Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 11:42, 5 August 2020

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Discrimination Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Human Genetic History (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History of Science High‑importance This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WikiProject Genetics Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Anthropology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ethnic groups Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks: Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks: Meta-tasks: Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project. Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution: Category:Unassessed Ethnic groups articles Category:Ethnic groups articles needing merge action Category:Ethnic groups articles needing infoboxes Category:Ethnic groups articles needing reassessment Category:Ethnic groups articles needing attention Iyer Peruvian people Start an article: Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Human rights Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. European history Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Evolutionary biology Low‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Misplaced Pages:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Please consult the procedures and edit carefully.

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The article Scientific racism, 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: Pillars: Misplaced Pages articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists. Original research: Misplaced Pages defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles. Correct use of sources: Misplaced Pages articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Misplaced Pages editors. Advocacy: Misplaced Pages strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not. Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project. Decorum: Misplaced Pages users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited. Tag-team editing: Tag teams work in unison to push a particular point of view. Tag-team editing – to thwart core policies (neutral point of view, verifiability, and no original research); or to evade procedural restrictions such as the three revert rule or to violate behavioural norms by edit warring; or to attempt to exert ownership over articles; or otherwise to prevent consensus prevailing – is prohibited. 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.

This article was nominated for deletion on January 21 2006. The result of the discussion was speedy keep. An archived record of this discussion can be found here.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Scientific vs. biological racism discussion at Talk:Cultural racism

Please note this discussion: Talk:Cultural_racism#'Biological_racism'_versus_'Scientific_racism'. Biological racism has redirected to Scientific racism since 2006. Yesterday, I added the term to the lead. LaTeeDa (talk) 13:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Deutsches Historisches Museum Der Stürmerplakat.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Unbalanced section: Carl Linnaeus

I’ve gone ahead and added that the section describing Carl Linnaeus’s work on taxonomy lends undue weight to certain viewpoints. In particular, the section reads like a defense of Linnaeus’s racial theory, with several scholars cited as essentially saying, “well, he wasn’t being that racist.” This is, in my limited research, in contradiction with consensus from race scholars regarding his Systema. I’ll consider revising this myself, but I urge editors with more specialized knowledge of this field to do so before me.

TritonsRising (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

I'v tried to engulf myself in this topic since this recently debate, my view is that indeed a lot of schoolars putting emphasis on Linnaeus influence, but that part of what some of them claim is factually wrong. Per example it is common to say Linnaeus was "first" to classify man into "races". However, as far as I can read, Linnaeus never talked about race but about "varities" (you could ofc argue this is conceptually race but under another name, but I think that should be excplicitly stated then). Others had in fact talked about human races before him (thinking especially of François Bernier 1684 - "Nouvelle division de la terre par les différentes espèces ou races l'habitant") and in quite a similar or even more biological manner than him.

So I would say, yes add the claims from ppl (I got a reference from Renato Mazzolini I could add), but no reason to remove the differeing opinions on the meaning of what he actually wrote, because I don't how there is any kind of consensus among scholars in this question.

Ernst.T.A. (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I suggest reading up on Swedish sources, such as the professor of history of ideas Gunnar Broberg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zakister (talk • contribs) 12:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Will try to look at the Broberg book for references. As a general comment (not to Zakister): In the meanwhile I don't think it is motivated to make comments such as "There are disagreements about the basis for Linnaeus' human taxa, which there should not be", this seems like a personal opinion and not encyclopedic content. Removing it for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ernst.T.A. (talk • contribs) 12:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

LOOKING FOR CONSENSUS ON ADDING A SECTION ABOUT SCIENTIFIC RACISM IN BRAZIL

Dear colleagues, Two editors are removing my contribution to this page about "Scientific racism in Brazil" without checking the scientific and historical accuracy of its contents, just because I quote myself (in a work reviewed by experts and published in a prestigious scientific journal) as well as I quote many other references which are not my own work. I cannot understand how come this editor just deleted the section on "scientific racism in Brazil" without checking that THE WHOLE SECTION was entirely taken from a doubled blind checked paper which has been reviewed and published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the History of Biology: the Journal of the History of Biology. All the content in the section I included and the many historical references I quoted (apart from my own work) were product of serious research and had been published in a prestigious scientific journal after been reviewed by experts before publication. My interest was not self citing -as these editors claim- but just supplying wikipedia with good scientific contents in an aspect that had not received any  attention within the entry "scientific racism": scientific racism in Brazil. Regarding my self citation, the work I quote is the only article written in English which has passed through expert scientific revision that you can find in Google Scholar and other scientific libraries including the issue "Scientific Racism in Brazil" explicitly in its title. Thereafter, I guess it's contents are especially appropriate for this page and that work is really worthy to be quoted it in this page. Not for self promotion, but in order to contribute to the diffusion of accurate knowledge about this particular topic! And I repeat: in the section which was unfairly deleted I QUOTED MANY OTHER HISTORICAL SOURCES WHICH ARE NOT MY OWN WORK! I hope that other editors in this page can check that the whole section I included is based on serious research and that it is worthy to be included in this page. In the following lines, I include the section as it appeared before it was inappropriately deleted. Thank you for your help! The section is the following:

=== Scientific Racism and Racial Policies in Brazil === ==

During the second half of the nineteenth century, different forms and degrees of racism penetrated biological discourses about human diversity in Brazil. Protected under the theoretical and rhetorical apparatus of the natural sciences, it was precisely their scientific status which provided these ethnocentric discourses with the greatest legitimacy in the Brazilian society. Thus, biology was (mis)used as a formidable symbolic apparatus for the naturalization of Brazilian social inequalities between different ethnic groups. Of course, it was not nineteenth century biology that invented racism in Brazil or Latin America. Ideas about the inferiority of the African People, the degeneration of the Indians and their mixed descendants, etc. had appeared long before in American history. Brazilian racism was not created by science, but at the end of the nineteenth century, it was absorbed and recreated into a new form of modern ideology by natural sciences. Scientific discourses in human biology, anthropology, evolutionary theory, craniometrics, obstetrics, psychiatry, etc., became, in many cases, perfect theoretical instruments for the legitimation of racial hierarchies after the abolition of slavery. In different moments along the nineteenth century, biology was invoked to justify the expulsion of indigenous people from their native lands, or to foresee their extinction—along with that of Brazilian blacks and some mestiços- as a natural consequence of Darwinian inter-racial competition and sexual selection. Biology also served as an ideological weapon for the legitimation of racially biased immigration laws. Brain science was invoked to promote the application of different legal codes for each race, adapted to the supposed innate differences in the mental capacities of the different ethnic groups. Biological discourses were used to defend different forms of social programs, intended to improve the biological characteristics of the Brazilian population, making it ‘‘whiter’’ (which at the time was synonymous for ‘‘more intelligent’’ and ‘‘better’’) Finally, human biology, combined with physical anthropology and legal medicine, were misused to stigmatize blacks and mestiços as degenerate human breeds, as well as potential innate criminals, such as in the work of Raimundo Nina Rodrigues . Immediately after the arrival of evolutionism at Brazilian universities, many scientists adopted polygenic models of human evolution, in an attempt to naturalize the social inequalities that the country had inherited from its colonial past. At the end of the nineteenth century, some of the best scientific institutions in the country, such as the medical School of Bahia, considered perfectly scientific to distinguish white and black people as different human species. For many Brazilian white scientists, this biological myth was, at those times, ‘‘the truth, based on the study of comparative anatomy, of embryological development, as well as on what is observed in the domains of phylogeny’’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan M.S. Arteaga (talk • contribs) 22:20, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

By 'a prestigious scientific journal' you mean Journal of the History of Biology, (with an impact factor < 1), correct? How many times has your paper been cited? - MrOllie (talk) 22:42, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

of course Journal of the History of Biology is a prestigious scientific journal in the field of the History of Biology! Are you familiar with impact factors and citation rates in the humanities? The paper has been quoted by at least by 5 different authors in different reviewed papers since 2017. So what is the impact factor needed to add some content in wikipedia? Regarding the rest of the content that you have not deleted in this page, has it been reviewed by experts and published in high impact-factor scientific journals? your criticisms make no sense and they do not relate to the accuracy of the references and contents of the section, which should be our main focus here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juan M.S. Arteaga (talk • contribs) 23:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm familiar enough to know that an impact factor of less than one isn't the hallmark of a prestigious journal, even in lower citation fields. I think you'll have more success here if you tone it down, you're not going to convince anyone by overstating your claims. As to your suggestion of focus: Accuracy isn't the end-all for inclusion on Misplaced Pages. Per WP:UNDUE, for example, we also need manage the prominence of particular views. A whole section based on a recently published paper in an out of the way journal with only a handful of citations would be an example of undue weight.- MrOllie (talk) 02:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

References

1. Juanma Sánchez Arteaga. "Biological Discourses on Human Races and Scientific Racism in Brazil (1832–1911)." Journal of the History of Biology 50.2 (2017): 267-314.
2. Ihering, Hermann von. 1911. A questão dos Indios no Brasil, Revista do Museu Paulista. São Paulo: Typographia do Diario Official.
3. Lacerda, João B de. 1911. The métis, or half-breeds, of Bazil, in Spiller, Gustave (ed.),Papers on inter-racial problems. London: P.S. King and Son, pp. 377–382.
4. >Oliveira, João B. de Sa´ . 1985. Craneometria comparada das espécies humanas na Bahia. Bahia: Litho-Typographia de J.G. Tourinho.
5. Rodrigues, Raimundo Nina. 1938 (first ed. 1894). As raças humanas e a Responsabilidade Penal no Brasil. São Paulo: Editora Nacional.
6. Juanma Sánchez Arteaga et al. "The issue of race in the work of Domingos Guedes Cabral." História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 23 (2016): 33-50.
7. Lacerda, João B de. 1911. The me´ tis, or half-breeds, of Bazil, in Spiller, Gustave (ed.), Papers on inter-racial problems. London: P.S. King and Son, pp. 377–382
8. Raimundo Nina Rodrigues. 1899. Métissage, dégénérescence et crime. Lyon: A. Stock & Cie
9. Juanma Sánchez Arteaga et al. "The issue of race in the work of Domingos Guedes Cabral." História, Ciências, Saúde-Manguinhos 23 (2016): 33-50.
10. Oliveira, João B. de Sa´ . 1985. Craneometria comparada das espe´cies humanas na Bahia. Bahia: Litho-Typographia de J.G. Tourinho., p. 5.

I added the following comprehensive Misplaced Pages discussion article, History of the race and intelligence controversy,, which was removed. Why? Arodb (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

History of the race and intelligence controversy

I added the following comprehensive Misplaced Pages discussion article, History of the race and intelligence controversy,, which was removed. Why? Arodb (talk) 20:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

The problem was not with the content but with its placement at the top of the article (as stated in my edit summary). In any case I just added History of the race and intelligence controversy to the "See also" section for you. I hope this resolves the issue. Generalrelative (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Section on Darwin

This seems garbled and incoherent in parts. It looks like there may be some kind of tussle going on involving creationists and their opposition. I have no axe to grind on this either way, but could someone please clarify the discussion. (See e.g. the reference to "quote mine.") Thanks Be-nice:-) (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Have edited it to remove inaccuracies and clarify the discussion, it's still probably undue weight to fringe views so in future the section can be shortened...dave souza, talk 13:07, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dave souza: Please self-revert and discuss it here, per WP:ONUS and WP:BRD. Your edit does not accurately convey what's in the source. The point made in the source is that the specific accusations that creationists make against evolution are false, and, in particular, the charge that evolutionary theory is racist is false. The source concedes that some of Darwin's statements seem racist "by our present-day lights" and goes on to say "what of it?" (in other words, that by no means implies that the modern theory of evolution is racist). It would probably be WP:UNDUE for the article on Scientific racism to discuss Darwin's own racial views in detail. In reality he was more racist than some leading thinkers of his time (such as Alfred Russel Wallace and Peter Kropotkin) and less racist than others (such as Arthur de Gobineau and Louis Agassiz). The long paragraph by Darwin that's quoted in the article says explicitly that he believes that Caucasians (or perhaps a new race that's "even more civilized" than the Caucasians) will eventually become the only race of people because he believes that Black people are inferior and closer to gorillas. This is racist by any definition. On the other hand, Darwin rejected the notion of some racists of the time that different races belong to different species. Darwin also believed, as was typical in Great Britain at the time, that British imperialism was uplifting the supposedly inferior races in the colonies. NightHeron (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The pre-edit paragraph was wrong, referring to talk.origins instead of ToA, and mixing up the OtOOS quotemine with the Descent one. You're misrepresenting the source where you say it "concedes", it has just stated "Claims based on either of these quotes that Darwin and by extension modern evolutionary theory was or is 'racist' or that the theory leads to racism, are less than honest", and quoted Wilkins saying "Darwin was not perfect. But he was no racist". It puts forward the view that when Darwin refers to "civilised races" he "almost always is referring to cultures in Europe" and "was simply confused at that time about the difference between biological races and cultural races in humans." After discussing the naturalistic fallacy, it goes on the the sentence you misrepresent: "Even if we hold that Darwin was a racist (by our present-day lights) , what of it?" That's not a concession. See 5. So don't misrepresent ToA's views, your original research is irrelevant. You are of course welcome to put forward more sources. In my view giving the whole block of text from Descent tends to give undue weight to the issue and lead to misreadings, so tightening this section will be worthwhile. . . dave souza, talk 17:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Now you're misstating what I wrote right above. I did not say that the source concedes that Darwin "is a racist," and I didn't say that Darwin should be labeled. I said that the source concedes that some of Darwin's statements seem racist "by our present-day lights", and that's obviously what's meant by the source's sentence; then it goes on to say "what of it?" But saying that some of Darwin's statements seem racist by present-day standards, or even saying that some of his statements seem racist by any reasonable definition of the word -- and you've ignored my repeated reference to the last sentence of the long quote -- is not the same as labeling him as a racist. As I wrote before, he was somewhere in the middle for his time period -- his views were racist compared to Wallace but non-racist compared to Gobineau.

It's not even clear that your source is RS. It's a Usenet newsgroup that consists of essays. I don't believe it's peer-reviewed. I personally find the source interesting and reasonable, but that's not the same as satisfying WP:RS.

Your edit seems to suggest that the only people who have a problem with Darwin's racial views are creationists. That's giving the creationists a lot of undeserved credit for supposedly being the only ones to think that the statement that Blacks are closer to gorillas than Caucasians are is a racist statement. Plenty of non-creationists have also been bothered by Darwin's racial opinions, even viewed in the historical context of his time. With respect to racial attitudes there's a clear contrast between Darwin and the other great evolutionary theorist of the time, Alfred Russel Wallace. NightHeron (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification: I've asked at whether the two sources (other than Darwin's own words) that are used in this section are RS for saying that Darwin's views on race were not racist. NightHeron (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict)NightHeron First, a clarification. The sources already in the article (not "my source") are from the highly reputable TalkOrigins Archive, which is widely used as a RS, an edited and curated resource which originated as the talk.origins newsgroup. It deals with creationists, hence the focus of these sources. Other sources are needed if you want to show different commentary on CD's wording.
5 which was linked from ToA is a paper presented at an Interdisciplinary Conference at Princeton University, and may prove helpful. It cites Bannister, Robert C. Social Darwinism: Science and Myth in Anglo-American Social Thought (1989) for quotations including "Although by modern standards The Descent of Man is frustratingly inconclusive on critical issues of human equality, it was a model of moderation and scientific caution in the context of midcentury racism." Sadly, google doesn't offer preview, but did point to a user-uploaded transcription. If you can find it in a library or elsewhere, or if that transcription is acceptable as a source, it could be very helpful.
"Reasonable definition" of the word "racist" is a moving target, sensitivities change over time and even music lyrics from my younger days might cause offence today. Even if we hold that these songs are racist (by our present-day lights) what of it? The proposal "that rapid advancement of mental organization would occur, which has raised the very lowest races of man so far above the brutes ( although differing so little from some of them in physical structure ) .... has developed the wonderful intellect of the European races" doesn't read well today, but surely should be taken in context of its times. . . dave souza, talk 11:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change "he did not established" to "he did not establish". 2804:14D:AC83:4F70:E5D0:AC09:D367:503F (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Done. NightHeron (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on "Scientific racism" due to false and misleading information.

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please change the category of "pseudo-science" to something of an opinion. This is because although this science can be viewed as hurtful, the claims made in this article are false(that it is proven pseudo-science). It is considered quite a mainstream opinion within the intelligence science community.

Many noble prize winners such as James Watson (https://www.wired.com/2007/10/is-james-watson/), William Shockley(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sAszZr3SkEs) and many more agree on heritable intelligence differences among races. On top of this, despite social pressures to no longer study racial differences, modern Havard Professor of genetics David Reich (One of Nature's top 10, winner of many scientific awards) comes to the same consensus. (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/23/opinion/sunday/genetics-race.html)

Furthermore, 52 university professors in intelligence and allied fields signed the 1994 document, 'Mainstream Science on Intelligence'(http://www.intelligence.martinsewell.com/Gottfredson1997.pdf), which concludes various statements such as heritable differences of IQ among racial groups. This document then sparked mass controversy among the media, prompting the American Psychological Association to issue an urgent documented statement known as "Intelligence: Known and Unknown", which reaffirms the stance that there is no consensus if racial IQ gaps are either genetic or environmental, but rather debated. (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232430439_Intelligence_Knowns_and_Unknowns) No such authoritative scientific statement has been made since, therefore indicating the inaccuracy of this article that "scientific racism" is "pseudoscience" and disproven by the scientific community. It is still in question.

On top of this, there is still some modern research supporting racial differences, such as IQ differences and general differences among brain structures. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/comments/S0960-9822(15)00671-5 https://www1.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S016028960200137X https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301904

In 2019-20, a large survey of intelligence experts was conducted and found that the vast majority of intelligence experts believe that the media inaccurately portrays the reality of intelligence-related science. (Hence google presents opinionated articles giving false statements about books like the ‘Bell Curve’) Most experts also believed that black-white IQ differences were partially genetic. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160289619301886

The evidence used to claim that "scientific racism" is no longer science, is the commonly criticized booked "The Mismeasure of Man" by Stephan Jay Gould. This book was published in 1984 (after much of the evidence I have stated) and was heavily criticized as being completely unscientific. (http://www.debunker.com/texts/jensen.html) On top of this, Gould was found to have completely fabricated many parts of his book. (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/14/science/14skull.html)

Suggested changes, reasons for are above: 1. Either remove or rename this article. "Race realism" would be a more appropriate name as it is natural. It is the belief of racial differences to explain socio-economic outcomes, it is an ideology. This article should merely state the hard evidence in regard to this topic instead of falsely claiming it as "racism" and "pseudoscience". 2. Include both sides of this scientific debate. 3. Remove the claim it is "pseudo-science" as this is a disputed topic even today. It is not "pseudo-science." This is dishonest. ObjectiveTruthIsImportant (talk) 05:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Not done. There was an extensive RfC discussion of this question that concluded with the consensus that such views are fringe and not mainstream among scientists. The fact that one famous scientist (or several) subscribed to racist views does not change that. NightHeron (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not just a hand full of experts and none are "fringe" all are incredibly respected. James Watson is not "fringe." The question was no answered, someone had already left a very detailed response going to poor credibility of the sources claiming it was fringe to be met with "take your racist bullshit somewhere else" which is not consensus. Furthermore, you cannot quote Southern Poverty Law Center as a credible source because it just "claims someone is a racist" without going into the science. Almost all the sources are written by journalists with no expertise. On top of this, no it was not a handful of scientists, the survey concluded the overwhelming majority believe genes plays a role. Change it, because what I read is the most intellectually dishonest thing in my life. I gave noble prize winners and studies claiming that the majority believe the media poorly portray intelligence testing and that genetics play a role in black-white IQ differences. Using books by journalists that have no understanding on the topic is not credible, most intelligence scientists view this as a common position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ObjectiveTruthIsImportant (talk • contribs) 17:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Discrimination articles
• Mid-importance Discrimination articles
• WikiProject Discrimination articles
• C-Class history of science articles
• High-importance history of science articles
• WikiProject History of Science articles
• C-Class history articles
• Low-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• C-Class Anthropology articles
• Low-importance Anthropology articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• High-importance sociology articles
• C-Class Ethnic groups articles
• Top-importance Ethnic groups articles
• WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
• C-Class Human rights articles
• Top-importance Human rights articles
• WikiProject Human rights articles
• C-Class European history articles
• Mid-importance European history articles
• All WikiProject European history pages
• C-Class Evolutionary biology articles
• Low-importance Evolutionary biology articles
• WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
• C-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles