Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 24

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 20 ← Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 → Archive 30

Interesting Find

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.

ariagia 10:30, 3 June 2007 (ETC)

Has anyone ever encountered this article?

http://www.goodrumj.com/RFaqHTML.html

This argues for the existence of races. It suggests that human genetic diversity is actually not particularly low for mammals.

when an explanation gets too complicated it often means someone is trying to confuse people like mr goodrumj.Muntuwandi 12:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

A patchwork

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? P0M 08:48, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

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. FilipeS 15:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
It may be that the writer was confused. Regardless, as it stands the paragraph is worse than worthless. P0M 18:22, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
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! - Jeeny Talk 05:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
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.) P0M 06:31, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
You responded to me! OMG! <swoons> just lightening things up, nothing to see here- Jeeny Talk 06:53, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
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. P0M 07:09, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

More on clades and lineages

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. P0M 09:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 11:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)


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. P0M 20:28, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I found one thing of interest, a good abstract of what must be a very interesting article at

http://www.anthrosource.net/doi/abs/10.1525/an.2006.47.2.7?journalCode=an

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.

P0M 04:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 10:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
Very good news. The article on lineage (biological) may need to be adjusted since it ignores the "everyone has two lineages" idea.P0M 13:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

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?P0M 13:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Possibly interesting links

My small contribution to the rewrite in progress:

FilipeS 19:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

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. FilipeS 18:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

All I meant was that we should be selective in how we draw on the linked articles for content to put into this article, that's all. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

deleted link

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 | Talk 14:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

skulls

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. Muntuwandi 16:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

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 rabbit 16:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


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. futurebird 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
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.

Muntuwandi 16:56, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
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." P0M 01:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 11:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"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 B 12:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

You are right, I think I fixed it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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.Muntuwandi 13:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 13:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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.Muntuwandi 13:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 14:41, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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.Muntuwandi 14:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 16:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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. futurebird 14:58, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 15:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 15:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

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. P0M 17:26, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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. P0M 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
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.Muntuwandi 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

{http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061007213716AAcifG1 answers]Muntuwandi 01:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 15:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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? P0M 22:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 14:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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 B 22:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
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. P0M 22:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
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 B 23:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
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. P0M 23:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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? P0M 03:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

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.Muntuwandi 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

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 B 09:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
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.Muntuwandi 11:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
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 B 11:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 13:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

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. Muntuwandi 00:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
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 B 11:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 10:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


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 | Talk 11:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)


Muntuwandi 13:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 14:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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 B 14:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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? P0M 03:36, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

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: under Race 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.
This would not resolve all conflicts between Alun and I but I think it would provide a productive framework. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

there is a dispute on whether Admixture testing can work on Native Americans since they share common haplogroups with Asian populations at Talk:Race_and_genetics#Admixture_studies_in_latin_america.Muntuwandi 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Nordic race

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 B 16:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Funkynusayri 20:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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). FilipeS 18:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 13:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

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.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/race

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.

Furthermore, biological race is in the process of being genetically redefined, here are some sources covering that, for reference: http://med.stanford.edu/news_releases/2005/january/racial-data.htm http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-08-16-dna_x.htm http://genomebiology.com/2002/3/7/comment/2007 http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C06E2D81331F933A15750C0A9659C8B63

On physical anthropology: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/first/gill.html Funkynusayri 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That is but the opinion of a single forensic anthropologist. For the results of a full survey, please look here: [1]--Ramdrake 23:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

One opinion? What are you referring to?

From the third link:

Abstract


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.

Funkynusayri 23:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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.Muntuwandi 23:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

  • 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. Funkynusayri 23:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

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.Muntuwandi 01:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • 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. Funkynusayri 02:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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.Muntuwandi 02:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 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.).Funkynusayri 02:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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.Muntuwandi 03:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • 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. Funkynusayri 03:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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.Muntuwandi 03:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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). Funkynusayri 03:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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 polygenic multifactoral 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.Muntuwandi 04:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

  • 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. Funkynusayri 06:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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.Muntuwandi 12:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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 | Talk 15:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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.Funkynusayri 16:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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 | = Talk 16:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


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. P0M 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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. P0M 17:58, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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". Funkynusayri 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Muntuwandi 16:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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? Funkynusayri 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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. P0M 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Muntuwandi 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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? P0M 18:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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.Funkynusayri 17:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Muntuwandi 18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
"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. P0M 18:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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.Muntuwandi 19:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
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. Funkynusayri 04:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
He will keep you going all day, put another pot of tea on. Fred ☻ 04:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Funkynusayri 04:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Muntuwandi 04:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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? Funkynusayri 05:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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.Muntuwandi 05:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
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). Funkynusayri 05:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
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.Muntuwandi 05:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • 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. Funkynusayri 06:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

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. Muntuwandi 03:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

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'Quinlan 18:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_(human_categorization)/Archive_24&oldid=808299490"