Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 22

message: I understand the article is about race the concept, but I wondered about there not seeming to be any list of the races. I tried looking for an article called "races", but no luck. Really what I was looking for was to see how many white races are said to exist, though. 84.202.202.2 21:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is only one race, human. But if you're interested in the races scientists alleged existed in the past, and some still believe in, see Race (historical definitions). FilipeS 21:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very noble words. Shame that they are so far from the reality. Centrum99 06:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Got anything factual to contribute? If not, kindly find yourself a soapboax in another website. Wikipedia is not one. FilipeS 12:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks 192.234.16.2 and P0M! Interesting information. I think "species" is not so much what I was thinking about, but rather "traits." I think the Lapps look different from Scandinavians, and perhaps Russians also look different from Scandinavians. So perhaps there are differences between white people -- like a similar skin tone may be shared by Native Americans and Japanese, but few would say they are the same "race" just based on that. I'd say, considering how central "race" is to humans, the current article reflects that our knowledge, I mean generally, has lots of interesting progress to make still. (Just thinking out loud, here... :) Thanks again for your good replies and information. 84.202.202.2 04:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It's obvious, but not politically corect. There are three primary races: caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid. Secondary races are mixtures of these three and are not true races.Lestrade 16:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Since skin colors have infinite gradations and degrees, the adjective "white" cannot be used to describe humans. Does it mean pure white? If not, does it mean off-white, eggshell white, yellowish white, brownish white, greyish white, etc.? Using color, which has endlessly different tints, shades, and hues, as a basis of race is a poor idea.Lestrade 15:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Skin colors not only have a wide range, the average color of a population in Iceland is very different from the average color of a population in Malawi. If you jump from Iceland to Malawi you may conclude that there are two very different kinds of people. On the other hand, if you walk and kayak from one place to the other you will see the "infinite gradation" phenomenon. But the same thing happens if you look at other traits such as head shape. If you look at genetic features, you see gradations too, but you don't see them forming along the same lines.  There are mappings of genetic characteristics in books that you could look up, but just to get an idea of what I am talking about, imagine covering the palm of your left hand with blue paint and the palm of your right hand with red paint, have a piece of letter-sized paper positioned horizontally on the table, and make a handprint with each hand so that the finger areas cross each other.  The red color represents one genetic trait (e.g., brown or black hair) and the blue color represents another (e.g., wavy hair). In some areas one trait may predominate, and in other areas the other trait may predominate, and sometimes you find an area where both traits are about equally represented, and people who have wavy black hair. If red and blue represent traits that are "race markers," then you have a problem. So the fall-back position is to say, "Well, Ms. X has 94% of the traits that would make her a Klingonoid, so let's call her a Klingonoid. Mr. Y, however, has only 93% of those traits, so we can't accept him as a Klingonoid. He has to be regarded as some kind of "mixed breed." Somebody else sets the line at 90% and somebody else is satisfied with 51%. Then, politics being what it is, the percentages go up and down depending on how people want to bend the discussion.P0M 17:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I think I am normally camel colored (or khaki?  Some catalogues call it "sand").  When I get really sick though I think I am the color of bazooka bubble-gum that has been chewed a long time.  Not sure how to classify that. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Using color as a basis of race, I'd say that you are racially a Turkish Taffy person.Lestrade 16:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: YES!  By gum, I should have realized that myself! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

text: No more and no less distinct that other "racial" groups. We have all the same origins.--Ramdrake 14:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that origin (singular). We all originally came from a few one-celled organisms in Africa. But, seriously, the white race is becoming less and less distinct. What race is Mariah Carey, Johnny Depp, or Arnold Schwarzenegger? Lestrade 02:26, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to MotT, the first two are not white, but I believe Arnold is white.--DarkTea 11:35, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Actually, I believe the only thing that's about prove is that the first hominids arose in Africa. As far as where the first one-celled organisms arose, I don't think anybody knows.--Ramdrake 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I guess it all depends on what criteria you use to define "White". Races as we know them might be totally irrelevant a few thousand years down the line, maybe sooner.--Ramdrake 16:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose we could define a white as a black, but if we wanted the real definition of white we would have to go to here: white people or white people.--DarkTea 17:43, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  But what races are there? 

message: On race and intelligence, please  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for comments 

message: We do not pursue truth in this matter. We pursue usefulness. It is more useful to conclude that African Americans are innately equal to other races in intelligence. Therefore, whether they are or aren't, it should be our policy to act as if they are. The reason is as follows: If it is agreed that African Americans are innately less intelligent, then they will have no motivation to try to improve and to try to learn difficult subjects. There will be a feeling of utter hopelessness, which will lead to despair. However, if it is agreed that they are equally intelligent, then they will have some motivation and, even if they fail, the standards can be lowered or tests can be eliminated altogether. In other words, it is more constructive for society to agree by convention that African Americans are of equal intelligence, whether it is strictly true or not.Lestrade 21:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Or, people simply could use common sense.  deeceevoice 12:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But, it is not scrambled yet to the point where Asians, Whites, and Blacks can be shown to score similarly on SATs and IQ tests. We look forward to the day when results are scrambled enough to show that no difference exists.Lestrade 14:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Circular reasoning. You are assuming the reason for the observed differences is genetic. But we've already seen that genetic differences between human populations are insignificant. FilipeS 18:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Genetic differences between races are significant enough to be easily spotted both with eyes and by genetic tests. Are you seriously think that there are no difference?--Igor "the Otter" 19:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. There are genetic differences between people. Races are just in your mind. FilipeS 22:38, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: User:FilipeS, you are so right. I was just looking at photographs of Idi Amin and Vladimir Putin. The genetic differences are so insignificant that I could hardly tell one from the other.Lestrade 20:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you tell apart Idi Amin from Milton Obote and Vladimir Putin from Mikhail Gorbachev? There is no "Idi Amin" race or "Vladimir Putin" race. There are individuals, and these will share some features with each other. Some of the features are selected so that their frequency increases in the environment where there are adaptive (some others will drift), but the features that are not selected will be shared across environments. And this is the bulk of our genome. It is also important to realize that a gene under selection (e.g for skin color) will be very fast delinked from its genetic background thank to recombination (in particular, the space between recombination hotspots in humans is estimated to be between 100-200 kilobases) so that only the gene (or feature) under selection will be fixed, whereas the diversity on the rest of the genome will be mantained. 194.94.96.194 18:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: The conversation between us was about IQ, remember? Or did you run out of arguments? FilipeS 22:39, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe, it is good idea to describe in this article, which are the differences in IQ between races. Who got higher score and who got lower. You may be mean that 99% of human genome is similar to all races then you say that races are only in my mind. So there are more common then different. May be. But cat's genome is 90% similar to human's one. So there are nine times more similar between human and cat genetically then different, so what? What is in my mind? Color of the skin and others racial differences? Haplogroups? Different sizes of the brain? Different IQ scores? What more do you need to see that races exist? The significance of the differences is not in number of differences/similarities, but in their qualities.--Igor "the Otter" 09:00, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IQ tests simply cannot be used to compare across races or social groups. The reason for this is that they are standardized tests, i.e. the scores are normalized so that teh average score is 100 points and 1SD is 15 points. The normalization is done independently for every version of the test (and also over time). So, as an example, we have a test designed on and for English speakers and one one and for for German speakers. The two tests are then standardized independently as I mentioned before (average 100, 1SD=15), which makes a comparision between the two meaningless. So in order to compare two populations you have to construct a perfectly balanced sample of people to take exactly the same test. And again, you wouldn't get rid of the problem. In the original design of IQ tests, questions where an entire category of people scores exceptionally low compared to the rest are removed. This should be done also when comparing across "races". I think it is important to realize that the harm that can be done by misunderstanding reasearch on races, genetics or IQ is enormous and therefore extreme caution should be used and above all prejudices left aside. 194.94.96.194 18:18, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

text: And, either way, there already is a specialized article about Race and intelligence. FilipeS 18:57, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The enormous harm to our civilization was already done. By bringing millions of low-IQ people to Europe. 82.100.61.114 22:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

text: They should feel right at home, then. FilipeS 22:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: IQ

message: I've noticed in some WP articles they talk about the "XXXian people". "People" can mean "persons" but that is obviously not what they mean - they mean "race" (or "ethnicity", a synonym). So I'm making it my mission to replace "XXXian people" wherever it occurs with "XXXian race". This will get me into disputes with Wikicrats who are promoting their ethno/racial "Peoples". Fourtildas 04:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "peoples" has become the most common modern equivalent to the most traditional meaning of "race". I see no point in making a mission out of changing all uses of "peoples" to "race", which would be much ado about nothing much. I suggest that you need to ask the question "will this change improve this article?"Paul B 11:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

text: Please refrain from doing this, as it would be incorrect. Not all peoples are "races" but for some peoples can also be "races".  For one XXXian people, can be used to identify nationality, rather than "race" (e.g Iranian). Furthermore, the fact that you know that this will get you in dispute with Wikicrafts, is a clair sign that you should not do it. Please remember:  WP:NOT#SOAP and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND and doing what you are planning is clarly againstthe spirit of both. So it would be better if you use your enegy in more productive tasks. 194.94.96.194 18:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "People" = "Race" 

message: Shouldn't it be stated  explicitly at the beginning that races have common ancestry? As it stands, according to the first paragraph, bald people or any self-identified group could be a race. It should say up front that the article is about the modern meaning, "one of the major divisions of mankind", and not about the many other usages of the word "race" you will find in a dictionary, such as "tribe, nation, or people". Presumably the article is about that particular concept, not all concepts described by "race". 
Also, my English teacher would red-pencil "The term race tries ...". 24.64.165.176 04:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is unnecessary.  Virtually all life-scientists understand that all life has a common ancestor - you and me and dogs and bacteria have a common ancestor.  It's just not germaine. Creationists may believe that each species was created independently, and there may be racist creationists who believe each race was created independently, but that should be dealt with perhaps in the article on racism or creationism, not here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Ancestry ?? 

message: I deleted a few quotes that SecurID put in the article for two reasons: first, a section of an article should not just consist of a selection of quotes - that is not how to write an article.  Second, this article has a structure and I see no reason to create a new section called "arguments against race" as if there are just two sides to an argument, when the article already provides much more sophisticated coverage of debates concerning race.  Third, the views expressed in those quotes are already in the article, in appropriate sections. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are just a scattering of opinions.  I do not reject the validity of the opinions or the importance of representing them in the article - but what is important is why many scientists have reached these opinions, and the article already provides an account of the scientific research and debates that led scientists to these opinions.  Since we already cite the actual scientists who conducted the research and led the debateas, I see no reason for adding random quotes from random people that add no substance to the article.  Any actual information in the above quotes is already in the article.  And the POV that these quotes represent is alreadyin the article too. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem. I was going to say "Goods news, they are there - albeit in a slightly different form. I hope section 0 can be fixed with the above in mind." (Emph. added) Anyway, happy editing. - Fred 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, these are not "random" people, these are quotes from leading researchers in that field. Second, talking about POV, the whole article implies the POV that race has a scientific basis, while the most recent studies from leading researchers reject that idea. The informations I added might be already mentioned, but they are well hidden in tons of text, while the outdated view of race as a scientifc concept appears to be the prominent message. If I could do as I want to, I would put the quotes I added right on top of the article and rewrite the whole thing, but I'm aware that this would be indeed POV. But I want to have at least one bold section in this article to balance all these sections about alleged "scientific" race concepts, and to make it cristal clear, even for the lazy reader, that the discussed so-called "scientific" concepts are no longer accepted as such. SecurID 17:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of the quotes should be incorporated into the article as reference material to the antiracialist viewpoint the article as a whole seems to state a lot of things about what "some scientists" think without attributing it directly to someone. I think these quotes are useful when moving towards sourcing this article appropriately. For example the quote by the AAA illusrates nicely that this is in fact the mainstream viewpoint within social sciences. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Suggestion: There is a section called "Summary of different definitions of race", we could add a similar section, something like "Summary of arguments against Race as a scientific concept"SecurID 17:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree when you say that the article is properly referenced and NPOV. Even though it does represent all viepoint I think it does give a great amount of undue weight to the racialist viewpoint and that it has an implicit bias towards a biological/genetic understanding of the concept race. I think the added quotes could be interesting and useful for the article if used in a manner so that they coroborate the statement that it is in fact the mainstream viewpoint within several scientific fields to see race as a social rather than a biological concept. SecurID is not using wikipedia as a soapbox but simply trying to counteract a bias which is evident throuhgout the wikipedia articles on genetics and race. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how the quotes I want to have included would invite and legitimize people who disagree with me to use this article as a soapbox. You claim that these informations are redundant, so these people are already "invited" by earlier versions. And I don't think that "avoiding to attract opposing voices" is a valid reason to remove sourced informations. But since you agree that summarizing the "arguments against race as a scientifc concept" is a good idea, let's work on that. Any suggestion for the outline? SecurID 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I will try to give it a shot over the weekend SecurID 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  explanation for recent deletion 

message: For the record, these are here. Something here may find their way into an article needing editing.  For what its worth. 
*Arguments against the concept of Race	 
	 
Dr. Sylvia Spengler, U.C. Berkeley Genetics	 
Trying to mix genetics with race is, to my mind, inappropriate; cannot be done...Race is something we do to each other; it has nothing to do with what our DNA does to us.http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/kron/archive/1998/02/23/race_part1.dtl&type=special	 
	 
Eric Lander, director of the Human Genome Sequencing Lab, Whitehead Institute	 
Any two humans on this planet are more than 99.9 percent identical at the molecular level. Racial and ethnic differences are all indeed only skin deep. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,41619,00.html	 
	 
J. Craig Venter, Ph.D., President and Chief Scientific Officer	 
Celera Genomics Corp. 	 
The concept of race has no genetic or scientific basis. In the five Celera genomes there is no way to tell one ethnicity from another. Society and medicine treats us all as members of populations, whereas as individuals we are all unique and population statistics do not apply. No serious scholar in this field thinks that race is a scientific concept. It just is not. http://www.celera.com/celera/pr_1056647999	 
	 
American Anthropological Association 	 
Evidence from the analysis of genetics (e.g., DNA) indicates that most physical variation lies within so-called racial groups. This means that there is greater variation within "racial" groups than between them.http://www.aaanet.org/stmts/racepp.htm
Now to check that I'm not being buffaloed. Fred 16:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These are just a scattering of opinions.  I do not reject the validity of the opinions or the importance of representing them in the article - but what is important is why many scientists have reached these opinions, and the article already provides an account of the scientific research and debates that led scientists to these opinions.  Since we already cite the actual scientists who conducted the research and led the debateas, I see no reason for adding random quotes from random people that add no substance to the article.  Any actual information in the above quotes is already in the article.  And the POV that these quotes represent is alreadyin the article too. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ahem. I was going to say "Goods news, they are there - albeit in a slightly different form. I hope section 0 can be fixed with the above in mind." (Emph. added) Anyway, happy editing. - Fred 16:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: First of all, these are not "random" people, these are quotes from leading researchers in that field. Second, talking about POV, the whole article implies the POV that race has a scientific basis, while the most recent studies from leading researchers reject that idea. The informations I added might be already mentioned, but they are well hidden in tons of text, while the outdated view of race as a scientifc concept appears to be the prominent message. If I could do as I want to, I would put the quotes I added right on top of the article and rewrite the whole thing, but I'm aware that this would be indeed POV. But I want to have at least one bold section in this article to balance all these sections about alleged "scientific" race concepts, and to make it cristal clear, even for the lazy reader, that the discussed so-called "scientific" concepts are no longer accepted as such. SecurID 17:04, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think some of the quotes should be incorporated into the article as reference material to the antiracialist viewpoint the article as a whole seems to state a lot of things about what "some scientists" think without attributing it directly to someone. I think these quotes are useful when moving towards sourcing this article appropriately. For example the quote by the AAA illusrates nicely that this is in fact the mainstream viewpoint within social sciences. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 16:55, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Suggestion: There is a section called "Summary of different definitions of race", we could add a similar section, something like "Summary of arguments against Race as a scientific concept"SecurID 17:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree when you say that the article is properly referenced and NPOV. Even though it does represent all viepoint I think it does give a great amount of undue weight to the racialist viewpoint and that it has an implicit bias towards a biological/genetic understanding of the concept race. I think the added quotes could be interesting and useful for the article if used in a manner so that they coroborate the statement that it is in fact the mainstream viewpoint within several scientific fields to see race as a social rather than a biological concept. SecurID is not using wikipedia as a soapbox but simply trying to counteract a bias which is evident throuhgout the wikipedia articles on genetics and race. ·Maunus· ·ƛ· 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I don't see how the quotes I want to have included would invite and legitimize people who disagree with me to use this article as a soapbox. You claim that these informations are redundant, so these people are already "invited" by earlier versions. And I don't think that "avoiding to attract opposing voices" is a valid reason to remove sourced informations. But since you agree that summarizing the "arguments against race as a scientifc concept" is a good idea, let's work on that. Any suggestion for the outline? SecurID 17:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I will try to give it a shot over the weekend SecurID 21:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contents of recent deletion 

message: Hi. Sub-(sub-)Section 2.4.4 could become a section. This view is verifiably predominant, well supported by evidence, demonstrably unifying, and has the added virtue of being true. Fred 19:06, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not about truth.  Also, 2.4.4 parallels 2.4.3.  If we make 2.4.4 a major section we would have to do the same with 2.4.3, and I do not think we should do that because 2.4.3 makes sense only in terms of cladistics (2.2.2). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. We have established that truth should be subordinated below the fourth section (and only in the context of other slightly notable topics), can you demolish the rest of my arguement while I'm here?  I am finding them a burdensome principles to observe.  I look forward to liberation from them. - Fred 15:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which section is 2.4.4 again?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:44, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  It is the one stating what most reasonable think. And is verifiable. And is likely to cause unity instead of conflict. The most important virtue of it was dimissed above. Please don't mention it again. - Fred 16:05, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Well, Wikipedia is all about verifiability, so we are on strong ground here.  But we are also for NPOV which means we should not expect unity and we shouldn't even seek to impose it at controversial articles - on the contrary, we want a diversity of views.  So I do not know what "demonstrably unifying" means except it unites all people who agree with the matter and they are already united at least on this matter!  What "most reasonable people think" is a matter of opinion and this is precisely why we have an NPOV policy.  One day in the future (as has happened in the past), a user will come here saying that all reasonable people think that race is biologically real and he or she will come with all sorts of quotes many from PhD.s to support it.  That person will say the article should start with 2.4.3 and how will you respond to them?  Ultimately, you will just say "You are wrong" which here at Wikipedia means you and s/he just do not agree - which is why Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth, and why NPOV is so important.  Right now, this article complies with ATT and NPOV, our core policies.  The introduction states that most scientists have come to reject race as a scientific concept and have turned to viewing it as a social construction.  The article details the debates among scientists and gives considerable attention to those who moved away from race to other concepts, and about a quarter or third of the article goes into detail on race as a social construction.  For such a controversial topic that is some achievement.  So it still includes views you don't like or agree with?  Alas, that is the nature of Wikipedia! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: While I am still not sure which section 2.4.4 is (for some reason the TOC doesn't show for me) I agree with Fred in that the article gives undue weight to the racialist viewpoint and downplays the sociological one which IS the prevailing view in science and in the world generally. We have to take steps to mend this and while making a subsection into a main section may not be the best way to do this, I think it is a fair suggestion that should be considered and not just waved off. How would you improve the article SLRubenstein? Or do you think it is fully perfect as is?·Maunus· ·ƛ· 11:15, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: 2.4.3 is the argument for race as lineage (the only view held by scientists today; all statistics I know of say most biologists accept this view); 2.4.4 is the argument against race as lineage.  To get back to Manus's main point, I honestly do not see how this article gives undue weight to the so-called racialist viewpoint (and if you do not think many people, including many biologists, hold this view, I fear you are mistaken).  First, the introduction has three paragraphs and the first two stress that most scientists view race as a social construct - the third paragraph states that some scientists continue to believe it is biologically valid, which is true.  I don't see how the introduction is biased in favor of race as biologically real.  Second, the history of the race concept goes into detail about how evolutionary scientists moved away from the idea of race as a biological concept, and it cites all the people who did the major and pioneering research: specifically, Boas, Montagu, Wilson and Brown, Brace, Livingston, Ehrlich and Holm, and Lewontin - these are the researchers who actually demonstrated the meaningless of race. Also, while it is true that the section on the argument for race as lineage (the only meaningful scientific/biological use of race left) is a little longer than the section on the argument against race as lineage, that is because the argument against is so simple and straightforward - in this case, length of the section does not in my opinion indicate bias.  The section on the argument against just does not need to be any longer.  Finally, about a third of the article is specifically on race as a social construct.  I just do not see how anyone can think that the view that race is biological is invalid and that we must view race as a social construct is in anyway downplayed in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:35, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section 

message: (Copied from my user talk page)
Just so you know what I meant: if you add a section called "arguments against race as a biological concept" or however you word it, I assure you that womeone will - within a few weeks or months - add a section called "arguments for ..."  That said, I would not have cut what you added had I not sincerely thought that the points had already been made in the article, citing more important authorities (specifically, Boas, Montagu, Wilson and Brown, Brace, Livingston, Ehrlich and Holm, and Lewontin - these are the researchers who actually demonstrated the meaningless of race).  Also, the introduction has three paragraphs and the first two stress that most scientists view race as a social construct - the third paragraph states that some scientists continue to believe it is biologically valid, which is true.  I don't see how the introduction is biased in favor of race as biologically real.  Also, while it is true that the section on the argument for race as lineage (the only meaningful scientific/biological use of race left) is a little longer than the section on the argument against race as lineage, that is because the argument against is so simple and straightforward - in this case, length of the section does not in my opinion indicate bias.  The section on the argument against just does not need to be any longer.  Finally, about a third of the article is specifically on race as a social construct.  I just do not see how anyone can think that the view that race is biological is invalid and that we must view race as a social construct is in anyway downplayed in the article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think the scholars listed are out-dated.  It is true that we are learning a lot through genomics that they did not know but much of what we learn confirms their views concerning the importance of clines and populations.  I sense a bias on your part that if someone did research in the 1940s they are not as important as someone who does research now.  That just is not true.  for example, an article on quantum mechanics will cite Einstein, Planck and Bohr even though they did their research some time ago.  It is still relevant.  By the way, the opposing views to the more recent research are expressed in the section, "Arguments against race as lineages." Buddy, the section already exists Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you allow me to interpret th statement of SecurID I understood it to mean that it looks like the views of those eminent scholars are outdated because the information that comes later seems to contradict them rather than corroborate them. That makes it look like their views are just as outdated as Huxleys and other 19th century anthropologists idea of race, rather than state that their views are actually teh foundations of modern understaning of the concept "race".·Maunus· ·ƛ· 15:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

text: My response then would be to strengthen the section, "Arguments against race as lineages."  Personally, I think the section as is is adequate - I have never identified verbiage with value.  I do not think that those people who are opposed to race as a biological concept think that any of the earlier research is outdated.  It is simply a mistake to think that all scientific knowledge is progressive and that recent work invalidates earlier work (the same point I was making about Quantum Mechanics.  I mean, we all know Einstein at some level invalidates Newton, yet his laws of gravity are still used by astronomers and physicists and taught).  I think this started when SecureID added a few other quotes - those quotes were more recent, but in fact were not providing results of research or even making arguments, they were just recent quotes supporting the view that human physical variation is best understood in terms of populations and clines, and that races are socially constructed.  If they added any new (original) argument or evidence, I would say, add them to the section on "arguments against race as lineage" (and in narrative form, not just plopped in as quotes) - but my reading of them is that they were not at all based on any original research or new argumentation. The article is still crystal clear in the introduction that most scientists see races as lineages, and up to a third of its contents is specifically sociological, so I still do not see a bias in favor of biologizing race. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further discussion 

message: Racial theory (history) or  Race (historical definitions)?. Anyway, here is a bit more history:
The term race is used in a wide variety of contexts, with related but often distinct meanings. Its use is often controversial, largely because of the political and sociological implications of different definitions, but also because of disagreements over such issues as whether humans can be meaningfully divided into multiple races. 
This is from a fairly good source. The last line might need a little work. Cheers, - Fred 08:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some history 

message: In response to recent edits, I have a request and a point.  Request: if someone knows of more recent surveys of biologists, can they please provide the source, the sample size (and if appropriate sampling methods) and actual figures?  Point: biologists study all sorts of things.  When it comes to this article, I think what matters is the opinion of biologists who study human beings, especially human evolution and genetic variation. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an official quote from the AAA is a pretty good indicator of what "biologists who sytudy human beings especially evolution and genetic variation" think.·Maunus· ·ƛ· 10:12, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What biologists think 

message: An anon user has replaced comments that look like this:
::::::::This is a long comment that extends all the way to the right margin and then is indented again at the left margin and so on down the page on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on...
with comments that look like this:
I originally reverted all changes because the ones I noticed first were short quotations (?) that did not look like real quotations, and because on my current computer screen the type is so small that I missed the left margin colon in the originals. Later I realized my mistake, so I have replaces most of those edits. 
Personally, I don't like the new style. The block quote style looks less jarring to me, so I left most of the places that had used that format as they were. (There was one place in close proximity to one of the new style quotations that I had to change because otherwise it would look too strange.
I don't care which format is used, but I thought I'd better let everyone know what is going on. This is the first time I've seen this new format for block quotations. P0M 02:49, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent format changes 

message: === Race and genocide ===
The blindingly clear (though historically revisionist) obfucscations of one of the most important (and historically commonly applied) applications of racial classifications has been genocidal. For example, the first concentration camps were made in Africa (during the Boer war), the killing of Central Asians by Soviet Russians and also the Vietnam War have all relied upon racism and racial motivations to actively induce and motivate military policies designed to kill large numbers of people.
I removed this new addition to the article for several reasons:
#It may belong in racism
#It needs to be put in a neutral point of view format
#It needs citations. Although the conclusions may be true, they currently stand as "original research." 
I do not want to discourage the writer, nor do I want to simply delete the new content, so here it is. P0M 23:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's gibberish. Concentration camps have nothing to do with "racism". The are simply camps for concentrating populations. In South Africa they were used to concentate white Afrikaaners by white British troops. The rest is just assumption. Paul B 00:27, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  moved from article for discussion new section of info sans citations 

message: this article is really long SkyScrapers 15:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: indeed. please keep in mind articles are intended to be actually read by somebody and cut it down to at most half its present size.... dab (𒁳) 15:18, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: the more complex and contfrovercial the topic, the longer the article has to be. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: no indeed! that's a fundamental fallacy. What is your suggested ideal length for Universe then? WP:SS is the answer, main articles should give clean and brief summaries of sub-topics, you should be able to grasp the main lines of various arguments in five minutes, and visit sub-articles depending on the information you are looking for. Presenting the reader with a random essay rather than a clean overview is patronising and user-unfriendly. dab (𒁳) 18:25, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  too long 

message: How can a discussion of race be completely void of almost any real academic rigor?  Reading this article I feel like I am sitting in an introductory Anthropology class listening to people discuss the topic without reading the texts.  What about biological affinity?  What about Dr. Stanley Rhine?  If there were not biological differences in people how can physical anthropologists correctly assign "race" or biological affinity to skulls and skeletons with reproducible results?  This is an emotional topic for many people, but I ask that we set aside our differences and approach this from a purely academic standpoint.  Please provide refs and clearly identify scientific theory from law.  CheersRtb677 01:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have specific suggestions, sources? Paul B 10:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article never states that all individual humans are biologically the same.  The article has long sections on those biologists today who do use the concept of race to discuss genetic differences.  Indeed, even the sections that criticize the concept of race discuss the nature of biological variation among humans - and provides extensive citations from the scholarly literature.  The above user either misunderstands the article, or is a POV pusher, or is simply not expressing him/herself well. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:01, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please refrain from personal comments. They lead to personal attacks. Discuss the points raised by the users, not the user themselves. Malamockq 15:53, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic Rigor 

message: Why does this article claim that the existence of so called clusters is indicative of distinct lineages? This is simply untrue, indeed if distinct lineages did exist then there would be no need to do clustering analyses. The very fact that so many alleles are held in common by so many populations is the reason why clustering experiments are done. It is also clear form these data from Rosenberg that most populations actually belong to multiple clusters, even if the vast majority of populations have majority membership of one cluster. These data from Rosenberg et al (2002) should not be used as they have been challenged by Serre and Pääbo (2004). It is better to use Rosenberg et al. (2005) paper because it addresses the issues that Serre and Pääbo address. This 2005 paper alos uses a great deal more alleles, giving their results greater resolution. A quick look at their data shows that when their study design is altered their results are far less unequivocal, with much more membership of multiple clusters for individuals in the various populations. It is therefore apparent that the vast majority of individual people within each population have a membership of multiple clusters, so how can these be lineages? This indicates that these clusters are far far from distinct lineages. Alun 09:34, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clustering and lineages

message: "Race and multilocus allele clusters"Muntuwandi 03:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mouthful