Template:Did you know nominations/Racecraft
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 11:14, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Racecraft
- ... that the book Racecraft argues that the concept of human races were developed to justify racism? Source: "Racism is not discrimination based on race. Rather, race is an ideology created to justify racism. Racism came first and race followed." (p. 125) The quote continues: "As Barbara Fields has long explained, the first peoples enslaved in West Africa and forced to labor in what would become the United States were not yet considered a 'race.' The ideology of race was developed later, as 'Euro-Americans resolved the contradiction between slavery and liberty by defining Afro-Americans as a race.'"
Created by Freedom4U (talk). Self-nominated at 02:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Racecraft; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
| General: Article is new enough and long enough |
|---|
Policy compliance:
- Adequate sourcing:
- Neutral:
- I have just one concern. The end of the fourth paragraph in the summary section says In defining race as an ideology created to justify racism, the book inverts the typical causal ordering that defines racism as discrimination or prejudice based on race.
This is referenced by the Torres review. Although I'm inclined to agree with the point made, it does seem to be an evaluative judgement presented in Wikipedia's voice. It's not a major issue but I think introducing this comment as Torres's judgement would be better. - Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
| Hook: Hook has been verified by provided inline citation |
|---|
|
| QPQ: Done. |
Overall: 
Just fix the minor neutrality issue and we're good to go. Also, the word "developed" in the hook might be replaced with "created" or "invented", which I think is a slightly better match with the source - but not essential. WJ94 (talk) 13:52, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- @WJ94: Although I specifically reference the Torres review there, other sources also agree with this and I don't see anything disagreeing with it. I don't believe the statement is a judgement of the claim's accuracy, simply an observation that the claim is different from the norm. As for "developed", I'm using the same language that's in the quote that I provided. :3 F4U (they/it) 19:15, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
