Wikipedia

Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 2

< Talk:Race (human categorization)
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

New Research

You may wish to look at an interesting new bit of research from Brazil, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of the Sciences, and reported below as well as elsewhere (Google news search on "Brazil race" at [1]). The basic drift is that saying someone is "of the African race", for example, because they have "Negroid" features, isn't as useful as one might think - physical characteristics such as dark skin, etc., in a society such as Brazil's are not particularly accurate reflections of genetic history or overall makeup. This tends to indicate that a "racial" charcteristization is a quite broad, and not particularly predictive, method of categorizing; it's more like saying "Joe looks Italian" than saying "Joe is Italian". Chas zzz brown 00:30 Dec 19, 2002 (UTC)

How to formulate "race"

David, your response is very clear and helpful. I think the issue is this: most physical anthropologists and biological scientists simply do not agree with your claim that
A simplification of the clusters of trait characteristics of such a scheme would be very close to the 'intuitive' descriptions of races.
For one thing, there is no "intuitive" description of race. What people claim to be intuitive descriptions of race are in fact culturally constructed and variable. Meaning, people in different countries (US, Brazil, Haiti, etc) have different "intuitive" descriptions of race. What accounts for these "intuitive" descriptions is not some pan-humn intuition, but rather local history and political and economic forces. Second, the notions of race that prevail in most countries, including the US, are quite different from your notion of a statistical cluster. Let me put it another way: it is precisely such evidence as described by the recent SA article you refer to, that scientists consider proof that "race" is not biological. Races, as almost everyone uses the term, are discreet; skin color, as you rightly point out, changes along a continuum. Race, accordning to most popular conceptions (and racial science in the 1950s , 1940s, 1930s, and so on)is a non-Darwinian concept, in that people believed they could find pure races and pure examples of a race. But Darwin's notion of species as statistical constructes renders any notion of purity void. Also, for Darwin, species evolve through natural selection. In otehr words, specis (and indeed, al populations), are constantly changing -- but most people think of "races" as stable. Look, if you put a population of white people at the equator, it is likely 9according to the SA article) that after 20,000 years -- even if they bred only with members of the same initial population -- they will become black; likewise, take a population of Black people and put them in Sweden, and even if they avoid mating with other (white) locals, after 20,00 years they will become white. this is simple evolution, and the article you refer to explains why. But this is not what most people mean by "race." Slrubenstein

Slrubenstein, Thank you for your very interesting comments. I very much agree with what you wrote. I just wish there was some way to redefine 'race' to reflect a statistical/evolutionary/morphological classification scheme below 'species'. Probably some scientist has done it well, but cannot be heard because of all the heated discussions that result from the mixing of the question of scientific classification with the layperson's notion of 'race', which is largely (but not entirely) determined by the culture in which they live. Maybe we just need a different word! In the world of planned heredity (flowers), variety is used to describe flowers of different colors, etc. We need something similar for the case of evolutionary (as opposed to planned) heredity. David 23:24 Dec 20, 2002 (UTC)

The word you seek is "population". But alas, usage by biologists and laypersons is different. --mav

Request for better paragraph separation

This page badly needs better division into paragraphs!

--user:jaknouse

One instance of reversion

I reverted, in order to delete a recent addition that speculated as to paleolithic migrations. It simply does not belong in this article. Someone put exactly the same material in the article on the Evolution of Homo Sapiens, which was inappropriate too. The passage may have some useful content, although it uses terminology that few scientists today use. In any event, it just does not belong here. Slrubenstein

Dictionary definition of race

Here is the Merriam-Webster Online definition of race:

1 : a breeding stock of animals
2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race>
3 a : an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also : a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b : BREED c : a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type
4 obsolete : inherited temperament or disposition
5 : distinctive flavor, taste, or strength

Alternate Way to Begin the Article

I would start the article like this:

The term race, as applied to human beings, has various meanings. Loosely, it can mean a group of people having similar interests, habits, or characteristics, such as the English race. Specifically, it means "a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type" [2] This article will be concerned chiefly with two issues: what human traits are transmissible by descent, and are these traits sufficient to divide humanity into distinct human "types"?

I daresay it will be much easier to describe human differences such as skin color, shape of facial features, and so on which are (1) readily apparent and (2) entirely non-controversial. However, the issue of what non-visible qualities inhere to various groups is much more problematic. Claims have been made and rebutted for many decades.

Moreover, many people (myself included) have a distaste for the word "race" or object to the classification of humanity into "races". For one thing, it seems motivated by -- or to fuel -- racism, something most Wikipedians adamantly oppose.


--Uncle Ed

Ed, although I appreciate your intent, I think the current opening is better. I am glad you raise this for discussion and look forward to finding out what other people think, Slrubenstein

I seem to recall that "race" is a term widely used in biology to deal with non-human subspecies... or has the term "subspecies" replaced it entirely now? Bio folks? -- April

I don't think race is used a lot now, but when it is, I believe it is superseded by subspecies -- that is, subspecies would be a higher taxonomic level than race. jaknouse 12:33 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

The terms are exact equivalents, April. At least they are so far as they apply to birds and mammals. It is more fashionable to use "subspecies" at present, but I have been unable to find any distinction between them. Tannin 15:43 May 15, 2003 (UTC)
Agreed. Therefore, we are better off moving this article's main title to racial, and redirecting race to racing. That way we do not seem to be giving credence to the idea of "race" as real, but we retain discussion of "racial trait", "racial prejudice", "racial policies", "racial quotas", etc.

Adding to a patchword

Well, I just made a long and cumbersome entry even longer and even more cumbersome. Sooner or later, someone will have to come along and split the thing up, or else take an axe to it and trim it down to manageable proportions. I have no current plans to be that someone! It's a huge job, and a very difficult one. I can't find any particular part of this entry that ought to go, and yet the thing as a whole reads as exactly what it is: a huge patchwork of different textures only just barely hanging together. From an expression point of view, it badly needs some unity, a more coherent structure. It just doesn't flow. And yet, all (or nearly all) the individual parts are good. Maybe someone ought to do a complete, top to bottom rewrite. Or maybe we should just keep on tinkering away, a little change here, a small touch there, and hope that the thing all of a sudden takes on a coherent logical and narrative flow. I dunno. Tannin 15:43 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

Cousins?

Is this news item of use to this article? [3] Kingturtle 16:13 May 15, 2003 (UTC)

I don't think so. Granted, "cousin" is just a bad metaphor no matter how it is used here. But regardless of what the article says, we are in some sense cousins of Neanderthals in that we have a common ancestor. Of course, we share ancestors with Chimpanzees and Gorillas as well (well, with worms and birds for that matter), but our common ancestor with Neanderthals is relatively recent... Slrubenstein


The 10% question -- and more reversions

I edited the page several times to replace references to "10 percent of variation" being explained by race. This is, in genetic terms, false and, I would argue, racist (in that it perpetuates the myth of race as having some genetic validity, when in fact it has none at all). The reality is that someone classified in one racial category is more likely to have more genetic traits in common with someone in a different racial category than someone in the same category. The recent PBS series, Race: The Power of an Illusion, was an excellent introductory piece for anyone wanting to learn about current science on "race." One could also contact Professor Alan Goodman at Hampshire College, who is a specialist on this topic. But please stop making this statement about "10 percent of variation" being explained by race. It just isn't true. Neoamicus 07:10 June 21, 2003 (UTC)

I just reverted all your changes. Let me explain why: I do not want to prevent you from making contributions to this page, but you will not get anywhere unless you present them in the proper way.
For the record, I basically agree with you: I believe the concept of "race" has no scientific validity, although I do think that the concept of a genetic "population" is very important. But the issue is not whether I agree with you in principle, or whether you are right or wrong. The issues is Wikipedia's NPOV policy. You should read up on it if you do not understand it, but I will try to explain the basics here.
Some people completely reject the importance of genetic variation among people. Some people believe genetic variation among people is important, and should be described in terms of "populations." Some people use the word "race" but mean the same thing as populations. Other people use the word "race" and mean something more static and clearly bounded than "population." An NPOV article on "Race" cannot represent any one of these views, and dismiss the other three. Instead, an NPOV article on "race" will explain each of these views, and provide the different reasons people give for ascribing to these views.
Believe me, others who have contributed to this article know far more about the issues than what one learns from a PBS documentary. This does not mean that there is no room for improvement. But you should think twice, even three times, before deleting anything.
Here is my suggestion to you. If the article makes a claim that you know many people reject, do not delete the claim. Instead, preface it with the phrase, "Some people claim" or something like that. Then, add the counter-claim, prefaced by "Other people claim," and give the reasons.
In short, do not delete. Instead, frame and add. If this is still unclear to you, read about our NPOV policy. Also, before making any major changes, you can present your ideas here and others will give you constructive feedback. Slrubenstein
---
I just want to second slr's comments. If you, Neoamicus, are 66.31 etc., I guess you are a new user in need of some friendly advice on how things are done here. The three people who have undone your changes are not trying to exclude you-- we just want you to respect the NPOV requirement described above by slr. You are plainly informed about the issues surrounding Race, but you must recognize that the majority view on today's campuses is hotly contested by a sizable minority containing quite a few specialists with impressive credentials. To you, the statement "the concept of Race has no genetic basis" is apparently as undeniable as the statement "the world is round"-- so you might be wondering how the Wikipedia article on Planet Earth can be considered NPOV without giving equal time to Flat Earth arguments. But I'm afraid the two are really not comparable. Those who believe in genetic clines similar to race have some powerful arguments, and the subject itself unfortunately has a large semantic component, unlike flat vs. round. Your sentences were well written and a good representation of the majority view-- you just need to stop putting your view forward as the only view. JDG

I'm undoing an edit by anonymous user 12.(something). Although I lean toward the real existence of races, I believe the term "miscegenation" has no place here. I did not restore the one line paragraph edited out by 12.(etc)-- "Thus, biologically speaking, Homo Sapiens has no races." -- because an unqualified representation of a majority view as the only legitimate view also has no place here... To anyone thinking of editing this article who might be reading this, please stay mindful that Race is one of the more contentious topics in Wikipedia and that you'll do well to be especially observant of Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy. The simple addition of a phrase like "Most biolgists believe..." can save your work from deletion. JDG

Allegation that article gives tacit acceptance of race as a valid category

I really like this article! The only thing I can see that might be helpful would be to make the case that the problematical uses of this concept generally center around a kind of inversion of normal scientific procedure. Instead of asking whether some characterisic (possession of the epicanthus, for instance) is a sufficiently good sign of the likely possession of some other trait in which one has a reason to be interested (e.g., lactose intolerance), sometimes people will have a negative impression of some group (e.g., the members of the latest wave of immigration to escape starvation caused by bad government) and then simply assert that the "bad behavior" of members of this group is indicative of a general tendency among all people bearing some prominent marker trait typical of members of that group. Once such an assertion is made, the next step may be to go digging for evidence that will prove the assertion, and when the validity of that evidence is challenged, to go one step further by constructing rationalizations that tend to protect the assertion without really providing any more valid evidence.

It seems to me very rare to hear assertions such as, "All people with one undivided eyebrow instead of two eyebrows have unusual perspicacity and devote it entirely to furthering the needs of the general community."

Patrick0Moran 06:09, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Problems with the first sentence:

Race is a taxonomic principle of grouping living things based on common heredity, physical attributes, and behavior, where all members belong to the same species yet appear to warrant further classification.

"Of" is the wrong preposition. You can have a "principle of physics" but that means that the principle belongs to the discipline.

At the end of this sentence don't you mean "require further differentiation"?

Patrick0Moran 05:15, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)


I agree "of" is awkward even tho it's grammatically correct, so I'm changing it... "require further differentiation" and "warrant further classification" basically mean the same thing and I think the second is better. JDG 14:19, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Peak, I hope you come here to read this. If you don't reply here in a few days perhaps I'll leave something on your user page. I undid all your recent re-writing on this article. Although much of your new stuff was excellent, this article happens to be the result of careful work over a long period of time by three primary authors, of whom I probably contributed least. At the end of a rather tortuous process we arrived at a detailed version we all agreed struck the proper balance and tone (not an easy task in a subject like Race). Soon after, the article was voted to the 'Brilliant Prose' page. An article with a pedigree like this should generally not be massively rewritten. Of course, if someone comes along with an absolutely dynamite new version, then quality will win the day and the rewrite should stand. But I don't feel that is quite the case here. Your prose is high quality and it's plain you know the subject as well as the three authors mentioned above, but you have a serious NPOV problem leaning toward the contemporary majority view of this issue, which had already been amply represented in the previous version. The minority view-- that there are human races or genetic clusters similar to Race-- is not a fringe view. It is still held by many of the leading workers in the field, especially physical anthropology, and it's simply not right to reduce their position to footnote status, as your version does. I welcome discussion on all of this, and if a few people can be brought back to devote yet more time to this page, I think the article would benefit by a careful addition of many of your statements (which, thankfully, will be preserved in the Page History). Until then, I think it's best to restore the 'Brilliant Prose' version. JDG 20:10, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with JDG -- and not because I have contributed to this article in the past. Although Peak's contribution was well-written and revealed an understanding of many of the issues, I thought it read too much like a personal essay than an NPOV encyclopedia article. This is not just a matter of including a "minority" view -- it is also a matter of acknowledging that there are different views, and trying to account for them in a non-partisan way. Also, I would add to JDG's sensible advice one more thing -- to any new contributer. Look at the page history and talk-page history. Sometimes pages were written years ago by one person, and can stand a general overhaul. But you will find that other articles are, as JDG said, a result not only of careful collaboration but ongoing collaboration. If the page history reveals that people have worked on the page within the last few months, I think it is courteous (and ultimately efficient) to raise concerns about the page on the talk page first, and suggest major changes and solicit responses before making sweeping changes. The fact is, sometimes you will receive encouragement rather than objection. However brilliant the prose, we all agree that every article can be improved. Either way, though, you'll be more effective when you work with other active contributors.

Dear JDG and Slrubenstein:

Please note that I did spend a great deal of time reading previous discussions about this page, as well as general guidelines about NPOV etc. In particular I followed Slr's advice to someone else:

"In short, do not delete. Instead, frame and add."

Thus I would have expected you to follow the same advice, especially since my own changes were done in this spirit. That is, I believe that the appropriate response to your concerns would have been to make improvements, or offer suggestions for improvement, rather than, in effect, deleting the new material.

Please also note that I think it is inaccurate to characterize the changes I made as "massive changes". I deliberately avoided making changes to existing text (except for the short preamble), and instead added new material.

As for the preamble, the changes were indeed significant from the perspective of reducing the non-neutral POV in the article. To insist that "race is a taxonomic principle" is to have a non-neutral point of view about race and/or taxonomy. The view that "race is a taxonomic principle" is a valid POV and my revised version continued to highlight it.

Slr said "you'll be more effective when you work with other active contributors". All the changes I made were done in the spririt of cooperation so I am not sure how else to be more cooperative. Elsewhere in Wikiland, it is emphasized that people who have made contributions should be open to their work being revised. Once again, I encourage you to make improvements, but I do not think that simply reverting to a prior version is in the Wikispririt except of course in cases of vandalism, inadvertent changes, and the like. Peak 21:32, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Thank you for the congenial response. I had/have no problem with the very first paragraph (in which you allude to "human race") which you added, but I honestly do not think the rest of your preamble was an improvement. Some parts of it perhaps should be added to the article, but I think in context. I am afraid I do not have the time right now to address your proposed additions line by line, but you do deserve a response so let me just make three brief (hopefully not too telegraphic) points. First, I am just confused as to why you reject the claim that "race" is a taxonomic principle. Could you explain what else it could be? By the way, if it is not clear to you already I myself do not believe that the concept has any scientific value or validity. But I believe that those scientists who do think of it as a taxonomic principle, and I think that when it is used in non-scientific ways by non-scientists (whether explicitly racist or not) they are also using it taxanomically. What would be an example of a non-taxanomic usage? Second, I don't like the enumeration of "ways that race" has been used as a way to introduce the topic, it seems too ad hoc. I think that within the article each of these ways should be covered, in context (this is a matter of style and perhaps we just disagree). My third point is really the same, but with a different case: the use of two "examples." Again, I think these examples should be in the body of the text, in context. I am going to try to recraft your pre-amble and put it back in, and I invite you and JDG to respond/re-edit it, Slrubenstein

I recall getting a similar curt: Don't interefere, the version that your changes has been reverted to is "the result of careful work over a long period of time by three primary authors" or words to that effect. I, too, thought it was an officious response by people who assumed that they "owned" this article.

The way to avoid an edit war seems to be to critique disputed material on the talk page.

Patrick0Moran 23:40, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, despite the criticism I don't see things differently. Upon re-reading your (Peak) version, I see that you basically inserted your own extended opening and left most of the rest as it was, so maybe my calling it a "massive" rewrite was a bit of an overstatement. Even so, to shove existing work underneath your own isn't exactly "framing and adding" in Slr's sense (plus it leads back to a certain redundancy which we at long last had eliminated from the piece). I'm sorry Patrick0Moran takes this as officiousness (hey, didn't you say you 'really liked' the article a while ago?), but I just don't see it that way. What could be more natural than a certain proprietary feeling among a small group of people who worked hard on something? We tweaked it to a very fine balance and received a good amount of positive feedback from other Wikipedians on it. We opened with a good broad definition and introduced specific issues in a careful descending order-- Peak's changes kicked everthing off with a detailed discussion that belongs in a sub-heading, and then we crashed back into the generalities of the original opening. The flow of the piece was thrown way off. I'm not at all opposed to true improvements, but I'm confident enough in the work that was done last fall/winter to know that a wholesale change of the first 1/4 of the article by a single user would need to be Britannica-level quality in order to be such an improvement. While your (Peak) ability to write is unquestioned, your tone here was a bit informal for a serious encyclopedia and, notwithstanding your comments in Talk to the contrary, the NPOV problem was real... I've just glanced over Slr's new arrangement and it's looking good. JDG

Point by Point Critique

Perhaps my praise was too unconditional. Consider the first sentence:

“Race is a taxonomic principle used to group living things based on common heredity, physical attributes and behavior, where all members belong to the same species yet appear to warrant further classification.”

If the above statement were true, one would speak of different races of horses, cows, dogs, and other similar animals. Instead, we have different breeds of those animals, and those breeds are maintained by deliberately and rigidly excluding out-group matings and culling individuals that are atypical is some undesirable way – especially now that geography no longer slows out-group matings of, e.g., Manx cats.

Very interesting comments. I'll discuss them hopefully without too much of a "Look, I'm right" tone. But so far, I still think the sentence you quote is a good definition of the concept of race. You're obviously not too fond of the concept, but I think an overriding aim of any such article is to state how the term developed and was generally understood until our own era. Your objection about 'horses, cows, dogs, and other similar animals' is cleared up when one reflects on the fact that these are all domesticated variants. By convention, the varieties of domesticated animals have been referred to as "breeds" rather than as "races", and I think it is a good convention because it follows the important distinction between artificial and natural selection. It's pretty shocking to realize that in the space of perhaps 2800 years man took a gray wolf and spun both toy poodles and Great Danes out of its genome (man and dog probably go back much further, but I think most of the fancy breeding started around then). By a simplistic definition of "species" these two dogs would be separate species (a far wider gulf than breed or race) because they cannot, on a sheer mechanical level, reproduce. But when looking at dogs and wolves, as when looking at humans, the species barrier has to be on both a functional and qualitative level. If you artificially inseminated a female Great Dane with toy poodle sperm you would get viable offspring, and this puts them under the umbrella of a single species. Artificial Selection upon the wolf genome was not fundamentally different than Natural Selection (though it happened in a temporal hyperdrive), but we like to think of ourselves as such unique actors in this world that the results of our fiddling calls for unique names-- so we have "breeds" instead of "races". Functionally these terms are quite close, and evolutionary pressure has been exerted in both. In the case of the toy poodle, the pressure seems to have been the satisfaction of a wacky aesthetic predilection in man, but it's an evolutionary pressure nonetheless. However fast Artifical Selection moves, 2800 years hasn't been enough to forge separate species out of the wolf genome-- but surely you would admit that important changes have been brought about and that these differences merit a word. In domesticated animals that word is "breed", in humans and non-domesticated animals that word was "race". Did the divergent evolutionary pressures that were obviously at work upon separated human groups over the last 80,000 years lead to functional and qualitative differences that merit a word? I happen to think so, although I hope "race" is decisively replaced by something better. In any case, 'members of the same species that warrant further classification' seems to sum it all up pretty well to me... Yikes, I gotta run. Hopefully more sub-commentary later. JDG


If there were a “taxonomic principle”, then one could state it. The problem with the word “race” is that a principle cannot be stated according to which people are to be divided into "races." We have a mish-mash instead.

The implication of the quoted sentence would appear to be that the “principle” by which individuals are grouped into races is “common heredity, [common ?] physical attributes, and [common ?] behavior” that sorts out “all members [that] belong to the same species”.

The problem with “common (=belonging equally to) heredity” is that except for identical twins no individuals have a common heredity, not even identical twins share common physical attributes or common behavior. If one began with one set of parents and traced out the sharing out of their genes and the admixture of genes from outside that line of descent through ten generations, and then went back and traced out the genetic transmissions of all the individuals who mated with the children of the tenth generation, one would find an incredibly complex tapestry being painted in the “colors” of different genes. If ten pairs of humans were put in isolation and their progeny were examined after ten generations, would those tenth generation humans be judged to have a “common heredity”? What if a hundred pairs of foundation stock took part in this experiment? What if 10,000 pairs of founders produced a “race” of tenth generation individuals?

To put the problem in another way, how much diversity would there have to be in this population for individuals in some generation to be judged not to share a “common heredity”?

The problem with “common physical attributes” is that we have to ask, “Which attributes count?” If we look at height, we would group Northwest Europeans with the Tutsi, Nuer, and Shilluk groups of Africa as the tallest ones, and Bushmen and Maya/Quechuo (American Indians) among the very short ones. If we look at the mean dimensions of the lower first molars then American Whites and American Negroes belong in the large toothed group and Bushmen and Lapps belong in the small-toothed group.

And what of "common behavior"? As someone who has lived in a very different cultural area from my native land for 7 years, and who has traveled extensively in S.E. Asia, India, Nepal, etc., I would say that it would be far easier for me to list the differences between, e.g., American Whites and Malays,than to say what American Whites have in common and what Malays have in common, and then try to figure out where the two sets do not overlap. And, guess what, most of the differences I can think of are cultural. Off the top of my head the only group difference in behavior that I can think of that is not cultural (and this is based on book learning, not personal experience) is the direction of thrust in intercourse in a certain group of people – and that is because of the average angle assumed by the erect penis in that group, a biological factor.

The laws of probability work out this way: If people have 1 in 24 chances of having red hair, 1 in 5 chances of being over 6 feet tall, and 4 in 5 chances of having wisdom teeth at some time in your life, then the chance that a certain individual would have all three characteristics would be 1/24 X 1/5 X 4/5 = .04 X .20 X .80 = .64%

If you have 9/10 probability for each of 6 characteristics, then you will get slightly more than * probability that one person will have all of those characteristics. If you have 13 characteristics that count to make a “race”, then you have only about * probability that one person will have all of those characteristics. Or, in other words, if you started with a city of 40,000, each member of which had a 9/10 probability of having each of the 13 salient characteristics, you would find that you had only 10,000 people who were “legitimate” members of that “race.” If it takes only one factor to establish a “race”, then an Ainu and a Swede belong to the “white race,” and a Shan and a Tutsi belong to the “black race.” If you add too many factors then you and your mother end up being of different races. The number of factors to be considered is purely arbitrary. So there goes your "principle" if a "principle" is to be anything other than an arbitrary rule of thumb.

If we look at the ways that people really decide who is in one “race” and who is in another, I doubt that we will find many cases where any such tedious point-by-point discrimination is made. A Chinese person from Guangdong is very likely to be taken for a Navaho – especially by people who have something against Navaho people. If a baby from Guangdong were adopted by a Navaho family and raised without anybody in the community being let in on the secret, I suspect that the Navaho community would judge the child’s “race” to be Native American.

So, as for the beginning sentence in the article, “Race is a taxonomic principle used to group living things based on common heredity, physical attributes and behavior, where all members belong to the same species yet appear to warrant further classification,” I cannot agree with two components of the forumulation: “taxonomic principle,” and “common heredity, [common] physical attributes”, and, especially “[common] behavior.”


Patrick0Moran 02:17, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

On Reversion

(Some of the following was written in parallel with Patrick0Moran's 2:17 25 Nov commentary above, so there is some overlap, but the fact that we have independently zeroed in on the same problems is itself noteworthy, so I decided not to revise my comments. In any case, the critique we have highlights one of the main issues here - that what may seem like a NPOV to some may not appear so neutral to others, and that therefore using the hammer of reversion to preserve something that has been appropriately challenged is generally to be avoided.)

The remainder of this note is addressed to JDG and Slr:

On the one hand, I understand the frustration of authors whose work is mangled by others, and I have great respect for the time and effort that has gone into many parts of this article. (I also think that Wikipedia will need to change in some way to protect good articles from getting worse. For example, an enhanced versioning system, based on empirical stability, would be an improvement that wouldn't compromise the current set of core Wiki principles.)

I'm not sure how 'empirical stability' could be measured-- how could a prog distinguish between a rarity of edits due to current quality and the same due to obscure subject matter? I think Wikipedia will have to do something to preserve writing that is particularly good-- for now maybe just a flashing text warning on the edit page saying something like: "Wait! This article has been designated as a standout Wikipedia entry. Are you sure your change is an improvement?". JDG

On the other hand, current Wikipedia policies are clearly opposed to the idea that changes must be pre-approved (especially by self-appointed guardians). Furthermore, you must understand that would-be contributors to this particular article seem to be caught in some kind of Catch 22 situation: if one attempts to fix some major problems by adopting a minimalist, co-operative approach, the changes are reverted because the results are still imperfect; and if one does attempt to make extensive changes, they will be undone on the grounds that they are too extensive.

What you describe as a Catch-22 seems to me to just be an inevitable happenstance in the lifecycle of a Wikipedia entry. As intensive collaboration ups the quality of an article to a certain pitch, the desire to preserve what is already good will intensify in parallel. You can look at it as the heavy-handedness of 'self-appointed guardians' I suppose, but it looks more to me like a predictable and basically positive impulse to maintain hard won excellence. It's a good thing that good articles have guardians, and in Wiki Land they couldn't be anything other than 'self-appointed'. (JDG)

Thus, I believe that the above considerations alone imply that the appropriate thing to do in this particular instance would be to restore my last version and allow the normal incremental give-and-take to proceed.

I just disagree. The appropriate thing, especially for someone aware of the amount of work already put into the piece and the recognition it has received, would have been to put aside the urge to insert an all-new extended opening and propose moderate changes here. The real heavy-handedness was your wholesale reordering of something already finely tuned. And how else can a large change that one judges to be deleterious to the article be dealt with other than by another large change back?... Ultimately, you believe your modifications were an improvement while I (and Slr) do not. I know it's not just a petty pride thing on my part because I can hardly count the changes to my work on Wikipedia that I recognized as changes for the better and let stand... Having said this, I'll reiterate that much of what you wrote was, in my judgment, worthy of inclusion-- but not as the first block in the article. (JDG)

However, at least one of you has expressed some puzzlement about the major problems that I and others have been trying to rectify. This is itself a bit puzzling, as previous comments on this Talk page, together with my own additions and alterations, make it fairly clear what the major concerns are, but perhaps it will help to be more explicit.

Let's start with the first five words of the current preamble: 

 "Race is a taxonomic principle ..."

The three main problems with this as an introductory definition are:

  1. the implication that any other conception of race in this context is invalid, whereas this particular conception is just one of several, even in this specific context; (Comment: Not really sure what you're saying here. Encyclopedias aren't generally meant to present exhaustive semiotic analyses of subject terms. The first thing the reader wants is a tight dictionary-like definition of the term as it is commonly understood, followed by some semantic discussion as called for throughout. The concept of Race, as actually used by actual taxonomists, was first and foremost a taxonomic principle. It had to do with delimiting one bunch from another based on perceived genotypic and/or phenotypic differences. If we don't establish that with the reader (especially the young reader), none of what follows is sensical. Note that it is called a "principle" rather than a "category", which connotes that Race never did achieve the uncontested status that "genus" or "species" did. Principles can be erroneous, and much of the remainder is dedicated to showing how this one is. We can't pretend the 19th century never happened, no matter how off the mark we think their usage was. Before the 19th century the term was not fixed and served in a number of loose contexts. In the 19th century Anthropologists and Ethnologists chose to employ the term in a strict taxonomic sense. We inherited that sense, but demoted the term. All of this has to be explained. (JDG))
  2. the reference to taxonomy, which is problematic in a number of respects. For example:
    1. it suggests that races are always defined scientifically, whereas Example 2 shows that this is not the case; (Comment: No, it suggests that races were held to be defined scientifically, perhaps erroneously. Are you saying that during the term's heyday (about 1750 to 1950), only crackpots used it in the taxonomic sense? Not so. All the leading people used it, including Darwin and Boas. Most of us now disagree that human group variation can be so precisely delineated, but it's misleading to pretend this has always been the case. (JDG))
    2. it suggests that race is a currently used term in taxonomy, which so far as I can tell, is not the case, especially in zoology; (Comment: You pointed that out previously and, heavy-handed as we are, we included it in the opening (JDG).)
    3. it suggests that the mutual exclusion usually associated with taxonomic categories must apply (see also my writeup on 'Taxonomy on Race'). (Comment: The controversy over Race and the horrific applications of the concept of Race cannot be understood unless one understands that both scientists and lay people did ascribe this mutual exclusion to human groups. The article rightly describes how the term was understood and used in reality, not how you believe it should have been. (JDG))
  3. the use of the word "principle" here is literally correct but inappropriate given that its use here is at best difficult to correlate with any one specific definition in the American Heritage Dictionary (a URL for the online AHD definition of taxonomy is given below). In everyday usage, a principle means something like a rule or law, especially related to good behavior, but that is presumably irrelevant here. The closest definition in the online AHD seems to be Number 4, but look carefully at what it says:
   A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior.
Yes, this is how Race was understood-- and the article is worthless if it doesn't get that across. (JDG)

So one interpretation of the first five words of this article is that we are being told that race is destiny!

Yes, there was a strong element of that in the traditional concept of Race. Once again, it must be acknowledged, then challenged. (JDG)

Put it all together, and the preamble comes across very strongly ("The Lady protesteth too much!") as being biased towards a single POV - that race, properly understood, is a scientific concept that, when applied to humans, allows us to categorize them in a way that allows one to determine intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior.

Not at all. The article is simply stating how Race was used. It carried its own POV. We kow you don't like it. The article doesn't advocate it, but it doesn't pretend it never existed, which seems to be your preference. (JDG)

This particular POV happens to come very close to "scientific racism," so to give it the status of being just about the only valid conception is both incorrect and contrary to Wiki NPOV policies.

Again you are confusing description of historical use with some kind of advocacy. (JDG)

Please note that several of the contributors to this Talk page have expressed the view (similar to the US Government view in my proposed Example 2, which is why I gave it) that there are conceptions of race that allow the word to be used without the baggage of scientific racism.

There are also some lesser problems with the current version of the preamble. For example, there is a whole sentence on 'variant', but this term is used in botanic taxonomy. I am not sure that this is relevant at all, but I cannot see any reason to give it pride of place in the preamble.

So, in summary, please consider undoing the reversion and allowing the process to move forward; alternatively, if you have already come up with something that addresses the various concerns listed above, and includes most of the new material that I added, then we could go from there.

I think Slr worked in a few of your statements without diverting the entire flow of the piece, and I think more should be worked in. This is definitely the way to do it, as opposed to a slow chipping away at a large block that (sorry) was not an improvement en masse. (JDG)

Footnote

The AHD URL on "principle" is http://www.bartleby.com/61/39/P0563900.html

Peak 05:31, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The article on race, as it stands now, affirms that race is a principle. The rest of that paragraph deals with the present, not the past.

Race is not the ultimate source of something.
Race is not a natural or original tendency.
Race is not a fundamental truth.
Race is not a rule of conduct.
Race is not an essential element of something else.
Race is not a law of nature by which something else can be explained.
Race is not the method of a thing's operation.

A principle of taxonomy would be something like the determination that if two groups cannot successfully interbreed then they must be considered different species.

QED

Patrick0Moran 23:22, 25 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Time Warp

(The following is mainly in response to JDG's most recent set of responses, in which JDG agreed that the idea that "Race is a taxonomic principle" reflects (in JDG's words) "how Race was understood". Of course it reflects one current POV as well. In any case, I would ask JDG to review the entire entry for "race ¹" in the online AHD (http://www.bartleby.com/61/39/R0003900.html).)

One of the main problems with the article in its reverted (i.e. current) form is that it oscillates uneasily between the present and various points in the past. Thus we are told that "race is a taxonomic principle" but this is just one conception that happens to be important from a historical point of view. The fact that contemporary dictionaries, the US Government (as per my Example 2) and many individuals currently have a different view is ignored.

Similarly, the Overview begins: "Many people believe that physical characteristics..." but the historical section more or less ends with Jensen many years ago.

In any case, it is clear that there are (today) several important concepts of "race" as applied to humanity, and that the preamble of the sole Wikipedia article on "Race" should not present one as the only valid POV.

Path Forward

I can see several alternative ways to proceed, including:

1) The Wikipedia article on "Race" could be made into a disambiguation page, pointing to two or more articles. Much of the present article could then be placed in "Race as a taxonomic principle" or "Race (taxonomy)" or some such.

2) The first sentence could be modified to begin along these lines: "One conception of race is as a taxonomic principle.... " This of course presents some stylistic and other problems that would have to be dealt with, but it would, in my view, at least be a step in the right direction.

3) The preamble could be modified along the lines of my version, which is repeated here for your convenience and ease of editing (or even approval :-):

The term race in the sense of a category or grouping is sometimes applied to the entire human population ("the human race"), but this article is primarily concerned with "race" as the term has been used to define two or more such subgroups. The concept of race in this sense has long been, and remains, controversial, but to make sense of ideas about racism, racial quotas, racial profiling, and so on, it is important to begin with some understanding of the term race itself.

The article could then jump straight into the Overview in its existing form. (Hopefully, parts of my other stuff could be added at some later time.)

Peak 00:26, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

If somebody says, "Trigger is a horse," that means (to put it in the terms that logicians use) that some set (the set of 1 member, Trigger) is a member of a larger set called horse. So if you say that "race is a principle" that must mean that a set called "race" is a member of a larger set called "principle". And if you can say "Race is a principle," then you can same a subset of race, called "human race" and say that "Human race is a principle." That in turn means that just as Trigger fits the definition of the word horse, the human race must fit the definition of the word principle.

It would not make sense to say, "Lassie is a principle." It does not make sense, for the same reason, to say, "Race is a principle." You might as well say that the amount of clothing you are wearing determines how cold it is outside. Or you might affirm that ice cubes shape metal into ice cube trays.


It is unacceptable to begin what is supposed to be a reasoned discussion with an assertion that wreaks havoc on logic and common knowledge. What if the Tiger article started out by claiming, "Tigers are abstractions!"?

Patrick0Moran 02:09, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is getting downright comedic. Now you want Race to be an objective entity. Calling it a 'principle' communicates that it's at least in part a construct of the social mind. I thought that's what you want?? I liked the ice cubes and tigers, though. JDG 17:19, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hmmm. If one is dealing with a noun then it is usually considered funny if the word has no referent.

Perhaps JDG is the one who wrote: "Race is a taxonomic principle"? Taxonomic principles define what a species is, so one can correctly say that there are taxonomic principles that pertain to the definition of species, right? Taxonomic principles define what a subspecies is, so one can correctly say that there are taxonomic principles that pertain to the definition of subspecies, right? Mathematical principles define what an Aleph-one infinity is, so one can say that there are mathematical principles that pertain to the definition of an Aleph-one infinity, right? But you cannot possibly claim that an Aleph-one infinity, or an infinity of any kind, is a principle. It is a set of numbers, not the rule that determines what goes in the set.

What would be tragic about turning things around to say: "There is a taxonomic principle according to which 'race' can be defined"?

Patrick0Moran 18:51, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Seeing no response, I will try changing principle to social construct.

Patrick0Moran 17:21, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This, from JDG:

ok - now we're in a full edit war I guess. The flat statement "Race is a social construct" as an opening cannot stand-- sorry.

I guess this war is one of those cases of "Anyone who tries to make us change our ways..." 

"Race is a taxonomic principle..." 
is like
"Color is a law of physics..."

JDG seems unable to see this simple kind of thing. How about the other "primary authors" of this article? (JDG's rejection of an earlier attempt at repairs was: (Reverting. This article is now the result of careful crafting by three primary authors. Further wordiness favoring the majority view is not needed.))

Patrick0Moran 23:10, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Your idea of the word 'principle' is strangely truncated. You're fine with 'Race is a concept' and 'Race is a construct', but not 'principle'. And, your analogies are not analagous. Principles don't sit on the same shelf with tigers, ice cubes and colors. It's an abstract term, Mr. Moran... But I'll step aside on this one. I'll be revisiting the opening later, but not to ressurect 'principle'. No article should begin with the word 'Although". JDG 19:20, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
How about: "The term race is sometimes applied to the entire human population ("the human race"), but ..." Peak 05:25, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)
It's better, but hefty encycolpedia entries usually start off with a concise definition of the subject term, then riff from there. Besides, I'd love to see you two come up with a strong definition instead of tearing one apart. Say what the thing is (or was) first, then what it's not. JDG

Vitamin D etc

It is my understanding that the tropics/race stuff is at best speculative, and at worst wrong. (If everyone's ancestors originally came from the tropics (going far enough back in time), then it would be wrong to say that "All people whose ancestors lived in the tropics ... have dark skin.")

I agree that section has been a little weak, but I wouldn't just blow away the Vitamin D issue. At some point you Social Construct dudes have to face the physiology involved. If you manage to handle surface stuff like skin color, you can try your chops on something really serious-- like all the mutation based illnesses and predispositions that clearly fall along ethnic and racial fault lines. JDG

Anyway, are there reputable references to support the claims made in the article?

Also, much of what is written about Jensen/Gould already appears in the Jensen article. Any objections to eliminating most of what is redundant, and perhaps consolidating as appropriate? Peak 05:25, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The "tropics/race" stuff depends on the idea that a population remains well enough isolated that one can be sure that a change is due to evolutionary forces and not due to importation of genetic material from somewhere else.

From personal experience I can say that I never realized how little pigmentation people could have until I visited Ireland. And people who live in Thailand are generally darker than I am. On the other hand, people whose families came from Fujian province in China and have lived in Taiwan for around two centuries would seem to fit the general intent of the description quoted above. One interesting thing about them is that the legs of men who always wear long pants are as light in color as my own, and the bodies of men who habitually work in the beds of streams wearing nothing more than swim trunks and sandals are as dark as some recent immigrants from Africa. So the people who have (partially?) adapted to living in that region are capable of varying their skin color to adapt to a wide range of UV conditions.

It would be possible to disprove the theory that living for X number of generations in the tropics produces people with dark skin if one could find a fairly stable population that, having lived there for X number of generations, was nevertheless on average as light as the average of Irish skin tones. It would be possible to disprove the theory that living for X number of generations in the far northern regions produces people with light skin if one could find a fairly stable popoulation that, having lived there for X number of generations, was nevertheless on average as dark as the average of Thai skin tones.

As far as I know, nobody has ever found a white pocket on the tropic belt. But it has been argued by some that the coloration of the Chinese demands some explanation since they are believed to have lived at the latitude of Greece for upwards of 3000 years and, unless the original populations melted away gradually and were replaced by the ancestors of the current population coming from somewhere else, they probably go back at least to around 12,000 B.C. People living farther to the north might be expected to be as white as northern Europeans. But the picture is complicated by a couple of factors: The "X number of generations" blithely mentioned above may be quite large, so the population of northern China and farther north may simply not have finished the process of adaptation. Also, the Chinese may consume enough dietary sources of vitamin D to make skin production of this nutrient of less survival importance than it would be to a population that had to depend entirely on the sun.

Judging by my own experience, if there is a white pocket in the tropics it would have had to develop there after the invention of clothing. I was badly sunburned on the underside of my jaw in just one day of hiking in southern Thailand while wearing a hat that was almost a meter in diameter. If I had to work there naked in a stream bed for a summer I don't think I would have made it.

One other thought. If skin color is not dependent on a single gene, it may well be that "darkness" genes lurk in a high percentage of light-skinned people. So adaptation might occur relatively rapidly if the environmental pressure were high. After the invention of clothing, adaptation probably would procede much more slowly.

Please note that I am talking about different populations, not different races.

Patrick0Moran 07:09, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I found a map of skin colors (Brace and Montagu, 1965). Medium light skin colors go farther north in Asia than the lightest colors go in Europe. The darkest skin colors occur in 5 regions in Africa, two of which are quite a bit farther from the Equator than the other three. The Equator is not an ebony region, and the far North is not a snow cap, on the other hand I always find a single shade of difference between adjacent regions. There are a few bulges that look to me as though they might be accounted for by incursions of populations expanding from north to south or vice-versa.

Patrick0Moran 01:28, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I reverted to the last version that identified race as a taxonomic principle. It seems to me that the two people who take issue with this formulation misunderstand the meaning of the word taxonomy. They seem to believe that taxonomies are scientific. They need not be. Anthropologists, among others, have spent considerable time detailing various "folk" taxonomies (see Levi-Strauss's works on totemism, as well as work by Brent Berlin, Charles Frake, Hal COnklin, etc.). JDG and I can debate ad nausem as to whether science is itself a social construct, or as to whether folk taxonomies are social constructs but scientific taxonomies are not -- such debates actually should be covered by Wikipedia, I guess in the article on taxonomies or on science. But I am not saying this to pick a fight with JDG but on the contrary to affirm his point that racial classifications are indeed taxonomies. By the way, there is no one racial classification; people in different countries in the New World have different racial taxa, and even Western scientists who believe that race is a scientifically valid term have differed over the actual taxonomies. In fact, the article covers some of these debats. But the fact that people disagree over the taxonomy, and that different taxonomies coexist, does not in any way mean that there is (or are) no taxanomic principle(s). Slrubenstein

Dear Slr: Firstly, taxonomy is usually used in the context of mutually exclusive classifications. (The addition that I made on this subject disappeared because of a prior reversion, but you should either read it or do some research on the topic of taxonomy.) The U.S. Government (OMB) uses the word race in a non-mutually exclusive manner, as do many others. So the *definition* in terms of taxonomy is in fact wrong, but even if it were not wrong, it would still be a single POV. Thus your reversion is both wrong and against Wiki principles.

Secondly, the alternative formulation does cover your POV.

Thirdly, there has been quite a lot of discussion on this talk page already about this, and your use of the hammer of reversion amounts to a form of vandalism, since the act of reversion blows away all the other changes that have been made. As you yourself said, it is better to frame and add.

Fourthly, if you want to say that this page is subject to POV debates, the appropriate thing to do is to do what others have done: add a Disclaimer to the article.

By the way, your support for the racist undertones of parts of this article is mystifying to several of us. Have you read the most recent discussions about what 'race is a principle' literally means according to AHD? I would suggest you try to read the entire Talk page (including the archived material) with an open mind. Also, go back to the original formulation of the first paragraph (in 2001). Somehow the idea that a 'race' is a 'category' became transformed into the idea that 'race is a folk taxonomy' (which is an interesting perspective), but then 'folk' was omitted, leaving us with 'race is a principle'!

Let me be clear: there has been a clear pattern of reversions and other manipulations whereby those of us who have attempted to make this article less racist have been denied our Wiki rights. Please note that I have never reverted anything, and would prefer not to have to. Peak 23:53, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)


Peak, you're way off base accusing Slr of vandalism. Don't you understand he's the leading contributor to an article that, before you began disfiguring it, has been considered by many Wikipedians to be one of the top articles on the site? I don't think "vandalism" applies to anyone in this latest tussle, but Slr is easily the furthest from it.... It's refreshing that you finally came out and plainly stated you believe the article is racist. Few other things would explain your tenacity in trying to overhaul such a well received piece. Can you conceive of a scientist, like Luigi Cavalli Sforza, who believes in the objective reality of meaningful phenotypic clusters and who is yet far from being a racist? If you can't, you'd better start expanding your habits of thought. This article describes the uses the term Race has been put to. If simply describing them registers as racist to you then you're nothing other than an enemy of quality history. If those who believe in the reality of certain phenotypic differences while shunning an overall valuation of superior/inferior also register as racist to you, then you're an intolerant would-be demagogue of the worst kind. This article needs to be protected from you, just as truth and accuracy themselves need to be protected from revisionists of the right or the left. We're a small step away from appealing to an admin on this. JDG 01:53, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


whats going on here?

why is the neutrality disputed? what is so wrong with this article? I know its a tough subject, and maybe the article isn't perfect (looks pretty good to me tho) but I don't think there is a POV issue IN the article itself. Can anybody 'splain what the deal is? JackLynch 02:44, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Jack, user Peak placed the 'under dispute' code into the article because he cannot abide the inclusion of any point of view other than his own. Ironic, isn't it, that someone with an apparent inability to compose NPOV material brings an objection under the NPOV policy? The article very clearly identifies the current majority view among experts (that the concept of human races is a 'social construct' with no biological validity) as well as the minority view (that genotypic/phenotypic clusters among humans, similar to the traditional notion of race, in fact exist). Peak will be satisfied only when the article presents the majority view exclusively. Therefore, Peak will never be satisfied-- the minority view is simply held by too many leading people in the field. Anyone who knows the subject and approaches it honestly will tell you the debate on the issue is still very much alive. Peak wants the debate silenced and is working toward a Wikipedia main entry that will advance his own position in that debate. Tomorrow I will try to bring in a sysop or two or three and see where it goes from there. JDG 06:15, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)


Dear JackLynch: I was editing this page in parallel with you, trying to explain the decision to clarify to readers that this article is under NPOV dispute, but you got there first and my edits were undone.

Please read this Talk page (and the previous archived versions) for the details, but JDG and Slr (who were not the original authors of this article, by the way) have persistently used "reversion" to undo even minor edits intended to enhance edits aimed to increase the NPOV.Peak 02:59, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

On an insidious false dichotomy

Dear JackLynch and others: I am astounded by JDG's remarks dated 6:15, 1 Dec 2003 above. Every sentence about what I have been trying to do is false! I am absolutely in favor of both NPOV and having multiple POVs represented. In fact, some of the additional material I added was to show that there are more than two points of view. The dichotomy of views that JDG seems to want everyone to believe in is actually quick insidious if you think about it for a while. (After all, if the choice is between A and B, and if we can characterize A in a way that makes it dubious or wrong, then you're left with B.) Perhaps a warning is needed for this article in its present form:

WARNING: This article may be dangerous to your mental health.

If you have time, you can judge all this yourself by looking at the Talk above, and at the paragraphs I've added or modified (they've all been reverted though, so it will take some digging). You might want to check my contributions elsewhere as well. If you don't have time to check, then consider that I have never resorted to reversion! In fact, I have done what this Talk page has asked contributors to do: "Frame and add" rather than delete. Please also remember that there have been several people (besides PatrickOMoran and me) who have expressed concerns about elements of this article.

[Needless to say, I am pleased that Maverick149 also sees the point. See below.]

Wikipedia guidelines suggest it is best to walk away from personal attacks. It is accordingly my intention not to respond further to any such attacks by JDG here. Peace to all. Peak 07:20, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Peak, I gotta hand it to you-- you're a nimble customer. You have an excellent knack for the spinning tilt and the manufacturing of appearances. I've made no personal attack on you (if you calmly read the 'enemy of quality history' bit above you'll see it's predicated on your holding views I'm not yet certain you do). As for my insisting you have a POV problem-- that ain't personal. You, on the other hand and in your nimble way, most certainly indulged in personal attacks on Slr (calling him a vandal and in need of basic information on the definition of taxonomy). So, in addition to being a POV writer demanding NPOV, you're an attacker of persons who says 'it is best to walk away from personal attacks'. Have you considered changing your username to 'Eel'?... And about your constant declarations that you have never reverted anyone's contributions-- this is another nimble bit. No, you haven't reverted-- you've simply edited beyond recognition and buried others' contributions beneath your own, managing to make their work appear redundant even though it pre-dates yours. In contrast to that, Slr worked a number of your phrases into the lead paragraph of the current version. You can keep vilifying us if it makes you happy-- I shudder to think what you would do if one of us did anything to actually justify it. JDG

Multiple points of view

The online American Heritage Dictionary gives six definitions of "race" that more or less specialize the term as it is applied to human groupings, plus another which is closely related. I realize Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and I have not suggested that the preamble should include a long recitation of possible meanings. One possibility is to do precisely what the original author of the Wiki article on race did: give some indication of the class of meanings that is being covered in the article. The original phrasing was:

(2001): "Race is a concept used to divide people into groups ..."

If however, one is to say something about the multiple meanings and points of view, then the first step is to realize that there are more than just two or three noteworthy points of view. Here are some of them: 

1) "Race is a taxonomic principle ..." (in the sense that scientific principles
   of taxonomy are used to define the categories)
2) "Race is a folk taxonomic concept..." (this was the phrasing used
   in the revision of 15:19, 8 Jan 2002)
3) "Race is a social construct."
4) "Race has several meanings related to classification. These meanings
    vary depending on whether the classification is based on scientific
    criteria, self-identification, interviewer opinion, or some other
    critera; on whether the categories are created so as to be
    mutually exclusive or not; and on whether the criteria used in
    defining the categories are based on ancestry, genetics, physical
    characteristics, behavioral criteria, or some combination of these."
5) Scientists have attempted to apply taxonomic principles to identify
   different "races".
6) "Race does not exist."

Consider, for example, OMB Statistical Directive 15, October 30, 1997. It states:

"The categories in this classification [i.e. race and ethnicity] are social-political constructs and should not be interpreted as being scientific or anthropological in nature. ... Respondents shall be offered the option of selecting one or more racial designations. Recommended forms for the instruction accompanying the multiple response question are "Mark one or more" and "Select one or more." (See e.g. http://academic.udayton.edu/race/01race/race06.htm) Peak 23:42, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I don't understand why you consider this as necessarily so damaging to the concept of human subgroups summarized by terms (race, sub-type, ethnic group, whatever). Most 'Hispanics', for instance, carry a mixture of Sinoid, Negroid and Caucasoid genes. Depending on the relative proportion of each in a given individual, anyone, including that individual, might be hard pressed to choose just one. Modern non-racist believers in the objective existence of ethnicity don't deny that "hybridization zones" (to use the phrase of the article) are large and getting larger. This in no way invalidates the real and ongoing effects wrought by millenia of separation between the major groups. JDG
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_(human_categorization)/Archive_2&oldid=808299478"