Talk:Race (biology)

message: Much of the above discussion might have been helped by this entry: infraspecific variation, p296/7 in Abercrombie et al Dictionary of biology, Penguin, 8th ed. Part of entry: "A race is a non-formal category used chiefly in zoological contexts". The word is still used, though less than it was in the past. I think the adjective "informal" captures the sense well. That is why it would not be right to redirect it to a formal category. Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:31, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank  you. Does it tell anything else? So, according to this definition, race is a "category", not a "taxonomic rank" as restored by this revert. However, this is a poor definition because it does not explain how this particular "category" has been defined. My very best wishes (talk) 13:20, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The key part of the definition is "informal". "Race" is now an informal rank, so it's probably best not to call it a "taxonomic rank" since this suggests formality, whatever qualification follows. But "race" is a rank in the general sense of a position in a hierarchy. The sources given clearly establish it as being used for populations lower than (i.e. within) subspecies. Peter coxhead (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this is your personal interpretation of cited sources and therefore an example of WP:OR. Taxonomic rank has a very specific meaning in biology. So far no one provided a single secondary RS telling: "race is a taxonomic rank". My very best wishes (talk) 04:01, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOR applies to article text, not talk page discussions, which are often and necessarily about how to interpret and integrate what various sources are telling us; the requirement to write in our own words, rather than plagiarize, requires this process. The article doesn't say "race is a taxonomic rank", anyway. Was there some other rib of the dead horse you cared to beat on?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Current version tells: "In biological taxonomy, a race is an informal rank ... below the level of subspecies in the formal taxonomic hierarchy." This is wrong and WP:OR as something not claimed by secondary WP:RS. You can invoke "dead horse" as many times as you want, but an incorrect claim on a WP page will remain an incorrect claim. Race does not belong to biological taxonomy as currently claimed on this page. My very best wishes (talk) 13:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, so how would you describe the way "race" is used in, say, this paper? Which part of the sentence you object to doesn't apply? Peter coxhead (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. This article does not use race as a biological taxonomy rank anywhere. Taxonomic units in this paper are species (indicated by italic): Medicago sativa and Meloidogyne chitwoodi. This publication uses "race 2" as a biological population with a similar genotype and a phenotype ("Thirty genotypes were screened in replicated tests with M. chitwoodi race 2 or M. hapla, and the reproductive factor (RF) was calculated"). Obviously, indicating a specific race (population or variety) was important in their study. Yes, one could argue that a microbiologist would indicate a bacterial strain in a similar manner. Therefore, a distinction between "race" and "strain" is something debatable and possibly murky. Typically, a strain represent descendants of a single population, whereas "race" is frequently a group of related populations geographically separated from other groups (one race can be represented by several strains). In addition, "strains", but not races are widely used in biological databases for bacteria and viruses. However, regardless to the relationship between "race" and "strain", race is not a taxonomic unit/rank, and it has not been used as a taxonomic unit/rank in this particular publication. My very best wishes (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "M. chitwoodi race 2" is a taxon used in the paper (as per the definition of taxon here, which can be found in more or less the same form elsewhere – I just picked this one because it's online). It is placed in a classification consisting of a species – a formal Code-regulated rank – and within it (i.e. below it) a race – an informal rank. And this is precisely what the article says. No more from me; we must agree to differ. Peter coxhead (talk) 22:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I am sorry, but your link on the internet does not qualify as an WP:RS by any stretch of imagination. No, M. chitwoodi race 2" is not a taxonomic unit according to International Code of Zoological Nomenclature or any other biological RS. My very best wishes (talk) 22:46, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We've all been over this several times before. You are confusing biological taxonomy and biological nomenclature; the latter, consisting of formal taxa, is governed by the ICZN, ICN, etc.; the former is broader, and includes informal taxa. There's an entire thread about this above, in which you also engaged in the same WP:IDHT behavior, as if the fact that you confused them at some point means that reality changed and merged them into the same thing. Nothing seems to ever correct your perception on this, and you keep bringing it up again and again as if your argument had not already been refuted. (This is why you've been accused of trolling a few times up there; this pattern of circular "proof by assertion" is unconstructive and appears to serve no purpose other than to generate noise on the talk page. You've indicated offense at being viewed that way, but have done absolutely nothing to shift the view, and are only reinforcing it.)The source: It's not a high-quality one, but it appears to pass RS as an acceptable tertiary source, since it's professionally edited (by two research and academic biologists, and has some lower level staff, most of whom appear to be biology student interns). It's not categorically unreliable, and you've presented no evidence of reliability issues with the specific publication. It would be a higher quality source if it were affiliated with a notable institution, but there's no requirement for that at WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NOR, or any other sourcing-related page. It's certainly good enough to illustrate a point on a talk page.  And, as Peter noted, the definition in question is found essentially the same in other sources; the link he gave you was for your convenience. He didn't need to provide you one anyway, since our own article Taxon, and the other two related articles linked above, already have sources you can read for yourself. If (as above in other discussions) you refuse to do the work to find and read sources, that's you recusing yourself from the consensus formation process about the sources and what is being sourced, not some magic wand that prevents consensus from forming without you.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  08:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but I did not confuse anything. Please read this section of our page on biological taxonomy. It provides a very specific description what word "taxon" means in modern biology, and it is governed by the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, exactly as described on the page. You are wrong about this. My very best wishes (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  their nomenclature purviews.  You've logic-trapped yourself.  ICN does in fact recognize race, simply as informal. Moving on, since no one agrees with you. No amount of re-re-re-repeating an argument no one accepts, without new sources, is going to change anyone's mind.  People's minds change when you present information they were missing and then reanalyze in light of how that data fits in with what they already had, not by constant assertion that you're right. Several people's minds have changed about various things on this page just in the last couple of months (including mine) because of the presentation of facts and data, and sound reasoning about them.  Everyone seems to be engaging in this process here (both the sourcing and the reanalysis) except for one. (Well, two, counting the recurrent sock.)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  13:43, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: We can argue about this to infinity. That's why I asked you to simply provide a direct quotation from a source in another section above ("race is..."), but you did not provide it so far, even though you have the source handy. Having such quotation is maybe a minor thing, but a step towards constructive discussion.My very best wishes (talk) 14:13, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I decline to be drawn into a circular argument that is off-topic in this discussion and already the subject of its own thread. No, we  talk about this to infinity, per WP:Talk page guidelines.To return to the topic of the article: I notice that you've ducked attempting to rebut the argument that was presented.  Please address the observation that your insistence that ICZN and ICN define taxonomy (as you understand it), combined with the fact that ICN accepts race as an informal taxon, demonstrates that race is a taxonomic term, even within the argument you're advancing. Just handwaving in the direction of other discussions about other sources and questions does not make this observation go away.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

text: Yes, I certainly agree: this particular "definition" should not be used. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Penguin Dictionary of Biology 

message: Example quote from a botantical/forestry work on the Douglas-fir:
Provided by , over at Talk:Race (human categorization).  This whole book would probably be useful here.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  16:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forestry / botantical example 

message: What is this "prōles, stirps" thing added to the lead?  These don't seem to be terms used in English-language modern botanical literature, and it's not the purpose of a WP article lead to provide translations. The Latin term  is used in English (rarely) to mean "a line of descendants of common ancestry; stock", and may have some relevance to domestic animal husbandry but does not appear to be connected to the quasi-taxonomical term race in the sense this article is addressing. Similarly, , which appear to have no regular usage in English sources, has sometimes been borrowed into French to mean "hereditary descendent, and by extension descendant, successor", again not relevant to this article.   I'm reverting this addition pending some clear justification for it addition.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The cited source gives the details. In that original version of what has become the International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants, the term "proles" was used IN ENGLISH to mean a race. The discussion on page 42 says that the term stirps is also used, but that they are recommending using proles instead. The term was part of recommended scientific practice in the 19th century, and I do not believe that science pretends that earlier centuries are irrelevant. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be proles then, not the ancient Latin prōles, I would think, and this can be covered in a history section; it doesn't help in the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "prōles, stirps" 

message: The article is tagged for cleanup for insufficient context since 2015.  I don't see specific discussion about this here, although might have missed it.  To my eye, it now has enough context and the tag could be removed.  Montanawb tagged the article, and SMcCandlish revised the tag, in the past.  
OK to remove? LaTeeDa (talk) 17:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Mgasparin (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove cleanup tag?