Talk:Race (biology)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Suggestion to move the Anthropology marker

Resolved

 – The taxonomic and human-centric material has been split more clearly for years.

Maybe the anthropology marker should be moved to Race, as the anthropological use of race is defined there and not in this entry. 87.123.164.154 21:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Why this page should be deleted

Stale

 – No further discussion in over 10 years.

Someone needs to put this on Votes for Deletion. I have never done it before. Jokestress 03:15, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you explain what your problem is with the article and why you consider that it should be deleted? Guettarda 04:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

This article constitutes a dictionary definition with examples, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Also, the quality of the page is low (spelling and usage errors abound). At a bare minimum, the human-related content should be removed and a referral to Race substituted. --DAD ^T 04:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've fixed the human stuff. I think a Vote for Deletion is likely to fail as the page does include some content. If you'd like to nominate the page for VfD, feel free. --DAD ^T 04:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I've now cleaned up the article a bit. The dog/wolf example was incorrect; dogs belong to Canis familiaris while wolves belong to Canis lupus. (They may still interbreed and constitute a race, but do not belong to the same species as the article said.) Also, a look at Rosa quickly shows that different colors of roses do not fall into any simplistic pattern of species or subspecies. --DAD ^T 05:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Subspecies

Stale

 – No further discussion in over 10 years.

the other article that this could be merged with is Subspecies --Rikurzhen 04:55, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Breed is not the same as race, in fact breed standards count things that can not be breed. For example for a boxer to be a true boxer breed they are required to have a ducked tail. Races are general groupings of phenotypes even to the point of debating genetics. Obama is genetically a mix of white/black, however due to phenotype his race is Black African. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.46.6 (talk) 12:54, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

No, race is a biological fact, his race is mixed, identifying as a car doesnt make you a car. And breed is the same as race, in literally all of the European languages aside from English, the term for dog breed is simply "dog race" cf. Hunderasse, race de chien. Compare Dawkins definition, “A limited group of people descended from a common ancestor”, and see that's the case for any breed. The same way the species can be defined as a "limited group of a genus descended from a common ancestor," race can be defined as a "limited group of a species descended from a common ancestor," making it synonymous with breed or variation. Cake (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, race is an archaism with limes, I suspect. I have always heard subspecies. Cat subspecies are usually called breeds, especially when domesticated. I agree with this merge. Jokestress 05:11, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. The terminology is basic with honeybees. The page should be expanded. Pollinator 05:14, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion regarding these levels - which makes sense inasmuch as everything below species is rather confused. Race is a level below subspecies. "Race" is usually used for animals, as something between subspecies and variety. In plants "land race" is used for traditional cultivars.

Cats breeds are definitely not subspecies, and AFAIK, have never been described as such. Guettarda 05:26, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

I found this 1897 reference to cat races: http://www.bigcats.org/swc/wildcattaxonomy.html Indeed, as early as 1897 Edward Hamilton, writing in the Annals of Scottish Natural History, warned "It would seem that the original Wild Cat, as found in the early historic times as well as in the Middle Ages, has for a long time been quite extinct in this country, its place being taken in the first instance by a mixed breed, in which the hereditary strain of the original wild race predominated. Later on, as the imported domestic race increased in numbers and localities, this was superseded by a still more modified form of the domestic cat, in which the foreign characteristics of the ancestral progenitors of the domestic race, viz. the African cat, were in the ascendant and prevail up to the present time."

I think part of the concern regarding this term is that it's archaic. I'd feel better seeing that it's in common use today. --DAD ^T 05:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Host-Race Formation in the Common Cuckoo. Science, Vol 282, Issue 5388, 471-472 , 16 October 1998
Karen Marchetti, * Hiroshi Nakamura, H. Lisle Gibbs
The exploitation of a new host by a parasite may result in host-race formation or speciation. A brood parasitic bird, the common cuckoo, is divided into host races, each characterized by egg mimicry of different host species. Microsatellite DNA markers were used to examine cuckoo mating patterns and host usage in an area where a new host has been recently colonized. Female cuckoos show strong host preferences, but individual males mate with females that lay in the nests of different hosts. Female host specialization may lead to the evolution of sex-linked traits such as egg mimicry, even though gene flow through the male line prevents completion of the speciation process.

and

Transcriptionally Active MuDR, the Regulatory Element of the Mutator Transposable Element Family of Zea mays, Is Present in Some Accessions of the Mexican land race Zapalote chico. Genetics, Vol. 149, 329-346, May 1998
María de la Luz Gutiérrez-Nava, Christine A. Warren, Patricia Leóna, and Virginia Walbot
To date, mobile Mu transposons and their autonomous regulator MuDR have been found only in the two known Mutator lines of maize and their immediate descendants. To gain insight into the origin, organization, and regulation of Mutator elements, we surveyed exotic maize and related species for cross-hybridization to MuDR. Some accessions of the mexican land race Zapalote chico contain one to several copies of full-length, unmethylated, and transcriptionally active MuDR-like elements plus non-autonomous Mu elements. The sequenced 5.0-kb MuDR-Zc element is 94.6% identical to MuDR, with only 20 amino acid changes in the 93-kD predicted protein encoded by mudrA and ten amino acid changes in the 23-kD predicted protein of mudrB. The terminal inverted repeat (TIR) A of MuDR-Zc is identical to standard MuDR; TIRB is 11.2% divergent from TIRA. In Zapalote chico, mudrA transcripts are very rare, while mudrB transcripts are as abundant as in Mutator lines with a few copies of MuDR. Zapalote chico lines with MuDR-like elements can trans-activate reporter alleles in inactive Mutator backgrounds; they match the characteristic increased forward mutation frequency of standard Mutator lines, but only after outcrossing to another line. Zapalote chico accessions that lack MuDR-like elements and the single copy MuDR a1-mum2 line produce few mutations. New mutants recovered from Zapalote chico are somatically stable.

Is this adequate? It only took a few seconds to find each one. Guettarda 07:32, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Here race is used interchangeably with subspecies

• http://www.owling.com/Saw-whet_nh.htm

Subspecies: There is only one recognized race of Northern Saw-whet Owl on mainland North America and Mexico. There is another recognized race that is restricted to the Queen Charlotte Islands of British Columbia. These are the only two races of Northern Saw-whet Owl. The Saw-whet Owls are found nowhere else in the world but there is another species of Saw-whet Owl found in Central America (Unspotted Saw-whet Owl - Aegolius ridgwayi) that appear somewhat similar to the deep brown brooksi race of the Charlotte Islands.

Jokestress 07:41, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Here's a chameleon where trinomials seem to be contested, and:

• http://bornova.ege.edu.tr/~bgocmen/hc_lizards.html

Distribution: Known range extends from N Africa and Spain to W Asia; including Turkey and Cyprus with a vertical distribution to 700 m. It is stated that the Cyprus race of this species belongs to C. chamaeleon recticrista (Böhme & Wiedl, 1994; Göçmen et al., 1996a). In spite of Hillenius (1978) who considered it to be a synonym of C. chamaeleon chamaeleon, these authors maintain this trinomial nomenclature. Material from Turkey (Göçmen et al., 1996a) and Grecee (Böhme, 1989; Böhme & Wiedl, 1994), suggest that eastern Mediterrenean specimens attain larger dimensions than western ones (Portugal, Spain). Furthermore, there seem to be slight hemipenial differences between the two groups (Böhme & Wiedl, 1994). Thus, the population of Cyprus belongs to the eastern Mediterranean form, i.e., C. chamaeleon recticrista.

and a skink where subspecies is interchanged:

Distribution: Its range extends from N Africa, Anatolia, Cyprus Island to W and Middle Asia with a vertical distribution to 1800 m. In Cyprus, the nominate race, E. schneideri schneideri (Douidin, 1802), an endemic subspecies, lives.

Jokestress 07:48, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Color me convinced. Clearly not archaic. Whether race and subspecies are equivalent is still unclear, and probably fundamentally so. If you feel strongly, yank the merge. --DAD ^T 21:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Like everything in taxonomy - what is a species, what is a family, what is a subspecies, etc., there are differing opinions as to what the boundaries are. I had a conversation with a systematist just a few days ago as to what constitutes a "subspecies"...there is no single answer. While "race" overlaps with subspecies in some usage, it also overlaps with variety in others. I think it's notable not so much in and of it self, but in association with the race article, which deals with only the use in humans. The idea that there is a valid biological race against which you can compare human races is useful information, especially for less informed readers. The article requires clean-up, not being changed into a redirect. Guettarda 21:36, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Dogs

Stale

 – No further discussion in almost 10 years.

Canis familiaris is usually considered a distinct species from Canis lupus, but it can be argued they are really subpecies of Canis canis, in that the two regularly interbreed, cannot be distinguished from each other at the anatomic level, and on the whole, display remarkably similar behaviors. Dogs have immense genetic diversity (in comparison Homo sapiens does not), which underlays the enormous diversity in size, shape, coloration and behavior. At the same time, we would never trust a wolf in the ways we trust dogs. I am arguing here that dogs are a distinct subspecies, one that is perhaps on its way to full speciation.

The word "race" is sometimes used with dogs: terriers, spaniels, and hounds, as I recall, with terriers being the most recently bred. Here the distinction is largely behavioral, tho' with hounds you can see that the superficial relationship to wolves is closer.

Under this we have breeds, where enormous variety within a given breed is again experienced, particularly in downsizing, as with the continuum of very large standard poodles down thru the toys to the teacups. Similarly, there are two kinds of corgi, distinguished only by their coats.

My point is that 'race' is a sometimes useful term, tho' another more neutral term might be used, but what that is I don't know.

From my point of view, 'race' should not be used with humans, because of the lack of genetic diversity. The way we apply 'breed' to dogs, tho', might work. --FourthAve 02:08, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

actually, dogs are already officially a subspecies of Canis lupus, C.l. familiaris.--FourthAve 02:35, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Trojan Horse

Moot

 – Conspiracy theory disproven with reliable sources.

I submit that this page was created, and continues to exist, solely to promote the agenda of White Supremicists, and has no genuine scientific foundation. The taxonimic classification below Species is Subspecies.

The arguments in favor of keeping the page are, at best, specious. Breeds of dogs are not "races." In fact there is no clear delineation between dog breeds except in the minds of breeders in thrall to Crufts and the American and Canadian Kennel Clubs. There is no genetic marker separating St. Bernards from German Shepherds, no matter how aggressively commercial breeders seek to maintain breed (or "racial") purity. Mutts happen, because there is no barrier preventing any pooch from mating with any other pooch, and producing fertile offspring.

If someone wants to nominate for deletion, I'd support it! --TheEditrix2 12:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd support it too, though not for your reasons (especially since the first sentence refers to the wrong definition of race). I've taken enough Biology classes and read enough books for a decent broad knowledge of Biology, and I've never heard of race in a biological sense that wasn't synonymous with subspecies at most. This should just be redirect to subspecies or deleted. The article is five years old, it's ignored by the WikiProject Biology, and the rationale for keeping it is that it's used in recent papers that looks to me in a skim read like it was being used the same as subspecies. There's no sources in the article and the page is too short and doesn't explain what sets it apart from a subspecies. The only definition I found on the net so far that looked like it could work is this from Yahoo! Answers (obviously can't be used as a ref):

"The biological definition of race is: a population, or group of populations, within a species that has measurable, defining biological characteristics and an Fst of at least 0.25 relative to other populations of the species. Fst scores among humans average 0.17. So there are no biological races within H. sapiens. Also there is no way to look at a gene and determine "race". In other words, there are no genes or alleles that are Black, White, Asian or any of the other major "races" that society has made up."

I've looked around, and the only thing I haven't done yet is crack a textbook on it. And I still haven't found a consistent definition (I'm not counting the Answers! one because I haven't verified it from a secondary source) that didn't mean the same as subspecies. I'd say it should be converted to a redirect or deleted unless there's something everyone is missing. IfritZero (talk) 19:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with TheEditrix2 this article is just a White Supremacist Trojan Horse designed to offer spurious support to their false central belief in the existence of biological races. There is no respected taxonomy today that refers to 'race'. DELETE Ackees (talk) 19:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Of course taxonomy does not refer to "race" because "race" is not a taxonomy unit. "Subspecies" is. That's the difference. Still, "race" appears in a large number of biological publications (see examples by User:Guettarda above), with the meaning described in this article (now sourced). Saying that, I would possibly vote to merge this article with Race. Biophys (talk) 20:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A proposal: A note should be added to the article Subspecies acknowledging that the word 'race' is sometimes used informally (but infrequently) to refer to a subspecies of animals, but that Homo sapiens sapiens (i.e. man), as classified in modern biology, is currently composed of only one subspecies. Another note should be added to the article Breed acknowledging that 'race' is also used sometimes as a synonym of it. After that, this article could be deleted. It adds nothing of substance to Subspecies, and only serves to muddy the waters in the delicate (and socially-contaminated) discussion of Race as applied to human beings. FilipeS (talk) 19:32, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

• Once again, you are missing the point that race is not subspecies. It's fine to add whatever you want to Subspecies and Breed. But if you do not like this article, you have two choices: (a) start discussion here about merging this article with Race (classification of humans) (I am not really opposed to merging, except that article about human races is terribly politicized and impossible to edit), or (b) mark this article for AfD discussion (then it should be kept). Biophys (talk) 22:31, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

As it stands, I would strongly suggest not to do anything with races, as it will inflame unnecessary disputes.Biophys (talk) 22:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

dubious

Resolved

 – Incorrect lime information removed.

Our articles on the two varieties of lime assign them to two different species. Mangoe (talk) 19:54, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Comment by 24.44.181.147

Moot

 – The taxonomic and human-centric material has been split more clearly for years.

Moved from the article.

From the article in the NY Review of Books: “Is There a Jewish Gene?” by Richard Lewontin, 12/6/2012. (Where it belongs is in the human race section, but that is so locked-up by anti-race ideologues, it is impossible to add anything that contradicts their iron fisted opinions.)

While the term “race” is not used explicitly in these titles (books mentioned) in large part because the term is so loaded, there is considerable discussion of the Jews as a race or, using a less charged word, as a “people.” (p.17)

Thus, there is a “fundamental continuity between race science and anthropological genetics” and a belief that “who we really are collectively and individually is given by and legible in biological data. (p19)

--Makecat 09:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Race and Racial discrimination

Resolved

 – The taxonomic and human-centric material has been split more clearly for years.

Balanced discussions of the uses of the word "race" and related topics such as racism are important. It is only by talking about racism, acknowledging racism when it occurs, understanding the causes of racism and educating people towards mutual tolerance, that the unpleasant outcomes of racism can be eliminated. However, I think those discussions would be better placed in articles about sociology/anthropology/scientific ethics/history of eugenics and so on. I have only skimmed over the article Race (human classification), but it appears pretty thorough on this stuff. Cressflower (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This page needs to be deleted

Resolved

 – Article has sufficient sourcing to survive WP:AFD.

Not only is the content anemic & random at that, I count only 2 references, both editorials by an academic biologist who himself has a page. As such, his claims seem more notable for what they say about him than about race, but editors on his page can judge their merits. I'm guessing there's no additional content because there are no RS substantiating "race" as a biological - much less horticultural - concept, in which case the entire article needs to go. Just its existence when one googles the term "race" reflects badly on the Wikipedia project. If someone can show me how, I'll baby sit it through the process. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I have not done it before but this is how WP:SPEEDY, sometimes you have to request for comments first. --Inayity (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer some sort of appropriate redirect; in animal breeds, we run into some cases where the word and concept we use for "breed" in English is literally translated as "race" in other languages. I agree with problems, but for example, the Andalusian horse is often called a "PRE" or Pura Raza Española - literally "Pure Spanish Race"—if for no other reason, we need to somehow address this problem — I've had a couple editing wars over this issue. Just FWIW. Montanabw^(talk) 05:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Belated commentary: The article has a few more sources now and is an encyclopedic topic. The real problem is that this term, in biology, is obsolete in English. No one uses it any more, for obvious reasons, and the current prose and its sources don't make this clear. As as side point, the cognate word to English's race, as found in other languages, like race in French and raza in Spanish, is not used in exactly the same ways as the English word, and usually has much less socio-political baggage. It's often also not applied to people at all in general usage. Raza in Spanish, for example, covers a wide range of things for which we have separate words, including race (biology), human ethnicity, domestic animal breeds, and domestic plant and animal landraces. This article is about the obsolete taxonomic classification. We have Race (disambiguation) for a reason, so this article should not try to cover other topics.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Obsolescence

most biologists reject the concept of race (I mean, applied to dogs, bumblebees, etc). We need some acknowledgment of this. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Breed is different from race because it is obtained by artificial selection. Other than that, it is essentially the same. Of course no one rejects the existence of breeds. Biophys (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

They're not "essentially the same" though. Slrubenstein is correct that this term is obsolete in biology, in some fields and our article is broken in this regard.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC) clarified 22:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Where was it demonstrated the term is obsolete? Was it invalidated or put on the euphemism treadmill due to PC? Please go into more detail. SamOrange (talk) 09:37, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Needs further digging. The term has clearly been abandoned in most fields; you won't see it used much if at all in most biology works since the mid-20th century or earlier. But as details below slow, it has actually clung on at least two places, mycology and bacteriology, in what seem to be narrow usages. It's easy to find reliable sources in these fields using them, but nailing down definitional sources may be more difficult. They might not even have exact definitions. It would also be of great usefulness to find journal articles; ICZN, etc., organizational statements; conference proceedings; etc., explicitly deprecating the term, but it's likely the shift mostly happened sotto voce. One avenue worth looking at is old standards documents and taxonomic manual, to identify the years or at least decade in which particular fields dropped the term, and the extent to which it has been abandoned. I did encounter it used in reference to some caudates, back in the 1990s, but I don't recall how old the source in that case was. I've never seen it used in reference to mammals in sources newer than ca. the 1940s, if not earlier, but it was common in the late 1800s.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:07, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Fungal races and plant disease

I came to the Race (biology) page expecting a discussion of host specificity in plant pathogenic fungi. Wow! Cressflower (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

If, in fact, "race" is a legitimate concept in the classification of pathogenic fungi, then the fungi article seems the most logical place to discuss it. I have a hard time believing that a quality or term specific to pathological fungus is in any way notable enough in itself to justify its own article, but if someone can produce a single reliable SECONDARY source establishing otherwise, I'll defer. But so far, all the article's defenders seem to generate are, "This one time...at band camp"-type anecdotes about how sure they are they once saw or read about the term somewhere. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Plant pathogens and races

I'd have to revise the topic to be fully confident of my understanding, but I think that in plant pathology, a "race" is a category below the level of a subspecies and is used to distinguish a form of the fungus that is capable of infecting one host plant species from a form that infects another host plant species. For example Fusarium madeupname subsp. madeupname race 1 infects watermelons, Fusarium madeupname subsp. madeupname race 2 infects cucumbers etc. I think it can also be used to distinguish between a form of the fungus causing mild symptoms and a form causing severe symptoms in the same host plant species.

I strongly suspect that there will be genetic variation underlying the differences in host specificity and virulence, but there is probably not enough genetic distance between two "races" to justify separating them into different subspecies. It might only be a few genes that allow the fungus to overcome the defenses of the watermelon plant, but not the cucumber, and in other respects the two "races" might look the same, smell the same, grow on the same nutrient agar at the same rate, have the same morphological features and spore size/shape/colour...

I think host specific types within species of plant-pathogenic bacteria are also described as "races". There may also be different "races" or types among pathogens that infect humans and other animals, although I don't know enough about medical/veterinary pathology to be sure.

Using the term "race" is not ideal because it has a lot of unpleasant connotations, however the concept of fungal races has been used extensively in Plant Pathology publications, so it requires explanation within the context of this subject. Even if the term "race" were to be replaced by "type" or "form", decades of plant pathology literature would still use this terminology, and plant pathology students would still need an accurate definition and thorough discussion to ensure their understanding of this important concept in host-pathogen interactions. Cressflower (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Cite some Reliable Sources, or it didn't happen. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 22:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

There are lots. I'll add them here periodically when I run across them in other work.

• Thomas, C. E. (March 1978). "New Biological Race of Powdery Mildew [Sphaerotheca fuliginea] of Cantaloups". Plant Disease Reporter. 62 (3): 223.
• Cohen, R.; Burger, Y.; Katzir, N. (2004). "Monitoring Physiological races of Podosphaera xanthii (syn. Sphaerotheca fuliginea), the Causal Agent of Powdery Mildew in Curcubits: Factors Affecting Race Identification and the Importance for Research and Commerce". Phythoparasitica. 32 (2): 174–183. Retrieved 10 August 2015. I've used this one to start a section on mycological use of the term.
• McCreight, James D.; Coffey, Michael D. (June 2011). "Inheritance of Resistance in Melon PI 313970 to Cucurbit Powdery Mildew Incited by Podosphaera xanthii Race S". HortScience. 46 (6): 838–840. Retrieved 10 August 2015. Used this one in the article, too.

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Future of the Race (biology) page

Unresolved

 – Most of these problem as still extant as of July 2015.

The article is a bit confused and I doubt the accuracy of some of the statements.

Some of the material might be better placed in a discussion of the process of speciation or taxonomic classification.

The links under "See Also" seem like a useful start on drawing together different concepts related to speciation and the evolution of populations.

If the article could be geared toward a discussion of host specificity and the definition of "race" within the classification of plant pathogens it would be more useful and hopefully not offensive.

Or should I just create a new page called Race (Plant Pathology)?

Yours tired and confused,

Cressflower (talk) 15:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Social concept

Stale

 – since July 2015

The Race (human classification) page starts with "Race, as a social concept, is a group of people who share similar and distinct physical characteristics." Isn't non-human race then also a social concept? How about species? Am I silly to suggest this or are they silly to randomly call things "social concepts" when "Constructionism became prominent in the U.S. with Peter L. Berger and Thomas Luckmann's 1966 book, The Social Construction of Reality. Berger and Luckmann argue that all knowledge, including the most basic, taken-for-granted common sense knowledge of everyday reality, is derived from and maintained by social interactions."

Should we reference Foucault or Andrew Pickering's Constructing Quarks: A Sociological History of Particle Physics at this point? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 14:09, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Also discussion here "Is "strain" a social concept and should we write this in the first sentence?" Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

But we have any number of sources that say race is a social concept. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 04:16, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are exceptionally stupid, even for a troll. Next question... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Well if your only argument is childish and hypocritical name calling, you'd best not write anything at all. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 04:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The point is that strains and breeds are not "social concepts", they are the result of selective breeding in plants and animals; very different from the human concept of "race". Species even more so; no human intervention at all, but rather a function of biology. A 1966 source isn't going to work here, and though AndyTheGrump was, well, rather grumpy, you did ask if you were being "silly to suggest this," and the answer is yes, you are. Montanabw^(talk) 05:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

What about the concept of race applied to naturally differentiated animals, which is referred to using that term all over the literature? That's what this page is about. Please do not insult me also. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Other languages use "race" interchangably with "breed." English does not. "Naturally differentiated" animals - i.e. changed without human intervention - if not subspecies, are landraces, which is a different sort of word. This article really needs to be merged and redirected. Bottom line: WP:FRINGE theories do not belong on wikipedia, and anything added needs to be cited to a reliable source. If you actually have sources (other than the above), present them with links. Otherwise, stop arguing, it wastes bandwidth. Montanabw^(talk) 06:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

In fact it is you that has no sources and are just writing (false) assertions. "Breed" generally refers to animals intentionally differentiated by humans. "Landrace" refers to domesticated organisms that differ due to location. "Race" is a more general term applied to organisms differentiated without human intervention. There are many sources using the term race in this sense in the article. In fact Darwin used it on the cover of his book. And you fail to address the point of this section which is why human races are "social constructs" but animal ones aren't. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I have no interest in debating this sort of nonsense. Provide authoritative, reliable sources (with links to the peer-reviewed sources in which they are published) if you wish to be taken seriously. Montanabw^(talk) 05:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Let me begin with race. There is a widespread feeling that the word "race" indicates something undesirable and that it should be left out of all discussions. This leads to such statements as "there are no human races."

Those who subscribe to this opinion are obviously ignorant of modern biology. Races are not something specifically human; races occur in a large percentage of species of animals." Mayr 2002. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 09:30, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Mayr 2002" isn't a source. Montanabw^(talk) 17:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

How's this? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

"Race" in that source is from a non-native English speaker, and in some languages, "race" and "breed" translate as the same word. Mayr has been noted as a closet racist and promoter of eugenics: [1], [2] (same document) [3], so no, definitely not a source for here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

""Race" in that source is from a non-native English speaker"

Garbage. Why aren't you asking to delete references to Boas?

"Mayr has been noted as a closet racist and promoter of eugenics"

He is a leading biologist and a reliable source. Sorry if you don't like him

Your arguments are garbage at this point and you are clearly biased towards an "anti-racist" agenda, truth be damned. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Such bluster. Must be Napoleon complex. danielkueh (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Such vacuous comments. Must be no logical contradiction complex. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:42, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

lol. I will take "no logical contradiction" over "Napoleon" any day. danielkueh (talk) 20:47, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sadly only one of them has any accuracy. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's Napoleon complex indeed. After all, the term "no logical contradiction complex" does not even exist. lol. danielkueh (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Would you like me to report you again? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 20:56, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Just don't go cry on your way out. danielkueh (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Done[4] Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Good job! But would you like some tissue for those tears? danielkueh (talk) 21:04, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Does it make you feel better to pretend I'm crying? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 21:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes no difference to me. Either way, you're just a cry-baby. Anytime someone disagrees with you, you accuse them of giving "garbage arguments" or having an "agenda." Worse, you actually file formal complaints about "incivility" or "stalling" just because you don't get your way. Pathetic. But humorous. Thanks for the entertainment though. Have a nice life. danielkueh (talk) 21:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

So I think we've established that the animal race concept is equivalent to the human race concept. I therefore propose to write "is a social construct" in the first sentence. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 02:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Given that fact that race, as applied to humans, is a social construct, then that sounds fine. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:42, 20 June 2015 (UTC) Oops, wrong article. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

No, Animals have breeds, not "races" - the word "race" applied to animals is a mistranslation. Human beings don't have "breeds" - these are totally different concepts. Truth is, this article should be merged into breed. Montanabw^(talk) 20:50, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Montanabw. The proposal is based on WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Clear violations of WP policies. danielkueh (talk) 22:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

That's complete nonsense and breeds are artificially selected. "The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life" What is this a mistranslation of? Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 02:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Cap'n, you clearly don't understand anything about animals, you obviously don't know the difference between a species, a subspecies, and a breed. Montanabw^(talk) 10:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Ironic. I won't attempt to define species due to the species problem, it's irrelevant to the point anyway. Subspecies is a division of species and is the last level named in the ICZN. This is due to exponential numbers of names rather than taxonomic validity. Breed is an artificially selected infrasubspecific division. Race is a naturally selected infrasubspecific division. The fact that "rasse" or "razza" is used for both concepts in other languages is irrelevant, since this article is about the English terms where a distinction is made. Captain JT Verity MBA (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Any source for this distinction between "breed", "population", "subspecies" and "race" in contemporary biology?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

"So I think we've established that the animal race concept is equivalent to the human race concept. I therefore propose to write "is a social construct" in the first sentence. Captain JT Verity MBA" If you write that in the first sentence it will be removed by every biologist who comes across the page. The name of this page is "Race (biology)", which is not a social construct. As has been noted above, animal breeds are the result of human selection, whereas a race of animals within a species (or within a subspecies or variety) arises through natural means (notably by vicariance). Eventually, a human may notice something that distinguishes the races of animals and may call attention to it or give it a name. That is a concept, however, not a social construct. As it says at Social constructionism, "Social constructs are the by-products of countless human choices". If a biologist talks about the long-tailed race of Macaques, that may be of no interest to anyone but that scientist and those who read their papers. Biological races have fuzzy boundaries, not all individuals can be delineated according to biological race. Human social constructs, however, assign a single race to each person. If you apply for a driver's licence in the U.S. and don't fill in the race field, I know from experience that a desk clerk will look at you, take a guess, and check exactly one box on the form, and the boxes don't include "none" or "mixed-race", just some other offensive terms that supposedly divide people by a combination of skin colour, hair curliness, and eye shape. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The real problems here are:

1. Too many people are trying to cram too many things into this article that are not related. This article is about an obsolete taxonomic term. Nothing else. It is not about a "social construct". It is also not about breeds. Breed only applies to domesticates; race was applied generally, as a classification below subspecies.
2. This term is obsolete and has been for a long time (exception maybe, maybe, with regard to fungi, but multiple editors here clearly consider any such claims to ben an "extraordinary claims requiring extraordinary sources". (One primary-source article from 1993, or when ever it was, is insufficient, especially given the likelihood that it was translated from a German paper; the word Race in German, like raza in Spanish, carries less social "baggage" than the English cognate.) The current state of this article is that what few sources it has are a scattershot of cherry-picked examples establishing that the term has been used, without any proof of any kind that this is a current term used as a taxonomic rank by anyone in any field.

It's important to keep and improve the article. Anyone with an anthropological background understands how important it is have this article and get it right. The late Victorian notion of races in biology, an innocent attempt at classification just like subspecies and cultivar group, etc., was misapplied to human groups, on the basis of gross phenotypic differences, and nutters ran with it, coming up with the turn-of-the-last-century anthropometrics mania, the dangerous idea of eugenics and lots of terrible results from it (forced sterilization of prison inmates, etc.), and eventually led straight to the Holocaust. Today this stupid nonsense still dominates public thinking about human ethnicity (outside of actual anthropology, which has known this idea was stupid for several generations how). The biological, taxonomic notion of race is deeply bound up with the entire history of modern world. You could write a Featured Article about this.

In the interim, the bare minimum fixing this article has to have are: A) proper sourcing to demonstrate that it's obsolete (if it's not in some particular narrow field that needs to be extraordinarily well-sourced); and B) anything not related to the term as used in biology being excised from it so people stop confusing it with the term as applied to human populations. While they're historically tied, and the best thing this article can do long-term is document that encyclopedically (with a summary of it in history section at Race (human classification)), they are not equivalent and each are separate articles for a reason.

The proposal to make this article be about the social concept is completely backwards from where we need to go.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

This debate actually died weeks ago. I say let's slap a merge tag on this thing and move the most relevant material to the animal breed article. Montanabw^(talk) 23:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:11, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal: Merge to Breed

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There is consensus not to merge the two articles. Closed early per WP:SNOW. The two articles describe clearly different subjects. Kraxler (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

---

I propose we merge this article to Breed, since there is little to nothing to suggest that "race" and "breed" is used in separate senses in contemporary biology.

Survey

• Support as proposer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Breeds are made by humans; races are natural phenomena. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support: In animals, we have breeds and species/subspecies. An animal "race" is just another word for a breed. Most of the time when a European word gts translated "race", it is a word that refers to an animal breed. (Example Andalusian horse aka Pura Raza Española.) (Those who disagree and wish to make the argument that "races" are natural and have DNA differences, then that argument, is, essentially, that an animal "race" is just another word for species/subspecies). If any selective breeding is involved, it's clearly a breed. If it's a more natural or feral process, then we have a landrace. But let's merge this article. Montanabw^(talk) 06:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, and move to Race (taxonomy): While use of "race" in biology (in English) is obsolete, and it was sometimes also used imprecisely to mean "breed", by other people than taxonomists, this article is about the taxonomic term. The difference between them was concisely pointed out by Sminthopsis84, above. "Breed" does not apply to anything but domesticates, and (in English) "race" in the taxonomic sense doesn't apply to breeds except occasionally in an incidentally overlapping sense, the way subspecies sometimes does.

  This should move to Race (taxonomy), since the present title is an ambiguous un-disambiguation (humans are biological, but this article doesn't apply to them).

  The #1 reason this article's topic is notable is direct involvement of the use of this term by taxonomists (as a category in natural taxonomy, not as any way of saying "domesticated breed"!) in the 19th century in the formulation of the early (now also obsolete) concept of human "races" in early, pre-genetics anthropology, which led directly to a lot of really, really terrible socio-political consequences we are still living with. A concise but important Featured Article can and should be written about this. I even took an entire university class about the history of this (at UNM in 2009 or 2010). I'm not certain why it has not received the development it needs, but it would be absurd to merge this to Breed. They are not the same topic. Just because two words are about two categorizations of organisms doesn't make them synonymous (shall we merge phylum and cultivar?)

  There's also some evidence that term may still be in very narrow use, taxonomically, in mycology, which is a world away from animal breeds. This merge proposal is essentially impossible for three independent reasons.

  Non-English use of cognates of race aren't relevant. This is called the "false friend" or "false cousin" effect in linguistics. What do you think embarazada means in Spanish, or that librairie means in French?

  We already covered almost all of this, in detail, one thread above this, a couple of days ago, so this blanket merge proposal (which is not what was suggested earlier) is a WP:POINTy case of bait-and-switch. That said, any material that is in, or winds up in, this article that is really about breeds should merge to that article (which is what the original merge idea was), if the material is sourced and not redundant. Trivial merges of that sort do not generally require a merge discussion, and certainly do not require a total-merge proposal like this. Any material at Race (human classification) that is about taxonomic race generally can merge into this article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:28, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life has been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Sminthopsis84 and SMcCandlish. "Breed" and "landrace" are groupings of organisms created by humans; a "race", as (formerly) used taxonomically, is not. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:41, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - also per above, race can mean both subspecies and breed, so it can be merged with neither. FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • And this is neither a verboten dicdef, nor a disambiguation/conceptDAB page, so whether there are other meanings is irrelevant; this article is about the taxonomic use (even if it has some offtopic stuff to remove or move).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - breeds are artificial races are natural. SamOrange (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

• I would appreciate some evidence in the form of sources for the claims that 1. "race" is currently used as a taxonomical category in zoology/mycology/biology, 2. "race" is used in a sense that is distinct from both "breed" and "subspecies". Also I note that Biophys (talk · contribs) above specifically rejected that Race was ever a taxonomical concept, argueing instead that it is simply a name for a naturally occurring breeding population distinguished by phenotype. I would accept that argument if it were supported with sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:LMGTFY: [5] [6]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

None of those google searches actually address the issue of whether it has any current use as a taxonomical category distinct from population/subspecies/breed. Maybe if you learned to use google scholar for this kind of thing it would work better for you. The attempt to use an irrelevant google search as support for your argument does show however that your lengthy posturing above is not based on any actual sources.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This currency non-issue was already addressed above. Please stop the WP:ICANTHEARYOU game.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Even if the term was completely outdated, it would still warrant an article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I have encountered the term in some recent papers that I sadly don't remember at the moment (bird papers I think), used synonymously with subspecies. For example as in "the southern race of the" etc. I think the above supports and opposes reflect in what context people have encountered the term race. Those who write articles about breed encounter it there, while those who write about taxonomy have encountered it there, leading either to think it is synonymous with either breed or subspecies, which is too simple, as it can refer to both. FunkMonk (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

That would suggest that it is simply a vague term and not an actually welldefined concept in biology, which would mean that we should have articles on subspecies and breed and mention there that sometimes "race" is used to refer to these categories, but that we should not have articles on "Race (taxonomy)" or "Race (biology)".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The history of the term would itself warrant a very long article, so I'd certainly disagree with that. It was used way more than subspecies in the past, that it is used less now does not diminish its encyclopaedic value. And by the way, taxonomic ranks are extremely vaguely defined as well, shouldn't be an argument for merging them. What sets species apart from subspecies? Genus from family? Etc. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Is there a literature about the history of the term "race" distinct from the literature about the history of its application to humans? If not and it is used synonymously with breed and subspecies - then really it doesnt merit its own article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Then take it to WP:AFD. This merge proposal is already disputed and will not reach a consensus to merge here, because the topics are categorically unrelated. The only options are keep or delete.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

A quick Google Scholar search (on "subspecies race animals", but note the term was also used in botany) gave me these papers about the use and history of the concept in relation to similar concepts, I'm sure loads more can be found, also in Google Books (as well as in literature cited by these papers): [7][8][9][10][11][12] FunkMonk (talk) 10:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Almost all of those sources are old sources that use the concept race for animals, but only one of them seems to actually be about terminology - the first one is specifically about the term subspecies - not race. I must say I remain unconvinced that a meaningful article that is not based on OR can be written about this.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:45, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said, they discuss the concept in relation to other concepts, no one said they should only be about the concept of race. And no one said they couldn't be old, and that should be irrelevant anyway, old concepts do have Wikipedia articles. But I see you've found something newer below, so I can forgive the goal-post change, heh. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Don't feed. You've answered the WP:ICANTHEARYOU demands, and are not obligated to answer more redundant demands for sources and rationales that have already been provided. None of maunus's arguments are relevant, because it's against policy to merge articles on unrelated topics. I'm actually going to take this to WP:ANRFC for speedy closure.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  13:13, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here is one from 2005 that uses the term.[13] It states that "Throughout, the term race is used to define the major groups and subgroups of B. tabaci so as to avoid the con- fusion raised by the use and misuse of terms such as population, biotype and clade." It also states that "The term race is based on its usage in Mallet (2001)." Mallet[14] however uses the term only as "geographic races" and never gives an exact definition. Here[15] is a note about where the concept "geographical races" comes from "In 1937, Theodosius Dobzhansky introduced the idea of geographical races — populations of species that differ in the frequencies of one or more genetic variants.". This begins to convince me that there is an article to be written.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, it is quite easy to find articles that use the term "race" for fungi in scholar.google.com by searching for the terms "race" and "fungi". It is so commonly used in the context of pathogenic fungi, that papers generally don't define the term. When a pathogenic fungus is discovered in the wild, it is not appropriate to refer to it as a "strain", because that means one genotype, and this could be several genotypes with similar behaviour. Similarly, it is not appropriate to refer to it as a "clade" until it has been discovered that all of the descendants of some putative ancestor are included in the group that is being discussed. "Races" of wild fungi (and other pathogenic organisms) are very much current topics. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Move to Race (taxonomy)

The suggestion by  SMcCandlish above that this page should move to Race (taxonomy) has my support, so I'm separating it out for possible discussion. That page title currently redirects here. I think it would be less likely than "Race (biology)" to cause a reader to think that particular phenotype components will be discussed, such as skin colour of humans. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:07, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support – a more precise title, as per WP:AT. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think that would be incorrect as well, since it can also refer to man-made breeds, which do not necessarily have anything to do with taxonomy. Only a few very old domesticated types of animals (or "breeds") are currently recognised as taxa (Bos primigenius taurus, Canis lupus familiaris, Equus ferus caballus, Sus scrofa domesticus, etc.), sometimes where the wild form is extinct. Subtypes of these (which can also be referred to as races) are not recognised as taxa. Maybe "Race (classification)" could be better, as it has a broader scope. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Per my comment below, I'd prefer we just got rid of "race" as an article title altogether and just decide where to redirect it (maybe to a main dab page). Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy, as per the definition at the dab page is about naming and classification, so "Race (classification)" would just be a subset of "Race (taxonomy)". For plants, the situation is clearer, since the International Code of Nomenclature for Cultivated Plants, dealing with human-created plants, is as much part of taxonomy in general as is the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, dealing with wild plants. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Taxonomy is specifically about classification of taxa, that is, scientifically named/described units/populations (though some can remain nameless for various reasons), not necessarily classification in general. Breeds do not generally have scientific names and do not naturally form populations with only members of their own breed, so they do not count as taxa (apart from the very few that have been named scientifically). Using taxonomy to refer to biological classification in general is therefore technically incorrect, but in reality, I guess ordinary readers wouldn't care. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I find it difficult to see the difference between a breed and a cultivar; cultivars are are taxa according to the ICNCP. Cultivars "do not naturally form populations with only members of their own [cultivar]". You seem to be imposing your own narrow sense of "taxonomy" and "taxon". Peter coxhead (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The term "breed" has been applied to plants in some sources as synonymous with "cultivar", though the usage is decreasing; there seems to be a sense in botany and horticulture that it's confusing, ignorant, obsolete, informal, or imprecise (depending on who's talking about it).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Re: 'it can also refer to man-made breeds'; that's already covered by disambiguation; that article is at Breed. Not everything mentioned in this article has to be covered in detail in it; WP:SUMMARY style tells us to summarize, and provide a link to the main article on things that have (and can support) their own.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:43, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And I agree with SMcCandlish on that point! Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

A cultivar has a formal scientific name (unlike most animal breeds, no dog race is called "Canis lupus familiaris German shepherd"), and therefore falls under the taxon category I mentioned above. But anyhow, there may be a point about disambiguation. FunkMonk (talk) 05:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And it would be "Canis lupus familiaris 'German Shepherd'", anyway. :-)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

• Support Irrespective of the proposed merge above the article is about a taxonomic concept specifically. The new DAB would better distinguish it from other concepts of Race. SPACKlick (talk) 13:44, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

See my comment above, it is not merely about a taxonomic concept. Dog races, for example, have nothing to do with taxonomy. FunkMonk (talk) 13:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

And see my comment above. In as much as dog races are concerned with naming and classification, they clearly do. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:18, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with dog "races". If it is a landrace, then it is not a breed. Canis lupus familiaris is a subspecies. Races are informal taxa, as are landraces, but they are still part of (classification and) taxonomy. The breeding scheme used to established a breed is known, but that is not true of races or landraces or (most of) the formal taxonomic ranks such as subspecies. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:50, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed elsewhere, a landrace is a stage in breed formation, so again, "race" is just poor , sloppy wording for other things. Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Your source actually said a landrace can be one mechanism of breed formation (Sponenberg 2000[16]).Please stop saying "a landrace is a stage in breed formation"; you've been doing this across Wikipedia for over a year in your efforts to distort acceptance and coverage of that word and concept in the encyclopedia. Anyway, your "just sloppy wording for other things" claims doesn't follow from the false premise you advanced.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Missed this...Source cited states "One mechanism for breed formation includes a landrace stage." Thus, "a landrace is a stage in breed formation" is an acceptable paraphrase, though if you prefer, perhaps "a landrace can be a stage in breed formation" would be more precise. But lay off the personal attacks and attribution of motive here. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"is a stage in breed formation" suggests that it is always that, which is not the case. "a landrace can be a stage in breed formation" is not just more precise, but is accurate. A landrace may never lead to a breed, and a breed can be formed in other ways. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 14:01, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

• Support of course, and make the present title into a disambiguation page. Both "race" as applied to human ethnicity or skin color, and "race" in the non-English (and rare English) sense of "breed", are both, like the taxonomic use, encompassed by "biology". A disambiguation that just introduces two more ambiguities is worse than useless. The "taxonomy" disambiguator is precise, concise, etc., and broad enough to address how usage has varied within taxonomy.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose but because this causes the same problem as (biology) the concept is as fuzzy as "race" = "breed." I still see zero sourcing here that this term is used as more than sloppy phrasing or mistranslations. What I suggest is for this title to redirect to race and we can put links to both either breed or taxa, or species, or whatever at the dab, but I want the title to go away. It's just troll bait for racists. Montanabw^(talk) 04:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Any chance you can clarify this?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Seconded. Please clarify this. SamOrange (talk) 09:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. Technically the social constructs of human race such as the one drop rule are taxonomies. Race in biology in general is more reasonably based on natural biological divisions (eg. morphological or ancestral similarity) by definition. Propose retaining "Race (biology)". SamOrange (talk) 09:45, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And to be clear the natural biological concept of race can certainly be applied to humans, Marxist pseudo-science (aka. "American Anthropology") notwithstanding. SamOrange (talk) 12:16, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@SamOrange: Re: Technically the social constructs ... are taxonomies – Semantic quibble of that sort won't matter here, because of all the usual WP:AT logic. See analysis below.
Re: the natural biological concept of race can certainly be applied to humans – yes, of course. This article needs to include in it how that biological categorization was, after being applied to humans, seized upon and warped. Our historical coverage of how that construct arose is lacking in clarity; Race (human classification)#Early taxonomic models goes over various pre-modern attempts to classify people geographically and phenotypically and behaviorally, but does not directly cover the role played by race as a taxon proper in the scientific naming scheme, and how it helped lend a veneer of science to social constructs that already existed. This will then need to be contrasted, in a section on application to humans, with modern genetic approaches to understanding human phenotypic diversity.
PS: Not all Americans with anthropology degrees are anywhere near that political classification. I have one, but am very far from a socialist (I'm a classic liberal, a.k.a. libertarian without the crazy). There are always extreme-lefists in social sciences, in Europe too; it's just a matter of not drinking their Kool-Aid and instead reading the actual science.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• Supplement: I didn't think there'd be call to get into the details, this move seems so routine, but here's a detailed WP:AT policy analysis of why this move should proceed as proposed:
  • The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "taxonomy" in the context of biological classification is obviously Taxonomy (biology), the meaning used here, not the broadest sense at Taxonomy (general). Under our naming principles and WP:COMMONSENSE, the context-specific meaning of a disambiguator is the one applied in the context. This is central to the way the disambiguation system works. See WP:AT#DAB and WP:DAB and the examples they use, e.g. "Mercury (element)"; "element" has many meanings, but it's obvious which one applies here. Same goes for this case; it doesn't matter that "taxonomy" has some other meanings.
  • We would not need to use something long-winded like "Race (biological taxonomy)", just like we don't use "Mercury (chemical element)", unless this had to be disambiguated from some other article on "race" in some other "taxonomy", and people were likely to confuse them. Since that's not the case, "race (biological taxonomy)" fails WP:CONCISE.
  • "Taxonomy" is the WP:COMMONNAME for biological classification in the sciences, not "biology", one of its "parent" concepts along with taxonomy (general). See the DAB page Taxonomy#Science; every single entry is a subset/subtopic of Taxonomy (biology). Then see the Race DAB page, and note how many of them are biological, but only one of them is a subset of Taxonomy (biology).
  • "Race (taxonomy)" fulfills WP:RECOGNIZABLE but "Race (biology)" does not; anyone who knows that this taxon exists will instantly recognize that the title of the former probably means this taxon, while the later will leave them wondering what it is, because so many different uses of "race" involve organisms, including the human social constructs. For that reason, "Race (biology)" also fails WP:PRECISION; any application of "race" to anything alive involves "biology", but only one application of "race" to anything biological involves taxonomy (biology).

 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Whatever SMcCandlish. You seem to have a good handle on this issue so I'll defer to your decisions. Regards. (I still think it should be (biology) :p) SamOrange (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Current version incorrectly claims that race (in Biology) is a taxonomy unit. No, it is not. The biological taxonomy starts from sub-species, which is something different from race, although there is certain overlap. "Race" comes mostly from population biology and studies on the evolution of species, not taxonomy.My very best wishes (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Update: Article does not presently make such a claim. It observes that it is sometimes used this way, and is sometimes just an informal grouping; in both cases, this serves a taxonomic purpose, not just a formal biological nomenclature purpose subject to the nomenclature codes.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• If this is not a taxonomy unit (yes, it is not), why on the Earth this page should be renamed to "Race (Taxonomy)"? My very best wishes (talk) 21:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

It is not true that "The biological taxonomy starts from sub-species". Only zoology has the notion that the lowest rank that can be formally named is the subspecies. Also ... nomenclature is not the sum total of "taxonomy". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. Perhaps it would be fair to say in Intro something like that: "In Biology, races are genetically divergent populations within the same species with relatively small morphological and genetic differences. The race is also used as an informal taxonomic rank, below the level of subspecies"? My very best wishes (talk) 23:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• However, I am not sure in the second phrase. Since you suggested to rename this page to race (taxonomy), can you pleas provide some refs that show usage of this term as a unit of biological taxonomy? I thought only strain and subspecies were used for biological classification, and this is actually the difference between the "race" (a biological population) and "subspecies/strain" (a classification unit).My very best wishes (talk) 11:47, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: See #Race in biological taxonomy?, below. There are already sources in the article demonstrating use of the term for taxonomy (biology); this is not the same as use as a formal taxonomic rank in biological nomenclature. The thread below outlines who we'll distinguishing the concepts for lay readers (and frankly this approach should probably be carried to a few other pages, since the concepts are not clearly distinguished in our articles).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see comments by Sminthopsis84 and myself in this section below. Not only none of the discussed sources (including Ernst Mayr) claims race to be a unit in biological taxonomy, but they tell exactly the opposite: race is merely a population (or a group of populations) which might be used at some point as a basis for introducing a new subspecies. Unlike race, the subspecies is a unit of biological classification. My very best wishes (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please see the discussion below; you seem again to be not distinguishing between biological taxonomy a.k.a. taxonomy (biology), and biological nomeclature.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:01, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I think it boils down to this. I did not see a single source claiming "race" to be a unit in biological taxonomy or nomenclature. If you know such source(s), please quote what they are telling about race. None of the "codes of nomenclature" (see above) uses races as classification units. If they do, please provide a link. Keep in mind that Canis lupus familiaris is not a race, but subspecies. Neither are cultivars and breeds. We rightly have separate pages for them.My very best wishes (talk) 22:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

• • Current version still incorrectly claims that race belongs to biological taxonomy. Yes, one could reasonably argue that races have been occasionally used for informal classification not covered by the official biological taxonomy. However, the most common meaning of the term comes from population biology and speciation, for example as used in classic books by Ernst Mayr mentioned on this page. Actually, I think that renaming into Race (population biology) might be appropriate, however this also would be too narrow and therefore must remain as it is right now. Still oppose, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 17:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. According to nominator the actual reason for renaming this page is political correctness (it would be less likely than "Race (biology)" to cause a reader to think that particular phenotype components will be discussed, such as skin colour of humans). Bringing politics, rather than sources to encyclopedia is a very bad idea, almost just as bad as in other subject ares. My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

  Um, racism is not "political correctness." Racism is a very bad thing, hence, the need to avoid confusion and to be careful that the phrasing doesn't attract trolls. Montanabw^(talk) 06:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your comment below (last phrase on the bottom) only proves my point. Once again, that was Ernst Mayr and other biologists who used this term for genetically divergent populations in population biology. Please see his book, Mayr, Ernst (1970). Populations, Species, and Evolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-69013-3. Do you need specific pages and quotations from the book? Speaking about races of animals and plants, they have nothing to do with racism because term "racism" has been applied exclusively to humans. My very best wishes (talk) 13:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that Race (taxonomy) 'would be less likely than "Race (biology)" to cause a reader to think that particular phenotype components will be discussed, such as skin colour' is quite an on-point rationale, and has nothing to do with political correctness. This is an article about the term and its uses, not for "how to distinguish races of things" or "lists of races of grouses", or any other off-topic crap someone might want to WP:COATRACK onto an article with such a presently vague name. That a rename would also be likely to forestall a lot of human race-related discussion that belongs at Talk:Race (human categorization) is a nice bonus, but isn't the rationale for the rename. As noted, I originally proposed the rename, so I know what the rationale was: "biology" is vague and encompasses virtually every meaning of the word other than "speed contest" and a few odd ones, e.g. in geology, that have different etymologies. Thus "Race (biology)" conceptually encompasses also the scope of "Race (human categorization)", etc. – humans are biological, and much of that debate is whether "human races" are purely social constructs, purely biological, or some admixture. That that breadth is the exact opposite of the intent, of the way this article has been scoped, both on its talk page and its writing.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• After checking sources, such as this, it appears that Mayr used term "biological races", in addition to simply "race", "geographic race", etc. So, it might be a reasonable idea to rename "Race (biology)" to biological race, which might help to distinguish it from race applied to humans. Speaking about definition of the term "race" by Mayr, I can simply take it from his book, but I only have a Russian language edition/translation. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

But "biological race" is a specific sub-usage, and so is "geographic race". These are now treated separately in the article, with sources (along with chromosomal race and physiological race). So, no, we would not rename this topic to the name of one of its subtopics. That would be a bit like renaming the Chevrolet article to Chevrolet Corvette.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposal three: Fully diffuse and redirect to dab

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There have been no new !votes in more than a month, and not a single !vote in support (except the proposer's). Thus there is consensus not to diffuse, and not to redirect anything. Kraxler (talk) 21:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

---

New idea: How about fully diffusing all content to relevant articles (breed, taxon, landrace, whatever) and redirect this title to race, where we can use sourced, verifiable links to breed and taxon, explaining why they are there. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Support as proposer. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. No reason given to censor definition of a valid, current and historical biological term other than vague worries about supposed "baggage", ie. moralistic fallacy based on distaste with the effects of the application of a valid biological concept to human affairs. SamOrange (talk) 09:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: Not a "new idea", just the same one in the two previous discussions: Merge the article away so nominator can redirect its title where she wants. While I share SamOrange's concerns, the main issue is that the proposal simply isn't possible: The content cannot merge into multiple articles, because of the already sourced fact that "race" is [whatever else it might be in other contexts, per the Race DAB page] a taxonomic category (still current in at least two fields, mycology and bacteriology), not synonymous with anything else. There is nowhere to merge that to. Taxon is an article about the concept of the taxon; it's not "List of taxa".

  Summary material about former taxonomic uses of the term in ways that overlap breed, landrace, subspecies, etc., is required to adequately cover all taxonomic uses of "race" and distinguish between them so readers know what we're talking about; the article would be incomplete and directly misleading without it. The material in the article is not some kind of WP:CONCEPTDAB that is redefining breed, landraces, and subspecies as kinds of "race", and thus competing with the real articles on these topics. It's simply referring to them in context. If this material were "merged" into those articles, it would have to be re-added here later to make the article coherent again. Any material irrelevant to taxonomic use can be moved or deleted, but it doesn't take whole-article merge proposals to do that.

  On the behavioral issue raised: Yes, it's clear (the nom even said so, one thread above: "I want the title to go away") what her goal being pursued here is, in all three concurrent actions (merge, rm, redundant merge). This doesn't seem to be an encyclopedic goal, but a personal one, of uncertain rationale. This misuse of a trio of concurrent discussions to push for deletion isn't the right process for that; WP:AFD exists for a reason. The WP:ICANTHEARYOU game being played is getting non-trivially problematic, with repeated insistence on a lack of sources, when the article has sources, and these very discussions have provided plenty more, combined with her refusal to acknowledge that multiple editors, including a subject-matter expert, have demonstrated that it's a real taxonomic term and still used, and not overlapping in that usage with any other. The nom needs to just accept her own unfamiliarity with the topic, and drop it.
   — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

  • WP:AGF people; see below. Montanabw^(talk) 08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Speedy close request: The speedy close rationale in the prior edition of this equally applies here. We can't merge away the central concept in the article, because it's a clearly different topic from any of the merge targets. Despite the wording tweaks, the merge proposals are effectively identical.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose: hoping that after such lengthy discussion (some of it unfortunately archived so less visible) the reasons don't have to be enumerated yet again. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Feel free to unarchive whatever you like. I archived the moot threads manually because they were confusing Race (taxonomy) and Race (human classification). Archiving them seemed like the thing to do since enthnicity-related trolling was a concern.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:44, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is obviously something described as a separate subject in multiple books. Even if someone believes this is a historical concept (no, it is not), it deserves a separate page. My very best wishes (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm basically not seeing a reason why the contents of this article can't simply be moved to other relevant articles, hence blanking it altogether. By redirecting it back to the broad concept dab page and adding as many links as needed there to appropriate articles that people who may not be English speakers might be looking for (like taxon per the proposal above, or breed which rightly or wrongly IS a way "race" is translated from languages like German and Spanish), we solve the whole problem. Montanabw^(talk) 05:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting proposal, though I do think there is enough literature to write an article about the history of the concept, but until someone does that, this article is pretty useless on its own. So I might support, unless someone volunteers to expand the article. But also note that the term is validly used today to refer to bacteria, as noted earlier. FunkMonk (talk) 05:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: I'll be expanding it, if for no other reason that to put an end to the WP:GAMING tactic of denial that the topic exists, is notable, and is sourceable. I did this at Shrew (stock character), and Landrace for the same reason. It turns weak stubs into real articles. That's actually a compelling reason not to start WP:ANI slapfests about WP:POINTy misuses of process like this. Just make the article unassailable: WP and its readers benefit, everyone's blood pressure stays within reasonable limits, and the article's naysayers look silly for having suggested the article couldn't be salvaged, and may think twice before doing that again. I say "may", because the nom already tried same approach to getting rid of Landrace a year or two ago, with the exact same faulty rationales. I suspect that the presence of -race in that word had a lot to do with it. It probably won't be long before the few holdouts in science abandon this term has having too much socio-political baggage. But we'd still need the article, since we'd still have to cover how the word was used and what it meant in taxonomy, and when it was finally abandoned. This 'delete everything with "race" in the title so no troll ever ends up at Talk:Breed' pursuit is a waste of time. Hint: "Half-breed" is a human term, usually a slur, so trolls will show up anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:03, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, in that case, I'll step back and see what happens... FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

• FWIW, the reason I'm making this proposal is basically because of the racially-charged debate prior to the move suggestions: individuals with an agenda of POV-pushing wanting to claim that human race is a biological construct in that it provides them dubious grounds for arguments of racial superiority and inferiority. (aka, racism) The "race=breed" definition is, as most seem to agree, incorrect; essentially, a mistranslation of the words in other languages for "breed." But the "taxonomy" argument doesn't look much better to me - I'm seeing argument here, but no sources or links to WP:RS that verify that "race" is a taxonomic concept that is any less a simple mistranslation. Show me the URLs to link to evidence (other than the neo-Nazi nonsense of an earlier debate) and I'm willing to reconsider. Montanabw^(talk) 08:27, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

This very talk page has already provided those sources. Asking for them again and again and again is not going to make them go away or make anyone believe they weren't posted already. WP:YOUCANSEARCH, anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, plenty of links to non-human biology/taxonomy articles that use the term have been provided so far in the sections above. WP:Wikipedia is not censored, so I find the argument about racism a bit odd. We have articles about actual racial slurs and racist science concepts, by the same logic, those should all be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 09:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

False analogy. I'm just trying (in vain, it seems) to tone down a dramafest. It's pretty clear that the term in biology or taxonomy, or whatever is not preferred phrasing, and I think it would be better to just discuss the concept in the relevant articles and add this as an additional definition in wiktionary. Seriously. Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

So am I to understand we should merge it to prevent drama on the talk pages? Because that I find even more pointless. We write for the readers, not the editors. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

No, we should merge and redirect articles where a nonstandard term gets its own article but is, in essence, a content fork. If those who argue it is a needed article will actually do what they say needs to be done, then fine. But if they just want to debate and do no work, then let's get rid of this article and put its content elsewhere. I'm tired of this endless debate, it's time to put up or shut up. Either the people who suggest improving the actual article need to knuckle down and start improving it, or it needs to be merged and redirected. I think (assuming good faith) that most of the people posting here do agree that the current article isn't very good. So, fix it. One way or the other. I've recommended one way, but if another solution is actually enacted, fine. Montanabw^(talk) 19:20, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

The problem is there is no evidence this is "nonstandard". It's used even more broadly, in more biological fields than it seemed to be at first, and it seems to be used consistently (i.e. in a standardized way). Not being part of the formal hierarchy of taxonomic ranks in biological nomenclature doesn't make it "nonstandard". So, basically, we do need to cover it, just accurately and neutrally (and yes, as a practical matter, in a way that discourages vandalism and trolling, but that's more a matter of how we write, not what we write about).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: Right. And properly sourcing and writing this article, if people will stop fighting to the death to delete it (LOL), will disarm the ability of POV pushers to falsely claim that such a biological basis for human "races" exists. If there's a void in which to write bullshit, it will be filled with bullshit, so fill it with facts. The most obvious one is that while mycology and bacteriology sometimes still use this taxon, mammalology does not, ergo it has been rejected in that field, which means it does not apply to humans. We can historically document how it was formerly applied to humans, and how that was bent to racist ends. But not if our editing time is mired in these circular censorship/deletionism debates. It's a high-powered time and enthusiasm drainage system.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:40, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I can agree with that in concept. So those who claim expertise, time to get it done, then and I'd be glad to accept that as an alternative solution. Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

"The most obvious one is that while mycology and bacteriology sometimes still use this taxon, mammalology does not, ergo it has been rejected in that field, which means it does not apply to humans."

Was infrasubspecific classification rejected for mammals or was the word race rejected because of Marxist agitation? Is this all just silly semantics? SamOrange (talk) 08:04, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature does not provide for ranks below subspecies, so no organisms covered by this code can have a formal rank below subspecies. The International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, by contrast, provides for the ranks of variety (varietas) and form (forma) below subspecies, but again no organisms covered by this code can have a formal rank of "race". Historically, "race" was one of the terms used in biological classification to describe groupings within species, but it was not adopted by the main codes of nomenclature. The term still has some uses, e.g. the International Society for Plant Pathology says here: "A 'race of a bacterium is a collection of strains which differ from others within a bacterial species or pathovar in their host specialization to cultivars or germplasm. ... Races have no nomenclatural standing." "Race" is used in a similar way in the context of pathogenic fungi. For example, the fungus that causes Panama disease has a strain or race called "tropical race 4" or "TR4" which is currently the most serious threat to the commonest cultivars of dessert bananas. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, races are not recorded in the ICZN, but this is more to do with exponential numbers than taxonomic invalidity. If editors want to assert that race (or variety or form or group or whatever) in animals has no validity they will have to back that up with a demonstration of a consensus that this is the case. I very much doubt that they can so editing as if it was would be a violation of NPOV. SamOrange (talk) 03:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

@SamOrange: Note that I was responding to your question of why infra-subspecific classification was rejected for mammals; the answer is because it was rejected for all animals in the ICZN. I certainly didn't say that "variety" and "form" have "no validity" for animals, merely that they can have no formal taxonomic status. Nothing prevents zoologists using the terms "variety", "form" and indeed "race", but in the absence of a scientific name attached to a name-bearing type, the meaning of such infra-subspecific labels is necessarily somewhat vague, which is one of the points to be made in the article.

If you wanted to put it in the article, you would need to back up your assertion that "this is more to do with exponential numbers than taxonomic invalidity" – what sources say this?

I also note that your three links don't include the use of "race". Your "group" link above goes to a discussion of subspecies. Google searches suggest that currently the term isn't much used for animals. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

And for my part, a separate point I'm getting at is that while we right now have evidence of still-current use in bacteriology and mycology, and I've also seen it used in the 1990s, in sources that may have been older, for some salamanders (among which several species have subspecies that intergrade), it seems to be never, ever used in modern sources for mammals. I.e., I wasn't making an argument about formal taxonomic ranks (I already knew, from having drafted MOS:ORGANISMS, that "race" isn't an ICZN, ICN, ICNCP taxonomic rank). Rather, I was getting at attested usage, period. I'm hoping the term turns out to have been formally deprecated in various fields and that sources will demonstrate this, but they might be in journals from the 1940s or whatever.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:18, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

The term simply refers to an infrasubspecific category and the only reason it is used less and is replaced with absolutely synonymous terms like variety, form and group is because it is the common term for human infrasubspecific categories and is therefore not PC. SamOrange (talk) 05:19, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Infrasubspecific" is not synonymous with race, and there is no taxonomic level below subspecies. Down there, it is just population. FunkMonk (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: That's not quite what SamOrange said. It's correct that "race" is an infra-subspecific category, although not a formalized rank for animals (unlike "variety" and "form" for plants). SamOrange is wrong to say that "race" is an "absolutely synonymous" term for variety, form and group, because although none of these terms now have a formally defined meaning when applied to animals, when the first two are/were used for animals, "form" is/was generally used as in plants, namely as a category below "variety". It's still used widely in Lepidoptera for example, where it usually refers to "aberrant forms". These are not "populations" but individuals with some common genetic abnormality or difference (e.g. melanism). "Race" as applied to humans is intended to be a population term, so is clearly not synonymous with "form". (Redheads, like me, could be considered a "form", I guess, but not a "race", even though, at least when young, we are as identifiable as any of the human "races".) Peter coxhead (talk) 09:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. this is precisely why this article is problematic - and troll bait. Whether we fix it or move it or merge it, we need to disconnect the use of the word "race" in biology from the use in human society. As Peter rightly indicates, having a "Race" characterized by red hair was once a reason for "no Irish need apply," with all sorts of cultural assumptions (hot temper, propensity toward drunkenness) attached. (FWIW, and similarly I have some Norwegian and German ancestry, and in Montana, "norskies" were once a mocked and ridiculed ethnic group considered stupid (due to poor English - and often viewed as drunks), and "krauts" faced severe discrimination during WWI). So it is not "PC" to say that human racial classification has little to do with biology and much to do with culture. While a given trait (eye shape, hair color, etc.) has a genetic reason, the decision of whether to classify it as significant has nothing to do with science. Montanabw^(talk) 21:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Collapsing sockpuppet trolling
What you write is garbage. It's laughable. Go away please. SamOrange (talk) 16:05, 1 August 2015 (UTC) You forgot to call him a Marxist. Go away now meat sock thing. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC) He's been WP:INDEFed as a sockpuppet of User:Captain JT Verity MBA. Likely to be back, of course.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:01, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Disconnecting this article on taxonomy from Race (human classification) (being RM'd to Race (human categorization)) is certainly a goal (an encyclopedic accuracy one, not a "p.-c.") one. As for the "while a given trait has a genetic reason, the decision of whether to classify it as significant" issue, see Talk:Race (human classification) and page-search for "Leroi". While not the originator of the idea's resurrection, he seems to be the popularizer of the notion that because various little traits like this can be averaged into population aggregates that they somehow meaningfully coalesce into "races" (iffy from a statical basis - you could swap in other traits to average out, and get different results). If you read him carefully he doesn't quite say this, but people have run with the idea. I'm thinking that article is the principal one to keep an eye on. It's already giving too much WP:UNDUE weight to "competing" "theories" some of which are bunk, some of which disputed (e.g. because medical research can't keep straight what "race" and "ethnic group" are supposed to mean, to whom, about whom, in what contexts), and some of which are very new (e.g. the idea, from evolutionary psychology, that a conceptualization of "the other" into something like "races" may be somewhat innate, a byproduct of hominid visual categorization and territorial xenophobia that evolved for other reasons) but may actually work their way into our model of understanding of the issue. I've proposed an approach on its talk page for readdressing the question and managing that article. At any rate the shunting of all that sort of material to that article gives breathing room to get this one right, but makes that one a more obvious target.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:51, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Still in wider-spread use than expected

I'm turning up recent peer-reviewed sources still using it in entomology and caudatology, too. I'm quite surprised. I'm wondering if it's a principally European usage. It's clearly not some "mistranslation of breed". These are journal articles on wild species with no domesticated counterparts. Well, I guess this is why we do source research instead of making assumptions. After a bunch of searches, I still don't find it being used with regard to mammals.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:29, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree it's a language issue. And right or wrong, I do routinely find that on horse breed articles, European sources that do not speak English as a first language often do say "race" when they mean "breed" (an example of machine translation using "race" or "racial" for "breed" here: [17] translating words like "Rassegruppe" and "Rassen") (the Germans who translate into English like to put concepts in all one word too - schoolquadrille, showjumping - which also drives me nuts, but that's not an issue for this page). So I think you are on the right track. Montanabw^(talk) 02:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish:: In terms of article improvement, (seeing as how my proposal is going over like a lead balloon) any suggestions on how to handle the legitimate thing of the word "breed" in English being translated as "race" when brought in from foreign languages? It's a periodic problem. The Pura Raza Española is probably where I'm fretting the most (see Andalusian horse), but some articles coming in from places like fr. and de.wiki have similar issues of saying "race" when they mean "breed". I think most of the current horse articles with that problem have been cleaned, but we have several hundred, plus other animal breeds, so... I have also definitely run into problems with people who confuse breeds with species/subspecies (had a now-blocked-sock derail a GAN over the issue once) and right now some folks think taxonomic classifications are "breeds". Montanabw^(talk) 19:45, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes, the list of horse breeds is very different from the list of wild horse subspecies (redirects under discussion). Based on such examples, anyone can realize that subspecies and breeds are different. Same with subspecies and populations ("races"). My very best wishes (talk) 13:51, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Just read through this talk page. Breathtakingly circular. As a psychologist with no interest in taxonomies, but great interest in human concept formation, I point out that all, and I mean all, human concepts are fuzzy and filled with values (opinions). So, I would heartily suggest that some mention in the article directs readers to Race (human classification) to point out that biology does not have the last word on this. No matter how few biologists still use "race", those who focus on human classification have a consensus that there are no human races (in both the biological and common sense meanings of the term). This would go a long way towards preventing back door racists from slipping in their views under general biology. Perhaps include the opening sentence of Race (human classification) ? Waddaya thimpk?Imersion (talk) 20:00, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I can easily agree that concepts in psychology are fuzzy. Not so in natural sciences, and especially in Physics, where definitions are based on measurements ("time" is what clocks show). No, Biology has the last word to say on something that belongs to Biology. My very best wishes (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Imersion: This is already done with the hatnote at the top of the page. This article isn't about (except in a "History" section that hasn't been written yet, that will cover obsolete Victorian usage) anything relating to Race (human classification).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Montanabw: Disambiguating: I do, of course, understand that "race" and its cognates are used by some (mostly non-English) sources to refer to breeds. But that use isn't the topic of this article. I'm skeptical that we need to do more than specify this clearly with a disambiguating sentence in the lead. If we really think it'll be a problem, a combination of DAB hatnote, sentence in lead, and couple of sentences in the body should do it beyond all doubt. If someone ends up on this page looking for anything at all to do with domestic breeds/cultivars they're simply in the wrong place. Same goes for if they come here looking for something to do with humans, at least in modern sources. Some Victorian material literally was trying to classify humans into races in precisely the same way the term was has been used in relation to grasshopper or grass populations, and this of course contributed to the a "race question" in anthropology. We'll cover that properly in time, too. It's probably most pressing to properly define the term as used in biological taxonomy, thus the thread below.

Foreign sources on breeds: We have sufficient evidence in various English biology sources that races in the biological taxonomy sense in English are not breeds or vice versa, so combined with dictionaries that indicate German Rasse and Spanish raza that show that these words correspond to multiple different concepts in English, that's enough to declare their translation to 'race' in English in this context to be a false friends mistranslation of cognates. NB: If you harken back to previous discussions, I think you'll better understand now my insistence at Breed and Landrace that a) we cannot reasonably include the idea, even if there's a source for it, that "these words mean whatever someone wants them to mean" (this opens wide the door to apply even breeds to humans, for example, something that the very racist trolls you're concerned about elsewhere on this page have been doing for a few centuries), and that race cognates in other languages much be clearly understood by our readers to not directly correspond to one specific word in English, but vary in meaning by context.

Confusion of breeds and subspecies: I share your concern about animal breeds being confused with subspecies and other biological taxa, but honestly we seem to have this under pretty good control. Some of the confusion actually stems from older sources; e.g., with cats for a while, ca. the 1930s, there were attempts to define various domestic breeds as subspecies, like Felis catus siamensis for the Siamese cat, and while these ideas were rapidly abandoned, the old primary sources don't magically disappear, so someone comes along and wants to insert that from time to time. The best approach seems to be to document in the article body that source-so-and-so proposed such a classification once,^{[cite old source]} but it was not adopted by mainstream science.^{[cite modern source]} This is basically "proof" against later attempts to insert bogus taxonomic names into the infobox or lead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:18, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'll be happy if the article just makes it clear (via hatnote or whatever) that breeds are neither subspecies nor races (!) And, do you wanna go help close the mess here? I agree with your assessment on the meaning of words in other languages, the problem is when they translate things wrong here... sigh. As for the rest, I still thik it's archaic usage, but I'm not going to prevail here, so onward with the sourcing. Montanabw^(talk) 08:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

It'll have to be distinguished from strain (biology), too, as well has several botanical terms. Big fun.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Race in biological taxonomy?

@Sminthopsis84. If one looks in the literature, including biological databases, such as Uniprot, one can frequently see subspecies and strains in classification, but (almost) never the "race". I thought only "strain" and "subspecies" are used for classification, and this is actually the difference between the "race" (a biological population) and "subspecies/strain" (a classification unit). The source you just included [18] is very typical in this regard: it tells about "races" as biological populations. Could you name any textbooks where races (rather than strains or subspecies) were claimed to be widely used for taxonomy? My very best wishes (talk) 22:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the distinction here is between Biological nomenclature and Taxonomy (biology). "Classification" is an ambiguous word, referring to either all of taxonomy or just to nomenclature. A scientist can define a group and call it a race, but might not give a (formal) name to that group. Defining the group (the Panagira-island race of short-tailed macaques) is taxonomic work, but naming it is a particular task, which involves nomenclature. Subspecies, varieties, sub-varieties, formae, and pathovars are formally named. Races and populations are not. (Formae speciales are a bit different, they have names but no descriptions, and are considered "informal"). Breeds of animals and strains (e.g., a strain of laboratory mice) receive names that are regulated in different ways, not by nomenclature codes, and are not considered to be taxonomic ranks. Anything written by Ernst Mayr, and he is the standard for zoologists (i.e., the source of the traditional textbooks), considers races to be part of taxonomy but not of nomenclature. I think this is encapsulated in the quote used on the page "Ernst Mayr wrote that a subspecies can be "a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name." For him, taxonomy was a useful practical matter, about noticing morphological differences between groups, and he is saying that if the differences are great enough, then the group should be named as a subspecies. In recent years, the emphasis on inferring evolutionary history has made this all more complicated, hence the species problem. The aim of many biologists has shifted from populations and races to clades. A population might not be a clade (see Metapopulation and Population biology, which allow for migration between populations within a species) because clades are rigidly hierarchical structures that cannot represent the network structures of metapopulations. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:14, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Admirably clear! Peter coxhead (talk) 18:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

OK. So, "Subspecies, varieties, sub-varieties, formae, and pathovars are formally named. Races and populations are not.". Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about - agree. In addition, races are usually not used in practice for any classification, even like strains and breeds (unlike races, strains are widely used in biological databases). This should be explained. Speaking about Ernst Mayer (and his classic book "Populations, species and evolution"), he used the term for discussing evolution/speciation and never called race "an informal taxonomic rank" (as currently on this page). This should be fixed. My very best wishes (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep, this is pretty much what we need to get across, in compressed and sourced form, in the article. Thanks for spelling it out so clearly. (NB: This also explains why Race (taxonomy) is the proper name for the article. This usage of the word is biologically taxonomic, but is not "classification" in the sense of formal biological nomenclature. This is also why there's a WP:RM ongoing to move Race (human classification) to Race (human categorization) – there are various approaches to currently and formerly using "race" as a some kind of categorization of people/peoples, but they are not consistently really taxonomic in the sense of Taxonomy (biology), and definitely not classificatory in the sense of biological nomenclature.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:53, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

No, I think we just agreed with Sminthopsis84 that there is no such thing as race in biological taxonomy. Therefore, renaming to Race (taxonomy) is wrong.(talk) My very best wishes (talk) 15:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you're correctly following the thread.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

"Yes, this is exactly what I am talking about - agree. In addition, races are usually not used in practice for any classification, even like strains and breeds (unlike races, strains are widely used in biological databases)."

No, apparently you totally failed to get the simplest of the points. Race is of course a classification. Why especially would you write this after digging up modern sources using the term with animals?[19] You make no sense. Thanks. Tortoise Handler (talk) 05:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Struck sock edit by banned user User:Mikemikev. Doug Weller (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tortoise Handler: This is a tricky subject, and we are gaining clarity. It doesn't help when you write things like "you totally failed to get the simplest of the points".

What "classification" means is not a "simple point"; eminent biologists have discussed this topic and disagreed for years. (I can provide a long list of references from the 1960s onwards.) In particular, the term has both a formal and an informal use and SMcCandlish clearly wrote that it is not "classification" in the sense of formal biological nomenclature, which it's not. It is "classification" in a very broad sense, but most definitions of classification used in biology require a classification to be hierarchical. Population-based concepts, like "race", often don't have this property – populations are fluid, without clear boundaries or even persistence through time. Review Sminthopsis84's clear explanation above. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Sure, one can classify individual animals as belonging to a population ("race") A or B. However, this has nothing to do with biological nomenclature. In addition, yes, exactly as Ernst Mayr said, specialists can decide that they would like to introduce a new subspecies. If that happens, this is no longer a race, but subspecies. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Please review the above more closely. You're still equating biological nomenclature and biological taxonomy, when the whole point of the thread is that they are distinct. You're thinking of nomenclature, which is hierarchical, while taxonomy is broader. It doesn't help that the field itself uses the term "taxonomic rank" in reference to nomenclature, of course. It does unnecessarily confuse the jargon. We may have to write this so precisely that we say something like "while biologically taxonomic in a broad sense, race is not a taxonomic rank in biological nomenclature".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  17:09, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is very simple. Current version tells that "In biological taxonomy, a race is an informal taxonomic rank (not governed by the codes of nomenclature), below the level of subspecies". None of the sources currently used on this page clams such thing. If you think that they do, please provide direct quotation from a couple of secondary sources to supports such assertion. My very best wishes (talk) 00:49, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It's even simpler if you drop the mortal combat approach, reread the thread as requested twice, and reapproach this constructively. I have no interest (and I'm sure no one else does either) in responding to your demand to support the exact current wording when the whole point of this thread is to more accurately replace the current wording.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:56, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Asking to provide and quote sources is not a "mortal combat approach". Now, if we are talking about improving this text, I can easily fix it, if that's OK. My very best wishes (talk) 04:52, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

So what are you proposing?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:00, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to describe "race" in the way it usually appears in biological literature. The book by Ernst Mayer is typical in this regard - if one reads the entire book. For example, in the current quotation "a subspecies can be a geographic race that is sufficiently different taxonomically to be worthy of a separate name", the key word is geographic (only such race can be can be nominated as a subspecies; there are other types of races), whereas word "taxonomically" appears because subspecies (not race) is a taxonomical category. My very best wishes (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This is getting quite confused and confusing. This statement makes no sense to me "the key word is geographic". If you look at the page Ernst Mayr, it says "When populations within a species become isolated by geography, feeding strategy, mate selection, or other means, they may start to differ from other populations through genetic drift and natural selection, and over time may evolve into new species." So no, geographic is not a key word. "a subspecies can be a race distinguished by feeding strategy" could be substituted. Mayr was very much concerned with the Biological species concept; anything that created reproductive isolation could lead to speciation; geographical isolation (vicariance) was not required. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure, that could be any race. However, this is not the point. The point is: race is simply a genetically divergent population or a group of populations. This is not a taxonomical category (as currently claimed in this page). It is not widely used for informal classification (like breed). It is not widely used for designating specific genomes and proteomes, like strain, etc. But if we can not agree about this, I am not going to edit this page only to be reverted. Do you agree that "race" is not a commonly accepted taxonomic unit in biology? My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. Sminthopsis84 laid this out well, and the sources I've seen to date agree with that take, so that's the angle I'll pursue in working on this article. The most recent sourced material I added myself disproves your hypothesis that the definition is tied necessarily to geographical distribution, BTW. Different races can develop in the same place depending on entirely different factors, like food source.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:24, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

What my hypothesis? It was Ernst Mayr who said "geographic race" in the quote currently cited on this page. If there are other types of races that have been nominated as subspecies, that's fine. Please bring sources that provide such examples. So far you did not. But this is not the question I brought for discussion (please see the header and the rest). My very best wishes (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

The article is being worked on to avoid this sort of confusion. Race is NOT "simply a genetically divergent population." Stop trolling and take your veiled white supremacist viewpoint elsewhere. Montanabw^(talk) 06:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Once again, that was Ernst Mayr and other biologists who used this term for genetically divergent populations in population biology. Please see his book, Mayr, Ernst (1970). Populations, Species, and Evolution. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-69013-3. Do you need specific pages and quotations from the book? Speaking about races of animals and plants has nothing to do with racism because the term was applied exclusively to humans. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Mayr was a German speaker, where, as noted above, words such as "rassen" are translated "race" though there is a slightly different meaning between the two. Also, as noted in the section above "Mayr has been noted as a closet racist and promoter of eugenics: [20], [21] (same document) [22]. So Mayr is not an appropriate source here. Montanabw^(talk) 19:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

A few points here. (1) I do not think that defamation by non-notable writers on the internet (like here) proves anything. We do not have such criticism on the page about Ernst Mayr, and for a good reason. (2) Let's keep apples and oranges separately. This page is about use of the term in biology, i.e. as it applies to animals, plants, bacteria, etc. Therefore, the best sources are by the best authorities in Biology, and he is one of them. (3) Finally, if you have other good sources on the race in Biology, rather than as applicable to humans), please provide them here (I do not see any). As about mistranslation, no, his English was very good.My very best wishes (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

You Racism, Eugenics, and Ernst Mayr’s Account of Species is not "defamation" (neither is the other, it's a viewpoint, with supporting discussion. You don't have to agree with it). Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

OK, I followed this link and quickly looked through the text. This opinion piece by Ladelle McWhorter (who obviously does not know Biology) sounds very much like writings by Trofim Lysenko because she attacks prominent geneticists like Mayr and Theodosius Dobzhansky for ideological reasons that have nothing to do with science. My very best wishes (talk) 05:34, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, there are no reliable sources I've found yet suggesting Mayr's work is questionable; he's a giant in the field. Also none suggesting he or his editors at any journals mistranslated anything. This idea that there must be a problem here somewhere just because race has some cognates in other languages that sometimes mean something else doesn't seem to have any legs. On this "racist" stuff, this source is not being read correctly. McWhorter doesn't say Mayr was a racist, but rather than the mid-century definition of species as "natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups", was bent, along with the theory of speciation, to racist ends by others. There's no source anywhere suggesting that Mayr believed different human ethnic groups were different species, reproductively isolated. McWhorter's a philosophy major, anyway, not a scientist. Her argument isn't very cogent, either. First she lays out Mayr's work a little, and mentions that it drew on Buffon; then, without tying Buffon in any way to racism, goes into a lecture about slavery and abolition, and (rightly, in that side context) connects Nott's nonsense to anti-abolitionism, but cannot connect Nott to Buffon much less to Mayr; next she brings in Darwin, and the US Supreme Court, and Hitler, and eugenicists, etc., etc., none of which relate to Mayr, either, other than of course Mayr was an evolutionary biologist and knew Darwin's work well, which is not connected to that of Nott at all, or much with Buffon. Finally, on page 11 we get back to Mayr. But all she does is blame Mayr for post WWII neo-eugenicists' misuse of his and Dobzhansky's ideas. It's a primary source, a grandstanding, intentionally controversial op-ed piece, nothing more. The only thing I'd use this source for is it's bibliography, since it includes sources we can use, without veering off into editorial land. Any attempt to use this to say Mayr was a racist on WP would be original research, in the form of totally novel WP:AEIS. (Not going to even address the blog post.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Back to My very best wishes: Please see WP:IDHT. I repeat: The most recent sourced material I added myself disproves [the] hypothesis that the definition is tied necessarily to geographical distribution, BTW. Different races can develop in the same place depending on entirely different factors, like food source, and (with even more recent additions) host organism. I may disagree with Montanabw about Mayr, but I agree with her that you're trolling, and I decline to feed you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  23:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: Self-correction: Mayr, in a published letter, once said he was in favor of "positive eugenics". But it doesn't matter. While that's a "dirty word" today, it was not in his era (being very distinct from negative eugenics which is what "eugenics" by itself means to everyone now); "positive eugenics" is just the former generation's term for what we're still doing today with gene therapy, stem-cell research, development of disease-resistant cultivars, GMOs, etc., etc.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

And on that note, WP:DFTT is generally good advice, which I shall take. Good day. Montanabw^(talk) 04:24, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• OK. So, let me summarize this discussion. As a professional researcher, I politely explained you what was wrong with this page (in reply to a couple of RfC started here by others), without editing this page itself to avoid editorial conflicts. In response, you called me a troll and worse [23] and provided only this source to support your assertions. Sorry, but it belongs to pseudoscience because author attacks Dobzhansky and Mayr on ridiculous grounds, just like Trofim Lysenko. My very best wishes (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

• false analogy. WP:DFTT. Montanabw^(talk) 20:26, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

From false analogy

Another example is:

Person A: "I think that people can have some affection for their cultural heritage."

Person B: "You're just like Hitler!" BlueHouse99 (talk) 05:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"The article is being worked on to avoid this sort of confusion. Race is NOT "simply a genetically divergent population." Stop trolling and take your veiled white supremacist viewpoint elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 06:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)"

I think sums up what's going on here: hysterically equating human categorization with "White Supremacy". Is/Ought, moralisitic, etc. BTW why isn't this editior being sanctioned for civility and logic violations? BlueHouse99 (talk) 04:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

MVBW has conceded before this the defintion is not tied to geography. "genetically divergent population" is not tied to geography. You get that right? Please stop throwing around accusations of "trolling" towards people you disagree with, possibly because it's you that fails to understand. Not only is it cheap, it violates civility codes. BlueHouse99 (talk) 04:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

[Struck sock edits by banned user User:Mikemikev.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)]

Socking is also a violation of WP's policies: [24]. Montanabw^(talk) 09:12, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

MVBW conceded only when cornered. He then latched onto the idea that instead of always and necessarily being geographically determined (which it's not) that it's always necessarily defined in terms of genetics (which it's not), and even tried to use something I posted that disproves they're using genetics in a particular case (it was physiological response in and to host organisms), to come to my talk page to push the viewpoint that it must be tied to genetics. I don't have time for these games. How hard can it be to see what the article says: There are [at least] four different types of criteria used to define a race, only one of which is genetic, and one of which is geographic? From the sourcing I've done so far, the most frequently used is environmental.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  14:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I was not "cornered" and I "conceded" nothing. My comment was misunderstood, and I clarified it long time ago. Please consider, just as another example, your wording "four different types of criteria used to define a race, only one of which is genetic". That does show a problem because you confused "genetic" with "chromosomal". Those are completely different things. All biological races are genetically different, but very few genetic differences appear as changes in the structure of chromosomes. Please read books by biologists like Mayr, rather than original articles or sources on the internet. But it does not mean that you are "cornered". You simply made a mistake that can be easily corrected. This is not a big deal! My very best wishes (talk) 20:42, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Not interested. This discussion has been mired in a circular waste of time devoted to what you think instead of what the sources say and what we should do with them to improve the article.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:27, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

That's because you keep misrepresenting what he says in a form of IDHT rather than move the discussion forward. Why did you bring up "geographic race" again? BlueHouse99 (talk) 06:22, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

The constructive response to this tangential blather is the following, and I decline to take the circular argument bait from either of you: The fact that genes are surely responsible for the rise of multiple races of this fungus does not magically mean they are being defined genetically. The fact that the host cultivars are being developed and defined genetically (in great detail) does not mean that the races of fungi are. The sources are very clear that they're being defined environmentally, specifically by response to host plant, and, further, that attempts to define them genetically (specifically chromosomally) have so far failed. This is all spelled out, without original research, with reliable sources, in the article. Game over, please drive through, and allow the deceased equine to decompose without further corpse desecration.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:44, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is much ado about nothing. One should simple quote a definition of biological race from any biological RS ("race is ..."). Actually, I understand perfectly well what Sminthopsis84 is telling and agree with him, except that when Mayr tells "taxonomically" he does not mean using race as a unit in biological taxonomy. Quite the opposite, he argues that it is species (not races or subspecies) must be used in biological taxonomy. Based on other examples from primary research articles (not from books!), like for fungi, it seems that some researchers use the term essentially as subspecies, but this is not a primarily usage of the term. My very best wishes (talk) 14:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

"This is much ado about nothing" is what my last sentence above is indicating. You are not WP:WINNING, you are wasting people's time, and beating a dead horse.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

• Mvbw, our own article at Taxon gets directly at the issue in its lead

  In biology, a taxon ... is a group of one or more populations of an organism or organisms seen by taxonomists to form a unit. Although neither is required, a taxon is usually known by a particular name and given a particular ranking, especially if and when it is accepted or becomes established. It is not uncommon, however, for taxonomists to remain at odds over what belongs to a taxon and the criteria used for inclusion. If a taxon is given a formal scientific name, its use is then governed by one of the nomenclature codes specifying which scientific name is correct for a particular grouping.

If you persist in advancing the notion that this is not how taxon and taxonomy are defined, that "[their] use is ... governed by one of the nomenclature codes" applies even in absence of "given a formal scientific name", that's a matter you'll need to take up at Talk:Taxon, and Talk:Race (biology) is the wrong venue. This article is consistent with our other articles on the topic (including that one, Taxonomy (biology), Biological nomenclature, Nomenclature codes, etc.), and with the sources cited in this one and in all of them. If you have evidence your redefinition is correct, and the sources to back that up, then an RfC at that page might be in order. If you do not, please stop using WP as a forum to advance your novel reconceptualization.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
[Moved this comment there from other there; this "taxon only means what I want it to mean" stuff has been infecting at least two other threads and needs to be resolved as off-topic here and shunted to the talk page it actually belongs at, which it is Talk:Taxon.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:24, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

• "a taxon ... is a group of one or more populations of an organism or organisms seen by taxonomists to form a unit" Yes, certainly., and we should say from the beginning that "race is a group of one or more populations" (word "group" is totally appropriate here). However, race is such a group of one or more populations that is not seen by taxonomists to form a unit - as reflected in official biological nomenclature. Hence this is not "taxon" and should not be renamed to Race (taxonomy). My very best wishes (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Dictionary of Science and Technology

 Verified

 – Source verified, citation expanded, and used to add more material.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Now, let's simply check the references. References 1 and 2 (original research articles) do not directly support the statement (race is a taxonomical unit) because they do not provide the definition of race. Ref 3: Walker, P. M. B., ed. (1988). "Race". The Wordsworth Dictionary of Science and Technology. W. R. Chambers Ltd. and Cambridge University Press. It was provided without pages. Did anyone here actually read this source and can quote what it tells? My very best wishes (talk) 15:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Re: Walker: Try a library. There is no need to waste time asking rhetorical questions like this. For non-controversial material (e.g. what a dictionary said) there is no requirement that it be sourced right now, only be sourceable; WP:V is clear about this. Ergo, there is no pressing need to source this right this moment; one of us will get to it eventually, and it might as well be you, unless you live in the frozen tundra or under the sea, nowhere near a library. :-) No comment for now on refs 1 & 2; will get back to it later; busy today.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is not a rhetorical question, but a kind of question me and other contributors responded many times on various talk pages. This is a tertiary source; there are no pages; there is no direct quotation, and it is entirely not clear what "race" the dictionary talks about: that could be in a biological context (like here), with regard to anthropology (another page about race) and so on. If no one can confirm what this source actually tells by direct quotation, it should go. My very best wishes (talk) 05:23, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Already addressed. Please stop posting circular arguments. Your request for a page number has been noted. You can go find the page number, but posting every day that it needs a page number is disruptive. It is actually not necessary to provide a page number; all that is needed is an identifiable location in the source, and in an alphabetic dictionary, the title of the entry (already provided) serves that purpose even better than a page number does. This is a stick you should drop.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps I missed it? Where above this specific question about this specific source (e.g. quoting "Wordsworth Dictionary") was responded? Any link, please? And, no, it is necessary to provide page numbers and discuss what a source actually tells if the subject is controversial (like that one) and citation was challenged. My very best wishes (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Repeat: Go to a library and look it up. Definitions of science terms in modern, reputable dictionaries of science terms are not controversial. The burden of proof is on you to show that a highly specific citation (in fact more specific than a page number) has somehow been falsified.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  18:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: as SMcCandlish pointed out, knowing the entry in a dictionary is more specific than a page number, as you just look it up alphabetically, and don't need to read through the whole page to find the information. Please assume good faith. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:48, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There is no such book available in the library of University I work in. I thought it was easy for a person who recently included this info and active on this talk page to clarify this matter by directly quoting the source. This has nothing to do with assuming bad faith. I asked in a good faith because the statement about race as a "taxonomic rank" is wrong to my knowledge. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, then don't worry about it, per WP:AGF. Someone will verify it at some point on the way to GA/FA, or it'll be replaced as superfluous as more sources are cited.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:31, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

PS: Head back to library: Wordsworth Dictionary of Science and Technology (1995) is the same as the Chambers Science and Technology Dictionary (1988). You can get either via interlibrary loan if your library has neither.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I think the text that is there now – "a race is an informal rank (not governed by the codes of nomenclature), below the level of subspecies in the formal taxonomic hierarchy" – meets all reasonable tests of conformity with the literature. There is, I think, a subtle difference of emphasis between "an informal taxonomic rank" and "an informal rank ... in the formal taxonomic hierarchy", even though logically they appear to mean the same. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:36, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not, because the most commonly used in biological literature meaning of the term is not "rank" or classification (whatever formal or informal), but a biological population or a group of populations in the context of speciation (as in the book by Mayr). What generally used for classification below the level of species are subspecies or strains, not races. The "classification" meaning is at best secondary and therefore should be on the second place - as in my version. My very best wishes (talk) 13:37, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, we must agree to differ. Mayr's use makes a race a grouping below the level of a species. That makes it a rank below species in the normal meaning of "rank" as applied to a hierarchy. Identifying a population or group of populations within a species is classification in the normal meaning of the term, i.e. as per the Merriam-Webster definition of "classify": "to arrange (people or things) into groups based on ways that they are alike; to consider (someone or something) as belonging to a particular group". Peter coxhead (talk) 19:02, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sure, Mayr uses race as a "grouping" because any biological population is a group of animals or plants. But he never uses it for taxonomy. To the contrary, he argued that only species (rather than "subspecies" or anything else) should be used as the basic unit in biological taxonomy. But who cares? This is just another sloppy WP page with a POVish unprofessional content. My very best wishes (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Mayr's definition of "classification", but Mayr alone does not determine the meaning of "taxonomy",or "classification", and he certainly can't represent botanists or mycologists. To base the meaning of "race" in biology on Mayr alone would indeed be POV. I'm satisfied that the general tone of the article is correct and well-sourced, although I 'd still like a bit more history, where Mayr's views can be given due weight. No more on this from me; as I wrote before, we aren't going to agree. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Concur.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  02:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have this source now, "verified it" (WP lingo translations: Checked that the citations go to real entries, and that the entries cited support the material for which they were cited), and used it to add a bunch of other stuff (none of which supports the point of view that Mvbw is advancing).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  20:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

• I asked for direct quotation of definition of "race" in this source ("race is ..."). Could you please provide such quotation since you tell that you now have the source? Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 02:03, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
  • My very best wishes, I'm inclined to decline, for the following

reasons ...

These repeated demands in regard to this source amount to a bad faith accusation against the multiple editors who possessed and cited it. This and related threads point out no errors or policy problems in citations of this source, only your personal skepticism and refusal to find out on your own what the source says. The fact that you can perhaps imagine a problem you can't demonstrate doesn't mean anyone else needs to act on your imagination. A dispute, as defined by WP, doesn't exist because you say it does; there has to be something there. You've been provided with all the information you require to find and read the source for yourself, and have said you have access to a university library. That resource should have at least one version of this book, others like it, and the ability to get plenty more via inter-library loan. This a very common book, found in public libraries and book stores, too. WP:V and WP:RS are satisfied. Everyone but you seems satisfied with the citations. Even the recurrent sockpuppet hasn't objected to them. It's pointless busywork you are trying to "assign" to me like a schoolmaster, and is not trivial, since there are three or four different race entries cited in the articles (geographic, etc.). It's a waste of editorial time to respond to demands like this instead of move on to additional sourcing. Your tendentiousness on this and related issues are directly affecting the progress of improving this article (the purpose of article talk pages, per WP:Talk page guidelines). The wholesale quotation of multiple complete entries from the same work (rather than partial quotation of one or two entries, which I add to citations regularly) may present copyright questions (I have asked about this at WT:COPYVIO, since it may come up again later). Dictionary publishers have been litigious in pursuit of the idea that entries are small articles (copyrighted works) of their own, and a similar approach has been taken by publishers/writers with regard to short poems and song lyrics. I am not a intellectual property lawyer, and am not certain that repeated full-entry quotation from the same source on the talk page to keep an editor happy qualifies under fair use. I'm not obligated to put myself (I edit under my real name) or the project at potential legal risk to satisfy you. You do not have to be satisfied. WP:Consensus does not require unanimity. WP:Copyrights, WP:Copying text from other sources, and other pages here instruct us to reformulate source material in our own words for a reason. Quoting at length, in-article or on the talk page, the original material we're reformulating defeats the purpose of that repeated admonition. Most importantly to me, agreement to comply appears highly like to inspire additional filibustering demands for quotations of every source anyone has cited that doesn't suit your views. I've seen this technique used at other pages, and its been spreading because of how easily WP:GAMEability the WP bureaucracy is, including discretionary sanction and other dispute resolution, by "civil-PoV" tactics. As a secondary personal reason, and because of the aforementioned gameability, I just have a new policy of not taking the bait.

If these rationales do not satisfy you, and you believe there's something wrong with these citations, you're welcome to open an RfC about the matter, or raise the issue on the content dispute noticeboard you think is most applicable.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:19, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

So, instead of simply quoting something like "race is ..." from a book you have handy, you are placing this wall of text? No, quoting something brief with "..." on article talk page does not qualify as a copyright violation. Is it something long? It should not be. If anyone will have concerns of this nature, we can remove this text later if needed. No problem. My very best wishes (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The onus is on you to demonstrate some problem with the source. The reasons I will not bow to browbeating demands to do busywork for you have been given in detail. My declining to do that work to make you happy, which was outside the collapsebox, is sufficient for you to understand that I have declined. Something intentionally collapse-boxed is not a textwall; it's a single line that, as with a link to another page, you can choose to click on for additional material if you opt in for it. In particular, I've made it clear that I decline primarily because it encourages WP:GAMING the system by demanding more and more quotations from more and more sources, a form of WP:FILIBUSTERing with the effect of taking away time from actually working on the article (kind of like this perpetual circular argument tactic you are employing). You do not have to accept my reasons, but you have been given them, and whether you accept them or not doesn't affect me, much less necessitate any further action on my part. You are also not my or WP's attorney, and I decline to accept your intellectual property law advice. As I noted, I have a WT:COPYVIO policy thread open about the question, and I trust that WP:OFFICE (i.e., WMF's legal staff) watch that page and can correct any error should the conclusion of that discussion result in a legally incorrect answer.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  05:44, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

In ornithology

Initial comment refactored out of earlier thread to start new one.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Races of birds are also quite commonly discussed by scientists. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Haven't run into that yet. We should just start creating sections about usage in different biological fields. I've started the one on mycology and phytopathology (which also led to using the same sources to improve 3 or 4 other articles, merge a content fork, identify a genus merger from 2000–2001 that WP:FUNGI missed, propose a rename, etc. This is all pretty productive!  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Sources? "commonly discussed"? Let's look at those before adding... Montanabw^(talk) 04:27, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

It would be nice to find the level of sourcing I'm finding in cucurbit phytopathology. It's not primary sources using the term willy-nilly while others ignore them, but secondary material using fungal race designations consistently, and researchers producing cultivars with very specific genes that provably respond to specific races. I.e., the races ID'd by researchers A, B, and C in different journals, are being confirmed by X, Y, and Z in other labs, and covered in a literature review, etc. The race designations are also being used in the seed industry. It holds up.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  06:09, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Historical decrease in usage

One thing the article still doesn't quite bring out, in my view, is the change in the use of the term over time. For example, Wheeler (1910), Ants, Columbia University Press, notes on p. 131 that the more important category within the species is called the race by Forel and the subspecies by Emery. Wheeler himself uses the term subspecies, and no zoologist would now use race in this sense. It's possible to demonstrate the decrease in usage by such examples, but I can't find a direct statement, which would obviously be better. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there should be a source for the changing usage of varying terms and the changing conceptualization of the problem. Sometimes philosophy of science or history of science sources are good sources for terminological issues like this. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (Watch my talk, How I edit) 22:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

And what the title says, an actual decrease in usage, at least in most fields (I'm getting this impression it's found a special new life in phytopathology).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  21:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)