Talk:Scientific racism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Neutrality, topicality and correctness

The article seems to present scientific facts about demographic differences as pseudo-scientific. The sources mentioned are outdated and of low quality. Empirical facts are not explained, only moralistic and philosophical considerations are given the word. To call something a pseudoscience, however, is possible only on the basis of unscientific methods used by the science in question. Two sources have been cited for the pseudo-scientific status of racial sciences:

1. Paul Kurtz - Philosophical considerations, which make no statements of scientific value.

2. S. J. Gould an activist against sociobiological theories. The source is outdated (1981), sociobiological theories have now become established sciences (evolutionary psychology, heredity studies e.c.t.).

Numerous racial differences are now known, so "scientific racism" has undergone vindication through modern research. I would also like to point out that the burden of proof is on the part of the author, if something is called a pseudoscience it must be done with satisfactory sources, this is not the case in this article. Bafabengabantu (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)— Bafabengabantu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I know from first-hand experience that it's pointless to even try to discuss anything "politically incorrect" on Wikipedia, since there is practically zero neutrality when it comes to such topics and valid criticism is either ignored or blocked with a neverending waterfall of WP:*randomabbreviation* nonsense, which is of course always interpreted in a way that supports the politically correct version, so the articles in question always stay the way they are. Still I just wanted to say I agree with your comment and think it's stupid to try to deceive people with biased Wikipedia articles; as you can see on the talk pages of numerous "controversial" articles, a LOT of people are noticing, and objecting to, the unneutral presentation of such topics. The only thing this achieves is that it makes Wikipedia untrustworthy. Billy7 (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Dismissing sources you don't agree with as pseudo-science is not persuasive, but there are many, many more than just those two. The lede is designed to be a summary of the body of the article. Sources in the lede are provided only for convenience, and even in the lede, there are more than just those two.:

• "Ostensibly scientific": cf. Theodore M. Porter, Dorothy Ross (eds.) 2003.The Cambridge History of Science: Volume 7, The Modern Social Sciences Cambridge University Press, p. 293 "Race has long played a powerful popular role in explaining social and cultural traits, often in ostensibly scientific terms"
• Adam Kuper, Jessica Kuper (eds.), The Social Science Encyclopedia (1996), "Racism", p. 716: "This [sc. scientific] racism entailed the use of 'scientific techniques', to sanction the belief in European and American racial Superiority";
• Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Questions to Sociobiology (1998), "Race, theories of", p. 18: "Its exponents [sc. of scientific racism] tended to equate race with species and claimed that it constituted a scientific explanation of human history";
• Terry Jay Ellingson, The myth of the noble savage (2001), 147ff. "In scientific racism, the racism was never very scientific; nor, it could at least be argued, was whatever met the qualifications of actual science ever very racist" (p. 151);
• Paul A. Erickson, Liam D. Murphy, A History of Anthropological Theory (2008), p. 152: "Scientific racism: Improper or incorrect science that actively or passively supports racism".

Highlighting only two sources, just because you believe you can refute them through personal opinion, is not scientific. I'm sure you could pick holes in the remainder, as well, but this wouldn't be evaluating sources in good faith. You do not have to agree with them, but there are many, many scientists from a broad range of relevant fields who dispute the legitimacy of these ideas. The article already documents a sample of them.

As for the idea that this is obsolete, this is precisely backwards. There are certainly differing opinions about race in academia, but misrepresenting this as accepted is not helpful. "Demographic differences" is a euphemism in this specific context, and ironically, it is a "politically correct" euphemism, because you are attempt to preset a controversial idea using intentionally inoffensive language. There is no modern consensus, even among biologists, even among evolutionary biologists, about the proper way to define these demographics, so any application of "race" needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There is not now, and never has been, a constant definition of race that applies within a field of study, and even less so across disciplines. Scientific racism attempts to present race as a simple quality which can been fairly applied across different, quantifiable attributes, but this position is so fraught with intractable problems, that it isn't particularly useful in most cases.

There. All that without even pointing to WP:OR, WP:FRINGE, or WP:NOTFORUM. Grayfell (talk) 01:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The introduction states that racial science is pseudoscience, this is done with two sources. These sources are inadequate, whether there are other sources in the rest of the article is irrerlevant. Statements must be directly proven by the corresponding sources.

That the race sciences have many critics is out of the question. But just because a field is criticized a lot (for example, on a moralistic basis) does not mean that one can equate it with pseudo-science.

WP:FRINGE/PS says the criticism is not sufficient for pseudo-scientific status. Racial differences are now being studied on a large scale and I have never heard anyone call Edward Dutton or Richard Lynn a pseudo-scientist.

I want to remind you that Wikipedia is not a forum, your idea of how to define races is of no importance. For example, in evolutionary psychology, laws (AA), and large sections of the social sciences, race is defined as a one-dimensional construct, which may be right or wrong, but it represents the standard approach.

Billy7 I would like to encourage you to participate in the discussion. If one does not resist the ideologists, the quality of Wikipedia will never improve. Bafabengabantu (talk) 12:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bafabengabantu: sources are not actually required in the lead if they are in the body of the article. Your handful of edits to talk pages on this subject don't place you in the position of being able to lecture experienced editors on how to use this talk page (or have you a prior account or accounts?) and your comment on "ideologists" hardly assumes good faith. Although since an ideology can simply be a person's set of beliefs, then we are probably all ideologists. Lynn gets called a lot of things, eg white supremacist, and his work or at least this[1] has been called pseudoscience. And why doesn't Edward Dutton (anthropologist) include something about this lovely piece of what certainly looks like pseudoscience.""The Fool Says in His Heart That Atheists Are Mutants"? Doug Weller talk 13:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

The seniority of an editor makes false statements not correct. The rest of the sources don't not even speak of "Pseudoscience".

The situation is very simple, as we have to ask only one question:

Are racial differences on a genetic basis existent or not? The answer is a loud yes, racial differences are real. Something that measures a real phenomena can not be a pseudo-science. All of these sources are from mainstream journals. While certain elements of the social sciences are not comfortable with these findings, they do not invalidate them. Bafabengabantu (talk) 15:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bafabengabantu: you seem to be avoiding my question about earlier accounts, and my point about experience had absolutely nothing to do with a statement being true or false but the fact that you are trying to, as they say, teach your grandmother to suck eggs. Most editors here do not need to be told about WP:VERIFY or how to use talk pages. Doug Weller talk 15:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Did you even read the sources? "Genetic_and_Environmental_Influences_of_General_Cognitive_Ability" is not even addressing race or racial differences. It covers potential cognitive differences between pairs of twins. The sample used for this study derives from twins covered in the "Vietnam Era Twin (VET)Registry, a nationally distributed sample of male–male twin pairs who served in the United States military at some point between 1965 and 1975."Dimadick (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I read the sources very carefully. This source says that IQ is highly hereditary, this obviously has great relevance to the subject at hand.

The sources I have provided represent only a small excerpt of the available literature. The facts are clear. I am aware that this is a controversial topic. But nevertheless, I ask all discussion participants to not let their emotions overpower them. As it stands now, the entire article is dubious and should be marked as such. Bafabengabantu (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You have cherry-picked your way through the literature on a highly complex and highly controversial subject the depths and nuances of which you don't seem to appreciate at all, the sources you have picked represent nothing. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:56, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources I picked represent nothing? What is that supposed to mean? I ask again for a factual discussion style, wild allegations are nothing but unproductive.

The topic is indeed highly complex and this complexity is not reflected in article. To represent large parts of serous science as pseudoscience is very questionable. The moralistic and philosophical objections to such research should be mentioned in article. But it is irresponsible to interpret this legitimate criticism as proof of unscientific behavior. Bafabengabantu (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Deleted edits by yet another sock of the racist Mikemikev (so far out he got kicked from Metapedia). Doug Weller talk 19:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Origin of the term

This article has a large list of adherents of scientific racism in the antecedents section, but it dose not explain the origin of the term itself. I think it would be good to also include a history or etymology section that explains things such as who first coined the term "Scientific Racism", When it was first used, and in what context it was first used. Can anyone find any of this information? Underneaththesun (talk) 07:17, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

How is this pseudoscience? No links to scientific papers supporting the statement that 'scientific racism' is pseudoscience.

References 1-5 are about genocide, and about some general race issues and ethics, they aren't academic publications. The question whether all human races have equal intelligence is a scientific question, and it can have answers yes, no, rather yes, rather no, don't know. If the answer is don't know, this should be an area of active research. Pseudoscience implies that the scientific answer is known and is yes while some claim otherwise. AFAIK, very few scientists dispute the notion that genes are a factor in intelligence. Based on this alone this can't be labeled pseudoscience. 24.4.39.254 (talk) 19:06, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

yes, no, rather yes, rather no, don't know is not how science works. The possible answers are don't know because the question has not been looked at enough, no, there are replicably measureable differences and either yes or the differences are so tiny that we cannot measure them. It's the third option. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The question is loaded as it assumes the existence of human races. --Frybread (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

There isn't a valid reference, let alone possible argument, to call this 'pseudoscientific'. It's pure editorialisation and there is NO scientific consensus. If you want to add this editorial then at least you will have to show there is 'consensus', even by the clownish 'rules' of this venue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.94.200.121 (talk • contribs)

fundamental language problem

You can't say it's "scientific racism" and "pseudoscience" in the same place. The two ideas are mutually exclusive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.240.29.184 (talk) 21:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

It is similar to creation science: a common name in English (WP:COMMONNAME). —PaleoNeonate – 22:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

We go with the common name, and in any case, it's a superficially palatable term cooked up by advocates to give a pseudoscientific justification for racism. Acroterion (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2019

Under 4.4 United States

The 2nd paragraph reads:

Scientific racism was also used as a justification for the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson–Reed Act), which imposed racial quotas limiting Italian American immigration to the United States and immigration other southern European and eastern European nations. Proponents of these quotas, who sought to block "undesirable" immigrants, justifying restrictions by invoking scientific racism.[112]

A 'from' should be added between immigration and other so that the sentence reads:

Scientific racism was also used as a justification for the Emergency Quota Act of 1921 and the Immigration Act of 1924 (Johnson–Reed Act), which imposed racial quotas limiting Italian American immigration to the United States and immigration from other southern European and eastern European nations. Proponents of these quotas, who sought to block "undesirable" immigrants, justifying restrictions by invoking scientific racism.[112] 12.228.102.194 (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

"Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions unsupported by available evidence such as a connection between race and intelligence"

I would propose that this sentence be changed to {{"Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions that they claim are unsupported by available evidence such as a connection between race and intelligence". I think adding "that they claim are" would make it clear that the statement "connection between race and intelligence" is "unsupported by available evidence" is NOT read in Wikipedia's voice, as there have in fact been papers upon papers of credible research concluding that race and intelligence are, in fact, linked, and the statement is hence all but false. Here is one such study: . Here is another, which itself, in fact, cites five more studies showing significant (though shrinking over time) differences between people identifying as "black" and those identifying as "white" (Jensen, Loehlin, Reynolds, Thorndike, Vincent).^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 23:24, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

No. Historical information should be presented as historical information. The scientific consensus changes as methods advance and understanding improves. Pseudoscience doesn't have to worry about this, so old sources keep getting recycled and challenges dismissed in service of prior assumptions.

Nowhere does this meta-analysis from 2001 mention scientific racism, nor does it directly mention "race". There are likely a lot of reasons it doesn't mention race, but regardless, it doesn't mention race. The meta-analysis does discuss ethnicity, but this is a significantly different concept.

Some of the Roth source's sources mention race, but there are many reliable sources specifically documenting Lynn, Rushton, Jensen, Gottfredson, and Herrnstein & Murray's connection to scientific racism in direct terms.

There are countless weighty books about scientific racism in general, and some about the specific malpractice of some of these academics. We should not use this one source, which somehow manages to positively cite Francis Galton without mentioning racism or eugenics, as an excuse to misrepresent the scientific consensus on this topic to promote a WP:FRINGE view of racialism. Grayfell (talk) 01:15, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

They don't mention race but they do mention "blacks" and "whites", which are clearly categorisations of race. And, if you disagree that that is the implication on the basis of WP:SYNTH, then I propose stressing that the problem is with the definition of "race" (rather than a correlation exists) in the article. Either way, reading something which is, if not outright wrong, then surely anything but unequivocal in Wikipedia's voice isn't appropriate.^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

"Stressing" something based on a personal opinion is editorializing. Creating definitions to fit "correlations" is textbook pseudoscience. Grayfell (talk) 01:54, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Grayfell: I'm not sure you are being genuine here. Your problem with the sources I cited was that they didn't mention "race". Also on Wiki's page on "race and intelligence", it is likewise stated the the biggest controversy is in the definition of "race". Other than that, as I have shown earlier, there are heaps upon heaps of evidence showing differences in intelligence between different ethnic groups and self-defined (note how this was defined by the participants themselves - not the alleged "pseudoscientists") races. I don't see, then, how my edit was in any way a reflection of my personal opinion. Based on your explanation, it seems like your revert of my edit is based on personal opinion - not my edit itself.

Furthermore, when have I even argued that scientific racism isn't pseudoscientific? All I said is that the claim that the connection between race and intellegence isn't supported by evidence isn't correct. And you still haven't provided any reasons, apart from the authors I cited being criticised, why ALL these papers should be automatically discredited just because you don't like their conclusions. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 11:39, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Do not ping me again. I will respond or not at my own convenience.

You are experienced enough here that you should already know not to try and citing another Wikipedia article as an excuse for editorializing.

There are countless sources about scientific racism, and specifically about the flawed, inconsistent, and pseudoscientific attempts to define race and then link race to intelligence.

This connection is "unsupported" in part because it is "ill-defined", so your change adds empty filler for no benefit. The only purpose for this filler that I can see would be to imply that there actually is a connection between race and intelligence, but this misrepresents both the underlying issue, and the consensus of sources. If this was about race as a social construct, or how self-defined race influences IQ testing, perhaps this would need more nuance, but that is all way, way outside the scope of the lede to this article. Obviously.

As for your source, which does not mention scientific racism, good luck with that. As just a few obvious examples, Rushton believed that black people were stupid because penis length was inversely proportionate to intelligence, Lynn heads a journal started by literal Nazis to promote eugenics, and Galton got his start in science because a phrenologist advised him to work with his hands based on his skull-shape. This article is about science, so it must reflect the modern consensus, not cherry-picking.

So for this one sentence, do we really need to go through every source from the past 150 years which says there might be a connection between "race" (which is never consistently defined) and "intelligence" (which has almost as many complications)? Of course not. None of this belongs in the lede.

So it is not just that I "don't like their conclusions", it's that reliable sources spanning decades have challenged their work to the point where it has become largely discredited. We cannot misrepresent sloppy science as having legitimacy just because it still lingers in academic libraries like a fart in an elevator. Grayfell (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it is useful to quote Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns here, as it is the most authoritative statement ever published on this topic. It is a report published in 1995 by the American Psychological Association, the largest professional organization of psychologists in the United States.

The fifth section of the report deals specifically with ethnic group differences (although the report avoids using he term "race", the terms "black" and "white" are used throughout the report). This part of the report is far too long to quote here, but its most important conclusions regarding the black/white gap are summarized in this paragraph:

African-American IQ scores have long averaged about 15 points below those of Whites, with correspondingly lower scores on academic achievement tests. In recent years the achievement-test gap has narrowed appreciably. It is possible that the IQ-score differential is narrowing as well, but this has not been clearly established. The cause of that differential is not known; it is apparently not due to any simple form of bias in the content or administration of the tests themselves. The Flynn effect shows that environmental factors can produce differences of at least this magnitude, but that effect is mysterious in its own right. Several culturally based explanations of the Black/ White IQ differential have been proposed; some are plausible, but so far none has been conclusively supported. There is even less empirical support for a genetic interpretation. In short, no adequate explanation of the differential between the IQ means of Blacks and Whites is presently available.

And this is the overall conclusion of the report:

In a field where so many issues are unresolved and so many questions unanswered, the confident tone that has characterized most of the debate on these topics is clearly out of place. The study of intelligence does not need politicized assertions and recriminations; it needs self-restraint, reflection, and a great deal more research. The questions that remain are socially as well as scientifically important. There is no reason to think them unanswerable, but finding the answers will require a shared and sustained effort as well as the commitment of substantial scientific resources. Just such a commitment is what we strongly recommend.

Grayfell has a history of misrepresenting the nature of research about this topic (I have been dealing with him in this area for several months, and he was reported over this issue at Arbitration Enforcement in May). He appears to be doing so again here. It is clear from Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns that it is not merely some tiny group of racist academics who think the black/white IQ gap is a valid thing to study, or one that cannot be explained by something as simple as test bias. The American Psychological Association has argued for this perspective as well.

I don't particularly care about the content this article, but I will note that there are now three editors making this argument (myself, Oldstone James, and Agirlwithaguitar). If Grayfell is the only editor disagreeing, consensus can probably be considered to oppose him at this point. 2600:1004:B10A:CF5:EC68:9AF:2FE0:5DE4 (talk) 01:13, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@2600:1004:B10A:CF5:EC68:9AF:2FE0:5DE4:, I would not say that the consensus opposes him. The quote already says that "critics argue that...racist conclusions are unsupportable." Implying that these are the conclusions/opinions of said critics. There is no need to insert "that they claim" into it as well. To do so would be redundant as well as non-neutral (as though to needlessly emphasize something that is already expressed). Also the word "claim" is listed as a non neutral/biased term implying a lack of credibility. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Words_to_watch In addition, the quote you supplied, while expressing uncertainty over its causes (emphasizing that the causes are unknown), expresses skepticism about racial explanations for the IQ gap (such as those preferred by "scientific racism") and describes various culturally-based explanations as plausible. And so it does not seem to conflict with the opinions of critics who find "racist conclusions unsupported by available evidence." Skllagyook (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@Skllagyook: Yes, and the implication that the statement lacks credibility is correct. I have already provided numerous sources that agree that there is a gap, and I have so far not seen a single reliable source that opposes this idea. As far as I'm aware, there are barely any respectable scholars who deny the existence of an IQ gap between various ethnic groups and self-identified races, as is actually described in the race and intelligence article.

Note also that the sentence in question does not comment on the causes of this gap; it merely states that critics don't believe it exists (which it does). So whether this gap is actually caused by genetics or environmental factors isn't relevant to the discussion. I actually tried converting the sentence in question to a statement about the causes of the gap, but my edits were swiftly reverted by user:Grayfell. If you support changing the sentence to "Critics argue that such works postulate racist conclusions unsupported by available evidence such as a genetic connection between race and intelligence" or the like, I think we can call that consensus and finally fix this long-standing NPOV issue. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 18:40, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I specifically asked you not to ping me. Do not do this again. Bringing this up months later is not persuasive. There is no consensus for whitewashing pseudoscientific assumptions to inflate the significance of WP:FRINGE perspectives. Your dislike of the current wording is not a longstanding NPOV issue, and grandiose complaining is still just complaining. Grayfell (talk) 21:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

References

I didn't actually ping you, but okay. I won't notify you in the future. Anyway, I guess the entire article on Race and intelligence is written from a pseudoscientific and WP:FRINGE perspective. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 21:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Not NPOV

Agree with other commenters that the claim "scientific racism is pseudoscience" is unsubstantiated and that this is not a neutral viewpoint. Even the term 'scientific racism' shows bias against research on racial differences. Author should revise to reflect a truly neutral point of view. I myself do not have time to recommend specific wordings for the editorial changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agirlwithaguitar (talk • contribs) 19:00, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Agirlwithaguitar, just a heads-up to avoid confusion, "scientific racism" is not the same as "research on racial [more rigorously, ethnic] differences". The latter is indeed a legitimate field of scholarly research. The former includes the belief that black people are closer to monkeys than white people, that the world is split up into just 10 (or a similar number) fundamental ethnic divisions (or races), that some races are superior to others, etc. Needless to say, all of this is complete pseudoscience. ^{O̲L̲D̲S̲T̲O̲N̲E̲}_{J̅A̅M̅E̅S̅?} 15:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

It is "substantiated" by countless reliable sources which define it as pseudoscience. Neutrality is determined by sources, not individual editors. To downplay sources based on some random accusation of "bias" would be non-neutral. Grayfell (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Possible source?

How to fight racism using science by Adam Rutherford. Doug Weller talk 17:21, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

More eyes needed at Talk:Race and intelligence

Editors who watchlist the article Scientific racism might be interested in looking at the related article Race and intelligence, which has been an area of contentious debate and edit-warring. (It is currently locked down for 3 days.) While Scientific racism is, I think, a good example of how Wikipedia handles fringe, the article Race and intelligence has a very different tone and content, as is clear from the first paragraph of the lede. See also Race and intelligence#The Jensenism debates. I'm putting this notice on all the WikiProjects that list Scientific racism as of high importance, in the hope that more editors will participate in discussions at Talk:Race and intelligence and help make the article compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The problems at Race and intelligence were discussed off-wiki here: [2]. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

AfD discussion of Race and intelligence

A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [3]. NightHeron (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

No evidence at all

So there’s no imperial evidence for racial differences AT ALL, eh? So all the data that suggest racial differences in average levels of intelligence is just totally meaningless, eh? There is no scientific consensus for the non-existence of race. It’s all a media and leftist academia illusion. It is patently absurd to argue no evidence exists that the races are dissimilar. You can deny that evidence or attempt to refute that evidence. But to suggest that there is NO evidence? 50.228.126.226 (talk) 03:47, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

The word you're looking for there is "empirical" evidence. - JGabbard (talk) 05:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, it is meaningless. No mainstream science supports the claim that there are "racial differences in average levels of intelligence", absolutely none. The data that appears to indicate racial difference is not genetic data, but environmental/historic/socio-economic. Claims regarding the existence of races among H. Sapiens are like climate change denial, there's nothing scientific about them. As far as science is concerned there is no such thing as human races, we are the sole extant species of human - Homo Sapiens. To be honest this is a painfully stupid and racist debate. Bacondrum (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

I concur with Bacondrum. Empirically speaking, there is no evidence that we know of that supports the theory of scientific racism, and there really is no reason to believe how the argument could be valid. That, my friend, is where rationalism kicks in. There are times where one must resort to reason when reliable evidence is lacking. Deduction is particularly useful, but sometimes we need to induce the premises to reach a cogent conclusion, even though induction has has problems of its own. That is especially true when it comes to solving serious life problems. We may not have all the answers immediately, but our sense of conscience dictates that all of us should understand what we like or dislike, what we praise as virtuous or condemn as vicious, what we approve or disapprove, etc., even without a priori experience. "It’s all a media and leftist academia illusion." So what do you think of Abraham Lincoln? I am not suggesting that he was left-wing, nor that he even denied the concept of race.

I apologize for my college English, but the bottom line is that we can safely reason that scientific racism is pseudoscientific and clearly a suppressive, not beneficial, form of social construct. As a matter of fact, I do see all sorts of people as not being different racially or otherwise, but just having higher or lower melanin content, prominent or rather flat jaws, and being taller or shorter. They have essentially the same genetic blueprint as we do, with only extremely subtle but many complicated differences. I do not see how this debate is going anywhere, so you believe what you will, but whether you agree with us or not, we will just drop it. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 23:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Yerkes, eugenics, and other activities

The statement, "Following the United States Civil Rights Movement, many scientists who previously studied racial differences moved to other fields. For example, Robert Yerkes, who previously worked on the World War I Army intelligence testing, moved to the field of primatology" is incorrect. For one thing, Yerkes Robert Yerkes had been a primatologist before World War I, and died in the mid-1950s. He never abandoned eugenics or scientific racism (though he significantly de-emphasized these in his writings after around 1930), nor did he address the Civil Rights Movement Civil Rights Movement (which wasn't really in progress until after his death). In fact, many well-known eugenicists were always involved in other activities, or became so involved by the 1930s, and after World War II at the latest, generally abandoned any published work or public references to eugenics or scientific racism, in favor of their more "legitimate" pursuits. -ibycusreggio 10:50, 6 February 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.102.133.177 (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2011 (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:

• Carleton Coon races after Pleistocene.PNG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:38, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

RfC on race and intelligence at WP:FTN

An RfC asks whether the claim that there are genetic differences in intelligence along racial lines is a fringe viewpoint, see [4]. NightHeron (talk) 23:49, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

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 [5] 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)

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.

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)

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 Wikipedia. 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

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)

I added the following comprehensive Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 July 2020

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)

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) [5], 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 [6] 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[7][8] 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"[9] doesn't read well today, but surely should be taken in context of its times. . . dave souza, talk 11:41, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

The words racist and racism were not in common use in Darwin's time. According to the online etymology dictionary [10] and [11], those words entered common use in the 1930s. Ever since those words have been in use, the belief that Black people are closer to gorillas than white people are would be classified as racist. That's what Darwin says in the last sentence of the long quote. NightHeron (talk) 16:18, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

. . dave souza, talk 17:43, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Responding to the criticism of the Darwin section made by the OP of this thread and to the opinions expressed so far at WP:RSN in answer to my inquiry there, I've edited the section so as to remove the material sourced to rationalrevolution, reduce the reliance on TalkOrigins, and add material sourced to scholarly books. I took your suggestion of citing Bannister. Please assume good faith and don't accuse me of OR or forum-shopping. The edits I've made to the article have no OR in them, and I went to WP:RSN to get guidance on removing or not removing the material cited to websites. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 19:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! That's an improvement to the article, there are still issues which I'm sure will get resolved in time. One thing I propose for early attention is moving Darwin's contribution into historical sequence, his relevant publication came out after de Gobineau and Vogt. In the longer term there should be a shift from discussing his views on race to his influence in combating polygenism, working with others including Wallace and Huxley, and how evolutionary views were taken up by multiple sides in the debate even though few gave credence to natural selection. I'm glad to accept that you took the ToA sourcing up at RSN in good faith, the OR was in this talk page discussion rather than article edits, just as it would have been OR for me to have taken the quote about "lowest races of man .... the wonderful intellect of the European races" to have shown obvious racism by Wallace. . . dave souza, talk 21:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dave souza: A minor point: on talk-pages, avoiding OR does not mean that everything you say has to be well-sourced. However, you have to be prepared to offer a source if challenged. This was what an admin told me a few months ago when I was (falsely) accused of a BLP violation because of something I wrote (without giving sources) in a talk-page discussion. Concerning Wallace being less an advocate of a racial hierarchy than Darwin, I was relying on the treatment of Wallace in Loren Eiseley's Darwin's Century. In Alfred Russel Wallace#Application of theory to humans, and role of teleology in evolution Eiseley is the source for the following: Unlike some other Darwinists, including Darwin himself, he did not "regard modern primitives as almost filling the gap between man and ape". In other words, he would not have agreed with the last sentence of the long quote from Descent in the article's earlier version. Of course, that doesn't mean that Wallace was completely immune to the racist theorizing of his time. Anyway, even if we disagree about a few things (like possibly Darwin vs Wallace on race), it's good that we're cooperating and largely in agreement on what's needed to improve the article. NightHeron (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Good to work from sources, Loren Eiseley was an eminent writer, but the "Darwin industry" has moved on immensely since 1958. I commend to your attention John Van Wyhe (2013). Dispelling the Darkness: Voyage in the Malay Archipelago and the Discovery of Evolution by Wallace and Darwin. World Scientific. pp. 219–220. ISBN 978-981-4458-81-8. It's an excellent read, preview doesn't seem to show p. 220 where he goes into some detail of how "a candid survey of Wallace's writings reveals a much wider range of attitudes to other races", concluding that both had views which were "quite typical for the age"; "In fact, both men wrote at times highly sympathetically and at other times disparagingly of other races." For a lot of context Adrian Desmond; James Moore (2010). Darwin's Sacred Cause: Race, Slavery and the Quest for Human Origins. Penguin Books Limited. ISBN 978-0-14-103220-7. – page 454 onwards (pp. 341–347 in the 2009 hardback) focus on Wallace's attempt to resolve the dispute between the Ethnological Society and the pro-slavery Anthropological Society (the "Cannibal Club"). Again, preview doesn't seem to show many pages. . . dave souza, talk 15:08, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers to those sources. I don't expect to have access to library print books until after the pandemic, but even the part that's previewable is useful. I'll be interested to see more of the debate about whether or not Wallace had more egalitarian views on race than Darwin. Since you seem to know a lot about this area, maybe you can clarify a confusion I have about the statement (that I quoted from the Jackson-Weidman textbook) that Darwin was a staunch abolitionist. Is it common for the sources to refer to Darwin that way? I know that his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, was certainly a staunch abolitionist. But slavery was abolished in Britain before Darwin was born, and it was abolished in the British empire in 1833, 38 years before Descent of Man was published. Under these circumstances is it meaningful to credit Darwin with abolitionist sentiments? I think that the Jackson-Weidman textbook is generally reliable, but the authors are Americans and probably do not have a complete knowledge of British history. NightHeron (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Saying that Darwin was a staunch abolitionist is a gross understatement, his whole family was fanatical about it! His sisters pushed him on it, so at Edinburgh uni he wrote to tell them he was getting tuition from "a blackamoor", John Edmonstone,[12] who he long remembered as ""a very pleasant and intelligent man". In South America he quarrelled with Captain Fitzroy, and nearly lost his place on the ship. Race, Civilization, and Progress | Darwin Correspondence Project looks useful for upgrading the articles, note during the Beagle trip he "expressed excitement at the prospect of England abolishing slavery in its territories. Slavery was outlawed in most of the British empire by an act of Parliament in August 1833" (what tends to get forgotten is that this compensated the slaveowners and not the slaves, though there were arguments for this) – but I digress. During the American Civil War "Darwin’s views were chiefly coloured by his staunch opposition to slavery",[13] and in 1871 he discussed the topic with his old friend who had been the vicar of Down when Darwin moved there: "After the publication of Descent, these differences were raised to a high pitch"[14]; caution: the language in the last source may offend modern readers of a nervous disposition. . . dave souza, talk 09:06, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. What puzzled me was that the article Abolitionism in the United Kingdom says that the movement was a movement in the late 18th and early 19th centuries and suggests that it ended by 1833. Similarly, in the US one does not normally use the term to refer to anything later than 1865. But what you write does clarify the matter. NightHeron (talk) 11:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with you that the historical context, the relationship between Darwin and other thinkers on issues of race, and the connection between Darwin's scientific writings and his views on race are a complicated topic. We really can't do a complete job in a mere subsection of an article about the broad topic of scientific racism — that would be WP:UNDUE. A case could be made, however, that Wikipedia should have a separate article on that subject, if there's an editor with the time and interest to write it. NightHeron (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Good point, this article should have a brief summary of how CD's theories affected "scientific racism", the issue of to what extent he can be described as racist is already dealt with in his biography. In time we can improve that coverage, and it should easily take less space than the previous extensive quotes. As a first step I've moved the CD section into historical sequence, note he wasn't an anthropologist so not the primary focus of that section. . . dave souza, talk 08:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2020

I think the views of James Watson would be a great addition to the page, he is a Noble Price winner in biology and frequently named one of the fathers of modern genetics. So he is a person with a background and a reputation in biology who is outspoken about the fact that he thinks that human races exist. It would make a great addition to the page since more biologists added to the Past 1945 part help to paint a clearer picture. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/01/science/watson-dna-genetics-race.html AlphaHeartless (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC) AlphaHeartless (talk) 21:37, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Not done. You need to propose specific text, and that text must make it clear that Watson's views on race were fringe and have been rejected by scientific consensus. NightHeron (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Grammar Check September 22 2020

Change "...among anthropologists that human race is a..." to "...among anthropologists that the human race is a..." Pmmuhfam (talk) 20:40, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I see how it's confusing, but it is accurate the way it is. In this sentence, "human race" is referring to race as applied to humans, as distinct from race in general. It is not discussing the human race as a whole.

Perhaps a better way to explain it would be something like:

Since that time, developments in human evolutionary genetics and physical anthropology have led to a new consensus among anthropologists that categorizing humans by race is racial classifications of humans are a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one.

Would that be better? Grayfell (talk) 01:49, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell (talk · contribs),Pmmuhfam (talk · contribs) I like Grayfell's suggested sentence. I'm not certain that the consensus among anthropologists is truly based on "developments in evolutionary genetics," as it seems to me that there is far more in the AAPA statement about a moral imperative to oppose the concept of race, because it has been harmful. But I do feel that it is not a "scientific consensus" because I would think that a consensus among geneticists would also be necessary for that to be true, and I don't believe that such a consensus has been shown by the cited sources. But I'm open to that perspective, if it is shown by wp:rs.Truth is King^TALK 03:57, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

As you might expect, we are not the first people on Wikipedia to discuss this. This topic is by definition controversial, but here, in this project, that is because it is so frequently 'controverted' by Wikipedia editors. This article's talk page has a paltry four pages of archives. Talk:Race (human categorization) has over thirty, and Talk:Race and intelligence has over a hundred pages of archives. This topic also has countless more pages of discussion on other noticeboard and similar non-obvious places. I don't think anyone is enthusiastic for yet more debate defending racialism based on hypothetical sources.

To summarize my understanding of the topic and some of these past discussions on Wikipedia: there is consensus among both biologists/geneticists and anthropologists/sociologists that race is a social construct. Like other social constructs it may sometimes correlate with biological traits, including genetic ones, but not always, and not consistently, for multiple reasons. Further, as every scientist knows, correlation is not causation, so this may not be particularly meaningful anyway.

For the topic of "scientific racism" specifically, applying racial categories based on biology is pseudoscientific. As our article on race summarizes: Even though there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable, scientists around the world continue to conceptualize race in widely differing ways. While some researchers continue to use the concept of race to make distinctions among fuzzy sets of traits or observable differences in behavior, others in the scientific community suggest that the idea of race is inherently naive or simplistic. Still others argue that, among humans, race has no taxonomic significance because all living humans belong to the same subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens.

To put it another way, some geneticist may use "race" as a category in some very specific contexts, but this doesn't actually challenge the consensus that this is simplistic, especially from the over-broad viewpoint of scientific racism. Grayfell (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, @Grayfell: While I totally agree with you on that, I see a problem with your proposed sentence, but it's a grammatical or logical one: The subclause categorizing humans ... is a sociopolitical phenomenon rather than a biological one implies that "categorizing" is no "biological phenomenon", and that's a trivial truth not relevant for the article, since it's always the human mind that is responsible for the act of categorizing. --Rsk6400 (talk) 11:35, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

How about changing "categorizing humans by race is" to "racial classifications of humans are"? NightHeron (talk) 12:03, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good point, and I think this change fixes that issue. Good call. Grayfell (talk)

I do see that I was looking at the wrong sentence. I thought Grayfell was proposing backing it off to "among anthropologists" in the lead, but the discussion was about a sentence further on. One thing I will say is that just for the sake of thorough verification, someone might add a citation to a reliable source showing consensus among geneticists.Truth is King^TALK 14:22, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

That sentence already includes four references. Arbitrarily picking a couple of them, per the summary from this source: Although modern genetics has shown time and again that race is not a biological reality and cannot adequately describe human variation, many anthropologists are unable or unwilling to put aside racial typology as an explanatory tool. This one says At the social level, the new genomic tools can help us to better appreciate the fluidity of social identity, including 'race', 'ethnicity' and the more complex notion of ancestry. I think this is sufficient for this point in the lead. Grayfell (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

@Truth Is King 24: it seems to me that there is far more in the AAPA statement about a moral imperative to oppose the concept of race No, the statement has two lines of thought: One about the concept being harmful, but the other one is that the concept is untenable in the light of modern genetic research. That means that the refutation of the concept of biologically distinct races is based on exact science, just like the refutation of the concept of a flat earth. On the other hand, the idea that modern science is driven by ideology or a "moral imperative" is popular in racist circles. As Grayfell pointed out, related discussions have already been archived a hundred times. --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:27, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:@Grayfell: Thank you, Grayfell, for noting that, and excuse me for not responding sooner. Actually, I meant to reference this sentence, "Modern scientific consensus rejects this view as being irreconcilable with modern genetic research." It looks like I am guilty of inadvertently engendering some confusion here, so I will not address the two references you noted (for a different sentence). But with respect to the sentence I did mean, and its references, I would think that in order to support an assertion of scientific consensus on a belief based on research in modern genetics, you would need to show that there is a consensus among geneticists, as well as anthropologists, as they also are part (and I would say the more scientific part) of research in modern genetics. To show a consensus, the reference would need to show that most geneticists believe that there is no biological basis for racial designations. Rsk, I did not say that an assertion of moral imperative was the only part of the AAPA statement. I would discuss your assertions with you, but I do not believe that this is the correct venue because I'm not arguing that there is a failure to show a consensus among anthropologists. One thing though, I hope that neither you nor Grayfell is asserting that because these points have been debated in other areas of Wikipedia that we no longer have to support main page assertions with reference to reliable sources. If an assertion is not verified with reliable sources, it should be if it can be. If it cannot be, then it should not be in Wikipedia. If these points have been debated broadly, then I would expect every main page statement to have been tested by debate, and consequently well supported by reliable sources. So, when I saw that there was no reference showing a consensus among geneticists, I was a little puzzled.Truth is King^TALK 01:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

See MOS:CITELEAD. Having a numbered footnote is not the same as having a source. Many references already support that there is a modern scientific consensus against biological racialism. This includes the two I mentioned as examples. The lead is a summary of the body. Sources in the article support the underlying point. If you have a specific proposal for rearranging citations, make it. Grayfell (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

+1 to what Grayfell and Rsk6400 have said above. The scientific consensus on this issue is clear, and it is clearly cited in the article. Generalrelative (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

@Rsk6400:@Grayfell:@Generalrelative: Grayfell, in your edit note you say I have been told by multiple editors. It was two editors, you and Rsk. I suppose that is "multiple," but that word also encompasses a great multitude, which - no it was not. If there are so many references to a scientific consensus on the point that there is not a scientific basis for dividing mankind into genetically distinct groups, please, please (I'm begging you) tell me what they are. The only reason I did not address the two references by Grayfell's earlier response, is because they seemed to be directed to a different sentence. Neither one supports there being a consensus. The "Galileo" reference refers to practices of other anthropologists, of which the authors disapprove - so that goes against the idea of a consensus. And the Nature article definitely references controversy, rather than consensus. I do feel that you have reasonable sourcing for a consensus among American anthropologists, although not for their views being based on modern genetic research. But, I'm sorry, I just do not see the references for a scientific consensus against a biological basis for "race." But, if they are there, please just let me know where. And, just as an aside, re: the AAPA statement, you could make the exact same criticism of virtually every system of categorization, all of which are used simply as a convenience of communication, and are indeed social constructs or conventions (as is all language). There are not discrete boundaries between the colors. And different societies break up the visible spectrum in different ways, with different sets of words having different extents over the visible spectrum. Yet, we do not find people saying, "there is no physical basis for our names for the colors. We must eliminate the concept of green and blue. There is no clear definition of the boundary between the two. People should rather refer to frequency ranges." What would be gained, other than greatly encumbering our ability to communicate? And what is gained really when we deny a genetic basis for words that are used so frequently in our society, and that are supported by observable physical differences, caused by different genes. Stating supposed "facts" that are in fact not supported by reliable sources, reduces the authoritativeness of Wikipedia, something we should all try to support.Truth is King^TALK 14:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

If you just do not see the references for a scientific consensus against a biological basis for "race" then you have simply not looked. The cited references couldn't be clearer. You will find plenty more at Race (human categorization). And this is certainly not the place to argue on a priori grounds against the wisdom of scientific consensus. Please review the relevant guidelines before engaging further: WP:LISTEN, WP:TALK, WP:CON, WP:CIR. Generalrelative (talk) 19:47, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Generalrelative Really now, all I'm asking is for you to direct my attention to one reference showing a scientific consensus. If there are many such references it should be an easy matter to find one of the best, and say, "here it is. Right here." But, rather than doing what would be an easy task, you emphatically assert (in essence) that "its there, somewhere, you find it." Why not just point it out to me? Why? I am listening. I'm certainly not arguing against the wisdom of a scientific consensus. I was already familiar with those guidelines. It is very unfair of you to imply that I have violated any of them, which I certainly have not. I cannot say that I have reviewed in detail every reference, but I have reviewed the two that Grayfell pointed to, and a few others, and none of them by any stretch of the imagination establishes a scientific consensus against a biological basis for race. Among anthropologists, OK - you have made a reasonable case. But that is not the whole scientific community in this instance. And now you are telling me, in essence, "it would be easy for me to point a reference out to you, but I wont. Rather, I will insist that it is in there somewhere, you find it." If it would be easy for you to do, then for goodness sake, do it. Please do the easy, easy task, and direct my attention to any of those references, that you insist are there ------- somewhere.Truth is King^TALK 04:08, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Also, consider wp:DISRUPTSIGNS 4a "repeatedly disregards other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits". So - don't disregard my question for a reliable source - but answer me. Tell me what and where that reliable source is. Also, consider 2 Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources - so, please sir - cite your source.Truth is King^TALK 04:44, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

This is becoming tendentious. We have already pointed you to many sources which specifically mention genetics. These excessively long requests for attention are unrealistic. Since you have dismissed what we've said without sufficient explanation, you have given no indication that anything else we say will matter, so you have provided no incentive for other editors to humor your requests. Your disagreement with those sources, or failure to understand those sources, is not a justification for changing long-standing consensus. Grayfell (talk) 05:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

You know very well, that 1) "specifically mentioning genetics" does mean that a reference supports the assertion that there is a scientific consensus rejecting a biological basis for race; 2) I did not "dismiss what [you]'ve said without sufficient explanation", but rather answered your points, and you had the opportunity to respond to my comments, and have not done so (in any sort of a specific sense); 3) I'm not requesting attention, but reliable sourcing for a statement made in the article, something required by the guidelines; 4) I expressed a disagreement with only one source, and as an aside; as part of my argument I simply noted that the sources did not support the proposition for which they were offered in support; 5) I've given you no indication that I failed to understand the sources. Implying that I might have done so is just a gratuitous, baseless insult. But, you have compatriots here, and I do not. And, as old Ben Franklin said: "Force shites upon reason's back." So, I'm out for now.Truth is King^TALK 19:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Grayfell is entirely correct. You may very well have managed to convince yourself that sources attesting to a consensus do not actually say what they say, but at some point the rest of the community is justified in ignoring you. Again, WP:CIR. And further, WP:PACT. Generalrelative (talk) 20:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:CIR to you too, pal.Truth is King^TALK 14:10, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 October 2020

Add https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racial_biases_in_medical_decision-making_tools&section=1 to See Also Dgc1996 (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Per MOS:SEEALSO. The suggested link is only tangentially related to the article subject. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:52, 17 October 2020 (UTC)