Revision as of 00:08, 28 October 2022 view sourceLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,303,087 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Race (human categorization)/Archive 35) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:24, 28 October 2022 view source 2600:8801:3598:3900:5030:8eab:7158:be8a (talk) →Article is worthless: new sectionTags: Reverted New topicNext edit → | ||
Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
] | ] | ||
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 19:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC) | An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect ] and has thus listed it ]. This discussion will occur at ] until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> ] (]) 19:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC) | ||
== Article is worthless == | |||
This entire article sounds like a grievance committee got together and decided to discuss everything but the topic. There are Asiatics, Negroid,the native people of the Americass, Caucasian,and some people think the Pacific Islanders. Politics and Colonialism (all the isms) have nothing to do with the subject of race. How different cultures treat the subject is interesting, but worthless to the question. ] (]) 15:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:24, 28 October 2022
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. |
|
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, 35Auto-archiving period: 2 months |
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 Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 26, 2004. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as 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:
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! |
Archives |
Index |
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
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).
Racism definition in the lead, too specific
When defining racism in a sentence, it’s almost certainly going to be wrong and be unsatisfactory to someone. The one used here is just that, but knowing the difficulties I think it could be made better and more helpful. It now reads as:
“The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.”
is that really it? I would think it could be rephrased to emphasize the differentiation based on racial characteristics rather than here which confines it to superiority, and thus omits a vast amount of beliefs that might be considered racist but do not fall int that narrow definition I’d rephrase it as:
“ The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be differentiated or distinguished socially or politically on the basis of physical characteristics common to identifiable racial groups.”
this much better since the current description is so simple and confining as to be largely useless. Sychonic (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
- Your proposal would make the sentence inaccurate: humans can, in fact be differentiated or distinguished socially or politically on the basis of physical characteristics common to identifiable racial groups. They can also be differentiated or distinguished socially or politically on the basis of any number of other arbitrary qualifications, such as ice cream flavor preference or their aesthetic opinion of the word "moist".
- The 'superiority' clause which your proposal does away with is fundamental to the concept of racism, as seen in the well-sourced opening sentence of Racism. Happy (Slap me) 13:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
- The second one above is a definition of racialism, not racism, which is correctly defined in the first one. It would be good to combine these:
- "
The concept of race is foundational to racialism (belief that humans can be differentiated or distinguished socially or politically on the basis of physical characteristics common to identifiable racial groups) and to racism (belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another).
"
- "
- — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don’t think that distinction between “racialism” and “racism” is used by reliable sources. My ODE (2010) just defines “racialism” as “another term for racism”. Our article racialism is a redirect to “scientific racism”. Rsk6400 (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- The second one above is a definition of racialism, not racism, which is correctly defined in the first one. It would be good to combine these:
Consensus
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- Moved to Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biology § Is there a consensus in biology that race is a social construct?Closing duplicate discussion per WP:MULTI, WP:TALKFORK. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Is it tenable to claim there's a consensus when Dawkins, Pinker and Coyne disagree? Bogestra Bob (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC) Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe you understand what Dawkins is saying in that tweet. But even if you were correct, three scientists' dissent would not undermine the consensus of literally thousands of their fellows. Happy (Slap me) 21:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
In the opening section it says "Modern science regards..." then links to a couple of opinion pieces. I don't see a survey of biologists. Bogestra Bob (talk) 08:56, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)- Neither of the two linked sources are opinion pieces.
- I strongly suggest you read the notice that Doug Weller provided you on your talk page and familiarize yourself with the subject (there happens to be a comprehensive encyclopedia article on the subject close at hand, to get you started) as well as the norms of modern science before you continue to advocate for changes to this page based (as the two comments you have made thus far demonstrably are) on your misunderstandings around the subject.
- P.S. You should also read the notice on your talk page about discretionary sanctions, including all of the linked terms. That is highly useful, practical information about how to go about editing in contentious areas, and editors who edit without that information tend to quickly find themselves subject to sanctions. Happy (Slap me) 12:29, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
What I'm seeing here is all condescension and nothing about my point. Where is your survey of biologists? We're supposed to believe Dawkins and Coyne, both extremely distinguished biologists, think race isn't a "social construct", while the entire rest of the field does? Whether a concept is biological is a question for biology. Bogestra Bob (talk) 15:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)- Yes. Jerry Coyne has called himself an 'outlier' on this subject. Consensus does not mean universal agreement. MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
My dear friend, please answer my question. Where are you getting this "consensus" from? It appears to be assumed out of hand here. Bogestra Bob (talk) 17:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)"Well, if that’s the consensus, I am an outlier." Coyne is responding to someone asserting a consensus. "If" is an important word there. Bogestra Bob (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)- Your argument changes direction every time someone responds to one of your points, so I'm beginning to believe it's not undertaken in good faith. I won't be responding further. I would direct you to my previous comment, and the advice therein one more time before I go, however. It would be to your benefit to take it. Happy (Slap me) 20:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm asking how a consensus was established, and getting non-responses like this. Perhaps the question should be raised elsewhere. Bogestra Bob (talk) 07:21, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Striking WP:BLOCKEVASION. Generalrelative (talk) 23:54, 9 August 2022 (UTC)- Bogestra Bob re-opened this discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Biology#Is there a consensus in biology that race is a social construct?, so I'm closing this duplicate thread, which has seen no activity in over a week. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 09:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Your argument changes direction every time someone responds to one of your points, so I'm beginning to believe it's not undertaken in good faith. I won't be responding further. I would direct you to my previous comment, and the advice therein one more time before I go, however. It would be to your benefit to take it. Happy (Slap me) 20:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
- Yes. Jerry Coyne has called himself an 'outlier' on this subject. Consensus does not mean universal agreement. MrOllie (talk) 16:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
"Race (classification of human beings" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Race (classification of human beings and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Misplaced Pages:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 27#Race (classification of human beings until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:29, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Article is worthless
This entire article sounds like a grievance committee got together and decided to discuss everything but the topic. There are Asiatics, Negroid,the native people of the Americass, Caucasian,and some people think the Pacific Islanders. Politics and Colonialism (all the isms) have nothing to do with the subject of race. How different cultures treat the subject is interesting, but worthless to the question. 2600:8801:3598:3900:5030:8EAB:7158:BE8A (talk) 15:24, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages former featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Top-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Anthropology articles
- High-importance Anthropology articles
- B-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Top-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- B-Class politics articles
- Top-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class social and political philosophy articles
- Low-importance social and political philosophy articles
- Social and political philosophy task force articles
- B-Class culture articles
- Low-importance culture articles
- WikiProject Culture articles