This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Racialism redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The contents of the Racialism page were merged into Race (human categorization) on 20 July 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Racialism, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. |
Racialism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This is regarding this revert.
@
Shoefly: Hello. Instead of telling readers that something is controversial, the article should summarize reliable sources to explain why this brief statement is significant to this topic. The sentence Moynihan's statements in context or taken out of context, remain highly controversial today.
is unacceptable
WP:EDITORIALIZING as well. Neither
this source nor
this source mentions the term "racialism".
This source only mentions it as the title of the essay, but says nothing about the term. Again, the point of having sources is to summarize them, not to use them for tangential
WP:SYNTH to imply significance.
As this has been contested, please follow WP:BRD and gain consensus before restoring a third time. Grayfell ( talk) 19:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
In the current Wikipedia article, the term "racialism" variably is described as a "belief", "theory" and "philosophical stance". Would you allow a more diverse description of this 'ism" be reflected in the article's intro?
Even though I agree with most of the content about race labels as a social construct, can a blog entry or YouTube clip be an acceptable Wikipedia reference? Race Is Real, but not in the way Many People Think
It may be precisely racialist belief that makes race labeling feel real. For example, isn't it a racialist belief that drives the US Census since 1790 to select or asks people to select one or more race labels? Race and Multiracial Americans in the U.S. Census Racialist belief and the resulting actions in the US have a history that could be better reflected in the article.
Can we find consensus that the article content, references and structure can be improved? Would you accept or tolerate the edits below?
Extended content
|
---|
Du Bois believed that racial identities were "valuable properties of human individuals, and that racial solidarity can help realize such human goods as equality and self-actualization." [2] He further stated that racism required advancing the argument that one race is superior to other races of human beings. [[:File:WEB DuBois 1918.jpg|thumb|upright| W. E. B. Du Bois]] In In My Father’s House (1992), Kwame Anthony Appiah summarized Du Bois's philosophical stance by writing that racialism is a value-neutral term and racism is a value-charged term.
According to Oxford Dictionaries Online, racialism is "another term for racism". [3] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines racialism as "a theory that race determines human traits and capacities" and defines "racism" as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". [4] In 2012, the consensus among geneticists was that racialist beliefs are not supported by modern population genetics. [5] [6] [7] [8] Some U.S. medical studies have found partial genetic correlations of incidence of diseases and subsets of American population groups, but those subsets (i.e. African Americans, White Americans) are not genetically representative of everyone who is included in the American definitions of "black" or "white". [9] [10] In discussing how race is used by scientists, Takezawa et al. summarized the finding of a 2014 interdisciplinary workshop on scientific ethics by saying:
In Racial Culture: A Critique (2005), Richard T. Ford claimed that although "there is no necessary correspondence between the ascribed identity of race and one's culture or personal sense of self" and "group difference is not intrinsic to members of social groups but rather contingent o[n] the social practices of group identification", the social practices of identity politics may coerce individuals into the "compulsory" enactment of "prewritten racial scripts". [12] References
|
Shoefly ( talk) 16:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Grayfell: It sounds like we may possibly have consensus on an edit suggestion. Would you remove the YouTube [2] and blog Race Is Real, but not in the way Many People Think as acceptable references or should I? Can we also agree that the [3] may be unacceptable as a primary source for the preceding sentence statement? Possibly replace the word "many" with "some" in this sentence? The Oxford Dictionary entry mentioned later should suffice then as a source, right?
Not allowing a "History" Section makes it difficult to trace the roots, the original use, and the ways the term has evolved or not evolved over time. If Wikipedia content or structure is only permitted under a definition that "racialism is racism", it may erase history. Tolerating diversity of implied meaning is what makes Wikipedia better than other encyclopedias I believe.
Shoefly ( talk) 15:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The introduction should be changed to this:
Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, which are ostensibly distinct biological categories, a view rejected by current scientific consensus in the West, [1] but widely accepted among Chinese anthropologists [2] and with mixed acceptance among scholars in Eastern Europe. [3] Many dictionaries define the term racialism as synonymous with racism. [4]
The references are valid and it is a more balanced and accurate representation of world scholarly consensus on the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.81.100.53 ( talk) 17:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
References
No it is not irrelevant, it provides further evidence that it is not the case that the scientific consensus rejects racialism. This claim is not explicit in the source, it is merely implicit, which is why it cannot be a source in the article. However, the fact that it is implicit in the source that the scientific consensus does not reject racialism is further grounds for removing this inaccurate statement from the article. In any case, the other references still stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.81.100.53 ( talk) 23:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any over-arching purpose to this article. The
hatnote over at
Race (human categorization) promises that this article will inform the reader about the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races
, but that historical view is actually better described in the Race article itself (and in much more depth in the article
Scientific racism). I'd suggest that anything here that is not yet said better in
Race (human categorization) should be merged, and this article redirected there. Thoughts?
Generalrelative (
talk) 21:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks like we have consensus to merge. I'll go ahead with it. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Re this: WP:R#PLA: "Wikipedia follows the "principle of least astonishment"; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "Hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place. Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term" [my emphasis]. Scientific racism#After 1945 (4th paragraph) actually defines "racialism"; Race (human categorization) does not even mention the term. Redirecting "Racialism" to an article that does not even mention the term violates the principle of least astonishment. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 6 August 2020 (UTC)
After 1945 By 1954, 58 years after the Plessy v. Ferguson upholding of racial segregation in the United States, American popular and scholarly opinions of scientific racism and its sociologic practice had evolved.[132] In 1960 the journal Mankind Quarterly started ...This also seems to violate the "principle of least astonishment" in my view, since the reader is thrown into an ongoing narrative without being provided proper context. In the merge discussion I initiated above, I favored redirecting to Race (human categorization) on the assumption that many readers would be looking for the
belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, which is introduced and then debunked quite well in the first couple sections of that article. Scientific racism, on the other hand, is geared toward describing the history of
the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.It seems to me that some but not all readers searching for "racialism" will have that sense in mind, and that on balance the information presented in Race (human categorization) will be more germane to the majority of readers. Further, those who are interested in Scientific racism instead can easily follow the Wikilink in the fourth paragraph of the lead. Finally, we can always find a way to introduce the term "racialism" into the lead to Race (human categorization) –– or Scientific racism for that matter –– though I'm not 100% convinced that the term is important enough to merit that kind of attention. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Generalrelative:@ Beyond My Ken:@ Grayfell:@ Rsk6400:
Following the merge discussion above, the content of this article was merged (and then more or less deleted) from Race (human categorization). That article no longer even mentions the term "racialism". That's fine and seems appropriate. However the term "racialism" is most often defined as a synonym for "racism", and the Racism article has actual content discussing it. Any objection to switching the target? Mobi Ditch ( talk) 08:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I guess this is much the same point as made by @ Omnipaedista:, above. Mobi Ditch ( talk) 08:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
"the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races. In my view that belief is best described –– and debunked –– in the Race (human categorization) article itself. The issue, I think, is that racialism is today often used as a euphemism for racism, but that it also retains an ostensibly neutral definition, as given by e.g. Merriam-Webster: "a theory that race determines human traits and capacities". Note that according to this definition no hierarchy among races is explicitly posited. I'd argue that it's precisely this lack of explicit hierarchy that makes racialism work as a euphemism (rather than a simple synonym) for racism: the ostensible neutrality provides cover for racists to hide behind. In my view it's best to keep the target as Race (human categorization), since at least there readers can learn something about why racialism is a bogus view of human differences. But again, I agree that there are arguments to be made for the other targets and I'm very willing to respect consensus if other editors think differently. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Racialism redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
The contents of the Racialism page were merged into Race (human categorization) on 20 July 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the merged article please see its history. |
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which is a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully. |
Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Racialism, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. |
Racialism received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||
|
This is regarding this revert.
@
Shoefly: Hello. Instead of telling readers that something is controversial, the article should summarize reliable sources to explain why this brief statement is significant to this topic. The sentence Moynihan's statements in context or taken out of context, remain highly controversial today.
is unacceptable
WP:EDITORIALIZING as well. Neither
this source nor
this source mentions the term "racialism".
This source only mentions it as the title of the essay, but says nothing about the term. Again, the point of having sources is to summarize them, not to use them for tangential
WP:SYNTH to imply significance.
As this has been contested, please follow WP:BRD and gain consensus before restoring a third time. Grayfell ( talk) 19:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)
In the current Wikipedia article, the term "racialism" variably is described as a "belief", "theory" and "philosophical stance". Would you allow a more diverse description of this 'ism" be reflected in the article's intro?
Even though I agree with most of the content about race labels as a social construct, can a blog entry or YouTube clip be an acceptable Wikipedia reference? Race Is Real, but not in the way Many People Think
It may be precisely racialist belief that makes race labeling feel real. For example, isn't it a racialist belief that drives the US Census since 1790 to select or asks people to select one or more race labels? Race and Multiracial Americans in the U.S. Census Racialist belief and the resulting actions in the US have a history that could be better reflected in the article.
Can we find consensus that the article content, references and structure can be improved? Would you accept or tolerate the edits below?
Extended content
|
---|
Du Bois believed that racial identities were "valuable properties of human individuals, and that racial solidarity can help realize such human goods as equality and self-actualization." [2] He further stated that racism required advancing the argument that one race is superior to other races of human beings. [[:File:WEB DuBois 1918.jpg|thumb|upright| W. E. B. Du Bois]] In In My Father’s House (1992), Kwame Anthony Appiah summarized Du Bois's philosophical stance by writing that racialism is a value-neutral term and racism is a value-charged term.
According to Oxford Dictionaries Online, racialism is "another term for racism". [3] The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines racialism as "a theory that race determines human traits and capacities" and defines "racism" as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". [4] In 2012, the consensus among geneticists was that racialist beliefs are not supported by modern population genetics. [5] [6] [7] [8] Some U.S. medical studies have found partial genetic correlations of incidence of diseases and subsets of American population groups, but those subsets (i.e. African Americans, White Americans) are not genetically representative of everyone who is included in the American definitions of "black" or "white". [9] [10] In discussing how race is used by scientists, Takezawa et al. summarized the finding of a 2014 interdisciplinary workshop on scientific ethics by saying:
In Racial Culture: A Critique (2005), Richard T. Ford claimed that although "there is no necessary correspondence between the ascribed identity of race and one's culture or personal sense of self" and "group difference is not intrinsic to members of social groups but rather contingent o[n] the social practices of group identification", the social practices of identity politics may coerce individuals into the "compulsory" enactment of "prewritten racial scripts". [12] References
|
Shoefly ( talk) 16:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
@ Grayfell: It sounds like we may possibly have consensus on an edit suggestion. Would you remove the YouTube [2] and blog Race Is Real, but not in the way Many People Think as acceptable references or should I? Can we also agree that the [3] may be unacceptable as a primary source for the preceding sentence statement? Possibly replace the word "many" with "some" in this sentence? The Oxford Dictionary entry mentioned later should suffice then as a source, right?
Not allowing a "History" Section makes it difficult to trace the roots, the original use, and the ways the term has evolved or not evolved over time. If Wikipedia content or structure is only permitted under a definition that "racialism is racism", it may erase history. Tolerating diversity of implied meaning is what makes Wikipedia better than other encyclopedias I believe.
Shoefly ( talk) 15:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
The introduction should be changed to this:
Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, which are ostensibly distinct biological categories, a view rejected by current scientific consensus in the West, [1] but widely accepted among Chinese anthropologists [2] and with mixed acceptance among scholars in Eastern Europe. [3] Many dictionaries define the term racialism as synonymous with racism. [4]
The references are valid and it is a more balanced and accurate representation of world scholarly consensus on the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.81.100.53 ( talk) 17:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
References
No it is not irrelevant, it provides further evidence that it is not the case that the scientific consensus rejects racialism. This claim is not explicit in the source, it is merely implicit, which is why it cannot be a source in the article. However, the fact that it is implicit in the source that the scientific consensus does not reject racialism is further grounds for removing this inaccurate statement from the article. In any case, the other references still stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.81.100.53 ( talk) 23:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be any over-arching purpose to this article. The
hatnote over at
Race (human categorization) promises that this article will inform the reader about the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races
, but that historical view is actually better described in the Race article itself (and in much more depth in the article
Scientific racism). I'd suggest that anything here that is not yet said better in
Race (human categorization) should be merged, and this article redirected there. Thoughts?
Generalrelative (
talk) 21:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Looks like we have consensus to merge. I'll go ahead with it. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Re this: WP:R#PLA: "Wikipedia follows the "principle of least astonishment"; after following a redirect, the reader's first question is likely to be: "Hang on ... I wanted to read about this. Why has the link taken me to that?" Make it clear to the reader that they have arrived in the right place. Normally, we try to make sure that all "inbound redirects" other than misspellings or other obvious close variants of the article title are mentioned in the first couple of paragraphs of the article or section to which the redirect goes. It will often be appropriate to bold the redirected term" [my emphasis]. Scientific racism#After 1945 (4th paragraph) actually defines "racialism"; Race (human categorization) does not even mention the term. Redirecting "Racialism" to an article that does not even mention the term violates the principle of least astonishment. -- Omnipaedista ( talk) 6 August 2020 (UTC)
After 1945 By 1954, 58 years after the Plessy v. Ferguson upholding of racial segregation in the United States, American popular and scholarly opinions of scientific racism and its sociologic practice had evolved.[132] In 1960 the journal Mankind Quarterly started ...This also seems to violate the "principle of least astonishment" in my view, since the reader is thrown into an ongoing narrative without being provided proper context. In the merge discussion I initiated above, I favored redirecting to Race (human categorization) on the assumption that many readers would be looking for the
belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, which is introduced and then debunked quite well in the first couple sections of that article. Scientific racism, on the other hand, is geared toward describing the history of
the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority.It seems to me that some but not all readers searching for "racialism" will have that sense in mind, and that on balance the information presented in Race (human categorization) will be more germane to the majority of readers. Further, those who are interested in Scientific racism instead can easily follow the Wikilink in the fourth paragraph of the lead. Finally, we can always find a way to introduce the term "racialism" into the lead to Race (human categorization) –– or Scientific racism for that matter –– though I'm not 100% convinced that the term is important enough to merit that kind of attention. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:11, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
@ Generalrelative:@ Beyond My Ken:@ Grayfell:@ Rsk6400:
Following the merge discussion above, the content of this article was merged (and then more or less deleted) from Race (human categorization). That article no longer even mentions the term "racialism". That's fine and seems appropriate. However the term "racialism" is most often defined as a synonym for "racism", and the Racism article has actual content discussing it. Any objection to switching the target? Mobi Ditch ( talk) 08:47, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
I guess this is much the same point as made by @ Omnipaedista:, above. Mobi Ditch ( talk) 08:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
"the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races. In my view that belief is best described –– and debunked –– in the Race (human categorization) article itself. The issue, I think, is that racialism is today often used as a euphemism for racism, but that it also retains an ostensibly neutral definition, as given by e.g. Merriam-Webster: "a theory that race determines human traits and capacities". Note that according to this definition no hierarchy among races is explicitly posited. I'd argue that it's precisely this lack of explicit hierarchy that makes racialism work as a euphemism (rather than a simple synonym) for racism: the ostensible neutrality provides cover for racists to hide behind. In my view it's best to keep the target as Race (human categorization), since at least there readers can learn something about why racialism is a bogus view of human differences. But again, I agree that there are arguments to be made for the other targets and I'm very willing to respect consensus if other editors think differently. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:39, 31 August 2020 (UTC)