![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
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.
§ 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
§ 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
§ 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
§ 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)
I just noticed that there is a nice review article in Nature Reviews Genetics titled "DECONSTRUCTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENETICS AND RACE". I haven't read it yet, but I wanted to point it out. [3] Access is free. Rikurzhen
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)
(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:
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:
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)
§ 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:
and also:
§ 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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
"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)
(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 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)
[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
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)
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:
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)
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 ;) Slrubenstein
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
§ 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)
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)
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
§ 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:
( 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)
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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 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:
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)
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
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 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)
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)
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
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)
A couple of points, besides attractiveness, that IMHO suggest that this image should be removed:
Etz Haim 23:03, 26 Oct 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
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
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 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
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)
The edition I see right now has the "Overview" section starting in mid-sentence. Queerwiki 15:00, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
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.
§ 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
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)
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)
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)
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)
§ 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
§ 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
§ 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)
I just noticed that there is a nice review article in Nature Reviews Genetics titled "DECONSTRUCTING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENETICS AND RACE". I haven't read it yet, but I wanted to point it out. [3] Access is free. Rikurzhen
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)
(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:
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:
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)
§ 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:
and also:
§ 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)
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
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
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
"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)
(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 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)
[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
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)
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:
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)
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 ;) Slrubenstein
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
§ 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)
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)
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
§ 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:
( 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)
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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 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:
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)
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
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 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)
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)
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
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)
A couple of points, besides attractiveness, that IMHO suggest that this image should be removed:
Etz Haim 23:03, 26 Oct 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
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
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 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
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)
The edition I see right now has the "Overview" section starting in mid-sentence. Queerwiki 15:00, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)