Talk:Race (human categorization)

Previous Discussions

Previous entries archived in Talk:Race (Archive 1), Talk:Race (Archive 2), Talk:Race (Archive 3) Talk:Race (Archive 4)

Self-identification

(Moved to archive 4. If someone wants this back, just let me know. P0M 17:08, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC))

Part 2

(Moved to archive 4. Let me know if you need this back. P0M 17:10, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC))

Part 3

(Moved to archive 4. Let me know if you need this back. P0M 17:14, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC))

Part 4

P0M 18:52, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): I think that we may finally getting somewhere. It will take me a longer time to digest all of the above than I have at the moment.

P0M 18:52, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC): There is one other very fundamental point that is, if not a pitfall, at least something to stumble over. The article title is race, which directs our attention to trying to describe what [race] (singular) is. The phenomenon that we ought to be looking at, however, is one in which people are divided into [races]. Language prompts us to go ahead confidently talking about [race] and the [races] when there are a large number of [races], none of which may really be the same for the people who use these words. Of course, everybody learns what the main characteristics of the [races] are in his/her society. But these same people frequently can't tell you simple facts about commonplace subjects that should be within their normal ken. They are instant experts on who is "really" a member of this or that [race], but they can't tell you the difference between a.c. and d.c. current. So there is the presumption that [race] is a question of the division of all humans into 4 or 7 or whatever number of [races], that they are "just out there" waiting to be discovered. If we were to supply "a list of criteria that people have used to explain what the different races are (at any given time, in any given place)," then that list would probably be a mile (maybe a parsec) long. A list of "criteria used to explain" is different from a list of ways that people categorize by race.

P0M: Perhaps we need to say something like this: The study of race is the study of how people divide their own species into groups that they call "races." Then we go on to say, "The same species gets divided into different [races] by different people. Here is a sample of the ways that people have used to try to categorize people." Either here, or after the next point, it would be fitting to make it clear why people frequently do not fit into unambiguously defined [races]. The next point would concern how people apply these [racial] designations to themselves and to others. (E.g., how does a Nazi know which people to send to the death camps? How many circumcised ordinary Germans were gassed? How does a census-taker handle it when somebody says his race is Hunza when there is no box for "Hunza" on his demography chart?) Then we could look at the attachment of unproved characteristics to the [races]. Finally, we could look at how the categorization of humans by [race] works out in practice. Are there advantages for public health? Are there disadvantages when, e.g., the gym coach says, "White guys can't jump!"?

P0M: I don't mean to suggest throwing away the existing article and starting all over again. Too much has been said, thrown away, resurrected, reverted, retrieved... But it has been on my mind for a long time to point out that sometimes after one has written a term paper or something of that sort, it is worthwhile to go back and outline one's own paper. P0M 18:52, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Slr: I do not agree that we would be better off opening the article with, "Perhaps we need to say something like this: The study of race is the study of how people divide their own species into groups that they call "races.""

P0M: Are you seriously suggesting that I advocated beginning an article with the words "Perhaps we should say something..." If it wasn't just carelessness you are employing a rhetorical device called "setting up a straw man."

It was just carelessness on my part. I hope that other readers understand that, and I hope you will forgive my carelessness -- I do trust that you understand what I meant. Slrubenstein

Slr: This is implicit in most encyclopedia article (that the article is about the study of what the article is about).

P0M: This? This what? Part of the problem people have with arguing with you is that you are not always clear. The referent for "this" is in this case not clear. It certainly refers to nothing before it in the material quoted above.

Slr: I do agree that "The article title is race, which directs our attention to trying to describe what [race] (singular) is. The phenomenon that we ought to be looking at, however, is one in which people are divided into [races]."

P0M: I think you and I agree on far more than you will admit to. Part of the problem is that you seem to go into attack mode before you have understood what I have said.

Slr: However, and I don't take pleasure in beating a dead horse (though I'd like to think of myself as attempting CPR), this is what the earlier opening statement, "Race is a taxonomic principle used to group living things," was meant to express/communicate.

P0M: I respectfully submit that, if you were really talking about the "phenomenon ... in which people are divided into [races]", then your words about "principle" do not mean what you want them to say. I have tried several different ways to indicate why "Race is a principle" is as nonsensical as "Species is a principle", "Population is a principle", etc. You've got the cart before the horse. Maybe William Saffire could make it clear to you. I give up.

Slr: I think it is implicit in the current opening ("Race is a type of classification used to group living things"), although I still prefer the earlier version -- either way, my point is that I believe the first sentence addresses this issue, but if POM believes it could be explained more clearly I invite him to suggest ways.

P0M: I think I should never mention more than one thread of thought at a time. What I said or meant is what you end up with, that it would be good to "spend a little time thinking about the structure of the article" (to use your own words). And I pointed out that the way the whole thing is structured, i.e., by assigning ourselves the task of discussing [race] (singular), we set up an unneeded obstacle to clear thinking.

Slr: I agree with POM that this is an important issue, but perosnally, I think it is clear already. I also agree with POM that "A list of "criteria used to explain" is different from a list of ways that people categorize by race," and perhaps this point can be the topic of the second paragraph of the article. POM is right that a complete list of criteria could be virtually endless. As I have discussed with Peak -- who I think made this point earlier -- an alternative would be to use the first paragraph (as POM seems to suggest too) to sum up different ways people have studied race (I think we can do this without changing the first sentence).

P0M: I will never agree with anything that bases itself on the assumption that [race] is something "out there" to be studied. Any argument that starts by assuming what it intends to prove is fallacious.

SLR:However, I also think we can keep the first paragraph as a partial list of common criteria used, and qualify that by saying different people at different times have relied on some, but not all, and sometimes other, criteria. I also agree with most of the points POM makes in his penultimate paragraph. I do think there is a way to introduce all of them into the article. I think most of POM's points are actually implicit in the article. POM may not feel they are clearly enough stated, or fully explored. I suggest that one reason may be poor organization. Perhaps if we spend a little time thinking about the structure of the article, it will then be easier to see which of our various concerns are actually already addressed in the article, or to see where and how they need to be better addressed. Slrubenstein

P0M: After kicking up lots of dust you often come out agreeing with me.

and vice-versa! ;) Honestly, though, I never thought you and I disagreed about most issues on "race" in substance. I do think we have often agreed on writing style, and also how to present our views in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy. I never thought any of these conflicts were unsurmountable. I think the value of the talk pages is to force one another to more clearly articulate our positions, as a preliminary exercise towards expressing them more elegantly in the article itself. Slrubenstein

I think that most of the "points are actually implicit in the article." The question in my mind is whether outlining the article (keeping a few stumbling blocks from hiding in the weeds) might not show some kind of systematic omission.

I am sure you are right -- but I do think attending to structure first will make it much easier to locate (and agree upon) what has been omitted, and what is implicit but needs to be developed. Slrubenstein

I haven't done the work yet, so I can't tell for sure. It's just that I have learned caution.

P0M: Reading some of the things that you have written recently I am astounded to find you saying, in somewhat different words, many of the things that I have said either on this talk page or on the Racism talk page -- things that have been summarily, angrily, or contemptuously rejected.

As I hope I inferred above, I don't think I rejected -- or at least, I never intended to reject -- any of your substantive points, certainly not contemptuously. I admit that I have often rejected your way of expressing certain points, or what I took to be proposals for changes in the article, but again, I believe I did so more on stylistic and NPOV grounds than anything else. Maybe I crossed a line with the BS comment, and I apologize if you felt it was contemptuous. It seemed to me that you were proposing addressing stereotypes in the article in a specific way (I consider all, or virtually all, content on "talk" pages to imply proposed changes to the article, as I think that is the main purpose of the talk pages) without having done adequate research. I stand by that point -- at least in principle (as I surely may have misunderstood you) -- but I assure you that I hold to that point in general, and I would regret your having taken it personally.Slrubenstein

It used to be my role in bull sessions after dinner in college to listen to two people getting fiercely angry with each other while actually saying almost exactly the same thing. Now I find myself playing two roles at once.

P0M: Just to make things clear, I do not favor changing the first sentence back to the way it was before.

I understand that. We simply disagree -- such disagreements are common at Wikipedia. The consensus often changes over time; now it seems to have changed in your direction and there is nothing I can do about that, but six months or a year from now it will likely change in a different direction. Slrubenstein

I would be o.k. with retaining the mention of self-identification because it does express one of the common ways that people in our society assign people to various categories in demography studies. I would be o.k. with holding off on mention of it until a place in the article where it would be appropriate to discuss the "funny" aspect of it.

I think we are in agreement. I never meant that the issue of self (vs. other) identification should be left out of the article; I believe it should be explored, and fully. I just didn't feel it belonged in the first paragraph, because I think that before the article addresses how people are assigned to different races, it should first address how the notion of "race" first emerged and also how different society's racial categories, and concepts of race, have changed over time. This is an example of where I don't believe I ever disagreed with anyone about content, only about the style and structure of an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein

I would be in favor of deeply exploring the real-world consequences of labeling people by race. And, I would be in favor of my getting off my fanny and outlining the article to see if any holes show up. As I said a long time ago, the article seems to me to be in pretty good shape.

Part 5

P0M: Slrubenstein, the earlier form of the first sentence spoke of race as a principle of taxonomy. I've been going over the long paragraph that you wrote above, and I don't find any big problems with it I guess. I say "guess" because I wonder whether there is some problem lurking in whatever it is that makes you accept the idea that race is a principle. I have suggested as many definitions of "principle" as I could find in my dictionary, but nobody has ever claimed any one of them in regard to the aforesaid formulation. Please just give me a definition.

By "principle" I mean "assumption" and "standard." I personally do not think it is good one. But it seems to me that all talk of "race" is through a politicized or political discourse; there is no denying that (in my opinion, socially constructed) assumptions about or standards for racial categories have affected a good deal of people, and thus is as "real" as other social constructions, from nuclear bombs to specific beliefs about God/gods. Just as people can debate over whether it is right to make let alone use nucelar bombs, or can debate the consequences of belief in God, people debate over race. I personally believe race is a bad standard/assumption (or principle) but my argument is not that it is not a principle, but rather that it is a bad one. By the way, we need to archive much of this talk. I've been accused on archiving poorly in the past -- can you make an executive decision and do some archiving? Slrubenstein

P0M: What do you mean "standard"? "Standard" as in "He gave the standard Anarchist response when asked to salute the flag," or as in "A bar of metal in Paris, France is the original standard for the meter," or what? I'm not trying to be difficult, just to pin things down -- because in the past many of my attempts here to get a clear run at the idea of "race" have snarled on this point.

P0M 03:58, 4 Jan 2004 (UTC): Also, do you have any disagreement with the article on Categorization?

Important Documentation Issues:

P0M: Wouldn't it be a good idea to have a footnote/link to substantiation for the following claim?

This position recently received a boost from genetic studies at the molecular level which show characteristic allele signatures for the groups traditionally identified as the three major races, resulting in maps that clearly delineate genetic clines (in which the clinal zones are a small part of the total) summarized quite well by longstanding racial and ethnic appellations.

Heads Up

User 195.92.168.174 has made a change which s/he says is to "remove politics" that actually adds politics explicitly. It appears to me that the change would be difficult to substantiate. P0M

NPOV dispute on article about "Race"

Following material moved from Wikipedia:Peer review by Wapcaplet 22:54, 5 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Two authors of this article have used the hammer of reversion to thwart efforts by various people to eliminate the single-POV bias of several parts of the article. This is documented fairly well in the Talk pages (plural because part of the discussion has been archived). Being something of a newcomer, I'm not sure what can be done, especially as I do not wish to start a "reversion war." I have never reverted anyone's work, and in fact I adhered to Wiki protocol by offering additions and the smallest modifications possible. Newcomers are asked to be optimists, so any suggestions or advice would be appreciated.

To save you wading through the edit history and the Talk page, here is a summary of one of the POV issues -- the single-POV taken in the first sentence of the article (as of 02:33, 1 Dec 2003, which is a reversion by the person who will not allow a more neutral POV version to be used). This first sentence reads as follows:

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

As explained in the Talk page, there are several problems with this sentence. Here, let's just consider the first five words.

1) There are multiple points of view about what "race" is. Any dictionary will tell you there is more than one meaning related to human classification. To say it is a 'taxonomic principle' is just one POV. Other points of view include:

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

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

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

Needless to say, this POV should not simply be ignored or denied in the Wiki article on race.

2) Does starting an article with the words 'Race is a taxonomic principle' help clarify things or merely muddy the waters? As documented in the Talk page, there are several POVs about what the word 'taxonomic' might signify here, as well as what the word 'principle' might signify here.

By the way, the original characterization of race in this Wikipedia article was much better (from a POV perspective) than the current formula, as were several subsequent revisions. Here is the original version:

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

Peak 05:32, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Please insert the links to Race and Talk:Race into the beginning of your description. I am under the impression that race as a taxonomic concept is somewhat distinct from race as an ethnic concept. The article does not address this, but that may just be because I'm wrong. -Smack 06:04, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)

End of moved material

Part 6

P0M I think I have successfully moved enough out of this page to keep it small enough for everyone to edit. Please let me know if what I have done causes problems for anyone. I intend to move the block of stuff on "NPOV dispute" next, since it is older than most stuff currently in this file.