Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 21

This is an archive of past discussions about Race (human categorization). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

The Mongoloid, Caucasoid, and Negroid articles are in need of some major cleanup and rewriting. They're mostly filled with stuff from Carleton S. Coon and some 19th century racial theorists. If anyone on here has time to spare and more scientifically accepted information to contribute to those articles, it would be greatly appreciated. --Pravit 03:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

These races were defined by craniofacial measurements that were readily available in the 19th century. The anthropologists who measured skulls a century ago are still credible in their measurments.--Dark Tichondrias 00:19, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The sections of those articles I am opposed to are the ones that suggest that some of these races or their subgroups are more or less evolved than the other. As well as the ridiculous section about supposed Mongoloid mental traits, which I would imagine are not determined by craniofacial measurements. -Pravit 02:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Exactly what "ridicuous section about suppossed mongoloid mental traits" would that be? Also I don't see any suggestion anywhere that some groups are "less evolved" than others. Paul B 09:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Physical anthropologists rejected these categories quite some time ago. They are not scientific categories. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, physical anthropologists serving the official propaganda lost common sense and rejected these cathegories. There just exists nothing like 9-times higher violent crime rate of black Americans. That's only an illusion. As well as 8 black finalists of West African heritage in the 100 m at every world's athletic event since 1988 is only an illusion. And the flood of Kenyans at long distances, whose sprinters are so weak that they even don't enter first rounds. (Why?) And all the white men in weightlifting competitions. That's only a phantasy. All people are just equal in everything. P.S.: The king is naked! Yahooman, 22.10.2006

Or maybe the real reason why prominent anthropologists like Luigi Cavalli-Sforza and Jared Diamond deny the validity of race, is because given the fact that antiquated classifications by Blumenbach and Carleton Coon have been shot to holes (and the fact that there exists only one living subspecies of Homo sapiens, that human racial groups would be a taxonomic category below subspecies, and as such these races (divisions within the living subspecies H. sapiens sapiens) are not all that discrete due to constant gene flow) yet some racists and social darwinists (I refuse to capitalize the 'D' in social darwinism so as not to insult the legacy of one of the greatest scientists) including J. P. Rushton, Jensen, Steven Sailer, and *cough* Yahooman might distort their more objective and accurate studies of human biodiversity. Case in point, Yahooman's attempt at a modern racial classification is surprisingly progressive and seems accurate (though may have minor methodological flaws), AND his own classification system undermines his racist views. For instance, this hypothesis may lend support to moderate forms of afrocentricism... I think that studying human biodiversity would ultimately fight racism, but that some people are too damn stubborn and ignorant.

The official propaganda? What on earth does this mean? All of your sentences are non-sequitors and demonstrate nothing relevant to the issue. Good to see that whatever country you come from promotes a good education in basic science!!Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

You want to deny that the current "official scientific view" is not a silly propaganda? While our knowledge of racial differences gradually advances, and due to modern genetics, we already know, how different racial types came into being, the servile American Anthropological Association states that "The biological concept of race . . . has no basis in science." I would say that with this statement, science returns back to the medieval era. But we all know, why "the biological concept of race . . . has no basis in science". It is because it has so big a basis that all attempts to create an equal multiracial society desperately fail. Hence we must eventually pretend (like the people in Andersen's fairy-tale) that there exist no races, only to prolonge the sure agonia of the social multi-culti utopias in the Western world. If you want to start studying subtle racial biology, you can look at pages that I just set up on WIKIPEDIA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_type http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_african_type If you don't want, I can offer a web site summing up results of the most progressive genetic research on race, officially permitted by the jezuites and the American government and thus the only correct: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm YahooMan, 23.10.2006

OH, i get it, the "official propaganda" is scientific research and findings you do not like. Too bad, science is not dictated by your own interests or desires. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Since your knowledge of these things is obviously very poor, I don't see any reason, why to continue in a discussion with you. You still must learn a lot. Perhaps sometimes in the future you wil recognize the difference between demagogy and science. YahooMan, 24.10.2006

I'm sure we could all learn a lot. You could learn that insulting editors acting in good faith is not appropriate. If you have recent sources in anthropological literature or in the work of geneticists that supports the ty[pology that you give here, please provide it. Other Wikipedia articles are not legitimate sources. Paul B 14:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Acting in good faith is no excuse for incompetence. Many - if not all - incompetent people act in good faith. But as I said, you will have a chance to read all my conclusions on my prepared page about archeogenetics. I will post a link to it at the right time. However, since I must work about 1000 articles, it won't be so soon. YahooMan, 23.10.2006

You do not get it. We do not care about "your" conclusions. Wikipedia articles must adhere to our NPOV and NOR policies. And no articles are "yourse." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say that the page would be placed on Wikipedia. YahooMan, 23.10.2006

Now see I always thought that Nazi race science such as what you proclaim was official propaganda...After all, their science never helped them detect the instances of Jews who joined their ranks in order to survive before they had a chance to slap a Star of David on them and tattoo their arms. Funny that you claim western science is official propaganda. --Strothra 02:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

To Strothra: It is not a western science. It is a Neo-Marxist science. Centrum99 21:58, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Caucasians, Mongols, and Negroes are all exactly the same as each other. Anyone who says otherwise must be a hateful racist. Caucasians love to run; Mongols readily respond to rhythmic sounds; Negroes score very high on SAT tests. There are no differences that are scientifically measurable.71.125.134.12 21:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

This article doesn't seem to mention the antiquated form of race classification of Caucasoid, Negroid, Mongoloid, Capoid, Australoid. Is that because it already has an article and/or doesn't refer to modern human classification? 66.229.182.113 17:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this classification is antiquated. We can now create a modern model based on the results of genetic research. In fact, there is no "negroid race" in the Sub-Saharan Africa; there actually exist four genetically different racial lineages. And American Indians should be classified as a separate racial group; they have relatively little in common with mongoloids genetically. Centrum99 13:56, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Modern genetic research has showed, how we should understand racial classification. I don't understand, why you always cite arguments that look like a science on the level of a basic school. Racial differences based on skin color?? A man, who wrote about it, has zero knowledge of anthropology! We just already know how different racial groups evolved and mixed, so why don't you write about it? Are you too lazy to find these new pieces of knowledge? So why do you then write a big article about race? The racial classification must start from the situation 35 000 years ago, because until that time, all human populations evolved isolated and developed basic racial traits that we see in main races today. The situation then was as follows:

THE AFRICAN GROUPS ("PALEONEGRIDS"):

1/ Proto-Khoisan groups in South Africa characterized by Y-haplogroup A and mtDNA haplogroups L1d/L1k (there are new discoveries of archaic mtDNA haplogroups and their system has been constantly changing). They are the oldest human group that diverged from the rest of mankind perhaps 100.000 years ago

2/ Proto-Nilotes in the south-east Sahara bearing a subclade of A (A3b2) - thus they were distantly related to Khoisan and represent a population that diverged from Khoisan a long time ago, headed for north, and developed extreme physical adaptation to the hot climate of the Sahara

3/ Proto-Pygmies in the forests of West-Central Africa (Y-haplogroup B+mtDNA haplogroups L1+L2). The second oldest human lineage; the dates of approximate divergence vary, but it was about 60 000-80 000 years ago

THE NON-AFRICAN GROUPS - belonging to the same Y-chromosomal lineage that separated maybe more than 70 000 years ago and - with one exception - left Africa:

4/ Neonegrids in the Sahara (E3a+L3), a dark population with somewhat Europoid traits that will head for south in the next 10 000 years and will play a key role in the formation of the "Negroid race". They were the only people of the non-African lineage that stayed in Africa.

5/ Paleoeuropids in the Near East (Y-macrohaplogroup F) that then massively expanded to Central Asia, Europe, India, even south-east Asia (New Guinea) and will continue to America

6/ Australoid groups in South Asia and Australasia (C+M) - a very broad cathegory for archaic forms, descendants of the first human wave (the so-called "Coastal Clan") probably more than 60 000 years ago

7/ Paleomongolids in east-central Asia (Mongolia, northern China) (C+M) - distantly related to Australoids, actually a cold-adapted form of Australoids that may have also penetrated to America 32 000 years ago

8/ Paleoainids in the Far East and also elsewhere (Andaman Islands) (Y-haplogroup D)

And how did modern "Europoids, Mongoloids, Negroids and Australoids" came into being?

1/ Archaic Paleoeuropids/Cro Magnons came to Europe from Central Asia and drove out Neanderthals about 30 000 years ago. Subsequently they mixed with another paleoeuropid wave from the Near East (the bearers of the Gravettian culture). Their mixture became a racial core of today's Europeans

2/ Another Paleoeuropids bearing Y-haplogroups N and O headed for Siberia and took paleomongolid women; the mixture became a core of today's mongoloids like e.g. Ugrofins, Chinese, Vietnamese or the Yakut. The real MONGOLIDS with the most extreme traits of the mongoloid race stayed in South-Central Siberia and their current descendants are Mongols, Buryats or Evenks.

3/ Another Paleoeuropids bearing Y-haplogroup Q, closely related to Cro-Magnons, headed for Siberia and, too, took paleomongolid women; however, the admixture was not as high as in the case of the bearers of N+O. These people then headed for north-east and about 20 000 years ago crossed the Bering strait. Today you know them well as American Indians.

4/ Another Paleoeuropids bearing Y-haplogroup H invaded India, exterminated or eliminated the Australoid (better said: Veddoid) male population, mixed with australoid women and became a core of the paleolithic population of India, from which, by the way, also European Gypsies come from

5/ Another Paleoeuropids bearing Y-haplogroup M headed for South-East Asia and reached New Guinea. Here they mixed with local australoids/negritos and gave birth to current Papuans

6/ The Neonegrid Saharan hunters were forced to vaccate the Sahara ca. 25 000 years ago and settled in better areas around the dessicating desert. One part of them (Y-haplogroup E3a) settled in West Africa and mixed with Pygmies. From this mixture, the modern West African populations and also Bantu groups come from

7/ Another Neonegrid group (E3b1) survived the last ice age in the Horn of Africa. Then it expanded to North Africa and the Levant, where it imposed their Afro-Asiatic languange on aboriginal populations. From the later mixture of Semites coming from Arabia, the so-called Ethiopid racial type came into being. In fact, its "Europoid" look is not only due to the mixture with Semites; the original Neonegrid population may have already posessed some "Europoid" traits, probably like in today's Somalis.

8/ Several europid waves after the end of the ice age further diluted the Veddoid racial substrate in India and pushed its paleolithic inhabitants down to the bottom of the social hierarchy. As a result of unbridgeable racial differences, the newcomers set up an "Indian apartheid" - the caste system.

9/ Neonegrids in North-West Africa mixed with Near Eastern women and became a core of today's Berbers. Later they even absorbed a post-glacial invasion from Spain, Capsian people from East Africa, Roman influence and the Arabic expansion. Hence they are a composite, unhomogenous people, but Europid genes in them still strongly prevail (ca. 80%).

10/ Archaic Pygmies and Khoisan in Africa were gradually pushed to the forest and desert, respectively, by more advanced people, and today they are facing the reality of extinction.

11/ Ainids in the Far East were absorbed by expanding mongoloids

12/ Mongoloids from Taiwan were forced to leave their island because of the pressure of old Hans (Proto-Chinese). On the New Guinean coast, they mixed with Papuans and from here the Melanesian and Polynesian types originate.

I think that from the outline above it is clear that the old racial division is still valid. The cores of the traditional races were formed 35 000 years ago, after 30 000-70 000 years of separate development. We must understand that some racial groups - or their parts - are in fact more or less stabilized racial mixtures that came into being during the last ice age: the mongoloids (not MONGOLIDS) in Asia, American Indians, Papuans, West Africans, Polynesians. On the other hand, some traditional racial groupings need revision: For example, Nilotes, Pygmies and Khoisan should be actually taken as separate races (they fully deserve it). It is absolute nonsense that modern genetic research denies the existence of races; to the contrary, it elucidates their origin and corrects errors based only on anthropology. Those, who spread this bullshit (pardon) usually know nothing about anthropology; they only repeat sentences that they heard from ideologically motivated "specialists" serving the official multi-culti/PC propaganda. Bye, Yahoo Man, 22.10.2006

The modern racial classification should look like this:

• 1. Khoisan (Capoid) type
• 2. Nilotic type
• 3. Pygmy type
• 4. Neonegrid type (Somalis) - should be confirmed by archeology and anthropology
• 5. Europid type (Europe, the Near East)
• 6. Mongolid type (South-Central Siberia)
• 7. Australoid types

Stabilized mixtures:

• 1. West African type (Neonegrid x Pygmy type)
• 2. Ethiopid type (Neonegrid x Europid type)
• 3. Europoid types (Europid x Neonegrid: Berbers, Europid x Australoid: Indians)
• 4. Mongoloid types (mostly Europid x Mongolid: West Siberians/Ugrofins, North-East Siberians/Yakuts, Eskimos etc., South-East Asians/Chinese; mostly Europid x Mongolid x Australoid: Austroasiatic+many Austronesian speakers)
• 5. Amerind type (Europid x Mongolid)
• 6. Polynesian type (Mongoloid x Australoid type)

and possibly

• 7. Papuan type (Europid x Australoid)

Please, don't take any "cladistics" of human races seriously; they are based on the selection of certain genes and hence they group together some partially mixed racial types that have absolutely different genetic roots, e.g. Nilotes with West Africans. It is only due to recent admixture of Neonegrid genes that sub-Saharan Africans as a whole seem to form a separate cluster in genetic studies. In fact, there exists nothing like a "Negroid race". The "Negroid race" as we take it today actually includes four separate racial types. If Nilotes, Pygmies and Khoisan shared no Neonegrid admixture, they would form very distinct, separate racial clusters (however, to be more exact: they still would be connected via Pygmy genes). YAHOOMAN, 22.10.206

First, please sign your posts, and indent to distinguish from other posts. Second, statements like this "The modern racial classification should look like this" do not belong in an encyclopedia. At best, there is (not "should be" a particular racial classification proposed or accepted by certain people. As long as these people are not representing a fringe view, and their views can be linked to a verifiable source, their view can be included in the article as a particular point of view with a proper citation. But if this is just what an editor thinks "should be," well, our views are not supposed to go into articles at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• The model that I presented above comes from the combination of anthropology and modern genetic studies. It needs no sophisticated deductive abilities, only the knowledge of anthropological differences and Y/mtDNA-haplogroups. To my surprise, I can't find anybody in the scientific world, who would try to combine it and produce a more modern racial classification. But this is very probably due to the fact that almost all authorities that could (and should) do this work spend all their time by babbling "race does not exist". I think that this classification should be discussed in a more detailed way somewhere and hence I plan to build a web site, where you can read my views and reasonings. YahooMan 23.10.2006

• If your model is accepted by accredited anthropologist, geneticists or other body of scholars please indicate your sources. Paul B 22:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

• I am afraid that we will find few anthropologists and geneticists, who would be willing to discus this topic. As I said above, the majority of them (espicially the most known personalities) must pretend that there exist no races and racial classifications make no sense, otherwise their promising career would quickly end or they would be even fired from their universities. As for me, I am an archeologist by education, but I am not familiar with e.g. the archeology of Africa (but I am looking for sources on this topic). I plan to build a web site, where I will explain this classification in a more detailed way. At this moment, you can look at some pages dealing with Y-haplogroups (see Human Y-chromosome DNA haplogroups that I recently supplemented by new data and good maps (but the pages don't go into much detail as for racial classification, because I don't want to present it unless I broadly explain my opinions and conclusions.) You can also look at "my" pages dealing with basic anthropolögical types in Africa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_african_type, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nilotic_type YahooMan, 23.10.2006

Just curious YahooMan but when do you plan to build this website so that your research and sources may be examined?

I will try to post a link to my web site, when it is finished. YahooMan/Centrum99 13:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I too would very much like to see YahooMan's site and I hope it will also list and perhaps illustrate the physical characteristics that distinguish these different groups of people. Shoebill 12:31, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw the "cleanup" notice and had a look. So far I have seen mostly minor syntax and vocabulary issues, however one sentence leaves me clueless:

Darwin also pointed out the arbitrary use of any number of categories to divide up the human species, which is a major problem of racial theories.

Is this supposed to mean that Darwin remarked on the use of some number of categories by other people in a way that he considered arbitrary? Is the writer of this sentence saying that Darwin used an arbitrary list of categories in the course of his own writing? The sentence needs to be rewritten. P0M 00:53, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Shall I cut this part out?P0M 07:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It would help if someone could provide a citation for where Darwin said this. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:30, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

See the bottom of this section. Darwin seemed to be partial to the idea of race, but, as the brilliant biologist he was, he could not deny that race distinctions were largely based on arbitrarily placed borders. FilipeS 13:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Another passage:

Leiberman and Jackson (1995), however, have noted that this model depends on several findings relevant to race: (1) that marked morphological contrasts exist between individuals found at the center and at the perimeter of Middle Pleistocene range of the genus Homo; (2) that many features can be shown to emerge at the edge of that range before they develop at the center; and (3) that these features exhibit great tenacity through time. Regional variations in these features can thus be taken as evidence for long term differences among genus Homo individuals that prefigure different races among present-day Homo sapiens individuals.

This passage seems to assume a center (origin) and radial spread of humans from the center in all directions followed by mutations at various points near the perimeter. It reminds me a little of a schematic circuit for a radio that has little obvious relationship to the way components are actually arranged and wired. Is the presentation of Leiberman and Jackson really that abstract? P0M 07:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand your query. Physical anthropologists often rely on the spatial distribution of human remains. There is nothing abstract about this, it is all very concrete. Based on dating techniques, the matrix, as well as features of the remains they can make claims about which remains are older and which are younger. These claims are perhaps a little abstract but they are all based on concrete data. Then, anthropologists try to make inferences about human evolution - this is more abstract. This is just how anthropologists work, I am not sure what more you are asking for. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:34, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I realize that the following definition has been formed by quoting Levin, but, is this statement the clearest that can be formed on the basis of what he actually said? To me it seems rather rough and disjointed.

In "Cladistic taxonomy ... the basic taxon [is] the genealogical unit, ancestors-plus-line-(or tree)-of-descent, what according to the present analysis races are."

At minimum I would rather it ended with "what, according to the present analysis, races are." Isn't the definition rather circular? "Race means the genealogical unit...which is what races are"?P0M 07:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Somebody changed disagreed to agreed or vice-versa, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Race&curid=25614&diff=84584939&oldid=84573845

Which way is right? P0M 17:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The correct form is "disagree" (the way it stands now). The survey by Lieberman et al. was cited by a Finnish writer in an essay posted on his website on 28 October. A few days after that (on 30 October) someone criticized him via e-mail on the basis that the source text had actually said "agree", not "disagree". It turned out that just a few minutes before the e-mail was sent, a vandal had changed the word "disagree" in the Wikipedia article to "agree". The critic strongly rejected the charges of him being the vandal, but soon after the article had been reverted back to the original wording, someone changed "disagree" to "agree" again. The critic has later had to admit to being behind both of these acts of vandalism. - Weikko 23:22, 2 November 2006

• The article is overly long and disconnected.
• In several parts, it sounds excessively apologetic towards racists, racialists, and neoracialists.
• It needs to be more focused. There needs to be a section where the common notion of race is presented and dissected, along with all the demolishing arguments against it systematically explained.
• The article needs to make a very careful distinction between ancestry, as measured by modern DNA-analysis techniques, and race. It needs to explain how they are different things, or it will risk giving the impression that genetics has vindicated racialism, when the opposite is true. As a matter of fact, it might be a good idea to have a separate article for fossil- and gene-based paleoanthropology. The tracing of the ancient migrations of human populations risks being mistaken for evidence of racial divergence.
• Race in Law Enforcement is a controversial topic which should probably have an article of its own.

FilipeS 13:32, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and made some changes, myself. I hope they've improved the article. FilipeS 14:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Will you please explain the change you made, and why you made them. Thanks. Guettarda 14:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I made several changes.

1. Most of them were just a reordering and reindexation of the various sections, to give the article a clearer structure and a more chronological order (IMHO, of course).
2. Most of the rest consisted of moving material which was less relevant or more technical from this article to more specific articles. (This is a long article, and from the Talk Page I see there had been talk of trimming it down.)
3. One or two sections I renamed.
4. I tried to add links to all the more specific articles which were split from this one.
5. I corrected one or two inaccuracies and doubtful phrasings.
6. I brought a Darwin quote from Race (historical definitions), as requested here.

Regards. FilipeS 15:05, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

In his book The Race Myth, Joseph L. Graves Jr. effectively disproved the biological concept of race. He writes:

What Does it Take to Be a Race?

To qualify as a biological race (or subspecies or variety), an animal or plant has to meet one of two requirements:

1. it can have its own distinct lineage, meaning that it evolved in isolation that it never (or rarely) mated with individuals outside its borders, or 2. the genetic distence between population and another has to be significantly greater than the genetic variability that exists within the genetic variability that exists within the populations.

Both of these criteria are proven false in his book.

Dr. Graves is a renouned Geneticist and Biologist, who has had his articles printed in both the New York and Los Angeles Times, and is University Core Director and Professor of Biological Sciences at Farleigh Dickinson University.

As such, I think this article needs massive cleanup.

PC science is almost as bad as far-right-wing science. The truth is usually in the middle.

c:How pathetic! You should know that science describes many animals as separate species, yet these "species" freely interbreed and create fertile "new" species. And we can't speak about races in humans? What about Australian aborigines, who haven't mixed with other human groups for 50 000 years? Does dr Graves mention them? And what about Khoisans and Pygmies? Please don't list "New York Times" in connection with race. It is one of the most politically correct (and most demagogic) newspapers in the world. It tells much about the scientific level of dr Graves. Centrum99 21:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Fertile new species? Name one. P0M 02:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Find something about the families Callichthyidae (Corydoras) and Loricariidae. You will get a headache from it. Centrum99 23:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He has a PhD. and is a professor of biology. He has a book published by Rutgerts University Press. He has been a Principal Investigator on grants from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation - both very competitive and prestigious. He is a member of the external advisory board for the National Human Genome Center. Now, tell us, Centrum99, what level of science education and achievement are you at? So far, all we know is that you are ignorant and like to insult people who know more than you. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a discussion, where one can't really bet on the victory of common sense. So far I haven't insulted people, who knew more than me. All the anti-racial mythologists, with which I disputed, constantly knew nothing about the topic and only parroted bluffs of PC professors, PhDs, investigators, external advisory board members etc. They can't do anything else, after all, because the results of genetic research that we now already have largely confirm the old racial division of traditional anthropology - albeit with some corrections of mutual genetic relationships that were mistakenly postulated on the basis of the limited possibilities of then anthropology. If a group of people or animals has been isolated for tens of thousands of years (or even longer) and has acquired specific physical and mental features enabling to cope with the surrounding enviroment that differ from mental and physical features of other populations of the same species - how we should call it? From time out of mind, people call it "race". Oh, I shouldn't forget the funny quotation "the genetic distence between a population and another has to be significantly greater than the genetic variability that exists within the populations" - damn, does that man realize, what he actually says? If the difference in every feature were so huge, it wouldn't be a difference between races, but rather between different species! Nevertheless, differences of this sort between extremely adapted human groups really exist, for example, standard deviations of body proportions in Nilotes and Eskymos don't touch at all. Of course, a Chihuahua can have an offspring with a Saint Bernard, but so can a Pygmy with a Monte Negrin. Centrum99 01:07, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Look, you can assert as much as you like, but you have to give evidence. Find "Non PC" writers and cite them. Find book and articles to support you view, but there's no point in just declaring it to be The Truth. The point about genetic variability concerns an intermediate stage in the process of speciation. Part of the problem here is the definition of "population", part is that genetic variation was never a defining feature of the race concept. Paul B 10:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

We all know that this all is just playing with words, whose main aim is to erase the word "race" - and subsequently "racism" - from the vocabulary because of the events of World War II. Hence it's really not easy to argue here, because the passionate anti-racialists can simply always say that according to their opinion, the population difference is not enough large (unless it equals the difference between a human and a chimpanzee) and every division is subjective and arbitrary. After all, we can infirm everything and every taxonomy as "subjective and arbitrary", and in the end, we can abandon the whole animal taxonomy, can't we? Centrum99 22:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it will turn out that based on the scientific definition of race, there are no human races. However, it is patently obvious that humans are physically diverse and that people from particular geographic areas with a shared genetic heritage tend to have a set of physical attributes in common. So I'm hoping at the moment that at least part of this debate could be bypassed by someone creating a new page called something like "Human Physical Diversity" in which this fascinating subject can be explored more easily. Shoebill 19:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That's one of the central problems here. Graves "disproves" the existence of race by defining it in a particular way and then stating that "race" does not exist because in his view this particular definition does not correspond to human diversity. The problem is that even the True Believers in race back in the '30s never defined it this way. Look at Coon's comments in the Races of Europe for example [1]. He is clear that he does not mean what Graves claims the term must mean. Paul B 10:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that it would be important to add that the word "race" was invented by humans, not by dogs, cats, birds or other animals in which the anti-racialists find "enough large" racial difference. Hence its primary use was to describe population difference in humans. Tell dogs and other animals that they should invent their own term for the description of their population variability. Centrum99 23:05, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If I follow your train of thought correctly I guess I see the point that you are trying to make, but the history of the ideas of genus, species, and subspecies is well known. Even the ordinary definition of the term "species" is a bit undependable since the line is supposedly drawn between species when they cannot achieve cross-boundary reproductive success. It turns out that even some cross-genus reproductive successes are possible, and cross-species (e.g., wolf and dog) matings are sometimes pretty reliable, so that definition is rather flaky. The resident spider expert informs me that he is pretty much turned off by the idea of identifying subspecies of spiders. He finds it subjective I believe. One definition of "race" is that it is a synonym for subspecies. Homo sapiens has only one extant subspecies. There used to be Neanderthals, but they have died out leaving Homo sapiens sapiens the sole subspecies. So all of us belong to a single "race" by that definition. If you then say, as many of the contributors to the Race article are inclined to do, that "race" refers to "sub-subspecies," then things get even more subjective, fuzzy, etc. Maybe everybody has some idea of what "the" races are, but probably the only way we would come up with two equivalent definitions would be if the two people had collaborated on their definitions, i.e., pretty much everybody has his/her own definition. You have only to look at the variation in the number of supposed races to see that people have wildly different ideas of what the word is supposed to mean. P0M 02:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this edit by 71.227.70.237 should be reverted. What do you think? --NeutralPoint 01:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Race having a genetic basis? How can someone's race be the result of characteristics that were inherited from their parents? Are Muslims who reside in London members of the English race, Caucasian race, Western European race, Middle Eastern race, or Islamic race? Lestrade 13:17, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be displaying the deductive powers of your namesake! (sorry) How can someone's race not be the result of characteristics inherited from their parents? The term race as used in this article is specifically biological, because that's the most meaningful usage. It's a truism in one sense that race is genetic. It's a truism in another that it's a "social construct". The real issue is whether some or any of the categories that have been constructed tell us anything useful about human difference. Paul B 13:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This problem seems to be another example of the ambiguity of words. Laziness, inertia, lack of imagination, and general mental indolence have resulted in a situation in which humans are unable to create new words as designations of new concepts. They use existing words, words that are already signs for specific concepts, and they apply them to new concepts. This word race designates a multitude of different concepts and is therefore almost useless. The fact that it is related to a very sensitive, emotional issue does not contribute to the goal of cooly, rationally, and logically giving the word a precise definition.Lestrade 14:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

" This word race designates a multitude of different concepts and is therefore almost useless." This is a view held by many scientists, and I believe it is among the views represented in the article. Other scientists hold other views and their views are represented as well, as it should be. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:38, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Sign with four tildes. You don't need to then add your name again. Yes, the word race is inherently ambiguous, and you're right - the terminological inexactitude leads to a lot of the unnecessary confusion in the debate, but we can't just create new words. In the nineteenth century it was common to use expressions like "the French race", meaning "the French people". Since then, the term has been more commonly used to refer to a codification of human physical types linked to ancestry and world geography. It's usually the link between geographical and ancestral patterns that is mostly at issue, and between that problem and the logic of the various models of codification that have been used. Paul B 14:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

The correct procedure would not be to carelessly abandon a word because it has become ambiguous. Instead, it should be retained, but made precise and useful by ridding it of its association with foreign concepts. Therefore, it should be the duty of encyclopedias such as Wikipedia to accurately and unambiguously show the one correct relationship and association between the word race and the concept that it designates. This, however, is made especially difficult with this word because of its emotional associations. But, that makes it even more important that it be done correctly.Lestrade 21:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

About a month ago someone did a massive reorganization of the article. The changes I made today reflect a partial return to the earlier state. My main goal was to divided the article into three main sections: first, debates among biological scientists about race, second, how social scientists use it, third, its application practically. The section on "current debates" follows the first section since it is primarily concerned with debates among life-scientists. I deleted a section on Jensen's view of Cavalli-Sforza. First, Jensen is a psychologist, not a biologist so the section was mislabeled. Second, if we want extensive coverage of Cavalli-Sforza, our source should be Cavalli-Sforza and critics, not Jensen. Finally, this stuff should - if anywhere - go into the section on genetics. I think there is not enough consensus yet on how the genetics data is applied to racial classification. Cavalli-Sforza's work on genetics certain belongs in an article on human genetics. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This editor has been repeatedly inserting POV remarks into the article, to paint "race" as a more scientifically respectable concept than it is. This should be dealt with. FilipeS 14:20, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just made a few changes whichinclude restoring older material that had been cut - material that took the view of race as valid as well as material that took the view that it is not valid. I hope what we now have is more POV and more important - this was my intention - holding the article to a high standard of verifiable scientific sources. One major change I made was to delete the section on Jenson. It was mislabeled as a "Biological view of race" when jenson is not a biologist and I do not think qualified to interpret biological research. The view that it promoted is covered in material I did keep or restore on cladistics and the view of race as lineage. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The rv looks good to me. I don't see the value in adding the extensive commentary from Jenson on Cavalli-Sforza. The images are copyvios anyway - they are listed as being "fair use in Cavalli-Sforza" - they don't strike me as fair use in this article, nor are they impossible to duplicate. Guettarda 18:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

He has left some prety nasty personal attacks on my talk and user pages, in the past and recently. He constantly claims that science has "proved" race, and that all geneticists agree that "race" is a real concept. He has gone so far as to say that I am "way out of the mainstream" because I don't think this is true. I have a degree in genetics, so I think I understand what scientists are saying, but he just gets very insulting. It was very upsetting at the time because they were really offensive insults. Alun 20:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't change the mess he's made in the article, because of the Three-revert-rule, but this shouldn't be allowed to go on. Oh, well, he's charged the article with non-NPOV; perhaps that will be a chance to settle this once and for all.

By the way, one thing the article does not yet make clear, and should, is that although there is still a sizeable amount of scientists who support the "race" idea, the trend in the last century has been for their number to decrease. This is also relevant. Regards. FilipeS 23:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)