Talk:Race (human categorization)

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Race (human categorization) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35: 60 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Race (human categorization). Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Race (human categorization) at the Reference desk.

Race (human categorization) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 26, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
October 21, 2003	Brilliant prose	Nominated
August 13, 2006	Featured article review	Demoted

Current status: Former featured article

Sociology Top‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anthropology High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Ethnic groups Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Ethnic groups open tasks:

Here are some open WikiProject Ethnic groups tasks:

Meta-tasks:
- Place the {{Ethnic groups}} template on the talk page of articles within the scope of this project.
- Resolve the disparity in importance rankings among different ethnic groups
Articles about ethnic groups that currently have issues needing resolution:
Start an article:
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Article requests

Feel free to edit this list or discuss these tasks.

Politics Top‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Social and political philosophy

Culture Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CultureWikipedia:WikiProject CultureTemplate:WikiProject Cultureculture articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 (human categorization), 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.

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

Wiki Education assignment: Evolution of the Genus Homo

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 29 March 2022 and 3 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): WordlyWaleed (article contribs).

Pseudoscientific (?) categorization

In the newest revision of this page (5 July 2024) someone changed "categorization..." to "pseudoscientific categorization..." in the beginning of the article, without changing the rest of the definition or adding references. In my opinion, that is a big claim and should at least be cited, if not removed completely, especially because it's the first thing users see after opening the article. Without proper expansion of that claim, I think it does not belong to this article Wojtek703 (talk) 10:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Pseudoscience should be in the very part of Wikipedia where this article is best ordered in. And the historical part can, of course, stay pretty much unaltered.

In Germany, we - by law - have no concept of race. IMHO people mean ethnicity or phenotype when they say race. Racism does exist, but german law dictates that it stems from pseudoscience, mixing a correlation (not causation) of genotype/phenotype with stereotypes. Back on topic: every single "source" and claim in here should be even stronger scrutinized. FeltFurHeartAndSoulfelt (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. German law states no such thing. 208.30.108.183 (talk) 18:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are both correct. In law (Grundgesetz), we have racism used as a term, and the term race was used in 1949, too. Which is obsolete.

https://www.antidiskriminierungsstelle.de/DE/ueber-diskriminierung/diskriminierungsmerkmale/ethnische-herkunft-rassismus/ethnische-herkunft-rassismus-node.html

For years now, that concept has been disproven, but the full text of Grundgesetz is still to be revised.

"Das AGG beinhaltet ein Verbot rassistischer Diskriminierung in Alltagsgeschäften sowie im Arbeitsleben. Der im AGG wie auch im Grundgesetz (GG) verwendete Begriff der „Rasse“ ist dabei hochumstritten. Die Antidiskriminierungsstelle des Bundes setzt sich dafür ein, diesen durch die Formulierung "rassistische Diskriminierung“ oder „rassistische Zuschreibung“ zu ersetzen." ~~ 92.116.129.16 (talk) 20:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quality of writing

While I am quite far from being racist and I do want to learn how/why a race is a social construct and I am open to believe it, the first two, being the second one pretty too extensive, sections of this article are about, in essence, 20 times repeating that it is a social construct but 0 times explaining why. Why are physical commonalities in those socially constructed races notoriously common? I fail to possess the motivation to read another 100 notions of the race really but really being a social construct to finish this article in a mere hope there is somewhere deep down at the end some actual explanation. Especially when the social and behavioral commonalities were already repeatedly explained. 2A00:11B7:393D:2B01:3921:D38E:78F8:B105 (talk) 17:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Defining Race

I think it would be good to include some historical scholarly definitions, such as Blumenbach, Darwin. Private Bean (talk) 06:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Erasmus Darwin? Dimadick (talk) 10:20, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Modern science regards...

OP blocked as a sock. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Modern science regards race as a social construct", in the opening section. This is weasel wording. You have three American sources for this statement. Later in the article international surveys show such an idea is common *only* in America. It's my understanding that American bias should be avoided, especially when claiming to speak for modern science. This sentence should be changed to reflect the lack of international consensus. Something like "The status of race as a biological or social construct continues to be debated." Raffelate (talk) 09:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. British guy here. And no. Just no. Race is socially constructed. Just ask anybody from any group who's perceived race depends on the context of who's asking and why. "Scientific" racism is pure pseudoscience. That's not just an American idea. That is the global consensus. By all means add another source that is not American if you like but we will not be bothsidesing racism with a statement like "The status of race as a biological or social construct continues to be debated". Those really would be weasel words which open the door to a spurious legitimisation of "scientific" racism. DanielRigal (talk) 12:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but as I understand it Wikipedia is edited according to a range of published material, not your personal opinion. Raffelate (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal opinion, it is the plain language of the cited sources. Wikipedia uses a range of published material, but that doesn't mean that it seeks a WP:FALSEBALANCE between the mainstream and the fringe. MrOllie (talk) 14:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Surveys in even America do not support the claim that it is remotely close to "fringe". The fact that the idea is entertained in academia, let alone held by significant numbers as shown in Ann Morning's survey, preclude such a claim. Please explain how you arrived at such an assessment. Raffelate (talk) 14:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly a quarter of the population believes in Astrology. Science isn't settled by opinion polling. MrOllie (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not claiming anything is settled, merely that both sides of the issue are held in academia. How else can we establish whether an idea is fringe other than by polling experts in the relevant discipline? How have you established this? I have asked you this question, please answer it. Raffelate (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By following the best quality sources, which is what the article presently does. MrOllie (talk) 14:25, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And what are the criteria for best quality? Perhaps merely cherry picking those that match the personal opinion of editors rather than surveying the field? This is a gross violation of policy. Raffelate (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't discuss without throwing around aspersions I'm done here. MrOllie (talk) 14:45, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I simply asked a question. Is the answer no? If it is yes you should certainly be done here. Raffelate (talk) 14:50, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reject the premise of the question. MrOllie (talk) 14:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That you use "best sources" to write the article and it is unclear what this means? Raffelate (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An aspersion thinly disguised as a question is still an aspersion. I will not respond to this thread any further. Feel free to take the last word if you require it. MrOllie (talk) 14:59, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would behoove you to address the policy issue rather than stonewalling based on the fact you "don't like my tone". Raffelate (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than attribute to "modern science", we should just say "Race is a social construct ...". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:36, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So apparently we're at an impasse where editors here think their personal opinion trumps what is found in the range of academic sources. Of course this is the diametric opposite of Wikipedia policy. I will raise this issue at a noticeboard. Raffelate (talk) 06:17, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BOOMERANG before you do. --DanielRigal (talk) 14:19, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are implying the admins are also corrupt? Quite possibly. How very sad. I used edit Wikipedia twenty years ago and it wasn't like this at all. But still, it's worth a try. Raffelate (talk) 15:01, 10 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]