This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientific racism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History
This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of molecular biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European historyWikipedia:WikiProject European historyTemplate:WikiProject European historyEuropean history
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory, conspiracy theories, and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Policy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science policy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science PolicyWikipedia:WikiProject Science PolicyTemplate:WikiProject Science PolicyScience Policy
Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere.
Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!
The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence
The article Scientific racism, along with other articles relating to the area of conflict (namely, the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed), is currently subject to active arbitration remedies, described in a 2010 Arbitration Committee case where the articulated principles included:
Pillars: Wikipedia articles must be neutral, verifiable and must not contain original research. Those founding principles (the Pillars) are not negotiable and cannot be overruled, even when apparent consensus to do so exists.
Original research: Wikipedia defines "original research" as "facts, allegations, ideas, and stories not already published by reliable sources". In particular, analyses or conclusions not already published in reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy are not appropriate for inclusion in articles.
Correct use of sources: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. Primary sources are permitted if used carefully. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.
Advocacy: Wikipedia strives towards a neutral point of view. Accordingly, it is not the appropriate venue for advocacy or for advancing a specific point of view. While coverage of all significant points of view is a necessary part of balancing an article, striving to give exposure to minority viewpoints that are not significantly expressed in reliable secondary sources is not.
Single purpose accounts: Single purpose accounts are expected to contribute neutrally instead of following their own agenda and, in particular, should take care to avoid creating the impression that their focus on one topic is non-neutral, which could strongly suggest that their editing is not compatible with the goals of this project.
Decorum: Wikipedia users are expected to behave reasonably, calmly, and courteously in their interactions with other users; to approach even difficult situations in a dignified fashion and with a constructive and collaborative outlook; and to avoid acting in a manner that brings the project into disrepute. Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, or disruptive point-making, is prohibited.
If you are a new editor, or an editor unfamiliar with the situation, please follow the above guidelines. You may also wish to review the full arbitration case page. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first.
The article provides very little coverage of monogenism, as exemplified by scientists like Thomas Henry Huxley. Most of the information focuses on polygenism, much of which was not considered scientific even at the time.
For instance, On the Geographical Distribution of the Chief Modifications of Mankind (1870) was a significant monogenetic work. Another issue with the article is its absolutist stance that anyone supporting "scientific racism" also advocated racial supremacism, which is not accurate. Huxley, for example, rejected race-based slavery in Emancipation – Black and White (1865).
In addition, it should be more clearly defined when this concept can be described as a superseded scientific theory (19th/20th century and earlier) and when it must be categorized as pseudoscience (21st century). For example, I find this phrasing better: "Scientific racism is a superseded scientific theory now regarded as pseudoscience." In today's "racial realism" there is an intentional rejection of scientific standards, whereas in the past this was not the case—because such standards did not exist. Pantarch (talk) 15:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I added this section for clarification because many readers seem to have difficulties to understand that the term "scientific" can not only be used in the sense of "using the organized methods of science" but also in the sense of "relating to science". Stilfehler (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example: there are a lot of problems with citing a Mankind Quarterly article. This is especially apparent when that article is from 1961 for a claim that a trend has continued past 1961. To put it another way, two sources, one from 1961 and another from 1975, are not enough to say something has become 'less and less common' in 2025.
If you want to explain the history of the term, please instead cite sources about the history of the term instead of primary examples of the term's usage. Using primary sources in this way is a form of original research.
I would also suggest avoiding unreliable sources like Mankind completely. Any use of such a source would have to be contextualized by a much better source, in which case, just use that better source and skip the fringe journal. Grayfell (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree, this may be original research, so I understand and don't mind the revert. Still, I believe such a section (with better references) would be helpful. There is so much opposition to the term out there. See for example here or see the German WP, where – for that very reason – there is not even an article about that subject. I can't imagine it being difficult to make the lemma "scientific racism" watertight through referencing to reputable sources in which the term is being used. Thanks, Stilfehler (talk) 01:06, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Such a section could be helpful, but as I said, start from sources about the term "scientific racism". It isn't sufficient to cite sources which merely use the term. Even for basic etymology, we should not publish original research like this. We need sources which discuss the term as a term, or at least mention it as a term. There is a lot of research on this topic, spanning decades, so if specific sources can be found I would be very interested in seeing what they have to say.
The meaning of the term itself does come up somewhat often on English Wikipedia. Sometimes editors wish to split it into two and treat "scientific" and "racism" as entirely separate, but this is too simplistic to be workable. Some have argued that it should labeled as "pseudoscientific racism" instead. That seems more reasonable, but if 'pseudoscientific racism' exists, does that imply that 'scientific racism' also exists and is not pseudoscientific? No, that's not what sources appear to be saying when they use the term. Clearly, we need reliable sources to handle this for us. Grayfell (talk) 03:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lantye is invited to discuss their preferred changes to the opening sentence here rather than attempting to edit war them into place. My initial rationale for reverting was that the language is unnecessary, and unduly clutters the sentence, making it cumbersome to read. Now I see that the string of words they are seeking to add ("a historical pattern of ideologies that generate pseudo-scientific racist beliefs") is copied directly from the source they wish to add and is therefore WP:COPYVIO. Generalrelative (talk) 06:22, 9 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article's sections on the origins and history of scientific racism begin with European thinkers of the Enlightenment period. This seems incorrect given the writings from other regions such as East Asia or the Middle East, as well as from the medieval period and antiquity, which make very similar claims about racial groups different from the author's own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.76.68.16 (talk) 23:08, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
