Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 23

message: I think we all agree that this article is too long. It is 114.9kb and 16,757 words long. 
Wikipedia policy recomends articles with 6,000-10,000 words or 30-50kb recommended is 32kb. see Article_size#Readability_issues.
* "Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 6,000 to 10,000 words, which roughly corresponds to 30 to 50 KB of readable prose. Thus the 32 KB recommendation is considered to have stylistic value in many cases;"
Therefore we need to start removing some content. I know we all dearly cherish the contributions we make. But some sacrifice and compromise is needed. Some info has to be shortened or deleted.
With regard to technical jargon this is what wikipedia policy
* "When writing technical articles, it is usually the case that a number of technical terms or jargon specific to the subject matter will be presented. These should be defined or at least alternative language provided, so that a non-technical reader can both learn the terms and understand how they are used by scientists" Wikipedia:Technical terms and definitions
* "Explain jargon when you use it (see jargon). Remember that the person reading your article might not be someone educated or versed in your field, and so might not understand the subject-specific terms from that field. Terms which may go without a definition in an academic paper or a textbook may require one in Wikipedia.Wikipedia:Explain jargon
Wikipedia:Make technical articles accessible says
* "Articles in Wikipedia should be accessible to the widest possible audience. For most articles, this means accessible to a general audience."
* "Put the most accessible parts of the article up front. It's perfectly fine for later sections to be highly technical, if necessary. Those who are not interested in details will simply stop reading at some point, which is why the material they are interested in needs to come first. Linked sections of the article should ideally start out at about the same technical level, so that if the first, accessible paragraph of an article links to a section in the middle of the article, the linked section should also start out accessible." it is for this reason why the lead should be more accessible, not including clines, multilocus etc
* "Use jargon and acronyms judiciously. In addition to explaining jargon and expanding acronyms at first use, you might consider using them sparingly thereafter, or not at all. Especially if there are many new terms being introduced all at once, substituting a more familiar English word might help reduce confusion (as long as accuracy is not sacrificed)".
Therefore we need to seriously consider its summarization. Just sticking to the old version is not going to improve its readability and accessibility. Muntuwandi 12:58, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  is there any justification for using terms like FST. I think this term is useful in a classroom or laboratory environment. but on wikipedia it is of little value because its calculation is beyond the scope of the article on race.Muntuwandi 22:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I do not understand what you are talking about.  What differnce does it make how many studies have been done?  This paragraph is not about the results of the studies, so I do not see how the content here is anywhere else on the page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The subhead says "scale of race research". scale means size or scope. My interpretation is how much research on race has been done. My feeling is this is irrelevant because we already know that race is a well researched topic. So there is no need to mention what the scale of race research is. the section mentions the research of rosenberg, paabo and Tang. They are mentioned elsewhere in the article. so there is no need to mention them here.Muntuwandi 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Then maybe we should port some of the information to sub-articles rather than deleting it. It seems strking to me that the section about the scope of race research points out that some of the research has been done strictly on the national level, in direct contradiction to what you  say it should be (which by the way makes perfect sense). Stating that race research has been done on several scales (not just global) and for different purposes is necessary background information to understand the aims od these research endeavours; the three examples, if they are duplicated, possibly should be merged back into the sections where they are discussed, with intra-article links. I have no issue with this kind of modification of the section, as it does not lose any information.--Ramdrake 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the information can be moved to race and genetics article, so that in the ongoing debate about whether race exists genetically, it can be used as a factor. For example the research of Risch has been criticized for only sampling african americans and not africans because african americans are from west africa and are thus not completely representative of all african peoples. But since this article is about race in general we do not necessarily need the info on the exact research methodologies. This article leans too heavily on genetic studiesMuntuwandi 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The term phenomenological is not just long it's wrong. I guess the author meant phenotypical. The fact that Foucault is not a household name says more about the ignorance of certain households than what should be here. We have blue links so people can look up these people if the want to. For heavens's sake and encyclopedia is suposed to be educational! Paul B 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No "household names" are utterly irrelevant. The article is supposed to provide useful information. If you have nopt heard of Foucault you have no business editing historical material. Paul B 08:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul is completely right!  Foucault was in his day the most important intellectual in France and he has had a tremendous impact on history, philosophy, comparative literature, and the social sciences in the United States.  Look, Lorenz may not be a household name but does that justify leaving his name out in an article on physics?  You are just grasping at straws to censor views you do not want included in the article.  Do not censor us! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  is there any justification for using terms like FST. I think this term is useful in a classroom or laboratory environment. but on wikipedia it is of little value because its calculation is beyond the scope of the article on race.Muntuwandi 22:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a children's book. Please do not try to simplify everything to that level. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.106.210.44 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jargon and article size

message: Is Race#Scale_of_race_research this sub-section necessary. I think it is not because there have probably been a million studies done on race. Thus i do not think it is necessary to analyze how much research has been done. I propose removing the section. I think the results of the protagonists in these research topics are mentioned elsewhere in the page, so we will not lose information.Muntuwandi 16:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand what you are talking about.  What differnce does it make how many studies have been done?  This paragraph is not about the results of the studies, so I do not see how the content here is anywhere else on the page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The subhead says "scale of race research". scale means size or scope. My interpretation is how much research on race has been done. My feeling is this is irrelevant because we already know that race is a well researched topic. So there is no need to mention what the scale of race research is. the section mentions the research of rosenberg, paabo and Tang. They are mentioned elsewhere in the article. so there is no need to mention them here.Muntuwandi 16:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Then maybe we should port some of the information to sub-articles rather than deleting it. It seems strking to me that the section about the scope of race research points out that some of the research has been done strictly on the national level, in direct contradiction to what you  say it should be (which by the way makes perfect sense). Stating that race research has been done on several scales (not just global) and for different purposes is necessary background information to understand the aims od these research endeavours; the three examples, if they are duplicated, possibly should be merged back into the sections where they are discussed, with intra-article links. I have no issue with this kind of modification of the section, as it does not lose any information.--Ramdrake 22:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes the information can be moved to race and genetics article, so that in the ongoing debate about whether race exists genetically, it can be used as a factor. For example the research of Risch has been criticized for only sampling african americans and not africans because african americans are from west africa and are thus not completely representative of all african peoples. But since this article is about race in general we do not necessarily need the info on the exact research methodologies. This article leans too heavily on genetic studiesMuntuwandi 23:00, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: scale and research

message: This section is Race#Popular_concepts_of_.22race.22 is incoherent because it mentions so many different groups who existed at different times in no particular order or structure. I also notice long words like "phenomenological" and "environmental determinism". Various people who are not household names are thrown in to the mix like Edward Coke, Michel Foucault, John Lilburne Nicolas Fréret, Sieyès, Augustin Thierry and Cournot. Who are these people. This section is candidate for shortening. The only thing that i can gather is how the Ancient societies viewed race, which is that they were more tribal than observing actual physical appearance. Also the etymology of the word race is useful. Apart from that it is interesting stories that should probably be in other articles not this one.Muntuwandi 16:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term phenomenological is not just long it's wrong. I guess the author meant phenotypical. The fact that Foucault is not a household name says more about the ignorance of certain households than what should be here. We have blue links so people can look up these people if the want to. For heavens's sake and encyclopedia is suposed to be educational! Paul B 23:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No "household names" are utterly irrelevant. The article is supposed to provide useful information. If you have nopt heard of Foucault you have no business editing historical material. Paul B 08:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paul is completely right!  Foucault was in his day the most important intellectual in France and he has had a tremendous impact on history, philosophy, comparative literature, and the social sciences in the United States.  Look, Lorenz may not be a household name but does that justify leaving his name out in an article on physics?  You are just grasping at straws to censor views you do not want included in the article.  Do not censor us! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

text:  is there any justification for using terms like FST. I think this term is useful in a classroom or laboratory environment. but on wikipedia it is of little value because its calculation is beyond the scope of the article on race.Muntuwandi 22:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not a children's book. Please do not try to simplify everything to that level. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.106.210.44 (talk) 00:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: popular concepts of race

message: How necessary is it to discuss  current views on disciplines since most race related research is multidisciplinary by nature.Muntuwandi 05:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Current views across disciplines

message: Using these advanced statiscal methods is too complicated for this article.Muntuwandi 03:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: God help us if you ever decide to edit Maxwell's equations. 11:12, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if someone included Maxwell's equation or Euler or Einstein or Leibniz or Frobenius in a discussion of race, I would feel the same way.Muntuwandi 12:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fst and Cladistics

message: I see that several editors made huge changes and deletions, making the article unbalanced. This should be corrected.
:Sign your postings. Do not use bad language on talk pages. P0M 03:06, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is any Wiki policy on f-word, by all means, direct me to it. Until then, I will continue to use it since, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not PG-13 and it is a commonly used word. I also reject primitive notions which associate words connected with sexual intercourse with bad/"evil"/etc as if sex is bad. And my nick or IP number is not important, only my arguments. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.254.138.105 (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, using profanity may well fall under WP:CIVIL. And yes, I would also suggest you sign your posts, as unsigned posts are at greater risk of being ignored, as well as those that use foul language.--Ramdrake 20:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article has been xxxxx 

message: The article currently says, "The IQ scores vary greatly among different nations for the same group. Blacks in Africa score much lower than Blacks in the US." But according to the Race article, "African populations living south of the Sahara, in North America, in the Caribbean, and in Britain typically have mean IQs from 70 to 90."  The simplification of the material in this article is clearly tendentious. P0M 02:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are some of the difficulties in measuring race and IQ. I had mentioned in the other article that few countries actually recognize or use IQ tests. the estimates that are available will only reflect local conditions. in one place blacks will score high, others lower indicating environmental factors. I think that giving a full discussion on IQ would be out of scope for this article. Maybe a summary indicating conflicting results.Muntuwandi 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no reason to accept a statement that implies that black people are uniformly less intelligent than other groups regardless of any local conditions that might influence measured intelligence. The misrepresentation of research presently in the Race article ignores the better information in the Race and Intelligence article, and whether intentional or not, the Race article currently supports the view that [racial] factors determine low intelligence. I'm commenting here before changing, but only because I am afraid of the implications of the long-term presence of this misinformation. An article on [race] should not support racism on bad evidence. P0M 03:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it needs then to be removed. That is the problem with articles that are too large, misrepresentations can easily slip through the cracks without anybody noticing.Muntuwandi 03:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I went back to fix it and was pleasantly surprised to discover that the problem had disappeared. P0M 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  false content 

message: Currently the text states:
Some, for example Thomas Sowell, bypass the issue of the origins of categorization and seek to explain test score gaps in terms of social differences that affect how much of one's innate capacities any individual person might achieve.
The "origins of categorization" do not explain test score gaps do they? So what is this sentence actually intended to convey? What is getting "bypassed?" Some people believe that [race] is a matter of biology, some people believe that it is a matter of culture (but they won't let me claim to be Chinese no matter how well I get myself enculturated), and those people therefore hitch intelligence levels to either biology or to biology + enculturation issues. Sowell would appear to be suggesting that it's really an enculturation issue, no? Or at least he is saying, "To hell with whether somebody's group has an average intelligence that is higher or lower than somebody else's group. That's not doing anything other than making racists happy and other people more miserable. Let's concentrate on maximizing whatever potential is there and making as sure as we can that no individual's potential is denied to himself/herself (and to the rest of us) because of some dysfunctional societal function."
Or have I got this all wrong? Help my ability to read English, please. P0M 06:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should removed, because as it sounds it is an alleged opinion without a source and data to back it upMuntuwandi 14:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some reorganization and rephrasing to clarify the positions. It shouldn't be too hard to find a good citation for Sewell. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:45, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another puzzling formulation

message: *scale of race research- this section is inapropriate because it is about genetics research and it is about the research of just a few individuals,ie  rosenberg, serre and paabo. it reads like the intro to a research paper outlining the scale of the research. It is  not necessary for a broad topic like race, maybe more suitable in race and genetics debate.
:It is crucial because it explains why some scientists find race a useful biological category and why other scientists do not find it useful - it is not that they have opposing beliefs about race, but for this reason. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not crucial because it is about the technical aspects of research. In this article we do not need to know for instance whether 3000 people or 4000 people were sampled, that is specific to the research.Muntuwandi 16:17, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is however crucial to let users know that race researh is a world-wide phenomenon, but has been much more of a concern in some countries than others. This gives a much-needed perspective to this controversial matter.--Ramdrake 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Scale of research

message: *The rejection of race and rise of population and cline -to start with this section head is POV because it implies that cline and population are more popular than race, which may not be the case. The word cline is not used in everyday language. But most importantly this section is too long, 17 paragraphs-this is undue weight. In addition the same information is available on the article on Clines. So there is no need to duplicate it here, a short summary and a link to the main article will do
:Alun/Wobble argued the other point - that the problem with the article is that is gives undue weight to those scientists who think that race is a valid biological concept; he argued that mainstream scientists reject the concept of race to explain biological difference.  So you see the NPOV issues: you think most scientists think race is valid; he thinks most scientists do not.  Let us leave aside the fact that in this case Alun is right and you are wrong.  What is important in an encyclopedia, if we want to educate people, is not just to say what most people think but to give their reasons - to explain why many scientists came to reject the concept of race.  That is what this section is about.  Do you think that it somehow silences the opposing view, that race is a valid concept?  The case for that position is given in the following section on race and cladistics.  Both POVs are represented - and, most important they are not represented as charicatures, but in terms of the science they use to support their positions. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I won't discuss the argument of race and clines, just the subhead is leading. it is better just to say "clines and populations", instead of forcing an impression that clines and population have taken over from race.Muntuwandi 16:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it is demonstrable (Lieberman, 2001) that the clinal view currently enjoys a strong majority view in anthropology, which is the discipline in which you will find experts on "race".--Ramdrake 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: This is a matter of historical accuracy. This section is not just about laying out one approach taken by scientists, it is about how a change in scientific research occured and why.  The language is perfectly reasonable.  The article is not saying that "race" is wrong or does not exist, it is saying that "many scientists have rejected the notion of race" and this is accurate and NPOV compliant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rejection of race

message: * Human skin color- I had created a separate section on skin color because skin color is one of the most divisive issues with regards to race. However in the long version that Ramdrake and Slrubenstein are proposing Human skin color is in one of the 17 paragraphs on clines. If someone wanted info on skin they may not easily find it. In the version i propose it is available and gives details on the vitamin d hypothesis.
:Skin color is a major issue in race in the United States at a certain period of time, but not in all countries and certainly not at all times.  Be that as it may, the article clearly explains why scientists reject the relationship between skin color and race.  Here you give undue weight.  For most scientists race is not a central issue in race, and you want to put your own point of view in the article rather than educate people as to how researchers see things.  Why not creat a separate article on skin color if you think many readers will be interested just in skin color. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  skin color deserves a separate section, because race is generally defined by skin color terminology, ie whites, blacks, browns, etc.Muntuwandi 16:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about Caucasoids, Negroids, Mongoloids, etc.? These are defined at least as much by features as by skin color. You may have been right 100 or maybe even 50 years ago, but today, that view is a dwindling one.--Ramdrake 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: "race is generally defined by skin color terminology."  Who defines it this way?  Where?  And how do you know that black and white refer to skin color?  I have seen many people labeled "black" and their skin color is not black, and I have seen people labeled "white" and their skin color is not white.  In fact, many scientists (biological and social) have written about this and the article provides their findings.  But YOU would rather just put in your own point of view - violating NPOV and NOR - rather than read an article supported by scholarly research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skin color is a superficial trait, a secondary adaptation that is one of the least important determinats of racial classification. 82.100.61.114 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human skin color

message: *Human genetic variation - I propose using this because it clearly explains this in simple terms. No book on the human genome fails to mention that commonly sited numbers that humans are 99.9 % alike of the .1% variation there is only 8% btw races.85% of genetic variation occurs within a population. Please  search your version, it does not mention this most important aspect of human genetic variation.
:The current version provides this statistic along with the name of the researcher who originally published the finding and a citation, complying with our V policy and Cite Sources guideline. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Human genetic variation

message: * Race and Models of human evolution-multiregional hypothesis comparelong version and the  you can see in the long version all the references have no websites, they cannot be accessed through the web, so there is no way of immediately verifying their authenticity. Contrast short version all the links are immeadiately available.
:You think websites are better sources than books and journals?  You are way out of line.  Websites are often unreliable.  Articles in journals go through peer-review, as do books published by university presses.  These are the original and mainstream sources for the research and the article should draw on them.  Your version simply ignored what actual scientists are publishing and doing research on in universities today. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no way of immeadiately verifying that the journal is correctly cited if it is not available on the web, someone could easily fabricate a citation. Preference should be given to what is immeadiately available.Muntuwandi 16:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While there may be no way to verify some journal cites over the web without a subscription, a lot of journal articles can be found, at least in summary form on such sites as Medline. As far as fabrication is concerned, I must stringently remind you to assume good faith in citations as well. Preference does not need to be given to what is immediately accessible, if less acessible references are more germane and more reliable.--Ramdrake 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: And what is the point of an encyclopedia anyway?  To recycle stuff already on the web?  If it is already on the web, you do not need to put it in Wikipedia, people could just read your pet-theory web-pages.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and should aspire to high standards of research.  Especially if someone has no access to a good library, Wikipedia has an obligation of sharing with readers what good scholarly research shows.  How anyone could want to delete a citation to a scholarly article in an encyclopedia is beyond me. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: models of human evolution

message: Request for comments on the article size, organization and use of technical jargon.
#Two editors have been making massive cuts without consensus: Wobble/Alun, and Muntuwandi.  They have provided three different reasons (listed in this RFC) but I think this kind of scattered complaints confuses the issues.  I think that each one ought to be considered separately, because each one may have an independent solution.
===Article Size===
#I believe that the current article size is a appropriate.  Muntuwandi has argued that the recommended article size is 32 Kb.  But this is merely a recommendation.  Wikipedia has a wide range of articles on a wide range of topics.  Surely we do not want to take a "cookie-cutter" approach and try to make articles on, say, "Evolution," "Frodo," "Ghandi," and "water" all be the same size with the same format.  Different topic call for different treatments.  In all my experience at Wikipedia, this is one of the most controversial articles on an obviously controversial and complex subject.  It is controversial because it is a matter of debate among scientists and politicians and civic leaders.  It is complex because it has been studied from a wide variety of approaches, even within the academy, and because the word itself means different things not only to different people within one society; it has meant different things at different times and continues to mean different things in different parts of the world.  It is in my view simply impossible to represent all important points of view concerning all important dimensions of the topic accurately or adequately in a short article.  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.  In fact, when pressed, Muntuwandi and Alun have justified their actual cuts by claiming that they are cutting material to which the article gives "undue weight."  This is not a length issue, it is an NPOV issue.  Their claim of "undue weight" is just a way of saying that they do not take seriously the views they are cutting.  But other people take those views very seriously!!  This is a controversial topic.  I understand why many editors are passionate about their views.  But NPOV demands that articles include views that we passionately disagree with. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, two articles of about 32k in length each may not be able to present a full picture each; a single, longer article might succeed in doing that.--Ramdrake 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you looked at the featured article?  This version is much better - better sourced, better organized, better written, more accurate.  Wikipedia has improved a lot in the past few years and our standards are higher.  For the record, I do not in principle oppose shortening the article and spinning off content to linked articles.  But I am utterly opposed to the reckless way Muntuwandi is doing this.  Minimally we should discuss it step-by-step.  But M. is not despite his/her claims cutting it for readibility - s/he is cutting it in order to remove any discussion of scholarly literature that supports views s/he does not like.  That is not the way to move forward. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you really think "water" is as complex or as controversial a topic as "race?"  Why would you even consider its length as a standard for this article? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slrubenstein, you brought up the topic of water so i included if for comparison. Maybe it is not controversial but it can be complicated since almost every known living organism is dependent on it. However topics like Evolution and Human are more closely related to race and are still much smaller. Evolution is extremely controversial. But the article is still smaller. Muntuwandi 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with Slrubenstein that the overall structure is adequate and should be preserved; I also agree that some sections may gain from being condensed. However, the edits I've seen so far from the two editors of the opposite viewpoint were in vast majority wholesale deletions of sections, with little effort given to condensing information while preserving it.--Ramdrake 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The rambling Table of Contents — which frequently goes to the third level — is a tipoff to competing POVs that are dominating the article rather than being meshed into a well-organized, NPOV whole.  The article appears to have grown piecemeal by attempting to incorporate competing POVs, rather than presenting the well-thought-out encyclopedic entry staying tightly focused on the issue that was present in the original FA version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If we take a look at the table of contents, from before this controversy began
*table of contents april 29-three level 3 headings
*Race-two level 3 headings 
*table of contents for proposed intermediate version one level 3 heading. which i propose eliminating.Muntuwandi 12:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Request for comment

message: #I believe that the current article size is a appropriate.  Muntuwandi has argued that the recommended article size is 32 Kb.  But this is merely a recommendation.  Wikipedia has a wide range of articles on a wide range of topics.  Surely we do not want to take a "cookie-cutter" approach and try to make articles on, say, "Evolution," "Frodo," "Ghandi," and "water" all be the same size with the same format.  Different topic call for different treatments.  In all my experience at Wikipedia, this is one of the most controversial articles on an obviously controversial and complex subject.  It is controversial because it is a matter of debate among scientists and politicians and civic leaders.  It is complex because it has been studied from a wide variety of approaches, even within the academy, and because the word itself means different things not only to different people within one society; it has meant different things at different times and continues to mean different things in different parts of the world.  It is in my view simply impossible to represent all important points of view concerning all important dimensions of the topic accurately or adequately in a short article.  Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia.  In fact, when pressed, Muntuwandi and Alun have justified their actual cuts by claiming that they are cutting material to which the article gives "undue weight."  This is not a length issue, it is an NPOV issue.  Their claim of "undue weight" is just a way of saying that they do not take seriously the views they are cutting.  But other people take those views very seriously!!  This is a controversial topic.  I understand why many editors are passionate about their views.  But NPOV demands that articles include views that we passionately disagree with. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: However, two articles of about 32k in length each may not be able to present a full picture each; a single, longer article might succeed in doing that.--Ramdrake 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Have you looked at the featured article?  This version is much better - better sourced, better organized, better written, more accurate.  Wikipedia has improved a lot in the past few years and our standards are higher.  For the record, I do not in principle oppose shortening the article and spinning off content to linked articles.  But I am utterly opposed to the reckless way Muntuwandi is doing this.  Minimally we should discuss it step-by-step.  But M. is not despite his/her claims cutting it for readibility - s/he is cutting it in order to remove any discussion of scholarly literature that supports views s/he does not like.  That is not the way to move forward. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:56, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Size

message: Muntuwandi is a he. The numbers are based on copying from the screen and pasting into the edit window and using the page preview, its a quick way to get an estimate but then it includes the headings and image texts. dr pda is more accurate but it omits texts in bullets and prose in this table (Race#Summary_of_different_definitions_of_race) which should count because it is not data but paragraphs. in which case the prose size is about 71kb. The estimates for all above will also reduce when dr pda is used. so relatively speaking this article is still large. 
Using dr.pda these are article sizes of some topics that are equally complex or even more complex.
*Evolution 42kb
*water    42kb
*ghandi   42kb, 48kb with quotes
*Cricket  35kb and 38kb with bullets-featured article
*human    46kb
*Isaac Newton-  26kb- featured article
*Albert Einstein-34kb
*Music - 30kb
*Race     68kb and 71kb with bullets and table
on average the Race article is about 30kb larger. I do not see any justification for this because these topics are of equal complexity.
The issue I have with the established editors is that these same issues were raised in August 2006. So I am questioning their commitment to reviewing this article if after 10 months no effort has been made, it remains pretty much the same in structure and size.Muntuwandi 12:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think "water" is as complex or as controversial a topic as "race?"  Why would you even consider its length as a standard for this article? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Slrubenstein, you brought up the topic of water so i included if for comparison. Maybe it is not controversial but it can be complicated since almost every known living organism is dependent on it. However topics like Evolution and Human are more closely related to race and are still much smaller. Evolution is extremely controversial. But the article is still smaller. Muntuwandi 12:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: article size2

message: #I welcome a discussion of better ways to organize the article.  personally, I believe the article is well-organized.  After the introductory section, it does through the history of the term, then it goes through debates among evolutionary biologists and physical anthropologists (those scientists who study race), then it presentes views on the social construction of race (drawing on the work of another set of scholars: historians, cultural anthropologists, and sociologists), then it discusses the use of race outside of the academy.  I think this is a structure that accommodates all points of views and that covers all dimensions of the topic.  If someone can suggest a better way to organize it, let's discuss before making wholesale cuts. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Slrubenstein that the overall structure is adequate and should be preserved; I also agree that some sections may gain from being condensed. However, the edits I've seen so far from the two editors of the opposite viewpoint were in vast majority wholesale deletions of sections, with little effort given to condensing information while preserving it.--Ramdrake 20:05, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The rambling Table of Contents — which frequently goes to the third level — is a tipoff to competing POVs that are dominating the article rather than being meshed into a well-organized, NPOV whole.  The article appears to have grown piecemeal by attempting to incorporate competing POVs, rather than presenting the well-thought-out encyclopedic entry staying tightly focused on the issue that was present in the original FA version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

text: If we take a look at the table of contents, from before this controversy began
*table of contents april 29-three level 3 headings
*Race-two level 3 headings 
*table of contents for proposed intermediate version one level 3 heading. which i propose eliminating.Muntuwandi 12:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Organization

message: #I agree that all articles should be as clearly written as possible.  We should simplify when we can - but not at the price of being simplistic.  The articles on DNA, Special relativity, and Maxwell's equations have technical language.  Should we ban the use of algebraic equations or calculus from articles, because not all readers understand calculus?  That is absured.  We should strive to explain things as clearly as possible.  But some topics are complex.  Many evolutionary biologists study race in terms of genetic clusters.  A good encyclopedia will include an account of their research.  It will not cut such discussions because some people may be intimidated by science.  This is an encyclopedia, for goodness' sake. But as I said I am all for clear writing.  As a matter of fact, last week I rewrote the introduction to make it clearer, more direct and simple.  Let's discuss paragraphs that editors think can be improved.  Let's not have wholesale deletion of elements of the article one or two editors do not like or think important. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Technical Jargon

message: Since we dispute we should seek mediation or arbitration to help resolve this impasse.Muntuwandi 16:25, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would strongly suggest you let this RfC run its full course (about 2 weeks) and then maybe call for informal mediation. I really don't think this is a case that should be up for formal mediation yet.--Ramdrake 20:07, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If this eventually does go to formal mediation, I would like to know the mediator(s)'s credentials, political views, or in place, of (or addition to) political views, a clear and thorough history of being impartial, with above average credentials for a subject such as this. Not anyone can do this, fairly, in my humble opinion. I've seen some "mediation" that happened so quickly, and before (but a few) others knew what was going on, a decision was made...like that, snap. I would hate to have that happen to such a complex, controversial, multi-opinionated, multi-scientific, scholarly subject as this one. To have it be "judged" by just any mediator on-call, or however it's done here, and most importantly to be totally unbiased, is something that needs consideration. I doubt you'd find any one person, in fact I know one cannot do this.  We'd need a jury of 12, at least, and even then, it would/should take a while to arrive at consensus, if ever. JMHO - Jeeny Talk 04:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I just clicked on the mediation link at the top of the page. It's a committee, whew. I'm still concerned though. I want to see their licenses, social security cards, or whatever is used as ID in other countries, degrees, all diplomas, plus their pictures and the names and credentials of their ancestors. In addition to all that, a 500 word essay on why the individual feels they qualify to mediate this type of subject in at least two different languages. :p - Jeeny Talk 04:38, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Slrubenstein, thanks for explaining to me. Yes, I was misunderstanding, and became concerned. But, I really added the last bit with my tongue in my cheek. (my attempts at humor are better in person than I can ever translate with written words) After ... I thought things can never actually be deleted entirely. And the mediation may help, it may not, it may help for a while, and then start all over again. That's OK, though, as this is Wikipedia. Again, thanks for taking the time to explain the process, in a very short and simple way, so I get it. (so I wouldn't have to read many articles and check references, etc. lol) Cheers. :) - Jeeny Talk 14:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: This image chart, under the above heading in the article, is interesting, but in my opinion it would be much better if it were rotated so one does not have to tilt one's head to read it. It's a simple "rotate" maneuver and may fit better in the article too, if it needs to be there at all. I've done a sample, but the hosting site limited the size, so it is not clear, but the point is made by the rotation. You can see it at this link Rosenberg's 6 clusters of human population chart - Jeeny Talk 06:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: done. Paul B 10:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image was covering text, so, since it has already been changed I just collapsed it.P0M 20:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The distribution of genetic diversity

message: The most comprehensive and up to date discussion regarding race and biology was published in a Nature Genetics supplement in 2004. It is highly relevant to this article. Genetics for the human race Alun 06:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nature Genetics

message: The mediators seem reluctant to take up this case, but in the mean time we still need to discuss condensing this article. It needs to come down to 30-50kb of prose as per Article size. In doing this all the controversies can be summarized, we may find that most editors  are in agreement on many things. The more information we have the more likely we can find some little detail to disagree upon.Muntuwandi 22:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article has already branched off into many daughter articles. Most of them have received little editorial attention. So I support the general drive to cut down on its size by moving stuff to more specialized articles, even if the 30-50kb goal is not quite attained in the end. FilipeS 13:26, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation2

message: This section has a long string of assertions about ideas of "race" in Brazil -- none of which is given a citation. A book or two happen to be mention in this section, which suggests that the writer was probably drawing conclusions from the mentioned sources, but it isn't enough to give the name of a book and imply the the reader might find some justification for the encyclopedia entry by reading that book. P0M 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Race in Brazil 

message: The article currently states:
In Charles Darwin's most controversial book, The Descent of Man, he made strong suggestions of racial differences and European superiority.  In Darwin's view, stronger tribes of humans always replaced weaker tribes.  As savage tribes came in conflict with civilized nations, such as England, the less advanced people were destroyed. The destruction of the weaker peoples seemed desirable to many scientists at the time.  It was thought that "fit" people would replace the "unfit" and human evolution would be accelerated.
This is wholly unreferenced and seenms to be an extremely tendentious account of Darwin, who by the standards of the time underplays racial difference. This account differs markedly from our Descent of Man page. How about referring to writers who are clearly sanguine about inter-racial conflict and elinmination of "weaker" peoples - like Spencer? Paul B 12:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  I wonder when this krept into the article.  Spencer is closer but I am not sure he used the language of race.  As for Darwin, I would ask for specific page citations. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  yes he did make the quotes but it appears he was a little conflicted.Muntuwandi 21:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Please do not insert quotations into the middle of someone else's comment, completely changing its meaning. Is this quotation suposed to support what is claimed about Darwin? It doesn't. Paul B 22:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Descent of Man

message: The illustration 
 Neighbor-joining_tree.jpg
is now being used. It replaced the former illustrration
 Human_evolutionary_tree.jpg
But the text was not changed and refers to the features and the location (above rather than on the right side) of the old diagram. For instance, the text says "Chimpanzees and humans belong to different genera, indicated in Blue." But the two more-or-less blue area on the chart that readers see refer to Africans and to American Indians. If you look at the original diagram it is clear that the blue box is labeled "genera," and the sentence quoted above is appropriate to the diagram. P0M 04:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram swapped out, but text refers to the old diagram and needs to be fixed. 

message: The article currently says:
Studies of human genetic variation imply that Africa was the ancestral source of all modern humans, and that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa and displaced Homo erectus between 140,000 and 290,000 years ago (Cann et al. 1987). Most other groups, including Europeans, Oceanians, Asians, and Native Americans, were found to be a single related (monophyletic) group resulting from a later out-migration from Africa, which could reasonably be divided into West and East Eurasian groups.
Saying "most other groups...resulting from a later out-migration from Africa" makes it sound as though a prior group that resulted from an earlier out-migration. The first sentence says that Homo sapiens migrated out of Africa "and displaced Homo erectus." But the text does not identify the locations where the Homo erectus populations lived, or why the migrating Homo sapiens should have moved in on them and nowhere else.  Actually, I doubt that the writer intended that odd picture to be created. It sounds like the writer refers to what Spencer Wells details as the first wave of migration that followed the lands close to the ocean and ended up in Australia. But who knows? Will someone who know what was actually intended please see to fixing the passage so that it accurately and coherently represents the intended meaning? P0M 04:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that this is unclear.  I can work on it, butnot until Tuesday ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I have done some work on the section but hope to do more if not this week then next week. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incoherent paragraph 

message: The article says: 
The main characteristic seen on this phylogenetic tree agrees with the relation of the system of the group of human clarified as a rule by the polymorphism of a past protein and the season of DNA of a recent nucleus.
Surely somebody has vandalized the text. I will refrain from characterizing it otherwise. P0M 04:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: An anonymous user added it with no explanation.  I deleted it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can anyone explain this sentence? 

message: Here is a paragraph that seems to be going somewhere and then just stops. Perhaps the reader is intended to supply the conclusion?  The first part says:
[The foregoing] is interpreted to mean that the human species is relatively young, perhaps too young to evolve subspecies.
So the second half of the paragraph might be expected to end with a contrasting conclusion.  Instead, it just trails off into nebulosity. 
However, with a genome of approximate 3 billion nucleotides, on average two humans differ at approximately 3 million nucleotides. Most of these single nucleotide polymorphisms are neutral, but some are functional and influence the phenotypic differences between humans. It is estimated that about 10 million SNPs exist in human populations, where the rarer SNP allele has a frequency of at least 1% (see International HapMap Project).
So what?  Context indicates that the reader is supposed to believe that the foregoing proves or at least indicates somehow that there might be or actually are subspecies, but the writer seems not to dare to say it. How does this kind of writing serve the needs of the average well-informed reader? P0M 05:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the rest of this paragraph? 

message: People who are writing this article should remember that they are writing for the average well-informed reader. The sub-section that comes up for attention next (I'm basically working backwards by major sections) is so bad that it's easy to explain the problem:
Race, clade and lineage
Rachel Caspari (2003) argued that clades...
This is the first place ever in the article were the word "clade" is mentioned, and it doesn't even get a wiki-link. If one were to write the argument out in junior high school English it would be perfectly clear, but throwing curves with technical language makes things mystifyingly "professional" and implies to the reader that it must just be over his/her head.  That is a double disservice to the reader. P0M 05:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've linked to clade and add a little to give the reader some idea of why we are even talking about clades. P0M 18:57, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have added a definition of clade.  Cladistics is meaningful in relation to taxonomies, so I moved the section on clades to follow the one on subspeices.  It is my understanding that the concept of clades and subspecies are closely related, and I think it makes more sense where I put it.  What do people think? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:37, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Throw the reader a life preserver

message: "The Multiregional model" says:
Leiberman and Jackson (1995), however, have noted that this model depends on several findings relevant to race:
Here is one for Aun. I believe that this passage assumes that the word "race" has a clear referent, in other words that there really are [races] in the world 
The text continues:
 Regional variations in these [morphological] features can thus be taken as evidence for long term differences among genus Homo individuals that prefigure different races among present-day Homo sapiens individuals. 
This passage does not qualify the word “race” in any way. It does not say which of many possible definitions of the word “race” is intended. Leiberman and Jackson presumably give their definition somewhere, and the text ought to make it clear that they are taking the morphological features as support for their own particular theory of race. P0M 05:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I can tell they do not define race, which dissappoints me.  If anyone else can read the article and find it, great.  In the meantime I have at least tried to clear up what they are saying in this case. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Instance of "race" taken as a word with an agreed upon referent 

message: With the advent of the modern synthesis in the early 20th century, biologists developed a new, more rigorous model of race as subspecies.
The reader can interpret this passage two ways, and the more natural interpretation is the wrong one (or so I would guess).
 biologists developed a new, more rigorous model of 
 ((race as subspecies)).
 biologists developed a new, more rigorous model of race 
 ((as subspecies)).
The section title is "Race as subspecies", which suggests that now we are going to see how the word "race" was newly equated with the word "subspecies." If you start with that misconception, then the passage quoted above would be interpreted to mean that race used to be some other kind of idea, but at this early 20th century point scientists decided that "race" = "subspecies".  
Linnaeus effectively divided Homo sapiens into "four varieties" or "four races," (depending on which source you read) and he thought of the "differences as expressive of divine intent." (home.uchicago.edu/~rjr6/articles/Race--Oxford%20Companion.doc)
Structurally it is clear that he listed four groups indented below Homo sapiens. 
So equating "race" with "subspecies" was nothing new by the early 20th century, and the text presumably meant to indicate that this "race = subspecies" idea was given a more rigorous treatment. That interpretation is actually supported by the context of the entire paragraph and the entire section, but the reader should not be put in doubt if s/he has gained some correct idea that some earlier writers treated "race" as a biological sub-division, an infraspecific designation. P0M 18:36, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I rewrote the opening and I think I partially address your complaint.  I have two problems: first, while I am sure that some scientists who have identified "race" with"subspecies," there are no citations (and since I did not write this section, I do not know who the main proponents are).  This leads me to my second problem: I wonder whether the identification of race with subspaces predates the rise of population genetics and the modern synthesis.  Does anyone know? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:43, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Except for people who stick with a 20th century definition of "race" used in biology, where it is taken as a synonym for "subspecies" (as in "races of honeybees"), the word "race" has been used only for  infrasubspecies groupings of humans. I.e., we are all of one subspecies, H. sapiens sapiens, and among us are found the races A, B...X. Apparently the last major scientist to think that black people, brown people, white people, etc. were subspecies was Linnaeus, who thought that God had made them separate. Everybody who came after him and had a substantial reputation as a scientist thought something like, "Too messy. Too gradual. Not discrete."  P0M 00:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambiguous formulation 

message: Alun and others (myself included) have questioned whether this article presumes the validity of [race].  I still have to work through his arguments with regard to lineages, etc., but the changes he made that were immediately reverted do not seem to me to have been unreasonable or to have done anything more than replace some outdated information. 
Except for the many spots, cited above, where the article is simply very badly written, I do not see any obvious places where the article creates a presumption for the reality of [race]. 
On the other hand, it has always been very difficult to discuss the meaning of the word "race" without assuming one way or another something that should not be assumed or conceded. A passage may appear to any given editor to be neutral because the way it is stated fits his/her preconceived notions.  As I have time I will bring these cases up one by one and suggest ways of NPOVing them.  P0M 19:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using an ax to chop an ax handle 

message: I think there are two issues here: we should not use a word anachronistically, and we also need to acknowledge that the meaning of a word can change.  For example, the Romans did use the word "race" but what they meant by it was different from what Europeans meant in the late 1800s.  "Race" does not have one meaning and one purpose of the history section is to show that.  That said, I think FelipeS is right that the use of "race" applied to ancient Egyptians appears to be speculative and anachronistic.  I read the linked article too and I saw one quote from an anthropologist or archeologist that was speculative and introduced the word "ethnicity."  That quote does not clear things up - it could be just as anachronistic to project the word "ethnicity" back to the Egyptians.  But based on that quote it seems fair to say that at least one scholar thinks that the way ancient Egyptians classified different groups may have been more like our concpet "ethnicity" than race.  Is there another scholar who argues that the Egyptians thought more in terms of races?  I think felipeS is right - we need to see if there are any sources to support that claim. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:37, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We have discussed this in detail in the past without a clear resolution. Firstly, all modern words dealing with complex and ambivalent concepts like race and ethnicity are anachronistic when applied to such an ancient and alien culture. The question is which word is the least worst quivalent to what the Egyptians were addressing. The fact that all ancient cultures had a view that compares to the modern idea of ethnicity is undisputed. Romans and Sabines were different "ethnicities" until they united and - in effect - became Romans. Yes, the modern word race - in some of its usages - can also be used to describe the difference between Romans and Sabines, but on the whole it's less useful than ethnicity. With the Egyptian model illustrated by the picture from the Book of Gates we are dealing with something that seems to be better described by the concept of race, since the Egyptians are depicting groups of peoples populating different parts of the "world" as they know it, divided by physical characteristics including the classic ones used to type races in the modern sense of the word (skin colour, nose shape, hair type etc). Here, though the quasi-anthropological typing of "race" is not clearly distinguished from ethnicities (marked by clothing, hairstyles etc). The point of this passage is try to describe this ambiguity as clearly as possible. By saying absolutely that "it's not race it's ethnicity" the central point is lost. This passage is also important because it shows that even at this stage there is a kind of "racial hierarchy", since the "four race" model is intended to demonstrate that the Egyptians occupy the centre of the world. Their physiologies are central (including their mid-range skin colour) just as the Nile is the centre of the world, and their culture is central to the Divine Plan. Indeed there is even the view that the physical differences are a sign of differences in temperament, as in 19thC racial ideologies  ("Their tongues are separate in speech, And their natures as well; Their skins are distinguished..." Great Hymn to the Aten) Paul B 13:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well said. P0M 17:40, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The central point is that the division of humanity into distinct ethnicities can be traced back as far as we have any records at all, since there have always been distinct, often conflicting, tribes, but the first evidence we have of something that begins to look like "race" is here. Paul B 13:15, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is getting out of hand. Is this a scientific article or what? What about putting all this scientific jargon jumbo in its proper place, such as here, it needs expanding, so put it there. This article is too long, forks in too many directions, is very confusing, even for an educated person, and is definitely too difficult to read for the average informed reader. It's best to keep it simple, (I know this is not a simple topic...but) as people have many definitions of "race", or get rid of it altogether. Branch off (disambig?) to different articles, do not make this one only a geneticist-scientist can understand. IMO. Or add this "stuff" here! Sheesh. - Jeeny Talk 04:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Others have raised the possibility of having two separate articles on race as a biological concept and race as a concept in the social sciences.  I think this is a bad idea because it reifies academic disciplines - biologists and sociologists do indeed do different things, but they both hapen to look at race and any reasonable account of what race is or isn't or how it has been studied needs to draw on several bodies of literature.  Believe me, geneticists and social scientists actually do read one another's work.  I am NOT saying the article is perfect.  It can be better organized and I have just tried some reorganization.  Let's keep isolating problems, as POM has done, and addressing them, and see where it gets us. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ancient history 

message: A mediator has agreed to take on this case if all the parties involved are agreable to mediation. for further info see Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Race.Muntuwandi 12:13, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: mediation3

message: I'm not commenting on the content, but the graphics. Yes, they are good, but for vector shapes/text it should never be saved as a JPG. If the person who created them would use the original and save them as GIF or PNG so they are clearer and do not have artifacts, would be ideal. But do not save a JPG as a GIF or PNG as doing so would still produce the artifacts. It should be originally saved as such, after making the vector shapes. If I had the original I could do it, but since it is in JPG format, it would be a lot of work as I'd have to recreate the whole graphic. Of course WP says SVG is preferred overall, but I do not have a capable program for that format. GIF or PNG would be much closer, than JPG. This may seem trivial, and it may be, but presentation is important too, and formating graphics the best way is simple, really (if one had the original, and if it were not JPG format). :) Of course, this only applies to the vector shapes/text, not images which is another thing.  - Jeeny Talk 13:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't diagree.  However, I think I figured out the appropriate place to put the charts and am returning them to the article.  I didn't make the charts and if you ever figure out a way to improve them by all means make the change. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphics/charts/maps

message: I ended up putting the Sauer citation in the section on law enforcement.  Sauer, Norman J. (1992) "Forensic Anthropology and the Concept of Race: If Races Don't Exist, Why are Forensic Anthropologists So Good at Identifying them" in Social Science and Medicine 34(2): 107-111. NB this is a top-ranked journal. The answer to the question (according to Sauer) is that forensic anthropologists apply racial labels to human remains not because they believe biological races exist but because they are "predicting" that when the person was alive that particular racial label would have been applied to them. This is relevant to the section on biomedicine but forensic anthropology applies mostly to law enforcement, so it seems most relevant there. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:50, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forensic anthropology 

message: The chart at the top of the section on lineages refers to K = 2, etc., without giving any indication of what K stands for. Give the poor reader a break. P0M 04:12, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: K is the number of clusters. This work uses a complex computer programme to search the data for alleles that tend to group together (cluster). Scientists can set the k value to the number of "clusters" they want the data to be partitioned into. Often "clusters" don't produce any discernible geographic distributuin, but when they do people get very excited and start talking about "race". This is multi locus allele clustering, and it has nothing to do with lineages, anyone can see that in fact these clusters are diffuse and are shared by many different individuals and populations. Alun 10:52, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I tweaked the caption text a little so it will be clearer to first-time readers.  P0M 02:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  K what?