This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientific racism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
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!
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 Scientific racism, 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.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe 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.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy 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.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
"Scientific racism" implies that there is scientific evidence that some races are superior to others. There is not. I recommend a change from "scientific racism" to "pseudoscientific racism" or even "biological racism." Thank you. 71.221.194.121 (talk) 00:35, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Biological racism" sounds worse than the current title. For good or bad, racist differentiations were within the realm of acceptable scientific views during the 19th century through at least the 1920s (the publication of the infamous Robert Yerkes WW1 U.S. Army test results), though there were also dissenters (Franz Boas etc). Rejected scientific theories are not necessarily the same as pseudo-science; our article on phlogiston theory calls it a "superseded scientific theory"... AnonMoos (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Following your excellent example of phlogiston theory, why not "Scientific racism theories"? As the scientific racist theories were naive scientific theories based on assumptions and unsound reasoning, superseded by scientific developments (in this case the application of rigourous statistical reasoning and current genetic theory).
The difference with the phlogiston example is that historical and modern scientific racist theories have subsequently been supported by naive or mendacious pseudo-scientists (and more widely by non-scientists). I think that difference is adequately covered in the article by the paragraph (and main articles) about The Bell Curve etc...
Another problem is that not all the historical views described in the article were held by their proponents (even at the time) as scientific theories, but were more political, religious, philosophical, psychological, sociological, or historical interpretations. While most do indeed claim a scientific method, a few are simply racist theories making no appeal to science; their appearing under the banner of "scientific racism" is sloppy, and biased science bashing. For some other historical views it is a bit of a stretch, even if we allow for some overlap between science and the more rational parts of philosophy, sociology, psychology, and what is called "political science". Given the generality of the theories presented in the article then perhaps "Racist theories" or "Racial theories" might be a better title? And perhaps a clearer delineation should be made between those that claimed a scientific method and those that didn't. CorsacFoxWiki (talk) 12:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for bringing this up. After checking the source, it does seem to be the same individual. But Hunter's hypotheses about skin color don't seem to fit the definition of scientific racism, so I've WP:BOLDly removed the short section. Generalrelative (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article provides very little coverage of monogenism, as exemplified by scientists like Thomas Henry Huxley. Most of the information focuses on polygenism, much of which was not considered scientific even at the time.
For instance, On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind (1870) was a significant monogenetic work. Another issue with the article is its absolutist stance that anyone supporting "scientific racism" also advocated racial supremacism, which is not accurate. Huxley, for example, rejected race-based slavery in Emancipation – Black and White (1865).
In addition, it should be more clearly defined when this concept can be described as a superseded scientific theory (19th/20th century and earlier) and when it must be categorized as pseudoscience (21st century). For example, I find this phrasing better: "Scientific racism is a superseded scientific theory now regarded as pseudoscience." In today's "racial realism" there is an intentional rejection of scientific standards, whereas in the past this was not the case—because such standards did not exist. Pantarch (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added this section for clarification because many readers seem to have difficulties to understand that the term "scientific" can not only be used in the sense of "using the organized methods of science" but also in the sense of "relating to science". Stilfehler (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example: there are a lot of problems with citing a Mankind Quarterly article. This is especially apparent when that article is from 1961 for a claim that a trend has continued past 1961. To put it another way, two sources, one from 1961 and another from 1975, are not enough to say something has become 'less and less common' in 2025.
If you want to explain the history of the term, please instead cite sources about the history of the term instead of primary examples of the term's usage. Using primary sources in this way is a form of original research.
I would also suggest avoiding unreliable sources like Mankind completely. Any use of such a source would have to be contextualized by a much better source, in which case, just use that better source and skip the fringe journal. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
