Jump to content

Talk:Miscegenation/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

What Is Miscegenation?

Miscegenation is not 'race mixing'. Miscegenation is an idea, based on a now revised belief about ancient human history. Like racism which is based on biological determinism, the belief that there were 3 distinct races separated since creation by geography, has been central to their belief. This found it's expression in the Multi-Regional Theory of human evolution, opposed to the Out Of Africa Theory which is now generally accepted, especially with the decyphering of the human genome. There has been an attempt to return the Multi-Regional hypothesis by postulating, on the worst quality DNA, that there were marginal infusions of non-Homo Sapiens/Homo Erectus homonids, like the Neanderthals, Denosivians, etc. However, percentages ascribed to this species/race mixing are marginal - less than 2% of European DNA being Neanderthal, for instance. If there were 3 distinctive races or early racial formation among Homo Sapiens, environmental events 7kya and 3-4kya caused large scale migrations, for instance making the Ancient Eurasians the basis of the oldest European families as well as Siberians and Native Americans. In the 2nd millennium BC, there massive north-south migrations/invasions in Africa and Asia. This mixed Aryans (India) and Mongols (China/SEASia) with earlier Ancient Black African populations that inhabited Africa, India, China, SE Asia to Papua New Guinea. The Andamanese (male haplogroup D, female haplogroup M32) are an example of these populations. Ideas like miscegenation were publicized and put into law by the elites, for instance through the Eugenics Records Office (ERO), funded by Mary Harriman, wife of the railway monopolist E.H. Harriman. Eugenics Record Office Archives at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. MrSativa (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Changing the term "caucasian"

Following up on some of the threads (e.g., here) on this talk page and in response to a recent anon edit (here), I propose we change the term caucasian for white. As the caucasian article explains, the term is outdated and discredited for current social usage, and employ properly in a few branches of science, but not in society at large. Changing "caucasian" for "white" (or "white people" would address legitimate concerns about consistency, as were expressed by Satanstorm (here). Few people would be happy with "white," but lacking a better alternative, I think we should temporarily settle on this term until consensus builds toward a better one. I invite your thoughts before performing the change. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 19:47, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Support In addition to the arguments made above, it's my impression that the use of "Caucasian" to mean "white" is largely an Americanism. (That factoid may or may not be true.) If so, that's another reason for an international encyclopedia to ditch the word. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 06:33, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support Other than a few American sources, I have never heard the term "Caucasian" used to refer to anything unrelated to the Caucasus region. I prefer the term white people in articles on racial theories. Dimadick (talk) 17:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support As an article that discusses peoples from all around the world it should use internationally accepted terminology. The only exceptions are the image description of Tiger Woods explaining his neologism and references to other Americans if appropriate. — Iadmc♫talk  18:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

why is this wiki project Judaism?

this makes no sense? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.26.226 (talk) 00:26, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is of interest to WikiProject Judaism because of its section about Nazi Germany. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 11:53, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Miscegenation. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Miscegenation. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Split page

As the readable prose size is 134kB, I suggest the section History of ethnoracial admixture and attitudes towards miscegenation should be split off into a new article and a summary left with a {{main}} link. The title (at least) also needs to be rewritten as "ethnoracial" is not a word according to any dictionary I have consulted — Iadmc♫talk  18:57, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Miscegenation. 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: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

needs severe editing

I arrived here because I was writing about how interracial marriage was for a time banned by law across much of the United States. Though I found some interesting sources, I readily established that this article is a mess.

An encyclopedia is not intended to replace a library, but to provide a gateway to libraries. Somewhere along the line, this article has been dragged toward the former (failed) goal.

The premise of the article appears to be that miscegenation and interracial marriage are essentially the same, or perhaps that one contains the other. In any case, certainly Transculturation might subsume both. The opening definition must be clarified, as in the Simple English version [1], and the bulk of the article brought into line with that.

Supposedly, the term "miscegenation" was not coined until 1863, and is now all but forgotten except retrospectively for one historical period. Though the article is vague, the term seems to have been appropriated (in the U.S. at least) in a negative sense — particularly "anti-miscegenation."

The argument could be made that miscegenation refers specifically to "undesirable" intermarriage in the United States between people of dissimilar race, representing a particular historical era and mindset, and that its modern use is outmoded. Therefore, expanding it to refer to all multiethnic relationships is incorrect, especially those elsewhere in the world that have never resulted in legislation of control. Certainly, examples of "female sex tourism" and of recent multiracial celebrities stretches the ostensible purpose of the article beyond any sort of rationality.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 06:26, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Interethnic marriage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
To not merge on the grounds that these are distinct and notable topics. Klbrain (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Topic mostly relates to Miscegenation, with specific cultural context that can also be included in the Miscegenation article. Kiteinthewind Leave a message! 04:43, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I could be wrong, but I doubt very much that my Irish-descended father marrying my Slovak-descended mother, or both of my Slovak descended aunts marrying Italian-descended men, or my Irish-descended uncle and aunt marrying Italian-descended mates would have been considered those coupling to be "miscegenation", not would anyone around them. (Of course, they were all Catholics, and if they had married Protestants or, Heaven Forfend!, Jews, there would have been hell to pay, but still no one would have thought of them as "miscegenation".) So, from these personal experiences (as an ex-Catholic who married first a Cathoiic then a Protestant, with a Jewish girlfriend thrown in for good measure), I think sticking to merging with Interracial marriage is the best option, as that is rather the classic definition of "miscegenation", at least in the US. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
  • Multiracial#Regions with significant multiracial populations has approximately the same content as well. I think especially the by-country sections could benefit by merging. Maybe as a stand-alone list. Though I suppose you could diffrentiate by-country sections on individual marriages, social attitudes, census information, and historical mized communities, it's not done very clearly on any of them.--Pharos (talk) 18:53, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
  • While I agree with the comment above that the artice could use some extreme editing and rewriting. IMO the "miscegnation" article should remain but address the adoption, use and legacy of the term itself rather than global examples of transcultural/interethnic/multiracial relationships, families and societies. MassiveEartha (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The lead was written as though the topic was interracial marriage in general. However, IMHO, "miscegenation" is a sub-topic of this that merits its own article. Specifically miscegentation is not just a generic term for interracial relationships but more specifically is about the racist notion that interracial relationships are a bad thing, an ill of society to be purged. Given the history of anti-miscegenation laws, that to me deserves a separate discussion. Now, the question is whether this article perhaps should be merged with Anti-miscegenation laws. I could go either way but I would argue that discussing the racist notions that gave birth to the laws, and discussing the laws themselves, can be two separate articles. As it is, I think this article could do with some cleanup to focus the topic better. --MC 141.131.2.3 (talk) 21:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
The discussion above 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.

Lead talks about the topic without making it clear (and using unscientific concepts such as "race")

Hi, came here through a link on Film in the "non-code" era of hollywood, and a bit surprised to see the casual treatment of the topic in the lead paragraph of the article...

I would agree with a comment made in the merge discussion, that this article is supposed to be about "about the racist notion that interracial relationships are a bad thing". But that is not made clear in the lead paragraph, and I think thats a significant fault. To add to that, the explanation talks about "race" as if that was a valid, existing scientific category (pro tip - its not). I'm happy to make changes myself, but I thought it might make sense to look for some comments / clarify the reasoning for those changes in advance.

Regards 134.3.210.209 (talk) 13:08, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

"Health risks"

I removed a "health risks" section from this article, which constituted original research, using inadmissable tabloid sources, which was also in poor taste and seems possibly motivated by bad faith and racism. I've found several peer reviewed papers that suggest miscegenation has no health risks, and that mixed-race babies even have a lower incidence of certain diseases compared to one or or both parental ethnic groups. Taking one or two studies which indicate a elevated incidence of c-section (not a health risk in of itself) or lower birth weights, and extrapolating a health risk from that without any context, perhaps using insufficient sample sizes, is not encyclopedic. Hunan201p (talk) 22:49, 24 December 2019 (UTC

How is it original research (excluding the C section links)? The articles say that Miscegenation has health risks, so I included them. They aren't tabloid either.
I've found several peer reviewed papers that suggest miscegenation has no health risks. Can I see them?
Taking one or two studies, wasn't it like five studies? And what context are you referring to?déhanchements (talk) 21:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

The use of the word Mulatto in this article

The use of the word "Mulatto", which the Wiki article of the word states that it is now chiefly considered offensive and derogatory, happens over 20 times in this article.

I propose the change of using a term such as "mixed black and white", or similar changes. The main focus I think should be able to be relayed without using a term considered globally chiefly as derogatory or offensive. There are many words in the English language that can be put together or used to convey this concept in several different less inflammatory ways.

I'm not making these proposed edits without consulting the community, due to 1) my account is extremely new, and is without much of the breadth of information on editing others do have, and 2) the entire article is flagged as possibly controversial, therefore any universal edits I make would be a possible severe misstep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueIsMyFavoriteColor (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 February 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:

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

Split and create new 'History of Multiracial People' article

I propose two changes. First, move Section 4 to a new article titled 'History of multiracial people'. Second, merge Sections 5 and 6 into Multiracial and Multiracial Americans. Two reasons:

  1. The current article is over 150K of text, way over the 100K upper threshold in WP:SIZERULE.
  2. The term ‘miscegenation’ today is used in relation to Anti-miscegenation laws and is not a neutral term, as discussed in Miscegenation#Usage, also here, and voiced in many comments on this Talk page. There should be an article about the historic term 'miscegenation' itself, but as per WP:COMMONNAME we should use a common name for the other material, which is 95% of this article.

There was support for a similar split in 2017, Talk:Miscegenation/Archive_3#Split_page, although nothing came of it.

I'll put notices of this proposal on the talk pages at Multiracial and Multiracial Americans. I don't think it's controversial to make the split, but I'd like to get broader input into the the new article name, and the proposed merge of Sections 5 and 6. Terms like multiracial, interacial, etc., are becoming less common as our understanding of race itself evolves, and so maybe there is a different approach we should consider.

Please let me know what you think. LaTeeDa (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Modified proposal: split and merge out Section 4

On further thought, modifying the split proposal immediately above. Justification is the same. Propose no new overarching article, like 'History of multiracial people'. Instead, merge Miscegenation#History_of_ethnoracial_admixture_and_attitudes_towards_miscegenation (90% of the overall article text) into existing pages where practical and create new articles for the rest, with Multiracial serving as the main page.

LaTeeDa (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be against the proposed split at first sight. Indeed, an advantage of the current form of the article is precisely that it puts in perspective, both geographically and historically, the ideas of miscegenation and multiracial/multicultural unions and offspring. Splitting content to articles focused on specific cultures or periods would be the opposite of WP:GLOBALIZE. An interest of such a perspective is, for instance, to illustrate how the notions of multiracial or miscegenation were applied to very different groups and in very different ways throughout history. Please explain how discarding a global article in favour of something centered on e.g. the U.S. context would help in countering an American-centric systemic bias. Place Clichy (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
I agree with most of your comment, specifically, that there should be a broad central article with a global perspective for this content.
There are two main questions:
  1. What article should be the broad central article? Multiracial already has country-specific sections that overlap with and create content forks with the Section 4 content. I propose that Multiracial be the broad, general article with global perspective. Interracial marriage could also work, and it also has country-specific sections. Miscegenation shouldn’t be the central article, because it is a loaded, archaic term that implies disapproval, and so fails NPOV, as sourced above. Also, as a term freighted with American history and that connotated black-white admixture only, it is American-centric. Happy to discuss and source NPOV issues further, if there is disagreement.
  2. How do we shorten the article? This article has 150 kB of prose and it continues to increase in size as more geographic sections get added. Section 4, which is 90% of the text, is divided up by region and country. It seems natural to split geographically, as I proposed. But, we could reduce the size other ways and I'd be interested in what your thoughts on that.
A key point here is that a close look at the content shows there is very little here that isn't general content that fits fine under multiracial. For the legal specific issues we have Anti-miscegenation laws and for marriage content we have Interracial marriage. It may be could be argued that we need an article on 'Interracial sex', but if we did, there is very little in this 'Miscegenation' article that would belong there. LaTeeDa (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Some sources regarding NPOV issues with term 'Miscegenation' The term is definitely still in use in the social sciences - maybe mostly in non-American English - but it seems that for many the term is considered archaic and offensive.
  • "The term [miscegenation] has traditionally carried a heavy sense of disapproval and is now largely archaic and disfavored."[2]
  • "With its hoax origin forgotten, "miscegenation's" scientific connotation -- and the fact that it has the same prefix as "mistake" or "misbegotten" -- planted the notion that races represented different species that should be separated."[3]
  • "While miscegenation is by no means considered a neutral word today, very few people know just how laden it is."[4]
  • ".... the term carries jarring overtones of impurity, transgression and categorical dissolution. Unlike 'hybridity', miscegenation signals a white / coulour binary revealing the maintenance of asymmetrical power relations through racial exclusion."[5]
  • "Clearly, 'miscegenation' is not a neutral term, even though today it is frequently used in a scientific way in social science contexts."[6]LaTeeDa (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. With only one posting by one involved editor here, this is not in any sense thorough. If no discussion can be obtained, remember that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result here at Wikipedia. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

TransporterMan, there are two editors discussing this not one. Fair to say, though, that the discussion hasn't been thorough. LaTeeDa (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor, looking at Interracial marriage, Miscegenation and Multiracial people, the following strikes me:
  • Interracial marriage and Miscegenation are WP:TOOBIG
  • Much content is duplicated between articles. In some cases, for example Interracial marriage#Réunion and Miscegenation#Réunion, the content is virtually identical. In other cases, where different editors have made additions, there are significant differences.
  • Differences between the specific subjects of the articles has become so blurred by the shared content they are approaching the same article presented in different ways.
  • Coverage of the situation is not consistent between countries. Some countries have in depth coverage, others have little content. Whilst it can be argued that a large country merits more coverage than a small one, in many instances in the articles the reverse is true.
  • Interaction between Chinese people and other races forms a large part of the articles, possibly this is out of proportion.
  • There seems to have been certain editors working to an agenda. Whilst additions are sourced, the sources have been cherry picked to suit.
Given the large overlap in both subject and content, there needs to rationalisation of the articles. Clearly everything cannot be covered in one article, so it would seem to me there needs to be an article with an overview that is concise with child articles that go into detail. Multiracial people is probably the prime subject, with Interracial marriage as a sub-topic. "Miscegenation" has become a somewhat negative term so I would suggest we move away from that. There are already some more specific articles in existence, although they could probably do with some consistency in naming. --John B123 (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
John B123 What do you think of the specific split proposal I made, including the parent/child outline above. I think this is in line with your comments to reduce size, create child articles for some of the detailed content, and have Miscegenation deal more narrowly with the term and history of that term (and be much smaller). Also, what are your thoughts on establishing consensus. We only have three editors discussing this, and Place Clichy didn't respond to my comments/questions to their dissenting comment. Hopefully they will reengage. As noted above, I have posted notices of this discussion at several related pages and projects. LaTeeDa (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I would split out sections 4 - 6 in this article, sections 4 - 8 from Interracial marriage and section 2 of Multiracial people into new articles. As first level child articles I would have continental divisions, such as Multiracial people in Africa, Multiracial people in Asia etc. Where there is sufficient information available, individual country articles can be created, such as Multiracial people in China. Where there is an individual "in country" article, within the relevant "in continent" only a brief overview would be given with a main article link.
As this is a very large change, a WP:BOLD move would probably bring objections. I would suggest as the next move a WP:RfC. --John B123 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
I agree, a formal RfC would be needed to make changes of this extent, so rather then waste electrons on this non-RfC, an rfC should be framed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the technical aspects, but I agree to merge the article. Various reviews have shown that the proportion of Chinese marriages is too high, but most of the problems are distorted. It has been confirmed that there are some nationalist users. They're exploiting the split-up of the documents.Bablos939 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

References

NOTAFORUM
What does "too high" mean? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage#There_are_many_misinterpreting_the_source_about_Chinese_intermarrige.In Latin America, there are only a handful of international marriages among Chinese.However, the content is overly massive. There is even a lot of distortion of the source. In addition, some (maybe) Chinese users are concealing international marriages of their own women.Bablos939 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Do check out the discussion on that page, Beyond My Ken. Bablos939 is engaging in nationalist edit warring and seeking to remove all things about Korean women outmarrying and miscegenating while exclusively only editing about Chinese women in miscegenation. Maomao4321's edits are almost identical to Bablos939. He appears to be double voting to gain concensus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bablos939
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Maomao4321
Watersinfalls (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
This was supposed to be a 1 or 2 advice of help. Many admin and editors had already warned Bablos939 , ignoring other editors including do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. He also had 5 revert warning in 24 hours in interracial marriage There should first be a sockpuppet investigation to see if there's Canvassing [[7]] and Wikipedia:False consensus to create support. I also believe he is User_talk:Montalk123 (a editor who makes a lot of Korean nationalistic edit but anti-Chinese edits)
Plenty of false claims Babloss939 keep promoting. Like for example 'the men(Chinese) had almost no contact with local women in Peru." He edited this on wikipedia " There were almost no women among the nearly entirely male Chinese coolie population that migrated to Peru and Cuba. Chinese men had almost no contact with local women in Peru.[40][41] A few Chinese coolie married non-Chinese women.[42]
Wishful thinking just like in how he cherrypicks his book sources. A book source is only realible when is backed by statistic, historical evidence, genetic evidence, physical descents which are million times more realible than a mere text written and self-assumptions claimed by authors.
Are you going to remove the work of a respected editor/ or admin ( I believe he's from Peru ) that edited this in Chinese Peruvians
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DoctorSpeed
He edited this
" Around 20.1% of Peru’s population have at least one Chinese immigrant ancestor (2017) "
You think Chinese men interracial marriage is too high than wait until we add this?
https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Chapter3-Sharp-Power-Rising-Authoritarian-Influence-Peru.pdf
The term, tusan, “refers to children of Chinese parents born in Peru as well as children born of a Chinese father and a Peruvian or mixed race mother1.”
Many of the Chinese immigrants that remain have intermarried with white, black, and mulatto populations, and their children are of mixed races3. Once an island with thousands of people of Chinese descent, Cuba’s Chinese population and the Havana Chinatown is not as lively as it once was.
Other sources'
By Juan Pablo Cardenal1
https://www.panoramas.pitt.edu/health-and-society/chinatown-peru-brief-look-chinese-diaspora-latin-america
" The Tusan are thought to be quite numerous: Up to 2.5 million people, or 8 percent of Peru’s population of 31 million may have Chinese ancestry, according to estimates—about which there is still much debate "
If 20.1% is to high for you ( adding percentages of local Chinese and mixed ) How about 15.0% (although the official number is 20.1%)
https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/chinese-laborers-peru-lima-pyramid
Found: The Remains of Chinese Laborers Interred on a Peruvian Pyramid. In the 19th century, 100,000 indentured laborers came to Peru from China.BY SARAH LASKOW AUGUST 25, 2017
"though; today 15 percent of people in the country can trace their ancestry back to Chinese and other Asian migrants from the 19th century ".
15% include the number of people who have part Chinese ancestry.
To think that someone actually believes 15 or 20% of Peruvian with Chinese ancestyr is caused by having no contact or made on by a few marriage with Chinese men is ridicolous and even lack of commonsense. 41.34.45.155 (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
What I think is that if you cannot write and format your thoughts in such a way that they can be read and understood by English-speakiing editors, then they're extremely unlikely to take the time to decode what you're trying to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
You may have also felt. Those two Sockpuppet(Watersinfalls/41.34.93.140) are delusional without academic evidence.Those two Sockpuppet are making the same claim and are only participating in this talk at the same time.Those two Sockpuppet always speak of their delusion that has nothing to do with the talk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage#There_are_many_misinterpreting_the_source_about_Chinese_intermarrige. A)He claims to be a user of each other.Right now 2 editors here (Watersinfalls including me) are confused if ...' B)This talk is about the Chinese international marriage in Latin America and China. However,41.34.93.140/102.44.199.16 suddenly began to comment on Korea, which expressed nationalist feelings and was not related to this talk. C) I invited him to get the UserID. D) 'Watersinfalls' appeared, and suddenly He mentioned a Korean who had nothing to do with talk. The editing method is the same as the IP address. E) 'Sogdian' 'Korea' : These two keywords are not the focus of this talk. It's a crazy word, regardless of the talk. F) However, 'Watersinfalls' and IP are equally referring to the keyword. G) It is unlikely that these two dolls are different characters. H) Also, the two IP and 'Watersinfalls' participate only in this talk, with no other contributions.Bablos939 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)


Everything is fine. A sockpuppet investigation is under way.

You said " Right now 2 editors here (Watersinfalls including me) are confused if "

I said... Right now 2 editors here. Watersinfalls who accused you first ( that's 1 ) and including me (that's 2) = 2 editors.

Misinterpretation are not needed A investigation to see who's a sockpuppet in underway so let's be patient and wait.What do you mean Keyword "Sogdian" and "Korea". Those are things you don't want people to know and the previous banned sock shows you have similar behaviour. Maomao4321 used the exact same Korean link as you. 1) They all numbers in the end. 2) They all write Chinese women. I believe they all share similar IP locations (possibly either from Korea some close city locations).

As for Peruvian Chinese, I suggest you look at their physical descendants and you will see many Chinese Peruvian look mix between Chinese and Peruvian https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uplo...Power-Rising-Authoritarian-Influence-Peru.pdf

" The first are those who maintain Chinese citizenship and, therefore, have stronger, more direct ties to China; this group includes the descendants of the workers of Cantonese origin who migrated to Peru after 1849, as well as the so-called new migrants—mostly from Fujian province—who have been flowing into the country since the 1980s. The second group are Peruvian citizens born in the countrywith mixed Peruvian-Chinese ancestry, locally known as Tusan.7 The Tusan are thought to be quite numerous: Up to 2.5 million people, or 8 percent of Peru’s population of 31 million may have Chinese ancestry, according to estimates—about whichthere is still much debate.8 "So you're completely wrong about only a few Chinese married. 41.232.35.139 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Do you see this

As for Peruvian Chinese, I suggest you look at their physical descendants and you will see many Chinese Peruvian look mix between Chinese and Peruvian https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uplo...Power-Rising-Authoritarian-Influence-Peru.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.35.139 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

single-purpose account : Watersinfalls, 41.34.93.140 ,102.44.199.16 , 41.232.35.139 , Buzinezz They commonly cover up international marriages of Chinese women and exaggerate international marriages of Chinese men. Some of them were blocked before the Sockpuppet investigations. Their conduct should be nullified.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Buzinezz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/41.232.35.139Bablos939 (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Lede paragraph

An editor is attemptinig to change the lede paragraph from it current state:

Miscegenation (/mɪˌsɛdʒɪˈneɪʃən/), starting from the now-discredited belief that human "races" exist, is the supposedly unhappy result of the mixing of these "races": the loss of a particular race or culture's "purity".[1][2] This racial mixing requires sexual activity between members of different races, thus producing mixed-race offspring. Opposition to miscegenation, thereby preserving their race's purity and nature, is a typical theme of racial supremacist movements, especially white supremacy.

to this:

Miscegenation (/mɪˌsɛdʒɪˈneɪʃən/) is the mixing of different racial groups through marriage, sexual activity and procreation.[1][3] Opposition to miscegenation, which is perceived to impact the "purity" of a particular race, is a typical theme of racial supremacist movements, especially white supremacy.

I contend that the suggested replacement assumes that "racial groups' actually exist, wheras the current state of scientific thing holds that the broad categories of "race" are primarily a social construct and do not have any scientific basis. This is something the current paragraph makes very clear. Beyond My Ken (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Actually its the other way aroung, beyong my ken is attemptinig to change the long term consensus version before 14 june 2020 of:

Miscegenation (/mɪˌsɛdʒɪˈneɪʃən/) is the mixing of different racial groups through marriage, sexual activity and procreation.[1][4] Opposition to miscegenation, which is perceived to impact the "purity" of a particular race, is a typical theme of racial supremacist movements, especially white supremacy.

to this:

Miscegenation (/mɪˌsɛdʒɪˈneɪʃən/), starting from the now-discredited belief that human "races" exist, is the supposedly unhappy result of the mixing of these "races": the loss of a particular race or culture's "purity".[1][5] This racial mixing requires sexual activity between members of different races, thus producing mixed-race offspring. Opposition to miscegenation, thereby preserving their race's purity and nature, is a typical theme of racial supremacist movements, especially white supremacy.

Gooduserdude (talk) 11:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b c d "Miscegenation: Definition of Miscegenation at Dictionary.com". Retrieved 31 January 2010.
  2. ^ Pascoe, Peggy (2009). What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–14. ISBN 9780195094633.
  3. ^ Pascoe, Peggy (2009). What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–14. ISBN 9780195094633.
  4. ^ Pascoe, Peggy (2009). What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–14. ISBN 9780195094633.
  5. ^ Pascoe, Peggy (2009). What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America. Oxford University Press. pp. 1–14. ISBN 9780195094633.
Looking more closely, Gooduserdude is correct, the "now-discredited" version was a change to the status quo. I still think it's better, but the question is now re-framed as, should this change (to the "mow-discredited beliefe that human "races" exist" version) be accepted or not. I support it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I initially reverted (and then reworked) the lead as I was uncomfortable with "now-discredited", and also felt "supposedly unhappy" was un-encyclopedic - I agree with the sentiment that it was attempting to capture, but I don't think there is sufficient space in the lead for us to explain why that is, and for us to write it in a way that protects it from disruptive editing. I would however agree with an IP edit which suggested we should widen from 'white supremacy' to 'racial supremacy'. Best, Darren-M talk 11:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
I don't think the lede in its current state clearly reflects the scientific consensus that human races do not exist (again, except for within kinds of social/political rhetoric.) It is an insanely difficult thing to create a phrasing that is concise and comprehensive and not misleading, but I also think it is extremely important that Wikipedia doesn't even appear to lend credibility to that kind of pseudoscentific notion. Expressions such as "are considered to be" can easily be interpreted as "are"; I am actually of the opinion that the clear and succinct phrase "the now-discredited belief that human "races" exist" works very well, but there may be other ways to state the same thing in an unambiguous way. --bonadea contributions talk 10:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Bonadea that the lede needs to more strongly assert the current scientific consensus about the concept of race. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)


“there was frequent intermarriage”

There are sources that state that approximately 12,000 African slaves were imported into El Salvador since the beginning of the colonial period so the assertion that marriages between indigenous women and African men were ‘frequent’ is dubious and highly unlikely based on that figure. The number is far too low for that to have been the case.

Not to mention that African physical characteristics among the Salvadorean population are practically non-existent, something that would be fairly evident if the frequency of these marriages was true.

“ women would rather marry"

The assertion that indigenous women would prefer to marry men that were slaves doesn’t add up given that laws were eventually passed to cease the enslavement of the native population only for their labor to be replaced by the approved importation of African slaves.

This decision in and of itself reinforces and backs up that indigenous lives were perceived to be of a higher value and priority than African ones. African slaves and their descendants have usually, if not always, being at the bottom of social hierarchy across Latin America, with a few exceptions here and there.

Although there is a citation provided for these claims, not all articles are created equal as some are of a very questionable academic standard and can be more accurately described as mere conjecture of an unqualified author/s rather than an expert’s comments based on actual reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.117.190 (talk) 15:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

South Asia

@Beyond My Ken: Regarding this revert you have made, I would just say that none of the sources included in my removal made any mention of "miscegenation" or "marriage". They only talk about the disputes about races of Indians, Pakistanis, Afghan people of South Asia and ultimately concluding that they all belong to the same racial category. But what any of this has to do with this subject of miscegenation? Genetics and archaeogenetics of South Asia is the right page for it (where it already exists). Bvatsal61 (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Let me know your opinion. Bvatsal61 (talk) 09:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Health risks section

I made several edits to the health risks section (diff) to improve accuracy. The section still needs more work, primarily covering the research on pregnancy and perinatal health risks for mixed race couples. I tried to establish a foundation for that research since, as I wrote in the beginning of the section, pregnancy and neonatal health risks for interracial couples should be considered in the context of pregnancy and neonatal risk by race/ethnicity of the parents generally. I removed the two short paragraphs that previously constituted the entire section. All the citations for those two paragraphs were incomplete and formatted incorrectly. In addition, most of the citations were either irrelevant or came from unreliable sources.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 08:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. I believe this section is not well placed and should be deleted or moved to another article.

§1 To start with, as the lede and usage sections make it clear, the term "miscegenation" is avoided by scholars because it is a pejorative term that has been (and is) used mostly by proponents of so-called racial purity and racial supremacists. As a consequence, I believe it is important for Wikipedia to avoid justifying its use beyond this historic context of racial discrimination in relationships and marriages. I hence suggest that the article focus on this. Other considerations such as "health risks" should be moved to a separate article titled with a more neutral, more scientific and non-pejorative term. Possible articles may include "Interracial marriage" and "Mixed-race people".

§2 In any case, this "health risk" section is titled negatively ("Health considerations" would be more objective and could feature positive aspects such as heterosis) and featured far too prominently within the article, as if to warn against an important risk. A superficial or less educated reader might get the message that "miscegenation is risky", while the content to this section simply ranks risks by race, with very little to do with the topic of this article. The citations could perhaps have some relevance in an article about unequal access to health care.

As a consequence I trust that deleting this "health risk" section will contribute to improving the quality of this poorly-rated article. All the best, Med 21:28, 22 September 2020 (UTC) M. Dutheil

Perhaps this page should be protected?

Much of the research on this page seems to be the direct product of people who treat racial intermixing as a fetish or an opportunity to propagate male sexual power fantasies. Many, if not most, of the sources have little to do with the sections, and almost every statement contains references to the men of one race intermarrying the women of another, with almost no references to the reverse, and the sources to such statements have, after checking many, no visible references to the gender of people in the claims.


192.225.180.2 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

mulheres holandesas num forte oriental?ou mestiças de holandeses com locais?quando holandeses vieram pro atlantico nao vinham como anglos nos eua dira no leste isso fede a mentira — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.181.142.31 (talk) 04:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oguerrero98.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Pompeii fresco

@User:The Glam Rock Joseph Stalin original research. This fresco from the villa of Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa does not depict miscegenation.

Could you please elaborate? Synotia (moan) 15:46, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miscegenation/Archive_3&oldid=1238599580"