Talk:Race (human categorization)

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

France

3.3.3 (France) appears to be copying the cited article word-for-word. The article is also rather outdated, from 2001, (before immigration surged in Europe) and claims France to be about 5% non-white, despite there being no official statistics on race in France (while estimates put it at around or over 15%; the country being 7-9% muslim alone). Its comparison to the United States also rather lacks relevance. I would say to remove the section since there is already one on the European Union.

Also, the phrase "non-European and non-white" seems to denote 'European' as a demonym referencing ethnicity, not nationality, as if those deemed 'non-white' cannot be European? Are non-whites in France not French/European? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:186:4301:20E:3598:8DE7:5C:28D0 (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that this complaint was addressed by Doug Weller on January 27th with this edit. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that Von Clown was a sock of the racist Mikemikev

Who left me, using an IP with an obscene talk page message yesterday.[1] Lovely guy. Doug Weller talk 09:43, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

More recent research shows natural differences in race

More recent genetic research shows that we can now predict geographic ancestry almost with 100% accuracy: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1893020/#bib1

This is not to say that race is not a social construct (as almost anything is, including color shades), but it is an important point to add. This confirms that it is false that we might select inter-population genetic samples which are more genetically similar than intra-population samples, as was, and is still widely disseminated.

There are clear differences between our apparent selection of races, both empirically and genetically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weagesdf (talk • contribs) 23:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Per the source's abstract:

...Phenotypes controlled by a dozen or fewer loci can therefore be expected to show substantial overlap between human populations. This provides empirical justification for caution when using population labels in biomedical settings, with broad implications for personalized medicine, pharmacogenetics, and the meaning of race.

And in the last paragraph:

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.

Grayfell (talk) 01:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It sounds to me like this study shows that while race in the sense of a population is not a taxonomic rank below a species or subspecies, a race/population is "an inherent physical or biological quality", in contradiction to the Britannica source in the article.[2]

The first (ten year old) source is written by Richard T. Schaefer, is he a Scientologist?? That was suggested by Google search results referencing his book, Extraordinary Groups: An Examination of Unconventional Lifestyles. I have not otherwise researched his notability. [3]

I haven't researched all the sources in the article, but maybe it needs updating? I'm sure this has been discussed many times.... Kolya Butternut (talk) 19:25, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

This study seems consistent with this section of the article, which I think would make a good addition to the lead:

Theodore Dobzhansky argued that when talking about race one must be attentive to how the term is being used: "I agree with Dr. Livingstone that if races have to be 'discrete units', then there are no races, and if 'race' is used as an 'explanation' of the human variability, rather than vice versa, then the explanation is invalid." He further argued that one could use the term race if one distinguished between "race differences" and "the race concept". The former refers to any distinction in gene frequencies between populations; the latter is "a matter of judgment". He further observed that even when there is clinal variation, "Race differences are objectively ascertainable biological phenomena ... but it does not follow that racially distinct populations must be given racial (or subspecific) labels."[4]

I also feel like the common conception of race as "regional ancestry" belongs in the lead, summarizing George W. Gill and C. Loring Brace, as does the controversial but common opinion that "races are real" and when that possibility is not presented "we are not dealing with science but rather with blatant, politically motivated censorship".[5] Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

David Reich op-ed

This seems quite notable:

In March 2018, Harvard geneticist David Reich published a New York Times op-ed, entitled “How Genetics is Changing Our Understanding of ‘Race.’”[6] In the piece, Reich argues that geneticists “are learning that while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real.” The article prompted 67 natural and social scientists, legal scholars and public health researchers to draft an open letter in response to Reich’s claims. The letter, published by Buzzfeed,[7] asserts that Reich misrepresents critiques of of the use of ‘race’ and ‘population’ in biomedical and genetic research."[8]

Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You've pointed out the criticism Reich has received. And yet you added this and this to the article? And with no mention that Reich has been criticized? And you added a BuzzFeed source. I am very close to reverting you.

Maunus, thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

The criticism of Reich is not against his argument in that quote. The scholars who wrote the open letter published by Buzzfeed News (not Buzzfeed) state the same idea in the quote in the section below. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Lead needs clarification

I feel like the open letter mentioned above concisely summarizes what our lead does not:

[The] robust body of scholarship recognizes the existence of geographically based genetic variation in our species, but shows that such variation is not consistent with biological definitions of race. Nor does that variation map precisely onto ever changing socially defined racial groups.

I think our lead should clearly explain these three issues: the social concept of race does not fit the zoological definition of race (Roberts 2011), "differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real" (Reich 2018), and there are no "sharp, categorical distinctions" (Roberts 2011) among "regional ancestry" (Brace 1995) groups. I'm hesitant to make any changes without discussion. Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

You've pointed out the criticism Reich has received. And yet you want to add his argument to the lead? No. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I made an attempt at an edit. [9] Kolya Butternut (talk) 02:30, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

And I reverted. You know that this is a contentious topic. You knowing that this is contentious is why you stated that you are "hesitant to make any changes without discussion." Despite this and my objection, you made the edit you made anyway.

Given what I stated above and our very unpleasant history with each other, it is much better if other watchers/editors of the article weigh in. So pinging Doug Weller, Carwil and Sangdeboeuf for their thoughts. As seen, I already pinged Maunus above.

Wait for others to comment. Let's not edit war. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:50, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't see your comment here until after I made the edit. I felt I made a careful edit. Can you state why you disagree with my edit? My edit to the lead was supported by many sources; it wasn't Reich's argument. Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Changes to the lead

Kolya Butternut proposes replacing this:

While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race is not an inherent physical or biological quality.

with…

The race construct is partially based on physical similarities within geographic groups, but these particular shared genetics do not fit the zoological definition of race, and there are no "sharp, categorical distinctions."

Well, the propsed sentence (1) has an unfounded leap between "physical similarities" and "particular shared genetics" (there are, for example, multiple genetic causes for differences in skin color that between Africans and Europeans and members of each group don't all share the same genes even for skin color); (2) misses most of the largely consensus critique of race from a genetic basis. In particular, the following are all true:

• Genetic variation and race aren't well aligned: "This doesn’t mean that genetic variation is unimportant; it is, but it does not follow racial lines." (open letter)
• Genetic clustering is radically inconsistent: "further attempts to identify major human groups by clustering genotypes have yielded inconsistent results. … The inconsistencies in these results reflect a well-known feature of human diversity, that is, different genetic polymorphism are distributed over the world in a discordant manner. … It comes as no surprise, then, that if we look back at the many racial catalogs compiled since the 17th century, and at more recent genomic analyses (compare Refs 19, 32, 34, Figure 1), the only point they seem to have in common is that each of them contradicts all the others" (Barbujani, G., S. Ghirotto, and F. Tassi. “Nine Things to Remember about Human Genome Diversity.” Tissue Antigens 82, no. 3 (September 1, 2013): 155–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/tan.12165.)
• Because of wide variation in individual genes, membership in a group does not predict individual genetics: "Whatever term one uses to define a group of people, be it population, ethnic group, or even race, both the authors and the readers must understand that there is no deterministic connection between being part of such groups and carrying a certain genotype or phenotype." (Barbujani, G., S. Ghirotto, and F. Tassi. “Nine Things to Remember about Human Genome Diversity.” Tissue Antigens 82, no. 3 (September 1, 2013): 155–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/tan.12165.)

The cited sources in the original version observe:

• Barnshaw: "race is not an intrinsic part of the human being or the environment but, rather, an identity … Although physical characteristics constitute a portion of the concept of race, this is a physical rather than a biological distinction."
• Britannica: "Genetic studies in the late 20th century refuted the existence of biogenetically distinct races,"

The following scientific sources concur:

• "racial classifications are inadequate descriptors of the distribution of genetic variation in our species" (Tishkoff, Sarah A., and Kenneth K. Kidd. “Implications of Biogeography of Human Populations for ‘race’ and Medicine.” Nature Genetics 36 (November 1, 2004): S21–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/ng1438.)
• "In sum, we concur with Lewontin’s conclusion that Western-based racial classifications have no taxonomic significance" Long, Jeffrey C., and Rick A. Kittles. “Human Genetic Diversity and the Nonexistence of Biological Races.” Human Biology 81, no. 5 (2009): 777–98.

In my opinion, "race is not an inherent physical or biological quality" effectively sums up this research in a way the replacement text does not.--Carwil (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

My goal was to make the lead more clear for the reader; my change may have had problems, but I feel like the current text is vague; it's not clear what the word choices mean. This is why I like "zoological definition" of race or "taxonomic definition" of race; it's clear that these are specific scientific concepts which are different than the word race as it is commonly used. I don't see that the sources say the race (contruct) is not an inherent physical quality, what I see is that Barnshaw states that people define the race (construct) based on physical characteristics which do not have intrinsic biological meaning. So I think it works to say that the social construct of race does not fit the taxonomic/zoological definition, despite that the concept is partially based on observable physical characteristics. This seems supported by the open letter and Dorothy Roberts.

It may be more appropriate to say "shared genetics and physical characteristics" than to make a connection between the physical characteristics and shared genetics. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:44, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I tweaked the lead here[10]. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:35, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Changes to "Defining race"

Kolya Butternut has added the following to this section:

According to geneticist David Reich, "while race may be a social construct, differences in genetic ancestry that happen to correlate to many of today’s racial constructs are real." These biological differences in geographic ancestral populations are not consistent with zoological definitions of race, and there are no "sharp, categorical distinctions".

Silently, the second sentence, which appears to elaborate on the second is from an open letter refuting Reich's approach. Which is, at best, an awkward mix.--Carwil (talk) 17:33, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I actually quoted Dorothy Roberts; I should have paraphrased rather than quoting without attribution. I felt this was a point where Reich and the scholars of the open letter agreed. Kolya Butternut (talk) 21:51, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Why are we using an op-ed to define race, instead of peer-reviewed science? Guettarda (talk) 22:11, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

They are scientists discussing the science. Maybe there are better source here. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Sure, Reich's opinion on this is notable. But it's essentially being presented to undercut the more-or-less mainstream view. We should never use an opinion piece to rebut the mainstream view. An op-ed is always going to be somewhat polemic - it's not the place where you craft a nuanced view of the science. If Reich published a review article in a peer-reviewed source, it would be appropriate to cite here. But I just don't see how using an op-ed to contradict the mainstream view is acceptable per WP:UNDUE. Guettarda (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

But the actual quote is consistent with the mainstream view isn't it? His other statements in the op-ed may not represent the mainstream view. Kolya Butternut (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2019

The introduction to this article seems unsubstantiated in terms of secondary readings. The concept of race is said to be a social construct without any reference to scientific literature. The scientific consensus on race is currently that is a fuzzy concept, not a social construct. Furthermore, books which are actually on the philosophy of biology, are often suggested as "scientific literature" (such as Sober 2000) while they remain highly controversial contributions exploring alternatives paths to the conceptualisation of race. Altogether, the article lacks scientific, rigour, and specificity. My suggested edit will clarify what the current scientific consensus on the biology of race is, without engaging with politics of any side. 80.147.11.76 (talk) 10:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)