Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about Race (human categorization). Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Slavs and Britons

I was quite suprised by sentence:

"Europeans you have Britons, Frenchmen, Germans, Nords and Celts rather than having a term implying a ("possible") ancestor group in the Caucasus that is too distant for consideration and moreover reaching to groups including eastern Slavs, Roma, Jews, Arabs, Persians and Indians, and others that differ notably, both culturally and to a lesser yet still noteworthy extent physically, from the aforementioned ethnic groups"

Could someone explain to me why "eastern Slavs" differ notably, and noteworthy physically from Germans? I've added also "western Slavs" as counterbalance.

Hypostatization of Race -- The Mug Shots

§ To quell the edit war as quickly as possible I have tried to state what the photographs actually are to put them in a context that does not hypostatize race and does not simply revert the page. I have never done this before, but I will ask for article protection if there are any more reversions-without-discussion.

§ There are at least two very serious problems with using these photographs. (1) By using the pictures of people who are either felons or accused of being felons, the article tends to demean all of the [races] described. (2) By captioning the pictures with simple mention of the word "race", the article becomes strongly POV by tacitly assuming the existence of [race] as it is commonly assumed to be.

§ I knew these were mug shots without looking at the upload information. All of the people pictured are probably under stress and not at their best. As a person who grew up in a community with people who resembled the man in the first picture more than the others, I automatically discount his negative visual appeal because I know "in my bones" that he is atypical. When I look at an out-group picture, I may not be able to do an equivalent amount of discounting.

§ Whether intentional or not, I think the inclusion of the pictures was a rather ironic practical joke. P0M 15:38, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of the issue of hypostatization, these particular pictures are so poor as to be not worth keeping. The fact that they are mug shots only makes that matter worse. I suspect that there are better pictures to be had (pictures of US congress-persons or celebrities for example), which would present a more neutral account of the "census"-type distinction of races. I would recommend replacement or removal. --Rikurzhen 15:47, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

§ Agreed. But is there anybody out there who doesn't know what members of these [races] are supposed to look like? How about pictures of Thai people like the golfer Tiger Woods or White people like the film maker "Karma" Hinton? Or a representative Sardinian next to a representative Cyprian, and a representative Watusi next to a representative San, and, just to make things interesting, a Shan tribesman and the darkest person from Sri Lanka that we could find?

§ I think somebody is lurking, watching all the turmoil caused. At least the person had the honesty to label them "mugshots.jpg". At first I just thought they looked like mugshots. P0M

I think the photos are simply inappropriate in a general article on race. They illustrate (at best) a very narrow topic: race and law enforcement in the US. In the context of this article they are at best misleading. I do not see that they add anything of value otthe article. Slrubenstein

About the image: Race was listed on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates as an article missing pictures. An earlier attempt using Martin Luther King, Jr. was removed repeatedly. I tried to find an image that fits the article, and I believe a collage of different races is the best approach. I used FBI mugshots, because they are copyright free, and listed with the race according to the FBI definition. I also tried to pick the "prettier" photos, as ... well ... most criminals are butt-ugly. I was also considering adding other races, but there are not enough e.g. Australian aboriginals criminals in the US, and i did not want to add perfectly innocent people to a list of murderers.

Regarding your objections: Please feel free to change the captions. I considered Ethnicity, but since the article was titled Race i used race, knowing well that the word alone is controversial already. Even though these people are felons they still belong to different races, and all races are treated equally in the image. Every race has its criminals. Besides, the image caption did not list them as criminals. I think using images like Tiger Wood, Martin Luther King, or other celebrities is even less desirable, as these faces are too well known. Martin Luther King actually has been removed from this article twice. I think, the perfect image shows unknown members of different races, and I am happy to have my image replaced with a collage of other faces, but as long as there is no other image, I think Image:RaceMugshots.jpg is the best solution. Any of the critics here are welcome to contribute a better image. And, P0M, this was NOT a rather ironic practical joke but best intentions to contribute. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:58, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ I was offended by the images, especially after I discovered that they really were people accused of being criminals, but I did not intend to be personally offensive in return. For that I apologize. I should further explain that by "ironic" I meant the quality of a communication that contains a hidden point, usually with some kind of twist in it. One thing these pictures seem to me to do is to subliminally encourage and reinforce negative feelings about out-group people. That effect is instructive and potentially valuable, but only if the reader becomes aware of the subjective biases of his/her own reaction. P0M 05:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I merely tried to select photos of people which are rather unknown and look typical. I thought mugshots are OK if all are mugshots. Personally, I think celebrity images are difficult, as they are too well known. Yet, if the majoprity wants celebrity images, then I can live with that. The less known the better. Just don't pick this guy ;-) Chris 73 | Talk 07:59, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I for the record support having the picture here. I think it's fun to look at and was done in good faith. Jalnet2 01:50, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can understand the desire to have an image to accompany a featured article. My recommendation is that we compile a new picture set from current wikipedia images. US government officials are the easiest source -- Senators, Governors, etc; and most are well dressed and looking their best. Most are relatively unknown outside of their own state, and so it would not be too distracting. If we can compile a list of appropriate photos, I'll shrink and combine them. --Rikurzhen 03:31, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

That's fine. Just make sure you get the people's permission or use public domain government photos. If you're going to use government photos I would suggest Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, Elaine Chao, Norman Mineta, etc. Jalnet2 03:45, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm totally against having these mugshots here. I hoped they would've been gone by now... My viewpoint is this: I don't think that a picture of a non-public person should be added here against their will, even if they are criminals (or are these dead persons? even then...). The FBI may think this is right, or this may be correct in AMerican law, but Wikipedia is not 'The American Encyclopedia'). And we have enough problems with racism in every corner of the world without linking race to pictures of criminals on a supposedly-neutral encyclopedia. Anyway, people are already building an alternative set of pictures, great. roan 13:42, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Keep the recommendations coming. I don't have time to fish out pictures, but I can do the Photoshop work if no one else can. --Rikurzhen 04:38, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

§ Both Peak and Slrubenstein have deleted the earlier pictures, and an edit war was getting started because other people were reverting deletions. I personally would not be happy with pictures that show the "summit" cases on a map of [racial] characteristics and do not show the "valley" cases on the midpoint isogenetic curved lines that form the boundaries between [races], for instance, somebody from central Asia who might look rather "western" to a Chinese, and vaguely "Chinese" to a European. Let's see whether we can achieve a consensus rather than a reversion imbroglio. P0M 05:14, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. A nice range of human facial features. I think it would be instructive to present faces that blur the lines between census typologies of race. Although it is worth keeping in mind that the vast majority of US citizens still self-identify as belonging to a single particular race. One could say that it is disingenuous to preferentially picture "multiracial" faces when they are in fact in the minority. Finding all the pictures is outside of my time budget right now, but I'm willing to put pictures together if we can build a list of good ones here. --Rikurzhen 06:39, Jul 27, 2004 (UTC)

Suggested Images

So far the suggests are:

<african <kenyan File:Chao.jpg<mongoloid <ferengi <vulcan File:Winonaladuke.jpg<hippy File:Ben Nighthorse Campbell.jpg<white File:Rushdie.jpeg<hobbit <rogan-josh

Please add or subtract.

For a good source of images see: List of people by nationality Chris 73 | Talk 08:11, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Races to consider

I think we also should consider images of what races we should add, otherwise the above process would quickly plaster the entire article with images. I suggest a male and a female each of some selected races/ethnicities: Please add/comment to the following list: Chris 73 | Talk 08:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Caucasian
East Asian
African
Hispanic
- Maybe, maybe not -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:41, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Native Indian
Indian

I'm not sure about this whole project. There are a lot of subtle racial gradients in the world and they will be hard to depict clearly. If we are showing major continental racial groups, we should probably include Bushmen and Australian indigenes. Presumably, also some sort of Polynesian peoples, too. But there are a lot of question marks. Under "Caucasian", do we show Europeans, and, if so, do we have a separate spot of Arabs or Berbers? If include the latter, what about Jews? For Indians, do we show north Indians (or does that, too, fall under, Caucasians) or South Indians, or both, or try to find people that show a mixture of physical characteristics? Do we include Mongols and/or Turks separately from East Asians? What about Southeast Asians? Eskimos separate from American Indians? etc., etc. - Nat Kraus e 09:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, there are probably hundreds of ethnic groups in the world. How would you make an imgage for the article? Chris 73 | Talk

I also agree. I see nothing wrong with the images currently included, especially as labelled to make the point that these are non-academic "racial" classifications of people by appearance as actually used by the FBI in the USA, however odd some of the classifications might be from an academic viewpoint. I far prefer those images to the suggested replacements with the idiotic plastic grins displayed by most of those imaged. The current illustration seems to me to be just that, an illustration of one practical though unacademic system used by a federal agency in a particular country to classify moticeable broad types of appearance. An attempt to produce an NPOV list of real races is impossible since classification systems disagree. And there are also wide variations in appearance among people within the races distinguished by any such individual classification systems. For example most Inuit and some "Amerindians" are not distinctively different in appearance from most southeast Asians: that is you will find many southeast Asians who look more Inuit than some Inuit do, as least to many people. Similarly for "Amerindians". Would a freckle-faced red-head by acceptable as the official NPOV example for a Caucasian, or would someone who very much "looks" Jewish, or "looks" Lebanese, or "looks" Italian, or "looks" German, or "looks" Scandinavian, or "looks" Iranian? The current illustration presents itself as just an example from a POV source, and a somewhat lightweight example, but one that gives excellent vividness to the article. Attempting to produce a better "NPOV" replacement is probably impossible. I am particularly unclear as to why Hispanic is considered a separate "race" in the list above, distinct from Caucasian. Instead Hispanic describes, in respect to appearance, a common type (based on heredity and therefore on "race") within the U.S. which is noticeable there because average Spanish/Portuguese features and skin tone are sufficiently different on the average from average northern European features and skin tone to be contrasting in enough cases to be a useful distinction in describing someone, especially taking into account the amount of Amerindian mix in American "Hispanics". Accordingly one can say someone looks Hispanic and be understood. One can also say someone looks Scandinavian or that someone looks Jewish or that someone looks Irish or look Italian (even though there are Italians who look more Scandinavian than many Scandinavians and vice versa). Jallan 14:51, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ There are books like The Family of Man that are available to people who want to see what people adapted to different regions and having different genetic histories look like. Both sets of pictures posted so far are mostly U.S. residents, which isn't appropriate to an encyclopedia. How about making a world map showing sampled skin tones something like the mock-up in the detail below:

§ Then if we could find a public domain Tutsi image, for instance, we could put it in the Atlantic and draw an arrow to the appropriate band of color on the map of Africa. That would indicate that the image of the individual represents a "high point" on the map, and that the colors shade gradually into the lighter tones of N.W. Europe, etc. P0M 17:37, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The problem with the photos is they reinforce the ignorant discredited view that superficial differences/similarities are meaningful. There are two specific problems with the photogrqaphs that would need to be addressed before including photos. First, if the photos are meant to illustrate biological differences then they illustrate populations and not races. But are we sure which photo goes with which race? Perhaps we can find photos of people from two distinct populations (e.g. Papua New Guinea and the Congo) but who look alike. Similarly, in Brazil two people who look very different can belong to the same "race" -- maybe we can find good photographs to illustrate this. In short, illustrations should support the way the article raises questions about common non-scientific views (at least in the USA) and not reinforce popular American prejudice. Slrubenstein

§ I agree. P0M 17:36, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's a fine point, but I don't think that the photos have to go just because of the under determination of race by facial features. They were originally posted because of a desire to have a picture to accompany this "featured article." Can we think of a picture that is more appropriate than a collage of human faces? Do we need a picture at all? --Rikurzhen 18:38, Jul 28, 2004 (UTC)

I do not think we need photos at a;;. HOWEVER if we do have photos the photos should illustrate the article as a whole. SO much of the article is about the difficulties in defining race biologically. Thus, I would try to find a pair of photos of two people who lkook very different (e.g. Julien Bond and Yaphet Koto) who have been identified as members of the same race; and a pair of photos of people who look very similar but who represent very different populations (e.g. someone from melanesia and someone from Africa). The photos people have been suggesting illustrate different "races" -- at best, examples of one culture's folk taxonomy. They certaintly do a poor if not downright deceptive job of illustrating the article itself. Slrubenstein

§ How about a contrastive picture like this composite face?

How about something simple? Rikurzhen File:Human-nj-tree.png

well, I think it's not very appropriate! look at the distance in the image between African and Chimp

The double broken lines mean that that portion of the graph is not to scale. The chimp is the "out group", which is needed to give the tree a root. In this graph, all human groups are equally distant from chimps. Distance is counted horizontally, not vertically. Remember that all humans are very close genetically to chimps. --Rikurzhen 22:23, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

§ Cavalli-Sforza gives a map that looks something like this sketch map that would communicate more clearly. P0M 05:42, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can we produce a larger map? Also, the UN has a face collage that would be worth imitating. [1] Rikurzhen

§ The best thing would be a world map so that migration(s) to the Americas could be shown If you redraw somebody else's map, does that still take care of copyright questions? P0M 13:49, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ How about something like this world map + Cavelli-Sforza data? [2] P0M 15:46, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The world map isn't bad -- but, my objection is, it doesn't illustrtate races. It illustrates phynotypical variation within the human race, at best variation among populations. The photo really belongs in an article on humanity or human kind of homo sapiens! Slrubenstein

It's a minor point in the current discussion, but I think both the map and the tree could be added to the body of the article: somewhere around the anthropology section. The map describes the emergence of human subpopulations from the out-of-African expansion. To a greater extent than not, those populations correspond to "races" as they are commonly identified. The tree summarizes the kind of data that comes from a molecular analysis of human similarity by population. Likewise, self identified race corresponds with placement in the tree better than not. Rikurzhen 06:02, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

§ I started my dubious "career" with Wikipedia by working on spiders and claiming that [race] is a myth. [Race] is such a shoddy, discredited, affectively contaminated idea that it should be in the middens of humanity. But it is a shape-shifter, something that means different things to different people, many of whom are passionately committed to it. How can anyone draw a picture of [race]? P0M 17:48, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The image

I contributed the mug shots. While the image is not perfect (American centric, people with a criminal history), I believe it is acceptable, at least until there is a better image. The people shown look like normal everyday people you could meet anywhere in America. Not the prettiest ones, but they don't look like criminals. The image never claimed to be a complete description of all races, but only a sample of some races. The problem about what exactly a race is applies to the entire article, and the inability to make a universal definition applies to the article as it does to the image. A number of editors said that the image is a valid contribution and aids the understanding of the article. Some editors don't like it. I would like to keep the image until a better replacement is found. -- Chris 73 | Talk 00:16, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ I have explained on your user talk page why I find these images to be deeply offensive, (even if they were not mug shots) why their use is conceptually deeply flawed, and why they contribute to racism. I have restored my caption, although my deepest impulse is just to revert. You have not answered Slrubenstein's cogent objections listed above. P0M 04:42, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

(Copy from talk page POM): Hello POM. First of all, thanks for changing the caption of the image, but not removing the image outright. It sounds better now and also makes the reader think. One of my activities here on Wikipedia is trying to add images where needed, as listed on Wikipedia:Requested pictures and also Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. That's how I got to the article Race in the first place. Thinking about how to illustrate race I was looking for a source of public domain passport style images to assemble a number of faces of different races/ethnicities/skincolors ... sort of what most people consider to be the difference between races. (Andy Warhole made something similar once, "Thirteen Most Wanted", and also got a very controversial reaction) About your objections:

"Race" does not have an operational definition, everybody has a differnet view what a race is: True. The image is only one example according to the FBI classification, and not an universal definition. This can be adequately expresed in the caption. (Again thanks for improving the caption). Many articles on Wikipedia show only example images, and having only "examples" on Race is no grounds for removal.
The images are racist: False. All races are equally treated in the image, and none looks better or worse than the other. All are wanted for murder/homicide except for asian and black female (couldn't find murderers)
The images are mugshots: True. This is about the only point where I think the image is flawed, and I would have preferred non-mugshots, but could not find a good source. Every society (race, whatever) has criminals, but most societies prefer to look away. Yet I do not think this flaw is grounds for removal.

This is a controversial topic, as can be seen on the number of people that removed and added the image. Also, some people have expressed that they find the image helpful, or at least do not oppose the image. Of course you have your right to object to the image, as well as I have the right to find it helpful. I see two possible ways out of this:

A new image is created that does not feature criminals but average people (preferably no celebrities either). Again, this will have to be a set of examples only, and the included bias will be noted in the caption.
We organize a vote to find out the majority view on Wikipedia about the image, and then keep or remove the image accordingly.

I am positive that we can overcome this dispute and eventually find an acceptable solution. BTW, a quick question: Why are you adding § to the beginning of every paragraph? Just curious. Best regards -- Chris 73 | Talk 05:31, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ I see I should have come here to answer your questions instead of writing something on your user:talk page. I'll say it once more: An article on [race] is fundamentally haywire because [race] is a wannabe concept that has vervent advocates but no stable definition. When the intension of a word is unclear the extension of the word will be indeterminate. Any picture purporting to representative a member of a [race] merely adds seeming substantiation to a phantom. And, on the personal side, you've made a person whose image repels me the exemplar of the [race] with which I am usually associated. I would prefer that those negative feelings not be transferred to me and to innocent people who would be assumed to be of the same [race]. P0M 06:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wanted to chime in my basic agreement with P0M on this issue. Personally, I know exactly what I mean when I say "race", but it doesn't do me a lot of good, because other people often don't. The article has to reflect that latter fact, and the mug shots are prejudicial in this regard. A map or something would be better. By the way, I don't see what Patrick finds so repellant about any of the mug shot pictures (although they are not too flattering), but he's entitled to his opinion. - Nat Kraus e 06:40, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

§ There is a fascinating book of photographs that was put together by a psychologist to show how much information is actually included in some photos. If you are trained to it, you can access the information consciously. Many times people react to the information unconsciously, but even though (or maybe because) the impact is unconscious it can still be very powerful. As a beginning example, look at the picture of the [Hispanic] male. His chin is tilted up at a rather unnatural angle, and his eyes are tracking upward in their sockets as far as they can go. His facial muscles are slack. So he gives the appearance of having been reduced to passivity, and he is just standing there looking upward at whoever compells him to have his photograph taken. On a bad day somebody's driver license photo might look that bad, for similar if less threatening reasons. That's one of the reasons that people do not like their DL photos. Then look at the next to the last photo in the "prominent folks" assortment.

§ I want to repeat something that Slrubenstein said above (correcting a typo or two) because it contains the nub of the matter:

The problem with the photos is they reinforce the ignorant discredited view that superficial differences/similarities are meaningful. There are two specific problems with the photogrqaphs that would need to be addressed before including photos. First, if the photos are meant to illustrate biological differences then they illustrate populations and not races. But are we sure which photo goes with which ~~race~~ population? Perhaps we can find photos of people from two distinct populations (e.g. Papua New Guinea and the Congo) but who look alike. Similarly, in Brazil two people who look very different can belong to the same "race" -- maybe we can find good photographs to illustrate this. In short, illustrations should support the way the article raises questions about common non-scientific views (at least in the USA) and not reinforce popular American prejudice. Slrubenstein

and also:

The world map isn't bad -- but, my objection is, it doesn't illustrate races. It illustrates phenotypical variation within the human race, at best variation among populations. The photo really belongs in an article on humanity or human kind of homo sapiens! Slrubenstein

§ I think he is saying that the map does not illustrate [race] because it is impossible to do so. [Race] is a social construct. It is something that is built on a certain amount of information and a certain amount of the creativity of the human mind. A photo illustration of different [races] would be a little like a series of photographs illustrating "The Evolution of Flying Saucers from 1947 to 2004." P0M 14:10, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't think our situation is that bad. What hasn't been mentioned is that there is a privledged position on race: self-identification. I don't think that mug shots are a good idea for reasons that POM has explained. But a collage of smiling human faces with no particular order other than that look nice would be a great starting image because it would remind people of the worldwide diversity in human appearance/culture. An example can be found along the top banner of the UN's web site [4]. We can reasonably assume Rikurzhen

Uh, no we cannot. In any event, don't you think my suggestion (above) makes more sense given the article? Slrubenstein

It's a fine idea, but I don't think we'll find such pictures without copyright problems. If we can, then I agree that is a better idea. In the meantime, a little random picture collage of happy faces will probably fix this problem. ... the other point: Whether they do or do not is an empirical question. I've met quite a few people from most of the worlds largest populations (China, India, Russia, W.Europe, US, Brazil, Japan, Austrailia etc.) and they all lead me to believe that they have an idea of race that includes people like them and excludes others. Thus, I think it's pretty reasonable to think that most pictures of people from these populations and ones like them will have an idea of self-identified race that distinguishes like from dislike populations, even if they each have their own theory of where the boundaries should be drawn. Rikurzhen

that each of those persons thinks that they belong to a particular race, and that they are not of the same race as most of the other people pictured. Thus, we'd have a picture of race. Rikurzhen 17:00, Jul 30, 2004 (UTC)

Chris73 keeps inserting the mug shots. I ans several others have provided a series of reasons for why they are inappropriate. Clearly there is significant objection (significant not only in numbetrs, but in the fact that those with objections have reasons). Can anyone respond to any of these objections? Until there is some sort of reasonded discussion that goes beyond reasons for not putting the photos up, I will take them down. Slrubenstein

Again, the image was only an example of what some consider to be a race. I find the photos look like everyday normal people. And people do -by definition- not always look their best. I agree that mug shots are problematic, although I think the problem is not as big as some believe. I was inserting the mug shots again, since I was not the only one doing so, and feel that there is also significant support for the image, despite the rather subjective reasons against. (Check the comments of the people who added the image again in the edit history). Yet, I have no desire to be part of an ongoing edit war, and will for now stop adding the image; although personally I think the article looses a helpful image. Maybe somebody else will be able to create a similar image without felons. Anyway, my main goal was to add an image so that the article can eventually be featured on the main page, and I had only best intentions. Best regards, -- Chris 73 | Talk 12:43, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I've quickly put together an alternative image to consider. It is not perfect, but I think it is a reasonable alternative. Click on the image to get at the source web site if you'd like to make your own. Also, check out Public domain image resources. Rikurzhen 20:30, Aug 1, 2004 (UTC)

I like the current photos more than the mug shots, although I still have objections to any such photos. I added another question to the caption, though, to build on the last edit. Slrubenstein

The FBI mugshots are actually relevant to the article, in that they are a current usage of "race" - bogus or not. For proper context, we need 19th-century images of skull measurements and so on - David Gerard 22:17, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

What is going on? How do you justify placing those horrible, grainy black and white images on this page, when we have these perfectly good mug shots? The FBI uses racial identification to find people. In that sense race is real. I am strongly tempted to simply reinsert the better quality image, but I will wait for awhile, and see if concensus can develop. Sam [Spade] 22:25, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The theme of the diplomat image set is OK (various people of different races), but the photos are horrible. Some pictures are totally unrecognizeable. Besides, who are they? (more info on the image page please) -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:38, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Just did some image manipulation to increase the gamma correction. Now you can actually see some faces. Still prefer my mugshots, though. -- Chris 73 | Talk 22:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My motivation for the diplomat image is to get people working, rather than just arguing about the image question. Please try your best to make an even better image. Be sure to check out the Public domain image resources and [5]. I noticed that the New York public library site has collections of images related to African Americans and Native Americans. Maybe that's a good place to start. Or maybe someone could revist the idea of FBI mugshots that make them less troublesome. Rikurzhen

Your work is appreciated, and definitely a step forward in this discussion. I just didn't like the image quality, but that can be fixed. Thanks -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:08, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Given the controversial nature of photographs (indeed, the controversial nature of "race") the photos must have a caption to avoid POV issues. Stop deleting the caption -- or just delete the photos. Slrubenstein

§ I agree. Lack of a proper caption says, in effect, "Race is real, and here are some examples of people of various races."

§ I wonder whether we could solicit the general community for color pictures of native peoples of various parts of the world. I have a photograph of a multitude of Chinese people watching as someone pushes a farang off of a rocky precipice and into the drink. The white/brown skin color is clearly apparent, and the identity of the perpetrators is protected by the fact that they are all watching the action and not the camera. Since they are all wearing swim suits most non-facial characteristics are readily apparent. ;-) I may also have a picture of a man carrying a bow and arrows, one of the non-Thai tribal peoples in Thailand. And I think I could get a picture locally of a Tutsi, but probably in a suit and tie. Also, come to think of it, probably a central Asian gentleman who has the "genetic valley" characteristics that I think are important in showing how what we often conceive to be black and white differences are actually shades of gray. There must be people who submit photos for some of the other language versions of the Wikipedia who could help. India, for example, could provide a dozen different "types." P0M 22:39, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That's a great idea. The San Francisco Museum of Modern Art did something similar -- requested photos from their patrons for an exhibit. What is the right venue to make the request? --Rikurzhen 00:20, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)

The first set of images is of world leaders. This is not an article of world leaders. Therefore, these photos need a caption to explain why these photos are included. If you remove the caption of questions, remove the entire set of photos.

The second set of images are from the FBI. The FBI does not use the images to illustrate race. Thus, the old caption was misleading. The FBI provides the photos in addition to other information, including race. Black, White, and Asian refer -- according to the FBI -- to races. "Hispanic" refers to something else (people from Spanish speaking societies), not race. The two people identified in this caption as being of "hispanic race" are identified according to the FBI as being of the White race. Do not manipulate the caption to misrepresent the facts. Slrubenstein

§ The text on the left/top ends with: "whether humans can be meaningfully divided into multiple races." The POV caption identifies "people of different races." That creates a logical contradiction. P0M 16:16, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I Agree that "people of different races" is not only inappropriate, it makes no sense. But why didn't you just revert to the previous caption? After all, these are first and formost photos of diplomats or political leaders. In any event, I added the salient caption. By the way Darrien keeps reverting without engaging ANY of this discussion, POM. Clearly s/he hasn't read the article or os trying to use the photos as a way of subverting the neutrality of the article. Should we request mediation? Slrubenstein

§ I think we may need a maverick opinion on the matter. Clearly Darrien has a rubber stamp for his reversions, and clearly he has not said why an illustration can have a POV caption such as he provides but not a contextualizing caption such as you provide. P0M

If I may offer a "maverick" opinion, never having looked at this article before now: Slrubenstein's captions seem to more text-bookish, and I would almost expect class discussion questions at the end of the article...I mean, it's not that they are bad, just unnecessary. Since this is an article about race, the pictures seem pretty self-explanatory even without any captions at all - obviously they are being used to illustrate different "races". If you want captions, I think they should have somewhat less info than Slrubenstein's, but somewhat more info than Darrien's, if that helps. Adam Bishop 17:24, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Well, to clarify, the caption in question was mostly written by someone else -- I revert it not because I wrote it but because it is important. I happen to agree that it sounds textbookish, and personally I don't like it. Why do I keep reverting it, then? Adam, with all due respect I suggest you read the article before commenting on the caption. Most scientists do not believe that race is biologically real; moreover, people in different cultures identify people racially in different ways. So it is by no means self-evident that these photos are meant to illustrate different races, and there is no reason to think that people would agree on what race each person belongs to. It is not even clear that the differences between the photos are "racial." So any caption that simply identifies "people of different races" is simply wrong, and -- more to the point -- at total odds with the article and wikipedia policies. Slrubenstein

I have protected the page to end the edit war over the extended caption. Hopefully Darrien will now start communicating and compromising with others. 172 16:58, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'm not the one that needs to compromise. I've made several different changes to the caption in an effort to come to an agreement, all of which have been reverted to the same version.

Darrien 18:15, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

What justification do you give for your insistance that what you call "commentary" should not be included in captions? P0M 18:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Common sense. An image caption by definition describes the image. It's not there for useless commentary and to tell people to "read on for more". This is an encyclopedia, not a sixth grade textbook.

Darrien 18:34, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Agree with Darrien here. This caption is silly and prejudicial (esp. the "scare quotes"). If the previous wording was objected, how about something short and to the point, such as, "A sampling of human racial diversity"? V V 20:23, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I already attempted "Various people representing the diversity of the human race". It was reverted.

Darrien 20:33, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

I think it's funny that of all the things that could have gotten this article protected, that the image caption was it. Straw that broke the camel's back? Let's get past personal recriminations and try to draft a concensus image/caption so that work -- albiet slow progress -- can continue on this article. "Various people representing the diversity of the human race" is a starting point. Scare-quotes are not out of the question because a major point of view in the article is to question the absoluteness of Platonic-ideal notion of race. There's nothing wrong with a short caption as long as it doesn't say too much by saying too little. How about this? --Rikurzhen 21:02, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

People from various populations that some would distinguish as different "races".

People from various populations whom some would regard as belonging to different races. (The word "regard" obviates the need for scare quotes.) P0M

People from various populations, popularly regarded as different races. (Is this more direct?) Rikurzhen

That wording is way prejudicial. I assume you know how that "weasel term" makes it sound? Let's search for something a bit more neutral. Darrien's "Various people..." looks good, except for I'd say "... representing the diversity of the human species", since that doesn't introduce the word race before its multiple meanings are cashed out. V V 21:53, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Darrien was originally opposed to any photo (D -- do I misunderstand you) to accompany race. The fact is, I still feel that way -- I am opposed to such photos and if we must have illustrations there are better ones.

That said, if we are going to have any illustrations, including this photo, I think it is crucial that to maintain NPOV AND illustrat the actual article, the caption represent three points of view: these may represent different races (biologically conceived); these may represent social markers of difference; these may represent "populations" (which are not races). I agree we should do so as economically as possible, but I think each POV must be allowed for in any caption. Slrubenstein

§ Darrien removed a MLK image. It was later replaced by the first composite image, the mugshots I think it was. Peak deleted them, and Darrien reverted.P0M 03:42, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I much prefer the longer caption version. It is informative and helps to draw the reader into reading the article text proper. There is nothing wrong with having captions that long. --mav 06:43, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I don't think Darrien's objection was the length per se, but what was being done with that length, which is inserting a somewhat goofy (and somewhat leading) non-captionesque paragraph. And I agree. V V 12:23, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lapps

"Especially the group "Lapps" are very degoratory described and certainly refers to Sami. However, besides all those pictures he had seen describing them, looking like ugly semi-humans, he had "only seen two of them in Gdansk [Polen]," which is not their usual dwelting place. In the contemporary, rumors was spread with various accuracy, often with negative political propaganda against countries, thus this can be the reason for his belife in races. It was first Linné that assigned Latin names to larger groups of peoples depending on which continent they lived on."

Aside from the fact that this is filled with grammatical and spelling errors, is it necessary at all? Jayjg 17:52, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

§ I think you are right on both counts. P0M 18:24, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

§ I removed the following paragraph persuant to the comments above. If there is any content that needs to be preserved, please edit the English carefully. (It was written by someone whose native tongue is not English.) P0M 01:53, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Especially the group "Lapps" are very degoratory described and certainly refers to Sami. However, besides all those pictures he had seen describing them, looking like ugly semi-humans, he had "only seen two of them in Gdansk [Polen]," which is not their usual dwelting place. In the contemporary, rumors was spread with various accuracy, often with negative political propaganda against countries, thus this can be the reason for his belife in races. It was first Linné that assigned Latin names to larger groups of peoples depending on which continent they lived on.

Rikurzhen Critique

(Moved from above since the discussion has forked.)

§ We haven't heard from Peak for a while, nor has he communicated in this discussion regarding his reasons for deleting the original composite image. I myself don't like any of the pictures used so far because it seems clear to me that, in an article entitled "Race", they act to support what is actually a very problematical concept. That consequence of using such pictures is one that has not been given due importance by some.

I have a different perspective on it. It seems to me that the article should be written so that it is accessible and informative to readers at many levels. A discussion of the problems of defining race is accessible to a high school or college student. But as an encyclopedia article, we need to have some content targeted around (for example) the 6th grade level. (For example, the article on race and intelligence used to consist of pages of discussion over the interpretation of data that was never actually spelled out -- it was assumed that the reader already knew what the article as about. I think this article is also weak in that regard.) The opening image seems as good a place as any to keep things simple. While this article does a good job of presenting the active debate about the analysis of race, it is short on a good description of the popular defintion -- what people mean by "race" in everyday speech and writing. Someone disliked the caption because it sounded like a 6th grade textbook, but we do need a little bit of basic info to bring the 6th graders up to speed. Before we jump into the details, we need to lay out the basics. That's why I support a basic image and a descriptive caption -- it seems to be a good grounding for the more abstract concepts in the article. --Rikurzhen 04:22, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

§ I think that what you say has merit. If I were trying to explain to a 6th grade student what people are talking about when they speak of race, I would tell them the things that are objective realities in the world that people are looking at when they talk about "the XYZ race." I would make it clear that this is not a complete list, but I would point to several things: People from widely different places in the world (1) look different in some ways, (2) speak different languages, (3) have markedly different cultural traits (kris knives in Malaysia, chopsticks in China and Japan, different dances, different clothes, etc.) (4) have markedly different body language -- only part of which is ordinarily available to conscious awareness.... There probably are more, but even 6th graders can understand that we don't need an exhaustive account to be able to tell what is going on. I would next point out that the "different place" for a kind of physical appearance is often, but not always, pretty much the same as the "different place" for some language, some cultural traits, some set of body language signals, etc. Then I would explain that different observers are likely to emphasize different factors and disregard different factors, but that for all of them the basic experience is of encountering some group of people who look very much different from people back home, who speak an incomprehensible language, who wear different clothes and use different eating utensils, who dance different dances, who use a different set of gestures that totally don't make sense, and so forth. So these people are so different from each other that they conceive of each other as "the other kind of humans," "the aliens," etc., and people come to speak of these groupings as races, and that one problem with this way of doing things is that hardly anybody makes decisions on who is in what race on the basis of exactly the same set of criteria, hardly anybody would sort a group of a thousand people by race in exactly the same way, and there would always be borderline cases that would have to be handled in some arbitrary way. I guess we would need to work in the idea of population, too. P0M 07:16, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps my criticism is not fully justified. Writing concretely is a positive thing, but I don't mean to say that we need to go above and beyond just for this article. I think we might be able to assuage my concern if the intro section was a little bolder in offering at least a partial definition of race. All we really currently have is The term race is used in a wide variety of contexts, with related but often distinct meanings. ... In biology, some use race to mean a division within a species. That's one reason why I think an example image is helpful. I think we might also offer a partial definition of what kinds of things people mean by human race: (1) a major/high-level categorical variable, (2) based in part of whole on the innate properties of humans, (3) historically related to moral distinctions and distinctions of superiority. Certainly a list that is open to refinement. Moreover, I think we can offer such a partial definition without making a commitment as to whether race actually exists -- unicorn has a definition without concern that such a definition implies their existence. --Rikurzhen 11:01, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

Comment on captions

[regarding 7,8,9 below:] People of the same population may belong to different races (it can happen in Brazil); people from the same race may belong to different populations. Slrubenstein

True, but these are indeed people from different populations. (I did the sampling, so I know.) Please suggest your caption below. P0M 18:50, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Does the lack of comments mean that we've reached an agreement or that we're tired of arguing? --Rikurzhen 06:00, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

§ I don't know. I went back through some of the earlier content and found two more. Would anyone else like to go back through the "history" stuff and add the various ones that have already been tried? Any comment on the photos below? P0M 14:12, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Brainstorm for captions

Instead of saying that, e.g., version 2 is lame, let's concentrate for a while on just putting up different proposed captions for a panel of faces of people from all over the world. (If you get an insight you want to share from one of the captions you could go back immediately above this section heading and discuss it there.) So far we have:

Please add new suggestions at the top of this list:

Facial features are often used to distinguish "racial" identity. To what extent do physical features determine race? What about social and cultural factors? Do these photographs represent different races, populations, or ethnic groups, nationalities, or social classes? See the discussion below.
Facial features are often used to distinguish "racial" identity. To what extent do physical features determine race? What about social and cultural factors? See the discussion below.
Facial features are often used to distinguish "racial" identity. To what extent do physical features determine race? See the discussion below.
People from various places.
A sampling of human racial diversity
Various people representing the diversity of the human race
People who hail from various parts of the world whom some regard as belonging to different races.
People from various populations that some would distinguish as different "races".
People from various populations whom some would regard as belonging to different races.
People from various populations, popularly regarded as different races.

FBI picture caption

The caption says "From left to right, the FBI identifies the above as belonging to the following races: White, Black, White, Asian." I could be wrong, but isn't that supposed to be "White, Black, Hispanic, Asian"? Jayjg 18:03, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

§ Didn't somebody object in the discussion above that the FBI does not use "Hispanic" as a designation of [race]? P0M 18:27, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If it is true that the FBI does identify these people as white, it would be useful to note that fact in the caption, so people won't think it's a typo. - Nat Kraus e 18:35, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

§ I added "sic" after the second "white." P0M 01:53, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am removing the "sic." The FBI indeed identifies these people as "white." The point is that "white" and "hispanic" are not analytically comparable (or mutually exclusive) categories. "Hispanic" means coming from a Spanish speaking culture. Spaniards, as Europeans, are "white." In the US a "Hispanic" is usually someone from a Latinamerican country -- but Latin American countries (just like the US and Canada) have within them people of different races. Just as it is wrong to assume all Northamericans are "Black" (for we have Whites and Indians in N. AMerica too), it would be wrong to identify all South Americans as "Black" (or White or Indian -- the point is, there are many Blacks, Whites, and Indians living in S. America and Central America, and people from all these races move to the US sometimes).

I am making a larger point: many people, including contributors to this encyclopedia, have sloppy assumptions about racial identity. The FBI is not so sloppy, but it is still amazing that someone could get these photos from the FBI website and then misread or deliberately change them. Slrubenstein

"sic." does not mean "wrong", but if it's giving that impression, maybe we can come up with something else. My concern is not that wikipedia editors will be confused by the caption, but that general readers will be. They, of course, will have confused assumptions, which is why they come to an encyclopedia to get deconfused. But it won't help if they think our information is a typo.

By the way, what's with "Northamericans" and "Southamericans"? What, are you from Eastasia? - Nat Kraus e 17:28, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

sic ;) Slrubenstein

The people in question were listed as white (hispanic) by the FBI -- Chris 73 | Talk 08:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes they were. the question is, what does "hispanic" mean? It does not refer to a race, and we should not present it as if it did. As you say, it identifies their race as "white." I wonder why the first time this photo was presented in the article, the caption did not say so. Slrubenstein

impolite language in edit summaries

§ I think that we can do without terms like "goofball" in edit summaries. It was not my caption that was removed, but it has been available for comment, along with others, since around the time when this article was protected. P0M 05:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and I participated in the discussions above. But you're right I probably shouldn't have used the word goofball. V V 05:34, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

removed section

Issues relevant to the philosophy of science

Individual human beings, even individual twins, have some traits that are held in common with all other human beings, some traits that are held in common with some other human beings, and some traits that characterize them as individuals. Races are defined by selecting a number of the sets of traits that pertain neither to all human being nor to only one human being. Individual human beings would theoretically be assigned to a race by the application of an operational definition that would involve checking all pertinent characteristics of each individual against the list of characteristics that define each race, but, in practice, humans are frequently classified into races on grounds of much less stringent requirements. For instance, rather than checking all characteristics one might check an individual for some characteristics – especially easily apparent “marker” characteristics, or one might simply ask individuals to declare their races. There is a clear danger in this procedure that on the basis of a few characteristics such as skin color, nose shape, hair texture, etc., one might falsely be assumed to possess characteristics that are socially, medically, or otherwise significant. A common flawed process of reasoning is to argue from the color of someone’s skin to the IQ range within which that individual must fall.

I removed this section from the article. It adds nothing, just repeating material from other parts of the article, and has nothing at all to do with the philosophy of science. V V 21:51, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

§ I disagree, both with removing the paragraph and with the assertion that it has nothing to do with the philosophy of science. A major problem with almost every discussion of [race] is that people argue without defining a common set of terms. One of the great developments in the "housekeeping" aspect of science, the aspect that sees to flaws in thinking processes, was to realize that many of the problems scientists were having were flowing from their inconsistent use of terms -- even within their own thinking. To explicitly deal with this difficulty, it became incumbent on researchers to state operational definitions. It is very discouraging to see facile assumptions regarding "what everybody thinks", "what everybody knows", etc. wasting the time and energy of those who thrash around without understanding what has tied their hands and feet.

§ I also must once again ask that contributors avoid words that are a verbal slap in the face. I think that it should be almost self evident why it is better to avoid demeaning the contributions of others. P0M 22:22, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

If this is what the paragraph is trying to say, it doesn't do it in a very clear manner. Most of it just seems to be repeating other material. Is it all meant to be window dressing for the cite of the term operational definition? And "danger in the procedure" and "common flawed process of reasoning" are obvious POV, anyway. And I disagree that anything I said was demeaning. V V 22:27, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

My problem is with any portion of an article that has hypotheticals like the ""Would theoretically" section above. I have no objection to thwat preceeds these words, but feel that what follows can be cut. Why? We should not strain our imaginations cto vome up with hypothetical positions; we should provide an account of those positions that have already been advocated (and provide context of course).

The above example, that VV wants to cut, provides a hypothetical and then a reason why it is wrong -- which sounds like a mental exercise appropriate to original research but not to an encyclopedia article.

IF the passage is making other points, points about claims that others have made, then we should not prosent it as a hypothetical but should say "according to ..." etc. Slrubenstein

Philosophy of science as it relates to issues

§ Forgive me for thinking and/or summarizing without giving citations. As one who accepts the general conclusions of the Vienna Circle on the POV nature of all knowledge ("scientific theories are useful fictions," etc.), I sometimes have difficulty distinguishing among POVs that are "acceptable" and POVs that are "unacceptable." But I risk condemnation for thinking. Let me, instead, propose a revision based largely on an appeal to authority, with a few words of my own that I will leave to others to further vet for POV defects:

revised:

§ Individual human beings, even individual twins, have some traits that are held in common with all other human beings, some traits that are held in common with some other human beings, and some traits that characterize them as individuals, and that fact has prevented consensus on adoption of a definition useful in rational discussion of the word "race," i.e an operational definition. Lack of a consensus operational definition has, in turn, serious practical consequences. As a report published by the U.S. Center for Disease Control says:

"Race is a biologic concept denoting a single breeding population that varies in definable ways from other subpopulations. However, there is no effective operational definition of race among humans. A logical approach to defining racial identity has been derived from advances in molecular biology. Race as a scientific concept ultimately could be tested by determining the proportion of persons who, based on allele frequencies, could be assigned with an acceptable degree of certainty to a genetically-defined population subgroup.

"In practice, the designation of race is based on socially defined phenotypic traits as seen through the filter of individual and social perspective, while ethnicity is a category determined by genes, culture, and social class, a product of social evolution. An advantage of ethnicity (versus race) as a concept for public health surveillance is the implicit recognition of social arrangements on health. Ethnicity is the inevitable response of the species to changing opportunities and challenges in the social environment; therefore, ethnicity will change over time."

(http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00021729.htm)

§ Lacking such an "effective operational definition of race among humans," there is an objectvely verifiable tendency to check an individual for some characteristics – especially easily apparent “marker” characteristics, or to simply ask individuals to declare their own races. There is a clear danger in this procedure that on the basis of a few characteristics such as skin color, nose shape, hair texture, etc., one might falsely be assumed to possess, or to lack, characteristics that are socially, medically, or otherwise significant. As the CDC says, "Because most associations between disease and race have no biologic basis, race -- as a biological concept -- is not useful in public health surveillance." A similar and common flawed process of reasoning is to argue from the color of someone’s skin to the IQ range within which that individual must fall. P0M 19:24, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Not certain about the paragraph, but keep in mind the source for this is a report from 1993. The human genome would not be fully sequenced for another 9 years, and so conclusions from this time should be regard as probably out of date now. For example, here is a more recent analysis [6] --Rikurzhen 06:12, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

§ The material quoted is contrasting two potential ways to deal with inherited characteristics in medicine. One would depend on socially constructed definitions, and one would depend on actually examining a patient to see what "genetically defined population sub-group" that individual fit into, and then using medical knowledge about the likely problems of that group to aid in diagnosis and treatment. This method is still currently not in common use. The article points to ethnicity as a better measure than [race] because it may pinpoint genetic heritage more specifically, and because it tells the doctors something about likely diets and other culturally influenced lifestyle choices. The growing use of actual genetic determinations performed on patients does not at all alter their main conclusion: "Because most associations between disease and race have no biologic basis, race -- as a biological concept -- is not useful in public health surveillance." P0M 21:59, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

In the article I linked, Risch makes the opposite point ten years later. --Rikurzhen 00:54, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

"Every race... has its own collection of clinical priorities based on differing prevalence of diseases. It is a reflection of the diversity of our species - genetic, cultural and sociological... Ignoring our differences, even with the best of intentions, will ultimately lead to the disservice of those who are in the minority." [7]

I believe this debate is loosely framed elsewhere in the article, but could be more explicit. --Rikurzhen 06:16, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

§ Is Risch attempting to use a definition of the first kind, i.e., one that is "based on socially defined phenotypic traits as seen through the filter of individual and social perspective"? Or is it one that uses a clear operational definition? The kind of [race] designations thus made will have an important bearing on whether the medical implications are useful. But, either way, your argument makes my points (1) that when different people use different definitions in some social context without getting clear on those definitions then they cannot argue to clear results because they are talking about different things without realizing it, and (2) that the way to make progress is to insist on operational definitions, and, preferably to use agreed-upon operational definitions. P0M 12:25, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ah. I was just commenting on the content of the CDC article which you're using to support this section. I haven't read the paper closely enough to answer your question with confidence, but Risch examines a number of different methods used to classify humans and argues that some classification is better than none and seems to argue that race/ethinicity/ancestry is medically useful until we can afford individual genetic profiles. In regard to your question then, I'm not sure whether I agree with Slrubenstein that the section is true but unnecessary or whether I think that your either-or has excluded a middle possibility -- i.e., different classificiation schemes could be optimal for different circumstances. I'll give it some more thought. --Rikurzhen 03:46, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

§ There would not be any problem with the use of multiple systems of clearly defined criteria for putting humans (or anything else) into various categories. For instance, there is no problem with including whales in the same group with sharks and goldfish if you are discussing "marine animals that swim," but it would be a problem if you called whales "fish" because the definition that most people learn for that word excludes mammals. My example is not so wacky as it may seem. Consider, for instance, that in Chinese fish are yu2 and whales are jing2 yu2, and, while that doesn't really seem to cause any problem, most Chinese people do not know that goats (shan1 yang2) are not sheep (yang2). Western biology places sheep and goats into different genera (Ovis aries and Capra hircus). So people could have a big, stupid argument over the aggressiveness of Billy shan1 yang2 Gruff proving the aggressiveness of sheep/yang2. P0M 07:09, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Proposal for faces of different races

File:Faces of different races computer generated.jpg

These faces were created using the GenHead software produced by Genemation. Each face is, in effect, the same "identity", but modified to reflect the average features of each of four different notional races.

Perhaps computer generated faces such as these can capture the facial appearance that is so readily associated with traditional labels of race, yet avoid the difficulties of presenting pictures of individual people.

My browser isn't rendering the image, does anyone else have this problem? Rikurzhen

I appreciate the intention, but have serious problems with this suggestion. One of the basic insights of Darwinian thought is that there are no "ideal" types in nature. And one of the greatest barriers to a scientific understanding of race is the belief (which I think very few scientists, but many non-scientists, have) that there is some "ideal" or "pure" example of a White, Black, and so on. If there is any value to photographs of people of different races, I think it is to show how in the real world there is no such purity or ideal. To computer generate photos based on some average I think would only mislead people. Slrubenstein

Based on the description -- I can't see the images -- it seems to me that they doesn't actually reflect an ideal so much as an empirically derived average. Thus, I'm not sure that I agree that faces that show the variation within human races are any more appropriate than faces that show the average of different races. Both kinds of data are informative and seem equally appropriate. For the sake of argument, which kind of faces would you show in an article on human sexes? Rikurzhen

I think there is a serious risk the average reader of Wikipedia will confuse an "average" with an "ideal." Also, I question the possibility of coming up with a real average -- surely the computer program doesn't have access to a complete sample, and I wonder whether it is actually even using a random sample. Slrubenstein

Hmm. If they did, then we need to do a better job with this article. But that raises an interesting idea: can we find a research paper on this topic? We could use that to build a sub-section on "facial features and race" in order to support and explain all the face pictures in this article. -- Also, any idea why the images doesn't render correctly? Rikurzhen

Well, this isn't a peer-reviewed paper, but it is Richard Dawkins. I interpret this essay as an endorsment of an average face picture -- based on my guess of what it looks like. What does the group think? --Rikurzhen 20:44, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

re: Four typical faces of different races created using GenHead software

§ The images use CYMK color rather than RGB color. I could see them, but only as gray images. When I copied them to my computer and opened them in graphics software that software converted them for me and the color showed up.

§ They are rather interesting images, I guess, but I agree with Slrubenstein. I think there is already far more than enough social construction going on in the area of [race], and putting out even quasi-realistic images probably would add to the problem. P0M 01:14, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I finally got a look at the images. The faces are not very natural looking. I found a similar software tool from a Scotish research group. If we can get permission to use their images, I would recommend their Naomi Campbell face series: [8]. Use the drop down to choose a transformation (Java is required). --Rikurzhen 23:05, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

What is Race

I wonder if most people have it totally wrong when it comes to race. As Diamond pointed out (in Guns, Germs and Steel) most of the modern 'races' originate with the expansion of small groups that gained some technological advantage. These changes can be comparable with the classic idea of how sympatric speciation occurs. Part of the reason why the branches run much deeper in Africa is that humans evolved there, but I suspect that the other reason is that most of the non-African people are the product of recent expansions. Doesn't it seem strange that, despite deep differences, the people who live along the edges of the major expansions all look somewhat alike - the Australian aborigines, the people of New Guinea, the aboriginal people of India, of Indo-China, the Negritos of the Philippines and many Sudanese/Somalis/Ethiopians...and to a certain extent the San/Khoisan people. Some of it people will blame the N.African examples on racial mixing...but mixing between races in the absence of the selection pressures which created the 'races' in the first place is likely to get back towards what the ancestral 'normal' human looked like BEFORE these very specialised (and thus, very distinctive) sub-populations expanded. Guettarda 00:05, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No, these people have all evolved the way they have because they live in hot climates. It's got nothing to do with being at the edges of expansions. Australian Aborigines, sub-Saharan Africans, the Philippine Negritos and many other groups have evolved dark skin because the extra melanin provides protection from UV light. No more, no less. Scandinavian people, by contrast, are generally very pale-skinned because they have less need for this heat protection. thefamouseccles 02:05, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Links to opinion articles arguing whether race exists

I have recently deleted a link to Bamshad and Olsen's essay arguing that race does not exist. This is in response to an anonymous editor's insistance on deleting a link to a Rushton paper arguing that it does. It is only fair that we present both opinions, or none at all. Jalnet2 19:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am the anonymous editor in question. Rushton is a *psychologist*, with no qualification whatsoever to speak on the subject of race other than the fact that he's developed an obsession on the subject over the years. Linking to him to "present both opinions" makes as much sense as me linking to Timecube Guy to present "both sides" of the question on physics. You find Rushton's stuff fascinating? Fine, go read it all you want; just don't try to fool the rest of the world. 217.43.155.228 12:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Related... I'm adding back a link to a Nature Reviews Genetics article that summarizes the current research on race and genetics. It was removed by an anoymous editor. When first released, the full text of this paper was freely available. It has since been changed to require registration. I changed the link to point to the abstract. The editor insists that it require registration; however, I don't believe this is true -- I believe s/he did not actually try the link to the abstract alone. I've tested this link thru an anonymizing web proxy and I am able to access the abstract freely. The abstract of this paper is quite informative, and anyone with access to Nature (most University students) will be able to read the full text. --Rikurzhen 03:48, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Mea culpa. I'll be adding back in the new NRG link you provide. 217.43.155.228 12:40, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The anonymous editor also added a link to a new Nature paper "Modelling the recent common ancestry of all living humans". While very current, this paper is rather narrow in its focus/impact and may not be appropriate for the external links section. A review paper would seem more appropriate. --Rikurzhen 03:48, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you let readers decide for themselves whether its "focus/impact" is as narrow as all that? Would you rather they take it as an unsubstantiated assertion that the island-model of geographically isolated populations is an inappropriate description of human genetic variation? 217.43.155.228 12:43, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's an interesting paper, and may come to be the new standard for thinking about these things. But there hasn't been enough time for that to happen. Right now it's just the ideas of a few authors -- which has already received criticsm in the associated News and Views. That's why as a general rule, we are much safer sticking to review papers. Along those same lines, a review paper would give strong background and more discussion than is given here. Wait a few months for a review paper on this topic. On a second note, this paper adds only a tid bit to the overall topic of this article. With so many possible external links, it seems wise to limit to the most important ones. --Rikurzhen 16:10, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

picture

How come there are four pictures of east asians out of a total of six pictures alloted? Why do we need than one picture of them? There isn't a picture of Australian aborgines or a picture of american indians and so forth? Shouldn't they be up there too? I don't see them anywhere and I feel it's redundant to put so many pictures of the same race there. Wareware 07:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The pictures come from a single source. If you find open source pics, please add them. --Rikurzhen 16:53, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

"east asian" is not a race, it is a geographic designation. Whether "east asians" constitute one race or many, or none at all, is a matter of contention that the article itself addresses. One function of photographs should be to illustrate phenotypic variation within so-called races -- to use illustrations merely to illustrate "races" would be to undermine much of the article, and its neutrality. Since most human beings are Asians, it doesn't surprise me that a disproportionate number of pictures would come from that continent. Slrubenstein

Wareware is quite right about the prevalence of East Asians, and Rikurzhen is quite right in explaining that they are all from a single source (me). If I had any pictures of Australian aborigines I'd gladly contribute them. I was very tempted to include a picture of a Shan, a group that may be (genetically as well as geographically) somewhere between the Indian sub-continent darker peoples and the SE Asians. The picture I found on-line was fully as dark as some of the pictures of Africans. Actually, it is lucky that I had a real African to add to the group. If people have pictures to contribute I'll gladly fix them up so they are the right size and are properly "tweaked" for web display. Australian aborigines, Sardinians and East Indians would be particularly welcome, and Amerinds as well. What I have tried to do in the way I've arranged the pictures is to show a gradual shift from the darkest to the lightest. (Note that the Chinese guy with curly hair, from sub-tropical Taiwan, is almost as light as the Anglo type from the opposite end of Eurasia in the red T-shirt.) P0M 22:56, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Here's an image that could be useful for this article: Media:Children_with_globe.jpg. It was made by the UN and sent to space with Voyager 1 in 1977. I just uploaded it to WP, but I am not positive as to its PD status. dab 17:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I feel strange writing this ... but, I kinda like it! Slrubenstein

It could use a little bit of touching up. I would increase the contrast and blur it slightly to remove the grain. Media:Children_with_globe_blur.jpg Otherwise, it looks good. --Rikurzhen 01:50, Oct 19, 2004 (UTC)

sorry, it seems to be copyrighted after all. see this page: Please note that these images are copyright protected. Reproduction without permission of the copyright holder is prohibited. I'm placing a {{fairuse}} on the image pages, but we would have to come up with a "fair use rationale" (such as, the image is of public interest because it was sent to space as a message from the human race. also, it's quality is not sufficient to produce a print). Some of the images on the Voyager disk have individuals as copyright holdes, while this image is copyrighted by the UN. I don't know if that makes a difference. dab 07:41, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

conflict over definition

I may be wrong here, but it strikes me that the article intro over-states the conflict between biological and cultural definitions of race. This paragraph in particular struck me as going too far:

Many biologists feel that in this usage we may justifiably speak of dividing Homo sapiens into races. Many others, however, assert that in humans there is in fact insufficient categorical variation to justify the classification of humans into multiple races in a strictly biological sense. Many social scientists therefore view race as a social construct, and have sought to understand it as such, as explained later in this article. Thus, race is increasingly regarded as a non-biological term that often could be exchanged by population.

It seems that there are some definitions of race that focus on biology, others that focus on culture, and there need not be an explicit conflict between them. Rather both groups are merely using the same term to mean different (but related) things. I think we should back the language down a bit to allow that both definitions are plausible and not mutually exclusive. --Rikurzhen 21:01, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

I don't follow you. In many cases the terms do seem mutually exclusive -- as in Harris's book on race in the Americas, where I don't think any biologist would recognize the culturally constructed races as biological races. Many scholars who advocate for the cultural construction of race argue explicitly that race is a biologically invalid concept. You may not agree with this point of view, but it is a significant one that must be accounted for and represented in the article. Have you read works by major scholars arguing that the two approaches are compatable or even complementary? If so then I certainly hope you will add an account of that view. Slrubenstein

I think the social construction view is underrepresented in this article. I think it's impressive that the first reasonably scientific definition of race (Immanuel Kant's definition that two individuals are of the same race if they can interbreed normally and get offspring without reduced fertility) is not mentioned in the article at all.

Sure. The examples I'm familiar with are from biomedical research, where cultural versus genetic defintions of race are being evaulated for their utility in medical diagnosis. The conclusions being reached are that both are important markers, and together they are more useful than alone, suggesting that both are informative and not mutually exclusive.

The conventional, social definition of race is useful in a medical context as it provides information about the social circumstances and lifestyle of patients.... Eventually, for both diagnosis and treatment, specific genetic variants will provide concrete, useful information. [9]

The intro starts in line with this notion: The term race is used in a wide variety of contexts, with related but often distinct meanings. I was just surprised when I re-read the intro to see such strong statements about the defintions being in conflict. Although, I admit I'm not familar with the work outside of biology. --Rikurzhen 21:32, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. OBviously this trend should be represented in the article. I would only ask that you specify "biomedical research." I assume most of this research is in the West, which shares culturally constructed racial categories. I know that medical doctors in the US often rely on racial categories in diagnosis and treatment and are indifferent as to whether they are culturally constructed or not. Of course, MDs are not scientists -- they are not doing pure research but practicing a craft. They are also doing so in a context where culturally constructed categories may have fairly stable meanings. One question, of course, is whether these categories would help in some other part of the world (example: in the US there may be a strongly positive correlation between sickle cell anemia and "Black," but in other parts of the world the anemia may be prevalent -- not sure if this is the right word -- among non-Black populations). Also, I do wonder whether how much it matters whether the categories are biological or cultural in their basis. For example, a disease that has a high incidence among members of some race may be for environmental or cultural reasons, not genetic ones. Tay-Sachs may be a disease with a genetic predisposition, but I recall reading about another disease Jewish women often suffered from and it was transmitted through under-cooked food the women tasted while cooking (much like Kuru). Slrubenstein

Phylogenetic representations

I made the map Media:Human_mtDNA_migration.png based on http://www.mitomap.org/mitomap/WorldMigrations.pdf — it is not identical to the Cavalli-Sforza map Media:Nasa_Cavalli-Sforza.gif, which is afaik based on genes and not on mitochondrial DNA. The mtDNA map gives more precise migrations and a timeframe (out of Africa 150 millennia ago); maybe you would consider replacing the current "phylogeny" map with it? dab 16:30, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I like it. Why not change it? P0M 04:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

i like it too - the only problem is internationalisation, you should prepare a version without English labels so that other people can easily add other language labels without having to make a mess in the figure. Boud 14:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I took the freedom to redraw your image, to make it more readable and clean

File:Image:Migrations-of-the-human-race.png

--Alexandre Van de Sande 12:14, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

There's an error in this image link - i can't find the image. Boud 14:45, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

another article

I found this http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=983 article, which I think is pretty good, particularly when the author wrote "human classifications of race are indeed social constructs. This is why, for example, in America everyone with detectable black blood is considered black, while in South Africa people of mixed blood are classified as “colored” and were treated differently than pure blacks under apartheid. Fine. But this doesn’t mean that the racial differences themselves, as opposed to the language used to talk about them, are social constructs. That’s pretty much it. " I think we should incorporate this idea into the article because it seems a bit more on the politically-correct rhetoric side. Wareware 10:37, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Sam [Spade] 12:53, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds vacuous to me. It's like saying, "Physicians are indeed well educated people... But this doesn't mean that lawyers are well educated people." It is true that the first thing does not prove the second thing, but it says nothing about whether the second thing is true or false. I don't see how the statement is more or less politically correct, either. The issue should not in any case be whether something sounds politically correct, but whether it is true. P0M 03:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

It's true the logic is of that form, but it's relevant precisely because many do make that incorrect inference. They go from "many classifications based on race have no biological basis" to "race is a social construct". The quoted article is merely noting that, contrary to many authors' assertions, this does not follow. Very Verily 04:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't quite follow your logic. Supposing that there are "classifications based on race", then there must be something called race. So your first statement indirectly assumes the existence of the very thing that is in dispute. It is irrelevant whether a great number or a small number of people make an incorrect logical inference. Suppose somebody says, "If the planet Venus is on average colder than Earth, then Earth is the third planet from Sol." The fact that the first part of this if-then argument is a false statement does nothing to prove or disprove the truth of the second statement. What is in dispute is still whether race is a social construct. Beyond that, there is the more fundamental question of whether race is not a word that lacks any definition that is not so squishy as to vitiate its value to clear thinking. P0M

I'm not sure what you mean. I grant you that "classifications based on race" was not the clearest choice of words, but it should not obscure my meaning. The point is, many authors use incorrect reasoning to conclude race is a social construct, and the quote above points out that said reasoning is incorrect. One can give examples of reasoning of the same form which is obviously wrong, but in this case some have been fooled. You seem to have not seen that this is the issue I raised, and are instead focusing on whether one can disprove the conclusion of the faulty reasoning, which is beyond the scope of this one point. Very Verily 05:35, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree with what SLrubenstein has to say in the following message. You say that "many authors use incorrect reasoning to conclude race is a social construct, and the quote above points out that said reasoning is incorrect." But so what if thousands of people use incorrect reasoning to prove something? P0M 17:19, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thousands of people making a relevant and significant claim? That certainly seems noteworthy to me. Very Verily 00:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Alas, WareWare's comment above clouds the issue. Race is a social construct, and so are racial distinctions. I think what WareWare meant is that many of the markers of racial difference are biologically real. For example, that some people have fair skin and others have dark skin is a biological fact. But these biological facts are not "racial differences" as such; to perceive them as racial differences, or as signs of racial difference, is one of the things being socially constructed. Slrubenstein

But of course that is your POV. Others say those are indicators of race, in the same way that the markings on a fruit fly might be an indicator of species. Very Verily 00:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

remove hideous, unhelpful images

I see that Sam Spade has removed the series of pictures of ordinary people calling them "hideous, unhelpful images." Personally, I do not find the FBI wanted poster pictures attractive or helpful. Do you, Sam, find words like "hideous" appropriate to edit summaries? Are you perhaps unaware of the general atmosphere that is created in the Wikipedia environment by the gratuitous use of offensive and derogatory language? P0M 04:22, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I was being frank, perhaps overly so. I chanced across this page, and removed the unnattractive image. I then went to the talk page, and was dismayed to see this was a featured article! I was rendered speechless, and left w/o comment, a bit embaressed. I came back a week or so later, and saw that the images remained the way I had left them. Concensus by fiat? I don't know, but it sure looks a heck of a lot better this way. I do think some attractive images of ethnic folks from around the world should be included, but the image I removed was terrible, simultaneously severely unattractive and completely uninformative. Sam [Spade] 15:23, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

A couple of points, besides attractiveness, that IMHO suggest that this image should be removed:

It includes personal data from the criminal records of many persons, which fall outside the scope of Wikipedia, and may even be violating these persons' human/civil rights.
It relies on FBI's classification of races, which is more empirical than scientific.

Etz Haim 23:03, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Etz, the current images are not the ones that P0M and Sam are discussing. --Rikurzhen 23:15, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. My objections remain, though. Etz Haim 23:44, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The images that Sam Spade deleted were ones that I supplied in the hope that we could get a collection of varied skin colors and features that would show a continuum when we got enough of them. It has been objected that those images are "hideous, severely unattractive, and completely uninformative." (The people pictured are all friends of mine, so that may give you an idea of what kind of person I am. Just be thankful I didn't supply my own photo among them. ;-) )I don't find the present images (which were the first images of individual humans that were supplied) attractive, and, like you, I object to the same factors that you point to. I don't want to get into an edit war. I just do not have the energy or the time at this point to deal with interpersonal bleep. I am going to try to move the recently supplied very nice image (even though it doesn't have the dates on it yet) to the top. The discussion below is a revealing re-hash of things that we have been debating ever since I got started on Wikipedia. Some people just insist on having their ideas of [race] validated, when [race] is a social construct. P0M 01:23, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To be fair, the notion that race is a social construct is itself a particular POV. Stealing from the linked page it would imply that

In the present state of affairs, race is taken for granted; race appears to be inevitable.
race need not have existed, or need not be at all as it is. race, or race as it is at present, is not determined by the nature of things; it is not inevitable.

--Rikurzhen 02:44, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

§ As I was saying, some people like the page to be headed by a picture that hypostatizes [race] and makes it into whites, blacks, etc., etc. Not more than 5 minutes after I tried trading the mug shots for the map they were back. It is very easy to revert a page, very easy to delete content, but more difficult to fix something that is not as good as it might be. I believe that the present image is itself a form of POV advocacy, and that it distorts the truth. Slrubenstein was right in deleting it when it first appeared, and I was tactically wrong in trying to find an image that would fill the felt need for some pretty image to be placed at the top of the article. P0M 02:09, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'll repeat my opinion because it still applies. If we need to have an image for the article, then I think we are left with little choice but to have a montage image. Ideally we would have an image that frames and informs the many debates reflected in this article. I think that is impossible to achieve. Thus, we are left with the decision of what kind of (next best) image to present. The most reasonable image -- if one is needed -- is one the presents the "common sense" or "most common" meaning of the term. This will necessarily be POV, but at least it can be the most common POV. If need be, we can add an image #2 to represent the second most common point of view. The other alternative is to have no image. --Rikurzhen 02:33, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I would much favor not having any image. Who gets to decide which #1 POV is really the #1 POV? Is supporting the majority prejudice really advancing the cause of truth? Or does it strengthen the position of those who make propaganda for racism? The mug shots represent a very strong US-centric idea of what [race] is, as the two most recent contributors (see below) have noted. I didn't mind them quite so much when they were not at the top of the article. In their present position I think they compromise the article very strongly. P0M

Not having any image would be wildly unhelpful to the reader, and would cause me to object to this articles featured status. Providing the emprical, legal definition of races from a major superpower (and the bastion of the english language we are editing in I might ad) seems a fundamental necessity to convey any useful meaning to the reader. Sam [Spade] 19:36, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Definitions are not empirical; moreover, it by superpower you mean the US I do not believe there are any "legal" definitions of races; the Census bureau devises criteria through a political process for political purposes but they do not have the force of law. Slrubenstein

Affirmative action has the force of law, but your comments are off topic. The focus is on what images aught be included, and why. Sam [Spade] 21:41, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Supermodel faces

Is this image any better? The individual panels are copyrighted, but because it is a highly modifed (smaller) image, it seems to be fair use. --Rikurzhen 06:45, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I don't like it for two reasons. First is one I have expressed before, against using computer-generated images that imply some "ideal" image representing a particular race. Second, supermodels of any race generally represent an aesthetic that is specific to Western culture. Of all the images people have suggested, I still like the UNICEF children one -- they are real people. I guess what I am proposing is NOT set of images, each of which represents a different "race," but rather a set of images that collectively represent human variation. Slrubenstein

If those are the strongest arguments against this particular image, then I suggest it should stay until a better one is found. All of the other pictures have stronger copyright problems or have generated a lot of controversy.

Personally, I think your first concern is either a pun on "ideal" (ideal beauty vs ideal race) or a fear about the naturalistic fallacy or the is-ought problem. Your second concern may be true of supermodels and their bodies, but I think there is good evidence that facial beauty is somewhat cross-cultural. In this particular case, I used Naomi Campbell (top left) because her face morphed into reasonable looking people, but I don't think any of them would count as ideal or particularly unattractive is most cultures. --Rikurzhen 18:53, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

Let's leave them in the article long enough to attract attention to this thread so that a concensus can be achieved. --Rikurzhen 18:56, Oct 27, 2004 (UTC)

I have no objection to your posting the images on the talk page in order to initiate a discussion -- this is precisely what the talk page is for! But it is both customary and sensible to discuss a contentious change on the talk page before incorporating it into the article. If you really object to the mug shots, I personally have no objection to your removing them as we discuss what to do. Slrubenstein

NPOV?

Is the usage of "many" as compared to "some" a matter of NPOV in the context of recent changes made by 129.16.31.250? I think the text was more accurate before the changes. --Rikurzhen 06:00, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Fix this page!

The edition I see right now has the "Overview" section starting in mid-sentence. Queerwiki 15:00, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

I fixed it. An anon user wiped out half the section, possibly by mistake. Very Verily 15:16, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)