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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
This page rest quite heavily on the assumption that this is the case but it has not been demonstrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawby ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
...there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable...There are relevant areas which are legitimate science, as discussed at race and genetics and elsewhere, but these are widely misappropriated by modern racists, so we need to be very cautious not to misrepresent these fields as supporting racism. WP:NPOV doesn't mean we have to feign naivete and pretend that there isn't an ideological element to this. We do not treat fringe sources as legitimate, or bend over backwards to include obscure perspectives out of false balance. So yes, following broad scientific agreement, Wikipedia says that all racism is pseudo-scientific. Grayfell ( talk) 07:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I cited a paper by Aron Ambrosiani last time we discussed this. [1] I'd say that is a better source. Again: it was not 'the first institute in the world performing research into "racial biology"' which my source clarifies. This claim that it was the first in the world is what the relevance hinges on. Edaen ( talk) 12:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
According to this line on page 4:
Med Lundborg som föreståndare kunde världens första rasbiologiska institut med stöd av allmänna medel slå upp sina portar i januari 1922.
It seems quite clear there is no mention of independence, just that it is a institute which focuses primarily on racial biology. I'd be happy to see sources for the Soviet institute(s) and believe they would be worthy of mention in the article as well. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The Norwegian institute seems to be one of genetics, not racial biology. And being tied to a university is not the same as a independent state institute solely focused on racial biology. If a single DN 1918 paper is all we have we can't cite it, that is the definition of WP:OR. If you wish to question this please refer to a secondary source, and it would be very helpful if you could name any of the foreign institutes so that they could be researched further. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest using Ambrosiani's article as the foundation for the entrance here including its ambiguity. Edaen ( talk) 21:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
For a balanced description, see Eugenics archive under "Topics" -> "International Eugenics":
As it is now, the weight given to Sweden in the Wikipedia article is simply ridiculous. Edaen ( talk) 13:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Edaen — Nowhere in the either Ambrosiani's paper or Marklund's is there even an indication that it would be false. If you wish to refute it it is up to you to provide specific quotes and link to them properly wiht page-number and all. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Then add that comment to the article — you are engaging is disruptive WP:Original research and cherry-picking of sources. This is not allowed. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I undid the page move to "Scientific" racism. WP:SCAREQUOTES and WP:TITLE. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Carlotm -- please peruse the discussions in the talk page archives where previous changes to the name of the article were discussed and didn't go through. AnonMoos ( talk) 11:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is woefully incomplete without collections of emprical evidence for and against the existence of alleged differences in average phenotypes between different groups. 2600:8801:0:1530:B479:48D0:6B69:DDE9 ( talk) 09:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
This statement from the lede isn't true:
Historically it received credence in the scientific community, but is no longer considered scientific.
There is a wealth of evidence from recent years that disproves this. [1] This reference is concerned with national averages rather than race, but you can draw your own conclusions. There countless other studies that deal with race that show there are differences between the IQ of races.
Also, not all claims of differing IQs of races are pseudoscience. There are numerous studies in scientific journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:841b:82fe:191e:da27:2b07:2069 ( talk) 02:10, 31 March 2017
The only part of your above statement that is either truthful or informed enough to be worth a reply is that such claims are controversial. Controversy is a good thing in scientific debate because it makes us dig deeper to establish the truth. Since publication of The Bell Curve a number of other studies such as IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality have linked average national IQ to national productivity and wealth, based on tests that have no cultural bias. These recent publications plus the genetic studies of the evolution of man need to elaborated on to bring this article up to current scientific understanding.
"Over the decades, Richard Lynn has made inflammatory statements about average group differences in IQ, but his research is widely cited and given weight in mainstream psychological journals, even by his severest critics.” [1]
Phmoreno ( talk) 15:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The genetic history gives a much more complex picture of humanity than classification by race, and will probably redefine race. See: Race and genetics. If you want to drill down into some of the particulars see: [file.scirp.org/pdf/AA20120200004_71596882.pdf predatory publisher Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy] although this information is from 2013 (and just happened to be one of the papers I noticed while reading about evolutionary biology). Fossil DNA is providing new information every day. However, it does seem that Asians and Europeans, who share Neanderthal DNA, are more closely related to one another than to Africans, who lack Neanderthal DNA. Phmoreno ( talk) 15:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The modern understanding of this issue is not reflected in the article. We now have enough evidence to conclude that the racial IQ gap is not environmental or cultural, at least if you compare races in modern societies where adequate health and nutrition, universal education, inexpensive books and electronic communications are the norm. Putting the cultural and environmental argument aside, it's hard to argue with the genetic findings.
National Center for Biotechnology Information [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Nature [21] Phmoreno ( talk) 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The reference hosted on the National Center for Biotechnology Information division of the National Institutes of Health is sufficient to discredit the major claims of this article. Phmoreno ( talk) 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
References
From the lede:
Historically it received credence in the scientific community, but is no longer considered scientific.
Obviously false considering the large body of journal articles by researchers with the opposite view. Additionally, genetic studies and identical twin studies have confirmed the claim of substantial heritability of intelligence and has associated it with multiple genes. Does anyone have any sources disputing the genetic findings? Phmoreno ( talk) 12:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This RfC asks whether the following statement in the lead is correct:
Historically it [scientific racism] received credence in the scientific community, but is no longer considered scientific.
·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes
No
threaded discussion
Still missing explanation to the statement in question So you are going to allow a strong claim without even discussing why the statement is true. Based on the statement there is no way to tie it to the sources. What is not considered scientific and why? Phmoreno ( talk) 13:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
So, I'm a bit confused. Obviously there is a factual disagreement in the above threads (which I wasn't able to read in complete detail), specifically, a disagreement about whether or not the statement is correct (namely, the statement that scientific racism "is no longer considered scientific").
I am not an expert so I cannot assess the validity of the claim. However, what I am confused about is the "speedy closure" of the above RfC because of not feeding the trolls. What? Where exactly is Phmoreno behaving in a vandalistic manner? This user clearly has an opinion and that opinion may be wrong (again I am not an expert in the claim), but they are merely arguing for that opinion, not being a troll. Right?
Anyway, if it's true that the claim is correct and opposition to it has been by trolls, why is the disputed tag still there? Should we remove it?
Confused -- please help me understand the situation here :) I'd just like to remove the tag if possible or resolve it so this article is improved. Cstanford.math ( talk) 00:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
This article has too much overlap with History of the race and intelligence controversy to stand on its own. Phmoreno ( talk) 00:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Phmoreno -- The "race and intelligence controversy" didn't really gather significant momentum until the publication of the results of the WW1 "mental tests" on U.S. Army inductees just after the war, while more than half this article is devoted to pre-1918 developments, so I don't really see what the pernicious overlap is. AnonMoos ( talk) 02:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Ethnic Conflicts and the Nation-State [22] Doug Weller talk 12:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
No real surprise. Doug Weller talk 20:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Some recent changes to the lead and body of the article are tending to change the way the article reads in ways that I'm not confident about.
A) The long-standing stance of the article was that there was a view regarding the superiority of some races over others. This view claimed to have a scientific basis but is now not considered scientific or considered pseudo-scientific.
B) Currently, the article is talking about the scientific study of racial differences, perhaps unanchored from the bad science from the past two centuries. Or something like that.
This controversy has arisen before, but before I start rejecting recent changes I wanted to gather some views from other editors. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The opening sentence says this describes "attempts to justify belief in racism." Don't Wikipedia's articles on racism normally treat racism as a thing which actually exists? I mean "Racism is real" seems to be their general attitude (and even to treat racism as a sociological phenomenon rather than as a belief) but here, it is strongly suggested that racism does not exist. This should perhaps be reworded if it is meant to support the idea that people should believe in racism on the grounds that racism exists. -- BenMcLean ( talk) 18:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to remember of a site/book that I thought perhaps it would be an interesting addition here, in "external links", if anyone knows what I'm talking about, and if it's still online today. Unfortunately I don't remember even the name. The author's name was Italian or Italian-American. I believe the title was somewhat long, along the lines of "debunking the myths of scientific racism", with a subtitle even longer, like "how pseudoscience and bogus data were used to inferiorize black people". I believe there was some emphasis on black people as victims, instead of a more vague or neutral wording. As it's quite obvious now, I don't remember much, but I vaguely remember it being apparently good and citing lots of sources. That's it. Sorry. Edit: Here, I've found it: Resurrecting Racism - The modern attack on black people using phony science by Francisco Gil-White, which I guess maybe is Mexican-American and not Italian-American, not that it matters. Unfortunately rationalwiki mentions he's fond of conspiracy theories, so perhaps this resource requires further investigation before warrinting recommendation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.111.131.199 ( talk) 04:28, 14 July 2017
Well if Rationalwiki said it, it simply must be true Scriblerian1 ( talk) 10:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This article in its very title is a self contradiction. The term "racism" now means an "invidious" attitude, demeaning of certain groups; it being a primary explanation for the socio economic condition of those of this group, mostly in the United States. There is an article on Wikipedia, "Historical Race Concepts" that includes the development and interplay of race as a scientific concept as well as one that is political.
This is a subject that is so vehemently politicized that it inherently destroys the concept of NPV, Neutral Point of View, one of the pillars of this project. This subject is so politicized that we do not have an accurate ord for what had been "negro" -- the descriptor being limited to "African American" or "Black." The former implies a nationality that may be unknown, and the later a shade of darkness that is often not accurate.
Those social scientists who used the term "race" in previous times did not see it as a single monolithic identifier,a stigma; but as a biological reality that applied to homo sapiens as well as other species. Certainly, the term was also used by those whose goal was to continue stigmatize those whose ancestors had been slaves, but that is part of the picture, but not the only part.
In an increasing contentious world, Wikipedia is one of the last hopes of preserving fair minded exploration of complex issues. It may be the last venue that transcends a partisanship that has become toxic to the point of destroying civil discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arodb ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
How is it always pseudoscientific? If someone says black people have more testosterone therefore they are superior. Is that pseudoscience? Jack1234567891011121314151617 ( talk) 11:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I also am inclined to be critical of this article, because it conflates the empirical claim that there are real and scientifically measurable differences between various races or ethnic stocks, with the attitude that such differences in some way justify some sort of negative attitude or discriminatory practice. These are different kinds of claims. I am very much against the second kind -- the legitimatisation of hostile behavior toward any race or ethnic stock, but I have no trouble at all in observing the first kind of claim -- that there are racial or ethnic variations. Of course, there are graduations of similarity and differences between such types, but that does not entail that there is no such thing as a racial or ethnic type. (As a life long practitioner of horsemanship, I observe that there are different races or ethnic types of horses. This seems pretty non-controversial. Knowledge of such variations ought to be straightforward.)
Observation and documentation of such differences among humans (and other species) is scientifically interesting in itself, which is why all classification and description of variation is a basic feature of scientific practice. With regard to our own species, there are factual data that some drugs produce more effective results than others, in some racial groups rather than others. There are medically established variations in susceptibility to some disorders, and to different medical outcomes when people of different types are consuming similar diets. Such differences are not just medically verifiable: they are being used to provide better quality care to people of different racial backgrounds. This is medically interesting
Thus the question asked above, about whether it is always pseudoscientific to say that some racial group might have more testosterone than another, and the answer, that such a claim would be pseudoscientific, involve category mistakes by both the person asking the question, and by the person answering it. More testosterone might not be better, or it might be better for some activities but harmful for others. And the answer that such a claim would have to be pseudoscientific places the holder of that view at risk of being embarrassed by empirical research. I have no idea if some racial types have more testosterone than others, but as a person with some knowledge of biology, I would bet that there is some variation. Homogeneity is a very rare thing in any species.
To digress somewhat from what ought to be expected empirically or factually, into the domain of moral education: it has been entertaining me for some time that a new kind of measurable genetic variation has been discovered among human subtypes, in the form of Neanderthal DNA. There are racial/ethnic variations in the amount and source of Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA present. Sub-Saharan Africa did not receive any of this DNA. To claim that this variation exists is not pseudoscience. The Neanderthal ancestry of Europeans is interesting in the context of prejudice against dark skinned people, because Neanderthals had been in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years before modern humans arrived there. They were in Europe long enough that it seems they had adapted to northern conditions by evolving light-colored skin. I hope one day to tease one of those superiority claiming light skinned types by demonstrating that the light coloring was inherited from the much maligned Neanderthal source. Such an argument on my part would be intended to affect that person's attitude. Janice Vian, Ph.D. ( talk) 02:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Resuming this thread as a result of the recent tagging. This is possibly a source we could use:
Elsewhere it also discusses racism in context of white supremacism and pyramidology. There likely are other relevant references. — Paleo Neonate – 11:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Scientific racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
That's the title of an article in The Guardian today. [25] It starts with "University College London has been unwittingly hosting an annual conference attended by race scientists and eugenicists for the past few years. This might have come as a shock to many people. But it is only the latest instalment in the rise of “scientific” racism within academia." Doug Weller talk 11:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) – think that's enough of an rs to include a cautious summary? . . .
dave souza,
talk 18:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Although I can't say who the sock is using multiple IP addresses, I can confirm IP socking here and have deleted the section involved, which is of course can still be viewed in the history. I've also semi-protected for 3 days. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
due to politically correctness in control in anthropology field they dont agree with coon rushton or others racist i wonder why today anthropologist are egalitarianist or leftist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TetrahedronX7 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
there are four races and you could tell them from the skulls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TetrahedronX7 ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You should mention that a Nobel prize laureate and one of the most famous and prestigious scientists has come out publicly in support of the "fringe interpretations". Is wikipedia really objective and neutral, and allows debate on taboo questions? This is one of those issues where neutrality and scientific fairness are measured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.87.244.164 ( talk) 23:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Google 'Nobel disease'. He's lost his marbles. His award does not mean he should be believed. Sumanuil ( talk) 23:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
James Watson has been making nonsensical claims for years. "At a conference in 2000, Watson suggested a link between skin color and sex drive, hypothesizing that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos. His lecture argued that extracts of melanin – which gives skin its color – had been found to boost subjects' sex drive. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English Patient." He has also said that stereotypes associated with racial and ethnic groups have a genetic basis: Jews being intelligent, Chinese being intelligent but not creative because of selection for conformity, and Indians being servile."
Because conformism is somehow unique to the Chinese? Dimadick ( talk) 13:10, 16 January 2019 (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 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 7 |
This page rest quite heavily on the assumption that this is the case but it has not been demonstrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawby ( talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
...there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable...There are relevant areas which are legitimate science, as discussed at race and genetics and elsewhere, but these are widely misappropriated by modern racists, so we need to be very cautious not to misrepresent these fields as supporting racism. WP:NPOV doesn't mean we have to feign naivete and pretend that there isn't an ideological element to this. We do not treat fringe sources as legitimate, or bend over backwards to include obscure perspectives out of false balance. So yes, following broad scientific agreement, Wikipedia says that all racism is pseudo-scientific. Grayfell ( talk) 07:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello! I cited a paper by Aron Ambrosiani last time we discussed this. [1] I'd say that is a better source. Again: it was not 'the first institute in the world performing research into "racial biology"' which my source clarifies. This claim that it was the first in the world is what the relevance hinges on. Edaen ( talk) 12:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
According to this line on page 4:
Med Lundborg som föreståndare kunde världens första rasbiologiska institut med stöd av allmänna medel slå upp sina portar i januari 1922.
It seems quite clear there is no mention of independence, just that it is a institute which focuses primarily on racial biology. I'd be happy to see sources for the Soviet institute(s) and believe they would be worthy of mention in the article as well. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The Norwegian institute seems to be one of genetics, not racial biology. And being tied to a university is not the same as a independent state institute solely focused on racial biology. If a single DN 1918 paper is all we have we can't cite it, that is the definition of WP:OR. If you wish to question this please refer to a secondary source, and it would be very helpful if you could name any of the foreign institutes so that they could be researched further. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I suggest using Ambrosiani's article as the foundation for the entrance here including its ambiguity. Edaen ( talk) 21:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
For a balanced description, see Eugenics archive under "Topics" -> "International Eugenics":
As it is now, the weight given to Sweden in the Wikipedia article is simply ridiculous. Edaen ( talk) 13:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Edaen — Nowhere in the either Ambrosiani's paper or Marklund's is there even an indication that it would be false. If you wish to refute it it is up to you to provide specific quotes and link to them properly wiht page-number and all. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Then add that comment to the article — you are engaging is disruptive WP:Original research and cherry-picking of sources. This is not allowed. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
I undid the page move to "Scientific" racism. WP:SCAREQUOTES and WP:TITLE. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Carlotm -- please peruse the discussions in the talk page archives where previous changes to the name of the article were discussed and didn't go through. AnonMoos ( talk) 11:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
This article is woefully incomplete without collections of emprical evidence for and against the existence of alleged differences in average phenotypes between different groups. 2600:8801:0:1530:B479:48D0:6B69:DDE9 ( talk) 09:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
This statement from the lede isn't true:
Historically it received credence in the scientific community, but is no longer considered scientific.
There is a wealth of evidence from recent years that disproves this. [1] This reference is concerned with national averages rather than race, but you can draw your own conclusions. There countless other studies that deal with race that show there are differences between the IQ of races.
Also, not all claims of differing IQs of races are pseudoscience. There are numerous studies in scientific journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:841b:82fe:191e:da27:2b07:2069 ( talk) 02:10, 31 March 2017
The only part of your above statement that is either truthful or informed enough to be worth a reply is that such claims are controversial. Controversy is a good thing in scientific debate because it makes us dig deeper to establish the truth. Since publication of The Bell Curve a number of other studies such as IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality have linked average national IQ to national productivity and wealth, based on tests that have no cultural bias. These recent publications plus the genetic studies of the evolution of man need to elaborated on to bring this article up to current scientific understanding.
"Over the decades, Richard Lynn has made inflammatory statements about average group differences in IQ, but his research is widely cited and given weight in mainstream psychological journals, even by his severest critics.” [1]
Phmoreno ( talk) 15:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The genetic history gives a much more complex picture of humanity than classification by race, and will probably redefine race. See: Race and genetics. If you want to drill down into some of the particulars see: [file.scirp.org/pdf/AA20120200004_71596882.pdf predatory publisher Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy] although this information is from 2013 (and just happened to be one of the papers I noticed while reading about evolutionary biology). Fossil DNA is providing new information every day. However, it does seem that Asians and Europeans, who share Neanderthal DNA, are more closely related to one another than to Africans, who lack Neanderthal DNA. Phmoreno ( talk) 15:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The modern understanding of this issue is not reflected in the article. We now have enough evidence to conclude that the racial IQ gap is not environmental or cultural, at least if you compare races in modern societies where adequate health and nutrition, universal education, inexpensive books and electronic communications are the norm. Putting the cultural and environmental argument aside, it's hard to argue with the genetic findings.
National Center for Biotechnology Information [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Nature [21] Phmoreno ( talk) 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
The reference hosted on the National Center for Biotechnology Information division of the National Institutes of Health is sufficient to discredit the major claims of this article. Phmoreno ( talk) 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
References
From the lede:
Historically it received credence in the scientific community, but is no longer considered scientific.
Obviously false considering the large body of journal articles by researchers with the opposite view. Additionally, genetic studies and identical twin studies have confirmed the claim of substantial heritability of intelligence and has associated it with multiple genes. Does anyone have any sources disputing the genetic findings? Phmoreno ( talk) 12:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This RfC asks whether the following statement in the lead is correct:
Historically it [scientific racism] received credence in the scientific community, but is no longer considered scientific.
·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes
No
threaded discussion
Still missing explanation to the statement in question So you are going to allow a strong claim without even discussing why the statement is true. Based on the statement there is no way to tie it to the sources. What is not considered scientific and why? Phmoreno ( talk) 13:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
So, I'm a bit confused. Obviously there is a factual disagreement in the above threads (which I wasn't able to read in complete detail), specifically, a disagreement about whether or not the statement is correct (namely, the statement that scientific racism "is no longer considered scientific").
I am not an expert so I cannot assess the validity of the claim. However, what I am confused about is the "speedy closure" of the above RfC because of not feeding the trolls. What? Where exactly is Phmoreno behaving in a vandalistic manner? This user clearly has an opinion and that opinion may be wrong (again I am not an expert in the claim), but they are merely arguing for that opinion, not being a troll. Right?
Anyway, if it's true that the claim is correct and opposition to it has been by trolls, why is the disputed tag still there? Should we remove it?
Confused -- please help me understand the situation here :) I'd just like to remove the tag if possible or resolve it so this article is improved. Cstanford.math ( talk) 00:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
This article has too much overlap with History of the race and intelligence controversy to stand on its own. Phmoreno ( talk) 00:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Phmoreno -- The "race and intelligence controversy" didn't really gather significant momentum until the publication of the results of the WW1 "mental tests" on U.S. Army inductees just after the war, while more than half this article is devoted to pre-1918 developments, so I don't really see what the pernicious overlap is. AnonMoos ( talk) 02:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
Ethnic Conflicts and the Nation-State [22] Doug Weller talk 12:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
No real surprise. Doug Weller talk 20:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Some recent changes to the lead and body of the article are tending to change the way the article reads in ways that I'm not confident about.
A) The long-standing stance of the article was that there was a view regarding the superiority of some races over others. This view claimed to have a scientific basis but is now not considered scientific or considered pseudo-scientific.
B) Currently, the article is talking about the scientific study of racial differences, perhaps unanchored from the bad science from the past two centuries. Or something like that.
This controversy has arisen before, but before I start rejecting recent changes I wanted to gather some views from other editors. — jmcgnh (talk) (contribs) 21:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
The opening sentence says this describes "attempts to justify belief in racism." Don't Wikipedia's articles on racism normally treat racism as a thing which actually exists? I mean "Racism is real" seems to be their general attitude (and even to treat racism as a sociological phenomenon rather than as a belief) but here, it is strongly suggested that racism does not exist. This should perhaps be reworded if it is meant to support the idea that people should believe in racism on the grounds that racism exists. -- BenMcLean ( talk) 18:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
I was trying to remember of a site/book that I thought perhaps it would be an interesting addition here, in "external links", if anyone knows what I'm talking about, and if it's still online today. Unfortunately I don't remember even the name. The author's name was Italian or Italian-American. I believe the title was somewhat long, along the lines of "debunking the myths of scientific racism", with a subtitle even longer, like "how pseudoscience and bogus data were used to inferiorize black people". I believe there was some emphasis on black people as victims, instead of a more vague or neutral wording. As it's quite obvious now, I don't remember much, but I vaguely remember it being apparently good and citing lots of sources. That's it. Sorry. Edit: Here, I've found it: Resurrecting Racism - The modern attack on black people using phony science by Francisco Gil-White, which I guess maybe is Mexican-American and not Italian-American, not that it matters. Unfortunately rationalwiki mentions he's fond of conspiracy theories, so perhaps this resource requires further investigation before warrinting recommendation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.111.131.199 ( talk) 04:28, 14 July 2017
Well if Rationalwiki said it, it simply must be true Scriblerian1 ( talk) 10:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This article in its very title is a self contradiction. The term "racism" now means an "invidious" attitude, demeaning of certain groups; it being a primary explanation for the socio economic condition of those of this group, mostly in the United States. There is an article on Wikipedia, "Historical Race Concepts" that includes the development and interplay of race as a scientific concept as well as one that is political.
This is a subject that is so vehemently politicized that it inherently destroys the concept of NPV, Neutral Point of View, one of the pillars of this project. This subject is so politicized that we do not have an accurate ord for what had been "negro" -- the descriptor being limited to "African American" or "Black." The former implies a nationality that may be unknown, and the later a shade of darkness that is often not accurate.
Those social scientists who used the term "race" in previous times did not see it as a single monolithic identifier,a stigma; but as a biological reality that applied to homo sapiens as well as other species. Certainly, the term was also used by those whose goal was to continue stigmatize those whose ancestors had been slaves, but that is part of the picture, but not the only part.
In an increasing contentious world, Wikipedia is one of the last hopes of preserving fair minded exploration of complex issues. It may be the last venue that transcends a partisanship that has become toxic to the point of destroying civil discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arodb ( talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
How is it always pseudoscientific? If someone says black people have more testosterone therefore they are superior. Is that pseudoscience? Jack1234567891011121314151617 ( talk) 11:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I also am inclined to be critical of this article, because it conflates the empirical claim that there are real and scientifically measurable differences between various races or ethnic stocks, with the attitude that such differences in some way justify some sort of negative attitude or discriminatory practice. These are different kinds of claims. I am very much against the second kind -- the legitimatisation of hostile behavior toward any race or ethnic stock, but I have no trouble at all in observing the first kind of claim -- that there are racial or ethnic variations. Of course, there are graduations of similarity and differences between such types, but that does not entail that there is no such thing as a racial or ethnic type. (As a life long practitioner of horsemanship, I observe that there are different races or ethnic types of horses. This seems pretty non-controversial. Knowledge of such variations ought to be straightforward.)
Observation and documentation of such differences among humans (and other species) is scientifically interesting in itself, which is why all classification and description of variation is a basic feature of scientific practice. With regard to our own species, there are factual data that some drugs produce more effective results than others, in some racial groups rather than others. There are medically established variations in susceptibility to some disorders, and to different medical outcomes when people of different types are consuming similar diets. Such differences are not just medically verifiable: they are being used to provide better quality care to people of different racial backgrounds. This is medically interesting
Thus the question asked above, about whether it is always pseudoscientific to say that some racial group might have more testosterone than another, and the answer, that such a claim would be pseudoscientific, involve category mistakes by both the person asking the question, and by the person answering it. More testosterone might not be better, or it might be better for some activities but harmful for others. And the answer that such a claim would have to be pseudoscientific places the holder of that view at risk of being embarrassed by empirical research. I have no idea if some racial types have more testosterone than others, but as a person with some knowledge of biology, I would bet that there is some variation. Homogeneity is a very rare thing in any species.
To digress somewhat from what ought to be expected empirically or factually, into the domain of moral education: it has been entertaining me for some time that a new kind of measurable genetic variation has been discovered among human subtypes, in the form of Neanderthal DNA. There are racial/ethnic variations in the amount and source of Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA present. Sub-Saharan Africa did not receive any of this DNA. To claim that this variation exists is not pseudoscience. The Neanderthal ancestry of Europeans is interesting in the context of prejudice against dark skinned people, because Neanderthals had been in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years before modern humans arrived there. They were in Europe long enough that it seems they had adapted to northern conditions by evolving light-colored skin. I hope one day to tease one of those superiority claiming light skinned types by demonstrating that the light coloring was inherited from the much maligned Neanderthal source. Such an argument on my part would be intended to affect that person's attitude. Janice Vian, Ph.D. ( talk) 02:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Resuming this thread as a result of the recent tagging. This is possibly a source we could use:
Elsewhere it also discusses racism in context of white supremacism and pyramidology. There likely are other relevant references. — Paleo Neonate – 11:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Scientific racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 23:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
That's the title of an article in The Guardian today. [25] It starts with "University College London has been unwittingly hosting an annual conference attended by race scientists and eugenicists for the past few years. This might have come as a shock to many people. But it is only the latest instalment in the rise of “scientific” racism within academia." Doug Weller talk 11:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help) – think that's enough of an rs to include a cautious summary? . . .
dave souza,
talk 18:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)Although I can't say who the sock is using multiple IP addresses, I can confirm IP socking here and have deleted the section involved, which is of course can still be viewed in the history. I've also semi-protected for 3 days. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
due to politically correctness in control in anthropology field they dont agree with coon rushton or others racist i wonder why today anthropologist are egalitarianist or leftist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TetrahedronX7 ( talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
there are four races and you could tell them from the skulls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TetrahedronX7 ( talk • contribs) 03:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
You should mention that a Nobel prize laureate and one of the most famous and prestigious scientists has come out publicly in support of the "fringe interpretations". Is wikipedia really objective and neutral, and allows debate on taboo questions? This is one of those issues where neutrality and scientific fairness are measured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.87.244.164 ( talk) 23:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Google 'Nobel disease'. He's lost his marbles. His award does not mean he should be believed. Sumanuil ( talk) 23:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
James Watson has been making nonsensical claims for years. "At a conference in 2000, Watson suggested a link between skin color and sex drive, hypothesizing that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos. His lecture argued that extracts of melanin – which gives skin its color – had been found to boost subjects' sex drive. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English Patient." He has also said that stereotypes associated with racial and ethnic groups have a genetic basis: Jews being intelligent, Chinese being intelligent but not creative because of selection for conformity, and Indians being servile."
Because conformism is somehow unique to the Chinese? Dimadick ( talk) 13:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)