Talk:Scientific racism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Is all racism pseudo-scientific?

This page rest quite heavily on the assumption that this is the case but it has not been demonstrated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fawby (talk • contribs) 13:12, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

No, only those forms of racism that claim to be scientific.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:24, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Some blogger made a convincing case for distinct human races although this would require a solid scientific definition of the word.

Whatever the case, the genetic criss-crossing between these populations would mean that an individual would be defined as having x% of one race, %y of another race, etc.

There is also racism in the sense of a belief preceding facts and that in itself is definitely pseudo-science.

One litmus test for pseudo-science is Karl Popper's Falsifiability. --JamesPoulson (talk) 23:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Some 19th-century pro-slavery apologists in the United States relied on the Curse of Ham in the book of Genesis in the Bible, and the fact that Cush was a son of Ham. Not sure how many were solely religious in their arguments... AnonMoos (talk) 03:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

It has been demonstrated, so I don't really understand the question. Are you saying that there are validly scientific examples of racism? Or are you discussing racism based on nonscientific justifications like the Curse of Ham? Either way the clear consensus of sources is that racism is not scientific, and we need to be very cautious of using WP:FRINGE perspectives to suggest otherwise. This has been demonstrated by many sources here and at many other Wikipedia articles. Race (human categorization) explains that ...there is a broad scientific agreement that essentialist and typological conceptualizations of race are untenable... There are relevant areas which are legitimate science, as discussed at race and genetics and elsewhere, but these are widely misappropriated by modern racists, so we need to be very cautious not to misrepresent these fields as supporting racism. WP:NPOV doesn't mean we have to feign naivete and pretend that there isn't an ideological element to this. We do not treat fringe sources as legitimate, or bend over backwards to include obscure perspectives out of false balance. So yes, following broad scientific agreement, Wikipedia says that all racism is pseudo-scientific. Grayfell (talk) 07:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Am not a biologist but it seems that one issue with the word "race" is that it is a vague concept and could do with a more solid definition with progress made in analysing DNA.

As for the blog article I mentioned, here is a link: Human Races Exist: Refuting 11 Common Arguments Against the Existence of Race. Obviously, a political site but someone seems to have gone to great lengths to refute a series of arguments.

Whether the counter-arguments are valid, I don't know. However, even if race can be clearly defined as in individuals from geographically separated populations, they would have interacted in such a way as to exchange genetic traits and make the concept meaningless in the sense of distinguishing one individual from another. --JamesPoulson (talk) 16:15, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Racism is unrelated to science. It's misguided to conflate a moral question with science. Regardless of what is factual, belief in the supremacy of one race over others is a value judgement. For example, you can't justify bigotry against people with Down Syndrome on the basis that science says their genes are different. J-data-nerd (talk) 23:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to address the main argument, though he touches on it a bit in the section about Social Constructs: There's no semi-objective way to delineate races, the way we might delineate species (e.g. based on the biological definition of species). It's all essentially arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J-data-nerd (talk • contribs) 01:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

SIFR 2

Hello! I cited a paper by Aron Ambrosiani last time we discussed this.[1] I'd say that is a better source. Again: it was not 'the first institute in the world performing research into "racial biology"' which my source clarifies. This claim that it was the first in the world is what the relevance hinges on. Edaen (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Regarding your change to "first government-funded". This is not the claim. There was government-funded race-biolocal research at universities. The claim, by Herman Lundborg himself, was that it was the first independant government-funded institute. It is not correct even in this narrow sense. The Soviet institute was older. Edaen (talk) 12:22, 15 January 2017 (UTC

(edit conflict) — Right, fixed. However other sources claim it is, and the standard on Wikipedia is then to present both views, not remove all mention of something. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:23, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No it is not Wikipedia standard to give opposing sides equal weight when one is clearly wrong. The claim by Lundborg was self-serving and later used by Jan Myrdal to argue that the Swedish public administration was racist to the core. Myrdal's 1972 article is probably at the origin of this narrative.[2] Edaen (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

According to this line on page 4:

Med Lundborg som föreståndare kunde världens första rasbiologiska institut med stöd av allmänna medel slå upp sina portar i januari 1922.

It seems quite clear there is no mention of independence, just that it is a institute which focuses primarily on racial biology. I'd be happy to see sources for the Soviet institute(s) and believe they would be worthy of mention in the article as well. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:25, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Lundborg claimed there were 35 institutes. That the Swedish institute, presumably as opposed to all the others, was government funded is of doubtful relevance.

Att förespråkarna för ett rasbiologiskt institut kunde hänvisa till internationella förebilder står alltså klart. Flera debattörer hänvisar till institut i Norge, Tyskland, Schweiz, Storbritannien och USA. Lundborg går till överdrift med sina trettiofem institutioner, men att Sverige inte var först med att institutionalisera rasbiologin är tydligt.

Faktum kvarstår dock: Sverige var först med ett statligt rasbiologiskt institut. Frågan är dock hur mycket det statliga stödet verkligen påverkade rasbiologins vetenskapliga status – ...

When Ambrosiani writes that Sweden was first to institutionalize racial biology, i find it contradicted by the preceeding text and guess it is a nod to the established narrative. Edaen (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

You don't think that you are cherry-picking support for a line you've already decided on? Edaen (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

There are discussions on svwp.[3] and borttagen information. Edaen (talk) 12:50, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

From that talk page:

Weindling har på sid 185 i sin text en tabell över olika eugeniska/rasbiologiska forskningsinstitut i världen, vilket inleds med Eugenics Records Office i London 1905. Andra grundas i Norge 1906, USA 1910 och i Tyskland 1918. Helt statligt finansierade institut finns i Tyskland och i Sovjet (Leningrad), det senare grundat 1921. Uppgiften om att Sverige "var först" är en skrytformulering som återfinns i äldre utgåvor av Nordisk familjebok.

Check Weindling. Edaen (talk) 12:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the sources this time round, I will go through them and see what additions/retractions can be made. To me and I think to many others it seems important to note that the Swedish institute was the first institute legitimized through government funding — this is hardly of doubtful relevance. Neither am I cherry-picking considering I've found this or similar claims in nearly every source I've come across. Are your quotes from the 1972 Myrdal reference? What makes that one exceptionally credible? And if it is so credible, why do newer sources not corroborate its claims? Does it give the names of the Soviet institutes? It seems relevant to mention these as well, and if we have names it is much simpler to find information that could finish this debate. However, regardless if these are older, the fact that the Swedish institute has been claimed to be first is worthy of mention – so far there are no other positions, so it seems accurate to say it is the first. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe the narrative was created by Jan Myrdal. The other sources you have read take, more or less, Myrdal's article as a starting point. The origin of all of those sources are Lundborg himself. Just because a statement is repeated time and again doesn't make it any truer. The institutes offical or preeminent status seems to be dearly wanted but the foundations for the claim are stretced or poorly warranted by the sources. At the time, those lobbying for the institute meant that there were several, both government-funded and not, similar institutes.

Prof. Kristine Bonnevie är en av Norges mest bekanta forskare på ärftlighetsområdet. Hon har personlig professur vid Kristiania universitet och är föreståndare för institutionen för ärftlighetsforskning, ett institut vars motsvarighet Sverge alltjämt väntar på, trots att de vetenskapliga krafterna icke saknas. (Dagens Nyheter 19 maj 1917)

Rasbiologien, stödd på ärftlighetsforskningen, har gjort en så hastig frammarsch och har fört fram en så stark upplysningsproganda att det resulterat just i vad som är nödvändigt, ja, trängande nödvändigt, nämligen forskningsinstitut där frågor som gälla rasens biologiska beskaffenhet och dess vidmakthållande vid hälsa genom rasbiologiska åtgärder utredas och där de biologiska botemedlen utforskas. I Amerika, England, Tyskland, Schweiz och Norge finnas redan dylika institut, där ett intensivt arbete bedrives. Ha vi i vårt land råd att sitta med armarna i kors och låta den viktigaste frågan, nämligen den om folkmaterialets beskaffenhet, vara en fråga som endast angår den som själv har intresse därför? Nils Heribert-Nilsson (Dagens Nyheter 21 oktober 1918)

Universities in Norway and Germany are normally government-funded. In short: the uniqueness is sought after and part of the lobbying against cuts in the funding by the government. This kind of lobbying narratives shouldn't be treated as fact. Today there are established methods to measure academic impact. These methods could be used on historical research and any claim about the institutes scientific standing ought to be based on such a method. Lundborg's own word doesn't count. Edaen (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The Norwegian institute seems to be one of genetics, not racial biology. And being tied to a university is not the same as a independent state institute solely focused on racial biology. If a single DN 1918 paper is all we have we can't cite it, that is the definition of WP:OR. If you wish to question this please refer to a secondary source, and it would be very helpful if you could name any of the foreign institutes so that they could be researched further. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Here is a medical history paper from 2014 that corroborates the idea that the Swedish institute was both unique and important as well as the first in the world: [4]

Frankly I am going to take this more seriously than a 1918 opinion piece. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ok. So a research paper from 2014 is more credible than a fact that falsifies it? That paper reiterates the same story as som many others. It doesn't make it any truer. I was going to link to an article by the Dagens Nyheter, written with a rather sarcastic tone, from the days when the question was about a reduction of the funding.[5] The institutes uniqueness is part of this struggle for funding. Edaen (talk) 16:44, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I have provided two sources. The one by Ambrosiani, where the problem is that the author reasons like "on the one hand ... on the other" allowing you to cherry-pick. The problem with the other source is that I don't have access. It has been accessed on Swedish Wikipedia.

Här finns den källa som Sandman2 åberopar. Jag har kollat, den innehåller precis det som Sandman2 säger att den gör. Står däremot inget om att det svenska institutet skulle ha någon särställning, annat än att det senare tjänade som förebild för ett rasbiologiskt Kaiser Wilhelm Institut. Lsj (disk) 12 december 2013 kl. 15.24 (CET)[6]

Edaen (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Since when does an opinion piece constitute fact? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a fact that it is older than the institute. If this is correct: "I Amerika, England, Tyskland, Schweiz och Norge finnas redan dylika institut", then the Swedish institute was not the first. Edaen (talk) 21:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

So? It's still an opinion piece which are not WP:RS regardless when they were published. You have so far shown nothing to indicate that it is true, nor does that statement even begin to discount that SFIR was the first government-run funded institute. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:30, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Once more: I have provided two sources. I have also linked to a discussion on svwp where one of these sources was vetted. I you have access to the article please read it. Several questions about defenition were discussed on svwp. Among other things it is not clear why government funded should put the institute in a superior league. Swedish government funded universities are not superior in status relative to American private ones such as Harvard University. The American institute was Eugenics Record Office at the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Edaen (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

No-one has said anything about it being superior, but it is the first government funded institute and a quite prominent one at that. However when it comes to public universities the only developed country where private universities aren't considered second rate is the United States, and that is in part because they were/are heavily funded by the government anyway.
Apart from the Grandes écoles in France. No those are apparently pretty much state run… Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I suggest using Ambrosiani's article as the foundation for the entrance here including its ambiguity. Edaen (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I did, I used that source to correct the statement. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

And Ambrosiani further refers to [7] which again states that Sweden was first. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Ambrosiani refers to articles by Nilsson-Ehle similar to the one quoted by me in Svenska dagbladet. If being refered by Ambrosiani makes a source legit, then that piece is to. Edaen (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to leave a link here so I can check that out. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The article linked by Ambrosiani in SvD.[8] The article in DN.[9] Edaen (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

For a general background to this idea about Sweden's leading position in eugenics, see this paper by Carl Marklund. I think that the best way for Wikipedia to deal with this kind of camaigns is to be careful with facts. The New York Times article mentioned in the paper is available here. Marklunds paperNYT article

What this is all about:

Mr. Weston fired back for the new year: "That Sweden should be constantly pointing at other peoples' racism and hiding its own is a fact that can only be interpreted in the worst possible way." [New York Times January 2, 1985]

Edaen (talk) 11:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Why is this relevant? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that is obious. The general story, while originally leftist, was taken over by other groups the way Markund tells it. SIFR's status as the world's first of its kind serves to underscore Swedish racism. In some technical interpretation the institute may have been the first. From the point of view of the international history of eugenics, the importance of the Swedish institute pales in comparison to the American Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. This is a way to elevate the Swedish institute to a role it didn't play for motive according to the NYT article. The SIFR's leading position is an important part of that general narrative. Edaen (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Why would that matter? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 12:56, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, we are debating the due weight of the SIFR in the article Scientific racism. I'd say the weight often given to the SIFR's being the first is because of the reasons given above. As it is now, there are three countries mentioned and Sweden is the first. This is way off relative to its real importance. Thereby, unwittingly, it continues the 1980s campaign. Edaen (talk) 13:05, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

For a balanced description, see Eugenics archive under "Topics" -> "International Eugenics":

Although the term "eugenics" was introduced by Francis Galton in 1883, the first organized eugenics movements emerged in Germany, Britain, and the United States during first decade of the 20th century. Subsequently, other movements were founded in France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, and Japan. During the interwar period (1919-1939) the most prominent international connections were between American and German eugenicists.
The Eugenics Record Office (ERO) at Cold Spring Harbor, New York became the central clearinghouse [...] each national movement [...]
Eugenicists established an international network [...]
National societies were organized under the banners of international groups,[...] Other influential international eugenicists included Eugen Fischer [...], Herman Lundborg (director of the Swedish State Institute for Race-Biological Investigation in Uppsala, and Alfred Jon Mjöen [...]

As it is now, the weight given to Sweden in the Wikipedia article is simply ridiculous. Edaen (talk) 13:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Originally we were debating whether it was accurate, not if it was due. The weight given to Sweden is minor in that the section is far shorter than the others. I'm surprised at the sudden change of tone, however while not the largest actor — Sweden's role was hardly insignificant, as can be read in the papers I linked. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

In a general sense it is not correct. It isn't even correct in a narrow sense, the Soviet was older. All academic sources are not equal. In this case normally trustworthy sources must be scrutinized. Edaen (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yet you have not shown any source beyond early 20th century opinion pieces stating otherwise. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I have pointed to two sources. I havn't read one of them, but that one was checked by an academic user at svwp. The "opinion piece" was written by Nils Heribert-Nilsson, a botanist and geneticist. The piece was cited by Ambrosiani. Marklund's paper could suffice to include this story in the article about fake news or we could use it as an excercise in how to handle this kind of campaigns. Edaen (talk) 13:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It still doesn't refute anything!? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It is up to you to prove it. I have given ample support for the position that it is incorrect. Edaen (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Edaen — Nowhere in the either Ambrosiani's paper or Marklund's is there even an indication that it would be false. If you wish to refute it it is up to you to provide specific quotes and link to them properly wiht page-number and all. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 14:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There are two senses. 1: The SIFR was the first. 2: The SIFR was the first fully government funded institute. The first is not true. In the second, narrow sense, it is true if the Soviet Union is excluded. Number two is easily and often understod as number one. Taken in sense number one it is plainly false. The American institute was the first and most important. In the second sense its relevance is doubtful. There is an ambiguity here and the space given to the SIFR in the article here indicates sense one, but you argue for sense two.

Ambrosiani writes:

Nutida debattörer framhåller ofta rasbiologins tidiga genomslag i Sverige.59 Slående är därför att i princip samtliga debattörer 1918–1921 som ett viktigt argument för ett svenskt institut framhöll att den svenska rasbiologin stod sig dåligt i den internationella konkurrensen.
[translation:] Today, commentators often make a point of the early breakthrough of racial biology in Sweden.59 It is therefore striking that as good as all participants in the debate 1918–1921 stressed that Swedish racial biology fared poorly in the international competition.

Your position is that of "modern commentators". Ambrosiani puts that position in question. Edaen (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Then add that comment to the article — you are engaging is disruptive WP:Original research and cherry-picking of sources. This is not allowed. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:44, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

So, I think your addition wildly exaggerates the Swedish institute's prominence. It simply didn't have the position you give it in the article. Your source says that "Men institutet blev aldrig stort" [But the institute never grew big].[10]

You write in the article that "a Swedish society was founded in 1909 as "Svenska sällskapet för rashygien" as third in the world". Your source says as much: "In 1909 the Swedish Society for Racial Hygiene was formed—the third of its kind in the world.[11]" Unfortunately it doesn't say what "its kind" is. The Eugenics archive says:

the first organized eugenics movements emerged in Germany, Britain, and the United States during first decade of the 20th century. Subsequently, other movements were founded in France, Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Russia, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, Canada, and Japan.

And a contribution by Mattias Tydén to The Oxford Handbook of the History of Eugenics:

Eugenic ideas were introduced in the decades around 1900, mainly mirroring a transmission to Scandinavia from German, British, and American sources. [...] As early as 1904 an "anthropological committee" [...] was set up in Denmark, [...] A loosely organized "committee for racial hygiene" emerged in Norway in 1908, while Swedish academics in 1909 formed Svenska sällskapet för rashygien, [...][12]

The third in Scandinavia?

I would like others to comment. Edaen (talk) 20:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Await responses or start an RfC, removing sourced content is disruptive. If you wish to rewrite the content make suggestions or change something, removing everything borders on vandalism. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:08, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I have made suggestions above. The weight should be the same as that the Eugenics archive gives to the Swedish part. There is an extensive list in The Oxford Handbook of Eugenics.[13]Edaen (talk) 13:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Contested move

I undid the page move to "Scientific" racism. WP:SCAREQUOTES and WP:TITLE. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

The two reasons adduced do not apply and are just a quixotic excuse. The pretension to still be living in the first half of the other century becomes a manipulative exercise on Wikipedia and its readers. The title fully consistent with the lede is "Scientific" racism. Carlotm (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

In plainer English please? The move does nothing to aid the reader, amounts to scare quotes, and runs afoul of WP:TITLESPECIALCHARACTERS. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Although I can sympathise with the motivation, EvergreenFir is right. Doug Weller talk 06:17, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Carlotm -- please peruse the discussions in the talk page archives where previous changes to the name of the article were discussed and didn't go through. AnonMoos (talk) 11:28, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately the expression of the local consensus quite often is the bearer of misconceptions and bias. This is another evident example, the end result of which, as I said, is a blatant manipulation of the reader. Carlotm (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Carlotm: which misconception of biases are being born here? Do not mistake my objection for sympathy for the deplorable people who embrace the views described in this article. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:58, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

EvergreenFir , I am less interested in your objection's motive, much more in its outcoming. Carlotm (talk) 07:11, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

And local consensus can't override policies and guidelines, which in this case favour the current title. Doug Weller talk 06:56, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. WP:TITLE says: "Generally, article titles are based on what the subject is called in reliable sources." A search of the phrase scientific racism using Google Books reveals that publishers of scholarly studies of the subject (e.g., this, this, this, and this) don't think readers of average intelligence will be misled by the lack of scare quotes. This ngram result is further confirmation. Ewulp (talk) 00:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

empirical evidence

This article is woefully incomplete without collections of emprical evidence for and against the existence of alleged differences in average phenotypes between different groups. 2600:8801:0:1530:B479:48D0:6B69:DDE9 (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Researching differences in external appearance or body proportions between different groups is not really racist or the reverse in itself. It's only when a value judgement is imposed... AnonMoos (talk) 01:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Phenotype includes much more than just external appearance. Zoologists often find that behavioral tendencies are highly heritable and can vary between subspecies. 2600:8801:0:1530:B479:48D0:6B69:DDE9 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Not factual

This statement from the lede isn't true:

Historically it received credence in the scientific community, but is no longer considered scientific.

There is a wealth of evidence from recent years that disproves this. This reference is concerned with national averages rather than race, but you can draw your own conclusions. There countless other studies that deal with race that show there are differences between the IQ of races.

Also, not all claims of differing IQs of races are pseudoscience. There are numerous studies in scientific journals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:841b:82fe:191e:da27:2b07:2069 (talk) 02:10, 31 March 2017‎

"...but you can draw your own conclusions" is extremely bad advice in this case, for multiple reasons. Wikipedia doesn't accept WP:OR. Sources specifically discussing scientific racism are what Wikipedia uses for this. If the only actual source you can find is WP:SYNTH about something else, followed by vague, unverifiable mentions of "countless" and "numerous" studies published somewhere, there's not even enough material to have a real discussion. Grayfell (talk) 04:08, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The scientific evidence at this point is substantial. I haven't finished reading the reference, but it cites enough studies to prove beyond any doubt that significant difference in intelligence exist between races and nationalities. I also read other articles other papers that agree with this. Recent genetic studies shed additional light on the issue, especially one published in the journal Anthropology that compares the genetic similarities and differences of Eastern Europeans, Asians and Africans.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:841B:82FE:191E:DA27:2B07:2069 (talk) 12:15, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

This is absolutely false. All "evidence" that has been produced to support each of those statementes has been subjected to harsh criticisms and has never been accepted as valid by a consensus in the scientific community. The existence of "IQ differences among races" is heavily disputed and the data used to support it is widely considered to simply be an artefact of disparities in health and education between different ethnic groups and national populations, and the classic continental racial groups are not currently considered to be genetically valid categories at all. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:51, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The only part of your above statement that is either truthful or informed enough to be worth a reply is that such claims are controversial. Controversy is a good thing in scientific debate because it makes us dig deeper to establish the truth. Since publication of The Bell Curve a number of other studies such as IQ and the Wealth of Nations and IQ and Global Inequality have linked average national IQ to national productivity and wealth, based on tests that have no cultural bias. These recent publications plus the genetic studies of the evolution of man need to elaborated on to bring this article up to current scientific understanding.

Maybe you can provided some sources suggesting that this is the current scientific understanding and that IQ and Wealth of Nations have been generally accepted as scientifically valid demonstrations of innate differences in IQ. It should be easy to do, some widely used textbooks in education, anthropology, population genetics, sociology, psychology or political science would suffice for example - or some good articles about "racial differences" in handbooks of those fields of study.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:36, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

"Over the decades, Richard Lynn has made inflammatory statements about average group differences in IQ, but his research is widely cited and given weight in mainstream psychological journals, even by his severest critics.”

Phmoreno (talk) 15:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The genetic history gives a much more complex picture of humanity than classification by race, and will probably redefine race. See: Race and genetics. If you want to drill down into some of the particulars see: [file.scirp.org/pdf/AA20120200004_71596882.pdf Re-Examining the “Out of Africa” Theory and the Origin of Europeoids (Caucasoids) in Light of DNA Genealogy] although this information is from 2013 (and just happened to be one of the papers I noticed while reading about evolutionary biology). Fossil DNA is providing new information every day. However, it does seem that Asians and Europeans, who share Neanderthal DNA, are more closely related to one another than to Africans, who lack Neanderthal DNA.Phmoreno (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you please provide some sources that demonstrate that this is the view of the main scientific community, such as the kind of texbooks or handbooks I mentioned which are the best kind of source for establishing which views and understandings are generally shared by the scientific community. The fact that Lynn is cited, does not say anything about whether his work or conclusions is generally considered valid (it is not) - in fact most references to Lynn's work in mainstream journals and books are overwhelmingly critical and dismissive of his data as well as his conclusions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:02, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There are numerous books and journal articles cited in the IQ and national wealth and development books. Textbooks on this subject are politically correct bullshit and out of date. My interest is in the field of economics where the IQ theory is one of the best explanations of the level of economic development, assuming democracy and free enterprise, protection of property rights, contract law and other factors favorable for business.Phmoreno (talk) 17:12, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

And Lynn being cited by a secondary sources only makes him more important as a reference. Lynn is just a randomly selected researcher from the cited Jones work. There is a lengthy bibliography of works by different researchers who add similar findings to Lynn's. The fact that there are now several books on IQ and economic development should be sufficient to establish that this view is accepted by the economic community.Phmoreno (talk) 17:19, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

College level textbooks, at least widely used one's are very good at showing the current standing of different ideas, yes, they lag a little with newer ideas, but that is exactly the point - they show what is well established knowledge at a given time. Journal articles are ok, if they are review articles that review the standing of specific ideas instead of research articles that present new resulsts. Here is a recent review article that reports the current standing of the racial IQ hypothesis in psychology[14].·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The modern understanding of this issue is not reflected in the article. We now have enough evidence to conclude that the racial IQ gap is not environmental or cultural, at least if you compare races in modern societies where adequate health and nutrition, universal education, inexpensive books and electronic communications are the norm. Putting the cultural and environmental argument aside, it's hard to argue with the genetic findings.

National Center for Biotechnology Information [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] Nature [21] Phmoreno (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

The reference hosted on the National Center for Biotechnology Information division of the National Institutes of Health is sufficient to discredit the major claims of this article.Phmoreno (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

There is no reference from the National Center for Biotechnology Information - that is a reference to the article in the journal "Molecular Psychiatry" and what it says is that intelligence i heritable, not that there are innate differences between racial groups. Philippe Rushton was himself known as a very problematic researcher and his research is not widely considered valid (neither his data, his methods or his conclusions have been met with general acceptance). Generally these articles neither claim what you claim they claim, nor are the regarded as valid by mainstream sicentists.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The National Center for Biotechnological Information is the host website for the article. Their link in upper left. The claim that there are differences between the racial groups is widespread in the literature, and the debate is not about whether a difference exists but by what the causes are: environmental or biological. The paper in question is supporting biological claim. Genetic studies of human evolution is an active field of study and new finding are being made every day. There is no doubt that environment can cause differences, especially iodine deficiency and lead in the body, but those problems have largely been eliminated in advanced societies.Phmoreno (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well if that is the case then the US is not "an advanced society". Your failure to grasp the basics of this topic is pretty clear - that IQ is heritable within a group is not support for differences between groups being caused yb heritable differences. This is a very very basic piece of understanding that you are missing, and which clearly makes it very difficult to discuss this with you. I am going to start a request for comment to get some input from other editors, since I don't have the patience to educate you here.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:55, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Disputed tag

From the lede:

Historically it received credence in the scientific community, but is no longer considered scientific.

Obviously false considering the large body of journal articles by researchers with the opposite view. Additionally, genetic studies and identical twin studies have confirmed the claim of substantial heritability of intelligence and has associated it with multiple genes. Does anyone have any sources disputing the genetic findings?Phmoreno (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

What are the sources for these alleged findings?·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

There are several in the Not factual section above. Anyone who has read one of the several books on this subject knows there are many scientific studies on the subject. You can easily find hundreds in the bibliographies of one of these books and many don't agree with statements in this article. It's time to include a fair an balanced discussion.Phmoreno (talk) 16:39, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

No there aren't. You will have to actually provide some high quality sources if this tag is going to stay in the article. You have made a lot of very strong claims about the literure, while it is obvious that you actually haven't reads much of this literature, and that what you have read has been quite selective.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I have read enough of this literature to know that scientific literature exists, so claims that it isn't considered scientific are false. And I suspect you are also well aware of that. Not agreeing with contrary findings is not the same as those findings not being scientific.Phmoreno (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

That literature exists does not mean that it is generally accepted. You have failed entirely to provide any shred of evidence that the claims of extreme hereditarians regarding racial differences have any degree of acceptance within the literature. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

RfC: Is the statement about scientific status correct?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This RfC asks whether the following statement in the lead is correct:

Historically it [scientific racism] received credence in the scientific community, but is no longer considered scientific.

·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Yes

1. Yes it is entirely correct.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
2. Yes. The sources against are: WP:OR which isn't about scientific racism, J. Philippe Rushton who wrote for VDARE and American Renaissance and who was eager to blame political correctness instead of actually defending the legitimacy of his work, and some guy who started an open journal to publish his own works. Grayfell (talk) 22:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
3. Yes - I'm unaware of sources spring scientific racism, specifically the idea that certain races are superior or categorizible into phenotypes as was done in the 19th century. The issue of "discrete races" in genotypes might be murkier, but to the best of my understanding the generic markers are probablistic with certain ethic groups having higher or lower chances of having specific generic variants. Anyways, no good sources have been proffered that challenges this statement. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:11, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
4. Yes, and WP:SPEEDYCLOSE per WP:DONTFEED. Carl Fredrik ^talk 13:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

No

1. No Just about no one has ever identified as a "scientific racist", so it's not clear what the referents in this claim are. The article currently also seems to promote pseudoscientific or at least fringe views such as that there are currently no differences in cognitive ability between races or ethnic groups.--Victor Chmara (talk) 13:25, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about; there have been many who have invoked scientific arguments on behalf of openly racist claims, from Samuel A. Cartwright to a large number of authors in the 1920s... AnonMoos (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

1. No Per reasons in sections above.Phmoreno (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

threaded discussion

• Question - Is everyone implying that no valid scientific research has been done on differences between races?Phmoreno (talk) 01:14, 4 April 2017 (UTC)RFC question

On the contrary, a lot of research has been conducted on that - and the result of that research is that there are no systematic biological differences in abilities or predispositions between racial groups, and that racial groups are not biological groups in a way that even make it possible for such systematic differences to exist.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:58, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Pretty much. No valid scientific research can be done on different groups sorted by convenience or obsolete prejudice. Statistics spun from poorly defined groups is bad science, that's something every statistics 101 class covers in the first couple of weeks. This is a modern encyclopedia, and an outdated definition of race, which is only still used by a handful on the fringes, is neither productive nor neutral. Attempting to phrase this as a "gotcha" shows either a poor understanding of the field, or poor scholarship in general. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The problem with this article is that it provides almost no useful information. The historical part I learned in college a long time ago. No question that in the early years it was fake science. What is missing is the argument and critical discussion of both sides on the current state of research. Agree that race is an outdated concept, especially today when we have genetic information. This needs elaboration. Just calling all such research racist or racism is avoiding the issue and is not very helpful.Phmoreno (talk) 02:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is for everybody, including people who did not learn these things in college. "Both sides" suggests false balance, and it's presumptuous to imply that there are exactly two sides worth mentioning. There is no current state of research worth discussing, because research in defense of race/racism isn't neutral or scientific, for reasons we both, apparently, agree on. There are already articles on genetics/IQ/heredity as studied by modern science, as I'm sure you're aware. Linking that area of research to scientific racism is misleading at best, and an insult to those scientists at worst. Grayfell (talk) 04:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Still missing explanation to the statement in question So you are going to allow a strong claim without even discussing why the statement is true. Based on the statement there is no way to tie it to the sources. What is not considered scientific and why?Phmoreno (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Disputed Tag Remains, 9 April 2017

So, I'm a bit confused. Obviously there is a factual disagreement in the above threads (which I wasn't able to read in complete detail), specifically, a disagreement about whether or not the statement is correct (namely, the statement that scientific racism "is no longer considered scientific").

I am not an expert so I cannot assess the validity of the claim. However, what I am confused about is the "speedy closure" of the above RfC because of not feeding the trolls. What? Where exactly is Phmoreno behaving in a vandalistic manner? This user clearly has an opinion and that opinion may be wrong (again I am not an expert in the claim), but they are merely arguing for that opinion, not being a troll. Right?

Anyway, if it's true that the claim is correct and opposition to it has been by trolls, why is the disputed tag still there? Should we remove it?

Confused -- please help me understand the situation here :) I'd just like to remove the tag if possible or resolve it so this article is improved. Cstanford.math (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

The article was tagged disputed but that has been removed The dubious tag remains on the statement. I haven't read the reference The Mis-Measure of Man but from reading the reviews I doubt that it would support the claim. I still think this whole thing is a useless article. The only worthwhile content is the historical section about when the field wasn't scientific, but today it is.Phmoreno (talk) 00:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merger with History of the race and intelligence controversy

This article has too much overlap with History of the race and intelligence controversy to stand on its own.Phmoreno (talk) 00:47, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with a merge to History of the race and intelligence controversy, for 2 reasons.

First, the pseudo-scientific "study" of race obviously goes beyond intelligence, including at the very least physical beauty.

Second, this article is about the historic pseudo-science based on race, e.g. used during the Holocaust, not about the actual scientific study of race as a variable.

The article's header section should be worded in whatever way can make clear that it is referring to the pseudo-scientific practice of attempting to justify racism, not the scientific study of race and what it correlates with. However that can be done, that should be done. For instance, the first paragraph could say "the term 'Scientific racism' is used to describe..." instead of just defining it, due to the possible differing uses of the word. This article should not be about social justice debates surrounding race today, but should focus mostly on the historical. Cstanford.math (talk) 01:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

I have moved the above statement by Cstanford.math here from the above section, as it appears to be a direct response. Feel free to revert if this was in error. Grayfell (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Phmoreno -- The "race and intelligence controversy" didn't really gather significant momentum until the publication of the results of the WW1 "mental tests" on U.S. Army inductees just after the war, while more than half this article is devoted to pre-1918 developments, so I don't really see what the pernicious overlap is. AnonMoos (talk) 02:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Another source

Ethnic Conflicts and the Nation-State[22] Doug Weller talk 12:31, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

That was Mikemikev

No real surprise. Doug Weller talk 20:53, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes - pseudoscience

Some recent changes to the lead and body of the article are tending to change the way the article reads in ways that I'm not confident about.

A) The long-standing stance of the article was that there was a view regarding the superiority of some races over others. This view claimed to have a scientific basis but is now not considered scientific or considered pseudo-scientific.

B) Currently, the article is talking about the scientific study of racial differences, perhaps unanchored from the bad science from the past two centuries. Or something like that.

This controversy has arisen before, but before I start rejecting recent changes I wanted to gather some views from other editors. — jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

"Justify the belief in racism" phrasing?

The opening sentence says this describes "attempts to justify belief in racism." Don't Wikipedia's articles on racism normally treat racism as a thing which actually exists? I mean "Racism is real" seems to be their general attitude (and even to treat racism as a sociological phenomenon rather than as a belief) but here, it is strongly suggested that racism does not exist. This should perhaps be reworded if it is meant to support the idea that people should believe in racism on the grounds that racism exists. --BenMcLean (talk) 18:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

@BenMcLean: You are right, it is discrimination, not belief. There are beliefs involved as well though, like the pseudoscientific aspects attempting to justify it... I modified the definition, feel free to improve. —PaleoNeonate – 09:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Online book refuting scientific racism

I was trying to remember of a site/book that I thought perhaps it would be an interesting addition here, in "external links", if anyone knows what I'm talking about, and if it's still online today. Unfortunately I don't remember even the name. The author's name was Italian or Italian-American. I believe the title was somewhat long, along the lines of "debunking the myths of scientific racism", with a subtitle even longer, like "how pseudoscience and bogus data were used to inferiorize black people". I believe there was some emphasis on black people as victims, instead of a more vague or neutral wording. As it's quite obvious now, I don't remember much, but I vaguely remember it being apparently good and citing lots of sources. That's it. Sorry. Edit: Here, I've found it: Resurrecting Racism - The modern attack on black people using phony science by Francisco Gil-White, which I guess maybe is Mexican-American and not Italian-American, not that it matters. Unfortunately rationalwiki mentions he's fond of conspiracy theories, so perhaps this resource requires further investigation before warrinting recommendation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.111.131.199 (talk) 04:28, 14 July 2017‎

Well if Rationalwiki said it, it simply must be true Scriblerian1 (talk) 10:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Rationalwiki has interesting content but it is biased with references that aren't of the same quality, and editors there seem to enjoy making fun of whatever nonsense they come accross :) --JamesPoulson (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

This is a hopelessly partisan article that should be incorporated into existing "Historical Race Concepts"

This article in its very title is a self contradiction. The term "racism" now means an "invidious" attitude, demeaning of certain groups; it being a primary explanation for the socio economic condition of those of this group, mostly in the United States. There is an article on Wikipedia, "Historical Race Concepts" that includes the development and interplay of race as a scientific concept as well as one that is political.

This is a subject that is so vehemently politicized that it inherently destroys the concept of NPV, Neutral Point of View, one of the pillars of this project. This subject is so politicized that we do not have an accurate ord for what had been "negro" -- the descriptor being limited to "African American" or "Black." The former implies a nationality that may be unknown, and the later a shade of darkness that is often not accurate.

Those social scientists who used the term "race" in previous times did not see it as a single monolithic identifier,a stigma; but as a biological reality that applied to homo sapiens as well as other species. Certainly, the term was also used by those whose goal was to continue stigmatize those whose ancestors had been slaves, but that is part of the picture, but not the only part.

In an increasing contentious world, Wikipedia is one of the last hopes of preserving fair minded exploration of complex issues. It may be the last venue that transcends a partisanship that has become toxic to the point of destroying civil discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arodb (talk • contribs) 16:06, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

There are books devoted to the subject of "scientific racism".[23] And of course academic journal articles.[24] There's no question that it meets our criteria of notability and should have its own article. Doug Weller talk 17:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Check out this recent N.Y.Times article https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/30/science/predatory-journals-academics.html?_r=0 about how there are hundreds of "academic publishing companies" that charge the writer for posting their article that have no true academic value. And Books also can be easily published. Racism is a loaded word, on this we can agree. The term means that the practitioner of such racism has antipathy for races that are not his own. This antipathy motivates selectively gathering data to validate this hatred

Science is of a different ethos, including the social sciences, that must build theories on multiple hypothesis testing. The goal is to gather findings on which to build conclusions-- that are then enunciated, no matter how uncomfortable they may be.

Given this, the phrase "scientific racism" is an oxymoron, or scientific is used ironically, or to mean pseudo scientific. Of course there are those who call their work scientific racism who do fit this description, but in the text of this article Charles Murray represented by his book "The Bell Curve" is an example of such pseudo science. His deceased co-author Richard Herrnstein, a chaired psychologist at Harvard, who knew something about racial animus being a Jew, is thus implied spent his career with the covert goal of showing Blacks have a lower average population I.Q.

The refusal to change this website to incorporate into the suggested one says nothing about science, or racism, but only how the powers that be controlling this single subject on Wikipedia Media stand on this issue. What is especially tragic is there exists on this very website the article "Historical Race Concepts" that goes into great enough detail to, in the aggregate, follow the No Point of View pillar of Wikipedia. The title of the article perhaps should be changed to the "Evolution of Race Concepts."

Given that the American political parties have an increasing divide on Truth itself, and have lost a common language for discourse, this "victory" of defaming scholars such as Murray and Herrnstein on this website whose magnificent contribution is creating a place that avoids partisanship, is especially tragic.Arodb (talk) 21:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

None of that has anything to do with the notability of this topic according to reliable sources. Slicing a term into its component words and then taking those words hyper-literally accomplishes nothing of use. If you have some specific reason to believe specific sources used here are not reliable, make your case. Calling Murray and Herrnstein's extraordinarily controversial work from decades ago "magnificant" is partisan and unscientific. Grayfell (talk) 22:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Your message is also unclear to me. You appear to agree that it is pseudoscience, which the article mentions. I recommend making more specific suggestions (this talk page is also not a forum for general discussion of the topic per WP:NOTFORUM). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

pseudoscientific

How is it always pseudoscientific? If someone says black people have more testosterone therefore they are superior. Is that pseudoscience? Jack1234567891011121314151617 (talk) 11:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Yep, it would be.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:14, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The entire concept is shaky at best. Physical differences between populations of humans are just adaptions to the local environment. Thus you can't say that one adaption is "superior" or "inferior". The actual analysis conducted is incredibly sloppy and would never pass in any modern scientific journal. They were mostly just trying to prove preconceived social/cultural viewpoints through a veneer of science which is pretty much the definition of pseudo-science. Harizotoh9 (talk) 12:27, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

@Harizotoh9: That is not a worthy argument. You said yourself that there are physical differences that emerged as "adaptations to the local environment". If an 'adaptation' is not superior to something else in some particular sense, then why-ever would it be referred to as an adaptation? The words "inferior" and "superior" are, at least in the scientific arena, used as relative terms. You are using them in a deliberately vague sense, so as to avoid having to justify your claims. Yes, higher levels of testosterone will make people superior with regard to performance in particular circumstances (e.g., tasks requiring strength), just as higher testosterone levels could make people inferior in some respects (e.g., higher levels of risk-taking in dangerous situations). And your final remark reads like a mere 'appeal to motives', which is a fallacious form of argumentation. Dismissing findings on the basis of what motivated the research is bad practice. On a separate but related noted, this article is far too skewed, and desperately needs to be amended. For starters, 'race realism' is the belief that races exist in a scientific sense. To link this so tightly and unquestioningly to racism (thus presuming the motives of proponents of race realism) is slanderous and absurd. This article reads more like a political statement than an impartial overview: far too one-sided. Racism is a sensitive subject, but some level of objectivity - rather than over-sensitivity - needs to be maintained here. - 22 February 2018

@Jack1234567891011121314151617: the concept of race itself is controversial (we're all Homo Sapiens Sapiens as far as we know), there of course are differences including some which make some groups more or less vulnerable to certain diseases statistically; better or lesser statistical adaptation to certain environments... but no reliable science which shows a "race to be objectively better than another".
In the past some IQ tests were also used to justify a difference in intelligence yet we now know that the differences were due to factors such as cultural biases, poverty and lack of access to: education, balanced diet, optometry, dentistry and medical care... Adoption is an example where a child from another culture and color can be raised where there are better opportunities, and succeed as well as anyone else there.
"Primitive societies" are also threatened when modernity is close enough, with some members, especially the youth, adopting surrounding lifestyles and languages. It's not rare after a few generations for medical doctors who also originate from that community to support it with regular visits, etc. There have been cases of contact with isolated people resulting in disease transmission and death, but that is understood to be due the the lack of exposition to viruses which are common for us, as well as the lack of access to vaccination.
But the most important is that the reliable sources also describe it as pseudoscience, please read those for more information. —PaleoNeonate – 00:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

There may be a basis to distinguish different ethnic groups according to genetic differences but that all flies out the window when you realize that all people genetically test as having a mix of these same different groups. There are no pure "races" out there. --JamesPoulson (talk) 00:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I also am inclined to be critical of this article, because it conflates the empirical claim that there are real and scientifically measurable differences between various races or ethnic stocks, with the attitude that such differences in some way justify some sort of negative attitude or discriminatory practice. These are different kinds of claims. I am very much against the second kind -- the legitimatisation of hostile behavior toward any race or ethnic stock, but I have no trouble at all in observing the first kind of claim -- that there are racial or ethnic variations. Of course, there are graduations of similarity and differences between such types, but that does not entail that there is no such thing as a racial or ethnic type. (As a life long practitioner of horsemanship, I observe that there are different races or ethnic types of horses. This seems pretty non-controversial. Knowledge of such variations ought to be straightforward.)

Observation and documentation of such differences among humans (and other species) is scientifically interesting in itself, which is why all classification and description of variation is a basic feature of scientific practice. With regard to our own species, there are factual data that some drugs produce more effective results than others, in some racial groups rather than others. There are medically established variations in susceptibility to some disorders, and to different medical outcomes when people of different types are consuming similar diets. Such differences are not just medically verifiable: they are being used to provide better quality care to people of different racial backgrounds. This is medically interesting

Thus the question asked above, about whether it is always pseudoscientific to say that some racial group might have more testosterone than another, and the answer, that such a claim would be pseudoscientific, involve category mistakes by both the person asking the question, and by the person answering it. More testosterone might not be better, or it might be better for some activities but harmful for others. And the answer that such a claim would have to be pseudoscientific places the holder of that view at risk of being embarrassed by empirical research. I have no idea if some racial types have more testosterone than others, but as a person with some knowledge of biology, I would bet that there is some variation. Homogeneity is a very rare thing in any species.

To digress somewhat from what ought to be expected empirically or factually, into the domain of moral education: it has been entertaining me for some time that a new kind of measurable genetic variation has been discovered among human subtypes, in the form of Neanderthal DNA. There are racial/ethnic variations in the amount and source of Neanderthal/Denisovan DNA present. Sub-Saharan Africa did not receive any of this DNA. To claim that this variation exists is not pseudoscience. The Neanderthal ancestry of Europeans is interesting in the context of prejudice against dark skinned people, because Neanderthals had been in Europe for hundreds of thousands of years before modern humans arrived there. They were in Europe long enough that it seems they had adapted to northern conditions by evolving light-colored skin. I hope one day to tease one of those superiority claiming light skinned types by demonstrating that the light coloring was inherited from the much maligned Neanderthal source. Such an argument on my part would be intended to affect that person's attitude. Janice Vian, Ph.D. (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Please avoid digressions and personal commentary. This page is for discussing how to improve the article. Wikipedia is not a forum for general discussion. If you know of any sources which discuss Archaic human admixture with modern humans as it relates specifically to scientific racism, please bring them forth for discussion. Otherwise this is not the place to share original research. The connection between biology and race (human categorization), or its horse equivalent, is rife with difficulty and controversy. Any attempt at applying personal familiarity with horse-breed to human populations is disturbingly disconnected from the biological and statistical complexity of this issue. Grayfell (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Resuming this thread as a result of the recent tagging. This is possibly a source we could use:

• Shermer, Michael (2002). "Race and I.Q. as Good Science". The Skeptic encyclopedia of pseudoscience, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 678. ISBN 9781576076538.

Elsewhere it also discusses racism in context of white supremacism and pyramidology. There likely are other relevant references. —PaleoNeonate – 11:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Scientific racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130513171426/http://www.linnean.org/Resources/LinneanSociety/Documents/Publications/Other/Special%20Issue%208%20-%20The%20Linneaen%20Legacy.pdf to http://www.linnean.org/Resources/LinneanSociety/Documents/Publications/Other/Special%20Issue%208%20-%20The%20Linneaen%20Legacy.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080919222236/http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13061 to http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13061
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090917060508/http://stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XL/Issue_7/Features/features2.shtml to http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XL/Issue_7/Features/features2.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050924130608/http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html to http://www.commentarymagazine.com/production/files/murray0905.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819221453/http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/lmarfogl/project/race_gerdner.htm to http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Stu/lmarfogl/project/race_gerdner.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:53, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Racism is creeping back into mainstream science – we have to stop it

That's the title of an article in The Guardian today.[25] It starts with "University College London has been unwittingly hosting an annual conference attended by race scientists and eugenicists for the past few years. This might have come as a shock to many people. But it is only the latest instalment in the rise of “scientific” racism within academia." Doug Weller talk 11:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

At least two wikipedians participated in that conference.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:56, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

More recently, a major article – Evans, Gavin (2 March 2018). "The unwelcome revival of 'race science'". the Guardian. Retrieved 18 March 2018. . . . dave souza, talk 15:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

New study noticed in Ars

• Ouellette, Jennifer (4 October 2018). "There's new evidence confirming bias of the "father of scientific racism"". Ars Technica. Retrieved 7 October 2018. {{cite web}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) – think that's enough of an rs to include a cautious summary? . . . dave souza, talk 18:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Sock initiated discussion removed

Although I can't say who the sock is using multiple IP addresses, I can confirm IP socking here and have deleted the section involved, which is of course can still be viewed in the history. I've also semi-protected for 3 days. Doug Weller talk 09:42, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

is race realism true?

due to politically correctness in control in anthropology field they dont agree with coon rushton or others racist i wonder why today anthropologist are egalitarianist or leftist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TetrahedronX7 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If you want to change the article, you'll need a reliable published source supporting the change, and you'll need to give due weight to majority expert opinion. Your own opinions are irrelevant. . . dave souza, talk 22:03, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

there are four races and you could tell them from the skulls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TetrahedronX7 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@TetrahedronX7: I don't mean to be rude, but this isn't a forum page where you can argue about the subject. If you have no sources meet WP:RS you need to stop. Doug Weller talk 12:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

"fringe interpretations"? Not according to Nobel prize winner Watson

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

You should mention that a Nobel prize laureate and one of the most famous and prestigious scientists has come out publicly in support of the "fringe interpretations". Is wikipedia really objective and neutral, and allows debate on taboo questions? This is one of those issues where neutrality and scientific fairness are measured. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.87.244.164 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

You mean this Watson? EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Google 'Nobel disease'. He's lost his marbles. His award does not mean he should be believed. Sumanuil (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No, he didn't. He is old, doesn't care about career any more, and can afford to tell the truth honestly without any regard to the politics of the day, while others have to abide by the rules of political correctness, or else they wouldn't have a job tomorrow. All evidence and a lot of research points to significant differences of population intelligence depending on genes, but this is obviously a very inconvenient conclusion so this area of research has been aggressively shut down. 24.4.39.254 (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

His view in this regards are widely considered outside of the mainstream by his colleagues in human genetics. David Reich is more mainstream in his views, but even his views in favor of the existence of race as a biological category were widely repudiated by his colleagues when he published them not long ago.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

The views of his colleagues are based on ideology, and not science. In this political climate science unfortunately yields to politics. There is no freedom of opinion, no academic freedom in this field. Anybody who would express opposing views would be immediately expelled and fired. Only those who don't need to be employed, like James Watson, can honestly express their views. 24.4.39.254 (talk) 11:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

His own views are equally based on ideology. Being unemployed is not usually a sign that one is a higher authority of truth.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 12:33, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

By referring to Reich's "colleagues" you presumably don't mean geneticists but anthropologists and sociologists who made up most of the academics who signed the letter agains Reich, publicized by the Buzzfeed (The New York Times refused to publish the letter). --Pudeo (talk) 16:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Writing public letters isn't a way to settle scientific matters. Letters only show that academics are triggered. Scientists can criticize each other in papers or books, with proper proofs and argumentation. Shouting "I disagree! and He is a racist! never settled any scientific dispute. 68.65.169.20 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Nobel winners are people who had one idea which nobody had before and which turned out to be true. Many of them know practically nothing outside their area of expertise. Regarding a Nobelist as an authority on everything is a really, really, really bad idea. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:00, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

James Watson has been making nonsensical claims for years. "At a conference in 2000, Watson suggested a link between skin color and sex drive, hypothesizing that dark-skinned people have stronger libidos. His lecture argued that extracts of melanin – which gives skin its color – had been found to boost subjects' sex drive. "That's why you have Latin lovers," he said, according to people who attended the lecture. "You've never heard of an English lover. Only an English Patient." He has also said that stereotypes associated with racial and ethnic groups have a genetic basis: Jews being intelligent, Chinese being intelligent but not creative because of selection for conformity, and Indians being servile."

Because conformism is somehow unique to the Chinese? Dimadick (talk) 13:10, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.