experiences. None of this should be surprising, unless you ignore, or misrepresent, what "social construct" actually means. Per Race and health (and Race and health in the United States) the idea that races need "different does of medication" is mostly obsolete and has probably lead to more deaths than it has prevented. Grayfell (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The article doesn't simply say that, it only puts the relation between the two factors into perspective. Alvalade XXI (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC) (Striking sockpuppet comment.) Generalrelative (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
"Two individuals from the same race could have more genetic variation between them than individuals from different races." Erika Check Hayden Certainly not on racial distinctive characteristics. Alvalade XXI (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC) (Striking sockpuppet comment.) Generalrelative (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
To be clear: Hayden makes no mention of racial distinctive characteristics as Alvalade XXI appears to suggest. <–– Note that this comment refers to their statement before they altered it and attempted to delete my reply: [2] Generalrelative (talk) 16:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Because it was unnecessary, given that I've corrected my edit and the wrong impression my edit left. Alvalade XXI (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC) (Striking sockpuppet comment.) Generalrelative (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
We have guidelines and norms here that you must follow. See WP:TALK and WP:VANDALISM. Generalrelative (talk) 17:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
"There is broad consensus across the social and biological sciences..." That's one person saying that there's a consensus. I find it hard to believe there's a consensus among biologists regarding her taxonomically ignorant claims. Among sociologists, perhaps. We shouldn't be referencing sociologists and journalists for biological claims. Yes Hayden makes no mention of taxonomically distinct characteristics which taxonomy is informative for, and instead focuses on noise in junk DNA. Perhaps this is why we should reference biologists rather than journalists. Redundant Farmhand (talk) 11:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC) (Striking sockpuppet comment.) Generalrelative (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
No, we summarize reliable sources, and many sources support this consensus, including biologists. WP:OR is not helpful, and dancing around picking sources which you, personally, think would agree with you would be cherry-picking. Grayfell (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
I think this hypocrisy and WP:OWN needs to be reviewed. Redundant Farmhand (talk) 09:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC) (Striking sockpuppet comment.) Generalrelative (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits

@Rsk6400: can you please clarify why you reverted my edits? Naturally, I made the edits because I think they were constructive.

For example:

  • The quote from Eduardo Bonilla-Silva is out of place (and undue weight), as it discusses his personal views on racism, while the rest of the section addresses various academic fields' views on race.
  • The discussion of law enforcement in the "Defining race" section is out of place and unhelpful, as there is already a law enforcement section that discusses this issue at length.
  • Listing the years of birth and death for all researchers mentioned in the Sociology section is inconsistent with the rest of the article, and also I believe inconsistent with Wikipedia MoS more generally.
  • She defines it further as "a system that locks people not only behind actual bars in actual prisons, but also behind virtual bars and virtual walls", illustrating the second-class citizenship that is imposed on a disproportionate number of people of color, specifically African-Americans. - this sentence violates WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE, as the rest of the paragraph explains the material just fine with more neutral and encyclopedic language. Furthermore, this entire paragraph is arguably off-topic and better suited for another article such as Race and crime in the United States; the section covers the "Political and practical uses" of race, whereas this paragraph is discussing racial inequalities.
  • The paragraph covering the IPV study is very poorly written, confusing, and again I would argue is off-topic. It discusses a racial bias, which is different than "Political and practical uses" of race, and is already well-covered in more relevant articles such as Race and crime in the United States.

Thanks! Stonkaments (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@Stonkaments: Thanks for taking this to talk.
  • Bonilla-Silva is a professor for sociology. So what he publishes in a scientific book is not his "personal views", but the result of his research. The discussion about race is still being heavily influenced by racism, so a quote about racism is not off topic here. But I agree that it was in the wrong place, so I moved it to the sociology section.
  • Some people realize that they are "different" in a racial sense because they experience different treatment by the police. To give a cynical definition: Black people are those people who experience that their lifes don't matter. And that definition of race is very relevant for some societies, including the U.S.
  • In a historical overview the dates of birth and death help the reader to get a first idea of the period the writing of a certain sociologist refers to.
  • A quote doesn't have to be neutral, but has to be presented in a neutral way. Race is a social construct (I hope you know that), and so talking about "second-class citizenship" is not out of place here.
  • Racial bias is the only "political and practical" use of a concept that sees race as a biological reality. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:59, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I still don't see how his quote is notable or representative of the field of sociology. And again, it makes no mention of race specifically, and as such should not be included here. Maybe you can find a better quote that speaks more directly to your claim about the discussion of race being heavily influenced by racism?
  • That is a very idiosyncratic definition of race, and would need to be supported by sources. As it is currently written, the section makes no mention of law enforcement playing a role in defining race, only using race for racial profiling. Which, as I mentioned, belongs in the later section on "Political and practical uses".
  • Maybe the section can be re-written to include relevant time periods in the prose itself? All of the dates in parentheses are jarring and distracting, and doesn't fit well with the rest of the article.
  • Race can be both biologically real and socially constructed. But I fail to see how that relates to, or justifies, the quote and claim (in wikivoice) in question: "illustrating the second-class citizenship that is imposed on a disproportionate number of people of color, specifically African-Americans."
  • The article already identifies other uses of race—in biomedicine, law enforcement, and forensic anthropology. Are you suggesting these are all invalid? It still seems like a stretch to call racial bias a "political or practical use" of race. Racial bias is a much broader issue, and there are already detailed articles on racial discrimination, scientific racism, race and crime in the United States where the issue is covered in depth. Stonkaments (talk) 03:16, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
This has all been discussed many, many times before. This is one reason the article has 36 pages of archives.
Sources do not really support the notion that race is "both" a social construct and biological reality. At the very least, these things are not easily comparable, so this is not informative. The application of "race" to biomedicine, law enforcement, and forensic anthropology are obsolete for various overlapping reasons, and are therefor treated by sources as intensely controversial. In each of these cases, "race" is used out of a combination of inertia, convenience, and pseudoscience. Race is a social construct which only loosely correlates with biological traits. This doesn't mean that race isn't ever used in these fields, but it does mean we cannot present them in simple terms as being biologically legitimate. This is consensus based on many past discussions, and per WP:FRINGE. Grayfell (talk) 04:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
(ec) Thanks to Grayfell for stating this perfectly. There is no need to relitigate these issues. Anyone who is genuinely skeptical about the scientific consensus can refer to this 2013 statement in Nature:
There is broad consensus across the social and biological sciences that groups of humans typically referred to as races are not very different from one another. Two individuals from the same race could have more genetic variation between them than individuals from different races. Race is therefore not a particularly useful category to use when searching for the genetics of biological traits or even medical vulnerabilities, despite widespread assumptions. Most researchers who examine genetic differences between populations take care to point out that the differences they observe reflect the geographic origins, reproductive history and migrations of these groups, not markers of some essential differences between them.[3]
For a more recent comment on the limitations of using "race" in biomedicine, see: [4] Generalrelative (talk) 05:35, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The biology vs social construct argument is tangential to any of my edits, and I never claimed that the various uses of "race" mean it is biologically legitimate or argued for presenting them as such. Nevertheless, the article itself provides many sources that do in fact support the notion that race is potentially "both" a social construct and biological reality. For example:
  • In 2000, philosopher Robin Andreasen proposed that cladistics might be used to categorize human races biologically, and that races can be both biologically real and socially constructed.
  • "Race differences are objectively ascertainable biological phenomena"
  • Some biologists argue that racial categories correlate with biological traits
As such, I disagree with the attempts here (and elsewhere) to minimize this viewpoint as WP:FRINGE, as well as any claims that there is a scientific consensus that says race is only a social construct. Stonkaments (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
@Stonkaments: See my comment just above (we were typing at the same time). You've pointed out some points where WP:FRINGE may need to be removed or qualified within this article, rather than demonstrated that these views aren't WP:FRINGE. When Nature says there's a consensus, Wikipedia follows suit. Generalrelative (talk) 05:40, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
The article provides a fuller context for Dobzhansky's quote: "Race differences are objectively ascertainable biological phenomena ... but it does not follow that racially distinct populations must be given racial (or subspecific) labels." Also, Dobzhansky died in 1975, so his views are obviously not representative of modern consensus. As for Robin Andreasen's paper from 2000, the rest of the relevant paragraph explains the issues with this claim in greater detail. For "Some biologists argue..." citing an article from 2004, correlation was never in dispute, so this misrepresents the issue. Grayfell (talk) 06:48, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it's clearly both. Some race concepts are not strictly biological e.g. one-drop rule, others such as the ancestry concept developed by Blumenbach and in regular use among medics today is a biological construct. We could also look at Dawkins (a biologist not a sociologist) more recently
This is Edwards's point, and he reasons as follows. However small the racial partition of total variation may be, if such racial characteristics as there are highly correlated with other racial characteristics, they are by definition informative, and therefore of taxonomic significance.
There isn't a consensus among biologists, editors here are simply trying to censor opposing views. Redundant Farmhand (talk) 08:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC) (Striking sockpuppet comment) Generalrelative (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
As I previously said, these things are not easily comparable, so it is not informative to say that it is "both". Blumenbach is historically important. His categories, in a modern context, are pseudoscience. As Race and health explains, there are many, many serious problems with the use of "race" in medicine. Racism causes discrimination, poverty, and redlining, which in turn cause many health issues, dietary issues, and environmental health issues across generations. Any correlation of these problems with musty pseudoscience cannot be taken at face value, and that these categories are still sometimes used by "medics" or in niche research doesn't make them any less pseudoscientific. Grayfell (talk) 09:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the Grayfell opinion that ancestry clusters are pseudoscience. The medical field doesn't seem to agree with you.[5] Racism may indeed be a factor. Does it then follow that unevenly distributed genetics is not a factor? Of course not. And how is your claim that racism causes health disparities (clearly not always the case) relevant to whether the concept should be used in medicine? If racism is causing health disparities, surely that's all the more reason to use the concept to investigate it? How do you even know this is the case without using the concept? Redundant Farmhand (talk) 09:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC) (Striking sockpuppet comment) Generalrelative (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Grayfell referred you to the article where your questions are answered: Race and health. No one is under any obligation to explain this to you further if you do not make the effort to ask informed questions. Generalrelative (talk) 16:13, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Race before modernity

The article is quite weak concerning the concept of race before modern race theories. I think it would benefit from having a look at Geraldine Heng's "The Invention of Race in the European Middle Ages". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4B00:848B:7B00:3285:A9FF:FEF6:24CD (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

That's a fairly recent (2018) book and you would have to show that its ideas have been received significant attention from experts in the field. TFD (talk) 19:57, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes they can't put in what the people who developed race actually said because it would contradict the narrative. Redundant Farmhand (talk) 08:45, 13 February 2021 (UTC) (Striking sockpuppet comment) Generalrelative (talk) 15:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

reference to ideological paper

In the beginning of article

"Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.[2]"

is reference to poorly accepted papers? It seems that this sentence also confuse modern science with critical race theory (ideology).

Article is locked so I can't correct it by my self. It would be great if someone with edit rights could correct it.

Cheers!188.147.41.138 (talk) 20:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done Most of the twenty-odd references of the lede say more or less the same. So there is no need to "correct it". --Rsk6400 (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

First of all: please do not remove my answers just to silence crtiticism, its quite rude and made your argument even weaker. I repeat my arguments here in redacted form. I don't think that quantity is good way to assess if something is true or false. I understand that some editors are members of critical social justice group and fans of critical "everything" theory. It doesn't make their ideology true or science. If this article should represent how critical race theorists define word "race" name of article should be corrected accordingly. Race is biological phenomena and work in exactly same way for earth worms, dogs or humans. You (some authors of this article) are confusing yourself and others by redefining this simple word. In result you only help true racists, right wing extremists and other harmful groups by making good arguments (like: humans race is irrelevant for most useful aspects of our life) weak and easy to debunk. Pietrasagh (talk) 12:50, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that quantity is good way to assess if something is true or false. Given the standards by which we do our sourcing, what you are saying here is functionally identical to "I don't think that agreement between the majority of the experts in a subject that X is true is evidence that X is true." If that is, indeed, what you are suggesting, then you really have no business even reading Wikipedia, as the project is at ideological odds with your own views on epistemology.
You are wrong - this is not what I'm saying. Don't interpret what I write, just read it. English is not my first language and is bit clunky, sorry. I know what scientific consensus is and more less Wikipedia rules. Please don't tell what I have business to read or not. You are in no way in position to say anything like this.Pietrasagh (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
If this article should represent how critical race theorists define word "race" name of article should be corrected accordingly. I don't think you understand CRT, because this article is not based in it, in any meaningful way. CRT is an academic movement and theory about how to address racism from a legal and systemic focus, whereas this article is a description of the concept of human race. This article is DE-scriptive, whereas CRT is PRO-scriptive. In addition, CRT is based on legal scholarship, sociology and psychology. This article is based primarily in biology, history and cultural anthropology.
Race is biological phenomena and work in exactly same way for earth worms, dogs or humans.[citation needed]
I know one can't cite Wikipedia article as source but have you seen Race (biology)? Are you suggesting that humans have some special place in animal kingdom and biological taxonomy doesn't apply to Us?Pietrasagh (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
You (some authors of this article) are confusing yourself and others by redefining this simple word. Wikipedia's policy on No Original Research is well-adhered to, here. If you had bothered to read the references used in this article, you would see that this is so. We are not re-defining anything, but rather using the definition agreed upon by the preponderance of reliable sources.
In result you only help true racists, right wing extremists and other harmful groups by making good arguments (like: humans race is irrelevant for most useful aspects of our life) weak and easy to debunk. That's utterly nonsensical, for starters; an article which suggests that race is a biologically meaningless construct supports the 'good argument' you used as an example. But more importantly, it's irrelevant. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not social justice. If some facts undermine social justice efforts, that is not our concern.
If you can compile a list of reliable sources that support your views on human race, you are free to present them here for discussion. But arguments such as you are making are -if pursued far enough- likely to only result in you being subjected to sanctions, such as a topic ban or even being blocked from editing.
My advice to you is this: Read the sources in the article. Then go out and find more sources, and read those. Get to know the subject, and more importantly, maintain a list of those sources that helped you get to know it. Ideally, you will use our standards for deciding which sources to use. After you understand it a bit better and have a good grasp of what the experts believe, and a list of sources, return here and look for things you can do to improve the article. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Ban or block? Really? Are you trying to threaten me already, after two small posts in talk page? Wow... Pietrasagh (talk) 17:56, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
First off, please don't edit other's comments, even to insert your own. It disrupts the flow of conversation.
Second, I was giving you advice, as someone with significantly more experience editing WP than you. I've seen literally dozens (if not hundreds) of editors insist upon pursuing argumentation on the talk page in place of well-sourced arguments, and they almost inevitably end up blocked or topic banned. Especially when they edit in areas like this, where motivated bad-faith actors are known to make concerted efforts to conform Wikipedia to their worldview. See WP:NONAZIS for an essay about this subject. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I totally agree with MPants at work, and would like to suggest reading WP:PROFRINGE in addition to WP:NONAZIS. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Pietrasagh: If the IP 188.147.41.138 was you, why did you tell us Article is locked so I can't correct it by my self ? You are autoconfirmed. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Rsk6400: Yes you are right: this article is semi-protected. I can edit it when I'm logged in. I was browsing on mobile and got confused by padlock symbols.Pietrasagh (talk) 17:16, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

@Pietrasagh: I'm responding to your comment above down here to avoid further disrupting the flow of MPants's comment. You asked: I know one can't cite Wikipedia article as source but have you seen Race (biology)? Are you suggesting that humans have some special place in animal kingdom and biological taxonomy doesn't apply to Us? I'm glad that you brought this up because it's really the key to understanding where you went wrong here. What's confusing is that biologists use the term "race" in a very different way from how the word is used when referring to groups of human beings. For biologists, "race" is an informal synonym for subspecies, and all living human populations belong to the same subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. (Yes, some biologists use the term to denote a level below subspecies, but as Race (biology) emphasizes, in this usage the term is not governed by any of the formal codes of biological nomenclature.) So humans are not any kind of exception to the rules of taxonomy; we just happen to be a remarkably genetically homogenous species. This is discussed with references you can explore at Race_(human_categorization)#Subspecies. I hope this is helpful. Generalrelative (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to add a wholehearted endorsement of this comment, and go on to point out that it might be reasonably argued that there once were different races of humans; Homo Sapiens Sapiens, Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis Homo Sapiens Denisova and possibly Homo Sapiens Floresiensis (though they're usually considered a different species of of the Homo genus). But all of those other races have died off, a fact which -when combined with the demonstrable lack of magic- firmly establishing that the genre of real life is post-apocalyptic fantasy. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:11, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Nicholas Wade

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Nicholas Wade. Generalrelative (talk) 13:51, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

There is now a formal RfC at this talk page: Talk:Nicholas Wade#RfC about suggested statement. You are invited to participate. Generalrelative (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Who We Are and How We Got Here

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Who We Are and How We Got Here. Generalrelative (talk) 16:05, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Revise the opening line of the first paragraph

The opening line of a post or paragraph sets the tone for what is to follow. "A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities..." is a false statement, one that is later challenged just 3 sentences later. By opening this post with such an inflammatory and false statement the author is setting the tone for a biased and non-objective post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyphudson (talk • contribs) 12:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:02, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
This is not acceptable discourse. It's rude & flippant. I went ahead and changed the sentence due to WP:COMMONSENSE primarily and to a lesser degree due to WP:TERTIARY. I just thought I'd leave a comment here highlighting this comment because it presents you as a risk for engaging in activist edit warring. Hopefully I'm wrong. WikiScholar12 (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, no. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:03, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's contradicted. A race is a grouping based on shared physical or social qualities; the precise ways in which we define and delimit those groupings are determined by rules made by society - they're not metaphysical categories, nor are the groupings made according to some rigorous scientific process - but they're still groupings based on a combination of physical and social qualities. --Aquillion (talk) 18:44, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
    I'm wondering if this article wouldn't benefit from an FAQ. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:36, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Race can be predicted with high accuracy by an algorithm looking at DNA. That seems pretty rigorous and scientific to me. And since racial categories are based on geographic location they're just as scientific as any other taxonomic class Jone951 (talk) 14:21, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

No, ethnicity can be predicted with high accuracy by looking at DNA. A person can look at my DNA and conclude with confidence that I have many, recent native American ancestors (ethnicity). A person looking at my face, however, would rightly conclude that I am white (race). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:11, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
"The differences between copies of the human genome are very small, but tend to cluster in different populations. So, despite the fact that low inter-population differentiation does not support a biological definition of races[emphasis mine] statistical methods are nonetheless claimed to be able to predict successfully the population of origin of a DNA sample […] although the tests themselves are reliable, the interpretations are unreliable and strongly influenced by cultural and other social forces."
Source: Mark A. Joblinga, Rita Rasteiroa, Jon H. Wettona: In the blood: the myth and reality of genetic markers of identity. doi:10.1080/01419870.2016.1105990. For more, read the whole paper. Rgds ⌘ 15:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why there should be a problem. The lead sentence is fine, but some people like to confuse race with populations or ethnicities. MjolnirPants, I totally agree with you. --Rsk6400 (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I think the first sentence is okay because it says "generally viewed as distinct by society." It's not being reported as a scientific thing, but rather as a societal thing. But I wonder if readers won't be confused when contrasting it with the first sentence of the racism article, which says, "Racism is the scientifically false belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another." The words "a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities" from this article is like "groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance" from the racism article. There is an "and" in the first sentence of the racism article for the second part, so that probably helps. But, still, "scientifically false" is in the first sentence. It was recently added by Johncdraper, and I don't think it helps. It's unsourced and just sounds confrontational. I know the editor didn't mean it to be pointy, but it comes across that way. It would be like going to the misogyny article and adding "unfounded"or "very unfounded" to the first sentence so that it reads: "Misogyny (/mɪˈsɒdʒɪni/) is the unfounded hatred or contempt for women or girls." 77.240.240.223 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
That racism is inherently scientifically false worldview is not unsourced. It's the UN position as described in the article, and it's the position of pretty much every social scientist, e.g., anthropologist and sociologist, for instance, the AAA Statement. My concern is that not emphasizing this aspect of the definition, which interestingly in the case of the Chauvinism article is emphasized in the source article, leads some readers to interpret that Wikipedia is endorsing that racism is scientifically justifiable. This, in fact, is what happened over at the Chauvinism article, where some vandals attacked the page on the grounds that chauvinism was a virtue and justified in the case of the United States, with the vandals arguing that the US was a superior nation, with superior citizens. Hope this helps. Johncdraper (talk) 13:04, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Johncdraper, I understand that you were coming from a good place by adding "scientifically false", but almost all sources on the topic, including the first four in the racism article, get by just fine defining racism without saying that. Let's not treat readers like they're dumb and spoon-feed them. We don't say, for example, Saddam Hussein was evil or a very bad person in the first sentence, or ever. We give readers enough information, reporting on what he did and what is generally said about what he did, so that they can understand for themselves that he was an awful person. Wikipedia shouldn't sound like it's preaching or telling readers how to think even when the topic is morally reprehensible. It goes without saying that racism is bad and is most commonly thought to be without merit. And I think the racism lead following the first sentence does a decent job of informing readers of that. No rational person would think Wikipedia endorses racism as scientifically justifiable because it doesn't say "scientifically false" in the first sentence. But if no one has a problem with your edit, you can just ignore me. 77.240.240.223 (talk) 14:21, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
This discussion should occur over at the Racism entry. I'll see you there. Johncdraper (talk) 14:24, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

How can race not be based on genetics or geography when the term is clearly derived from the taxonomic class "race"? And now ethnicity is not just cultural but genetic too? I've always seen race and ethnicity like nature and nurture, genes and memes, but then again I'm just a lay person, not a well-read authority from the sociology department like y'all. Jone951 (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Because people in the past were wrong (willfully or not). Cheers ⌘ 22:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it not both necessary and sufficient to have African heritage in order to be considered black? And is the same not true for western European heritage and being white? For THE two races, it is on obvious that genetic heritage is the determining factor. So, again, how can you say race is not genetic or geographical? Jone951 (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

"social" is a superfluous descriptor of groups of people

"A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct by society": it should say "cultural", not "social" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.152.85 (talk) 20:57, July 22, 2021 (UTC)

  • Not quite. Historically and even in current times, people who endorse racial categorizations frequently ascribe social (not cultural) qualities to those groupings. For example, according to most white supremacists, Europeans (or "whites") are industrious warrior-poets, Africans are lazy savages, Asians are intellectual tinkerers, and Jews are manipulative schemers. None of those are cultural qualities (or true). Such people frequently claim these social qualities are the result of culture, but nonetheless almost invariably assign them to individuals of a given race, regardless of the culture that individual lives and engages in. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:38, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Well then, MjolnirPants, if that which you're describing is what we want to convey to the reader, I might suggest that a word other than ' social' be used. You are correct that 'cultural' would be the wrong word in that context, but while 'social' is not wrong, it can have several different meanings that can lead to confusion (as evidenced by this very discussion, mistaken for the meaning of 'social' that has strong ties to and overlaps with 'cultural'). Perhaps 'behavioural' would be a better word, or 'socio-behavioural' (I think that's a real word lol). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:7DDD:EE89:DF7C:30BA (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

Clines

"Overall about 16.2% of the variation in the genetic distances (FST) could be attributed to pre-historical divergence alone, whereas only 5.2% of the variation in genetic distances could be attributed to IBD. In other words, spatial patterns in genetic distances are much better explained by differences between groups of populations than by similarity among adjacent local populations within these groups."[6]

This is a high quality source which seems to settle some of the claims in the "clines" section. It should be added to the article. Apologies for not writing that, but I assumed it was obvious. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 10:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

You are aware that this paper is a nice illustration for the fact that the concept of human races is totally obsolete in anthropology? No mention of any racial categories to be found there. So why should we add it here? –Austronesier (talk) 16:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Population is the modern synonym. Regardless there's material there that doesn't use the word "race", for example the map about skin color and blood group B being clinal, so it's a double-standard to exclude material on the more significant fact that genetic similarity is largely non-clinal. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
No, 'population' isn't a synonym for 'race'. Go peddle your ridiculous cherry-picked WP:OR somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This is lawyering. We have one source saying variation is clinal and discordant looking at two traits ("cherry picking" indeed), then another high quality source establishing it's largely non-clinal looking at the whole genome, and you want to exclude the second source because they don't use the word "race", and to include demonstrably incorrect material based on a technicality. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:40, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I have no intention in engaging in any further discussion with someone who clearly neither understands Wikipedia policy, the subject matter of this article, or the subject of the paper he has cited. This is not a forum, and nothing you have cited has any bearing, under Wikipedia policy, to an article on a subject it doesn't discuss. If you persist in abusing this talk page, I may consider reporting the matter, and asking that you be topic-banned. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:45, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Please go ahead and report the matter. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:54, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Race_(human_categorization).

"Considered untenable"

Now that this sockpuppet has been blocked, there doesn't seem to be anything to discuss here. Generalrelative (talk) 17:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

In the "views over time" section we read "The concept of race classification in physical anthropology lost credibility around the 1960s and is now considered untenable." But then right under this we see no international scientific consensus at all for this. The nine or so individuals of the American Association of Physical Anthroplogists diversity committee do not dictate scientific consensus. Perhaps it should be qualified with "by some American anthropologists". Alan B. Samuels (talk) 14:20, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read the article on the American Association of Biological Anthropologists before making comments about them. --Rsk6400 (talk) 15:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I was commenting about their diversity commiytee, which does not speak for all members of American anthropology. If it did, my point would still stand. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Rsk6400's suggestion was a good one. I'd suggest you then read WP:MEDRS for good measure. Statements issued by relevant scientific organizations and professional societies are among the most reliable sources possible, according to this Wikipedia guideline. I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that cultural anthropologists are social scientists with a reputation for having a research epistemology that is closer to the level of humanities, whereas biological anthropologists are simply biologists who study human beings (in the same way an entomologist is a biologist who studies insects). If we need to know something about the biology of human beings, these are the relevant experts. Generalrelative (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The statement was issued by their diversity committee without membership voting. Regardless of getting into the weeds about the diversity of views in American academia, why are people here dodging my point that the scientific community extends beyond the US border? Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:04, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
You're confidently incorrect here, and you just have to click through to the statement to see it: The statement was unanimously accepted by the AABA Executive Committee at its meeting on March 27, 2019 at the 88th Annual Meeting in Cleveland, Ohio. [7] As to why we consider this representative, again, see WP:MEDRS, specifically the section WP:MEDORG. No one is arguing that science doesn't extend beyond the U.S. border. Generalrelative (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
By the executive committee[8] then. Still not evidence of a consensus. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from what's currently in the section, the line about physical anthropology is sourced and uncontested. Later parts of the section do not appear to contradict it, as they are not specific to physical/biological anthropology. Firefangledfeathers 15:37, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
That's simply incorrect. Just read the section. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I am having trouble finding any contradictions. Could you point me toward any lines that discuss support for the idea of race classification specifically in physical/biological anthropology? I see a minority viewpoint from Gill (which likely is afforded undue weight) and that's it. Firefangledfeathers 16:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure I could, but the source is just about American physical anthropology, so to start we should put in the word American. Current text is unsourced. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't have access to the cited source, A companion to Biological Anthropology, do you? I see that it there's a quote provided in the reference that supports the statement, and it doesn't mention restriction to just American physical anthropologists. Firefangledfeathers 16:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Strkalj[9] shows biological anthropologists in China which includes physical anthropologists have a total consensus that race is a valid concept. I think that carries more weight than some cherry picked context free assertion. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:43, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Reading the chapter the source is clear that there is no consensus. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Has anyone read A companion to Biological Anthropology yet? Surely a minimum requirement to editing here is reading the sources? Alan B. Samuels (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
The article should probably read 'now considered untenable by almost every academically-qualified expert on the matter concerned'. Because that's the reality of the situation. The idea that 'race' is an objective biological classification is simply no longer even worth debating by mainstream academia. It is a bad idea from history, and wasn't even 'science' at the time, though sadly it took a long time to recognise it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a forum to state your opinion or rather imagination. Surveys showing alternate opinions are right in the section. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a forum to state your opinion or rather imagination. Yes, precisely. Now drop the WP:STICK. Generalrelative (talk) 15:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Woah watch your civility. You basically just told me to shut up, without even addressing my point. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:06, 22 November 2021 (UTC)


From A companion to Biological Anthropology:

Another significant event was the controversy over Carleton Coon’s book on The Origin of Races (1962). In it he asserted that there were five races – Congoid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Capoid, and Australoid – and that all of them, evolved as they were from Homo erectus, had crossed the threshold to Homo sapiens, but some had developed into our modern species earlier than others. This assertion caused a storm of controversy. As Relethford (2010) observed, the book was data-rich and detailed, but the evolutionary model was weak and not well defined. Stimulated by the controversy over Coon’s book, several papers were published in the international journal Current Anthropology by established evolutionary scientists and physical anthropologists (Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, Loring Brace, Juan Comas, and Frank Livingstone) who argued for and against the concept of race as a biological unit of study. In some cases the older concept of a fixed race was conflated with a more recent view of race-as-population, which confused some of the arguments. Controversies over race did not end in the 1960s. They continue up to the present, but there is a general sense in physical anthropology that the earlier use of race as a unit of study or as a conceptual unit is no longer viable and that this transition came in the 1960s (Harrison 1998; Brace 2005).

Bold is mine. WP:NPOV requires that articles fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. The language in this source is clear that controversy exists and if we deem this source to be reliable, we are obligated to mention that controversy, if only briefly. MarshallKe (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

MarshallKe's quotation only confirms that the current article duly presents the general sense in physical anthropology, which is what WP:SUMMARY demands. Note that none of the continuing controversies are even specified in the source they've quoted. All it's actually saying is that controversies over race continue. We don't need a source to tell us that, per WP:BLUE. Generalrelative (talk) 00:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that's probably fair reasoning, and considering that in the lede it already says that some scientists continue to use the classification, I am fine with leaving the text in question unchanged and I just wanted to do some prodding in this discussion because I noticed stonewalling behavior against the original contributor. There are several sources cited in the lede that back up the "untenable" wording and I'm not sure why they are not cited in the Anthropology section. Maybe that should be improved but I'm fine with leaving it. MarshallKe (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I think the analogy you're looking for is having a source saying the sky is blue and writing the sky is green. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:01, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
You can't leave the text unchanged because it's not supported by the source. You also can't drop the source and cherry pick sources which match it per NPOV. From NPOV: "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." Alan B. Samuels (talk) 13:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
So I'm going to go ahead and make the text match the source. Consensus can't override NPOV. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 15:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Your edit does not bring the text into line with the source, and consensus certainly overrides your personal interpretation of NPOV, so please stop edit warring about this. – Joe (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The source is clear there is no consensus, so "now considered untenable" is wrong. I'm really at a loss at how you could look at that text and think that was a fair interpretation. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
It really isn't. It says the opposite. If there is something about that particular wording that confuses you, there are dozens of other sources in the reference list (not to mention Google) that say the same thing. But everybody else seems to be able to understand this one, and we're under no obligation to hold your hand through it. – Joe (talk) 16:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I can't think of any way how you can paraphrase "there is a general sense" with "some" rather than as an overall wide consensus. –Austronesier (talk) 16:20, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Are we really going to have to look up "general" in a dictionary? Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
How about "The concept of race classification in physical anthropology developed controversy around the 1960s and there is now a general sense that it is not viable." I realize that this may be a US centric formulation that needs some tweeking but it closely matches the source. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 16:53, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Reverted with "weasel words use the talk page". Yes I am here on the talk page, and you are not. What are the "weasel words"? It's the same words in the source. Odd that people here are slow to use the talk page, and quick to revert, while of course lecturing others to "use the talk page". An editor above mentioned stonewalling. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 19:30, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Alan B. Samuels: You clearly do not have consensus for changes to this statement. When nobody responds to your latest proposed wording, you should not interpret that as agreement, but a sign that we're tired of explaining the same things to you. – Joe (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I appreciate that concensus among the the committee or even physical anthropologists as a whole does not necessarily mean that there is scientific consensus. But the Companion says, "there is a general sense in physical anthropology." That means there is a scientific consensus since the biological classification of humans by race is a matter of physical anthropology. Similarly if we say there is a consensus in astrophysics that black holes exist or in biology for evolution, it means that is the scienfific consensus. TFD (talk) 19:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree, but this discussion (or more accurately, one pointy newcomer) is also focusing too narrowly on that single source. Per WP:LEADREF, statements in the lead summarise points made (and referenced) in the body of the article. In this case, we have multiple sections and dozens of reference that amply demonstrate that race as has been firmly rejected across all relevant scientific disciplines. – Joe (talk) 10:16, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
The source doesn't say there's a consensus, it says there's a general sense. There is a general sense in biology that evolution is correct. There is a general sense in astrophysics that black holes exist. General sense doesn't mean consensus. And Joe there are dozens of sources that don't reject race as a concept. Please don't cherry pick to support a POV. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 10:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Of course, there are dozens of sources that don't reject race. But there are thousands that do. Read our guidelines and policies, and stop promoting fringe theories. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:18, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it may be helpful to assemble a list of sources. Alan B. Samuels (talk) 13:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

I've struck the sockpuppet comments above. Generalrelative (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

External link

I have found a website about races (Human Phenotypes), but I do not know whether Wikipedia will accept it. תיל"ם (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The answer of WP:RS is absolutely unambiguous: No. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A review of The Emperor’s New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium, by Joseph L. Graves, Jr

[10] Doug Weller talk 17:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A categorization into categories?

In early December of last year, Cygnis insignis changed the first sentence. It said, "A race is a grouping of humans based on shared physical or social qualities into categories generally viewed as distinct within a given society." Now, where "grouping" used to be, "categorization" resides. A "categorization" into "categories" seems like a poor choice of words to me. It's strange repetition. I suggest using "grouping" again or a different word. SangdXurWan (talk) 03:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Hm, good point. I'd suggest it would be smoother to change out the second instance instead: "into categories" –> "into groups". I'll go ahead and WP:BOLDly do that, and if there's disagreement we can continue to discuss. Generalrelative (talk) 03:17, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aubreydosky.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bilogical Classification

I believe this sentence needs to be reworded: "The first to challenge the concept of race on empirical grounds were the anthropologists Franz Boas, who provided evidence of phenotypic plasticity due to environmental factors". All mammals have phenotypical plasticity. Perhaps someone should a quotation of how humans have more plasticity than other mammals which warrants phenotypic variance not being a valid measure of grouping?

"Human genetic variation is predominantly within races, continuous, and complex in structure, which is inconsistent with the concept of genetic human races." something should be added to qualify this sentence as well. Fixation levels are not generally used for taxonomical groupings between species or sub-species. If they were, it would give more credence to those who are not race-deniers. Patten wrote, on the science of philosophy of subspecies, "We might rephrase our definition of ‘‘subspecies’’ to emphasize that the term refers to ‘‘heritable geographic variation in phenotype.’ [1] This is interesting on a number of levels. One important one being that many bird subspecies have fixation levels lower than human races (how Lewontin tried to prove races did not exist based on old data). And that humans are even more heterozygous than many other mammals. [2] These mammals, such as the gray wolf, pumas, bighorn sheep, lynx, etc. Genetic clustering shows clear separations. [3] And if the lines we draw are somewhat arbitrary, the same can be said of other taxonomical groupings, like sub-species. [4]Weagesdf (talk) 10:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277568527_Subspecies_and_the_philosophy_of_science
  2. ^ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19695787/
  3. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/
  4. ^ https://academic.oup.com/sysbio/article-abstract/2/3/97/1674750

|}

Social Constructions

This is not a forum for advocacy for debunked theories. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The social construction section is not clear. Perusing the archive, the question does not seem to be answered as to the purpose of race being labeled a social construction. Basically all taxonomical groupings can be considered weak social constructions, whether it is a species or a rock formation.[1] The rhetoric that seems to want to be placed here is rather that human races do not have the biological underpinnings as something like a species would, thus making a human race invalid. This calls into question whether a human race should be judged based on the same criteria as a species, or even a subspecies (which is probably meant for race and society).

The section sounds like it is claiming (or trying to lead people to believe) that a human race goes by a stronger form of social constructionism ("it's like just a social construct man"). As if people do not automatically group people based on race. As if infants could not group discriminate based on race/ethnicity.[2] Whether we come from the USA, Japan, Nigeria, or any connected place in the world, people see the same overall groupings. As you are more isolated, smaller differences become larger (eg. Akan and Ewe). The fact remains that even though race is socially constructed (as basically all taxonomical groupings... I don't know, perhaps not prime numbers?), it has biological underpinnings. We have phenotypical differences. We have 50,000 years+ of separation between major groups. We have more interpopulational genetic variance than intrapopulational genetic variance (thank Lewontin's fallacy for even having to say that). Weagesdf (talk) 10:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read at least some of the sources given in the article before starting that boring discussion again. WP is based on reliable sources, not on your original reasoning. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:50, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Nothing I said here is based on my original reasoning (I think. I'm not quite sure what you mean by "original reasoning."). The Gordon source is nearly 300 pages with no reference to the page or chapter. That second paragraph in general should be redone or removed as it is largely unrelated to the section.
The first paragraph "...historians, cultural anthropologists and other social scientists re-conceptualized the term "race" as a cultural category or social construct, i.e., a way among many possible ways in which a society chooses to divide its members into categories." does not define how they are using the term social construct. As I said before, the gist of the section makes it sound as if the reader should assume that human races are strong social constructions. You can see this throughout the paragraphs (" "Race is a social concept. It's not a scientific one.,"Palmié has argued that race "is not a thing but a social relation"," " "race is something that happens, rather than something that is."). There is no mention to the fact that at the very least, phenotypical differences are necessary to account for our pretty mutual understandings across the globe concerning race/ethnicity.
Linking to the Wiki article on social constructionism is not helpful in this case. Sokal and also Woolger and Pawluch[3] had pertinent things to say about the use of these terms. Saying it is a social construction is not very useful. A species is a social construct.
I can't access the Craig Venter citation on paragraph three. It is also more suited to the genetic variations section. This paragraph is more about contrasting a human race with something like a species rather than explaining how and the relevance of human race being a social construction. In addition, it is partially an example of the continuum fallacy.
I am paywalled by the next citation in the fourth paragraph. But the quote from the next citation that is a continuation of Palmie, "a human invention whose criteria for differentiation are neither universal nor fixed but have always been used to manage difference." Again does not seem useful, as the criteria for species is neither universal nor fixed. It again brings us back to the question of what interpretation of social construction is being used, which would alleviate concerns for it being a weak form of social constructionism that would also apply to species.
I think the problems here could probably be alleviated if the first paragraph was a sort of defining of how and why social constructionism/ivsm is used here.Weagesdf (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
So does anyone know why the section on social construction is on this Wiki article? Maybe that section should be removed to make the article more clear? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weagesdf (talk • contribs) 08:21, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
The section is there because it is sourced, and directly concerns the subject of the article. We don't remove content because some random contributor either can't understand it, or disagrees with it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't seem that anyone here can understand it. Why isn't the form of social constructionism defined in the article? Linking to the Wiki article about it is not very helpful, as there are a number of different interpretations given. Weagesdf (talk) 09:19, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
It might be necessary, in order to be charitable, to express at the beginning that it is a weak form of social constructionism employed by the sources. A stronger form of social construction would not make sense. If people did not classify race according to "any" inherent biological structures, then how are infants able to discriminate between race/ethnicity? This has been known for a while, and Hacking even wrote of how essentialism, citing Hirschfeld who, from experimental data, argues that children have innate dispositions to sort people according to race. [4] Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).[5] Weagesdf (talk) 10:29, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

External link

I have found a website about races (The Society for Nordish Physical Anthropology), but I do not know whether Wikipedia will accept it. תיל"ם (talk) 10:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The website seems to be promoting a grossly-dated perspective, and is of no utility whatsoever to any reader wanting to understand the subject of this article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Global population estimates

I know different people draw different racial classification boundaries on population spectrums (and that some consider all people to be of the same race) and identities differ from country to country and not all collect statistics on race and that there are people of mixed race, but there must be some researchers who took a certain model of different races and ran with it and come up with a ballpark estimate of how many people of those different races there are in the world? -- Beland (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe. The question would then become whether they were WP:DUE for inclusion. If only WP:PROFRINGE researchers conduct such studies (on the assumption that race has some kind of objective, cross-cultural validity), then any discussion of their work would have to conform with WP:FRIND. Generalrelative (talk) 19:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Any inclusion of such data even from WP:FRIND sources will be WP:undue and only serve to turn this article into something that some people would like to have on WP, viz. a source of information about human "biological races" as if there was any scientific validity behind the meritless concept. –Austronesier (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Austronesier, I don't think we disagree in principle. I'd just interpret WP:FRIND (along with WP:DUE) to be one of the operative reasons why we would not allow such content on WP. Generalrelative (talk) 19:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced sentence

Under "defining race", the following prose can be found:

In some countries, law enforcement uses race to profile suspects. This use of racial categories is frequently criticized for perpetuating an outmoded understanding of human biological variation, and promoting stereotypes.

I believe this should be moved to the more relevant "Law Enforcement" section 107.202.75.102 (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Darwin and religion

New to this but I've just finished reading "Darwin's Sacred Cause" which seems a solid work, which leads me to two comments:

  • first--the article ignores the significant role of religion in developing and reinforcing concepts of race.
  • second--specifically "Polygenism versus Monogenism" isn't much more than a list of supporters of polygenism with no attention given to monogenism. I think it could be improved by framing it along these lines: "As anthropology became more scientific and less dominated by the thinkers with religious backrgounds, it faced the problem of reconciling Biblical accounts of the descent from Adam (monogenism) with the apparent diversity of humans around the world. Prominent supporters of the polygenic theory included [current text]:.... Although the polygenists seemed to be winning the argument in the mid 1800's, Darwin's Origin of Species" marked a change in the debate, leading to the eventual domination of monogenism." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bharshaw (talk • contribs) 19:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

T 1845/11 (Asian race/MERCK SERONO) of 26.11.2015 - Decision of the European Patent Office

I think this appeal decision should be mentioned somewhere in the Race article.

In essence, the term "Asian race" was found to be unclear by the Board of Appeal.

[1] https://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t111845eu1.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.73.25.204 (talk) 11:22, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an interesting piece of anecdotal information, but it should appear in a secondary source before we can cite it here. Anyway, there's no dearth of quality sources which explain that the category of human races (which is still perpetuated as a social construct, predominantly in countries with a longstanding segregationist history) has no evidential base in biology. –Austronesier (talk) 11:17, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Gichoya et al. 2022

This new Lancet article finds that races (Black, White and Asian) are more than just "social constructs": https://www.thelancet.com/journals/landig/article/PIIS2589-7500(22)00063-2/fulltext Please help incorporate it into the article.--Pakbelang (talk) 10:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

How so, when the authors explicitly write: "In this modelling study, we defined race as a social, political, and legal construct that relates to the interaction between external perceptions (ie, “how do others see me?”) and self-identification, and specifically make use of self-reported race of patients in all of our experiments. We variously use the terms race and racial identity to refer to this construct throughout this study" ?? Be assured, the Lancet will not that easily promote fringe views. –Austronesier (talk) 11:00, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
The ability of an AI to recognise the social categories that it was trained by humans to recognise in no way invalidates the social construct theory. Regardless, this is a primary source and shouldn't be incorporated into the article when we have a wealth of secondary sources to draw on. – Joe (talk) 07:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Pakbelang that the reputably published Lancet article helps stir the conversation away from rhetorical nonsense and towards the objective reality of non-discrete biogeographical clusters (which generally correspond to socially recognized racial classification or self-identified geographical ancestry). I also agree that the reputably published Lancet article should definitely be incorporated. That I could not find any mention of artificial intelligence on the page was very surprising to me. The article would benefit from a section dedicated entirely to the inference of human geographical ancestry (as non-discrete categories) from visual information which now includes medical imaging, and which is an active field of research highly relevant to science and engineering. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena talk 22:34, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that our article isn't about AI, there is nothing surprising about AI not being discussed. And furthermore, the Lancet article cited above says nothing to support the existence of 'non-discrete biogeographical clusters'. That isn't the subject of the study, and the authors make it perfectly clear both what they are investigating, e.g. "we defined race as a social, political, and legal construct that relates to the interaction between external perceptions (ie, “how do others see me?”) and self-identification, and specifically make use of self-reported race of patients in all of our experiments", and what they are not describing, e.g. "Race... often incorrectly conflated with biological concepts (eg, genetic ancestry)". AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Can you provide a quote from the Lancet article that actually supports the idea of an objective reality of non-discrete biogeographical clusters? We have already given one that indicates the contrary. The "inference" you are talking about is simply not made in paper, unless wilfully misread into it. The fact that AI can reproduce things that humans do (including irrational decisions) doesn't mean these things are meaningful categories in evidence-based science. –Austronesier (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

While they generally correspond (Rosenberg et al, 2002; Bamshad et al, 2004; Jorde & Wooding, 2004; Tishkoff & Kidd, 2004) and as the reputably published Lancet article highlights, I believe it can be important not to conflate (i.e. combine into one) genetic ancestry and self-reported human geographical ancestry also referred to (in the article in particular) as race (e.g. Asian). It's impressive that evidence-based science (or objective reality, as described in the reputably published Lancet article) supports that biological images contain "model decipherable information related to racial identity". Clearly in this instance (unless one completely lacks common sense), ascribing a purely socially constructed (or irrational) character to things that humans do (rather than "more a social construct than a biological construct", which is the more balanced view the reputably published article espouses) is rhetorical nonsense. I suppose I could agree that instead of a section in the present 'Race (human categorization)' article, a separate Wikipedia article solely dedicated to 'Race (machine classification)' may be more appropriate and would help leave out rhetorical nonsense. Thank you for all feedback (above). C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena talk 01:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you ever read Wikipedia:No original research? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
In case the inquiry was not rhetorical, I added references supporting the previous introductory statement. As pertains more directly to improvement of the present article, you can let me know if you support adding a 'Race classification algorithms' section or if you support the creation of a separate Wikipedia article solely dedicated to 'Race (machine classification)'. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena talk 01:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
No. And No. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Concealing evidence-based science relevant to the present article without justification does not seem appropriate or consistent with a neutral point of view. Current talk page discussion objections to the addition of any content (including secondary sources) relating to race classification algorithms (both supervised and unsupervised by humans; the vast majority of which are centered on the topic of race and unconcerned with healthcare or medical imaging, the reputably published Lancet article representing a notable and relevant exception) do not seem to favor compromise. It appears that with respect to any changes, other processes should be sought beyond discussion as outlined. Thank you for your comment. C. M. Belanger Nzakimuena talk 16:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Previous version on 03:56, 22 May before refactoring: "Concealing evidence-based science relevant to the present article without justification does not seem appropriate or consistent with a neutral point of view. Current talk page discussion objections to the addition of any content relating to race classification algorithms do not seem to favor compromise. It appears that with respect to any changes, other processes should be sought beyond discussion as outlined. Thank you for your comment." Mathsci (talk) 16:25, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
This isn't a productive discussion because you are ignoring what everyone else is telling you. The Lancet article says the opposite of what you are saying. I'll try to summarise it very simply for you: AI algorithms can detect a person's socially assigned race because they are unconsciously trained by humans to do so. It shows bias in the training datasets used in medical imaging, not "objective reality", and therefore is a problem for the application of AI in medicine. This information could be useful for articles like artificial intelligence in healthcare or medical imaging (though these are subject to WP:MEDRS, which is even more strict about avoiding primary sources) but it's not particularly relevant here and absolutely does not show that the widely-accepted social construct model of race is "rhetorical nonsense". As the authors of the Lancet article repeatedly emphasise, the ability of AI to predict racial identity is itself not the issue of importance. And you definitely can't write a whole article based on a handful of cherry-picked and misinterpreted primary sources. – Joe (talk) 09:17, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Humans cluster by ancestry, variation clusters, and AI detects this. Nobody "unconsciously trains AI to detect race", that's just something you made up. A five year old child can detect race. You have to be pretty well educated to delude yourself otherwise. Verena Boddenberg (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The same problems with the use of phrases like "the objective reality of non-discrete biogeographical clusters" previously resulted in a page ban from Ahmose-Nefertari. The archiving of user talk page requests by Generalrelative suggests similar bludgeoning, which runs contrary to the mainstream consensus of race as a "social construct". The edits here unduly promote a minority fringe view of "machine classification" or "classification algorithms". Mathsci (talk) 11:20, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Racism definition in the lead, too specific

When defining racism in a sentence, it’s almost certainly going to be wrong and be unsatisfactory to someone. The one used here is just that, but knowing the difficulties I think it could be made better and more helpful. It now reads as:

“The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.”

is that really it? I would think it could be rephrased to emphasize the differentiation based on racial characteristics rather than here which confines it to superiority, and thus omits a vast amount of beliefs that might be considered racist but do not fall int that narrow definition I’d rephrase it as:

“ The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be differentiated or distinguished socially or politically on the basis of physical characteristics common to identifiable racial groups.”


this much better since the current description is so simple and confining as to be largely useless. Sychonic (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Your proposal would make the sentence inaccurate: humans can, in fact be differentiated or distinguished socially or politically on the basis of physical characteristics common to identifiable racial groups. They can also be differentiated or distinguished socially or politically on the basis of any number of other arbitrary qualifications, such as ice cream flavor preference or their aesthetic opinion of the word "moist".
The 'superiority' clause which your proposal does away with is fundamental to the concept of racism, as seen in the well-sourced opening sentence of Racism. Happy (Slap me) 13:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
The second one above is a definition of racialism, not racism, which is correctly defined in the first one. It would be good to combine these:
"The concept of race is foundational to racialism (belief that humans can be differentiated or distinguished socially or politically on the basis of physical characteristics common to identifiable racial groups) and to racism (belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another)."
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I don’t think that distinction between “racialism” and “racism” is used by reliable sources. My ODE (2010) just defines “racialism” as “another term for racism”. Our article racialism is a redirect to “scientific racism”. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Consensus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Closing duplicate discussion per WP:MULTI, WP:TALKFORK.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it tenable to claim there's a consensus when Dawkins, Pinker and Coyne disagree?[11] Bogestra Bob (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe you understand what Dawkins is saying in that tweet. But even if you were correct, three scientists' dissent would not undermine the consensus of literally thousands of their fellows. Happy (Slap me) 21:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
In the opening section it says "Modern science regards..." then links to a couple of opinion pieces. I don't see a survey of biologists. Bogestra Bob (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Neither of the two linked sources are opinion pieces.
I strongly suggest you read the notice that Doug Weller provided you on your talk page and familiarize yourself with the subject (there happens to be a comprehensive encyclopedia article on the subject close at hand, to get you started) as well as the norms of modern science before you continue to advocate for changes to this page based (as the two comments you have made thus far demonstrably are) on your misunderstandings around the subject.
P.S. You should also read the notice on your talk page about discretionary sanctions, including all of the linked terms. That is highly useful, practical information about how to go about editing in contentious areas, and editors who edit without that information tend to quickly find themselves subject to sanctions. Happy (Slap me) 12:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
What I'm seeing here is all condescension and nothing about my point. Where is your survey of biologists? We're supposed to believe Dawkins and Coyne, both extremely distinguished biologists, think race isn't a "social construct", while the entire rest of the field does? Whether a concept is biological is a question for biology. Bogestra Bob (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Jerry Coyne has called himself an 'outlier' on this subject. Consensus does not mean universal agreement. MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
My dear friend, please answer my question. Where are you getting this "consensus" from? It appears to be assumed out of hand here. Bogestra Bob (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"Well, if that’s the consensus, I am an outlier." Coyne is responding to someone asserting a consensus. "If" is an important word there. Bogestra Bob (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Your argument changes direction every time someone responds to one of your points, so I'm beginning to believe it's not undertaken in good faith. I won't be responding further. I would direct you to my previous comment, and the advice therein one more time before I go, however. It would be to your benefit to take it. Happy (Slap me) 20:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm asking how a consensus was established, and getting non-responses like this. Perhaps the question should be raised elsewhere. Bogestra Bob (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Bogestra Bob re-opened this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology#Is there a consensus in biology that race is a social construct?, so I'm closing this duplicate thread, which has seen no activity in over a week.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  09:15, 8 August 2022 (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.

"Race (classification of human beings" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Race (classification of human beings and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Race (classification of human beings until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2023

In this page say that 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. The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. but is not all scientists disagree of the biological idea that there are races among humans rather that it is the scientific consensus that believes that race is a social construction.; 2804:431:C7C0:A0A7:A0A8:C2C:6A19:62F6 (talk) 21:00, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ––FormalDude (talk) 00:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Essentialism

Twice the same link to "essentialism". תיל"ם (talk) 11:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done Thank you. Rsk6400 (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2023

The following source is used to support the statement that race is a social construct.

Barnshaw, John (2008). "Race". In Schaefer, Richard T. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Volume 1. SAGE Publications. pp. 1091–3. ISBN 978-1-45-226586-5.

The actual text being referenced is as follows:

“A race is a social grouping of people who have similar physical or social characteristics that are generally considered by society as forming a distinct group.”

This source does not in my opinion support the claim the wikipedia author is making, that race is not biological. The source states physical OR social characteristics define race.

The statement should either be amended or a source that supports the statement should be found. 173.238.147.202 (talk) 01:54, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done It is not clear what change you want to make. Please use the form "Change X to Y". Rsk6400 (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Not a particularly good source, possibly. But I would point out that having 'similar physical characteristics' need have absolutely nothing to do with 'race as a biological property' arguments which presume some sort of group genetic commonality. As an obvious example, consider how Australian aborigines were defined as 'black' according to particular (superficial) physical characteristics seen as shared with sub-Saharan Africans. A supposed black 'race' is thus socially constructed to include individuals as distantly related as more or less anyone on the planet. 'Race' is often constructed around 'physical characteristics' to some extent, but the characteristics chosen are arbitrary, selected to fit the social construct, rather than derived from any inherent biological group property. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  1. ^ https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/social-construction-naturalistic/#WhaCond
  2. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/
  3. ^ https://www.jstor.org/stable/800680
  4. ^ https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/canadian-journal-of-philosophy/article/abs/ian-hacking-the-social-construction-of-what-cambridge-ma-harvard-university-press-1999-pp-x-261/5CC1DD9DA5029C0622CE395CFA517D78 [pg 16]
  5. ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566511/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_(human_categorization)/Archive_35&oldid=1213159740"