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.

I would appreciate feedback on my proposed edit to the article on Scientific racism, on the inclusion of Thomas Malthus in any form, and on the general editorial approach for this page.

My proposed edit can be found in my sandbox. I have not submitted it as an edit to the article as I was hoping to achieve consensus in the Talk page first. My current text represents multiple compromises I made in deference to feedback from editors:

• that a featured quote from Malthus was too long (05:52, 8 May 2023). I replaced it with a summary.
• opposition to my quote from Chase 1977 identifying Malthus as “the founding father of scientific racism.” (00:58, 7 May 2023) I omitted that quote.
• opposition that my proposed edit was “single sourced” from Chase 1977. I de-emphasized Chase and added arguments based on chattel slavery, Social Darwinism and Eugenics, each with multiple sources exclusive of Chase.

I believe these edits have improved the article, and am grateful for the feedback, but it is unclear to me at this point if other editors were interested in improving my contribution, or were simply opposed to including anything about Malthus at all (17:51, 12 May 2023). They also object to my current draft based on WP:SYNTH. My draft documents the influence of Malthus on Scientific racism, with sources that support his influence on chattel slavery, Social Darwinism, and Eugenics.  The editors assert that the association of Malthus with Scientific racism depends on WP:SYNTH via intermediate concepts of chattel slavery, Social Darwinism and Eugenics. My position is that chattel slavery, Social Darwinism, and Eugenics are racism, hence SYNTH is not required, and also that SYNTH is not a rigid rule. Note I do not claim that Malthus was racist, only that he influenced Scientific racism.

This RfC should probably focus on Thomas Malthus, but if reviewers are inclined I would also welcome more general input on this article. My proposed edit is also a compromise. Earlier, I commented that the Scientific racism page as written is very negative, and tends to demean competent scientists like Linnaeus and Rush and Darwin who argued for egalitarianism in their time. Rush and Darwin were also active opponents of slavery, hard to discern from this article. The article as structured makes it hard for a reader to recognize the trajectory of major themes in Scientific racism, such as polygenism, Social Darwinism and Eugenics. Instead it anchors on the immature science and decontextualized racism of pre-modern scholars. Meanwhile it ignores figures such as Malthus, Herbert Spencer, Lewis Terman and William Shockley, whose impact on Social Darwinism and Eugenics is well documented. While I don’t understand the overall editorial strategy, I do understand tactically why it’s been hard for me to include Malthus: the editors’ readiness to litigate technical details, making consensus on change difficult. JBradleyChen ( talk) 13:57, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

This is not a properly formed RFC, see WP:RFCBRIEF. NightHeron ( talk) 14:39, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

• A few thoughts:
  1. Seconding NightHeron; this needs to be a lot shorter. A brief, neutral question. I think part of the problem here is that "should this block of text be added" doesn't really lend itself to a brief question. Maybe Are there sufficient reliable sources to note Thomas Malthus's influence on scientific racism, and, if so, how strongly should that influence be stated?. It's not great, but it's better.
  2. In terms of answering that question, it appears that your sources are:
     1. Allan Chase, who called Malthus the "founding father of scientific racism".
     2. D. Collin Wells (a professor), who says that a Achille Loria chapter of Social Darwinism is "essentially a discussion of Malthusianism. [1]
     3. Malone Duggan (an M.D.), who has an article on "Neo-Malthusianism and Eugenics" [2], which, per your description, discusses how eugenicists adopted Malthus's theory to their own ends.
     4. Michael Shermer, who said that Malthus's "scenario influenced policy makers to embrace social Darwinism and eugenics". [3]
     5. Robert Mayhew (a philosopher), who wrote in his book that eugenicists claim Malthus as an intellectual father and notes, "whichever side of arguments about population control and social Darwinism one took, Malthus remained a key inspiration". [4]
  3. Since you've (quite reasonably) changed your proposed text in response to feedback, it's not totally clear to me which of the objections to it are still pertinent. But, generally speaking, there are concerns about saying that Malthus himself promoted scientific racism (based in part on WP:SYNTH).

I'd like to see the objections stated again before I chip in. But my current concern with your proposed text is that I think it amounts to undue weight. I'm not sure Malthus deserves his own section based on the above sources, and I'm even more skeptical that such a section should spend two paragraphs providing background info on Malthus's work (and almost exclusively relying on primary sources)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:03, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the RFC tag from this, as it is properly formed and there have been significant objections. I'd rather stop it now than wait for people to start participating and it turning into a shitshow. JBradleyChen, you really need a brief and neutral RFC statement. Your own thoughts on it can be included in the discussion section below the RFC statement. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:41, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

In its previous form the RfC touched on a couple of different issues; the replacement RfC should choose one:

• Article layout in general. The article focuses on individuals, in a sort of philosophy of science version of the Great man theory. I agree that a complete rewrite that is no longer sectioned by individual would be a vast improvement. We don't need an RfC for this issue (I don't think), through rewriting a full-length article such as this one is a significant undertaking.
• Mention of Malthus. We have a single source so far that directly connects Malthus to scientific racism, Chase. I view it as borderline whether that qualifies as a "prominent adherent" per WP:WEIGHT, but am leaning towards it meriting a sentence sourced to Chase as a minority viewpoint. I believe JBradleyChen mentioned that it is a fairly frequently-cited book.
• The draft Malthus section. It's hard for me to imagine consensus forming around including this draft or any section length addition of Malthus, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:SYNTH, unless better sources are found.

Lastly, JBradleyChen nothing productive is going to come from musing about other editors' tactics as you do in the last sentence, especially on an article talk page and doubly especially in a content dispute resolution initiative. It's necessary for progress to assume we're acting in good faith; as far as I can tell everyone's behavior towards you in this talk page has been exemplary. Pushback against the proposed changes here have been grounded in policy, not generalized opposition to yourself or to change. VQuakr ( talk) 16:58, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

I threw together a proposed RFC at User:ScottishFinnishRadish/sandbox to tackle the issue of including Malthus. Does that look reasonable to everyone involved? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 16:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

(1) Nice job on the proposal, but (2) I wonder if, in light of @ VQuakr's comment ... we should spend a bit more time on the RFCBEFORE stage. Specifically:

First, I'd like to know if there's a consensus that we should include Malthus's supposed influence (not that he himself was a promoter) on scientific racism, since VQuakr now says they're leaning towards a mention. If there's a consensus in favor of that, I don't think option B is necessary in the proposed RFC.

Second, I think maybe we should have the discussion on whether the article should be organized by persons. If the answer is "no", then it seems to me that would foreclose an entire section on Malthus, obviating the need for an RFC on A.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

The proposed RfC looks great to me, subject of course to where we land on the WP:RFCBEFORE questions mentioned immediately above. VQuakr ( talk) 18:23, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

SFR's RFC statement looks fine to me. NightHeron ( talk) 19:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

( Summoned by bot)There's a number of interrelated factual, editorial, and procedural issues being discussed concurrently here, so I'm going to do my best to isolate and bullet point them. The first of which has turned out to be quite lengthy and unwieldy, so I'm taking the unusual steps of throwing it into a collapse box.

• Next, turning to the procedural matters, I think ScottishFinnishRadish's proposed RfC is perfectly up to the task, but I would say that some (very constrained and neutral) discussion of the foregoing debate, the sourcing, and a basic factual description of Malthus and his influence wouldn't necessarily be the worst thing. I respond to a lot of RfCs and I'm just lucky enough that this is one of the occasions where I am responding to a topic I happen to have fairly detailed previous knowledge of/experience with. But I can still recognize this as one of those topics that is likely to leave some respondents a little lost at the outset, without a little bit of a primer. Even just a few sentences (carefully tailored so as not to unduly influence the outcome) would go a long way, I think.
• And lastly, I am broadly supportive of reworking the format of the article to lean away from mapping the evolution of these psuedoscientific traditions to sections concerned with particular figures, and to focus more on a more typical application of WP:SUMMARYSTYLE, with a more integrated historical narrative and a simpler chronology. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 20:47, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @ NightHeron@ VQuakr@ ScottishFinnishRadish@ Jerome Frank Disciple @ Snow Rise for the feedback on my RFC. Apologies for my misunderstanding of the format. I guess there was an example in the documentation page but I didn't understand that was the whole RFC. I would be happy to go with the suggestion from ScottishFinishRadish for a new RFC, although I would like to also provide a summary statement that addresses a few of the new questions raised above, and won't have time for that until later this weekend. My sense is that the main objection to my addition was WP:SYNTH. Adding a section for Malthus seems like the obvious option given the current organization of the article.

I am grateful to you all for your tolerance of one who demands to learn to swim in the deep end. JBradleyChen ( talk) 02:13, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

No particular tolerance required, JBradley, at least for my part: I think we can all (even those of us who are opposed to inclusion in this instance) appreciate that you are working in good faith, and attempting to resolve the debate within the normal consensus generation process--and we all start somewhere; a belated welcome to the project, btw! :) SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:22, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

I propose to add a section on Thomas Malthus, a draft of which may be found in my sandbox. I suggest adding this section at the beginning of Later Thinkers. JBradleyChen ( talk) 01:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

His remarks as quoted have nothing to with race (plenty to do with class, though). AnonMoos ( talk) 21:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion here is based on an authoritative source indicating this quote is representative. See pg. 6 of Chase 1977. JBradleyChen ( talk) 23:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the long quotation in your proposed addition is indeed representative of Malthus's viewpoint and speaks only of class, not race, it contradicts Chase's opinion that Malthus should be designated the "founding father of scientific racism". You haven't given justification for a whole section of Scientific racism to be devoted to Malthus. NightHeron ( talk) 00:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If you read Chase you would understand how the quote supports his position. The section I cite is relatively short and available for free from archive.org. You may disagree with Chase, but wouldn't such a position be original research? As such I don't see the relevance here.

The justification is that an authoritative source identified Malthus as an important figure in scientific racism. Does that not justify inclusion of Malthus? How might I further justify this position without indulging in WP:NOR?

Chase explains later in his book how Malthusian arguments supported Scientific Darwinism and Eugenics, with generous recognition of Malthus by practitioners of those theories. If it would be helpful I could develop those threads. JBradleyChen ( talk) 01:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The designation "founding father of scientific racism" is one person's opinion. Do you have any evidence that there's broad support among scholars for that designation? Of course, some of the promoters of social darwinism and eugenics cited Malthus's theories. Social darwinists and some racist pseudoscientists also cited Darwin's theories, but that doesn't mean that Darwin was a "father of scientific racism". NightHeron ( talk) 01:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Google scholar, Chase's book is cited by over 800 works. There are numerous reviews, such as https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/13/archives/the-legacy-of-malthus-malthus.html, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2826197, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1865122, many enthusiastic, some citing deficiencies but without denying Chase's basic premise. The book was issued in paperback in 1980, made into a documentary film, and received the 1978 Anisfield-Wolf Book Award for "important contributions to our understanding of racism and human diversity". In light of this reception I don't understand on what grounds we would question its premise, or its validity as a source.

Also, it's unclear to me why broad support is needed. The proposed text does not assert a consensus view that Malthus is the father scientific racism, it only notes the assertion of Chase. Maybe your point is that I should identify others who acknowledge the importance of Malthus? To that end I added a note about acknowledgement of Malthus in the 1925 Annals of Eugenics. The Hathitrust has thousands of articles on Eugenics that cite Malthus but a thorough review would be original research. JBradleyChen ( talk) 14:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I think you mean "Social Darwinism", not "Scientific Darwinism". NightHeron ( talk) 01:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

yes thank you... JBradleyChen ( talk) 14:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I have added additional citations to document the influence of Malthus. JBradleyChen ( talk) 14:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Eh, thanks for the heads up on my talk page. My own concern was the WP:UNDUE Anglo-American focus inevitably produced by the WP:BIAS of—especially lazy or poorly informed—English contributors who have trouble properly contextualizing things. My own thought was that there should be more from earlier in the scientific revolution and more on continental sources. Piling in additional English thinkers doesn't improve any of that.

That said, yeah, my understanding is that Malthus's terrible economics and disaster scenarios were pretty influential. I don't believe any racism of his was terribly important—although you could prove me wrong with your sourcing—but he'd be worth mentioning (with cites) as an influence in Continental and Anglo-American concerns over "waste" of "limited resources" by "lesser races" in actually influential works on public policy and theory. I'd be amazed if there were none. —  LlywelynII 08:48, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Darwin had some vague prejudices typical of Englishmen in Victorian times, but he didn't try to construct an ideology out of them (and the Darwin-Wedgewood families, including Charles, were consistently opposed to slavery). For Malthus, you haven't yet shown that he even had vague prejudices... AnonMoos ( talk) 07:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do what you ask without doing original research. I'm citing an authoritative sources. JBradleyChen ( talk) 14:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Try to find multiple sources, not just Chase, that describe Malthus as an important originator or promoter of scientific racism. NightHeron ( talk) 16:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I can develop this; I agree it would make the argument stronger. That said, it's unclear to me why it's necessary. The position is clearly attributed to Chase, so the discussion is aligned with the core content policies (WP:POV WP:NOR WP-VER). Do you have a particular policy in mind in this advice?

Also, it seems you are suggesting a different standard for Malthus than for others mentioned in this article. Few have citations attributing their "scientific racism" as directly as Chase on Malthus. JBradleyChen ( talk) 05:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT discusses how we reflect prominence of viewpoints in our articles, which requires looking at multiple sources. The proposed text currently seems long and the lengthy quote isn't relevant to the subject of the article. VQuakr ( talk) 05:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your sharing your thoughts. It does not appear to me that the contributions of Malthus to social darwinism or eugenics are disputed, hence his relevance to the article. The quote is illustrative of the mature thinking of Malthus with regards to population control, the link between his views to social darwinism and eugenics, as argued by Chase. Hence the relevance. JBradleyChen ( talk) 13:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed text is over-reliant on Chase; it's effectively one-sourced. You have the feedback on the quote, so there clearly isn't consensus to add this as written. VQuakr ( talk) 16:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I have added additional references on the influence of Malthus, and replaced the long quote with shorter descriptive text. With these updates I believe I have addressed your feedback. JBradleyChen ( talk) 14:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Do any of the 6 sources you added (other than Chase) connect Malthus directly to the topic Scientific racism? Most of your text is about Malthus's effect in providing a rationalization for callous neglect toward the poor. My impression is that the added sources also deal with class and very little with race. In order to justify having a whole article section on Malthus, you need a direct connection with the article. To say that his theories influenced later authors, and those later authors were promoters of racist pseudoscience is not the same as to say that Malthus was a promoter of scientific racism. NightHeron ( talk) 15:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Chase is authoritative. I have cited authoritative sources who endorse Chase, and others who acknowledge influence of Malthus on Eugenics and Social Darwinism.

Chase says that Malthus was a critical influencer. My proposed change documents that influence. JBradleyChen ( talk) 16:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

So I guess the answer to my question is "no", that is, none of your sources other than Chase claim that Malthus is directly connected to the topic Scientific racism. Repeatedly saying that "Chase is authoritative" does not address the question of WP:UNDUE for the proposed added section. NightHeron ( talk) 16:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the standard for relevance you are suggesting? It sounds like your suggested standard is that multiple authoritative sources refer to the individual using the term "scientific racism". JBradleyChen ( talk) 17:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The final sentence of the current version of the draft, Chase is not alone in recognizing the influence of Malthus on Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and other relevant themes is terrible and as near as I can tell supported by none of the seven (!) sources provided. It's the worst example of the overall feeling of the draft, that it's an essay stretching to establish a point rather than a neutral summary of the sources on Malthus. This is consistent with the default reaction of every editor here - that Malthus is known for his classism not racism, so the push for including him here is surprising. Needs a rewrite and a focus on quality not raw quantity of sources, but I don't want you to waste your time since to me this is headed towards consensus to exclude. What are the three best sources that connect Malthus with the topic of this article? VQuakr ( talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Terrible" is subjective; I'm sorry you don't like it though. I'd like to revise it to something you like.

I added that sentence because of feedback above asking for other support for the influence of Malthus. For three references I would suggest Chase 1977 for Scientific Racism, Wells 1907 for Social Darwinism, and Dugan 1915 for Eugenics. If you prefer newer citations, Shermer 2016 and Mayhew 2015. I apologize that I did get a little carried away with all the evidence.

I remain at a loss for understanding the objective standard we will apply for inclusion in this article. It sounds like the standard may be multiple authoritative sources that apply the term "racism". Is that the standard? If not, please suggest the standard you think we should apply. JBradleyChen ( talk) 21:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Terrible" for reasons such as those noted at MOS:WEASEL, but again probably should focus on big picture of how much coverage is due (if any) before burning more time wordsmithing. Ultimately the standard for inclusion is WP:CONSENSUS. If you're looking for a more hard and fast rule, I'm afraid one won't be forthcoming. I'm not trying to be evasive, we just don't really work under strict rulesets here. I didn't see where any of those sources support the claim they are positioned after (that Chase's position is a popular one; my paraphrase). It seems like we're running into WP:SYNTH problems here. I do think that our reasons for citing an old (>~~50 years in this context) source should be quite specific. An analogy: we'd cite Principia in an article on Newton but not in an article about indefinite integrals. VQuakr ( talk) 00:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe the claim in question is "Chase is not alone in recognizing the influence of Malthus on Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and other relevant themes."

• Wells 1907 discusses the influence of Malthus on Social Darwinism: "Loria, for example, in his book on social problems has a chapter under the head "Social Darwinism," which is essentially a discussion of Malthusianism"
• Dugan 1915 "Neo-Malthusianism and Eugenics" the entire article is about the influence of Malthus on Eugenics. It discusses how Eugenics accepts Malthus' purpose while substituting "rational selection" for "natural selection"
• Shermer 2016 states "His scenario influenced policy makers to embrace social Darwinism and eugenics."
• Mayhew 2015 states "eugenicists also claimed Malthus as their intellectual forbearer" and "whichever side of arguments about population control and social Darwinism one took, Malthus remained a key inspiration"

As such, I don't understand in what sense these sources do not support the claim, and I don't understand in what sense WP:WEASEL is appropriate.

In an attempt to demonstrate good-faith, I removed the long quote and researched additional sources, as requested. I'm keen to understand what kind of compromise others think would be appropriate here. If you're not interested in compromise then I would appreciate your being clear about that. JBradleyChen ( talk) 03:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe I've already clearly said a couple of times that the likely outcome of this discussion is not to include a section on Malthus. None of the quotes you provided above mention Chase; they therefore don't support a sentence starting with "Chase is not alone in..." VQuakr ( talk) 04:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry; I thought you were looking for support for the "terrible" sentence. For support for Chase, please see (for example) Fredrickson 1977 or Friedman 1977, which are supportive of Chase. You may also be interested in https://www.jstor.org/stable/2826197 which generally endorses Chase's analysis but objects broadly to the use of the term "scientific racism", asserting it as a "conspiracy".

You did not reply regarding the support I provided for the "terrible" sentence, so I assume you acknowledge my support as adequate. JBradleyChen ( talk) 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the four sources I cited at 03:07 12 May 2023 support Chase's position, and the three additional sources from 13:21 12 May 2023 are support for Chase, so whichever you want I believe I have it covered. JBradleyChen ( talk) 16:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I did reply. It's the same sentence. I suggest you quit assuming others' positions. VQuakr ( talk) 16:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies; I didn't intend to assume your position. I did intend to make sure I have fully responded to your feedback. I believe I have done so, providing support both for Chase and for Chase's positions (on the relevance of Malthus to Eugenics and Social Darwinism).

Returning to the central point, Malthus is relevant because authoritative sources speak to his relevance to scientific racism and to related theories such as Eugenics and Social Darwinism. I've provided support for both, and support for the support (e.g. the authority of Chase) as requested, and cooperated with feedback by modifying my draft. @ VQuakr is opposed to including Malthus at all, asserts he speaks for the consensus (e.g. @ VQuakr @ NightHeron @ AnonMoos) and says they do not like my sources but has not explained why. They say there is no "hard and fast" rule for what is or is not included in this article. I expected an objective basis for such decisions.

Is this a fair summary of the situation? JBradleyChen ( talk) 16:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

No. VQuakr ( talk) 17:12, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Would you be willing to provide a summary of the situation? JBradleyChen ( talk) 17:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

You are misstating the issue. No one disputes the relevance of Malthus's theories on population to eugenics and social Darwinism. There's nothing the least bit unusual or original in Chase's position on that. The extraordinary claim that Chase makes is that Malthus was a promoter of racist pseudoscience and even the "founding father of scientific racism". You haven't produced any source that agrees with Chase about that. According to WP:UNDUE, the exaggerated statement of one source isn't worthy of inclusion if no other RS agrees with it; according to WP:SYNTH, an editor's argument that takes the form "Malthus's theories were an influence on X and X included many promoters of scientific racism, so therefore Malthus was an important promoter of scientific racism" is also an invalid justification for inclusion. NightHeron ( talk) 17:41, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Would you be willing to provide a summary of the situation? I am currently opposed to adding a section as drafted and unconvinced any mention is warranted. Consensus to include hasn't been established, at this time, as described at WP:ONUS. I haven't asserted that I speak for anyone else. VQuakr ( talk) 17:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

@ VQuakr Thank you for clarifying your position.

@ NightHeron thanks for clarifying your position. That position makes more sense to me. If the objection is specifically to the quote from Chase's book, I disagree, but I would also prefer to include a section without that quote than to not include Malthus at all, replacing the quote with a less emphatic statement. Does that sounds like an appropriate use of Chase? If not what use of Chase would you deem appropriate? I do not understand an objection to any use of Chase, given the book's external support.

If there is consensus on the relevance of Malthus to eugenics and social Darwinism, I had assumed that would justify inclusion. I see how WP:SYNTH would apply if the proposed text said "Malthus was a scientific racist" but if I drop the quote from Chase then we would be left with the position that Malthus influenced eugenics and social Darwinism, where I believe we agree. Hopefully the relevance of Eugenics and social Darwinism is clear; they are already in the article. JBradleyChen ( talk) 20:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

The influence of Malthus on eugenics and social Darwinism is not relevant to this article. Malthus's connection to Scientific racism is only very indirect, and it's not emphasized in any of your sources except for Chase. NightHeron ( talk) 21:40, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

My main reply is above.

Just to piggyback on NightHeron here: Again, my own understanding is that any of-his-time racism Malthus had or expressed had and has next to no importance. His influential culture-poisoning ideas concern his misunderstanding of the limitation of resources which the actually influential racist theorists and policy creators probably leaned on. No, of course, you can't just throw Malthus in because a single scholar wants to bring him into the conversation until more of the other scholars take the bait and also show the connections without running afoul of WP:UNDUE. If none or not enough have, though, you could still tie in conversation of Malthus and his influence in the other sections on those other theorists and politicians and their arguments about 'wasting' 'limited resources' on 'lesser races'... but they would have to specifically use Malthus by name as important parts of their theories and policy justifications. Even if he had a trademark on limited resources—which he obviously never did—you can't just string connections based on your own hunches without running afoul of WP:OR. —  LlywelynII 08:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that Eugenics and Social Darwinism are accepted as relevant to Scientific racism, what are the criteria to determine whether a contributor to Eugenics or Social Darwinism is or is not pertinent to this article? JBradleyChen ( talk) 13:40, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

'Pertinent' things in an article on scientific racism consist of sources directly discussing scientific racism. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:09, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Is a discussion of Eugenics or Social Darwinism a discussion of scientific racism? If you suggest requiring a source use the term "scientific racism" some material in this article would have to go. JBradleyChen ( talk) 14:41, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Please see my updated proposal. I have de-emphasized Chase, dropped the "founding father" quote, and added a explicit discussions of slavery, Eugenics, and Social Darwinism, all avoiding Chase as principal reference. I hope I have understood and addressed the concerns raised above. JBradleyChen ( talk) 04:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Your changes show you're making a good-faith effort to respond to our objections to a section on Malthus. However, there are gaps that you'd have to bridge. For example, you show, citing sources, that pro-slavory advocates cited Malthus. They presumably also cited the Bible, which in places condones slavery, but that doesn't mean that there should be a section about the Bible in an article about scientific racism, which didn't exist when the Bible was written. There is a similar gap in your last sentence. Both eugenics and social Darwinism had several characteristics, and a prominent feature of both was disdain for the poor. Malthus certainly was an important promoter of pseudoscientific justification for mistreatment of the poor. But do any of the modern scholars you cite say that eugenicists and social Darwinists who expressed explicitly racist views justified those views by citing Malthus? NightHeron ( talk) 16:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand your argument regarding slavery and the Bible. The Bible is not relevant here because it is not scientific. Also, I don't believe biblical slavery was overtly racist, although feel free to correct me on that if you know better. I don't think I should have to argue that 18th century chattel slavery was racist. Do you agree?

Regarding Eugenics and Social Darwinism, I will give that some thought. Malthus certainly had a dim view of the poor, but I had never imagined Eugenics or Social Darwinism being economic rather than race-based. I guess I can conceive of a view of Social Darwinism as being purely economic, but isn't Eugenics fundamentally about genetics? If so I struggle to see how the economic framing applies. I guess we could pose the question on the Social Darwinisms and Eugenics talk pages. But I worry such a proposition might not be well received.

Just as I assert that chattel slavery is generally recognized as racist, I did not expect to have to argue that Social Darwinism and Eugenics are racist. If you would like to argue the contrary we could bring these questions to a larger group. Please correct me if I'm misunderstanding your argument. JBradleyChen ( talk) 03:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Certainly the Bible was cited repeatedly by US segregationists in the Civil Rights era to justify their racism (see [5]), but it would be ridiculous to devote a section of an article on US racial segregation to the Bible.

I didn't say that eugenics and social Darwinism weren't racist. I just said that a prominent feature of both was disdain for the poor. Another prominent feature was racism. The relevance of Malthus was to the first of these features (disdain for the poor), not the second. NightHeron ( talk) 12:12, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I think we agree that Biblical slavery is not relevant to the page. Do we agree that chattel slavery is relevant?

"I didn't say that eugenics and social Darwinism weren't racist." If we agree that Eugenics is racist, and that I have supported the influence of Malthus on Eugenics, that seems like progress. If not please help me understand your position on Eugenics without racism. It seems novel based on my reading. JBradleyChen ( talk) 12:47, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said that the eugenicists and social Darwinists didn't have racist views. What I said again and again is that Malthus has no direct connection to that part of their views.

Here's another analogy. The right-wing in the US tends to be both anti-immigration and (during the Covid pandemic) anti-vaccine. A pseudoscientist who was very influential among the anti-vaxxers was Andrew Wakefield. But we wouldn't have a section on him in an article on the anti-immigrant movement. NightHeron ( talk) 13:20, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The fallacy in what you're doing in the last paragraph of your proposed section on Malthus is that it has the form "A has a strong relation to B (well supported by sources), and B has a strong relation to C (well supported by sources), so I've shown that A has a strong relation to C." This is SYNTH. In this case A is Malthus, B is eugenics/social Darwinism, and C is racist pseudoscience. NightHeron ( talk) 16:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Hence the question is whether SYNTH is required to associate Eugenics with racism.

I also made the argument with A Malthus, B chattel slavery, and C racism. I argue similarly that SYNTH is not required to associate chattel slavery with racism. JBradleyChen ( talk) 23:08, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

"Hence the question is whether SYNTH is required to associate Eugenics with racism." No, that's not the question. The question is whether SYNTH is required to associate Malthus with racism. NightHeron ( talk) 23:54, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

The question is whether SYNTH is required to associate Malthus with racism. We have discussed three connections, chattel slavery, social darwinism, and eugenics, and I have sourced those connections.

Regarding "associate" I hope it is clear that I am trying document the influence of Malthus on slavery and eugenics, hence his influence on scientific racism, but not to describe Malthus as a racist. Make sense? JBradleyChen ( talk) 00:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

slavery and eugenics, hence his influence right there is where you run into WP:SYNTH issues. Sources would need to directly connect Malthus with the subject of this article, without steps in between. VQuakr ( talk) 00:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think that is the standard applied elsewhere in this article. Example: Rush, Darwin. JBradleyChen ( talk) 01:09, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Darwin is adequately cited. You might well be correct regarding Rush (assuming better sources don't exist regardless of their current usage), but that's neither here nor there regarding Malthus. Our standard is our policies and guidelines, not the article contents. VQuakr ( talk) 01:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I was hoping you might explain how Darwin is adequately cited. If I responded to feedback here "Malthus is adequately cited" I can't imagine you would take me on my word.

Seems to me that Darwinism is science, and it's not considered racist. Darwin was a vocal opponent of slavery and polygenism. I don't understand why Darwin belongs on this page but Malthus does not. JBradleyChen ( talk) 03:29, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me that Darwinism is science, and it's not considered racist...which is consistent with what we have to say about the topic in the article, cited to a half dozen sources. VQuakr ( talk) 03:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Okay; but that leaves me confused. I don't say Malthus is racist either. I'm willing to be very clear about the absence of overt racism in Malthus if that would address your concerns. Would it?

By the way, I don't expect you to explain the Darwin citations to me. It's a lot of work and I don't want to put you through it. I would appreciate any intuition you could share about why the article is better with Darwin and without Malthus. I would also appreciate your help with a summary for the RfC if you are still up for that. JBradleyChen ( talk) 03:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

But we have multiple sources discussing how Darwinism was abused to advance scientific racism, so WP:WEIGHT drives inclusion. So far only one source (out of a great many as Malthusianism is a well-covered topic) has been presented that makes a similar connection. So WP:WEIGHT suggests little to no coverage is appropriate. For the RFC, an actionable answer is more likely if we can give a well-boundaried question. One example would be, Should Malthus be mentioned in the article? That could result in a clear yes/no answer but wouldn't establish how much coverage would be appropriate. Another question could be Should this draft be added to the article as a new section? But based on the feedback above and knowledge of our editorial policies I think the answer will likely be a clear no at this point. It's too much coverage. Actually adding the RFC is super simple. We use a template and add it to a new talk section on this page as discussed at WP:RFCOPEN. The Wiki-text markup would look something like:

== RfC: Inclusion of Malthus == {{ rfc|sci|reli}}

Should [[Thomas Robert Malthus|Malthus]] be mentioned in the article?

VQuakr ( talk) 04:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

Are you willing to help with the neutral summary? Or should I draft it myself? I would like the RfC to consider my sandbox draft. We could ask the general question of including Malthus, but without a proposed edit that would require a lot of research, which seems unreasonable.

Regarding Darwin, if you insist:

• Jackson and Weidman 2005. Please cite the passage you have in mind here.
• Price 2006. Reference does not exist
• Darwin 1871 does not say Darwin was abused to advance scientific racism
• Hofstadter 1992 makes a connection through Social Darwinism. This seems like what I am claiming for Malthus, although he is explicit with the notions of "racial superiority" so maybe I have to allow you this.
• Himmelfarb 1959 seems like loose talk. It's a shame it's not more specific.
• Bannister 1979 seems to argue that, regarding racism, "the case against Darwin unravels"

So you have two sources, one that relies on "the Darwinist mood" and another ambiguous claim that "Darwin ... was not averse to" for Social Darwinism. I am not impressed. I've provided six solid references, two for slavery, two for Eugenics, two for Social Darwinism. But we would have to agree that chattel slavery is inherently racist... JBradleyChen ( talk) 04:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Also, I would really like to understand if you think the article is better with Darwin and without Malthus, and why. JBradleyChen ( talk) 04:51, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Hofstadter 1992 is not the only source that directly connects Darwin to racist ideology. A much more recent source (cited in the article Charles Darwin) is the Nature editorial ^[1]. A detailed and nuanced discussion of Darwin's views on race, as reflected in his writings about the voyages of the Beagle, can be found in the following source (cited in Yahgan people), starting on page 425: ^[2]. Unlike Malthus, Darwin was directly interested in race, and his writings on the subject influenced the views on race of the social Darwinists. NightHeron ( talk) 15:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

How does Hofstader connect Darwin to racist ideology? I'm looking at a copy. It says "Darwin had been talking about pigeons, but the imperialists saw no rea­son why his theories should not apply to men, and the whole spirit of the naturalistic world-view seemed to call for a vigor­ous and unrelenting thoroughness in the application of bio­ logical concepts." (pg 171). Is that what you had in mind?

I'm curious which of the citations used here make a clear connection, and how.

• Jackson and Weidman argue Darwin was "not a confirmed racist"
• Price argues Darwin was mis-portrayed as a racist
• Hofstadter says Darwin was talking about pigeons, and Social Darwinism was the connection, not Darwin.
• Himmelfarb talks about Darwin's opposition to slavery, and people misusing the title of his book
• Bannister says "the case against Darwin unravels."

I agree that Nobles et al asserts the connection more concretely, but this work is not cited, so it doesn't seem relevant to what is included here. I don't see how you read Yannielli to conclude Darwin was racist, short of decontextualization. His observations generally seem scientific, and the text does not say he was "racist". I see it acknowledging his use of "racist stereotypes" that were typical of the era, but goes on to say "he understood that human racial categories were intrinsically variable and artificial."

I don't see how the argument for the relevance of Darwin is stronger than my arguments for including Malthus. You have one solid reference, Nobles et al. JBradleyChen ( talk) 02:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

And Nobles et al. is not cited in this article. JBradleyChen ( talk) 02:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

There is more than one article listed above the discusses Darwin and racism. A source that says the argument that Darwin wasn't racist is still relevant. Whether the source is currently used in the article does not matter. VQuakr ( talk) 07:09, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. What I don't understand is how this ensemble of sources makes Darwin more relevant than Malthus. We all have our opinions on the subject, but how do we extract from the sources objective criteria to determine appropriate weighting? JBradleyChen ( talk) 09:45, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you could mean when you say a reference "does not exist". Yes, Bannister argues that Darwin isn't racist. That isn't a reason to exclude the content from the article. By contrast, for Malthus you've presented one source, Chase, and a bunch of WP:SYNTH issues. If you want to start a section arguing that Darwin should be removed go ahead. I already suggested a neutral query above: Should this draft be added to the article as a new section? VQuakr ( talk) 15:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:What SYNTH is not, SYNTH is not a rigid rule. Here's an example where I don't think it applies. My dog Oakley is a dog. Dogs are mammals. Hence Oakley is a mammal. The problem with SYNTH is that it can induce invalid conclusions, but there is no invalid instance of "A is a dog, hence A is a mammal", because all dogs are mammals.

For SYNTH to apply with Malthus, wouldn't there have to be a notion of chattel slavery that is not racist, and Eugenics that is not racist? JBradleyChen ( talk) 04:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:SYNTHNOT is an WP:ESSAY. Doesn't much matter though because the connection you're making is a such a strong example of synth it could be used as an example of what we're not going to do. The absence of hard and fast rules is irrelevant here since there isn't consensus to attempt to justify ignoring our policies. Your dog example is unambiguous set inclusion, which sure, probably wouldn't fall under synth, but it isn't applicable to our case here. Malthusianism is not a subset of chattel slavery or eugenics, nor is the inverse true. VQuakr ( talk) 05:35, 18 May 2023 (UTC)