"...clustering analysis of 326 microsatellite markers can accurately place individuals in the USA into different groups.[12][13] Other geneticists, however, have shown that many more than 326 loci are required in order to show that individuals are always more similar to individuals in their own population group than to individuals in different population groups, even for three distinct populations" [[User:MoritzB|MoritzB]] 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
"...clustering analysis of 326 microsatellite markers can accurately place individuals in the USA into different groups.[12][13] Other geneticists, however, have shown that many more than 326 loci are required in order to show that individuals are always more similar to individuals in their own population group than to individuals in different population groups, even for three distinct populations" [[User:MoritzB|MoritzB]] 16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Looks perfectly clear to me. You provide no evidence that it is inaccurate. This is the introduction, personally I don't think this level of detail belongs in the introduction, but I did not put this in the introduction, if it does go into the introduction then we need to put the work into it's correct context. This work is being used to support the concept of "biological human races", but it does not do so. It uses clustering analysis as a proxy for continent of origin for biomedical purposes. On the other hand "race" is a completely different concept in biological terms, and is synonymous with subspecies. [[User:Wobble|Alun]] 16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
:::::Looks perfectly clear to me. You provide no evidence that it is inaccurate. This is the introduction, personally I don't think this level of detail belongs in the introduction, but I did not put this in the introduction, if it does go into the introduction then we need to put the work into it's correct context. This work is being used to support the concept of "biological human races", but it does not do so. It uses clustering analysis as a proxy for continent of origin for biomedical purposes. On the other hand "race" is a completely different concept in biological terms, and is synonymous with subspecies. [[User:Wobble|Alun]] 16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::Sorry, I forgot to remove the Serre reference when I edited the article. Anyway, the current version is in contradiction with the Witherspoon article. [[User:MoritzB|MoritzB]] 20:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Race (human categorization) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
These discussions are very lengthy. The ORIGINAL featured article for race is succinct and precise. Very simple, as it explains the term "race" and its controversial use. It is a neutral article, therfore, the current article should be based on the original one.
Other notes: see Nova "Does Race Exist?" and PBS "Race: The Power of an Illusion" for more information.
Discussions of race are made more complicated because race research has taken place on at least two scales (global and national) and from the point of view of different research aims. Evolutionary scientists are typically interested in humanity as a whole; and taxonomic racial classifications are often either unhelpful to, or refuted by, studies that focus on the question of global human diversity. Policy-makers and applied professions (such as law-enforcement or medicine), however, are typically concerned only with genetic variation at the national or sub-national scale, and find taxonomic racial categories useful.
There is a problem with this paragraph from the standpoint of the average well-informed reader. It seems that the writer must be asserting that if one looks at individuals and groups of individuals on a world-wide scale, then "taxonomic racial classifications" can't be made to apply in any useful way, but that if you narrow the scale to the level of the nations then suddenly these "taxonomic racial classifications" not only apply but are useful. The expressed view seems to be contrary to what most people would expect, e.g., in comparing Norwegians and Kenyans. If the statement is nonetheless true, then the reader ought to be provided with enough of an explanation to get the general idea of why it is so. Is the writer perhaps slyly insinuating that the average Kenyan would stand out among a group of average Norwegians, and vice-versa, but that the average Kenyan does not stand out against the natural background of the sea of faces in which he is ordinarily found? Or what? P0M08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That paragraph seems to confuse biological race with race as a social construct. What "policy-makers and applied profession[al]s" typically care about that happens "at the national or sub-national scale" is race as a social construct, not race as genetics. Indeed, the racial definitions used by law-enforcement and medical professionals are socially determined. FilipeS15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It may be that the writer was confused. Regardless, as it stands the paragraph is worse than worthless. P0M18:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in awe too. This talk page is much more interesting than the frikken article ever was or could be. I want to have P0M's children. I don't care what sex, color, creed, natural origin, etc. P0M is! - JeenyTalk05:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. I am afraid that my tongue has sharpened as part of the same process by which I have sharpened my editing skills -- both the result of correcting so many papers by students who have something to say but need the remaining two or three years of their college education to work out exactly how to do it. (Every student takes that long, and actually it even took me four years of college, and several years of graduate school to work out how to write.) P0M06:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to tell you about the flying saucer people and how they have already had their way with me, but I was afraid you would not get the weird Irish humor. (At least that's my excuse for a certain deadpan humor that almost got me thrown out of graduate school. Everybody in the seminar got the "a funny thing happened to me on the way to give this seminar presentation" joke -- except the professor, who wrote an angry letter to the newspaper about the mistreatment I had suffered on the way...) Peace. P0M07:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A good point muted
In the section on "Scale of race research" there is a very instructive point that gets pretty well muted for lack of a few words of explication that I believe would be justified by the original material quoted.
The writere quoted uses the verb "to sample," which is fine in context of a professional journal, but it may suggest a rather trivial process of "taking a taste." That's not really what is being described here. The author is looking at the difference in characteristics, e.g., the palette of skin tones, that one would get by following two procedures. The first would consist of drawing a line from Sweden to Indonesia, drawing 1000 equidistant dots along that line, and taking a human specimen from each point on that line — which would result in an obviously clinal picture. The second would result from drawing four equidistant points on the line and taking 250 individuals from each of those four points. You would end up with a new population that could pretty reliably be divided into four groups of people with very similar characteristics. The author is saying that in the United States we find a population that is largely drawn from a few centers that are remote from each other. That fact may have practical consequences for public health policy and other such activities, e.g., "Devote part of the money to the white ones for skin cancer scanning and part of the money to the black ones for sickle-cell anemia scanning.
In other words, by taking people only from the peaks and valleys we artifically obscure the fact that there are inclines between those two kinds of extremes. We create a "clearly different kinds of people" from what was in fact a clinal distribution, and until the U.S. population reaches genetic equilibrium there will be some utility in treating people as though they belong to discrete groups.
Is there some way we can economically emend the text to bring out what the original researchers were trying to get across? P0M07:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a little more reading on definitions of clades, etc. From what I have seen so far it seems that we can easily get into a muddle by accepting the simple definitions provided in the related Wikipedia articles. If we keep in mind that science deals with things that we can actually observe, then the idea of an "apical ancestor" has to be one more kind of fiction except for the rare case when somebody notices a mutation and follows the progeny of that one mutant. What happens most of the time is that one starts with existing people all over the world one can work backwards from the evidence of markers that have occurred over the last few hundreds of thousands of years until one reaches a form of the mtDNA or Y-chromosome DNA that doesn't have any of the quirks or meaningful mutations of later versions. From that one infers that some one human must have been the first to carry that form of the genome, but usually nobody is associated with that first form because the information is long gone. (I seem to remember that Spencer Wells thinks there is a genetic record that traces back to Genghis Kahn -- that man evidently had very many children who prospered.) Generally speaking the trail back through history stops at the point where one cannot find any sign of an earlier kind of ancestor. So there would be no way of differentiating between the first generation female ancestor or the tenth generation female ancestor as long as they had identical mtDNA.
There is a term for the results of intersections of clades, and that is "reticulation." But the studies I have read do not seem to use this term in regard to the genetic connections formed by individuals. They seem to have the idea of one breeding population the members of which originally all share, e.g., one mtDNA, and what happens when one or more individuals from another such isolated breeding population cross over and bring new genetic diversity to the original group.
If the picture of a clade or of a lineage is that it goes back to one ancestor, then the papers I have read so far have nothing much to say about the "second ancestor" in species that reproduce sexually. It appears that the assumption is of an initial set of other genetic traits that were present at the time of the theoretical earliest ancestor, and it is not made a point of discussion whether it was "the original second ancestor" that possessed these characteristics or whether it was all of the people in the breeding population of the "original ancestor." The general assumption seems to be that there is a stable set of genetic alternatives in that breeding population, and the genetic marker (in the mtDNA for instance) is reliably associated with that set of genetic traits.
I'll leave it at that for the moment. Whether what I've said is right or wrong, the article should get it right and I'm just trying to articulate some of the things that seem unclear. P0M09:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here I defer to Wobble. My understanding is that there is no interpreeding between distinct clades or evolutionary lineages - if this is true, then perhaps the apical ancestor marks the first generation where gene flow with other populations ended? I hope Wobble can clarify this. Slrubenstein | Talk11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with clades is the same as the problem with [races] -- people from somewhere else always get into the act and suddenly you're dealing with a complicated picture. I've been looking for things on-line that would help, but the things I'd like to read all require subscriptions. There is great pragmatic value in looking at, e.g., all the descendents of Ghengis Kahn, or all of the individuals that show the mutation that marks a major branching point in the migrations of early humans across the globe. Since all we care about are mtDNA and Y-Chromosome DNA, we could start a new world with certified females all of whom have the same mtDNA and certified males that all have the same Y-Chromosome DNA. The genetic characteristics of these individuals in the X-Chromosome DNA and in all the remaining chromosomes could be extremely varied. What you got would depend (for one thing) on who the mothers of the males were and on who the fathers of the females were. When they all got to the "new world" (whatever island or planet it might be), the characteristics of the next generation might be very different. Over a long time period the population would reach genetic equilibrium (become fully intermixed), and there would not be such a wild profusion of different-looking people. If some researcher found some of these individuals, s/he could make very accurate statistical predictions about their traits.
If some members of this group returned to the "old world," you could follow their offspring by their genetic markers (especially if that particular mtDNA and that particular Y-chromosome DNA had died out in the outside world), but they would have to have extremely rigid behavioral controls (honor killings, etc.) to keep from sharing their genetic heritage with out groups.
If you are dealing with a situation in which there are just a couple of male lineage lines and a couple of female lineage lines, M1, M2, F1, and F2, then you immediately get the possibility of M1 x F1, M1 x F2, M2 x F1, and M2 x F2, and they would be dragging along all of the genetic complexities of each of them on the non-sex chromosomes.
Anyway, the things that I have read or have at least seen abstracts of look like these elementary considerations of possible combinations are not any news to serious researchers, and, as one might expect, the researchers are dealing with situations that they know are very complex and trying to sort things out a little more clearly by saying things like, <<Based on the common Y-chromosome characteristics, it looks like this group that migrated into North America came out of this mid-eastern part of central Asia, and the mtDNA that we find is a high percentage of maternal lines came from about the same place.>> One thing just occurred to me. Cladistics is often pitched as an alternative to giving a genus and species sort of classification of groups, and if you take that view of cladistics there is no way you can define infraspecific groups this way. All you can say is that rather than trying to explain why San people look rather different from Shan people by some idea of sub-subspecies, one can ask what nested clades each of these groups belongs to on the basis of mtDNA, Y-chromosomal DNA, or some other genetic feature that marks a new group of humans (with green skin or whatever). The facts are the same, but the way the facts are arranged into structures are different. Drop your facts into one grid and you get species, subspecies, etc. (with some facts that end up on grid lines perhaps), but drop those facts onto another grid or set of grids and you get a clade picture.
Googling for material to explain the kinds of issues that we have raised here, I come up with Wikipedia as one of the top listings, and nothing else that has come up has covered the same ground very well. So I think we have a responsibility to get this issue clarified. P0M20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I found one thing of interest, a good abstract of what must be a very interesting article at
Race implies that everyone belongs to one and only one group. Everyone has two immediate lineages—from one’s mother and from one’s father. And one’s lineage multiplies with each receding generation. Considered in this way, one’s lineages emphasize the plural inheritances that make up each of us as an individual. Fractions (or rather, multiples) make sense in terms of lineage in a way that they do not in terms of race.
This is interesting - but I don't think it is helpful to this article for two reasons. First, we (me, Wobble, you, others) have already been dealing with a lot of confusion over the different meanings of "lineage" - evolutionary lineages, molecular lineages, and lineages as corporate descent groups (as used by social anthropologists). Thompson is proposing a fourth use of lineage and I think introducing it to the article will only add to the confusion. Of course, if Thompson's proposal about lineage was widely accepted, if many people use lineage the way he suggests, we would have to include it in the article and just figure out how to explain it clearly. But - and this is my second reason - Thompson's essay is basically an editorial in which he is proposing a neologism that he hopes will entirely displace the word "race" in our culture. In short, his article is not scholarly research, it is an editorial representing the view of one not especially notable person. I don't think his view is shared by many people (he is proposing it as an original idea of his, so he is not claiming others share it).
When I worked on the section on "race as lineage" (meaning, molecular lineages) I added several criticisms of this view:
Moreover, many have criticized this notion of lineage which is based on the identification of one male or one female apical ancestor at the time of a population bottleneck,[citation needed] while disregarding (because unavailable using genomic technology) countless other ancestors every individual has and shares with others, including people of different "lineages." Charles Rotimi, of Howard University's National Human Genome center, has highlighted the methodological flaws in research — that "the nature or appearance of genetic clustering (grouping) of people is a function of how populations are sampled, of how criteria for boundaries between clusters are set, and of the level of resolution used" all bias the results [40] — and concluded that people should be very cautious about relating genetic lineages to their own sense of identity. Moreover, 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 by suggesting that efforts to link genetic history and personal identity will inevitably "ground present social arrangements in a time-hallowed past," that is, use biology to explain cultural differences and social inequalities.[41]
Emphasis added. I think the first criticism and perhaps second anticipated most of POM's reflections on the matter. Right now Wobble and I are sorting out our differences and this section will certainly end up being rewritten, and the material within it may be reorganized and redistributed to other sections of the article. Once we have sorted out the major issues, I think the way to go is to take these three criticisms and explain them more fully and clearly. Slrubenstein | Talk10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Very good news. The article on lineage (biological) may need to be adjusted since it ignores the "everyone has two lineages" idea.P0M13:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A minor question on meaning
The current text has:
Although most molecular biologists aver arguments about race
"Aver" means "to declare to be true." First, I am pretty sure that one cannot declare arguments about baseball or anything else to be true. There are arguments on all sides of anything that is in question, and you have to pick sides before you can aver anything. Second, I rather doubt that most molecular biologists aver that "race is a reality" or anything of that sort. In context I think maybe the intended meaning was that they avoid either arguing about race or giving any comfort to the idea. What was the intended meaning?P0M13:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin spelling?
..."but it shews that they graduate into each other, and that it is hardly possible to discover clear distinctive characters between them."
Should it not be shows or is that the magnificent wording of the time in where no one really gave a stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.173.4.56 (talk) 12:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any strong objections. However, the first website (which looks very slick) appears to be still under construction, at least, many links don't go anywhere. The avowed purpose of the site is to combat racism so I propose that it is more appropriate to put on the Racism page. The third website is specifically on race and IQ and might be used as a reference for the appropriate section of this article, and provided as a general link on the race and intelligence page. The middle link itself is not very informative - it seems to be part of a research institute's list of past talks page. However talks are linked to supporting articles, many from the social sciences and some perhaps from the medical sciences. I think we need to look at these critically - I saw one link was to BiDIL's pharmaceutical company page and frankly I would use that source very carefully, ensuring people understand it is POV. But I think felipeS has done us a service in calling the linked articles on this page to our attention - I would propose actually going through the articles linked to see if they provide relevant and useful information or views to add to this page - in other words, i am suggesting that instead of just providing this link at the bottom of the article we do some real research, read the articles, see what could/should go in this article.Slrubenstein | Talk17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The second website I linked to lists several articles related to the issue of race in medical research. Some of them actually criticize the marketing of BiDIL rather harshly, so I don't think there's a problem of bias. FilipeS18:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted a link because it looks very amateurish and non-scholarly and has no educational value. I clicked on "What is your racial time" and this was the first entry: "I know, this kind of thread has been used and abused, but we all know it's fun to google attractive people! I'll go first. I'll depart from the i'm-on-crack-and-i-need-to-brush-my-hair type of guy i like, and instead go for a 'pretty boy', Bryan Greenberg." Not really what this article needs. Slrubenstein | Talk14:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Race as lineage
I've recently been looking over the Race article. Thanks to Slrubenstein and others, most of the worst cases of confusing prose have been fixed, but this section is a real embarrassment.
First, why is it called "Race as lineage" instead of giving it the same name as the article it summarizes, "Race and genetics"? There are two meanings of "lineage" that the puzzled reader may find, one from an "evolutionary biology" standpoint and one from an anthropological standpoint. Then there is a third meaning that appears to derive from the work of Templeton. And, if I remember something written above, there is a fourth meaning of some indeterminate nature.
Given the discussion we have already had on this topic, it seems pretty clear that nobody intended the meaning of "lineage" that is proper to anthropology, and the remaining three definitions all have something to do with heritable traits. (Well, maybe the murky one of the three has something to do with prepotency or some other imponderable. But lacking a citation there is no way to know what that third concept may really be.)
Basically what we have clear grounds for considering under the rubric "lineage" are two ideas as far as organisms that reproduce sexually are concerned:
It is possible to follow family connections back through time by paying attention to a single marker trait such as mtDNA or Y-chromosome non-recombinant DNA. (One may follow genetic traits on the non-sexual chromosomes back through time, but less assuredly, because the two filaments in each of these chromosomes can swap ends and that implies that any individual may inherit traits from all four grandparents.) This definition of lineage gives us surety of knowledge only of who one's paternal grandfather was (and so on on back) but not of which of his traits on the non-Y chromosomes were acquired. And, of course, it tells us even less about female humans because they don't have a Y-chromosome to trace. So it's a little like watching the tour guides at the Louvre from day to day and drawing conclusions about any group of tourists by looking at which tour guide is leading them around.
We could get some more mileage out of this idea, providing that we change the analogy a little. Maybe instead of looking at a tour guide we are looking at the captains of a ships that stay at sea for long periods of time. The passengers on these ships continue to breed, so if we knew the genetic traits of all the passengers on the original manifest we would know something about the genetic traits of the passengers 10 generations down the line. Since they are on separate ships we needn't follow individuals. It is sufficient to follow captains.
It is possible to know a population well in the sense that one has taken a statistically valid sample of the heritable traits of that population. If the population has reached genetic equilibrium (i.e., if you didn't just mix 10000 Australian Aborigines, 10000 Norwegeians, and 10000 Peruvian Indians yesterday but did it 10000 years or so ago), then if you divide that group and separate the two groups somehow you could predict, statistically, what you would get if you took a statistically valid sample from each of the two new groups and processed that data. But it matters what the relative size of the groups are. If you take only a family of 7 as your "new population" you could find that they were all redheads or something like that, especially if you chose a family. If you split the original population into equal portions (no bloodshed being permitted, of course), then your original statistics could be predicted with a range of error pretty close to the range of error of the original sampling procedure.
If the two populations so chosen were kept apart for thousands of years you would expect to see the statistics change.
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but do not both of these ideas have to do with inherited traits? And don't they both take their standard for objectivity what we could find out in any case of dispute by looking at the individual genomes of the individual humans under study?
I'm not sure why Templeton's idea of lineage is included in the "Summary of different definitions of race" (except that it is presumably in the Long and Kittles book). If human beings do not have subspecies, then a definition of race as subspecies doesn't apply to humans, no? In what I've written above, I've tried to loosen the definition of "subspecies," to take it away from the ideal (by which standard there are hardly any subspecies of honeybees because there are wide margins of hybridization between any two "races" of honeybees that you want to look at except, possibly, for the bees of Cyprus, and maybe one or two populations of honeybees in Africa that are isolated by the Sahara Desert) and make it more like the real world classifications that some researchers think are too fuzzy to be worth much. (Spiders don't often segregate themselves into discrete breeding populations either.)
Alternatively, if "subspecies" really means "subspecies," then we have to throw away the Templeton lineage idea as it would apply to humans, or we at least have to explain that sorting people into real subspecies is one idea of how to categorize humans, but that it has not exactly captivated the hearts and minds of researchers who try to understand how to best look at the similarities and differences among humans.
Anyway, basic questions: Isn't this section really about schemes of categorization based on genetic characteristics? Isn't it broader than lineage? (Why not follow a trait back through time without worrying about whether it was carried by a male or a female in any given generation?) Isn't the reasonable approach to say: These are the kinds of information that have become available to us now that we can inspect genomes, and these are the ways that various researchers have tried to utilize this information to group human beings into meaningful groups larger than family and clan? P0M03:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is also in response to your "Ax handle" comment above. I have been involved in a lengthy set of discussions with Alun on his talk page and we are coming very close to an agreed resolution to our conflicts. He simply has not been active on Wikipedia for the past week, but as soon as he comes back I see no reason why he and I can't quickly resolve all our issues. Just so you know, I proposed to him a reorganization of the article that I think accommodates all of our (his and my) concerns. I would like to know what you think too, but I feel awkward sharing this when I am not sure whether it is okay with Alun. But here is the gist:
First, move the section Race and Models of Human Evolution so that it appears before the section race as subspecies
Second, elaborate on "evolutionary lineages" either in the section on race and models of human evolution, or in race as subspecies (I would defer to Alun's expertise in deciding this)
Third: After Race and Population Genetics, create a new section, Race and molecular genetics. In this section, explore population structure, clusters and work by Tang and Rosenberg, as well as an explanation of the use of haplotypes and molecular lineages in research on ancestry
Fourth: underRace as Social Constructions create a new subsection on "race as lineage," drawing on Palmie and Abu el Haj's (and others) analysis of commercial PHG services and the way genomics has been used in recent popular discussions of race.
I believe the skulls should not be used because they cannot be representative of the wide diversity within the various so called races. Even skull shapes and dimensions vary clinally so an African in Senegal will have a different skull shape than an African in south Africa. In fact the khoisan show facial flatness just as the East Asians. Even though an American anthropologist can recognize the race of a skull, it is probably based on US demographics where Africans are from the west coast. Furthermore how does one account for admixtured skull. What of someone who self identifies themselves as black but has 70% European admixture. Because all populations that live on the borders between continents are admixed such as Ethiopians, Indians, afghans.
The evolution of Human diversity describes sub-Saharan Africa as:
"the most heterogeneous population characterized by the greatest variation in the largest number of cranial dimensions".
So then with such a high variation in cranial dimensions how then can there be a "one typical negroid skull".
With regard to race it says Southern mongoloids are characteristically mongoloid but less prominently but would have to be included in this category. But since southern mongoloids and negritos have interbred and and thus share common cranial features, negritos should also be included in the mongoloid race. Since negritos share features in common with melanesians they should also be included in the mongoloid category. But since melanesians show features in common with Australians then they should also be included in the category, thus any attempt to define who is mongoloid is defeatedevolution of human diversity p338-340.
Lastly the images are fair use, I am not sure whether they meet the criteria since it is possible that a free image could be obtained. Muntuwandi16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed rationale. I'm not so certain that the images should be removed from the article, since they do illustrate in broad terms the features that forensic scientists look for, and the surrounding text states explicitly that the notion of race used in the morphological identification is not a "valid taxonomic characterization." If this were in a general section on race as a well-defined anthropological construct, then I would agree with less hesitation. But this is a section on race in law-enforcement, where (particularly in the US and parts of Europe) broadly defined racial classifications are still used vigorously. Silly rabbit16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The image really oversimplifies the issue of identifying a person's "race" from their bones. In the medicine there are a lot of questions about the use of "race" as a proxy for concrete genetic differences. I don't think that this image is helpful in this article. futurebird16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the images are an oversimplification of human diversity. In fact much of the discussion also needs to be reworded. this statement "if races don't exist, why are forensic anthropologists so good at identifying them" implies that races do exist. But what is ignored is the variation that occurs within a race. in fact the article from the pictures says
Compared to sex, age, and stature estimation, race determination is "more difficult, less precise, and less reliable" because "no human skeletal markers ... correspond perfectly to geographic origin" (White 1991:328-329). In addition, many skeletal indicators used to estimate race are nonmetric traits, whose documentation through anthroposcopic methods can be somewhat subjective, varying for researcher to researcher. However, race estimation is a critical endeavor in forensic identification as sex, age, and stature estimation are greatly influenced the race of the individualrace determination.
I hope I may beg indulgence for a moment while I engage in thinking rather than quoting.
Prehistoric remains show that almost as soon as there were agricultural villages there were grave sites held in common by several surrounding villages, and archaeologists believe that this facts is best explained by assuming that the several villages had common roots in one of the villages, and that the people of the several villages knew the family histories that linked all of them. People of the same family would be buried together despite the fact that they had lived in dispersed locations.
Knowing that some people are closely related implies that other people are not so closely related, and lays open the possibility that some groups are "the others," i.e., not related at all. So people must have been interested in how best to categorize human beings almost from the dawn of humanity and certainly from the dawn of written history.
Jumping to the near present, we find a great deal more data available to people, and we find competing systems for how to categorize people. Carolus Linnaeus created his system of binomial nomenclature, and as a part of that system he established the genus Homo, the species sapiens, and then he went for discrete groups at the infraspecific level. But no sooner had he done that than the other great thinkers of his day countered with observations of what we would today call the clinal nature of human variation. The conclusion was that there are no extant subspecies of Homo sapiens. So how was one to deal with the readily apparent group similarities of the peoples whom early modern explorers encountered in various parts of the globe?
Many systems of categorization have been advocated, and none of them has won universal acceptance. Quite to the contrary, every system of categorization that has been tried has provoked dissatisfaction among some researchers, and some of those dissatisfied researchers have tried yet another way to arrange the data to leave a minimum of loose ends.
The systems of categorization that use skull shapes are a good example of a system that has some advantages and some utility. For one thing, researchers are not limited to individuals alive in the present. Skulls and fossil skulls leave a long-term record. And for forensics, the shape of an unidentified skull can at least give investigators an idea of which community is the most likely to be that of the person whose body has been found. On the other hand, as Muntuwandi points out, similar characteristics can pop out at widely separated places in the globe, and mixed characteristics are also apt to be observed. The body that police investigators thought to be East Asian may have been San, and searching exclusively in the East Asian community may delay solving the case.
So I think the skull examples may provide an instructive example, one clear case where Mother Nature looks at our attempts at categorization by [race] and says, "I am more complicated than you imagine." P0M01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Futurebird and Muntuwandi misunderstand the placement of the skulls image - I wish they would read the text on "race in law envforcement." M and F suggest that the skulls vastly ovsersimplify biological variation among humans. This is precisely the point: that forensic anthropologists vastly oversimplify human variation. There are three quotes from forensic anthropology textbooks/articles to support this point; the skulls image simply illustrtates what those textbooks say. Folks, there are racists out there, and I personally think it is scandalous that Wikipedia protect them by somehow denying what they do. Slrubenstein | Talk11:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"In estimating race forensically, we prefer to determine if the skeleton Negroid. If findings favor further study is necessary Mongoloid." This does not make sense. Has someone got the article? Paul B12:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images use exaggerated features, probably it is for instruction purposes, but they are very exaggerated almost stereotypical and possibly even offensive. In the past vandals have used these same images. In any case there is no such thing as typical person of this race, there is so much variation, why pick one skull to represent all. There are many details that go into forensic identification but I think the discussion is too detailed and beyond the scope of this article. Such can be discussed in the craniofacial anthropometry article, not in this one. I would rather not use the pictures in this article. finally these pictures may not meet the criteria for fair use.Muntuwandi13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These images are being used today in a course on forensic anthropology; when they were all together they were clearly marked as in the public domain and they are fair use; someone divided them and neglected to reproduce the fair-use status of two of them (just follow the website). In the United States and the UK anyone who interacts with law enforcement hears them identify people racially all the time. And people who do not directly interact with law enforcemtwatch both the news and tv shows like the incredibly popular CSI series where forensic pathologists and forensic anthropologists identify people's skeletons as caucasion, negroid, and mongoloid race all the time. Personally I have no doubt that this give msot people the impression that these are valid racial types. I think it is crucial that the article make it very clear what cops, forensic pathologists and forensic anthropologists are doing. If you find the images offensive, why aren't you offended by the fact that police and forensic anthropologists rely on images like these? even if they are using images that are less exagerated than these, they still use skulls to identify people by race. Why do you want to cover this up? Why do you want to protect them? Slrubenstein | Talk13:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have checked the website there is nowhere that indicates that their work is in the public domain, in fact it says "All contents copyright (c), 2006. Western Kentucky University". these images need to be reviewed by the image patrol. Each image needs a fair use rationale for each page it is used, personally i suspect the images were not uploaded in good faith.Muntuwandi13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have e-mailed the professor. If you click on the "mongoloid skull" you will see this: "This work has been (or is hereby) released into the public domain by the copyright holder. This applies worldwide." Anyway, we will find out soon enough, I hope. But there is the substantive issue I hope Muntuwandi and I can agree on: Wikipedia ought not to protect, by hiding, professions and governments that use racial discourse even if it is in ways we find racist. Slrubenstein | Talk14:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to protect those who use racial categories. I do not think the images are apropriate, they look like a throwback to the days of scientific racism. If you look at the Negroid skull it has an exaggerated facial angle, which was once used to justify inferiority. When someone looks at these images they may get a different impression, to avoid controversy i think its best to find alternative ways to discuss forensic anthropology.
I question the sincerity of the uploader because it is claimed that it is in the public domain when there is no evidence from the website or anywhere on wikipedia that this is the case.Muntuwandi14:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may be right about the up-loader, hopefully we will know for sure in two days. About your claim, "they look like a throwback to the days of scientific racism" - well, that's as may be, but isn't this precisely the point? Police and forensic pathologists today are using cranial measures that look to you like throwbacks to the days of scientific racism? Doesn't this mean that what you call scientific racism is still a problem, I mean, still exists and exerts power over people? If we used images that did not make it look this way, wouldn't we be protecting those in power who continue to employ what you call scientific racism? Slrubenstein | Talk16:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SLR, I don't appreciate your assumption that I haven't read the text, weather you intended to or not it comes across as condescending.
I agree that craniofacial anthropometry is the better place for this image. This is a general article on race and including the image gives undue weight to the idea that races are clear, valid and useful categories for human beings. This is not because of the way it works in the section where it appears, but rather because the image, as a part of the article as a whole, leaves one with a very different impression of the idea of what race means than the article without the image. futurebird14:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Futurebird, I apologize for seeming to condescend. I think this is a delicate point: I can fully understand why no decent person here would want to reproduce a racist image. Yet, there are circunmstances where they are appropriate - e.g. the articles on anti-semitism or racism. The problem here is that we are not talking about what is clearly racist and safely in the past or in another country. We are talking about a section of this article - on the uses of race in law enforcement - where a significant element of people in US law enforcement really do give weight "to the idea that races are clear, valid and useful categories for human beings." One way they do that is through these actual cranial images. Wikipedia articles have to be NPOV. We can confiedently say that most scientists - or let's be a little precise, most evolutionary biologists, geneticists, anthropologists, and others who study human variation, agree that races do not exist. And we can have long sections on how and why scientists reached these conclusions and explaining how they do look at human variation. But the continued use of "race" as a meaningful category in US law enforcement is undeniable. To make it clear that they do this is not to endorse them. You wrote "The image really oversimplifies the issue of identifying a person's "race" from their bones." but I think that is precisely the point, that this is what forensic anthropologists do, or at least often do (and that's why I thought you hadn't read the section). We have to agree: some people in positions of power (academic and political) DO oversimplify the issue of race, and Wikipedia should make that clear. Slrubenstein | Talk15:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth - not sure this matters to you - I would not have added these images if they came from a Nazi textbook or KKK propaganda; I use them only because they illustrate precisely the basis on which forensic pathologists and anthropologists, whethe ron CSI or Bones or in real life, identify human remains as "Caucasion," "Negroid" or "Mongoloid" today. The article has a variety of images which illustrate a variety of points of view. NPOV insists that we represent even points of view that we do not like. Slrubenstein | Talk15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The illustrations are from "Bass 1986:84-86" (Bass, W. M. (1987) Human Osteology: A Laboratory and Field Manual (3rd ed.). Missouri Archaeological Society, Columbia). That book is copyrighted (see this link). The website is copyrighted. If Bass released the pix to the website author that does not give the website author the right to give the pix away to others.
In a course, a responsible teacher would have the opportunity to contextualize these illustrations. The teacher might say something like this: "If you average the dimensions of 1000 people from this island in the Indian Ocean, you will be able to draw this kind of idealized image. The actual range of variation is..." In Wikipedia we do not have the interactive classroom situation wherein a teacher can be reasonably sure that the "audience" has figured out that reality is complicated. One of the joys of first-year physics lab is discovering that the experiments never produce the smooth graphs that are found in the textbook -- even when they work. It is the rare physics text that even puts in a bare caveat on this subject.
The police mug shots and the skulls are given far too much prominence in this article. The appearance is that there are identifiably Navaho people, and identifiably Chinese skulls. The reality is that Chinese people look enough like Navaho people to fool the Navahos, and a "Chinese" skull may lead investigators to search only in the Chinese community for the identity of the throttled corpse when in fact the skull is from an American Indian.
The point that the article most needs to make is that "obvious racial characteristics" can lead people to make entirely incorrect assumptions about group membership, and group membership can lead people to make entirely incorrect assumptions about innate characteristics. P0M17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Mongoloid skull is now scheduled for deletion in 7 days if the copyright problem is not resolved. There are no comparable illustrations on Wikipedia Commons. P0M17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images have copyright issues so we should not be using them. The article is controversial enough so we if we are to use images they should be free from any issues.Muntuwandi00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree entirely with Muntuwandi in principle, and if the images are copyrighted they go. However, I think POM's statement, "The point that the article most needs to make is that "obvious racial characteristics" can lead people to make entirely incorrect assumptions about group membership, and group membership can lead people to make entirely incorrect assumptions about innate characteristics," violates NPOV because it is not for us editors to decide what are correct or incorrect views. It seems evident to me that many people in law enforcement have a view that is at odds with that held by most evolutionary and social scientists. POM, Muntuwantdi and I may all agree with one side over the other and thus consider that side to hold the "correct" view. But it is not for Wikipedia aditors to make this decision in editing an article. We must include views - and I think a view widely held by people in law enforcement, including forensic anthropologists, is a prominent and significant view - whether we think they are correct or not. Slrubenstein | Talk15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the "resolved" heading. I think for "Silly rabbit" to add that heading stuffs off discussion at an inappropriate point. The issue of the diagrams is probably "resolved" if the ones currently used can't be used because they get deleted. However, other such diagrams might be found. Deciding that some issue is "resolved" should not be the act of a single editor.
Slrubenstein, are you assuming that police authorities do not recognize the limitations of their own methodologies when it comes to asserting [race] membership? P0M22:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am asserting that there are many people in law enforcement and physical anthropology who believe that races exist. I think this is what many phisical anthropologists mean by "race":
To the physical anthropologist, race is simply a phenomenon to be explained, as it is to the zoologist who sees the same kind of geographical diversity within nearly all widespread species. As a phenomenon, race is the fact that geographically separated populations differ in their gene frequencies and range of phenotypic variation, which therefore may be used to estimate the probability that an individual’s area of ancestry is more probably one place than another.
... but I doubt that when they talk to a detective or DA they explain all this; I think they just say "race=caucasian or race=negroed or whatever. What police think ... I do not know. Slrubenstein | Talk14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I must admit I am somewhat bemused by this debate. Of course the police are aware of the limitations of these models (I've seen CSI too!). All that is happening is that the forensic specialists are, as it were, trying to put flesh on the bones. An image of a "mongoloid" skull is in principle no different from an image of a living "mongoloid" (or East Asian, or whatever term one might use) It is no importance to the police if East Asians are a "subspecies" or not. All that matters is that they are East Asians, and that's what the method of identification and typology of skulls does. I can see no reason in principle why the skulls are any more inappropriate here than the mug-shots. Paul B22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Properly contextualized there may be no problem. Simply putting them up so that the visual presentations suggests, "These are people that the FBI identifies as members of the several races listed," hypostatizes race. Picking a carefully averaged set of skull specs and making a drawing on that account is o.k. too, if the reader realizes that the picture is an abstraction from a great deal of data, and if the reader gets a ±N% or something to indicate the range of actual individuals used to come up with that image. (See the discussion above, where researchers were giving police and other authorities a whole array of photographs of people for each sub-groups that they were identifying by genetic studies.) But just putting up diagrams and saying, "That's a caucasian skull..." reinforces the idea that there is a veridical caucasian type.
It's interesting how many people like those mug shots. Personally, I would not want people to look at that white guy's picture and apply the "type" to me. The art of photography often involves the careful selection of subject and isolating it from elements in the background that might be distracting or otherwise spoil the effect. But isolating a very typical Chinese face and putting it into one frame next to an isolated Dutch face in the adjacent frame blurs over the fact that someone from Kazakhstan will have intermediate characteristics. That isolation of widely disparate "types" creates the impression that there is nothing in between when in fact the "in between" is the norm. Note that the clearly "in betweens" among the mug shots are labeled "Hispanic," creating the impression that they are as unmixed as the rest of them. Of course that is true. They are all mixed. It's just the level of genetic equilibrium that is different. P0M22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we all know that people will have intermediate characteristics. That's rather like saying there is no difference between gothic and classical styles because many buildings contain transitional elements or combine motifs from both traditions. The issue is the usefulness of the type. I am not an anthropologist. You may not want the "white guy's" type tp apply to you, but what matters is that you are able to identify him as "a white guy", and that that fact is useful - part of a process of identification and socal categorisation. Paul B23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we really all recognized the clinal characteristics of human differentiation we would probably be living in a much different society in the U.S.
The text as it stands seems to be pretty good, actually, but the illustrations are one-sided in suggesting that race is real, and that races are discrete groups. P0M23:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That is because there are people out there - I would contend a minority, but a significant minority nonetheless - who hold that race is real and that races are effectively (i.e. for whatever purposes they are conducting research) discrete groups. Slrubenstein | Talk13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You mean you think that there are one-sided representations, and should be, because there is a minority of people who hold that races are real? P0M03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I am saying that the article must include one-sided representations to illustrate a particular side, especially if that side is a minority; this is simply to comply with our NPOV policy. Of course, the one side should be correctly identified. And to be clear: the other side, or sides, ought to be represented as well, and if we have images representing the other sides, they should be included. That is, the article should include one-sided representations, but not all representations should be from one side. As a matter of fact, I think the article includes several images that represent the other side e.g. the map of clinal variation represents one side (in this case, the side I personally believe is the majority, although the article itself provides a survey that contradicts my personal view). Then again, "majority" and "minority" are relative in this case. I feel pretty confident that the vast majority of cultural anthropologists reject identifying race with objectively distinct biological groups. But I know that a majority of forensic anthropologists use (Western) racial taza to identify biological human remains. Slrubenstein | Talk21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
skulls contd
I really don't see anything in the mug shots that is different from the way we visually classify people everyday. So they may not even be necessary. It just looks like a regular photo album. Craniofacial anthropometry is another large subject, we should not bring the intricacies into this article as it will distract from the main focus which is race. Cranial and skeletal variation obviously exists and is a function of time and space. For example the bones of almost all human populations have become thinner in the last 15000 years. The Cro magnon skeletons are different from those of modern Europeans. In fact some people believe that the "mongoloid" and "caucasoid" appearance only came into being in the last 11000 years after the ice age because indisputable fossils of these kinds do not appear until then. Before that all peoples may have looked very much the same. Bones of modern Africans are also much more gracile or thinner than older fossils.
Marta Lahr has basically done a reconstruction of events in recent human evolution using the changes in cranial and skeleton dimensions of various fossils similar to the way mtDNA is used to reconstruct migrations. The conclusion is that regional continuity of the multiregional hypothesis is not feasable, "The results obtained strongly refute a multiregional model of human evoloutionp334".
This is a large topic and to bring these discussions into the article will clog up an already cluttered article. And those photos do no justice to this topic. In fact an amateur cannot be able to identify the race of a skeleton at first glance because the differences exist but only by a more subtle investigation can they be seen. bones all look the same.Muntuwandi23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The skulls have nothing whatever to do with the "multiregional hypothesis". They illustrate typical cranial features that distinguish visibly distinct large groups. They tell us nothing about how these visible distinctions came about. Why would you think they do? Of course bones all look the same to amateurs. That's why you don't need a forensic anthropologist if you have a photo, but you do if you have a skull. The fact is that they aren't all the same. Paul B09:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is just an example of how much variation in skulls there is that if we were to decide to include those skulls, then someone could also say I have alternative skulls of the three races that look different to those and both would be correct. But skulls do have everything to do with the multiregional hypothesis because proponents cite regional continuity in traits such as shovel-shaped teeth of Asian homo erectus.Muntuwandi11:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is a non sequitur. The fact that people cite evidence from skulls is no more relevant than the fact that they cite any other evidence from morphology. That's like saying "Nazis considered blondness to be evidence of a superior race, therefore we should not accept that there is really such a thing as blondness". These skulls are intended to represent types. Likewise, the fact that there is a range of hair shades between blond and black, does not make typological terminology useless. The police and other officials would find it useful if a forensic scientist could identify what colour a deceased person's hair was, as a means to identify them. Paul B11:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think Muntuwandi is under the istaken impression that when we talk about the multiregional hypothesis, we are talking about Carleton Coon. I suppose one could say there are two multiregional hypotheses. One was forwarded by Coon but I do not know of any scientist who even refers to Coons MR hypothesis. There is a second multiregional hypothesis largely proposed by Milford Wolpoff. This is not at all the same hypothesis as that proposed by Coon. As for the skulls, Paul is right it is a non-sequitor. The forensic anthropologists who use these skulls in identifying race do not for the most part adhere to the multiregional hypothesis. People who adhere to the out-of-Africa hypothesis also make claims about measurable phenoytipic differences among races. Slrubenstein | Talk13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to blondness, their is no one caucasoid or negroid or Mongoloid skull. there are regional differences which are ofcourse clinally distributed. By visual inspection someone could differentiate the Northern chinese from southern chinese. You could also differentiate the chinese from koreans, who you could differentiate from the japanese. when you get to the Uyghur people the "east asian" features begin to blend in with "caucasoid " features. So which one do you pick. The same with africans, you can sometimes distinguish west african from an east african and from a south african.
If you looked at the picture the skull he Negroid skull was extremely dolichocephalic and the others were not. but if you look at many Africans you will see the greatest variety in skull shapes.
The reason why anthropologists choose those as representative of the races is because of the influence of the socially constructed races that the anthropologists live in.
The multiregional hypothesis is not only Carleton Coon, but all those proponents of regional continuity. In Asia there is a huge gap in the fossil record. There are no intermediate fossils of humans between homo erectus and modern humans. The fossil record is more continuous in Africa than anywhere else. Multiregional hypothesis simply has its roots in American polygeny and racial superiority of the 19th century. The white elitist scientists simply did not want to acknowledge common ancestry with races they thought of as inferior. since notions of racial superiority still exist in the 20th century so do adherents of the multiregional hypothesis. Whenever new studies come out in support of a single origin they try to cook up some complex explanation and a new multiregional hypothesis arises such as the hybrid origin. Muntuwandi00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we all know there is no one "negroid" or "mongoloid", otherwise everyone in each group would be as identical as the Oompa-Loompa. To repeat, that does not invalidate the usefulness of types. There is no point in repeating yet again the "gothic and "classical" argument - that the existence of transitional features is irrelevant. I am also bemused by your belief that racism is somehow dependent on the MRH. One of the most influential racist tracts ever written is Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race, hailed by Hitler as "my Bible". Grant believed in the absolute superiority of the Nordic race - which, he claims, first appeared as a distinct group at the end of the Paleolithic era, c.7000BCE. In any case, as Slrubenstein says, the fact that these typologies are used in forensics is not in dispute. Paul B11:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Any scientist who accepts the multi-regional hypothesis must acknowledge that contemporary blacks, whites, etc have a common ancestor. The issue with multi-regional versus out of Africa is whether H. sapiens could evolve independently from different H. erectus populations - but we are ALL descended from H. erectus and all have a common ancestor. For proponents of the MRH, our common ancestor just lived longer ago. I have no doubt that there were racist scientists in the 19th century. But there is no evidence that Wolpoff or his colleagues are racist or use their hypothesis to promote any racist ideas at all. Slrubenstein | Talk10:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi wrote "The reason why anthropologists choose those as representative of the races is because of the influence of the socially constructed races that the anthropologists live in." Note: these skull images are not produced by proponents of the multi-regional hypothesis but specifcally by forensic anthropologists. And you may well be right that they are biased. If you have a verifiable source saying so we can even add that to the article. But we should hide the fact that forensic anthropologists use these images. And when all si said and done we still are obliged to include views we do not like. You seem to be agreeing that anthropologists - at least some - still have these views about race. The article has to be clear about who holds these views and provide all major explanations as to why they hold these views. Slrubenstein | Talk11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
“
The assignment of skeletal racial origin is based principally upon stereotypical features found most frequently in the most geographically distant populations. While this is useful in some contexts (for example, sorting skeletal material of largely West African ancestry from skeletal material of largely Western European ancestry),it fails to identify populations that originate elsewhere and misrepresents fundamental patterns of human biological diversity conclusions.
Great! I have no objection to adding that quote or a paraphrase of it with citation to the appropriate place in the article. But, Muntuwandi, do we agree that our task is not to determine the truth or correct view, but rather represent all views, including ones we (and others) are critical of? Slrubenstein | Talk14:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The quotation is good, but should not be misused. It points to the fact that models based on skeletal morphology can do some things effectively, but not others. That's not in dispute. Paul B14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If editors here have the time, I would be be grateful if someone with a knowledge of recent archaelogical anthropology or genetics would look at the Nordic race page which seems to me to contain a very dubious attempt to conflate early 20th C racial models with modern research. Paul B16:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
a different question
Even if "race" is a valid concept under some scientific definition, does it's meaning equate with "race" as used in the non-scientific community? The problem, it seems to me, is not that there are variations in femur-length and such between different populations, but whether the non-scientific community places a significance on race that is not scientifically valid. When anthropologists and politicians use the term, does it carry the same meaning or have the same foundation? If not, and the latter group's definition lacks validity, then science should either abandon the term or correct broader society's misunderstandings (the former being the easier, of course.)
Social (used by the politicians you mention) and biological race/sub-species (used by scientists) are two very different concepts, so I don't see your point. Funkynusayri20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above remark that differences between scientific and popular notions of race need to be addressed by this article. In my opinion, the average Joe has a rather fuzzy notion of race, but then is convinced that his notion of race is objective and biological. If nothing else, anthropology has shown in the last 100 years that these popular conceptions of race are invariably refuted by the facts. In reality, the way that most people think about race and identify it is provably subjective and conditioned by social factors. This is the greatest truth about race that the article should focus on, not Byzantine obscurities like "multilocus allele clusters" (with all due respect to those who find MAC interesting). FilipeS18:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, in the past 100 years anthropologists (and now molecular geneticists) have shown that scientific understandings of race current in the 19th century and held by some today are unscientific. Slrubenstein | Talk13:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of biological race
This article seems to have a heavy slant in favour of the hypothesis that race doesn't exist.
Here race is defined thus:
race 1(rs)
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution: the German race.
3. A genealogical line; a lineage.
4. Humans considered as a group.
5. Biology
a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies.
b. A breed or strain, as of domestic animals.
6. A distinguishing or characteristic quality, such as the flavor of a wine.
There is not one single definition of race, so that one specific defintion of race is discredited (social race), doesn't mean that the other definitions are (biological race). The article doesn't seem to make aware of that.
Point five is especially interesting, as this certainly applies to humans, yet it is widely denied for reasons based on the denounciation of other definitions.
A debate has arisen regarding the validity of racial/ethnic categories for biomedical and genetic research. Some claim 'no biological basis for race' while others advocate a 'race-neutral' approach, using genetic clustering rather than self-identified ethnicity for human genetic categorization. We provide an epidemiologic perspective on the issue of human categorization in biomedical and genetic research that strongly supports the continued use of self-identified race and ethnicity.
A major discussion has arisen recently regarding optimal strategies for categorizing humans, especially in the United States, for the purpose of biomedical research, both etiologic and pharmaceutical. Clearly it is important to know whether particular individuals within the population are more susceptible to particular diseases or most likely to benefit from certain therapeutic interventions. The focus of the dialogue has been the relative merit of the concept of 'race' or 'ethnicity', especially from the genetic perspective. For example, a recent editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine [1] claimed that "race is biologically meaningless" and warned that "instruction in medical genetics should emphasize the fallacy of race as a scientific concept and the dangers inherent in practicing race-based medicine." In support of this perspective, a recent article in Nature Genetics [2] purported to find that "commonly used ethnic labels are both insufficient and inaccurate representations of inferred genetic clusters." Furthermore, a supporting editorial in the same issue [3] concluded that "population clusters identified by genotype analysis seem to be more informative than those identified by skin color or self-declaration of 'race'." These conclusions seem consistent with the claim that "there is no biological basis for 'race'" [3] and that "the myth of major genetic differences across 'races' is nonetheless worth dismissing with genetic evidence" [4]. Of course, the use of the term "major" leaves the door open for possible differences but a priori limits any potential significance of such differences.
In our view, much of this discussion does not derive from an objective scientific perspective. This is understandable, given both historic and current inequities based on perceived racial or ethnic identities, both in the US and around the world, and the resulting sensitivities in such debates. Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view.
Race or subspecies is always difficult to define for any species not just humans. A species is defined as all the individual organisms of a natural population that generally interbreed at maturity in the wild and whose interbreeding produces fertile offspring. Whenever two different human populations meet in the same geographic area they waste no time in interbreeding so ofcourse humans are one species. But defining a subspecies is always subjective and the criteria differs from species to species. Self categorizations are important still since race is largely social construct. However these constructs are very potent forces that influence society.Muntuwandi23:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well again, social and biological race are two extremely different things, because they do not necessarily correlate.
No one is disputing that all humans belong to the same species, that is an undeniable fact, but the most basic definition of race/subspecies easily applies to humans, just as it applies to animals, so I don't understand the controversy, unless it is linked to the notion of social race. Funkynusayri23:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
which definition easily applies to humans. Race as a well defined, discrete and stable entity in the human population simply does not exist. Of course human genetic variation does exist but it is an essential quality for the survival of any species. those who actively seek out any nucleotide substitution and try to make complex statistical analysis to define race are misguided. If race exists it should be a naturally occurring phenomena. If Race exists there would be black people and white people but no brown people which we know is not the case. Maybe when humans plan a mission to Mars and get stuck there for half million years maybe then might we have two distinct races.Muntuwandi01:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is a tendency to redefine race out of existence. The idea of clinal human variation and biological human races aren't mutually exclusive.
This is the basic definition of biological race, pretty simple, I don't see how it doesn't apply to humans: "5. Biology a. An interbreeding, usually geographically isolated population of organisms differing from other populations of the same species in the frequency of hereditary traits. A race that has been given formal taxonomic recognition is known as a subspecies."
As for the "brown people shouldn't exist" remark, I don't see the point in that, as the aforementioned biological definition of race doesn't leave out the possibility of intermediate populations between the clinal extremes. Funkynusayri02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
in which case the race would not be a discrete well defined stable entity but a fuzzy concept. Then yes I would agree that such "races" do exist. However what is most important with humans is the phenotype that is produced, not just physical appearance but whether there are any other differences. The last time I checked the gestation period for blacks , whites, yellows or reds was still the same, an average of nine months. As long as the majority of such traits remain the same across the so called "races" then there is little justification in trying to divide up humanity other than for social reasons.Muntuwandi02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, you're redefining race out of existence. What are these criteria you are mentioning? What do they have to do with the definition of race mentioned above? If the criteria you mention were applied to animals, there wouldn't be animal races either. Remember, species and race is not the same. Race is a fuzzy unstable concept even when applied to animals, but this doesn't keep scientists from categorising them as such (when I say animal races I mean sub-species that are able to produce fertile offspring with each other and so on.).Funkynusayri02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Even in the animal kingdom their is no one universal standard for a subspecies. Zoologists have as much trouble defining subspecies amongst animals as they would amongst humans. Subspecies is considered a significant step towards speciation.Unless someone can provide evidence that certain human populations are about to break out into some new cyber-hominid type. There is no evidence to suggest such is taking place. In fact interbreeding is on the rise reducing the genetic distances between the "races". Latin america is a typical example.
Scientists love to classify stuff. The biggest contention about race is that if races do exist, then it follows that, since humans love to rank things, then certain races are better than other races. This is the biggest problem with existence of race, were it not for this many would be more relaxed about race classifications. But we know from past experience that as long as people try to find differences among the populations, they are inherently trying to justify the superiority of one side and the inferiority of another. Differences do exist between humans, but they are vastly outnumbered by the similarities.Muntuwandi03:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you're mixing a lot of stuff together now. What does this have to do with ranking races? Are rankings of animals taken seriously by scientists? No, so if some laymen choose to rank human races, as they do anyway, should this really limit science?
Humans were evolving towards speciation, but this has stopped due to globalisation. But has the different races disappeared because of this? No. The term "race" as applied to humans, can only be discredited when everyone is mixed with everyone. This hasn't happened yet, but when and if it does, I'd understand your criticism of the term. But as the world is today, biological race among humans is still a factor. Funkynusayri03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from cultural issues, the races have no value in predicting any biological phenotype such as behaviour, gestation period, height, weight, ability to speak, or hear, 20/20 vision, . The only way humans could have been evolving towards speciation is if humans were still more like non-human animals, who do not significantly alter their environment. In other words buffalo in North America will never engineer themselves out of North America to mate with African buffalo hence speciation can occur. In any case the races were never evolving independently. The closest we get to independent evolution is actually between the two black races of oceania and africa.Muntuwandi03:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Percentage genetic distances among major continents based on 120 classical polymorphisms
Africa
Oceania
East Asia
Europe
Oceania
24.7
East Asia
20.6
10
Europe
16.6
13.5
9.7
America
22.6
14.6
8.9
9.5
It is evident that even in antiquity race mixing was taking place.
Of course race mixing has always occurred, but the relevance of this fact is defined by the scale of this mixing. I agree race is irrelevant when it comes to psychology (behaviour), but your physical examples are flawed. Many other examples could be mentioned that would confirm that "race" can predict the outcome of these, even height as you mention as a feature which couldn't be predicted. Racial classification of bone structure by a trained scientist is nearly infallible, for example.
On speciation, humans existed a long time before antiquity, and this period is where the physical differences among humans occurred and humans could "truly" be lumped together as races, so antiquity and onwards would be irrelevant. The thing is just that the changes that occurred then are still present in modern humans, so humans are still divided into races. But even today, isolated populations do exist which would certainly become separate species if left for themselves for the next thousands of years (tribal populations in Africa, Asia and South America). The two "black races" you mention are unrelated, and examples of either parallel evolution in similar environments, or almost unchanged resemblance to their common ancestors, by the way.
Speciation isn't an essential criteria for defining sub-species anyway, so well, it could be ignored in theory (which I won't). Funkynusayri03:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subspecies is the first significant step towards speciation. If races exist then it means progress towards speciation. The so called races first split 50000 years ago, at 20 years per generation this is 2500 generations. for a complex organism this is too few a number of generations. Bacteria can undergo the same number of generations in a test tube without undergoing speciation. If we contend that races exist then it means speciation is soon to occur, however human reproduction is a slow process, unlike dogs or rabbits that can have 3 or 4 litters in a year and reach maturity soon afterwards.
Aside from culture race cannot be used as a predictor of polygenicmultifactoral phenotypes.
When it comes to human height for example, east asians are stereotyped as being short but the tallest man in the world Bao Xishunis east asian , or Yao Ming. Even the bones that you say can be used to identify race are not perfect. The bones of cro-magnons who Europeans are descended from are different from modern europeans. does this mean that we should define race also by time period.
The vast majority of human polymorphisms occurred in the millions of years of human evolution prior to the dispersal of humans. These polymorphisms were already in existence and only came to differ in frequency by genetic drift. For example Cavalli-sforza does not rule out that white skin arose in Africa. This because every population in the world has Albinos, which means these mutations occurred in Africa prior to the dispersal of humans.Muntuwandi04:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad Wikipedia doesn't have a quote function that I'm aware of, so it's hard to respond to individual points. But yes, races are a step towards speciation, but it is impossible to predict if a certain race is ever going to turn into a new species or not. It all depends on whether it will be kept in isolation or not in the long run. And who decides how long it takes for a race to evolve? I recall a certain species of lizard which was brought to an island where it didn't exist before, over the course of 20 years it had significantly changed from the appearance of the source population, turned into a distinct race. I don't see why several thousands of years wouldn't be enough for significant changes to occur among different human groups that would justify classifying them as distinct races.
As for individual physical traits, and the prediction of them, I think you're bringing up a moot point. Of course there'll always be exception. If a giraffe grows up to be only one meter tall, does that mean that we should refrain from expecting that other giraffes will generally grow larger than that? Pretty absurd to me. And of course, the bone classification isn't perfect, as I already said, but still, that's how it is with taxonomy. It's never perfect. Doesn't mean it's invalid.
On albinism, well, I'm not convinced that this sickness has anything to do with light skin in general. It is not the same mutation. Funkynusayri06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Making races in animals is done every day, that is what dog breeders and other animal breeders do.They use highly incestuous levels of inbreeding to zero in on specific traits and produce pure breeds. However many of these pure breeds suffer serious health problems because of lack of diversity, mongrels tend to be healthier though they are less prestigous. Humans get around this problem by the incest taboo, which is universal in all cultures. This helps to generate diversity by encouraging marriage from outside one's own community. As a result any one population even isolated groups will have around 90% of the worlds genetic diversity. Such diversity slows down the rate of divergence and reduces the probability that speciation will occur. Animals have no such taboo, combined with short gestation and period to sexual maturity means multiple generations in a short period.
With result to bone classification, if you can distinguish the dutch from germans then does that make them two separate races. Bones will differ across time and distance. The problem always is where does one demarcate a line in the clinal pattern to split a population into races. since race is a social construct one can use these constructs to determine what a skeleton would have identified his/herself when it was alive. But it is not in itself a biological entity. this we discussed above Talk:Race#skulls.
Albinism is not a sickness but a condition. It is related to white skin, albinism is just a more advanced form of hypopigmentation than light skin. Since many blacks are affected by albinism this gives clues of how light skin may have evolved from a dark skinned population. Some scientists suggest that Europeans were black until as recently as 11,000 years ago.Muntuwandi12:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this sounds like two editors arguing over what is the truth - when instead we should be working on ensuring that this article is accurate and NPOV compliant. Funkynusayri is absolutely correct that many people believe in a biologically valid concept of race. However, Muntuwandi is also correct that many people reject a biological concept of race on scientific grounds. It is not for Wikipedia to say who is right. It is absolutely pointless for a Wikipedia editor to argue that a particular view is "wrong." The question is, is it verifiable. A dictionary definition is a pathetic tool for research - peer-reviewed journal articles including JAMA or NEJM however are excellent sources for research. Some articles may well argue for a biologically valid concept of race and we have no choice but to include that in the article. But others argue that it is invalid and we have to include that in the article too. Wikipedia is not concerned with truth, it is concerned with verifiable points of view. By the way, I know of no article by a physical anthropologist or evolutionary biologist that has argued that humans were evolving towards speciation until globalization. One last thing: could editors please indent properly, using colons rather than asterisks, indenting consistently, and signing their contributions? Please? It would make following this discussion much easieer. thank you. Slrubenstein | Talk15:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See, Muntuwandi, you say race is a "social construct" (POV), while this can only be said about the social definition of race, which differs from the biological one.
As for albinism, it is a condition which can make people ill, therefore it can be a sickness. Anyhow, albinism is related to light pigmentation, but again, not the same mutation.
Slrubenstein, the reason we're arguing over "the truth" is because the article is (or was) POV. The article as it is makes it seem as if the biological definition of race is entirely rejected, as it isn't. Therefore I added some new references supporting the idea of biological race, no one has removed any counter references. On speciation, again, no one can predict if a race will eventually turn into a separate species. In theory, humans still have the potential to evolve into different species.Whether this will happen or not is unknown, and rather irrelevant to the biological definition of human races.
As for the dictionary definition, who talked about using it as a source in the article? All it does is explaining the generally accepted definition of biological race, as it would apply to animals in general.Funkynusayri16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, those who aregue that race is socially constructed are explicitly arguing that the biological concept of race is socially constructed. Second, where exactly in the article does it say that the biological concept of race is entirely rejected? I know of no place where it says this. Slrubenstein | = Talk16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Saying something is a social construct does not amount to saying that it is a complete fiction. The very reason that social constructs are problematical is that they rely, to varying extents, on empirical observations. The wave theory of light constructs empirical evidence one way. The particle theory of light constructs the same evidence another way. And physicists talk not about "what light really is" but about models that are the most helpful in producing telescopes and light meters. The problem with [race] is not particularly with the actual empirical evidence but first with the constructions that are placed upon the evidence and second with additional conclusions that seem plausible to many people but are not grounded on evidence. P0M17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're confusing biological race in general, which is widely used in relation to animals, and the existence of biological human races. The first isn't disputed, the second is.
That's not quite true. Defining "biological races" is simply something people do. The taxonomies of creatures like spiders are still fluid even at the level of genera and species. That is not because nature has changed, but because researchers have gone back over what other people have done, expanded their research, and have then come up with other conclusions on how to graph out the connections between organisms. When you get down to the level of subspecies, some researchers express frustration with knowing where to place individual specimens. If you look at honey bees it is even clearer that between subspecies, e.g., Italian bees and Carnolian bees, there is actually a clinal merging, i.e., if you are in the center of either region you will see bees with different phenotypes, however if you go halfway in between you will see bees that are somewhere in the middle. The problems with bees and humans are essentially the same. We might imagine that bees magically appeared in Italy and in Carnolia at some distant time in the past and developed in isolation into their present forms. If that were true, then the bees in the middle would be hybrids of the two founding populations. But there is no evidence to back up that view. If bees swarmed and reproduced and swarmed again until they covered all of Europe and on into Asia, it is more likely that over the succeeding several millions of years they evolved and selected for traits that best fit local conditions. Or, to put it another way, the bees midway between Italy and Carnolia might have been there first and might have spread and changed in two directions. The one thing that separates putative subspecies of some creatures from [races] of humans is that geographical barriers are sometimes sufficient to keep populations of salamanders or whatever from breeding with each other and detectable differences in traits (e.g., "the green ones" vs. "the yellow ones") can develop. Humans are enthusiastic and resourceful travelers and reproducers. P0M17:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No one said the article makes it seem as if race is entirely rejected, but half of the introduction is used for criticism of the term. Isn't that inappropriate? Isn't that meant for the article itself?
This claim for example: "Since the 1940s, most evolutionary scientists have rejected the view that race is a biologically meaningful concept." Where is the citation? How do we know that applies today? There is even a sentence which starts with the dreaded "some argue". Funkynusayri17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Definition of biological race section break
What use is there in classifying biological races. The only reason I can think of is ranking. Of course this has been done before, examples are apartheid south africa or the segregation era. Other than that it has no use. But both these systems failed to sustain themselves. So what use is there in biological classification other than identification. Maybe scientists can design one coca cola for blacks and another one for whites. Muntuwandi16:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's your view. Take a look at some of the articles I provided about the medical use of racial classification, this one in particular, it's pretty much the same discussion we're having: http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007
Anyhow, I don't understand why racial classification should be ignored just because it is inconvenient. What use is there in classifying animals? Funkynusayri17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The object of the article on [race] is to explain several interrelated things. Belief in the existence of certain [races] with less easily known characteristics that can be predicted on the basis of marker characteristics is a potent social force, whether or not it is true that there are [races] so defined. Belief in [race] is a necessary precondition for the existence of racism. Racism is a reality. But what is the ontological status of the presumed [races] upon which racism is predicated. That is the problem that is both hard to get clear to people and hard for researchers to come to agreement on.
If [race] is useful for medicine or for some other purpose, then people will probably use it. There is evidence to show that even crude estimates of genetic characteristics (self-assigned racial categories for instance) can have some predictive value in the selection of what medicines to try on individual patients first. There has also been strong reaction from the medical community against over-dependence on such predictions because they only produce probabilistic results. P0M17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
black or white
Funkynusayri the articles by Neil Risch et al, are typical of such studies that aim at finding differences between the "races" but forget about similarities. for the vast majority of medical conditions like a tooth ache or a sore throat, a tummy ache, race is absolutely useless in treating these conditions.
In everyday life what purpose can biological race classifications serve. biologically whatever affects one race affects another. There is no pathological disease that selects victims based on race.
with regards to albinism this is a typical example of how superficial racial differences are. This gives clues as to how light skin evolved from darker skinned people. Muntuwandi17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
POM, well, again, the main reason why the existence of biological human races is being disputed is simply because people fear that it would justify racim. But taxonomy itself is neutral, so we're back to the "ranking" argument again.
To talk about reason for questioning the "existence" of biological human races is to assume that there is something there in the first place. That approach is what in rhetorics is called "begging the question." (Yeah, I know that "begging the question" has recently been taken up as a kind of buzz phrase to mean something entirely different.)
Taxonomies may be "neutral," at least if people attach no connotations to them. However, there is no guarantee that any taxonomy is appropriate. That is one reason that biologists keep changing their taxonomies as they gain new information. Taxonomies are tools, and they either do a good enough job or they don't. The colors of the spectrum are a taxonomy, but there are no gaps in the frequencies of light. Some cultures assign more color terms to that continuum, divide it mentally into more ranges, and other cultures assign fewer color terms. And that lack of discrete real items to correspond to discrete names in a taxonomy is only on one dimension. Humans are defined on multiple dimensions, and all of them (male vs. female being a possible exception) are not discrete. Some of the categories may not even correspond to anything that can be objectively measured, e.g. the moral worth of individuals. Ranking humans as nasty or nice is probably the goal all right, but isn't that racism? P0M18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi, there are of course many more similarities between the different humans than differences, but how is this relevant? A dog and a wolf have more similarities than differences, but should we ignore the differences just because of this? And still, there doesn't even need to be a medical justification for using racial classification, taxonomy doesn't need justification. What justifies the classification of animals? On albinism, well, I don't see why you continue to bring this up, albinism is a condition found sporadically on members of pretty much any species, it is not a feature you'd find to be the norm in any population of any species. Albinism would be insignificant if the boy on the right chose to be classified racially through genetics.Funkynusayri17:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is justification to classify a dog and a wolf as separate subspecies but this is an arbitrary classification based on an anthropocentric view. The difference being that a dog is simply a domesticated wolf. Dogs and wolfs not only differ in physical appearance but in temperament and patterns of behaviour. A wolf raised by humans is still dangerous and unpredictable. No such differences in temperament that are genetic and not cultural exist among humans. Muntuwandi18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"What justifies the classification of animals?" At the levels of species and above there is a great deal of utility. Even so, the classifications themselves are fluid because the classifications are abstractions from empirical experience and involve humans mentally cutting reality into what some group regards as convenient chunks. At the level of subspecies there is less agreement that utility justifies the exercise. At the level of [race], which you seem to suggest is an even fuzzier categorization, a sort of sub-subspecies perhaps, there are practical problems with knowing for sure how to classify individuals and practical problems with getting any useful information out of the exercise. P0M18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it seems among canines there is a species, subspecies and a sub-subspecies(breed). It shows that nature has its own rules. Even amongst the big cats there is a problem of classification because though a lion and a tiger are considered separate species, they can mate to form ligers and Tigons, some of whom are infertile depending on what they are crossed with. At some stage lions and tigers had a common ancestor that branched off into two subspecies. The process of speciation of these two subspecies has not been fully completed because a lion and a tiger will mate when faced with lack of choices and produce semi-fertile offspring.Muntuwandi19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So you two are basically denouncing taxonomy in general because it can be flawed? And as for the "begging the question" remark, I find it inapropriate when it comes to this particular discussion, as biological race is not discredited but disputed, largely due to political reasons. And yet again, this is changing swiftly due to the constant flow of new genetic discoveries that support the idea of biological races in humans. On "sub-sub species", what are you referring to? Humans are a species, not a race. Funkynusayri04:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, seems like you haven't been following the discussion, we aren't arguing about anything that has direct relevance to the article itself, I'm not proposing changes, so I don't see how it is relevant in relation to our discussion, which has more to do with you removing sourced statements than the subject itself.
As for keeping on arguing for days, that's how Wikipedia works, but I hadn't even contributed to this particular page since the 12th of July until now, so it isn't exactly a heated argument. Both me and a completely different person are reconstructing the sourced statements on the Australoid page that you keep reverting, so if anything, you're the one who keeps it going. Anyway, I don't see how your little attack on me is relevant for this article, Fred. Funkynusayri04:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Taxonomy is not flawed but is sometimes an artificial human classification. The lions and tigers are the typical example because humans desire discrete elements but these are sometimes not found in nature. Muntuwandi04:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All taxonomy is artificial. All classification models are simply human creations. Could you please tell me why racial classification in particular does'nt apply to humans? Funkynusayri05:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the species classification is the closest to nature since it requires interfertility, which is a natural process. However the racial is more artificial. One can apply a subspecies classification to humans but it would be subjective. depending on the trait chosen different races can arise.Muntuwandi05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you're not simply arguing against the use of the term biological race when applied to humans, but against the use of the term race/sub-species in general? Is that viewpoint taken seriously by any scientists at all? By the way, in regard to your accusation of me having dirty motives for arguing in favour of the existence of biological race on these damned Wikipedia pages, what the heck would I gain if I really was a racist? I'm not mocking any peoples in any of my edits on the respective race pages, I'm making a general statement about race as a biological term, saying it exists, and adding images showing what people different old terms referred to. if it makes you happy, I can edit the pictures so you only see their heads, and not their bodies, which are sometimes nude (you seemed to object to the way they were portrayed before). Funkynusayri05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It can be applied to humans but problems arise. Unlike when applied to animals, humans have social biases when classifying themselves. For example we tend to classify by skin color but we do not classify animals by their color. A horse is a horse whether it is brown , black or white. The biggest problem is that there are so many invisible characteristics, or other characteristics that are ignored because they are not socially significant. For example Blacks and whites have the same type of ear wax and east asians have a different one. Which means blacks and whites could be one race and east asians a different race. but ear wax is not socially significant so we ignore it in our classifications.Muntuwandi05:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for example Arabian horses are white, but anyway, skin colour is really irrelevant to what I'm talking about. When race is properly defined genetically, phenotype will be irrelevant. Physical classification can only be secondary, because unrelated peoples can look alike and so on. A human is a human whether it is brown, black or white, but that's not what we're arguing about. The definition of human is pretty clear and undisputed. I'm stil waiting for a reply regarding the accusations of racism. Funkynusayri06:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
models of human evolution
The section needs a rewrite with the inclusion of information from new studies such as [2]. Unless new fossils are uncovered , the multiregional hypothesis is going the way of the flat earth hypothesis. Muntuwandi03:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Removed unsourced material
I removed the sentence in the introduction that stated "since the 1940s, most evolutionary scientists believe the concept of race to have no genetic basis", even though it had already been flagged as unsourced because it makes a claim about the concept of race of such force that it is, if unreferenced, doubtful and harmful to the article as a whole (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Unsourced_material). W.M. O'Quinlan18:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Revert war regarding Harpending's criticism of Venter
The revert war is over the following addition to the second paragraph of the article: "This despite the fact that the human code analyzed was of only one person, hence could not, by definition, show any variation.[3]". The claim of those reverting this sentence is that the link is to a discussion group and that this is therefore not a "reliable source". The wiki article "WP:RS" is cited as the guideline for "reliable source". That article, however, states: "Reliable sources are authors >OR< publications regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." and the source of the quote is Henry Harpending of the National Academy of Sciences -- specialist in population genetics. No one disputes the authenticity of Henry Harpending's comment and it would be unreasonable to do so since Harpending has been participating in the evolutionary psychology group for years and that group is among the highest traffic groups with the most reputable participants. Moreover, what Harpending is saying, on the face of it, can't be disputed by any reasonable person and therefore hardly requires citation. As Harpending says "my little kid can figure out that that makes no sense." The only reason it might be disputed is the whole point of the second paragraph of article -- which is that people like Venter are so averse to being caught up in the controversy over "race" that they can go to great lengths, in this case making absurd statements to highly regarded publications like the Washington Post, which then makes them the basis of major stories it carries. The whole intellectually dishonest situation is reflected, of course, in this revert war which makes up rules about "reliable sources" as it goes along to suppress the simple and obvious facts of the subject matter regarding "race". Jim Bowery22:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You can only read it if you join the group. Can anyone maybe find an alternative source for the same thing? Anyhow, removing the sentence instead of just putting up the "citation needed" tag is kind of odd. Funkynusayri22:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not only that you have to join the group, a message board is NOT a reliable source! Who knows the true identity of any of its contributors? If the quote is true, and from the "Nation Academy of Sciences", then get it from there, or another reliable source. Until then, it does not belong in the article. - JeenyTalk22:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This fails at least two requirements for sources. Completely black and white, clear as crystal there in the text, unless you can come up with a WP:RS, do not add something. --Longing....22:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is crystal clear -- black and white -- is that I provided the text from WP:RS that supports my citation and neither you, nor any of your cohorts, have done anything but to argue by assertion. Jim Bowery23:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia, a collaborative effort -- "cohorts"? That's what people are supposed to do, discuss, or "argue" as you say, unreliable and questionable material added to articles that are not backed up by reliable sources. Reliable sources are not on message boards! Therefore your source is not a reliable one, meaning it does not support your citation per WP:RS, as you say. Read my post above why it fails WP:RS, and then read WP:RS AGAIN! How many times does one have to say that to you for you to understand that? - JeenyTalk23:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are again arguing by assertion. Stop it. Quote text from WP:RS as I have. The only quotes from WP:RS provided thus far support my position. You are merely asserting your position over and over again. Moreover -- let's get real here and use a little common sense. If Ian Pitchford's evolutionary psychology group is so unreliable then why did Salon do a feature article about it mentioning participants like Dawkins by name? [4]Jim Bowery23:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your insertion did not have a reliable source! You stop it. Use something from that article you just linked to promote your idea then, and use that as the ref if you want. I haven't checked it, though, if it's reliable or not. That's your job to do the research on information you insert in the article. - JeenyTalk23:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and WP:TINC. Also see WP:RS, which like I have said, you are in violation of. If you continue this hostile and anti-policy behavior and rudeness towards other editors, you could be blocked from editing. You might want to read WP:UHB, but refrain from making ad hominem attacks --Longing....23:58, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I have to quote from WP:RS so he may understand. Here's one:
Certain red flags should prompt editors to examine the sources for a given claim.
Surprising or apparently important claims that are not widely known.
Surprising or apparently important reports of recent events not covered by reliable news media.
Reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, embarrassing, controversial, or against an interest they had previously defended.
Claims not supported or claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view in the relevant academic community. Be particularly careful when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.
Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources, especially regarding scientific or medical topics, historical events, politically charged issues, and in material about living people."
No, that doesn't cut the mustard. It is *not* a "fringe theory" that it requires more than one genome to quantify variability. It is so *by definition* of "variability". Now, you can *try* making the argument that it is a "fringe theory" that Venter's conclusions were based on only one genome since there is, within the cited Washington Post article, the claim that he based his conclusions on genome sequences from differing racial groups and that a widely recognized authority in population genetics variability is not sufficient authority to counter the WP's report of Venter's claim. If so, I can produce subsequent reports from the New York Times that corroborate Harpending's claim that Celera's analysis was primarily based on just one genome -- the genome of Venter himself. This is controversial mainly in that *Venter's ethics* were questionable in using himself for the primary source of genomic data.[5] Venter's questionable ethics are consistent with Harpending's assertion that Venter was posturing against the biological reality of race for commercial if not political advantage. Jim Bowery00:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both of you, stop this. Jeeny, this is not necessarily a fringe theory, and Jabo, this is not a reliable source. You don't need to go flinging shit around at each other, it's just making you look bad. Now calm down, go reread WP:AGF, WP:CIV, WP:RS and WP:NPOV a few times, this applies to both of you, you need to calm down and get a better understanding of policy --Longing....00:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. I'll add another quote from the guidelines.
The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. When content in Wikipedia requires direct substantiation, the established convention is to provide an inline citation to the supporting references. The rationale is this provides the most direct means to verify whether the content is consistent with the references. Alternative conventions exist, and are acceptable when they provide clear and precise attribution for the article's assertions, but inline citations are considered "best practices" under this rationale. For more details, please consult Wikipedia:Citing_sources#How_to_cite_sources. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question.
Your original insertion was not backed by a verifiable source, it was a message board, one that people had to join a group to read. - JeenyTalk00:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cite the passage in WP:RS that disqualifies "message boards". Cite the passage in WP:RS that disqualifies "registration". I've already shown sources such as Salon used elsewhere in Wikipedia that have cited Ian Pitchford's evolutionary psychology group as having authoritative comments from such widely recognized public figures as Dawkins. Registration is required for the New York Times and that is not disqualified. Jim Bowery00:56, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently I was thinking of WP:EL, but still, a forum is not a WP:RS, unless the forum in question is the subject of the article, and the post illustrates a notable part of it's history. If you really want this on the article, ask the person to have it published in a journal of some type, or at least post it on their web page --Longing....01:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. (See below.) Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources.
I would say this qualifies as a "questionable source". Furthermore, the claim that the human genome is mostly derived from one individual and through a single source is in my eyes a very contentious claim and likely to be false unless backed by a very authoritative source. A single person claiming to be a well-known researcher on a user newsgroup certainly doesn't qualify as such.--Ramdrake01:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you're getting close to a good argument. However, Harpending _is_ a recognized authority in the subject matter and the Wiki policy on self-publishing does say Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_.28online_and_paper.29 "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." This allows for self-published statements on race by recognized authorities like Harpending. A good argument might be constructed from the next sentence: "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP." Venter is a living person and Harpending is basically saying something about Venter. I'll accept this argument -- tenuous tho it is -- for the purposes of this discussion and proceed to find another source for Harpending's claim that Venter really didn't have the data from the other racial groups he needed to make the claims made by him via the Washington Post article. When I do -- and I believe it is likely due to Harpending's reputation and the growing body of peer-reviewed research contradicting Venter's statements to the press -- I'll provide the appropriate cite(s). Jim Bowery02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Web forums and the talkback section of weblogs are not regarded as reliable. While they are often controlled by a single party (as opposed to the distributed nature of Usenet), many still permit anonymous commentary and we have no way of verifying the identity of a poster."- JeenyTalk01:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's not even a guideline, let alone a policy -- and even if it were it wouldn't be applicable to the present instance since Harpending's identity in Pitchford's group has been verified multiple times as has the identity of even more well-known public figures in the same group. 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
No Harpending was not disputing the well known fact that there have been many sources of genome data other than Venter. He was disputing Venter's claim that Celera's genome data was supportive of the "no biological race" claim made by Venter to the Washington Post. Moreover, the data that has come out of the other projects you cite directly contradict Venter's claim because phylogenetic clustering does show genetic groups that match with virtual perfection self-identified race -- so we have additional reason to distrust Venter's early claims made via the WP cited in the second paragraph of the Wiki article on race. Jim Bowery03:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That whole section needs to be removed from the lead and placed in the genetics section. There is no need to get into the debate of whether the human genome gives information on the existence or non-existence of biological races in the lead section.Muntuwandi03:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree for the simple reason that the heart of the race debate is the historic classification of people into groups currently going by the name of "self-identified race" and there is now a clear trend in the peer-reveiewed literature analyzing genomic data vindicating the traditional taxonomy. Jim Bowery03:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's much more than my opinion. No one reputable buys into Lewontin's Fallacy anymore and the news article you cite is just a sensationalist rehash of that fallacy for circulation appeal. No one reputable disputes Lewontin's claim that there is more variation within than between races when one looks at a single locus and no one reputable disputes that there has been a lot more admixture than many racists would like to believe. But I suspect even Venter would like people to forget the stuff he said to the WP -- which is all the more reason to keep it up front of this article. Yes it is terrible that so many people were mislead by Lewontin -- but their beliefs, however cherished, don't change the facts of the human genome and the biological validity of traditional racial taxonomy. Jim Bowery04:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Find an expert who says the same thing from a reliable, verifiable source, and it can go in, properly attributed. Nobody here has a real problem with what was said, just with the how and from which sources.--Ramdrake14:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
second paragraph
I am very skeptical of this sentence: "whereas a new opinion among geneticists is that it should be a valid mean of classification, although in a modified form based on DNA analysis.[12][13][14][15]" The sources are newspapers, which at best tells you what journalists think geneticists claim. But this aricle itself cites a variety of recent peer-reviewed articles by geneticists and few if any of them advocate the validity of race, and when they do, they make it clear that they are not claiming that race is a valid way of classifying groups of humans. Some of the articles start with race as a way of classifying humans (in their sample) and then show how mtDNA or Y-linked haplogroups actually cut across self-defined racial lines. Slrubenstein | Talk16:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Newspapers, including press releases, often get things wrong, certainly in the fields in which I have expertise. Be that as it may, the press release makes a pretty narrow claim - at least the sentence ought to be rewritten to reflect the source more precisely and accurately. Slrubenstein | Talk14:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should prove that they "get it wrong" before removing it, don't you think? I haven't heard about a Wikipedia policy that supports your request. And check the first link, plenty of references to published studies. Funkynusayri14:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Alun has already done a good job of prooving them wrong. Be that as it may, I would not exclude them as sources. But i would be accurate: they represent not necessarily what scientists think, but how science is being represented by the media. That itself is notable, but it should be presented as such. I don't have to prove them wrong since Wikipedia is not about truth, and I am not asking you to prove them right. I am saying that they reflect the views of journalists and in the case of the press release a corporation (University), which is different from the nature of views expressed in peer-reviewed journal articles. Slrubenstein | Talk14:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, which Wikipedia policy would justify that you remove these sources? And as I mentioned already, the articles use peer-reviewed articles as references. Read these references and point out how they have been misrepresented, otherwise I don't think there is a problem. Funkynusayri14:42, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What these articles demonstrate is that racial self-identification correlates with the distribution of certain genetic markers, and that it might be useful for certain epidemiological considerations. It doesn't speak about any "validity" of racial categorization. This isn't what that second paragraph sentence is saying.--Ramdrake14:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I quote from the first article: "Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view." Please at least read the articles before dismissing them.Funkynusayri14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is simply stating that people from different parts of the world are detectably genetically different. So what? No one has ever claimed, to my knowledge that people are genetically homogeneous throughout the world. In the USA the main contributing groups to the modern population come from relatively isolated parts of the world. West Africa, North America and Europe. One would expect that people sampled from extreme distance would display a greater level of differentiation relative to people sampled from proximate regions. The authors of this article take self described categories which do not cover a very broad spectrum of the global human population, and show they are genetically different. Big deal. The article makes no claim for any taxonomic value to the concept of "race". Furthermore the people who wrote the computer programme used in the study, STRUCTURE, have stated that people are partitioned into clusters on an ad hoc basis, and that any results should be considered as a guide and a trial of the programme that used idealised data showed that structure has a tendency to underestimate the true number of clusters. Indeed Witherspoon released a paper only this year showing that it is possible for two people to be closer to each other than to the norm for their "cluster" and still be correctly assigned to their "cluster" which shows that in fact the clustering does not have any value in epidemiological studies. "We chose the most widely used clustering program (structure) to represent this class of analyses. The authors (Pritchard et al. 2000; Falush et al. 2003) admit that the procedure to estimate the number of populations is ad hoc and recommend that it be used only as a guide, but these caveats are often ignored." and "The complete inability of structure to correctly estimate the true number of populations using Low mutation markers is somewhat surprising but in agreement with previous observation regarding the factors primarily responsible for statistical power to detect population differentiation."[6] Witherspoon states of clustering analyses "For example, an African individual x with qx=0.52 will be more similar to a European y with qy=0.60 than to another African z with qz=0.4. Yet that individual x will still be closer to the population mean trait value for Africans (qA ~ 0.48, the African centroid) than to the mean value of Europeans (qB ~ 0.68). It follows that many individuals like this one will be correctly classified (yielding low CC and CT) even though they are often more similar to individuals of the other population than to members of their own population (yielding high v)." and "Thus the answer to the question ‘‘How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?’’ depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, v, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is v=0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, v = 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes ‘‘never’’ when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations. On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase v. This is illustrated by the fact that v and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of 10,000 polymorphisms....In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible."[7] If you want to accurately present Risch's data then you need to explain that this is not a taxonomic excercise, you also need to explain that these samples represent relatively isolated populations and that they only apply to the USA, you also need to state that these samples do not represent a fair and accurate representation of the clinal nature of global genetic variability because they are not taken from an unbiased sampling of the global human population. Indeed to be fair all you can really say about these data is that they show than the populations used in the study are different, you cannot extrapolate to make a global conclusion. You should not attempt to introduce this citation if you do not fully understand what they mean. You should also avoid quote mining. You have tried to make this paper say something it does not, no geneticists are calling for human subspecific classification, these people are saying that self described race/ethnicity might have something useful to say regarding medical treatment, they do not discuss taxonomy, nor do they even attempt to define what they mean by "race" or "ethnicity", something that would be fundamental for rational taxonomic purposes. Folk concepts of race have no biological validity, and even if populations in the USA show a certain level of differentiation, this cannot be extrapolated to the global human community due to the considerations of the clinality of variation.. Also you wanted to know why you should not use newspaper citations, it is because in science try to avoid citing the popular press. Alun16:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again: I quote from the first Stanford article (http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007): "Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view." Please at least read the articles before dismissing them. It's crystal clear. If you don't agree, it doesn't matter, both POVs are represented. Funkynusayri14:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've read it a thousand times. It does not say what you want it to say. Besides you are wrong in saying that "whereas a new opinion among geneticists is that it should be a valid mean of classification". Classification is taxonomy. Where does this article discuss taxonomy? Read my response and also read the article sI have linked toy. You cannot possibly have done that. You do not seem to want to present genetic data in a neutral manner. This quote is not a consensus opinion amongst geneticists, let alone among scientists, you are merely misrepresenting the science. This appears to be little more than POV pushing. A single quote from a single paper is not proof of anything Alun17:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Alun did not remove any content. he corrected it. he made sure that it provided a more accurate account of the research, and actually added well-sourced content. You can't cault an editor for clarifying and adding content. (I am not commenting on category vs. class, but the representation of current research by geneticists). Slrubenstein | Talk18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dobzhansky misrepresented
Rubenstein reverted my last edit and replaced it with his false interpretation of the differences between Livingstone's and Dobzhansky's positions. Dobzhansky does not say in the paper that the "race concept" is "a matter of judgement." His actual views are more accurately expressed in his comment to UNESCO:
The Biological Concept of Race. Race as a biological
term expresses the fact that there are populations of
mankind like those of Africa and of Europe, for example,
which differ in some of their hereditary characters.
Anthropologists reserve the term “race” for those groups
of mankind which regularly show extensive physical
differences. Race, based on hereditary group differences
has thus become a device for classifying and thereby
describing in simpler terms the great variety existing in
mankind.
Biologists also recognize racial differentiation as a part
of the process by which local populations become fitted
or adapted to their environment. Race as a biological
category is thus based on the most universal of biological
processes, that of evolution. MoritzB18:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His actual views are more accurately expressed in his UNESCO comment? What kind of BS is that? YOU provided a citation for a Current Anthropology article and I am referring to that article. In that article he refers to the race concept, which he uses to refer to whether or not races are named and if so how many there are and he states, explicitly, that this is a matter of judgement. I did not delete a point of view. I just represented the exchange between the two scholars more accurately. They agree on some things and disagree on others. I made it clear what they agree on, and what they disagree on, and I included quotes from the article. I am not changing the meaning or interpreting anything. By adding material that you left out, I simply provide a fuller and more accurate view of the exchange. So suddenly Dobzhansky's own comment in one of the most prestigious anthropology journals in the world no longer represents his own views? You cite one statement by Dobzhansky and provide one quote that supports your POV. I add quotes and summarize the entire comment so people have an idea of everything he wrote, and suddenly the text YOU initially chose no longer represents his views? I am sure that when Dobzhansky wrote that he was fully capable of expressing his views. You are just going to have to accept that he wrote what he wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk18:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the text you wrote does not represent Dobzhansky's views. You took a quote out of context. You deleted the Dobzhansky quotes I added which allowed you to misrepresent Dobzhansky's views.
Dobzhansky's clear opinion is that "race differences" are a biological fact and races remain useful categories.
Unlike you claim Dobzhanski does not say that "the use of the race concept to classify people is a matter of social convention". He defends the use of the racial concepts like Negroid or Caucasoid in science. MoritzB19:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My version states clearly that TD believes that racial differences are biological, so you are agreeing with me. But you are disagreeing with TD who does say that the decision to name races and the decision about how many races there are is a matter of judgement. That is his view, like it or not. Do not censor Dobzhansky's view. TD ALSO believes that in his judgement races are worth naming and my version says this too. But he makes it clear it is ajugement call. his judgement is just different from Livingston's. Your version is a bad faith edit and violates our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk20:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, your edit was the bad one as Dobzhansky clearly does not say that "the use of the race concept to classify people is a matter of social convention." He defends the biological concept of race. MoritzB21:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So what is the "biological concept of race" that he is defending? One of the problems with the biological concept of "race" is that there is no agreement about what it is. So actually he must be defending a specific version of the biological conception of race. Look at all the edits I have made at Talk:White people about this. During Darwin's time the number of "biological races" varied from 2 to 60 odd depending on which classification system one favoured. Physical anthropologists in the USA were some of the main defenders of a "biological race" concept for a long time, but even they gave it up because they realised that the number of "biological races" is arbitrary. Carlton Coon, who you seem to be a fan of was the President of the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, but this Association now disavows the existence of any biological races, this is for practical and scientific reasons and not for any politically correct reason as is so often claimed by proponents of "biological race". The AAPA "Statement on Biological Aspects of Race" is one of the best and most thoughtful statements on this subject available, and the fact that it's from the AAPA makes it more relevant than many other similar statements.[8] Whether a group of people is considered a "race" is fundamentally dependent on the criteria used to determine what a "biological race" is. Stating that humans vary genetically and physically over geography is not the same as supporting any concept of "biological race". So if you want to claim that Dobzhansky is supporting a "biological race" concept, you need to be clear about which concept he is supporting, and also about the criteria used in this concept for classification purposes. If he is simply stating that human diversity is geographically distributed, then this is a different thing altogether. Alun05:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Dobzhansky races are defined as populations differing in the incidence of certain genes, but actually exchanging or potentially able to exchange genes across whatever boundaries (usually geographic) separate them. MoritzB15:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By this definition any local group of people could be considered a "race", it depends on the extent of differentiation, without specifying what extent delineates a different "population" or "race" we are really only discussing geographic variation. Which genes does he suggest should be used in this process? This implies that whether a "biological race" exists is dependent on which genes are studies. Different genetic elements give different results. If you use genes that have known to be adaptive then the result would be different to when you use selectively neutral polymorphisms. This is not a very good answer. Besides the section you gave for Dobzhansky seems only to be discussing the fact that there is variation and that it can be measured. Even showing that humans can be grouped together does not "prove biological race". One can classify people by eye colour, that does not make all people with blue eyes a single "race", any more than having dark or pale skin does. Variation is not evidence of discrete populations. Besides your edit was totally incomprehensible. I could not understand it because it was so badly written and expressed. Alun18:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, he didn't even attempt to address my arguments. Unlike Rubenstein claims Dobzhansky does not say that "the use of the race concept to classify people is a matter of social convention". He defends the use of the racial concepts like Negroid or Caucasoid in 'scienceMoritzB16:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MoritzB is simply ignorant. H does not realize that it is possible for Dobzhansky to claim that racial nomenclature is a matter of social convention, and for him to argue for using a certain nomenclature. In fact, he does hold both positions, and I present both positions in my summary of his view. He makes it very clear that the race concept - whether people name races, and how many races if any people chose to name, is a matter of the judgement of a comunity. He further argues that in his judgement, his community ought to use a certain nomenclature. This is a reasonable argument, even if others do not share his judgement. But MortizB wouldn't recognize a reasonable argument if it bit him - evident in the fact that MoritzB has never made a reasonable argument at Wikipedia, just repeats dogmatic assertions. No wonder he misunderstand Dobzhansky. Slrubenstein | Talk12:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I'm noone's sock. User11111 —Preceding unsigned comment added by User11111 (talk • contribs) 20:00, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
Then, can we have a discussion as to why you keep reverting, so we can address your concerns rather than wasting everybody's time reverting each other? Thanks!--Ramdrake20:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page says that he is Aleksei from Moscow. Are you familiar with WP:BITE and WP:AGF?
I believe Slrubenstein's edit put the matter more in perspective. The alternate phrasing, looking at the original source, looks like selective quoting to me, and that's forbidden by WP:NPOV policy.--Ramdrake20:08, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the problem is that Rubenstein's text uses selective quoting and is in a logical contradiction with the source.
Ramdrake, I have read Dobzhansky's article and SIRubenstein's version was inaccurate.
Yes, we agree. Please type four tildes to sign a comment with your own name. It is also good to make edit summaries before you edit. MoritzB20:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with the first part of your sentence. It's funny that all your "friends" have been confirmed to be the most dangerous form of abuse of sockpuppetry. - JeenyTalk22:11, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? I'm not MoritzB. User11111 20:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sock-puppe or not, you clearly have not read the comment - it is not an article which leads me to think you really have not read it - and you certainly did not understand it. It is an exchange between two scholars, and the agree on some points and disagree on others. You cannot fully and accurately represent either position just by singling out what they disagree on, you need to be clear about what they agree on too. This is simple, accuracy. The only motive I can imagine anyone would have for deleting any mention of areas of agreement is if someone just wants to stir up conflict. Is that what you want? Don't say you want all points of view represented because the recent edits by me and Alun kept the points of view you refer to, and merely added more contextual information and other points of view. So you are not motivated by any love of NPOV. So is that what is motivating you, a desire to stir up conflict? If that is your motive please go away. If it is not, please make constuctive suggestions about edits we can all agree will improve the article, rather than simply reverting any edit to something you put in. NO ONE owns this article. Slrubenstein | Talk10:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information of their study: "When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups; the overlap in genetic similarity between these groups is ~ 0%"
"The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group."
The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.Muntuwandi03:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Also, The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group.MoritzB04:02, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
both statements are correct from the article but you have cherry picked only one statement that does not illustrate everything about the article. Muntuwandi04:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MoritzB is yet again quoting out of context with no attempt to be neutral or to actually present what the Witherspoon article states in anything like a balanced way. The article cannot be summed up in the simplistic ways that either Muntuwandi or MoritzB have suggested. The following quote from the article contains the basic conclusions of the research. I have highlighted the points that contradict MoritzB, his quote is deliberately misleading and biased to try and misrepresent the work in order to push a point of view this research does not support.
Thus the answer to the question ‘‘How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?’’ depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, v, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ~0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, v ~ 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes ‘‘never’’ when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations. On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase v. This is illustrated by the fact that v and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of 10,000 polymorphisms (Table 1, microarray data set; Figure 2D). In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible. However, those studies lacked the statistical power required to answer that question (see Rosenberg et al. 2005).
However, European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African populations are geographically separated, not closely related or admixed. It was clear that Witherspoon was talking about these populations. "When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups; the overlap in genetic similarity between these groups is ~ 0%." You are welcome to add a comment about the closely related and admixed populations. The mixed populations do not belong to any traditional racial categories either. MoritzB04:49, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Witherspoon's paper is clearly a response to Risch and Edwards, it addresses an important question regarding the similarity between individuals from different groups. The paper is disputing the claims by Risch and Edwards that clustering analyses have any medical application, Risch states "Nonetheless, we demonstrate here that from both an objective and scientific (genetic and epidemiologic) perspective there is great validity in racial/ethnic self-categorizations, both from the research and public policy points of view." and Edwards claimed "It is not true that 'racial classification is .. . of virtually no genetic or taxonomic significance'. It is not true, as Nature claimed, that 'two random individuals from any one group are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world', and it is not true, as the New Scientist claimed, that 'two individuals are different because they are individuals, not because they belong to different races'" But Witherspoon shows that these observations are not as conclusive as Risch/Edwards claim, indeed Witherspoon shows that it is true that two individuals from very distinct geographic regions are quite likely to be similar to each other (even using 1000 polymorphisms two individuals from very different geographical regions are 10% more likely to be similar to each other than to someone from the same region), especially if one only uses 300 odd polymorphisms as Tang et al and Rosenberg et al. did. Witherspoon states this explicitly
The population groups in this example are quite distinct from one another: Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians. Many factors will further weaken the correlation between an individual’s phenotype and their geographic ancestry.... The typical frequencies of alleles that influence a phenotype are also relevant, as our results show that rare polymorphisms yield high values of v, CC, and CT, even when many such polymorphisms are studied. This implies that complex phenotypes influenced primarily by rare alleles may correspond poorly with population labels and other population-typical traits (in contrast to some Mendelian diseases). However, the typical frequencies of alleles responsible for common complex diseases remain unknown. A final complication arises when racial classifications are used as proxies for geographic ancestry. Although many concepts of race are correlated with geographic ancestry, the two are not interchangeable, and relying on racial classifications will reduce predictive power still further. The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes.
It is clear that clustering analyses do not account for the very real similarities between people from different clusters. Therefore it shows that medical treatment should not be based on "cluster" membership, because for significant proportions of the population these clusters are irrelevant. If you want to claim that individuals from geographically distinct regions can be perfectly discriminated from each other using >10,000 polymorphisms then please make this claim, but in order to be neutral you absolutely need to include the other qualification, or else it is merely taken out of context and POV pushing. You do not address my concerns about your obvious bias at all in your above post, which is that you are not giving a proper account of the article and you are taking quotes out of context. Indeed you seem to be proud of the fact that you are distorting this research by the use of contextomy. I wouldn't be, this is a clear case of POV pushing, and you have been constantly warned about this. It is not being clever to take quotes out of context, it is not being clever to try to imply some research supports a position when it is clear that the research actually supports a completely different conclusion, and it is not being clever to ignore the findings of the research in order to promote your personal beliefs. Alun05:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I read the whole article and the quote is not in any manner inconsistent with it.
Their conclusion:
Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
This means that when the whole genome is taken into account "Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups; the overlap in genetic similarity between these groups is ~ 0%." MoritzB07:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Having arrived here from ANI, I took a look at the passage in dispute:
"When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups; the overlap in genetic similarity between these groups is ~ 0%."[9]
The flaws of this passage are that 1) the second clause is very misleading 2) it is not attributed, but stated as a fact.
"Other geneticists however have shown that even when classification in such a way is possible it does not accurately reflect the clinality of global human genetic diversity and claim that classification of continuously sampled populations may be impossible."[10]
The flaws of this one is that 1) it misrepresents a (well-warranted) caveat as the central finding of the paper, which judging from what has been presented here, it is certainly not, but rather a caution against reckless construal of the central finding, 2) it falsely attributes (by footnote, as the in-text attribution is weasel worded) to Witherspoon et al. a conclusion that they mean to rebut:
In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible. However, those studies lacked the statistical power required to answer that question."
Actually they are not attempting to rebut Serre and Pääbo, they say that continuous sampling would increase ω and that Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) draw conclusions that are in a similar vein. You missed out the sentence immediately prior to the quote you give
This is illustrated by the fact that ω and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms (Table 1, microarray data set; Figure 2D). In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Pääbo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations may be impossible. However, those studies lacked the statistical power required to answer that question (see Rosenberg et al. 2005).
So they are concuring generally with these papers, that their observation regarding continuous sampling is in a similar vein to these previous papers. Then they state that the previous studies lacked the statistical power to answer the question. They did not state that the question could not be answered, or that the conclusion of these previous papers was wrong. Indeed Witherspoon goes a long way to support this assertion. What neither Witherspoon nor the previous studies have done is to obtain samples that are continuously sampled. To claim that Witherspoon is attempting to rebut these papers that they obviously agree with is incorrect. Alun10:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK. The authors state that "at ω = 0, individuals are always more similar to members of their own population than to members of other populations."
Further, they state that "when comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups ω approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group."
Proposal:
When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups according to Witherspoon et. al. (2007).MoritzB08:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are just attempting to use weasel words to hide the fact that a thousand or so loci are required. Indeed this is loci not alleles. Therefore we say what they say, that when a thousand loci are considered for individuals from geographically distant populations such as Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans and east Asians then these individuals are nearly always more like individuals in their own population than to individuals from a different population. We also say that this is probably not true for continuously sampled populations, which is what Witherspoon states. This represents evidence for isolation by distance, and has a big impact upon the validity of clustering analyses for making medical and public policy decisions. It shows that individuals can be categorised into the correct clusters and still be quite likely to be more similar to other individuals from different clusters than to individuals from the same cluster. This is explicitly stated in Witherspoon et al. It is probably worth mentioning the observation that it is probably impossible to classify continuously sampled populations, which is also stated in the paper, and is also supported by several anthropological texts such as Ossorio and Duster,
Anthropologists long ago discovered that humans’ physical traits vary gradually, with groups that are close geographic neighbors being more similar than groups that are geographically separated. This pattern of variation, known as clinal variation, is also observed for many alleles that vary from one human group to another. Another observation is that traits or alleles that vary from one group to another do not vary at the same rate. This pattern is referred to as nonconcordant variation. Because the variation of physical traits is clinal and nonconcordant, anthropologists of the late 19th and early 20th centuries discovered that the more traits and the more human groups they measured, the fewer discrete differences they observed among races and the more categories they had to create to classify human beings. The number of races observed expanded to the 30s and 50s, and eventually anthropologists concluded that there were no discrete races (Marks, 2002). Twentieth and 21st century biomedical researchers have discovered this same feature when evaluating human variation at the level of alleles and allele frequencies. Nature has not created four or five distinct, nonoverlapping genetic groups of people.[11]
and by Darwin and his coauthor Alfred Russel Wallace. This observation is not new and continues to be the most important consideration when discussing human variation, whether it is physical variation or genetic variation. Alun10:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, regarding admixed and intermediate populations Witherspoon states that "ω reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%". According to Witherspoon Europeans, East Asians and sub-Saharan Africans are indeed distinct, nonoverlapping groups of people. However, when considering only some number of loci there is potential for misclassification. MoritzB10:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is not what Witherspoon says at all. The paper nowhere claims that any groups are "non-overlaping". This seems to simply be your bias. What Witherspoon actually says is much more nuanced than your opinion of what he says. What Witherspoon says is that in order for an individual from a group to always be more similar to another individual from the same group it is necessary to examine at least 1,000 loci. Furthermore this only applies to individuals derived from populations that are from geographically distant regions. For individuals from more geographically proximate regions this level of accuracy is not possible even with 10,000 loci, and may not be possible at all. Indeed the paper is explicit about this, humans variation is gradual and characterised by isolation by distance. Sampling from extremes will always maximise differences, sampling human genetic variation by geography indicates that change is gradual. This paper does not support your assertions whichever way you try to cut it. Its conclusions are precise and nuanced, you either do not understand this paper, or more likely you are trying to spin it to reflect a racialist point of view that it clearly does not support by any objective reading. Alun13:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Witherspoon:
We contrast two choices: sets of populations that have been relatively isolated from each other by geographic distance and barriers since the earliest migrations of modern humans out of Africa and sets that include populations that were founded more recently, are geographically closer to one another and therefore more likely to exchange migrants, or have recently experienced a large genetic influx from another population in the set. Sampling only from the more distinct populations yields lower -values, as expected. Figure 2, A, C, and E, shows the results of using only the three most distinct population groups (Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans). Figure 2, B and D, expands the samples used in Figure 2, A and C, to include recently founded and/or geographically intermediate populations (Indians in the insertions data set and New Guineans, South Asians, and Native Americans in the microarray data set) and “admixed” populations (i.e., those that have recently received many migrants from different populations, such as the African American and Hispano–Latino groups in the microarray data set). With just 175 loci, choosing to sample distinct populations vs. more closely related ones makes only a modest difference (insertions data set, compare Figure 2A to 2B; Table 1). The effect of population sampling becomes more pronounced when ≥1000 loci are available. In the microarray data set, drops to zero at 1000 loci if only distinct populations are sampled. With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, CC remains well above zero, and even CT does not reach zero (microarray data, Figure 2, C and D; Table 1).
Do you have a point? This does not address the fact that you have consistently misrepresented this paper. The quote above clearly demonstrates that there is always overlap between geographically proximate regions, and guess what, all populations are geographically proximate to someone, so we get a pattern of isolation by distance. This quote supports what I am saying, not what you are saying. Alun13:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that there isn't overlap between European, Sub-Saharan African and East Asian populations traditional physical anthropologists. The majority of humanity do belong to some of those populations. The overlap between geographically proximate or admixed populations investigated was only 3.7%. MoritzB14:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again you have completely missed the point, or possibly ignored it to promote your POV. The populations sampled were not geographically proximate, they were intermediate. Geographical proximity and intermediate are different things. Witherspoon found a 3.7% difference in intermediate populations that were still really very geographically distant. Sampling continuously would not compare very different populations and some intermediate populations, it would compare continuous populations. The point is we know that Europeans are very different to Indians who are also very different to east Asians. What we don't know is how this difference changes between geographically close regions. If one sampled every 100km or so, then one would get an idea of how proximate populations vary. This would be equivalent to continuous sampling, and this would show that there is probably no such thing as an "east Asian population". Indeed it is just plain wrng to stste that Europeans form a "population" because they clearly do not, the chances of any two randomly chosen Europeans reproducing together are very small because populations are local, not continental. Alun19:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is absurd. Witherspoon et. al. are talking about "populations," which are unequivocally not races or ethnic groups. Europeans do not constitute one population, Europe itself (and Africa and Asia) are divided into many populations. MoritzB, stop using the word group, which is imprecise, and use the word population, which is precise. Slrubenstein | Talk11:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Witherspoon et. al. talk about major population groups: Europeans, East-Asians and sub-Saharan Africans. When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups. MoritzB11:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, they state that the purpose of the article is to debunk certain claims surrounding the issue of race:
"DISCUSSIONS of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding?
All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and “race.” In particular, the American Anthropological Association (1997, p. 1) stated that “data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world” (subsequently amended to “about as different”). Similarly, educational material distributed by the Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world.” Previously, one might have judged these statements to be essentially correct for single-locus characters, but not for multilocus ones. However, the finding of Bamshad et al. (2004) suggests that an empirical investigation of these claims is warranted.
In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci."
Correct: they confirm that the model developed by population geneticists, which makes populations their object of study and category of analysis, is scientifically valid and racial taxa are not scientifically valid. All this article does is demonstrates the robustness of the population concept and supports the calim made in the article that virtually all scientists have rejected as unscientific the concept of race in favor of population. So? Slrubenstein | Talk11:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Racial taxa are scientifically perfectly valid if major populations like sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans and East Asians form distinct clusters which don't overlap. Therefore, if a scientist seeks to prove that races do not exist he needs to show that these clusters overlap significantly, i.e. that a "Caucasian" person can be genetically more similar to a "Negroid" person than to another Caucasian. Many scientists have so far believed that this is the case but Witherspoon debunks that theory.MoritzB12:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the study confirms that the Europeans, East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans form distinct genetic clusters. Thus, they are phylogenetically distinct and according to standard zoological criteria different races. See: O'Brien SJ, Mayr E. Bureaucratic mischief: recognizing endangered species and subspecies. Science. 1991;251(4998):1187-1189
There is no standard criteria for races, all criteria used for defining races are arbitrary. Some propose an Fst of 25%, and human race has Fst of 10-15% for which they recognize a subspecies at Fst of 25%. But even these criteria are arbitrary and man made. The existence of race is in the eye of the beholder. Muntuwandi16:31, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mutuwandi is right, but FST can also be misleading. Some species have very low FST and some subspecies have relatively high. The criteria for subspecific classification are quite arbitrary and vary from species to species. There is, however, a consensus that human genetic diversity is far too superficial, our species far too recent and the level of gene flow between populations far too great, for us to be classified into coherent subspecies, when we are compared to classifications in other mammal species. It is a mammoth leap of faith to assume, against all academic opinion and extant subspecific classification systems, that any observed difference between populations is ipso facto proof of significant differentiation for subspecific classification. Indeed MoritzB's opinion is certainly not supported by academics, we are not classified into subspecies, we are all Homo sapiens sapiens, and this is a citable fact. In this case MoritzB's opinion is irrelevant to the article, and this is POV pushing and OR. Alun16:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ernst Mayr's paper does not support your view when the method is applied to Witherspoon's data. Mayr himself writes: "And the geographic races of the human species - established before the voyages of European discovery and subsequent rise of a global economy - agree in most characteristics with the geographic races of animals. Recognizing races is only recognizing a biological fact." http://www.goodrumj.com/Mayr.html
However, we simply report what Witherspoon says and make no conclusions about subspecies.
Proposal: "When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups. according to Witherspoon et. al. (2007) When more recently founded, geographically intermediate or admixed populations like New Guineans, South Asians, Native Americans, African Americans and Hispano–Latinos are considered the size of the overlap in similarity is 3.7%." MoritzB17:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mayr is entitled to his opinion. But I don't see how he can not support my view, because I have not presented my view. I clearly stated that the criteria for defining subspecies tend to be arbitrary and different from species to species. Sometimes distinct genetic differences are used, sometimes subsepcies are genetically homogeneous and are classified by a few prominent physical features. This is one of the reasons why many biologists reject the concept of subspecies altogether. Some species are practically indistinguishable on the genetic level, whereas some subsepcies have a great deal of gentic differentiation within the species. Subspecies are classified on an arbitrary basis, that is what I said. I recently read a paper in which 36.1% of Leopard genomic differentiation was at the continental level, whereas only 63.9% of the variation was within continent, furthermore 68.9% of mtDNA variation was between continents with only 31.1% within continents.[12] These figures dwarf the equivalents for humans 15% between continents for genomic and 24-27% between continents for mtDNA.[13] Regardless of this humans are not classified into subspecies for very good biological reasons. Mayr may not agree with these reasons, but he is in the minority in this case, there is no subspecific human classification, and that is a fact, like it or not. You can huff and puff about it, but it is still a fact.
'Race' is a legitimate taxonomic concept that works for chimpanzees but does not apply to humans (at this time). The nonexistence of 'races' or subspecies in modern humans does not preclude substantial genetic variation that may be localized to regions or populations. More than 10 million single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) probably exist in the human genome. More than 5 million of these SNPs are expected to be common (minor allele frequency >10%). Most of these SNPs vary in frequency across human populations, and a large fraction of them are private or common in only a single population. Other genetic variants are also asymmetrically distributed. This makes forensic distinctions possible even within restricted regions such as Scandinavia. Anonymous human DNA samples will structure into groups that correspond to the divisions of the sampled populations or regions when large numbers of genetic markers are used. This has been demonstrated with autosomal microsatellites, which are the most rapidly evolving genetic variants. The DNA of an unknown individual from one of the sampled populations would probably be correctly linked to a population. Because this identification is possible does not mean that there is a level of differentiation equal to 'races'. The genetics of Homo sapiens shows gradients of differentiation.[14]
Your proposal is no better than before, it lacks any attempt at impartiality because it does not discuss Witherspoon's conclusions, it only gives a few results. It is inappropriate to present the results of a research paper without also presenting the conclusions the authors have drawn. It also presents these results in a misleading manner. What Witherspoon does is claim that clustering analyses mask a great deal of similarity between individuals from geographically distant regions and show that a great deal more loci are required to produce anything approaching differentiation at the level of the individual, even from geographically distant populations. When intermediate groups are sampled this amount of loci is insufficient, and even 10,000 loci are insufficient to produce a very good distinction. But intermediate groups do not represent continuous sampling. Witherspoon concludes that the only way to fully understand the extent of variaion and how human groups relate to each other is to sample continuously, something no one has ever done. He also speculates that attaining anything like discrete populations may well be impossible if sampling continuously were to be done. The discussion and the introduction of any research paper are the key sections, not the results section. The only reason to go to the results section is to present the data in a misleading or confusing way and to avoid the uncomfortable (for you) conclusion that human populations do not form discrete groups. Alun18:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups. according to Witherspoon et. al. (2007) When more recently founded, geographically intermediate or admixed populations like New Guineans, South Asians, Native Americans, African Americans and Hispano–Latinos are considered the size of the overlap in similarity is 3.7%. Witherspoon et. al conclude that "given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin". However, "even when hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population". Thus, Europeans, East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans do form discrete populations" when considering the entire genome, not just "hundreds of loci". MoritzB19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is another classic example of you taking quotes out of context. The fact that certain grops of people frm discrete populations is not evidence of the existence of "race". Given enough polymorphisms just about any group, down to the family group can be considered a "discrete population". It si perfectly possible for myDNA to be used to distinguish me from every single other person in the entire world, this is the basis of DNA fingerprinting. It is still incorrect to state that I am a "race" just because my DNA is unique. Witherspoon explains how it is possible to show that two individuals from very distant parts of the world are always more different to each other than to an individual from the same part of the world. Of course people from different parts of the world are from different populations. But then an Italian is from a different population to an Irishman. It is just much more difficult to show that an Italian will always be more similar to another Italian than to an Irishman. This is not evidence for the existence of "race", and Witherspoon et al. do not make this claim. Only you are making this claim. The existence of human populations is not disputed. The existence of genetic difference between populations is not disputed. What is not accepted is that the difference between human populations amounts to any concept of subspecies. You really are grasping at straws. You can repeat yourself ad nauseum but the paper does not state what I think you are stating. Indeed it is unclear what you really are trying to say because you seem to be ignoring the conclusions of this paper. All you are doing is saying that geographically disparate groups are more different from each other than they are to geographically proximate groups. No one disputes this. The problem is that you are extrapolating this observation to make unfounded and unsupported conclusions about "race" that Witherspoon does not make. Your personal beliefs are not important, but you keep trying to introduce them into the article, and you keep trying to take quotes out of context to support your personal beliefs. It is clear that you want to use these data to promote your own personal crusade, in doing this you ignore main conclusions of the article. If you want to include information from this article then you need to say what the paper says, and not what you personally want it to say. Your POV pushing and tendentiousness has recently been discussed on ANI, you appear to be conciliatory there, while continuing with tendentious editing and POV pushing here. Alun19:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid you misunderstood Witherspoon's study. The value of ω depends on what populations are compared. When comparing Europeans, Africans and East Asians the value was 0. When the article compared other populations ω reached an asymptotic value of 3.6%. When comparing Italian to Irishmen the value may be e.g. 20% because of the proximity of the groups. Thus, your claim that "given enough polymorphisms just about any group, down to the family group can be considered a "discrete population" is false. Members of European populations can be more similar to members of other European populations than to members of their own population. This is not true in the case of Europeans, Africans and East Asians which was proven by Witherspoon.MoritzB19:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I understand Witherspoon's study all too well, and you know that I do. I also think you understand Witherspoon but do not like their conclusions, and are choosing to make unfounded claims about it. For example just above you state "The value of ω depends on what populations are compared. When comparing Europeans, Africans and East Asians the value was 0." This is simply not true. Witherspoon does not say this anywhere. What Witherspoon actually says is that the value of ω depends both on the populations studied, the number of loci studied and the type of loci studied. So actually for these three groups the value of ω is not 0, the value of ω is dependent on the number of loci used in the study. The value of ω is only 0 when the number of loci is high enough. Furthermore your comment about intermediate populations reaching ω=3.1% is for the microarray data, this is a result for a specific type of locus, as type of locus also has an effect on results, SNPs give different results to STRs for example: "In the microarray data set, ω drops to zero at 1000 loci if only distinct populations are sampled. With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, ω reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, CC remains well above zero, and even CT does not reach zero (microarray data, Figure 2, C and D; Table 1)." Likewise the value of ω would also be dependent on the number of loci used when comparing Italians to Irishmen. It certainly would be 20% at some point, but when it reaches that figure is dependent upon the number of loci studied. It might even be the case that it can never reach as low as 20% between these groups however many loci studied, because individuals in these groups are naturally going to be more similar to each other than they are to say Han Chinese individuals. Conversely it may be possible for ω=0 between Italians and Irishmen if millions of loci were used. The article states that ω reaches 3.1% when geographically intermediate and admixed populations are added, but these intermediate populations are still a very large distance apart. Besides ω=3.1 for the whole sample when geographically intermediate populations are added, showing that when these populations are added it is impossible to perfectly distinguish between individuals for the whole set. "Thus, your claim that "given enough polymorphisms just about any group, down to the family group can be considered a "discrete population" is false." This is a non sequitur, it does not follow that populations are only populations when ω=0, Witherspoon does not make this claim. Populations can be defined in many different ways, Witherspoon's paper does not imply that there is no gene flow between these groups and that this is the definition of a population, as you seem to believe. Irish people and Italian people are different populations due to the fact that they are historically, linguistically, geographically and socially distinct, all of these factors makes it much less likely for an Italian to meet an Irish person, they are distinct populations because they are not panmitic, i.e. because there needs to be migration between these groups in order for genetic mixing (thinking about a small island model). Indeed your claim that "Members of European populations can be more similar to members of other European populations than to members of their own population." is also true of Europeans and east Asians according to Witherspoon himself, it is entirely dependent upon the number of loci used in the study. When 10 loci are used an east Asian individual and an European individual are more similar each other than they are to a person from their own population 30% of the time, when 100 loci are used it is 20% of the time and using a thousand loci it is 10% of the time.
Thus the answer to the question "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?" depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, ω, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ω~0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ω ~10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes ‘‘never’’ when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations.
Your claim that I do not understand this paper is condescending and without merit. Indeed what you wrote following this statement displays a distinct lack of understanding of the paper yourself. You do not appear to even understand the simple fact that ω is dependent upon the number of loci studied. Alun20:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I said hours ago that ω is dependent on the number of loci studied: "However, 'even when hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population". Thus, Europeans, East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans do form discrete populations" when considering the entire genome, not just 'hundreds of loci'" -MoritzB 19:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Quite, and later you just state that ω is 0 for these three populations, which is not true. If you wntr to make a point, then make the correct point, do not make incorrect assertions. Alun07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Witherspoon says that ω approaches zero for these populations.
In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero.
...
The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group. In general, CC and CT decrease more rapidly and to lower values than ω
When taking the whole genome into account ω reaches an asymptotic value >>0 in the case of closely related populations. When Europeans, East Asians and Africans are compared it approaches zero. You make the error of confusing an empirical measurement and biological reality. In empirical measurements ω >> 0 when a small number of loci are studied. However, in biological reality ω approaches 0 in the case of Europeans, East Asians and Sub-Saharan Africans. The study makes a methodological suggestion that hundreds of loci may not be enough to reliably determine the geographic ancestry of an individual. It also states that :"The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group."
When taking the whole genome into account ω reaches an asymptotic value >>0 in the case of closely related populations.
This is incorrect. You are not addressing the point of the paper. Besides the paper does not use "populations" it uses "population groups" because it pools data derived from different populations. see below.
How can you possibly say so? I am just trying to help you understand the study. ω reached an asymptotic value 3.7%>>0 when the more closely related populations were compared. ω always reaches an asymptotic value when closely related populations are compared.
You make the error of confusing an empirical measurement and biological reality.
This statement is irrelevant.
No. The methodology of population genetics and biological reality are two different things.
The study makes a methodological suggestion that hundreds of loci may not be enough to reliably determine the geographic ancestry of an individual.
No it doesn't, the study is discussing the genetic similarity of individuals to other individuals
"It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population."
It also states that :"The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms.
For microarray data, not for all data.
The ω curve of all data sets did not reach an asymptotic value when comparing Sub-Saharan Africans, Europeans and East Asians.
This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group.
No it says that when three very geographically distant groups are studies then individuals will nearly always" be more similar to other individuals in their own group than to individuals in other groups.
Always was the word Witherspoon used, not nearly always. Witherspoon was also right. :"The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group."
Comment. You clearly do not understand what this paper is actually saying. The purpose of this paper is to answer the question How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations? This question cannot be answered directly because we do not have the data. In order to model this question it is necessary to look at the data that are available, this means changing the question somewhat. In order to do this Witherspoon et al. have produced two data sets, one in which they model three very distinct groups of populations (not populations) and another in which they modeld eight groups, the original three and some other less distinct groups. The paper finds that when very distinct population groups are modeled, individuals are nearly always more similar to other individuals from their own population group than to individuals from a different population group when a large number of polymorphisms are used (>1000 "Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is ω ~ 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, ω ~ 10%". Witherspon et al. then go on to model this same question for eight less well geographically distinct population groups, though these population groups do not represent anything like a continuously sampled population. In this analysis it is very much more difficult to to show that any individual is nearly always more similar to another individual from their own group than to an individual from a different group, even though these groups are still relatively different from each other. The original question cannot, as yet be answered, this is because it can only be answered by continual sampling. This is obvious because if we want to understand whether a randomly sampled individual from the entire human population is more similar to their an individual from their own population than to a randomly sampled individual from the rest of the human population will increase ω to a very much greater extent. They then go on to say that this observaton is "In a similar vein [to] Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) [who] have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and therefore closely related) populations maybe impossible. The results of this paper depend on the value of ω, but this statistic is shown to be very innert, and the addition of even a small number of intermediate populations affects the statistic quite dramatically. The conclusions are obvious, to show that an individual is always more similar to someone from their own population than to someone randomly sampled from the global population requires continuous sampling, this involves a very large effect on ω, which means that many more than a few thousand, or even a few tens of thusands of loci need to be studied. The question is not, and never was, how often in an individual from one distinct population more similar to an individual from another distinct population than to an individual from their own population? this is just an artifact of the study design. Witherspoon makes no claims regarding the relevance of being able to distinguish individuals from such distinct populations such as you are claiming. He does not make any claim other than what is already known to any person with eyes in their head, whcih is that people from very different parts of the world tend to be more different from each other than people from the same part of the world. Your conclusions are unwarranted and not supported by the this paper in any way shape or form. This paper is not about "race", it is not about distinguishing "populations" and it does not make any claims for "racial" classification. You are misrepresenting this paper and ignoring it's main conclusions to draw biased and incorrewect conclusions which are entirely your own and are not made in the paper whatsoever. Alun07:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reported Witherspoon's conclusions almost exactly. "The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them. It is also compatible with our finding that, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, caution should be used when using geographic or genetic ancestry to make inferences about individual phenotypes."
Witherspoon clearly informs the reader that an aim of the study was to provide answer to the question how often in an individual from one distinct population more similar to an individual from another distinct population than to an individual from their own population which was different from the previous opinion of AAA. He thus shows that the established view of the non-existence of races was based on false foundations and major human populations form completely distinct genetic clusters which don't overlap at all.
DISCUSSIONS of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding?
All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and “race.” In particular, the American Anthropological Association (1997, p. 1) stated that “data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world” (subsequently amended to “about as different”). Similarly, educational material distributed by the Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world.” Previously, one might have judged these statements to be essentially correct for single-locus characters, but not for multilocus ones. However, the finding of Bamshad et al. (2004) suggests that an empirical investigation of these claims is warranted.
In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci.
Witherspoon establishes that three major human populations are genetically completely distinct and there is no overlap between them except in studies which examine too few loci to reliably determine the population membership of an individual belonging to aforementioned three major human populations. MoritzB12:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A new compromise:
"When enough loci are considered, Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans always are more genetically similar to members of their own group than to those of the other groups. When more recently founded, geographically intermediate or admixed populations like New Guineans, South Asians, Native Americans, African Americans and Hispano–Latinos are considered the size of the overlap in similarity is 3.7%. Still, even when the most distinct populations are considered and hundreds of loci are used, individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own population. Thus, enough genetic data is needed to assign individuals of European, East Asian or sub-Saharan African ancestry correctly to their populations of origin." Witherspoon et. al. (2007) MoritzB21:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
given enough loci any a person from one village will always be more similar to members of his own village than to members of a village that is 1000 miles away. Does that mean the two villages are separate races. Muntuwandi19:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you hinge your information on fringe theories. OK say hypothetically Race does exist, so then what. Most of the traits that make us human vary so much between individuals within the same race that racial classifying them as one race in this regard may seem pointless. Unless you say that all humans are robots to their race. That is everyone in a particular race, acts the same, behaves the same, thinks the same. Most people I know behave differently even from their own siblings or parents. To imply that race exists indicates that people have little individuality and are dependent on their race for their character ,personality or physical ability. I am sure MoritzB that you don't even agree with most people in your own "race", whichever one that may be. Of course in different cultures certain behaviors are emphasized but these are cultural not necessarily genetic. So then what use is subspecies classification other than for social reasons.
The definition of a species is simply a population that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Humans are one species, they have never had any problems interbreeding, historically human populations have actually been very eager to interbreed whenever two groups encounter one another. Just take a look at Latin americas 600 million people, the majority are of mixed ancestry. What this means is that even if race existed, it is not a stable entity, since all it has taken is less than 500 years to produce new mixed populations that number in the hundreds of millions. following the invention of the airplane genes can criss-cross around the globe in days, so a fundamental breakdown is expected in the coming millennium for the rigid geographical racial structures that existed in the past. So what does one hope to gain by classifying races other than boosting one's ego with the right to belong to the "best race". Muntuwandi17:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One more thing the idea, that there was no contact between the races prior to European discovery is also incorrect. Contact between the races has waxed and waned throughout time. For example the Banana is indigenous to Oceania, but somehow it reached West Africa long before European Exploration. There has always been contact between Africa and Europe through North Africa, so genes have been exchanged through this route several times. Haplogroup E3b (Y-DNA) arose in Africa and spread to Europe in the Neolithic for example and 25% of Southern Italians have the y chromosome of an African man. Chinese pottery has been found at the Great Zimbabwe etc. The mystery of the Sweet potato as well, It originated in South america, but is found 3000 miles away in the polynesian, all this prior to European discovery[15]. Muntuwandi18:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think if we are going to introduce Mayr's opinion we should introduce more of what he said rather than just the he argues for the geographic race. My understanding of the article is that he is arguing against the existence of races. Muntuwandi18:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MoritzB, you are welcome. Muntuwandi: he is not arguing against the existence of races. But he is arguing that geographic races, understood biologically, have nothing in common with 19th century notions of race, and cannot be understood hierarchically. He is definitely arguing against racism - but not the idea of race itself. Slrubenstein | Talk12:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Witherspoon in the current version
Let's examine this version and compare it to what Witherspoon actually says:
Conversely Witherspoon (2007) has shown that while it is possible to classify people into genetic clusters this does not resolve the observation that any two individuals from different populations are often genetically more similar to each ther than to two individuals from the same population:
Discussions of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding?
All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and "race"...The Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that "two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world."[14]
Risch et al. (2002) state that "two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian", but Bamshad et al (2004) used the same data set as Risch to show that Europeans are more similar to Asians 38% of the time than they are to other Europeans. Witherspoon et al. conclude that the answer to the question "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?" depends on the number of genes studied. With ten loci and three distinct populations the answer is about 30%, with 100 loci it is about 20% and with a thousand loci it is about 10%. For individuals from within a group to never be more different to each other than to members of a different groups, thousands of loci need to be studied form geographically separated populations. Witherspoon also concludes that if the world population were studied with it's many closely related groups varying clinally, the use of even 10,000 loci does not produce the answer "never". Witherspoon also makes the observation: "In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and there fore closely related) populations may be impossible."[14]
"Conversely Witherspoon (2007) has shown that while it is possible to classify people into genetic clusters this does not resolve the observation that any two individuals from different populations are often genetically more similar to each ther than to two individuals from the same population:
Discussions of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts..."
Witherspoon really says that these major populations are completely distinct and two individuals from different major populations are never genetically more similar to each other than to two individuals from the same populations except in studies which fail to use enough loci to be reliable.
No he doesn't, I can find no statement that supports this claim in Witherspoons paper.. No human groups are completely distinct. This claim would be treated with derision by the scientific community. No human populations can be completely distinct. For one thing all human are very similar to each other by dint of our recent common origin, all humans are very similar because there is evidence of large amounts of gene flow between groups of people and the levels of genetic differentiation within the human species are very low, which is why hundreds of loci are needed before any differentiation can be detected between groups and tens of thousands are required for differentiation between individuals. If these populations were as distinct as you seem to think Witherspoon is claiming, then it would require only a few loci and not tens of thousands. Witherspoon makes no claim that these populations are "distinct". Your claim is absurd and is drawn from you bias and bizarre attempts to push unwarranted racialist nonsense. You either do not understand this work or are deliberately misrepresenting it to promote your own personal agenda. Alun06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, ad hominems and original research don't help.
As I already explained major human populations are completely distinct because according to Witherspoon because ω approaches zero when comparing them and never reaches an asymptotic value and their members can thus be classified correctly to their populations of origin. MoritzB08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a definition of a distinct population, and Witherspoon does not claim this, only you do. It is therefore your opinion, it does not derive from an correct understanding of Witherspoon. Alun08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Witherspoon's actual results: "The power of large numbers of common polymorphisms is most apparent in the microarray data set, comparing the European, East Asian, and sub-Saharan African population groups (Figure 2C). approaches zero (median 0.12%) with 1000 polymorphisms. This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group. In general, CC and CT decrease more rapidly and to lower values than ω."
A single result, this is not "whitherspoons results". It is unwarranted to take a single result from a paper and claim that this is representative of the paper as a whole. This is at the very least dishonest. Alun06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unless Witherspoon made a mistake when writing the sentence your position is logically unsustainable. "This implies that, when enough loci are considered, individuals from these population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group." MoritzB08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and? When enough loci are examined individuals from any group will be genetically more similar to their own group, when geographically isolated groups are examined. It may also be true for populations that are geographically close if enough loci are examined. It does not follow that these are "completely distinct", and Witherspoon does not make this claim. Alun08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then we say simply that when enough loci are considered individuals from the major population groups will always be genetically most similar to members of their own group. MoritzB12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion: Thus the answer to the question “How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?” depends on the number of polymorphisms used to define that dissimilarity and the populations being compared. The answer, can be read from Figure 2. Given 10 loci, three distinct populations, and the full spectrum of polymorphisms (Figure 2E), the answer is 0.3, or nearly one-third of the time. With 100 loci, the answer is ~20% of the time and even using 1000 loci, 10%. However, if genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations. If genetic similarity is measured over many thousands of loci, the answer becomes “never” when individuals are sampled from geographically separated populations."
It does as I am simply reporting Witherspoon's findings honestly. It is hardly relevant in this article what kind of population genetical methods (how many loci) are needed to establish that the dissimilarity fraction approaches zero when comparing major populations. MoritzB08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is relevant how many loci are used. The number of loci is important because it is possible to distinguish any group given enough loci and only a few groups. It may not be possible if continuous sampling is used, however many loci are studied, though this cannot as yet be tested. Alun08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And conclusions:"In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above. These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long. It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations: In such cases, ω becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci."
Quite, this supports what I have been saying. No mention of "major populations being completely distinct" as you claim.Alun06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the genetic clusters of populations are not completely distinct individuals cannot be correctly assigned to their populations of origin as the possibility for misclassification remains. Witherspoon concludes that they can be correctly assigned. MoritzB08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a clustering analysis. Witherspoon does not discuss clusters, he discusses individual differences. Witherspoon does not claim that "they can be correctly assigned. Individuals are not assigned to clusters in Witherspoons data, they are compared to other individuals. Alun08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The fact that, given enough genetic data, individuals can be correctly assigned to their populations of origin is compatible with the observation that most human genetic variation is found within populations, not between them."
If the genetic clusters of populations are not completely distinct individuals cannot be correctly assigned to their populations of origin as the possibility for misclassification remains. Witherspoon concludes that they can be correctly assigned. MoritzB08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a clustering analysis. Witherspoon does not discuss clusters, he discusses individual differences. Witherspoon does not claim that "they can be correctly assigned. Individuals are not assigned to clusters in Witherspoons data, they are compared to other individuals. Alun08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions of genetic differences between major human populations have long been dominated by two facts: (a) Such differences account for only a small fraction of variance in allele frequencies, but nonetheless (b) multilocus statistics assign most individuals to the correct population. This is widely understood to reflect the increased discriminatory power of multilocus statistics. Yet Bamshad et al. (2004) showed, using multilocus statistics and nearly 400 polymorphic loci, that (c) pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population. If multilocus statistics are so powerful, then how are we to understand this finding?
All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and "race"...The Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that "two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world."[14]
Quite, he is saying that multilocus allele clusters are not as powerful as claimed. If they are not as powerful as claimed, then what advantage do they have in medicine? Alun06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seen it lots of times, he shows that multilocus allele clustering hides a great deal of between individual similarities. Alun08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here Witherspoon describes certain established views he intends to prove false. They are not Witherspoon's views although the article attributes them to Witherspoon.
He continues:
All three of the claims listed above appear in disputes over the significance of human population variation and “race.” In particular, the American Anthropological Association (1997, p. 1) stated that “data also show that any two individuals within a particular population are as different genetically as any two people selected from any two populations in the world” (subsequently amended to “about as different”). Similarly, educational material distributed by the Human Genome Project (2001, p. 812) states that “two random individuals from any one group are almost as different [genetically] as any two random individuals from the entire world.” Previously, one might have judged these statements to be essentially correct for single-locus characters, but not for multilocus ones. However, the finding of Bamshad et al. (2004) suggests that an empirical investigation of these claims is warranted.
...
In what follows, we use several collections of loci genotyped in various human populations to examine the relationship between claims a, b, and c above.
Exactly and the use that method to debunk the above claims you claim they are supporting.
You claim this si a conclusion, it clearly is not. What do you mean by "debunk"? Which claims are "debunked"? It is unclear what you are talking about. Be precise. Alun08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The claim c that "pairs of individuals from different populations are often more similar than pairs from the same population".
These data sets vary in the numbers of polymorphic loci genotyped, population sampling strategies, polymorphism ascertainment methods, and average allele frequencies. To assess claim c, we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population.
We show that claim c, the observation of high ω, holds with small collections of loci. It holds even with hundreds of loci, especially if the populations sampled have not been isolated from each other for long.
It breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations:
But ω is not defined like this, ω is defined as you show above, as :we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population.
Yes. Thus, claim c breaks down, however, with data sets comprising thousands of loci genotyped in geographically distinct populations:MoritzB12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In such cases, ω becomes zero. Classification methods similarly yield high error rates with few loci and almost no errors with thousands of loci. Unlike ω, however, classification statistics make use of aggregate properties of populations, so they can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci.
Meaning that they mask a lot of between group identity, because classification with only a few hundred loci, such as Tang and Risch use (approx 350) is not sugfficient to differentiate between the similarities between individuals, even from extreme geographical regions.
It was nonsense because Witherspoon precisely says that classification statistics which make use of the aggregate properties of populations can approach 100% accuracy with as few as 100 loci. They approach 100% accuracy and don't mask anything. MoritzB12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Risch et al. (2002) state that "two Caucasians are more similar to each other genetically than a Caucasian and an Asian", but Bamshad et al (2004) used the same data set as Risch to show that Europeans are more similar to Asians 38% of the time than they are to other Europeans. Witherspoon et al. conclude that the answer to the question "How often is a pair of individuals from one population genetically more dissimilar than two individuals chosen from two different populations?" depends on the number of genes studied.
No they don't, it depends on the number of genes studied and the distinctness of the populations studied.: "With ten loci and three distinct populations the answer is about 30%, with 100 loci it is about 20% and with a thousand loci it is about 10%. For individuals from within a group to never be more different to each other than to members of a different groups, thousands of loci need to be studied form geographically separated populations.
Thousands of loci are needed to empirically measure it which doesn't change the biological fact that individuals from within a major population group are never be more different to each other than to members of other major population groups.
No it doesn't, but this is not the question, the question is between population and within population identity, and not between distinct populations. Alun08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Witherspoon also concludes that if the world population were studied with it's many closely related groups varying clinally, the use of even 10,000 loci does not produce the answer "never".
No he concludes that 10,000 lloci are not enough even for the small set of intermediate and admixed populations used here, "This is illustrated by the fact that equation M48 and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms (Table 1, microarray data set; Figure 2D)." This is refering to this study, which does not sample the "world population" Alun06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are confused. According to Witherspoon "with geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, ω reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%, CC remains well above zero, and even CT does not reach zero." He does not conclude that 10 000 loci are not enough. They were perfectly enough to prove that ω reaches an asymptotic value 3.1%. However, in the case of major populations his conclusion is that ω approaches zero. MoritzB08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is you who is confused. ω reaches the value of 3.1% for these specific loci and population groups. This does not represent anything other than a result for these data, he does not claim that this datum can be extrapolated to the inclusion of other populations. Alun08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Witherspoon also makes the observation: "In a similar vein, Romualdi et al. (2002) and Serre and Paabo (2004) have suggested that highly accurate classification of individuals from continuously sampled (and there fore closely related) populations may be impossible."
This refers to the excellent observation Witherspoon makes: "On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase This is illustrated by the fact that and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms."
Of course, when comparing any closely related and admixed populations like Germans and Englishmen ω >> 0. This is a trivial issue in the context of this article.
This seems to be where you are hopelessly confused. Witherspoon is not saying that it is more difficult to distinguish between close geographical populations (although it obviously is). He is saying that if all human groups are included in the same analysis, then it would increase ω because ω is not defined as how similar two people from defined geographically distinct populations are from each other, or two people from close geographical populations are from each other. we define ω as the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population. So if the whole of humanity is sampled (that is continuously sampled, therefor including individuals from all populations), this figure becomes very high, because each individual is compared to every other individual in every other population to see if they are more different to that population than to their own population. This means that an English person would need to be compared to every person from every single other population, including all European populations, all African populations, all Asian populations etc. ω is the frequency with which a pair of individuals from different populations is genetically more similar than a pair from the same population.. Alun06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are your conclusions. Witherspoon's study does not give any support to your claim that the dissimilarity fraction would become "very high" when the whole of humanity is sampled. He simply notes that "on the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase the dissimilarity fraction". The effect of the possible inclusion of these populations depends on their size which was not studied by Witherspoon. MoritzB08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These are not "my conclusions", this is what Witherspoon states clearly. "On the other hand, if the entire world population were analyzed, the inclusion of many closely related and admixed populations would increase ω. This is illustrated by the fact that ω and the classification error rates, CC and CT, all remain greater than zero when such populations are analyzed, despite the use of >10,000 polymorphisms....The population groups in this example are quite distinct from one another: Europeans, sub-Saharan Africans, and East Asians. Many factors will further weaken the correlation between an individual's phenotype and their geographic ancestry. These include considering more closely related or admixed populations, studying phenotypes influenced by fewer loci, unevenly distributed effects across loci, nonadditive effects, developmental and environmental effects, and uncertainties about individuals' ancestry and actual populations of origin. The typical frequencies of alleles that influence a phenotype are also relevant, as our results show that rare polymorphisms yield high values of ω CC, and CT, even when many such polymorphisms are studied." Alun08:56, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The observation that the dissimilarity fraction rises when admixed and intermediate populations are taken into consideration is trivial and Witherspoon does not even empirically examine this question in the paper. You are mistaken if you think that the passage quoted is some kind of counter-argument to Risch's findings. Your own conclusion is based on your belief that lower values of dissimilarity fraction are obtained in the US than in the world which is original research. Witherspoon never says so and the largest admixed populations in the world (African Americans and Hispanics) are included to Risch's study. MoritzB12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No anthropologist has ever claimed that such closely related and admixed populations don't have common racial elements. The question is whether the racial definitions of traditional physical anthropology (Negroid, Mongoloid, Caucasoid) are consistent with the findings of modern population genetics. Witherspoon conclusions regarding them are clear: the major populations of Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia form discrete genetic clusters. MoritzB14:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He nowhere makes this claim, indeed these are not his conclusions, they are your conclusions, because you want to push a racialist pov. Where is your quote here? Why can you not quote Witherspoon's paper to support this comment? You claim these are Witherspoon's conclusions, well if this is correct, then you should be able to quote the section in the article where he concludes that the major populations of Europe, sub-Saharan Africa and East Asia form discrete genetic clusters. I've read Witherspoon's paper several times, and I can find no conclusions regarding these groups forming distinct clusters. Please quote this "conclusion". If it is made, then it should be easy to quote, it should be explicitly stated. It is not, because these are not Witherspoon's conclusions. Alun06:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, the paragraph above related to the general structure of the article: 1) Traditional racial definitions, 2) Whether modern population genetics supports these definitions. It didn't relate to Witherspoon's study.MoritzB08:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Moritz, why don't you just cut and paste the whole article here? I am being sarcastic: you can quote as much as you like but unless you quote the entire article -which is patently absurd - you are quoting selectively. So what is above is not wha Witherspoon et. al. "actually said," it is part of what they said. And what it means depends on the context in which the article was written. As long as you just quote selectively you can quote all you want and you are violating NOR. To represent a source accurately we need to understand its context and only use it in the article to make the point that the authors were making, not a point you want to make by selectively quoting. Now, stop wasting space on this page, or we will have to archive every day. Slrubenstein | Talk16:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the paper to confirm that Witherspoon was indeed misrepresented. As Wiki is not paper I quoted enough to make this fact clear to those who read only the talk page.
In all honesty witherspoon presents nothing new. Using enough loci any two endogamous groups can be distinguished from each other, even if they are within the same race. Two groups living on separate islands after a several generations can be easily distinguished. Just as one can distinguish any two individuals with enough loci. That is the basis of DNA fingerprinting. You can use this technology to distinguish two families, or for paternity testing. It does not change anything. The fact is that people who live nearer to each other will in general be more related than those who live further away. With enough loci there would be no overlap. One could probably distinguish the chinese from the Japanese, or North Chinese from Southern chinese. Does that mean that these groups are all separate races, well if you believe Moritz. Nobody disputes that there is human variation, it exists or that europeans and africans and east asians will have different gene frequencies. But if we apply any standard for race, then we will find that there would be several races within the so called races. Muntuwandi17:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Simply untrue. For example, comparing Europeans, East Asians, and sub-Saharan Africans, New Guineans, South Asians, Native Americans, African Americans and Hispano–Latinos the size of the overlap in similarity is 3.1% and it cannot be smaller regardless of how many loci are used according to Witherspoon et. al. 2007. MoritzB17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't get this at all do you? The size of ω is 3.1% for the microarray data used by Witherspoon he does not claim that these data represent an absolute value that can be extrapolated. Besides this is not the size of any overlap. Witherspoon is not discussing populations, he is discussing individuals. This has got nothing to do with overlap. This figure shows that for microarray data and these samples 3.1% of the time an individual will be more like another individual from a different group compared to an individual from their own group. It has got nothing to do with overlap because this is about individuals and not about populations. Indeed you are wrong to claim that it cannot be smaller. I would bet money that for this set of data the use of say a million loci would produce better resolution. It can be smaller because as Witherspoon says in his paper ω depends on the number of loci used and the distinctness of the population groups. For less distinct groups we just need more loci. For continuously sampled groups it mmay be impossible to get ω to zero, but it may not if we used tens or hundreds of millions of loci. Alun06:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you familiar with a mathematical concept called asymptote? Witherspoon says that "With geographically intermediate and admixed populations added, however, the dissimilarity fraction reaches an asymptotic value of 3.1%". You are saying that Witherspoon was wrong which is original research.MoritzB08:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it will never reach less than 3.1% even for relatively distinct populations that are used in this study. Which rather undermines your argument. If more populations are included this figure will rise, so it may well be impossible to distinguish any individual from any group if more populations are studied. Alun08:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Two hours ago you still had the opinion that the size ω could be smaller if more loci were used. Now you change your opinion to different factual interpretation of the article because this particular view of facts seems to suit your present argument best. Sorry, but you can't have it both ways. MoritzB12:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
HUP 2-3-4
These long-winded passages on this talk page could be avoided and more beneficial work could be accomplished in other ways in Wikipedia if editors would recognize the fact that the strongest people on earth are able to make whatever claims about race that they please because the weak people cannot control what the strongest people say or do.SgtVelocicaptor11:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I support Moritz
Let's not turn this into an edit war. Moritz seems to have the most reasonably worded position.
I expressed support for Moritz, not anon. What's it to you? Some people who share the simple view with me that biological race exists might also have other, more unsympathetic views, which they do not share with me. I don't give a damn, because I'm not supporting said opinions simply if I support this one. Funkynusayri18:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"The proposal to scrap the concept of race altogether is currently only one extreme in a range of views. It is certainly not shared by all anthropologists and is by no means the majority opinion of the public at large. It appears to be a conclusion reached more on the basis of political and philosophical creeds than on scientific arguments. Correspondingly, anthropologists who do hold this opinion often attempt to shout down their opponents rather than convince them by presentation of facts. Their favored method of argumentation is to label anybody who disagrees with them as racist. The public, however, seems unimpressed by their rhetoric."
"Where Do We Come From? The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent, 2002, p. 384"
Yeah. "There is less mtDNA difference between dogs, wolves and coyotes than there is between the various ethnic groups of human beings" -- James Serpell: "The Domestic Dog", p. 33 MoritzB00:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Anthropology?
I undid an edit with the commentDon't remove authentic anthropological plates from the relevant section section. That is vandalism. They are not. It is not. Cygnisinsignis23:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For one, the plates are not in English. Two, it doesn't state which race is which. They, do though, included different ethnicities, which is different from "races". They are not authenic anthropological plates on races. - JeenyTalk23:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Some people ...'; overly simplistic statements followed by a baffling invocation of irrelevant terminology; better throw in some pictures and distribution maps to give the reader the 'right' idea. All critics will be met with circular arguments, claims of censorship, and personal denigration by enlightened edit warriors. A model of bias and manipulation of editors, and the reader. This fugitive position is being reinserted, into various pages of the document, in a cycle that is causing significant disruption. It is an embarrassment that it should appear in an encyclopedia. Cygnisinsignis00:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The phylogeographic concept of subspecies
Jeeny deleted it and said that it was "POV-pushing" which is strange because most mainstream biologists use that concept in taxonomy.
You used that material and added your POV by telling the reader that "...subspecies is widely accepted today, rather than let the sources do that. It was better to delete it all, rather than claiming races are separate species. It is more complex than that. The whole paragraph needs to be re-written to support the sources in that complex way. Therefore I saw it as POV pushing in that cherry picking sources, and taking little bits from them, to support your view that races are separate species. - JeenyTalk00:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the phylogenetic concept of subspecies is widely accepted today and generally used in animal taxonomy. Your comment that it supports the view that "the races are separate species" is misguided. MoritzB00:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The way it was written read as if it was speaking of human being populationss, and races as subspecies is widely accepted today. Unlike the next paragraph that says organisms, as in non-human. Don't be coy. - JeenyTalk00:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The finest accepted level for a taxon is species, as subspecies implies. BTW, red is not blue either. But there is a bluey-red position being advanced here. Is this an elaborate sociological experiment? Or are you for real? Cygnisinsignis01:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's trying to pretend he knows biology, science, et. al. Look at his contributions. They're all there to POV push that white people are superior, over other races, species, etc. And being coy as to say "is that how the layman understands it? LOL. Who else is going to read this crap? - JeenyTalk01:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogeography is the most accepted way to identify subspecies in modern taxonomy. It uses systematics and a range of evidence to support the existence of subspecies. It has greater validity over previous systems because it requires so much more evidence for subspecies to be recognised. Both genetic and morphological data are required, together with evidence for the subsepcies being geographically circumbscribed. The best definition I have come across goes:
"Members of a subspecies share a unique geographic range or habitat, a group of phylogenetically concordant phenotypic characters, and a unique natural history relative to other subdivisions of the species. Because they are below the species level, different subspecies are reproductively compatible. They will normally be allopatric and they will exhibit recognizable phylogenetic partitioning, because of the time-dependent accumulation of genetic difference in the absence of gene flow. Most subspecies will be monophyletic, however they may also derive from ancestral subspecies hybridization." O'Brien and Meyr. (1991)
On the other hand there is the Phylogenetic Species Concept, which is gaining popularity in taxonomy. In this concept the idea of subspeces does not exist at all, only species exist, but there would be many more species. All species would have to be geographically restricted though. In this concept all humans would be the same species, and no subspecific classifications would exist at all. I think we should change the section on "subspecies as clade" to a discussion about the phylogeographic subspecies concept. The main thing about the phylogeographic subspecies concept is that it is not a "one size fits all" concept, evidence that is relevant for some populations may not be for other populations, there are no hard and fast criteria, it recognises that species of organisms are all ecologically unique, and so we cannot use the same set of criteria for all classifications. hence discussion about what is the appropriate level of FST to identify differentiation are pointless, the level of differentiation both morphologically and genetically that is considered significant will depend on the environment and ecology of the populations being studied. Alun06:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
pov images
Let us avoid using pov images in this article, there will just be an unnecessary distraction from the article. If users have expressed concern, they are better off not used. The insistence on using these photos is counterproductive. Muntuwandi18:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
However, I'd like to point out that using 20th-century images (albeit early 20th century) to illustrate the concept as it was in the 19th century may not be the most appropriate thing to do. Also, since these are the only two images in the entire article, this gives them undue weight. That the only first illustrations this article carries of the concept of "race" is an illustration of an obsolete concept isn't appropriate. I believe this should be discussed further before the images are reinserted.--Ramdrake18:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I moved the images to the 20th century section. Undue weight does not apply, these images are not the only images in the article. It wouldn't apply even if that were the case. The image is a description of the text and perfectly appropriate in that sense. You can't exclude images from an article simply because there are no other images there already. If that were the case, Wiki articles would never have any images unless you automatically had 5 or 6 to include all at once. --Strothra18:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
the famous "wikipedia is not censored" should not be an excuse for the use of innappropriate photos. We should work on consensus, relevance, and stability.We have already had this debate, with some of the same users on other articles. If photos trigger an unnecessary emotional response, they are not valuable to the article and instead a distraction. The photos are in some cases gratuitous and stereotypical and are unworthy of a meaningful discussion on race. Also many of the editors who are supporting the use of these photos have dodgy trackrecords Muntuwandi18:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images are appropriate. Note Wikipedia's content disclaimer. Wikipedia may contain items you find offensive. This same discussion was held over the Muhammad article due to its inclusion of images of that individual. The result was a long and heated debate where WP:CENSOR prevailed. Further, comment on content, not on editors - see WP:NPA. --Strothra18:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have already heard that argument before, and my answer is if you had choice to have your coffee with sugar or coffee without sugar, what would you choose. Muntuwandi18:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before... the plates are not in English. Another, they do not state which race is which. They do, though, included different ethnicities, which is different from "races". They are not authenic anthropological plates on races, but compilations of ethnicities and a couple of races. They do nothing to help define the term "race" then or now. Not censored has nothing to do with the photos. Sheesh, they are not offensive, but they are not appropriate in an article about race. - JeenyTalk18:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would further add that they are not appropriate in an article on race where they are the only example of racial types (except for the US picture). They give undue weight to an obsolete view on race, and seem to be retained much more for shock value than for genuine educational purposes.--Ramdrake18:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're pulling for straws with the undue weight argument. It fits perfectly with the text and is set in an historical context and is not advocating anything, thus undue weight does not apply since it is not attempting to express a viewpoint. The image is also not adding anything excessive to the historical text on the subject. Rather, it is demonstrating it visually. --Strothra18:56, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We are comparing apples and oranges. In that topic it is directly about islam and various sensitivities about it. We do not even know the context associated with these photos since they are from some german publication. Just to give some context on some of the photo supporters.[16]Muntuwandi18:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't comparing apples to oranges since your comment was about their offensive nature, not their context. Seriously, again, stop trying to attack editors - it does not advance your argument. If you wish to participate in this discussion in any real sense then please comment substantively in regard to the article. --Strothra19:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You, Strothra, are pulling at straws. And comparing apples to oranges. The conection to Muhammad is insane. The images themselves are not offensive to me, but inaccurate and do not support the definition of races. Sheesh. - JeenyTalk19:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strothra, I have several issues with them. There is no associated text to know what they are talking about and what is defunct about their classifcation system. They are just a collection of old photos, many taken stereotypically. I am not attacking editors, they made those edits themselves, with their own fingers. I am just letting you know of the editors that you are agreeing with Muntuwandi19:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Jeeny, I think that you're misunderstanding me. I pointed to the Muhammad article because Muntuwandi argued that the images were offensive and thus should not be included. He also stated that this had been argued before in other articles. The Muhammad article is an example of how offensive images were kept in the article due to WP:CENSOR regardless of how Muslim editors felt about it. --Strothra19:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi, making such references is a violation of WP:AGF and not relevant to this discussion. You don't see Mortiz making reference to your block log or the warnings on your talk page. --Strothra19:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AGF applies to newbies. I will assume good faith for you, since this is first time I have encountered you. But for the editors with known agendas it is not necessary. Muntuwandi19:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you, my only agenda is to apply policy to content. I do not in anyway condone pseudo scientific methods that are used in the contemporary present or that were used in the past. Note, however, that I am not a newbie, but WP:AGF does apply to everyone until they prove otherwise hence WP:DUCK (although it is not even a policy or a guideline). However, it might be wise for some individuals to refrain from calling the kettle black. --Strothra19:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images show what a book from 1932 presented as "human races" in a section about race in the 20th century. Could had been the section about the 19th century as well, because the ideas are clearly a left over from that time. Very appropriate. If the images had been moved to the section about the view on race today, it wouldn't have been inappropriate. It's as simple as that, if you ask me. Claiming that they're "stereotypical" is completely missing the point, yes, they are, but that's how they were made to be.
Af for this argument: "They are not authenic anthropological plates on races, but compilations of ethnicities and a couple of races. "
I can tell you, "Menschenrassen" means "human races" in German. And please trust me on this, and don't accuse me of making up false translations, which you have done before. Funkynusayri19:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
'Menschenrassen' certainly means 'human races'; however the word 'race' was essentially indistinguishable from the modern term ethnicity at the time. Paul B23:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I trust you that it comes from a German book, and I trust you that it illustrates races. But I have yet to hear any facts about who compile dthis book and for what audience. It could be the German version of Encart or Nazi propaganda or folk-beliefs or an anthropological treatise based on work by Virchow ... we need to know more about the source. Slrubenstein | Talk20:40, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's from a regular lexicon. This type of information was considered pretty objective back then, but if you want to check it, you can find the entire lexicon if you check the source of the images, just click 'em. Examples of "human races" in a GermanLexicon from 1932 (1). This type of racial classification is considered discredited nowadays.File:LA2-Blitz-0264.jpgExamples of "human races" in a GermanLexicon from 1932 (2). This type of racial classification is considered discredited nowadays.Just for the record if the images are removed from the article again, the images in question are on the right. Funkynusayri20:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am somewhat ambivalent about the disputed photographs. On the one hand they serve to give an historical view of how physical types were perceived, on the other hand they may be seen as little more than presenting a group of individual people as "examples" of a given population or ethnic group, but it is known that there is great variability within group for all human groups. As an example of old fashioned anthropology that concentrated on "physical types" I think these photos could be considered appropriate, though it should be noted in the text that the concept of "physical types" is not currently accepted anthropological orthodoxy, I also suggest that this should be clearly stated in the caption to the photographs, i.e. that this is an out of date perspective. I wonder how it is necessarily so different to the set of photographs that exists in the Race in law enforcement section? On the other hand people complaining about Wikipedia being "censored" like Strothra does is inappropriate, Wikipedia works by consensus, if these is a consensus not to include these photographs then there is no point in complaining about "censorship". If an individual editor wants to include some point of view that is not supported by a consensus position, then they have to accept it, like it or not. Wikipedia is not censored in the sense that there are any rules banning any given point of view or image, on the other hand Wikipedia editors are entitled to omit any image or information if there is a consensus to do so. Alun04:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I still doubt that these pictures add any value. Naturally we all like to look at pictures but we have to ask whether this picture adds any value. It is in black and white, with low resolution and has tiny pictures. We can hardly make out anything. The people who have placed this image haven't even bothered to give a translation of the captions underneath each photo. So we do not know who belongs to what race. We have no idea of the context under which these photos were compiled. And the photos are not linked in anyway to the text from the headings. It is just random pictures of people. I can look out on the street if that is what I would want to see. Muntuwandi05:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your position, and you make excellent points. I think there are probably better examples of this sort of thing that could be added to the article to provide some historical perspective for antiquated anthropological concepts. Indeed it could well be argued that an image is not necessary to explain this in historical context. As I say I am ambivalent, I can see merits for both points of view. What I am absolutely opposed to is any attempt to clam that these are somehow accepted ideas of modern anthropology, and I think we need to state in an unequivocal manner that these classifications are derived from early twentieth century concepts of anthropology that were mixed up with all sorts of unsavory ideas like eugenics, segregationism and anti-miscegenation laws etc. I'm not strongly in favour of these pictures and I'm not strongly against, I am strongly in favour off putting them into the correct context if they are included. All the best. Alun05:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also the book may have been published in 1932, the lexicons and "words" (as the books intro page states) and many of it's sources are from different time periods. Again, using a source that is not in English causes confusion. Also, Paul B stated, and I also believe to be true, "race and ethnicity is interchangeable" in this book. It should not be used in the race article because they do not provide an accurate description of race, then or now. The book contains many other things, old and new at the time of publication, not only of races, but inventions, people, authors, zoology, and many others subjects. Again, because it is in German and not English it should not be included as a reference for anything. Please read the book, that is, if you understand German. Here is one page, I can't find the one on "races". Just look at the different dates. [17]- JeenyTalk05:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The whole reason that the image is important is that it shows how race was understood at one time - which was, yes, conflated with ethnicity. Simply because the image does not show how race is understood today does not mean the image should be excluded, particularly from a section discussing historical methods of studying the subject. --Strothra06:09, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it wasn't race that was understood at the time. This is the problem. There were only three races understood, at that time, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid. Ethnicities where different and were included in the different races, even then. Don't you see that? - JeenyTalk06:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strothra what have you learned by looking at the picture. I haven't learned anything and I bet you have not either. It is always difficult explaining images because the only requirement for using an image on wikipedia is that it should be free. I may seem overenthusiastic about removing these images, and they may seem innocent to some. But you see when you look at many of the xenophobic websites out there on the web, these are the sort of images that are used by them. I could easily provide some links of some sites that I have stumbled across that use such images but I do not want to help the xenophobes spread their message. Wikipedia shouldn't resemble those xenophobic sites. Funkynusayri, the chief protagonist in this has a love affair with this ancient book and he keeps trying to propagate these obsolete images all over wikipedia. The unfortunate thing is that the book is free, so many will say it is free so there is no harm in using them. Muntuwandi06:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right, and those races are represented in the image. The work is comes from is a larger encyclopedic work at the time that describes these races and attempts to describe them by breaking them down into "types." Classification is common among even the most basic of scientific studies both pseudo scientific and otherwise. --Strothra06:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least how "race" was understood in Germany in 1932. The images may be from 1914, but the book was published in Germany during the rise of the NSDAP, this must have affected the way the image was portrayed. Does it reflect a general idea of how "race" was perceived in 1932, or does it reflect the way "race" was perceived in Germany at that time? I suggest that we try for a better image, there must be something that is more appropriate out there, something by Earnest Hooton for example? I think Jeeny makes a very good point. Alun06:26, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with you, Muntuwandi, if it were placed in any other section or if it were being presented as fact or a representation of contemporary viewpoints. --Strothra06:27, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There's actually a very good history on that period of Germany called "Racial Hygiene: Medicine Under the Nazis" by Robert Proctor who among many other things shows that the scientific views of the period actually gave rise to the NSDAP's racial ideology as opposed to the other way around. Also, much of the scientific work conducted in Germany in this period and on this subject flowed from Germany through Europe and across the Atlantic to the states giving rise to global eugenics movements. This isn't a view limited to Germany. If you follow that argument, one would believe that works published in America represent only an American view--Strothra06:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Muntuwandi, you are going back to your argument about the offensiveness of the image, which simply does not pull weight with WP:CENSOR. As much as you don't like it, it is still policy. --Strothra06:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Germany needed to give any lessons to the USA when it came to eugenics. The USA had it's own very active eugenics movement as early as the turn of the century. Given the US history of exploitation of African and African American people for centuries, prior to this and US antimiscegination laws etc. it seems odd to claim that US eugenics derived from German eugenics. Indeed one of the main criticisms of the NSDAP's racism from the USA wasn't that racism was wrong, but that it was the German "version" of racism that was wrong. In the USA it was held that Jewish people were Caucasian for example, and so from a USA eugenic/anthropological point of view it made no sense to persecute them, on the other hand the USA eugenic movement thought that persecution of people of African origin was just fine. Jonathan Marks has a nice discussion of the US eugenics movement in his book "what it means to be 98% chimpanzee", it certainly wasn't learned from the Germans. Alun06:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the US movement was completely derived from the European movements. The American one very strongly rose out of the American Progressive movement, many of its scientific underpinnings, however, were reinforced and advanced by German research from the 1920's on. During that period you find many American textbooks that cite German scientific literature. Although I do see where confusion could have resulted from my statement on giving rise to global movements. That was to imply that there are global connections, no scientific community in any country develops in isolation. --Strothra06:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I never once stated that the U.S. did not create it's own eugenics movement and I even linked it directly to the Progressive movement which formed at the end of the 19th century. --Strothra06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you did, sorry, we edit conflicted and I didn't read what you said properly before I posted this. On the other hand Marks claims that while eugenics was a large movement in the USA prior to 1929, it lost most of it's support after 1929. He claims that this was because many affluent people supported eugenics because it implied they were rich because they were "better". After 1929 a lot of people became very poor, and it became much less supportable to claim that wealth was gained for any other reason than due to luck. I can't comment on the veracity of this, just that this is Marks's thesis in his book. It therefore seemed unlikely to me that 1930's German eugenics could have had such a great affect on US eugenics, though I suppose quite a lot of people in the US still clung on to this belief even after 1929. Alun09:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Wobble's suggestion of a replacement image is likely going to be the best compromise here. I doubt that Muntuwandi will agree because he seems opposed to a graphic representation of historical viewpoints. However, if there is something comparable and in english then there is no reason to oppose. --Strothra06:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"No it wasn't race that was understood at the time. This is the problem. There were only three races understood, at that time, Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid."
That's wrong. There were several sub-races of the main races too which scientists believed in then, even in America, where you have countless divisions of Caucasoids, for example. Back then, when this German book was published, only "Caucasoids" had been studied enough, and had been given "scientific names" (Nordid, Mediterranid, so on), other peoples (or "races" then) were just named after their ethnicity. So please, people, ask about the context instead of coming up with wrong interpretations.
If you read the accompanying text in that German lexicon, the peoples on the images are referred to as sub-races of the three main-races, Caucasoid, Negroid, and Mongoloid.
To Wobble, the reason why we use a German image is because it's the only one we can use for free. There simply doesn't seem to have been released such books in English early enough for their copyright to have been expired, but the German plates are pretty much identical to what would had been in an English one, apart from the names (later, names like "Capoid" were invented, but not in the 30s). I've seen some in English, but they're all from much later. Funkynusayri06:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No it's not, we can use just about any image for free that is older than 70 years (so before 1937), this is US law and wiki servers are in the US. Given the very great age of much of this material we can certainly find better images that are equally ancient. Hooton and Coon published much work before this time, I'm sure there are plenty of examples in English that are available. Just about any encyclopaedia published before 1937 in any country with English as the dominant language will probably have similar pictures. Much info from the 1911 version of Britannica is used on wikipedia, I wonder if there are similar photographs in this encyclopaedia? I wonder how we could check? Alun08:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So far the only defense I see for including these images is that they illustrate a point of view. I have asked people to specify the point of view and have gotten only vague answers (like "mainstream") which I can only interpret to mean "I do not know." We need facts about the point of view. Who compiled the photos? Who wrote the article in which it appeared? Who edited the book in which it appeared? What do we know of its audience? How was the book marketed? Until we can properly identify the point of view it represents, i do not see how we can include it. Slrubenstein | Talk10:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wobble, I agree, find images from English sources if you can, but I repeat, they don't hang around everywhere. The book doesn't simply have to have been published 70 years ago, but the author has to have been dead for 70 years if the book can be considered to be in the public domain. This can't be said for either Coon or Hooton, and neither of them published such a book before 1923 (every American publication from before this year seems to have gone into the public domain in America), as far as I'm aware. Therefore, the German book is a perfect alternative. But again, just find other plates if you want.
And Rubenstein, the images represent what the scientific opinion was at the time, which the text is also about. And yet again, you simply have to click on the images, and you'll be lead to the lexicon itself through them. But just to be sure, here is a direct link: [18]Funkynusayri12:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I followed the link, and I googled the Lexicon, and that di dnot give me the information I would need to make an educated judgement. Do you have the information, or not? It sounds like you do not. Clearly, one would have to do real research. Please tell mw how you know that the images represent scientific opinion at the time? Please tell me what scientists were involved in putting the chart together. Please tell me their methodology. Was the publication peer-reviewed, or did it have an editorial board? Who was on it? How about some facts? or are you just making it up when you claim, with no evidence, that the chart represents scientific knowledge at the time? NPOV asks us to identify the POV expressed. You can't just make it up. Whose POV does it express? really? Slrubenstein | Talk12:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is it that you want me to do? It's a lexicon, not an anthropology book, the info in it just reflects the scientific opinion at the time. Your tone seems pretty hostile for some reason.
Anyhow, here's an introduction to the lexicon, in German:[19]
"Meyers Blitz-Lexikon ist ein sehr kompaktes Nachschlagewerk in einem Band, das mehrmals zwischen etwa 1928 und 1940 erschien. Hier wird die Ausgabe von 1932 präsentiert. Dieses Buch ist als gemeinfrei zu betrachten, weil es keine angegebenen Autoren oder Illustratoren hat und vor mehr als 70 Jahren erschien.
Das digitalisierte Exemplar wurde in einem Antiquariat in Frankfurt während der Wikimania-Konferenz im August 2005 gekauft. Es kostete nur 12 Euro, ist aber sehr gut erhalten. Es hat an einigen Stellen Bleistiftanzeichungen, die nicht entfernt wurden, z.B. bei Österreich: "seit 1938 deutsch" — und danach wieder durchgestrichen!
Die 443 Seiten wurden von LA2 in September 2005 als 300 dpi JPEG Farbbilder mit hohem Kontrast eingescannt und auf Wikimedia Commons hochgeladen. Die Papierseiten sind 155 mm breit, die Bilder etwa 1830 Pixel. Der Template:Vorlage:LA2-Blitz präsentiert sie 700 Pixel breit, einer Bildschirmauflösung von etwa 120 dpi entsprechend. Um die Bilder hoch aufgelöst zu sehen muss man zweimal auf sie klicken. Der OCR-Text ist noch korrekturzulesen. Als Hilfe dafür gibt es zwei Kategorien: völlig und noch nicht völlig korrigierte Seiten. Die Textmasse ist etwa 2,8 Megabyte (ohne Markup; 6,4 Kilobyte pro Seite), die Bilder sind zusammen 700 Megabyte (1,6 Megabyte pro Seite).
Dieses Werk ist das erste, bei dem Wikisource mit Faksimile-Bildern kombiniert wurde. Das zweite ist The New Student's Reference Work, Chicago, 1914. Eine weitere Diskussion gibt es auf Meta, Digitizing books with MediaWiki."
I do not speak German, but your link just send sme to an explanation of why it is fair use. My questions have nothing to do with fair use but rather with understanding what POV it represents and questioning your claim that it was mainstream science. Since this is English Wikipedia, would you be so kind as to answer my questions in English please? Slrubenstein | Talk12:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The captions of the images simply state that they are examples of human races in a German lexicon from 1932. That's what they are, no one claims they're anything more than that. I could see the problem if the caption was "examples of human races provided by objective scientists", but it isn't. Anyhow, all I can do is translate the explanation text I have provided, or you could get some native speaker of German to do it for you. Do you want that?
And how is it only an explanation of why it is fair use? In short, it is described as having several authors, and just being a lexicon. I can't answer who wrote it, because of this. Funkynusayri12:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
One grave concern: the text Funkynusayri provided states clearly that the authors and illustrators of the lexicon in question are anonymous: primary sources for the work are thus not indicated, and opinions and assertion can't be attributed either. I would very strongly doubt the fitness for inclusion of these illustrations based on WP:RS and WP:V, and we can't verify the original sources, or say whose interpretation of the original sources yielded that result.--Ramdrake12:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we're not showing factual illustrations, simply what the caption states, "examples of human races from a German lexicon", nothing more than that. That's what they are. This is besides the point, as we have already included a disclaimer in the caption, which states the images are defunct in any case. If it's a very big problem, I suggest you request that the entire lexicon should be deleted from Wikisource, and that all images used from it are removed from all Wikipedias, as any info from it would be useless according to you. Funkynusayri12:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, Funkynusayri has not done any research. All he knows is, "The captions of the images simply state that they are examples of human races in a German lexicon from 1932." If this is all we know, here is the solution I suggest: we work on a new section called "Social Construction of Race in Germany" and really find out what the different views were and how this discourse emerged out of the nationalist project with its origins in Herder and perhaps Goethe and Von Humboldt, and how it developed through the 19th century and debats among Germans in the early 1900s. This would provide a menaingful context for the image. I realize it would require actual research, but this is an encyclopedia after all so how could anyone object to that? Slrubenstein | Talk13:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We could find another image if it's that much of a problem to use an image from a lexicon, but I've already explained why it's hard. And again, I suggest you go remove every image on all Wikipedias which originate in that lexicon, otherwise I'm not sure why your criticism should only apply to these particular images. Anyone up for a non-free image? We could use Coon's if no one objects. Funkynusayri13:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Man, you really seem to resist any suggestion that requires research - an odd view for someone who wants to write an encyclopedia. Anyway, you are missing the point. What point of view will the image illutrate? I see no reason to illustrate Coon's image of races in this article, given that his views are marginal (maybe in the article on Coon). if you want to illustrate scientific debates about race in the 20th century, we would need a variety of contrasting images to illustrate the multiple points of view effectively. Slrubenstein | Talk13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I've provided all info I could find about the images, and I don't think the pictures are important enough to justify creating a whole new section for them, so what's with the allegations? If you want to write a new section, feel free, I ain't stopping you. But for the sake of convenience, it seems that too many of the regular editors here object to having any images in the race related articles, and I simply don't care enough about the subject to keep putting them in, so if you want to remove them again, I can't stop you. Not because I find your arguments particularly valid, mind you.Funkynusayri13:46, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Similar images. These pictures are from the Fischer Lexicon (1970 edition):
No they don't, they just prove that some people held these points of view. Just providing images does not prove that they have ever been "mainstream". I could provide images from the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't prove this is "mainstram", whatever that means. By the way these images are very funny, might as well introduce Lamarckian evolution or Spontaneous generation, after all both are relevant to evolution and Lamarckism is relevant to "race". Both were also seriously held scientific theories in the past. Alun18:08, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strothra, you see people are already fishing similar stuff from some of these xenophobic websites like Nordish.net. Just as I had mentioned earlier on. While wikipedia is not censored, it is also not a platform for promoting xenophobia or racism but a platform for education. I suggest that if we are to use an image, we can use a map of the world that does not show human faces.Muntuwandi16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to wikipedia not being censored once again, if you look at articles that could be potentially graphic such as pornography or sexual intercourse you will not find any graphic images in those articles. But if wikipedia is not censored why aren't there any. Because common sense dictates that such images distract from encyclopedic text, so the editors have opted for cartoons, artwork or diagrams instead. Nobody will complain about the use of such images. Strothra, I also hope you can see the kind of people who are heavily in favor of using such images. You may end up being guilty by association. Muntuwandi16:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is an image of an erect penis on the penis page. There is an article called Nigger. There are images of Muhammad. Please stop your extreme calls for censorship, Muntu, if they only apply to the race related articles. Please be consistent. Funkynusayri18:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this is a discussion to try to attain consensus on whether or not to include the images. While your point about censorship is taken, WP:CENSOR doesn't trump WP:CON, AFAIK. If the consensus of editors decide not to include the image, then that should be it, unless someone can produce an overwhelming reason (NFC, NPOV) why the images should be kept, but I haven't seen any of that so far.--Ramdrake18:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The images have already been removed, and if the majority of editors here don't want an image which illustrates the text, well, there's nothing I can do about it. I find it bizarre that something so simple can stir up so many emotions in certain individuals, and I find it odd that this is suddenly a problem several weeks after the images were added to the article. So well, who gives a damn, end of discussion. Funkynusayri19:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ramdrake is correct, while Muntu's arguments regarding offensiveness are completely irrelevant due to WP:CENSOR, it seems that consensus is almost impossible to reach here. Regardless, WP:CON states, "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a Wikiproject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The project cannot decide that for "their" articles, said policy does not apply." Thus, WP:CON cannot override WP:CENSOR because a few editors on one article cannot override an accepted and preexisting policy that has been imposed by the larger community. Again, Wobble proposed the inclusion of a different image which I think is an appropriate suggestion. Also, the images were not removed, it's still there but was moved down to the 20th century section. --Strothra22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I beg to interpret this another way: it seems that there is no consensus for the inclusion of the image being discussed, and several editors opposing the inclusion have brought forward points that have nothing to do with censorship. Also, it seems there are slightly more editors against the inclusion than there are in favor (based on current info about the origins and documentation of this picture). Thus, I would say the motivations for exclusion aren't based solely on WP:CENSOR, but also on other arguments. However, I believe there needs to be a clearer consensus about the inclusion or not of these pictures so we can act on it. I don't think belaboring the point of WP:CENSOR helps in any way at this point, as there are other arguments against the picture's inclusion. I believe a consensus, even if non-unanimous would carry appropriate weight, though.--Ramdrake03:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand and agree with that point. The other arguments, if I remember correctly without scrolling up, involved the language of the source and accuracy in representing historical understanding of race. Those are worthy of discussion, which is why I'm agreeing with the suggestion that perhaps the image should be replaced with something else. --Strothra04:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I see, I just assumed it had been deleted because Rubenstein did a revision where he wrote "okey dokey" or something like that, but seems like he just reverted my inclusion of "ethnic" instead of "ethnicity" for whatever reason. But the first half of the image which is still left shows supposed "Europäid races", not ethnicities, so the "racial/ethnic system", as I changed it to, is more correct. Funkynusayri22:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted to what the page was like when it was protected, no more, no less. Of course when the page is unprotected I want to see the image removed for the obvious reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk00:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So we seem to have arrived at a situation where we are discussing whether we need consensus for removal or consensus for keeping the image. I'll give my opinion. Funkynusayri claims that these images have been on the page for some time and that it is strange that they should suddenly become a bone of contention. I'm not sure that this point is valid, these images have been on the page since the 20th of August,[22] and considering that this is sill a time of year when many people in the northern hemisphere are busy doing Summertime things I don't think one can claim that a couple or three weeks represents anything like a stable inclusion. On the other hand there seems to be no consensus one way or the other. Opinion seems about equally divided. Strothra's comments about censorship are totally irrelevant as I stated earlier, wikipedia works by consensus, it is illogical to claim that consensus doesn't overide censor because censorship is not the issue, consensus is the issue. It nowhere claims in the censor policy that a consensus not to include any image or text must violate CENSOR and therefore be included anyway, this is akin to claiming that anything, however irrelevant should be included because any objection to any inclusion is automatically censorship. Personally I suspect that it is best to keep the images out of the article until a better images can be included. I am relatively ambivalent about this, I don't think these images are particularly illuminating, except perhaps to illustrate the absurdity of the concept of "racial type", how can any single individual be considered "representative" of the whole gammut of local diversity seen in any human population? After all it is well known that diversity is greatest at the population level, however it is measured. But in this case the image should probably be used to illustrate the point about diversity in it's historical context, including a discussion about how environment affects morphology. This is a bad image because it comes from a "lexicon", which as far as I can tell just means encyclopaedic dictionary, these sorts of sources are not necessarily written by an expert, and may well be factually incorrect. In this case we do not even know what it is supposed to be illustrating not who actually wrote it. So some sort of primary source would be much better. On the other hand the utility of any such images is also important, what do they illustrate? How is it relevant? What is the political/historical/cultural background to the image? At the least I think we need to find a better example. Alun06:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And, on that note, are there any actual suggestions for a new image? Preferably from an english source, the fact that these are generally too late for free use does not mean that can't be considered fair use because of that. --Strothra13:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well quite, MoritzB has claimed that this point of view was mainstream in the first half of the 20th century, in which case it should be a doddle for those editors who think the inclusion of such images is important to find many free images. On the other hand if they can't find such images, possibly this point of view wasn't as mainstream as they claim, and if they are not prepared to do the research in order to find alternative images then the inclusion of such images cannot be that important to these editors. Alun16:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are countless such images. Deniker's "Races de l'Europe" from 1899, including la race nordique.
Heh, that's a pretty odd conclusion, the fact that free images of that kind are hard to find somehow means that they weren't mainstream? Doesn't make sense, but yes, such images exist in abundance, most were just published after 1923 (all the way up to the 70s and beyond), so they can't be used for free. Funkynusayri16:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I didn't draw any such conclusion. Nowhere have I ever claimed that these ideas were not mainstream, neither have I ever claimed that they were mainstream. I am not an historian, nor an anthropologist and I certainly am not old enough to have been alive at that time. I simply state that if they were mainstream then they should be available in abundance. Indeed there is absolutely no reason why there should not be an abundance of pre 1923 English language images in this case. Besides MoritzB keeps including images of so called "European races" which are not really relevant. We need something that is relevant to humanity as a whole surely? Alun17:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thomas Huxley's map of racial categories from On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind.
Take a look at this image on the left. If only the text on the image was readable. And here's a mirror of an older revision of this very page, seems to have had a lot of maps: [23]Funkynusayri18:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a nice image and we know where it comes from, we can even read the full text of the article here. This sort of thing would be good to show the numerous different "racial" systems used at this time, I think the number of "races" varied from 2 to about 63 depending on the "authority", which is the reason people like Darwin rejected the concept of "race" classification altogether. Alun04:46, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually this is not an older version of the Wikipedia "Race" article, it is an older version of the Race (historical definitions) article. Recently these maps were removed,[24] from the article, but they do illustrate the difficulty people had with developing any coherent concept of "race" from "physical types". All the best. Alun05:59, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Could anyone try to find a version in higher resolution? The text cannot be read. I'm searching myself. By the way, the reason the number of races increased so drastically is because different authors kept dividing them into sub-races, independently from each other, so after a while the systems simply didn't make sense in relation to each other.
Well it's partly true, mainly the reason the number of races kept expanding is because the morphological types of a given feature may be distributed over different geographic regions to the morphological types of other features. So every time someone used a new feature to assign to a "race", they found that any particular morphological classification for this feature it was not necessarily restricted to any preexisting "race", but was spread about, meaning that more and more "races" had to be invented as more features were measured. This is a well known and documented phenomenon and is also seen in genetics. I think the one thing that almost everyone agrees on is the arbitraryness of "race" concepts, where one stops classifying or draws a boundary is always going to be a matter of opinion. It's ultimately why biological "race" concepts were abandoned by mainstream anthropology, and also why many biologists do not recognise the validity of subspecies in biology at all. Alun06:12, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I could have a go a redrawing the map, there are plenty of free use world map images available from the commons. I think it's possible to see how the colours correspond to the map, and the key has been added into the text of the article that I linked to above. Might take a couple of days though. Alun06:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The introduction
The intro is a mess and Wobble just reverted the latest improved version I made. The current version is factually inaccurate (see discussion about Witherspoon's article) and far too technical for the general audience. MoritzB10:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Improved? I don't think so, you have added your opinion and removed what the sources actually say.[25] For example you replaced the statement "It has also been suggested that accurate classification of continuously sampled populations may be impossible." with "Populations which exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions can be difficult to categorize simply." Presumably because you personally believe that there exist something like "discrete races" that "overlap" and that it is the regions that "overlap" that are difficult to "classify". But this is not the claim of the paper, it is your opinion. I note that you have consistently misrepresented sources to push your personal opinion, and that several editors have noted this behaviour of yours.[26][27] Please do not include your opinions and then cite sources that do not make these claims. When you cite a source you must say what the source says, you seem to think it is acceptable to include your opinion of what the source means, you cannot include your interpretation of a source in Wikipedia, this is original research and is not allowed. This has been a persistent habit of yours and you have been asked repeatedly not to push your own personal pov while editing Wikipedia. Alun11:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source (Risch): "Populations that exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions are sometimes the most difficult to categorize simply".[28] My version: Populations which exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions can be difficult to categorize simply There is no misrepresentation and the other studies cited support this view. MoritzB15:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MoritzB's version states
Populations which exist at the boundaries of these continental divisions can be difficult to categorize simply.<ref name="serre">''Evidence for Gradients of Human Genetic Diversity Within and Among Continents.'' by David Serre and Svante Pääbo (2004) ''Genome Res.'' '''14''': 1679-1685 {{doi|10.1101/gr.2529604}}</ref><ref name="romauldi">''Patterns of Human Diversity, within and among Continents, Inferred from Biallelic DNA Polymorphisms'' by Chiara Romualdi, David Balding, Ivane S. Nasidze, Gregory Risch, Myles Robichaux, Stephen T. Sherry, Mark Stoneking, Mark A. Batzer, and Guido Barbujani1. ''Genome Res.'' (2002) '''12''': 602-612 {{doi|10.1101/gr.214902}}</ref><ref>http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=139378 Categorization of humans in biomedical research: genes, race and disease by Neil Risch, Esteban Burchard, Elad Ziv, and Hua Tang. Genome Biol. Volume 3(7); 2002</ref>
which implies that the Serre and Pääbo (2004) supports this statement, he has used it as references for the statement after all, he states this above as well. But Serre and Pääbo (2004) state explicitly in their paper
It is noteworthy that the discrete clusters described by Rosenberg et al. (2002) from analyzing more than one thousand individuals of the CEPH diversity panel might be caused by discontinuities in the sampling, because when samples that have equal numbers of individuals of each population are analyzed (Fig. 2), the inferred populations yielded by Structure do not match continents or geographical regions but represent theoretical “populations” in which all individuals show admixture to at least two such “populations.” Therefore, when the aim is to investigate genetic diversity on a worldwide scale, we recommend an approach in which individuals from as many localities as possible are sampled. Sampling schemes based on populations should only be used if the aim of the study is to unravel the history of these specific populations or their relationship with surrounding populations... It has recently been claimed that "the greatest genetic structure that exists in the human population occurs at the racial level" (Risch et al. 2002). Our results show that this is not the case, and we see no reason to assume that "races" represent any units of relevance for understanding human genetic history.
This is at best dishonest. The concept of "clustering" is stated and cited in the introduction, this is a controversial concept that has it's critics as well as it's supporters, in order to maintain neutrality we need to put both points of view. MoritzB was attempting to remove the alternative point of view, while citing Serre and Pääbo (2004) as a supporting reference for Risch's statement, but Serre and Pääbo's paper clearly does not support Risch's statement. The argument is really about whether human genetic diversity is better represented as a small island model or by isolation by distance. A small island model would support clustering, isolation by distance would support clinality. The current understanding of human genetic variation is incomplete and different analyses support different conclusions. We need to present both points of view, and not ignore those points of view that we disagree with. It certainly cannot be considered impartial to claim that a scientific paper supports a position that it categorically contradicts. Alun16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the introduction is unclear, inaccurate and too technical for the general audience:
"...clustering analysis of 326 microsatellite markers can accurately place individuals in the USA into different groups.[12][13] Other geneticists, however, have shown that many more than 326 loci are required in order to show that individuals are always more similar to individuals in their own population group than to individuals in different population groups, even for three distinct populations" MoritzB16:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looks perfectly clear to me. You provide no evidence that it is inaccurate. This is the introduction, personally I don't think this level of detail belongs in the introduction, but I did not put this in the introduction, if it does go into the introduction then we need to put the work into it's correct context. This work is being used to support the concept of "biological human races", but it does not do so. It uses clustering analysis as a proxy for continent of origin for biomedical purposes. On the other hand "race" is a completely different concept in biological terms, and is synonymous with subspecies. Alun16:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I forgot to remove the Serre reference when I edited the article. Anyway, the current version is in contradiction with the Witherspoon article. MoritzB20:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
![[17]](https:/upwiki/wikipedia/commons/c/c6/LA2-Blitz-0440.jpg){kind=link}
