Talk:Melanin theory

New article

Just trying to split this out of another article Black Supremacy. But I'm not really as good as I'd like, so if someone wants to cleanup the article, that'd be great.Pstanton 03:39, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

While I agree slightly with the sentiment of the recent, only-identified-by-an-IP-address vandal, Melanin Theory is only pseudoscience, not an accepted theory. We all KNOW that Melanin Theory exists for the sole purpose of making certain racist quacks feel more intelligent.Pstanton 23:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

Is this article serious? I got as far as "it is the chemical basis for what is commonly called "soul" " before bursting out laughing, i know soul music is associated with black americans but attributing it to a single protein is more than a little ridiculous. Philman132 (talk) 11:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Your concerns are answered by noticing the fifth word of the article. This is a serious article about an absurd, pseudoscientific idea, so of course it seems ridiculous. Good news. That means you're sane ;-) -- Brangifer (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's pseudoscience, but hella interesting -- huh? 'S why I introduced the info. ;) And the additions under "Conspiracy theories," are intriguing. Wonder why there's such silence on the matter of the link between melanin and addiction, generally, and the moral and ethical implications of corporate pushers (purveyors of alcohol and tobacco) targeting communities of color. deeceevoice (talk) 06:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Jewel Pookrum

Just wondering who this is, I was amusing myself on the internet and youtube, and apparently one "Dr." Jewel I. Pookrum is a big Melanin Theory speaker. I added her to requested articles. I'm not sure if she's notable at all, but perhaps she rates a paragraph somewhere? The thing that interested me, frankly, is that someone claiming to have a medical doctorate could be so ignorant of chemistry, biology and basic physics. And furthermore it looks like she's lying about the doctorate. I searched her name on the American Medical Association's website, 0 hits. She's show any hits on any medical networking websites, and has never had her name on any scholarly publication, which would be extremely unusual for a M.D. Isn't falsely claiming to be a M.D. illegal? Thoughts? Pstanton 00:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

If anyone cares, I found this on her education, finally.

"Dr. Pookrum graduated from Roosevelt University in Chicago, Illinois in 1968, where completed graduate work in microbiology and received her Master degree in 1971. Pookrum graduated from Creighton University Medical School in Omaha, Nebraska in 1975. She completed her Obstetrics-Gynecology residency at Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit, Michigan in 1979 where she remained on staff from 1979-1981.

Wholistic Studies

A growing interest in wellness and self-Initiated healing prompted Dr. Pookrum to pursue a independent education in foods, nutrition and related subjects for six years before attending formal programs. She has completed Macrobiotic seminars, intensive workshops and lectures with Michio Kushi and Michael Rossoff.

She studied with the Fultonia Institute and Fasting Center in Chicago, Illinois where Dick Gregory developed his fasting and nutrition plan.

Dr. Pookrum also attended the Iridology Institute, International Institute of Reflexology, School Orthomolecular Nutrition, the School of Pisonic Medicine of Cellular Regeneration in London, England. She also completed a number of interpretive astrology courses, studied neurolinguistic programming with Tony Robbins and Richard Morales, and learned ancient healing techniques in Mexico, Egypt, West Indies and North America."

From http://www.queentswana.org/drjewelpookrum.htm

Of course, I can't verify a bit of it, and that website is hardly notable, but Pookrum herself doesn't appear to keep a site. Although it is interesting that if we take this at face value, she got a decent education before going toff the deep-end and studying at pseudoscience "Institutes". Interestingly, she appears to never have gotten and undergraduate degree. Pstanton 01:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pstanton (talk • contribs)

do not speak on someone or something you know nothing about! until you practice a "wholistic" lifestyle yourself that is in line with principles and many other scholars have set in stone....do not comment! If you cannot comprehend the information, that's fine, but there are many other brothers and sisters who value the information that she and many others provide for our people! Please keep your "opinions" to yourself!

This talk page is precisely for voicing opinions and commentary related to the article. It is not, however, a forum where pointless assertions of anger can be levied without consequence. The original poster in this section has done a good amount of due diligence in researching the racism of "Dr." Pookrum, and if you disagree with a specific fact or point, then please be so kind as to share what that is. Until then, kindly desist in your hostility. 216.165.3.65 (talk) 23:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Info in this article should also appear in Melanin

No time, but it seems to me some of the information I've presented here under "Conspiracy theories: Drug addiction" should appear in the article on Melanin. I may do it later, but if someone wants to include it there (not verbatim, but a respectable attempt at reworking the info), then by all means go ahead and do it. You'll probably get around to it before I do. deeceevoice (talk) 06:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories section

This section states a fact, unsourced, and then goes on to make some vague conclusion that I just don't comprehend... putting it here for others to comment upon, at least shine some light on it.

Higher cutaneous melanin levels, specifically in Black populations, play a role in certain known health risks related to drug addiction and hypertension, leading to the postulation of theories of white supremacist conspiracies targeting people of color.

Auntie E. 17:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

¶ I recall reading, in some of the Afro-American tabloids in the 1980s and 1990s, about the claim that melanin would (among other things) give misleading (incriminating) results in drug tests, and so forth, as well as notions that high melanin levels in skin (i.e., dark skin) was indicative of intellectual, artistic, physical or moral gifts. The propagandists for these claims were referred to, in the black-oriented publications, as "melanin scholars" (but without quote marks or any indication that the sobriquet was anything but serious and sincere). As discussion of melanin generally involved very recondite biochemistry data, it was difficult and rare to find someone to dispute the "theory". Sussmanbern (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I've nominated this article to be checked for neutrality. The wording, the conclusions, and the lack of thorough presentation of the the alleged details of the theory make this seem to be thinly veiled racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.188.226.112 (talk) 01:58, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

(Totally! This is a very biased article.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.15.184.137 (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wow dude, whose racism? Too anti-Melaninsist; to pro-melaninist? Paul B (talk) 20:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This article should be checked for nuetrLity. It actually ignores the science out there that both backs and tries to dispute the claims made in the theory. The article reads as opinion and not objective fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XcByU-2258 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Parkinson's

This article puts out the idea parkinson's is correlated with skin color. It's reference is merely to an article from 1972. More recent research finds hispanics to have it even higher than whites, who are darker than them: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/157/11/1015

The only time I've ever heard about parkinson's being implicated with skin color is in the ravings of black supremacists. This should be better examined. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.1.91 (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I have had a look at the cited article for this section (http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/4/308). The abstract says:

"The disease was significantly less frequent among Negroes of each sex, irrespective of age. This observation, combined with the depigmentation known to occur in the substantia nigra of parkinsonians, suggests that the reduced risk among Negroes might be related to their increased melanin pigmentation."

I have altered the wording in the article to more accurately reflect this specific claim. Other related claims will need their own citations.Anonymous watcher (talk) 12:49, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

SLC24A5

This article can only be considered pseudoscience as long as there is no discussion of gene SLC24A5 and the A111T mutation which is responsible for pale skin. There is definitely a bias towards referring to this theory as something other than scientific. If that was not true the contributors would have shown there is no relation between Melanin Theory and any scientific evidence that it may be true. There has been no effort in this article to indicate there is a possibility the theory is true. That demonstrates a bias against the possibility it may be true.

We know that diabetes is the result of a person lacking the ability to produce insulin. It is well known and scientifically proven that a lack of insulin will result in diabetes. Likewise, should not a lack of melanin have a resultant hindrance? To deny the effect of a melanin deficiency suggests melanin has no biological function, ergo people who lack melanin are no different than people who produce melanin in sufficient quantities. Likewise, people who lack ability to produce insulin are no different than people who produce insulin.

The logical fallacy of referring to melanin theory as a pseudoscience should be apparent to all clear thinking people at this point.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.156.91 (talk) 14:57, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

It is actually a genetic mutation that gives rise to the overproduction of melanin in individuals indigenous to the African subcontinent; pale skin is the norm, while black skin is an abnormal genetic disease that has overgrown its meager origins. Melanin theory, if it can even be called a "theory", was discredited before it even crystallized around the racist black supremacist movement; not only does it have zero scientific backing, there is incontrovertible evidence against melanin theory that demonstrates its complete absurdity. Do yourself a favor and peddle your racist black supremacist garbage all the way back to Africa, and while you're at it, why don't you thank the white man for granting you the ability to speak English, use a computer, have access to electricity, and live in a civilized society that, in comparison to the African primates, resembles a paradise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.3.65 (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

White skin is not genetically normal. 51.190.148.60 (talk) 12:56, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Your claim is untrue. Science does not back "white skin" as the "norm". I have seen no such study please provide a reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by XcByU-2258 (talk • contribs) 15:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi User:XcByU-2258, replying to a 4 year old post from an IP address that hasn't edited for years is not going to get a response. Doug Weller talk 15:41, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

That's ironic, Doug, considering you responded 12 minutes after he asked for a citation. Clearly something bothers you about the fact that science does not support the claim that white skin is genetically normal. Or did you want to source the claim which you are implicitly defending? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.105.36.229 (talk) 14:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Pseudoscience???

From Pseudoscience: "Pseudoscience is often characterized by the use of vague, exaggerated or unprovable claims, an over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation, a lack of openness to evaluation by other experts, and a general absence of systematic processes to rationally develop theories."

Since this article overly relies "on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation" it too can be considered pseudoscience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.156.91 (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Your arguments are nonsensical. People with pale skin do not "lack melanin" in a general sense. They lack it in their skin. In climates where pale skin evolved lack is an advantage. In hotter climates lack is a disadvantage. So it's neither good nor bad in itself. It all depends on context. The article on SLC24A5 explains this quite clearly, so I don't know why you think it somehow supports your claims. That's true of other adaptations. Being tall is not inherently better than being short. One may be advantageous in a particular context, but disadvantageous in another. Lots of chemicals in the body may be useful in some contexts but not in others, or be dangerous if the body produces either too little or too much. Your analogy with insulin is arbitrary. One could just as easily say that too much insulin is bad (see Insulinoma) and that therefore black people must be diseased in some way because of excess of melanin. It's just the same irrational argument in reverse. In fact melanin theorists themselves regularly engage in this kind of double-think. If melanin is linked to something 'bad' (as in the cocaine example), it's negativity explained as some white-inspired plot. If it's linked to something 'good', it's explained as innate superiority. That's double-think. In what way does the article rely "on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation"? It quotes what scientists actually say. Paul B (talk) 14:59, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

The article lacks a proper heading by a reputed authority. The fact that it is not clearly labled as racist hate speech could be confusing to young or uninformed researchers and students. A simple MD is all that is necessary to show the Melanin theory as nothing but an ignorant justification for bigotry.96.26.76.178 (talk) 00:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Calling melanin theory a pseudoscience gives it too much credit as far as I'm concerned. It's more like an antiscience because it's ignorant of true science and the scientific method. In fact, it's not even a theory; it's a hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.251.84.235 (talk) 08:47, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Scientist Find A DNA Change That Accounts For White Skin

I stable upon this article, at college.. interesting article by the way.. however I also found a interest article in the Washington post where scientists discover a DNA change that accounts for white skin, its origin link to albinism http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/15/AR2005121501728.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankhael (talk • contribs) 14:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have read the Washington Post article (a credible source by your standards, unless that too is a pseudo pubication) and checked the cited scientists and they check out. It is easily notable that the very same people screaming racism in the face of the melanin theory, are the actual racists spewing vitriol over a subject they neither comprehend nor erudite with regards to its nuances. I find this to be intellectually stunted and reeking of a specific kind of stupidity, the so called racist kind that they claim protagonists of this theory espouse.

It is no secret that math, science, physics and quite a number of the liberal arts emanate out of the African continent and this is not of late (these Commmon Era centuries and time) but antiquity, prior to the civilisation of Europe occuring, which was also sadly, brought about by the very same Blacks, we so ardently hate and constantly try to prove primal. Neanderthatl man, from which us caucasians come from, was a cave dweller when Africa flourished, our greatest statesmen, intellectuals et al, were taught at the feet of the self same detestible Africans and even humanity as a whole, has been scientifically proven to emanate out of Africa, meaning, before the mutation that rendered us "white", we were all Black! Yes I said it, Black, African or whatever label or idea you prefer, we are all one thing and it is unfortunate that we should have so much strife amongst us all because some ignorant primal people in antiquity began the race theory (if we can evn call it that) so they could take what was not theirs and claim superiority, leading other ignorant have nots into stealing,plundering, murder and genocide, all in the name of the supremecy of our race...

Logic is not monopolised by a certain sect of people, truth is not subject to them, neither is reality subject to their definition or intepretation, reason is the medium of getting to the truth for all and all ideas can be reasoned upon and conclusions reached when the truth of those ideas are brought to light, what kind of reason is yours, you who shoots down other peoples exhuberance for the sake of the reign of your own as absolute, just cause you feel it should be? That is monumental idiocy and for sanity's sake, know that the only racists here, are the ones perpetuating their superiority by ignorant racist rants and claims of this and that. PS: English is an evolution of a number of languages, not limited to the so called white man's own nor is it original so to you mr "thank the white man for this and that"why don't you begin by thanking Africa for moral law as given in their Per em Heru original dossier lying in the vaults of European museums, because without their reasoning and inspiration, who knows if we could even comprehend the principles we now claim as our own...

Regards,

Hueman being — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.14.186.150 (talk) 13:19, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Funny how you denounce racism, yet your entire comment, not to mention the hateful "Hueman" sign-on, screams nothing but psychotic racism and hate. Your argument holds absolutely no water; the invention of Afrocentrism, and the myths surrounding it, are the products of insecure black racists who wish to give their race an unfounded pedigree. Along with this, they make laughable and wholly unscientific arguments about white skin being linked or derived from albinism and how white people "stole" history and technology from Africa, which is complete racist nonsense that is immediately disproved upon consulting any reputable academic source. So even though you racist psychotics have attempted to polish up your act by consulting the dictionary for multi-syballic diction, it doesn't change the base content of your expressions, which is summed up quite nicely by one word: racism. Toodles "hueman"- btw, it's spelled "HUMAN" sweety. Randomocity999 (talk) 07:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I'm a molecular biologist (Bsc, PhD, been working in gene therapy for 15 years, treating cancer and autoimmune disease....). Sorry for disappointing everyone... We humans are nearly genetic clones with small, very polymorphic gene variants. Sorry....Achaya (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:34, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Second the above comment. Moreover, the concept of who is more "human" based on our genome is especially ridiculous when we make the assumption that mutations are somehow "inhuman" as though the correct human genotype was decided by god, or cemented in place as soon as we became a new species. Mutations happen. Change happens. This can be good or bad, but certainly having a few mutations doesn't make you less human. I do think its incontrovertible though that "whiteness" evolved later. It certainly would not be adaptive in the African sun to lose all that UV-absorbant eumelanin. But that really means nothing in terms of who is more human, which is an ill-formed question to begin with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tooochinoise (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

@Achaya Small causes produce big effects...see Butterfly effect for more details...Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Is it me or does Randomocity999 not seem able to recognize that the "Hueman being" he was responding to referred to himself as a "caucasian?" Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 13:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Tooochinoise has no idea how little genetic difference exists between Tarzan and Cheeta

Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You do realize that you're responding to a three=-year-old remark. As to the differences between humans and chimps: tiny but pervasive. Powered by my own mind Kleuske (talk) 22:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Neutrality

This article is heavily biased against the theory. I'm not going to argue it here, in part because I don't put much stock in the theory, but also because I've long given up on countering the strong Eurocentric biases of Wikipedia. Still, I think that someone should review the wording of the article to be more neutral. Chaosthethird (talk) 23:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

New messages go at the bottom of the page. Opposition to the theory is based in science. It has nothing to do with being "Eurocentric". Or do you think the Chinese have "melanin enhanced" skin? Paul B (talk) 10:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I must agree with user chaos, this article is written against the theory itself however I do understand some of its points. But there are some theories within this theory that has been proving as stated in the normal "melanin" article", such as its ability to absorb "electromagnetic radiation" and converted to energy, this has been proving through a technique known as electron spin resonance,. Scientists have discovered melanin's ability to absorb "gamma radiation" by studying growing fugi within nuclear mechanism. Because of this discovery this will no longer be a "belief" amongst melanin theorists, however it is now noted as a fact. Another uncomfortably notion made by melanin theorists is their assumption of white being a mutation production of albinism, this notion as been studied at the Penn State University lead scientist Keith cheng, you might want to google him and his remarkable work. He and his colleagues found that a genetic mutation in human genome that accounts for white skin. This finding is indeed a sensitive subject amongst a lot of people but, its a remarkable finding. I hate to go here but that need to be added to this article as part of the data behind the melanin theory. It seems to me that are a lot of unknown functions regarding melanin and its purpose in some parts of the body, they could be conducting studies on its presence in other part of the body. While there are a lot of notions in this theory yet to be proving, there are some that have been with some remarkable results that should be add to this theory. Other than the superhumans abilities, melanin has been studied in other functions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankhael (talk • contribs) 19:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Making general claims of "Eurocentric" bias is itself a biased claim that is potentially underpinned by degrees of anti-Europeanism or plain racism. Melanin theory is objectively classified as a racist, pseudoscientific claim. Just because something is objectively negative or disfavored by prevailing human reason and sentiment does not necessarily indicate bias. As far as the introduction of the article is concerned, I reject the argument that it lacks neutrality, though I do not speak for the body content. GeraldSmosk (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

But you see "melanin theory" itself is not just a black supremacist claim, there are people of other ethnic groups that seem to support this "theory" some black supremacist uses this theory to claim superiority over whites. Others who claim this theory is not "black" and claims this theory in contrast to the black supremacist, believing this theory to applies to all human races. This theory varies from many conspiracies, and this article is only written from the black supremacist claims in regards to this theory. This is theory comes from other conspiracies that has nothing to do with "racism". And the melanin conspiracy claims are bigger than the black supremacist groups. This article needs to be written from a more universal point of view rather than about black supremacist claims. Like I stated before, there are some claims within this theory that has been scientifically tested and proving to be true, such as melanin ability to absorb electromagnetic radiation in fungi, such as gamma radiation. Etc. Ankhael (talk) 01:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

are you stupid all pigments have the ability to absorb electromagnetic radiation aka light thats how color works and the only thing the absorption does is produce a small amount of heat also as with all pigments 68.188.223.107 (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The topic "melanin theory" is not any theory about Melanin, any more than Nordic theory is any theory about anything "Nordic". Of course there are real scientific theories about the properties of melanin. Some of these even have relevance to racial differences, but that's not the topic of this article. The article is about an ideological model that co-opts science, or more usually pseudo-science. In that respect it's the same as Nordic theory, which is its ideological opposite. Articles on the actual scientific properties and functions of melanin are linked to the main melanin article. Paul B (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Paul B's comment prompted me to look at how WP describes racial superiority theories. Does anyone else find it unseemly that the first sentence of this article identifies Melanin Theory as "a pseudoscientific racist theory," while the description of "Nordic theory" describes it only as "an ideology of racial supremacy"? This arrangement seems to imply that, as an objective matter, claims that dark-skinned people are superior to light-skinned people are both obviously false and malicious, while claims of White superiority are not (the "Nordicism" section of "Nordic Race" article, which comes much later, does describe the rise and fall of Nordicism and lay out the current scientific case against it, but it doesn't denounce Nordic Theory in the introduction the way the Melanin Theory article does to its subject).

For reasons of consistency in describing theories of racial superiority, then, I propose changing the opening description of Melanin Theory to "an ideology of racial superiority." The relative merits of Melanin Theory and Nordicism are perhaps debatable, but not something WP should take a stand on (even implicitly) as the respective articles currently seem to do. Any objections to this change? Speculative Friction (talk) 19:26, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

We cannot reasonably expect the exact-same words to be used in all articles on related topics. Nor can we rationally extrapolate to an overarching generalisation on the basis of two articles. Firstly, Nordicism is a historical and obsolete theory. Some of it was legitimate science at the time (like phlogiston and other dated scientific theories). Some of it was always marginal, but not all. Melanin theory has never been anywhere near mainstream. Also, much of Nordicism was not scientific at all, but involved interpretations of history, for example. Thirdly, the Nordic race is a concept that was used as an anthropological category by writers who did not make any supremacist claims. The concept of the category itself is not racist, anymore than other racial concepts are. Paul B (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree identical wording is not required (and don't deny there are relevant differences between Nordicism and melanin theory), I simply thought the way "Nordicism" is handled provides a useful template for presenting melanin theory in a neutral manner. Note that I'm not advocating modifying the description of Nordicism to call it a pseudoscientific racist theory; I think that could be problematic as well. Basically, calling either Nordicism or melanin theory an ideology of racial superiority is a weaker, more objectively verifiable claim than calling them pseudoscientific and racist. If there's evidence that melanin theory has scientific deficiencies and/or is motivated by racial antagonism, I'm all for presenting that in the article. I think calling melanin theory pseudoscientific and racist in the first sentence skirts the line on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, and I don't see that much would be lost in terms of presenting readers with essential information by simply calling melanin theory a theory of racial superiority (or something similar) in the intro, and discussing its shortcomings further down. Why skirt the line if it isn't necessary? Speculative Friction (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Since there didn't seem to be any further objections, I've modified the first two sentences to eliminate the words "pseudoscientific" and "racist," although the new term "racial superiority" still links to the "racism" WP entry. The reference to Winant is also preserved, though I have doubts about this as well—there are multiple competing conceptions of what exactly "racism" is, so to take one theorist's statement that melanin theory is racist as definitive is potentially problematic on the NPOV front as well. Speculative Friction (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed your reply. I don't think there is any question of skirting "the line on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR". Melanin theory has never had any scientific credibility whatsoever. Of course "melanin theory" is not any theory about melanin. It's the specific theory that melanin his special properties that give dark-skinned people some sort of racial advantage over pale-skinned people (though of course the same writers also use it as part of conspiracy theories to explain real or imagined negative aspects of black experience, such as Welsing's depression hypothesis). None of these theories have any support in mainstream science whatever, and so the label is appropriate. Paul B (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Eumelanin vs. Neuromelanin

This article goes to great lengths to make the claim (I think 3 distinct times) that the amount of melanin in the skin is not correlated with the amount of melanin in the brain. While this clarification is important, it should only be made once. Moreover, it should be made stronger by pointing out that the brown/black melanin in the skin is Eumelanin while the melanin found in the substantia nigra and other areas of the brain is Neuromelanin. While these compounds are believed to be similar structurally (I say believed because the exact structure is still unknown) they are made through different biosynthetic pathways. This is exactly why there is no relationship between the presence of melanin in the skin and the presence of melanin in the brain. Its because they are different melanins - melanin is a broad term that encompases three different polymers with their own synthetic pathways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tooochinoise (talk • contribs) 23:07, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent edit

I removed this section as OR citing from a primary source (Barnes). Also, not clear who defines Barnes as a "melanin theorist":

• Melanin theorist Carol Barnes writes in his book Melanin: The Chemical Key to Black Greatness:

Melanin is responsible for the existence of civilization, philosophy, religion, truth, justice, and righteousness. Individuals (whites) containing low levels of Melanin will behave in a barbaric manner. Melanin gives humans the ability to FEEL because it is the absorber of all frequencies of energy. Since whites have the least amount of Melanin, this is why they are perceived by People of Color as generally being rigid, unfeeling (heartless), cold, calculating, mental, and "unspiritual."

References

I also removed

• ... a theory of black supremacy ...

References

as the term "black supremacy" does not appear in the source provided. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You cannot claim that others are inferior (lacking melanin) without positing yourself as superior. But still, I'll change it to "racist", which is sourced. Kleuske (talk) 09:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah... As to Barnes... See "Magic Melanin: Spreading Scientific Illiteracy Among Minorities". Besides, if you produce book-titles like " Melanin: The Chemical Key to Black Greatness.", you ought not be surprised if your name comes up in lists of "melanin theorists". Nor should the careful reader ("oplettende lezertjes"). Kleuske (talk) 09:50, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Article cleanup

I cleaned up the article by removing off-topic and irrelevant content. I also removed the "Fringe" tag as the article seems to be appropriately worded now. I'm not sure if POV tag is any longer needed. Please let me know if there are any concerns. K.e.coffman (talk) 20:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@K.e.coffman::I don't think the fringe and POV templates were needed in the first place, but you basically gutted the article, removing many sourced statements and reducing it to a meaningless blurb. Hence I restored the content. I would be happy to discuss any objections you may have, as is the case in the article on Frances Cress Welsing. Kleuske (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I restored the prior consensus version by Permstrump: June 24. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

The previous version wasn't in WP's tone and didn't follow WP:FRINGE. I never heard of this theory before and if I was basing my knowledge on that version article, it made it feel like this a prominent view held by significant number of people, but when I started researching it, there's hardly any coverage and the coverage that exists is better represented in the current version of the article. This is a very minority view that doesn't warrant a long article, just a relatively brief description of the main concepts in WP's tone, following the fringe guidelines without editorializing. —PermStrump(talk) 19:01, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how your research was conducted, but according to google the minority isn't that small. A query like "melanin genetically inferior" yields 304.000 results, although the term "melanin theory" is hardy used. This includes mainstream news outlets.

The very pigment that gives Black people their skin complexion is the source of many miraculous health benefits. Melanin provides incredible protection against the negative effects of ultraviolet radiation, neutralizes harmful effects of others forms of radiation, fights off signs of aging and so much more. Perhaps even more astounding is melanin’s unique ability to absorb certain energy sources such as light and sound waves, and convert them into reusable energy.

— Atlanta Black Star

Many African eugenecists attribute African biological superiority to melanin

— Thicker Than Blood: How Racial Statistics Lie

^[1]

Instead, she argued that whiteness was fundamentally biological, “a genetic inadequacy or a relative genetic deficiency state or disease based upon the genetic inability to produce the skin pigments of melanin which are responsible for all skin coloration.”

— The Hidden Colors of Frances Cress Welsing’s Historical Legacy, Orchestrated Pulse

That's three examples from reliable sources and there's a shitload of non-RS websites, fora and such that promulgate the idea, even if it's not under that name. The inescapable conclsion is that, sadly, it's not that small a minority holding these views.

Besides, where are the guidelines describing how long an article may be on a certain topic? Kleuske (talk) 16:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Afrocentric Pseudoscience by ORTIZ de MONTELLANO is cited 16 times according to google scholar. One of which appears to be this article. The isis (yssis) papers by Frances Cress Welsing on the other hand is cited in google scholar 269 times. The Cress Theory of Color-Confrontation by Dr. Welsing is cited 82 times. Who, exactly, is the minority in that context? Based on the quantity of citations alone Dr. Welsing is more influential than Dr. Ortiz de Montellano.

Really funny thing is in google scholar the words magic melanin produces 4000 results. Dr. Ortiz de Montellano's article however, has only 7 citations. Does that infer a consensus that melanin is magic? Things that make you go hmmm.Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the meat and beans of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. —PermStrump(talk) 03:02, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

We should not make it more notable or widely accepted than it is. Right. However, I get the strong feeling we're under-representing it right now. Though academically it's a hardly noticed fringe hypothesis, popularly (that is, pseudo-scientifically) it's gained quite a number of followers, judging by google results.^{google "melanin hueman", 15.100 resultsmelanin superconductor Google:"Melanin superconductor":13.800Google "melanin dark matter":168.000 results}. Finding reliable sources is actually quite hard, finding non-reliable sources peddling this stuff is a breeze. Theres books ("Melanin: The Chemical Key To Black Greatness", Carol Barnes, "Isis papers", Cress Welsing) a shitload of blogs and websites^{"Sub-HUEman yet Super-HUEman!!!!!""Cosmic melanin, the dark matter paradigm"}> Kleuske (talk) 09:04, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

These are just a few random picks, but still... Kleuske (talk) 09:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah... Lest I forget. It's informative to plug the googlequeries above into youtube("melanin dark matter") and get videos like "Afrikaan Alchemy: The Yoruba & Dark Matter/Energy (Melanin)" or "How to Activate Olmec Melanin POWER!" Kleuske (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Just your google search terms alone indicate your lack of neutrality in seeking sources. For instance you did not search for how much is melanin worth? Did you search google scholar to see if there was any evidence to support a neutral point of view? Did you go through all 237,000 scholarly articles on google scholar to determine that there was NO evidence to support the claims? I doubt it. But let's just deal with the cold, hard facts.

Just for giggles go through the first 10 pages of the search for "how much is melanin worth?" Working from the first 10 pages just to see if there is anything that could support the neutral point of view gives us a page from the FDA on The Risks of Tanning wherein we find the following:

"Skin cancer occurs in people of all skin tones, though it is less common in those with darker skin tones."

"Skin tones" is a euphemism for melanin content.

Right this second, planet earth is in the midst of a WORLDWIDE skin cancer epidemic. Affecting who the most? People with the least skin melanin. This year alone the USA is expected to see over 10,000 deaths from melanoma overwhelmingly affecting people with the least melanin.

From the patent "Melanin Therapy" we find the following definition:

Melanin Deficiency: This term is intended to refer to a condition in diseased tissue in which melanin is absent, present in a lower amount when compared to normal tissue, or functionally non-active. The deficiency may be caused by a decrease in the synthesis of melanin and/or an increase in the catabolism or excretion of melanin. The melanin may be functionally non-active as the result of a substance binding to it which destroys the melanin's activity.

That patent also tells us:

Melanin has both semiconductor (Culp, C. J. et al., J.Appl.Phys. 46, 3658 (1975)) and superconductor (Cope, F. W., Physiol. Chem. Phys. 10, 233 (1978)) properties.

Below is the abstract of Cope from Pubmed. It is a direct refutation of Dr. Ortiz de Montellano's primary thesis from Magic Melanin to wit: "They claim that melanin is a superconductor." Correction: F.W. Cope 'INFORMS US' melanin is a superconductor. At this point I guess it would be too obvious to consider that ANY source that is not "peddling this stuff" is unreliable. Did Dr. Ortiz de Montellano's peers review his work? Seems to me like they didn't lift a finger to verify his findings. Guess I'll have to do that for them.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/733937

Physiol Chem Phys. 1978;10(3):233-46.

Discontinuous magnetic field effects (Barkhausen noise) in nucleic acids as evidence for room temperature organic superconduction.

Cope FW.

Abstract

Magnetization in fields of 2,000 to 9,000 gauss at room temperature generates low frequency noise in the microwave electrical conductivity of hydrated nucleic acids or dry melanin. The pattern of behavior observed for this noise suggests that it is analogous to Barkhausen noise observed during the penetration of bits of magnetic flux into type 2 superconductive metals. This implies that hydrated nucleic acids and dry melanin contain superconducting regions at room temperature.

PMID:

733937

[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

On my iPad so can't do much. See this review of Thicker than Blood[2]. The Atlanta Black Star isn't mainstream media and doesn't claim it is.[3] De Monrellano has published his ideas in several peer reviewed journals. Doug Weller talk 19:09, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Just being a "peer reviewed journal" doesn't mean the peers actually do their reviewing. As I stated above with a clear source melanin is a superconductor. In his "Magic Melanin" article Dr. Ortiz de Montellano's first thesis statement implies that it is not. Did his peers not check to see if it was actually a superconductor? Seems the reviewers need reviewing like the watchers need watching. Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

One error (although I note that neither of our relevant articles, Melanin and Superconductor make the claim and yours doesn't actually say that), doesn't make him not a reliable source. How about the rest? " that it absorbs all frequencies of the electromagnetic spectrum, that it can convert sound energy to light energy reversibly, and that it can function as a minicomputer to process information. According to the group, in addition to the skin, hair, and eyes, melanin is widely dispersed in the human body, for example, in twelve sites in the brain, in all the major organs, and in all muscles. The group claims that melanin is involved in the regulation of all psychological and physiological processes of the human body. They state that because of this people with high melanin levels have better muscular coordination (which makes them better athletes), are mentally superior, have unusual faculties, such as ESP, and are influenced by the magnetic fields of other humans and of the earth (Montgomery 1989). "

One error does not make him a reliable source either. How many errors does it take to make him Non R/S? Haven't looked at the rest yet. I thought that one error would at least put him in the questionable category. Apparently that's not enough. How many lies does it take for someone to become a liar? But I must state that he is saying what they say. All this time and his article has not been vetted. For shame.

You quote Montgomery from Magic Melanin. Again with that same tactic. Why not quote them as to what they actually say instead of the amorphous "they state?" That could mean anything. All you have done by quoting Dr. Ortiz de Montellano saying Montgomery says something is show that there is a position and you are opposed to it. You have neither produced evidence it is false nor verified it is true. Basically, your position appears to be: "They say x. I don't like it. Therefore it is pseudoscience." Once it gets labelled pseudoscience the burden of proof is on the claimant. But what was their actual claim? We really don't know. All we do know is that there is reason to doubt the veracity of Dr. Ortiz de Montellano because we have evidence that melanin is a superconductor. Did you notice he did not challenge the idea it is a semiconductor? It is both.

Dr. Ortiz de Montellano is not quoting them. Jaroff does not quote them either. Since he had to answer to the editors of a for profit magazine, he gets a pass, in that regard. Nevertheless, that, too, puts his reliability as a source into question since he does not have to cite his sources, doesn't it. But since he does quote Ortiz de Montellano he has basically tarnished himself with the Dr.'s brush, because he never verified Dr Ortiz de Montellano's claims. He merely repeated them. Propaganda, yellow journalism and all that. We do not know exactly what the good Dr.'s sources are declaring, do we? We have to take his word for what he says they say, which is of course, hearsay. Since his first thesis statement is false we can only doubt that the rest has been properly vetted.

Though it does not say exactly "melanin is a superconductor" the patent does state it has "superconductor properties." The abstract above from Cope states, "This implies that hydrated nucleic acids and dry melanin contain superconducting regions at room temperature." That is enough to take the claims of melanin being a superconductor out of the pseudoscience category. Unless you want to argue that is not what Cope meant. You say Potayto I say Potahto...I am ready to call this whole thing off. But wait!!! Where is you evidence that melanin is not a superconductor? Now that there we have presented evidence of science backing melanin as a superconductor, until you can successfully show that Cope did not mean melanin is superconductor, like Dr. Frank E. Barr claimed once he found his paper "Melanin: The Organizing Molecule" was cited as evidence of something he did not intend or produce evidence melanin is not a superconductor, guess what? Melanin is a superconductor. Especially since Dr. Ortiz de Montellano did not address any evidence of melanin as a superconductor as a possible refutation of his position. There are 22 citations for Cope. More than Dr. Ortiz de Montellano, but less than Dr. Welsing. Most notable among those citations is our good friend Dr. Frank E. Barr and his troublesome Melanin: The Organizing Molecule, which is probably where all this magic melanin madness got its start. The following image was captured from Captured from U.S. Pat. No. 5,210,076 page 8 column 2 (numbered 14) paragraph 2 -- Therapeutic uses of melanin.

Melanin has superconductor properties

The full patent can be found here. The Image files are not in order. Page 8 is somewhere near the end on page 24. The pages are in order in the .pdf file. Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Where do you get 4000 hits for magic melanin? I tried [4] and got 9, and some of those didn't link magic with melanin in any way. We don't use patents as sources (except for their existence perhaps). All Google searches need to be examined with care, I looked at another one and most of the hits were junk. Doug Weller talk 20:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

This link which is the same as the one I posted above will give you 4000 hits for magic melanin. You searched for articles that cite Ortiz de Montellano's article. I did not. Never said they linked magic with melanin. They are articles with both melanin and magic in them. My point was that people are discussing the two in the same article to the tune of 4000 hits. Kind of like how all Afrocentrists are being smeared with the same brush (or connected if you will) because of any Non-Reliable Source on the internet that mentions any claim regarding melanin that doesn't fit the view of this article's editors or can be considered pseudoscientific. You see, two can play that game, I really don't have time for it. Think about it. Right now there are 4000 articles that refer to melanin and magic. Melanin is also a superconductor and a semiconductor. After all science is kind of magical when you don't know the mechanism behind it. What would people from the 19th century think of the things we take for granted today? Magic!!! If you were in Barcelona or Madrid in 1492 with an object where you could look into and see someone and carry on a conversation like people do everyday your next stop could be the The Tribunal of the Holy Office of the Inquisition. Could The Wiz do any better? Seriously though, look at the literature and you will find some amazing stuff. Did you know there is fossil melanin? There is also ferromelanin. Melanin's molecular structure was only computed last year because spectroscopy uses light and melanin just gobbles up light like popcorn. How it does all this stuff is barely understood. Magic.

Really interesting how you are fact checking me as though the same was done for Dr. Ortiz de Montellano, which we both know now did not happen. Why am I being held to a higher standard? Did you read the article? Did you read it with a critical eye with attention to detail? He doesn't list one source refuting any of the claims that he discusses in Magic Melanin either, did you notice? I sure did. Apparently the claims he references are false for no other reason that that he says they are. Jaroff uses the same method in "Teaching Reverse Racism." Essentially, they are following the logic (flawed though it may be) "x ≠ y because I say so." But since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence that does not mean their claims are false. The first time we find evidence of truth in their claims a chink appears in the armor of the idea they are engaging in pseudoscience. It's a slippery slope from there on. Let me state emphatically at this point that I am not saying the people Dr. Ortiz de Montellano is challenging are making statements that are true. He, however, presents nothing that shows they are false other than in his opinion. He is entitled to his opinion just like Jaroff. But just because they do not agree with the Afrocentrists does not mean the Afrocentrics statements are false. Would Karl Popper agree that Magic Melanin successfully falsifies the claims of those cited in his article as being pseudoscientific? At this point it seems the clarity of Popper is desperately needed regarding this article. Another thing that is needed on this subject is an academic review. As I stated above melanin on google scholar lists over 237,000 articles involving melanin. That is a lot of material to review. Popper gives us an objective method through which we can verify or falsify the claims in question, which, to me, is a step in the right direction. In reviewing the history of this article and the comments on the talk page it is obvious no attempt has been made to verify or falsify the claims of the people identified. All we see is a repeated insistence that they are false because of who is making the claims, who is challenging them and little else. Apparently, that is good enough for everyone who has seen this article to date. I considered this article to be little more than the Two Girls 1 Cup of WikiWorld until I saw recently that it had been gutted. Dr Ortiz de Montellano states a position. The editors of Wikiworld gobbled it up. Then they became a citation for him in google scholar. What a world. Not good enough for me, though. Verify, falsify or delete. Which one will it be?

The patent itself is not a source. It cites sources. That shows how easy it is to determine whether melanin is a superconductor or not. It is only referenced as a secondary source for primary source material. It would be a good point for someone to start investigating the argument in Magic Melanin though. As mentioned above there has never been, as far as I can tell, an academic review of the material regarding the subject of this article. We have to work with what we have...or not. Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 20:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

You are wasting time and fooling yourself with bad searched. You need to search for "magic melanin" in quotes. What your search turns up is irrelevant stuff such as "A Majdzadeh, A Lee, H Wang, H Lui… - Photodermatology, …, 2015 - Wiley Online Library... Non-invasive visualization of melanin and melanocytes by reflectance-mode confocal microscopy Invest Dermatol 2005; 124: 235–240. ... 5 Zipfel WR, Williams RM, Webb WW. Nonlinear magic:multiphoton microscopy in the biosciences. Nat Biotechnol 2003; 21: 1369–1377. ... Doug Weller talk 20:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed these disgusting charges that a respected academic is a liar. I've asked the editor to retract the attack. Doug Weller talk 20:58, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I assumed the rhetorical nature, of a rhetorical question, in response to your question was obvious. Especially, since it has neither pronouns nor personal nouns. Next time I'll use a disclaimer. Anything that included a specific person had nothing to do with the question you asked, as far as I can tell, though it is a valid question. It seemed that was a general question not specific to a particular person. The answer was just as general and maybe too vague. Hence, here I am explaining what people who know me would be laughing at as a joke, because that is what it is. You asked a question about reliable sources, not a specific source. Wikipedia does not have an answer itself to the question about what makes a reliable source unreliable, that I can tell. In effect, what your question relates to is actually, in my opinion, source criticism. I gave a rhetorical answer (and it had plenty of sarcasm, though it may not have come out that way on the page...people who know me know I use that a lot) because I did not know the answer. Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 20:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mhotep: Is there a point in there, somewhere, or do you just love the sound of your keyboard? If you want to "criticize sources", let's have it, but you don't. The one "criticism" you did have (Melanin/Superconductor) is answered below, but you carefully avoid addressing that. @Doug Weller: Kleuske (talk) 10:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Life's too short. Doug Weller talk 11:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok.Time for my two cents and, excusez le mot, cut through the crap.

Dr. Ortiz de Montellano does not have to prove that Cress Welsing et al. are wrong. The burden of proof is on adherents of "melanin theory" to provide evidence it has any basis in reality. To date, no such evidence has been provided. I read the entire article, and a lot more than that. Substituting actual reading of articles with a Google search for "melanin" is bad practice, to say the very least, since the large majority has got nothing at all to do with "melanin theory". Citing a patent on "Melanin therapy" as a source is simply ludicrous. You can pretty much patent anything you want, whether it's based in reality or not. As long as it's novel and no-one beat you to the punch. If you think "it cites sources", well, cite the sources yourself and discuss how exactly they are reliable.

So let me address your claims one by one

Superconductor

You use Discontinuous magnetic field effects (Barkhausen noise) in nucleic acids as evidence for room temperature organic superconduction. as a source. This article describes how Barkhausen noise arises in organic compounds under intense magnetic fields, which may suggest that these compunds "contain superconducting regions". Not "they are superconductors", but "they contain superconductive regions", that is, parts of the molecule. The claim that melanin is a superconductor is not supported by that article. What you forget to mention is that other organic compounds (nucleic acids are mentiond) have this property, too. But let me be specific here: Melanin in the skin (that is, not under intense magnetic fields) is not a superconductor.

237,000 scholarly articles on google scholar

This is ludicrous. Sure there's many things written on melanin, since it's a very common substance in all kinds of organisms. The search yields results such as Melanin by PA Riley, which states "Melanin is widely dispersed in the animal and plant kingdoms. It is the major pigment present in the surface structures of vertebrates". This is the reason for those 237,000 scholarly articles. It says nothing about "melanin theory".

Nothing about "melanin theory"

Yes. Exactly. I totally agree. This article is ludicrous. There are over 261,000 (at present...that number is growing) scholarly articles involving melanin and of those 59 mention "melanin theory." It is striking the number of which never mention "melanin theory" in the context of this article, yet this article refers to "melanin theory" as though it began with "racist, pseudoscientific" "Afrocentricity," which it did not. Mischaracterizing melanin theory in the way this article does detracts from the Five pillars of Wikipedia. If Wikipedia is truly encyclopedic then this article needs to go over the history of the phrase "melanin theory" which it has not since its original creation as a redirect to "black supremacy." All edits of this article have been a continued effort to present a bias against all melanin theories including the one used as a pejorative in this case. The lack of a neutral point of view in the article at present shatters another of the pillars of Wikipedia. Since the third pillar involves anyone editing the articles because, no one owns any article the efforts to demonstrate the subject of this article as non controversial indicates a bias at work here. This talk page alone shows that the subject has a wide variety of perspectives and even those are open to interpretation or misinterpretation, as the case may be. I think this article has the potential to resolve some of the anxiety melanin appears to invoke, simply by telling the truth. Yet, here we are proving "melanin theory" is connected to the scholarly articles in google scholar, although the only ones referenced in this article support a particular point of view. I totally disagree with the biased tone of this article in its current form. It could serve as a teaching opportunity, but that is not the case at the moment. Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

59. The first being "Records of the Malaria Survey of India. IV, 1934", the 2nd "Melanin, Afrocentricity, and pseudoscience", the 3rd "Do Black Men Have a Moral Duty to Marry Black Women?" from the Journal of Social Philosophy. The 4th is an unrelated theory about urine testing. Several others are about something else also. At least 3 are Wikipedia clones. One hit is because it says "Who hired this

professor with the wacko melanin theory?". Counts like this are meaningless. It's the actual quality of the sources that matters. Doug Weller talk 18:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

how much is melanin worth?

Again, a Google search, which will yield not much that is actually useful. Prices named range from $353/g to $10262 per ounce. You also get some horror stories about "melanin extraction", which is ludicrous, since we can synthesize the stuff.

The gist of this is: you haven't got a leg to stand on. Kleuske (talk) 00:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

On my talk page Mhotep says he isn't calling the academic a liar but is calling editors liars and pseudoskeptics. He also says that if you analyse Cope you - well it doesn't matter what, actually, as analysing sources is original research and against policy. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

<sarcasm>Oh, nice... Calling other editors liars is so much better...</sarcasm> Kleuske (talk) 11:36, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

moved here, to preserve at least a semblance of chronology. Somewhat. Kleuske (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

how much is melanin worth?: How useful is based on interpretation. Facts are not subject to interpretation, they are just facts. If we just lay out the facts they will speak for themselves. Here are facts pertaining to melanin and its worth. A search on Google, Bing, Yahoo and DuckDuckGo produce results that show a fascinating similarity. One blog post Melanin is worth $353 a gram (update—now it is $ 396.00 a gram) is the number one result in all but Google for "how much is melanin worth?" Not only does it cite a source for organic, natural melanin, it also shows a screenshot of the source.

Screenshot of SIGMA-ALDRICH Product M2649 Melanin from Sepia officinalis indicating melanin is worth $396 a gram.

Here's a link to the source for those who may want to call the screenshot a photoshopped image. Remarkably, the product also shows a reference to two different synthetic melanin products with slightly different prices here and here. Both of them are prepared by oxidation of tyrosine with hydrogen peroxide. Just based on the facts, melanin is currently worth over $350 a gram more than gold. In 2014 melanin was $353 a gram, the price increased to the current $396 a gram. Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 17:26, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Are you serious? You think that Google, Bing and DuckDuckGo are reliable sources? Kleuske (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Fact Checking

Leon Jaroff's Time Magazine article is actually from the April 4, 1994 issue. The citation had the 2001 date from the website.

http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,980453,00.html Powered by the Human Spirit Mhotep (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for the correction. Kleuske (talk) 20:05, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Yusra Khogali Statement - Worth Adding or not?

This particular useage of Melanin Theory made the Toronto Sun and seems to be a perfect example of it being used in what can only be described as a hateful manner. I am not sure however if it is noteable enough to include. Advice wanted.

• Furey, Anthony (2017-02-11). "Black Lives Matter co-founder appears to label white people "defects"". Toronto Sun.

Graham1973 (talk) 09:37, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The "recessive genetic defect" is taken straight from Cress Welsing and textbook "melanin theory". It is a notable example, so I have no objections. Kleuske (talk) 11:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Not sure if to simply list this person as a proponent or to go into detail on what she said. Also should this not be linked to Black Supremacy as this seems to be the main context in which this particular piece of pseudoscience comes up. Graham1973 (talk) 00:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2021

On 12 January 2021, a video segment by Tyler Carlson at https://video.foxnews.com/v/6222040897001#sp=show-clips presented the statements in support of melanin theory by Kristen Clarke, whom President-elect Joe Biden had just appointed to run the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. 208.65.165.232 (talk) 15:23, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

You seem to have missed the 1994 bit. Any evidence those are her current views? Doug Weller talk 15:53, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

"Tyler" Carlson is hardly an authoritative source. Just saying —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:39, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): YALUWANG330. Peer reviewers: Ndongh10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Removal of inadequate citations

The following sentence appeared towards the bottom of this article: "Melanin theory has been described[by whom?] as racist.[7][8][further explanation needed]". Neither of the two citations given substantiate the assertion and I have removed the sentence from this article. If citations are given, they need to provide evidence for the point being made.

The closest that one of the people cited comes to 'describing Melanin Theory as racist' is when he refers to the 'racist views' of 'the melanin scholars'.

Any random person with the barest knowledge of the topic could, and almost certainly has, describe(d) Melanin Theory as racist. It might be worth including that sentence with a genuine citation, if the cited person's acknowledged and genuine expertise on racism makes their comment noteable, interesting or useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amberwilloughby (talk • contribs) 00:54, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Racism

Courtesy ping of @Sangdeboeuf:, you reverted my revert removing the category ″Anti-white racism″ which before being recently removed appears to have been stable in the article for quite a while. I am curious as to how you don't feel the article content is relevant to said category? --TylerBurden (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello @TylerBurden:, please sign your comment and explain why you believe this page which describes a form of racism black people commit against all non-black races should be labelled as "Anti-white" and nothing else? June Parker (talk) 01:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Where have I said it should not be ″labelled anything else″? --TylerBurden (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

See WP:CATDEF: A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. "Anti-white racism" is not a defining characteristic of melanin theory according to this definition. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2022 (UTC)