Talk:Race: The Reality of Human Difference

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 February 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence

The article Race: The Reality of Human Difference, 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: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia 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: Wikipedia 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 2006 June 2. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article could be much improved with more sources.

I have some Source Lists to Share with Other Wikipedians on my user subpages that would be helpful for updating this article. The subpages on IQ and human intelligence are reasonably complete now, always to be updated more, and the subpages on race and human genetics will be updated a lot more over the next few months. Feel free to refer to those to edit this article and articles on related topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is notability requirement for books met by this article?

I see this article is but a stub, and I wonder if the article has sufficient sources available to meet the notability requirements for a stand-alone Wikipedia article about a book. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 15:38, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnically targeted bioweapons

The sentence "The authors then discuss a fourth, alternate option in the form of ethnic bioweapons. Due to constant ethnic conflicts between and within nations, the eventual use of such a weapon is highly probable in the view of the authors" does not represent the content of the book: while the authors indicate that they could be technically feasible, they also explain why they are not very likely. Furthermore, this long sentence it is giving a very heavy weight to less than 7 pages section of the book (out of a total of 262 pages).

I have replaced it with the shorter and more correct sentence "The authors then discuss "the horrific prospect of ethnically targeted weapons,"^[1] which they view as technically feasible but not very likely to be used."--Jacques de Selliers (talk) 17:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Page 248

Include reactions to the book?

I wonder if mentioning reviews, or general reception of the book would help readers make better use of this book? Beaulen (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has a whole set of recommendations about how to write articles about books in general, and, yes, it is generally useful for any article about a book to cite reviews of the book and to find sourced information about how the book has been received by readers. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:54, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Page 248

[1]