Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-29 Caucasoid race

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Caucasoid race State: Closed Requested By: Lukas19 Other Parties: User:Psychohistorian, User:Wobble Mediated By: Anthonycfc [T • C]

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-12-29 Caucasoid race 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.3.1 Compromise A 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-12-29 Caucasoid race

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Lukas19 00:37, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Caucasoid race

Who's involved?

Me and User:Psychohistorian and User:Wobble

What's going on?

Content fork with Genetic views on race is claimed and a section of the article(Genetics section) keeps being deleted. I claim it's not a content fork since the section in question: i)links to Genetic views on race which contains main information. ii)includes an interpretation (cited) of the information in Genetic views on race which is relevant to the article (Caucasoid race).

Opposition claims that this interpretation can be included in Genetic views on race. However, this interpretation about Caucasoid race should be in the article Caucasoid race and Genetic views on race is not a small article.

Lukas wants to add content which supports the argument that there is a genetic basis for the Caucasian race. But, for the sake of NPOV, before that can be done, content is needed which addresses whether there even is a genetic basis for the Caucasian race. That dispute belongs in [Genetic views on race]. In other words, there is no way to present the content he wants in this article in a neutral way (and its already in the [Genetic views on race] article where it can be and is already treated in a neutral way). In other words, whether he realizes it or not, he's trying to create a content fork.-Psychohistorian 02:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Psychohistorian already added "The concept of race has all but been completely rejected by modern mainstream anthropology.[2]" while discussing this issue takes really long at Race. Such a oversimplified summary is also biased and a content fork by his definition. Lukas19 01:20, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Lukas claims that the "Caucasoid race" is a specific concept invented by the anthropologist Carleton Coon, and that this article is about Coon's concept. Coon was a physical anthropologist who defined his "races" based on physical features, not on genetics. If this article is about Coon's "race" called "Caucasoid", then it should be about the actual physical characteristics that Coon himself associated with his model or theory. The paper that Lukas wants to cite does not mention the term "Caucasoid" at all, neither does it mention "race", except to state that "Our evidence for clustering should not be taken as evidence of our support of any particular concept of “biological race.”...The arguments about the existence or nonexistence of “biological races” in the absence of a specific context are largely orthogonal to the question of scientific utility, and they should not obscure the fact that, ultimately, the primary goals for studies of genetic variation in humans are to make inferences about human evolutionary history, human biology, and the genetic causes of disease." So the paper specifically states that it is not about whether "races" are real or not.[1] In fact Coon's classification is based on the assumption that his "races" form discrete human evolutionary lineages (see Multiregional hypothesis), this is a correct definition of "race", because "race" is usually synonymous with subspecies. Because Coon thought that his "races" had evolved independently he was correct to classify them on a subspecific level as discrete "races", though his theory or model was never accepted by mainstream biology. The paper cited here does not use the term "race" because the dominant model for human evolution in biology today is the Recent single-origin hypothesis, which postulates that all humans are of recent African origin and do not represent discrete evolutionary lineages, we therefore are not "races", and the paper makes no claim to support Coon's "Caucasoid race". He cites this paper, then cites a completelly different newspaper article by a different scientist who thinks that this paper shows that the groups identified approximate "more or less" to the "races of traditional anthropology".[2] He then cites a completely different discussion paper from the "NATIONAL HUMAN GENOME CENTER HOWARD UNIVERSITY" that claims that "the so-called “races” of traditional anthropology (e.g.s. Mongoloid, Australoid, Caucasoid, Negroid)" do not exist.[3] So this whole section is based on a very tenuous set of unrelated papers. Indeed none of the cited papers makes any claim for genetics supporting the concept of a "Caucasoid race", and the only paper that mentions both "Caucasoid" and "race" is one that specifically claims that genetics does not support the existence of this race. The Rosenberg paper uses what it calls "human populations", without claiming that "Caucasoid" is one of the groups or populatrions being studied, or indeed claiming that the differences between these populations are significant enough to constitute "races". Another scientist gives his personal oppinion that these populations correspond geographically "more or less" to the "traditionsl races of anthropology", and a third position paper (which claims that biological races don't exist anyway), claims that the traditional races of anthropology include "Caucasoid". I can't help but feel that this is sophistry, designed for the specific purpose of introducing a specific POV into the article by trying to make claims that none of the papers does make. Even Armand Leroy does not mention "Caucasoid", and we are left to speculate what he thinks the "traditional races" are. It attempts to build a fallacious argument to support a point of view by constructing an artificial "consensus" from unrelated sources. Furthermore the term "Caucasoid" is also used as a synonym and as an adjective for "Caucasian", so often "Caucasoid" is used interchangably with "Caucasian". So someone who is "Caucasoid" is "of the Caucasian race", and we already have a Caucasian race article. Either this article is about the specific "Caucasoid race" from the model for human subspecific classification that Coon constructed (and therefore related to the Multiregional hypothesis), or it is a general article about the term "Caucasoid". The former would need to omit any genetic "evidence" (because Coon could not have used genetics 50 odd years ago), the latter would be a content fork of both the Caucasian race article and of the numerous articles related to "race" and genetics. Taken individually these papers do not support the existence of a "Caucasoid race", taken together these papers don't support this concept either, unless they are taken out of context for the purpose of "interpreting" what they say to support an unfounded claim. There are far too many articles about this subject anyway, and they need to be consolidated as I suspect they are all POV forks to a greater or lesser extent. Alun 14:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the section:

Genetics

Among other 4, one of the regions that emerge as a result of genetic clustering studies (See: Race, Genetic views on race and ‎Race and multilocus allele clusters ) is "Europe and the part of Asia south and west of the Himalayas". This area is similar to the area defined by European Bioinformatics Institute about Caucasoids. Indeed, according to Armand Marie Leroi, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Imperial College in London, these clusters correspond to "more or less the major races of traditional anthropology". While races of traditional anthropology is not a technical term and definition may vary according to context, according to National Human Genome Center at Howard University, Races of traditional anthropology include Caucasoid. ^[1]. Also note that some individuals from boundary locations between these regions were inferred to have partial ancestry in the clusters that corresponded to both sides of the boundary. And, in many cases, subclusters that corresponded to individual populations or to subsets of populations were also identified. ^[2] This line of thinking is disputed though. (See: Race, Genetic views on race and ‎Race and multilocus allele clusters )

1) Genetic views on race does not talk about similarity of the definition of European Bioinformatics Institute and one of the cluster regions.

The European Bioinfomatics Institute does not mention anything about "race". This is not a genetic classification, it is a classification of geographic origins of cell lines. The cluster regions do not discuss "race" in terms of eviolutionary lineages, indeed they usually do not mention "race" or "Caucasoid" at all. Alun 14:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

2) These are directly related with Caucasoid Race and hence should be discussed in the article.

How, none of these sources mentions the term "Caucasoid race"? IT is just your opinion that they are directly relevant because you personally seem to think that they support the existence of thei "race", none of the sources make this claim. Alun 14:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

3) I've never objected addition of counter arguments. Like Dr X thinks this region doesnt correspond to Caucasoid race. Or Dr Y thinks caucasoid race is an outdated thing etc. The text also says "This line of thinking is disputed though." I'm only arguing against the deletion of the whole thing. Lukas19 02:09, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

None of these papers mentions the term "Caucasoid race", so your argument hasn't been made. Are we to make a counter argument against an unsourced claim? Alun 14:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave a more detailed statement later, but I want to point out that Lukas retracted his earlier statement about this article being about Coon's model. He said about more than that. So, there are two different content forks going on. The one stated here and the one between Caucasian race and Caucasoid.-Psychohistorian 02:55, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What you seem to be not comprehending is that I didnt retract anything. I said Coon was the father of this classification but limiting it to only Coon's methods is silly. I also gave example of Hippocrates, being the father of medicine and how silly it would be to limit medical articles to methods only Hippocrates used. Lukas19 03:01, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

How is Hypocratese relevant? This is not an appropriate analogy, or are you suggesting that the existence of medicine is disputed? Coon's classification has never been accepted by mainstream biology or anthropology, because it is wrong. None of these papers has claimed that they support the concept of discrete evolutionary lineages for the human species, and none has claimed to validate the concept of "race", let alone the concept of a "Caucasoid race". If you are talking about "race", then these papers are not relevant, they document the continentally distributed genetic variation observed within a single subspecific taxon, that of Homo sapiens sapiens. Do you want to talk about "race" or do you want to talk about the small amount of variation seen between humans living od different continents. These are different things, and should be treated differently. Alun 14:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I was answering to the non-sensical claim that newer research cant support older research. Even if Coon's classifications are biological, since biology correlates with genetics, newer genetic research also correlates with Coon's work, despite not supporting it 100%. And this is what I was portreying. Where did I say newer research supports "discrete evolutionary lineages"? I'm just presenting it as a relevant discussion to the article since it IS relevant. But instead of adding a clarification statement like "however this research doesnt support discrete lineages" and being constructive, you 2 deleted the whole section....Lukas19 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually it's not irrelevant, it is exactly relevant. These genetic results do not support Coon in any way shape or form. Coon recorded the physical variation he observed, which is also geographically distributed. He then ignored the clinal nature of the physical variation (which was well know for about a centure before Coon) and decided to build a scientific model for "race". Coon's model was based on the theory that the variation he had observed was the result of separate evolutionary lineages. Therefore he was correct to claim that his Multiregional hypothesis produced separate "races", because he thought that they represented deeper variation than they really did, he also thought they represented separate evolutionary lineages. This is how Coon defined his "races", this is his theory. It is incorrect to try to sepearate Coon's "races" from Coon's Multiregional hypotheses because his "races" are the product of this hypothesis. This is how science works. A scientists obsreves nature, then devises a model or theory to try and explain the observations, then scientists try to disprove the model. There is no such thing as a scientific fact, or if you prefer, all scientific "facts" are dependent on the theory or model that describes them. It is incorrect to try to claim that Coon's "Caucasian race" exists outside of his model, because his model describes this "race". The dominant model for human evolution at present is the Recent single-origin hypothesis, all of the papers cited support this model, none of these papers supports the contention that tehr human species divides along subspecific lines, none claim seperatr evolutionary lineages, and none claim a great deal of genetic variation. None of these papers supports the contention that a "Caucasoid race" exists. Mostly they use geographical origin to describe their "populations". Some of the use a social concept of "race", such as self defined "race". None supports or endorses the idea that a "Caucasoid race" forms a discrete and separate evolutionary lineage back to the Neanderthals, therefore none of these papers supportts the concept of a "Caucasoid race". Look at the Leroi paper, he uses the term "race" inapropriately, he uses it to mean geographical distribution of variation. These are not the same things at all. You are conflating two different concepts. These papers do not support Coon's concept of "race", and do not claim to do so. It is therefore just your opinion that these data have any relevance or bearing on this article. I really am fed up with the constant distortion, half truthes, misinformation and POV pushing you keep trying to introduce to race related articles. If you do not understand the difference between a biological "race" as Coons meant it, and the social construct of "Race" as people use it today, then I suggest that you should not really be working on these articles. When you find a paper that states that their genetic evidence supports the "racial" model that Coon proposed then I will support it's inclusion entirely, I will also eat my hat. Untill such time please do not try to conflate Coon's "races" with the tiny proportion of genetic material that is geographically distributed, which does not represent the sort of diversity required to meet the correct standards for biological "racial" classification. These are not the same construct, do not represent the same model for evolution and do not represent equivalent biological/anthropological methodologies. Your analogy is wrong, medicine is not a scientific model. Coon's Multiregional model is discredited,[4][5][6] therefore his "races" must also be discredited because they only exist as biological "races" (ie discrete evolutionary lineages) if his Multiregional hypothesis is correct. What we have left is "race" as a "short hand for diversity", as Leroi and other researchers sometimes use it, without it being synonymous with biological race/subspecies, or we have "race" as a social construct, which I believe is the same thing as "short hand" for diversity. Mostly these papers use "self described race/ethnicity", which is the same as a social construct.

'Race' is not being defined or used consistently; its referents are varied and shift depending on context. The term is often used colloquially to refer to a range of human groupings. Religious, cultural, social, national, ethnic, linguistic, genetic, geographical and anatomical groups have been and sometimes still are called 'races'6, 7. In anthropology, the meaning of race became formalized for humans and restricted to units based on biological variation in keeping with general zoological practice....'Race' is applied in formal taxonomy to variation below the species level. In traditional approaches, substantively morphologically distinct populations or collections of populations occupying a section of a species range are called subspecies and given a three-part Latin name...We argue that the correct use of the term 'race' is the most current taxonomic one, because it has been formalized. 'Race' gains its force from its natural science root. The term denotes 'natural' distinctions and connotes differences not susceptible to change. One is led to ask, therefore, whether everything that is called a 'racial' difference is actually natural. 'Racial' differences carry a different weight than cultural differences. In terms of taxonomic precision and best practice, is it scientifically correct to identify European Americans, Asians and Pacific Islanders, Han Chinese, Hispanics and African Americans of Middle Passage descent as different races? Although individuals may refer to themselves as belonging to a particular 'race', it is doubtful that this has been done with knowledge of, or concern for, zoological taxonomy, because the common use of the term has come from sociopolitical discourse. Individuals learned the 'race' to which they were assigned.[7]

What Coon meant was subspecies, this is not what these papers are saying. It is therfore incorrect, and indeed dishonest to claim that they support Coon. This is an encyclopaedia, it does not exist to support dubious racist and/or racialist distortions of science in order to artificially construct a scientific consensus that "race" is biological, or that biologists/geneticists are supporting Coon's model for subspecies. Alun 18:06, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Please keep your arguments concise.

Find me in the article where I added that papers supported Coon's notion of subspecies. Lukas19 00:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is called "Caucasoid race". Race means subspecies, you claim above that the genetic research support's Coon, are you now claiming that it doesn't? If you want to claim that "Caucasoid" simply means the small subset of genetic variation that is on average shared by the populations of Europe, North Africa and the Indian subcontinent, then you must simply call the article "Caucasoid" and not "Caucasoid race". Alun 03:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The article is called "Caucasoid race" but we also got a quote saying race is outdated. So the reader knows race in title is disputed. And learn to read properly: "Even if Coon's classifications are biological, since biology correlates with genetics, newer genetic research also correlates with Coon's work, despite not supporting it 100%."

How does this make any sense? how does genetics correlate with biology? What does this mean? genetics is a branch of biology, it doesn't correlate with biology. The article is about "Caucasoid race", the "Caucasoid race" is a construct of physical anthrology. If you want to describe the geographical genetic variation in this article, then you cannot call the article "Caucasoid race", because this variation does not represent "racial" variation. If we say in the article that "race" is outdated, it does not then mean that we do not follow the correct definition of "Caucasoid race", which is a subspecies. I note that most of the cited work does not actually use the term "Caucasoid race" at all, it simply says "Caucasoid". Phychohistorian has already suggested that we rrename the article simply "Caucasoid". And what's Learn to read properly, are you calling he stupid again, how many times is that now? Three or four? Alun 06:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

You say it doesnt support Coon's work at all. But Leroi clearly makes the connection between genetic research and traditional races of anthropology. Please apply some dialectic in your arguments. Lukas19 04:23, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't support Coon's work. Leroi does not claim that it support's Coon's work. Can you exactly point out to me where Leroi claims that this genetic work indicates distinct evolutionary lineages for modern humans? Where does Leroi claim that this work supports the Multiregional hypothesis? Where does Leroi claim that this work supports the existence of subspecies, as Coon did. This is where your argument breaks down. Cooon measured the same variation as genetics does. The thing is Coon interpreted this as reflecting separate evolutionary lineages for his "races" In this sense Coon was correct to call them races. But Coon's interpretation was wrong, and many scientists at the time and before knew he was wrong, because they knew, as did Coon himself that physical variation, like genetic variation is small and clinal, it is not discrete. If you read Leroi you will see that he is talking about using "race" as a "short hand" for "genetic variation", Coon did not use "race" as a "shorthand for genetic variation", Coon used "race" to mean "separate evolutionary lineages". Just because they are measuring the same variation, it does not mean that they are supporting each other's conclusions. Indeed we know that humans do not form "biological races", but they do form "social races". If you want to call this article "Caucasoid race", then you need to use anthropological definitions and criteria, and not genetic data, because "Caucasoid race" is an anthropological concept and not a genetic one. You have failed to show that any of these papers support the concept of a "Caucasoid race", none of the mention the term "Caucasoid race" at all. You just want to include this data because you believe that they support it. Alun 06:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Again. Read what I write. "You say it doesnt support Coon's work at all. But Leroi clearly makes the connection between genetic research and traditional races of anthropology. Please apply some dialectic in your arguments."

This is irrelevant, Leroi does not make any such connection. He makes one point and one suggestion. He points out that the populations follow a continental pattern, and that this is more or less the same as the geographical distribution of the traditional races. He is talking about distribution here, he is not talking about genetics supporting the races, but about genetics revealing the same continental distribution more or less, this is something quite different. His suggestion is that "race" should be used as "a short hand" for variation, that is he understands that it should not be used in the sense that Coon used it, because this is known to be incorrect. Alun 07:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

X connected to Y. X supports Y. These are two different concepts. I'm arguing for the inclusion of genetic research because it is relevant to Coons' work even if, as I said: "Even if Coon's classifications are biological, since biology correlates with genetics, newer genetic research also correlates with Coon's work, despite not supporting it 100%." So my argument has always been and IS that genetic research should be included because it is relevant, not because it is supportive. To highlight that I also asked "Find me in the article where I added that papers supported Coon's notion of subspecies" which you didnt answer. Again, apply dialectics...Lukas19 23:54, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You are incorrect. You claim that the genetic research is relevant to Coon's work, but you fail to show just how and why it is relevant. Please provide proper reliable sources we can cite that claim that this work is relevant to Coon's multiregional hypothesis, or to his racial hypothesis (that is that it is relevant to separate evolutionary lineages). None of your sources claim that the genetic research is relevant to Coon, none of them even mention Coon. This is just your opinion, wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. This work does not support the concept of "race" at all, let alone anything Coon published, and none of the sources you want to cite even mention either a "Caucasoid race" or "Coon" himself. Alun 07:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• "Find me in the article where I added that papers supported Coon's notion of subspecies"

Why do I need to do this? It is you who claimed that the "Caucasoid race" is Coon's construct, it is you who claimed that this article is about his race, not me, so it is you who needs to provide evidence that genetic research supports this "rcae". Alun 07:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

Not delete the section.

Leave discussion on genetic views on race (including caucasians) to the article on genetic views on race where it can be explored in depth and in a neutral manner.-Psychohistorian 02:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Redirect this article to Caucasian race, or make it specifically about the physical features of Coons "race", which is what it started out as, or rename it "Caucasoid" as Psychohis has suggested and have a brief discussion of the various uses of this word. Most of the cited references don't mention "Caucasoid race", just "Caucasoid". Alun 14:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Not really.

[edit] Mediator response

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Compromise A

Lucas - it does appear that the other editors have policy on their side; would you, perhaps, be willing to accept their wishes? On the other hand, we can mediate more but it would be a waste if the answer has already surfaced. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 02:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Which policy? Did you read all the discussion or just the link provided you as a summary? Lukas19 19:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there any policy that they have cited that you believe does not constitute any relevance to the current dispute, or that you otherwise disagree with being linked to the case? Also, let me make it clear I am not stating I am taking the side of the others; I am remaining strictly neutral at all times. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

They have cited Wikipedia:Content forking. And I think it is irrelevant for the above reasons. Lukas19 23:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've been stalling this mediation in the hope the dispute falters, which it has. Regards, Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 22:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

We can get started immediately, but first budget me about 10-15 minutes (My reading difficulties are causing me trouble at the moment.) Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this clear - one user would like the section to remain, and one would like it redirected using {{mainarticle|Causation race}}. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 01:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's grossly oversimplifying the issue. The conflict is summarized rather well [[8]].

Further, while a simple straw poll seems like a bad way to base a decision on an issue which violates policy, Alun and myself are in consensus about what to do with this issue and Lukas disagrees.-Psychohistorian 02:02, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we can come to some sort of compromise; would you like to detail, very simply and in your own words, what exactly it is that you and the others agree/disgree about. This way, it is much more readable than the screeds above. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 02:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

My apologies - I missed the first part since it was indented differently; please - there is no need to language like "grossly" - it can be interpreted as biting. Thanks; well looks like there is no need for a concise summary - the link says it all. I'll post a compromise. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 02:12, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, this has really been going on for awhile. It is complex. There is no clif notes version that everyone is going to consider neutral. So when you asked for a summary, it sent up a red flag and I reacted. I think I'm just really starting to see just how incompetent Wikipedia, as a platform, is at handling social articles - particularly those with a small active politically radical group or two.-Psychohistorian 02:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

It's no problem at all - we all get stressed; at least you had the decency to apologies - some don't, hence ArbCom's backlog :) Well, I've posted the compromise, so I'll see how Lukas stands, and I will continue in one way or another, depending on his response. Anthonycfc ^{[T • C]} 02:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Lukas seems to be taking a bit of a Wikibreak, see User talk:Lukas19. Cheers, Alun 06:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)