Talk:Miscegenation

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Oguerrero98 (article contribs).

The use of the word Mulatto in this article

The use of the word "Mulatto", which the Wiki article of the word states that it is now chiefly considered offensive and derogatory, happens over 20 times in this article.

I propose the change of using a term such as "mixed black and white", or similar changes. The main focus I think should be able to be relayed without using a term considered globally chiefly as derogatory or offensive. There are many words in the English language that can be put together or used to convey this concept in several different less inflammatory ways.

I'm not making these proposed edits without consulting the community, due to 1) my account is extremely new, and is without much of the breadth of information on editing others do have, and 2) the entire article is flagged as possibly controversial, therefore any universal edits I make would be a possible severe misstep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueIsMyFavoriteColor (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Split and create new 'History of Multiracial People' article

I propose two changes. First, move Section 4 to a new article titled 'History of multiracial people'. Second, merge Sections 5 and 6 into Multiracial and Multiracial Americans. Two reasons:

1. The current article is over 150K of text, way over the 100K upper threshold in WP:SIZERULE.
2. The term ‘miscegenation’ today is used in relation to Anti-miscegenation laws and is not a neutral term, as discussed in Miscegenation#Usage, also here, and voiced in many comments on this Talk page. There should be an article about the historic term 'miscegenation' itself, but as per WP:COMMONNAME we should use a common name for the other material, which is 95% of this article.

There was support for a similar split in 2017, Talk:Miscegenation/Archive_3#Split_page, although nothing came of it.

I'll put notices of this proposal on the talk pages at Multiracial and Multiracial Americans. I don't think it's controversial to make the split, but I'd like to get broader input into the the new article name, and the proposed merge of Sections 5 and 6. Terms like multiracial, interacial, etc., are becoming less common as our understanding of race itself evolves, and so maybe there is a different approach we should consider.

Please let me know what you think. LaTeeDa (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Modified proposal: split and merge out Section 4

On further thought, modifying the split proposal immediately above. Justification is the same. Propose no new overarching article, like 'History of multiracial people'. Instead, merge Miscegenation#History_of_ethnoracial_admixture_and_attitudes_towards_miscegenation (90% of the overall article text) into existing pages where practical and create new articles for the rest, with Multiracial serving as the main page.

• Africa: new article Multiracial people in Africa
• Asia: new article Multiracial people in Asia
• Middle East: new article Multiracial people in the Middle East
• Europe: New article Multiracial people in Europe
• Americas, merge into:
  • Multiracial Americans
  • Race and Ethnicity in Latin America
  • Mixed-race Brazilian
• Oceana, merge into:
  • Multiculturalism_in_Australia
  • New Zealand

LaTeeDa (talk) 20:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

I would be against the proposed split at first sight. Indeed, an advantage of the current form of the article is precisely that it puts in perspective, both geographically and historically, the ideas of miscegenation and multiracial/multicultural unions and offspring. Splitting content to articles focused on specific cultures or periods would be the opposite of WP:GLOBALIZE. An interest of such a perspective is, for instance, to illustrate how the notions of multiracial or miscegenation were applied to very different groups and in very different ways throughout history. Please explain how discarding a global article in favour of something centered on e.g. the U.S. context would help in countering an American-centric systemic bias. Place Clichy (talk) 09:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with most of your comment, specifically, that there should be a broad central article with a global perspective for this content.

There are two main questions:

1. What article should be the broad central article? Multiracial already has country-specific sections that overlap with and create content forks with the Section 4 content. I propose that Multiracial be the broad, general article with global perspective. Interracial marriage could also work, and it also has country-specific sections. Miscegenation shouldn’t be the central article, because it is a loaded, archaic term that implies disapproval, and so fails NPOV, as sourced above. Also, as a term freighted with American history and that connotated black-white admixture only, it is American-centric. Happy to discuss and source NPOV issues further, if there is disagreement.
2. How do we shorten the article? This article has 150 kB of prose and it continues to increase in size as more geographic sections get added. Section 4, which is 90% of the text, is divided up by region and country. It seems natural to split geographically, as I proposed. But, we could reduce the size other ways and I'd be interested in what your thoughts on that.

A key point here is that a close look at the content shows there is very little here that isn't general content that fits fine under multiracial. For the legal specific issues we have Anti-miscegenation laws and for marriage content we have Interracial marriage. It may be could be argued that we need an article on 'Interracial sex', but if we did, there is very little in this 'Miscegenation' article that would belong there. LaTeeDa (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

Some sources regarding NPOV issues with term 'Miscegenation' The term is definitely still in use in the social sciences - maybe mostly in non-American English - but it seems that for many the term is considered archaic and offensive.

• "The term [miscegenation] has traditionally carried a heavy sense of disapproval and is now largely archaic and disfavored."[1]
• "With its hoax origin forgotten, "miscegenation's" scientific connotation -- and the fact that it has the same prefix as "mistake" or "misbegotten" -- planted the notion that races represented different species that should be separated."[2]
• "While miscegenation is by no means considered a neutral word today, very few people know just how laden it is."[3]
• ".... the term carries jarring overtones of impurity, transgression and categorical dissolution. Unlike 'hybridity', miscegenation signals a white / coulour binary revealing the maintenance of asymmetrical power relations through racial exclusion."[4]
• "Clearly, 'miscegenation' is not a neutral term, even though today it is frequently used in a scientific way in social science contexts."[5]LaTeeDa (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

About the Third Opinion request: The request made at Third Opinion has been removed (i.e. declined). Like all other moderated content dispute resolution venues at Wikipedia, Third Opinion requires thorough talk page discussion before seeking assistance. With only one posting by one involved editor here, this is not in any sense thorough. If no discussion can be obtained, remember that "no consensus" is a perfectly acceptable result here at Wikipedia. — TransporterMan (TALK) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page; contact me on my user talk page if you wish to communicate with me about this.

TransporterMan, there are two editors discussing this not one. Fair to say, though, that the discussion hasn't been thorough. LaTeeDa (talk) 21:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor, looking at Interracial marriage, Miscegenation and Multiracial people, the following strikes me:

• Interracial marriage and Miscegenation are WP:TOOBIG
• Much content is duplicated between articles. In some cases, for example Interracial marriage#Réunion and Miscegenation#Réunion, the content is virtually identical. In other cases, where different editors have made additions, there are significant differences.
• Differences between the specific subjects of the articles has become so blurred by the shared content they are approaching the same article presented in different ways.
• Coverage of the situation is not consistent between countries. Some countries have in depth coverage, others have little content. Whilst it can be argued that a large country merits more coverage than a small one, in many instances in the articles the reverse is true.
• Interaction between Chinese people and other races forms a large part of the articles, possibly this is out of proportion.
• There seems to have been certain editors working to an agenda. Whilst additions are sourced, the sources have been cherry picked to suit.

Given the large overlap in both subject and content, there needs to rationalisation of the articles. Clearly everything cannot be covered in one article, so it would seem to me there needs to be an article with an overview that is concise with child articles that go into detail. Multiracial people is probably the prime subject, with Interracial marriage as a sub-topic. "Miscegenation" has become a somewhat negative term so I would suggest we move away from that. There are already some more specific articles in existence, although they could probably do with some consistency in naming. --John B123 (talk) 10:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

John B123 What do you think of the specific split proposal I made, including the parent/child outline above. I think this is in line with your comments to reduce size, create child articles for some of the detailed content, and have Miscegenation deal more narrowly with the term and history of that term (and be much smaller). Also, what are your thoughts on establishing consensus. We only have three editors discussing this, and Place Clichy didn't respond to my comments/questions to their dissenting comment. Hopefully they will reengage. As noted above, I have posted notices of this discussion at several related pages and projects. LaTeeDa (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I would split out sections 4 - 6 in this article, sections 4 - 8 from Interracial marriage and section 2 of Multiracial people into new articles. As first level child articles I would have continental divisions, such as Multiracial people in Africa, Multiracial people in Asia etc. Where there is sufficient information available, individual country articles can be created, such as Multiracial people in China. Where there is an individual "in country" article, within the relevant "in continent" only a brief overview would be given with a main article link.

As this is a very large change, a WP:BOLD move would probably bring objections. I would suggest as the next move a WP:RfC. --John B123 (talk) 16:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree, a formal RfC would be needed to make changes of this extent, so rather then waste electrons on this non-RfC, an rfC should be framed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the technical aspects, but I agree to merge the article. Various reviews have shown that the proportion of Chinese marriages is too high, but most of the problems are distorted. It has been confirmed that there are some nationalist users. They're exploiting the split-up of the documents.Bablos939 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

What does "too high" mean? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage#There_are_many_misinterpreting_the_source_about_Chinese_intermarrige.In Latin America, there are only a handful of international marriages among Chinese.However, the content is overly massive. There is even a lot of distortion of the source. In addition, some (maybe) Chinese users are concealing international marriages of their own women.Bablos939 (talk) 15:34, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Do check out the discussion on that page, Beyond My Ken. Bablos939 is engaging in nationalist edit warring and seeking to remove all things about Korean women outmarrying and miscegenating while exclusively only editing about Chinese women in miscegenation. Maomao4321's edits are almost identical to Bablos939. He appears to be double voting to gain concensus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bablos939

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Maomao4321

Watersinfalls (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

This was supposed to be a 1 or 2 advice of help. Many admin and editors had already warned Bablos939 , ignoring other editors including do not insert fringe or undue weight content into articles. He also had 5 revert warning in 24 hours in interracial marriage There should first be a sockpuppet investigation to see if there's Canvassing [[6]] and Wikipedia:False consensus to create support. I also believe he is User_talk:Montalk123 (a editor who makes a lot of Korean nationalistic edit but anti-Chinese edits)

Plenty of false claims Babloss939 keep promoting. Like for example 'the men(Chinese) had almost no contact with local women in Peru." He edited this on wikipedia " There were almost no women among the nearly entirely male Chinese coolie population that migrated to Peru and Cuba. Chinese men had almost no contact with local women in Peru.[40][41] A few Chinese coolie married non-Chinese women.[42]

Wishful thinking just like in how he cherrypicks his book sources. A book source is only realible when is backed by statistic, historical evidence, genetic evidence, physical descents which are million times more realible than a mere text written and self-assumptions claimed by authors.

Are you going to remove the work of a respected editor/ or admin ( I believe he's from Peru ) that edited this in Chinese Peruvians

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DoctorSpeed

He edited this

" Around 20.1% of Peru’s population have at least one Chinese immigrant ancestor (2017) "

You think Chinese men interracial marriage is too high than wait until we add this?

https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Chapter3-Sharp-Power-Rising-Authoritarian-Influence-Peru.pdf

The term, tusan, “refers to children of Chinese parents born in Peru as well as children born of a Chinese father and a Peruvian or mixed race mother1.”

Many of the Chinese immigrants that remain have intermarried with white, black, and mulatto populations, and their children are of mixed races3. Once an island with thousands of people of Chinese descent, Cuba’s Chinese population and the Havana Chinatown is not as lively as it once was.

Other sources'

By Juan Pablo Cardenal1

https://www.panoramas.pitt.edu/health-and-society/chinatown-peru-brief-look-chinese-diaspora-latin-america

" The Tusan are thought to be quite numerous: Up to 2.5 million people, or 8 percent of Peru’s population of 31 million may have Chinese ancestry, according to estimates—about which there is still much debate "

If 20.1% is to high for you ( adding percentages of local Chinese and mixed ) How about 15.0% (although the official number is 20.1%)

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/chinese-laborers-peru-lima-pyramid

Found: The Remains of Chinese Laborers Interred on a Peruvian Pyramid. In the 19th century, 100,000 indentured laborers came to Peru from China.BY SARAH LASKOW AUGUST 25, 2017

"though; today 15 percent of people in the country can trace their ancestry back to Chinese and other Asian migrants from the 19th century ".

15% include the number of people who have part Chinese ancestry.

To think that someone actually believes 15 or 20% of Peruvian with Chinese ancestyr is caused by having no contact or made on by a few marriage with Chinese men is ridicolous and even lack of commonsense. 41.34.45.155 (talk) 01:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

What I think is that if you cannot write and format your thoughts in such a way that they can be read and understood by English-speakiing editors, then they're extremely unlikely to take the time to decode what you're trying to say. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

You may have also felt. Those two Sockpuppet(Watersinfalls/41.34.93.140) are delusional without academic evidence.Those two Sockpuppet are making the same claim and are only participating in this talk at the same time.Those two Sockpuppet always speak of their delusion that has nothing to do with the talk.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interracial_marriage#There_are_many_misinterpreting_the_source_about_Chinese_intermarrige. A)He claims to be a user of each other.Right now 2 editors here (Watersinfalls including me) are confused if ...' B)This talk is about the Chinese international marriage in Latin America and China. However,41.34.93.140/102.44.199.16 suddenly began to comment on Korea, which expressed nationalist feelings and was not related to this talk. C) I invited him to get the UserID. D) 'Watersinfalls' appeared, and suddenly He mentioned a Korean who had nothing to do with talk. The editing method is the same as the IP address. E) 'Sogdian' 'Korea' : These two keywords are not the focus of this talk. It's a crazy word, regardless of the talk. F) However, 'Watersinfalls' and IP are equally referring to the keyword. G) It is unlikely that these two dolls are different characters. H) Also, the two IP and 'Watersinfalls' participate only in this talk, with no other contributions.Bablos939 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Everything is fine. A sockpuppet investigation is under way.

You said " Right now 2 editors here (Watersinfalls including me) are confused if "

I said... Right now 2 editors here. Watersinfalls who accused you first ( that's 1 ) and including me (that's 2) = 2 editors.

Misinterpretation are not needed A investigation to see who's a sockpuppet in underway so let's be patient and wait.What do you mean Keyword "Sogdian" and "Korea". Those are things you don't want people to know and the previous banned sock shows you have similar behaviour. Maomao4321 used the exact same Korean link as you. 1) They all numbers in the end. 2) They all write Chinese women. I believe they all share similar IP locations (possibly either from Korea some close city locations).

As for Peruvian Chinese, I suggest you look at their physical descendants and you will see many Chinese Peruvian look mix between Chinese and Peruvian https://www.ned.org/wp-content/uplo...Power-Rising-Authoritarian-Influence-Peru.pdf

" The first are those who maintain Chinese citizenship and, therefore, have stronger, more direct ties to China; this group includes the descendants of the workers of Cantonese origin who migrated to Peru after 1849, as well as the so-called new migrants—mostly from Fujian province—who have been flowing into the country since the 1980s. The second group are Peruvian citizens born in the countrywith mixed Peruvian-Chinese ancestry, locally known as Tusan.7 The Tusan are thought to be quite numerous: Up to 2.5 million people, or 8 percent of Peru’s population of 31 million may have Chinese ancestry, according to estimates—about whichthere is still much debate.8 "So you're completely wrong about only a few Chinese married. 41.232.35.139 (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)