Jump to content

Talk:Scientific racism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2600:1700:6759:b000:1c64:8308:33bc:e2d6 (talk) at 04:40, 22 October 2023. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

RFC (take 2): Thomas Malthus

Does WP:SYNTH prevent inferring the relevance of chattel slavery to "racism" in the context of this article? JBradleyChen (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Over the course of multiple weeks I have drafted and revised a proposed addition to this page on the influence of Thomas Malthus on Scientific racism. While feedback has led to numerous improvements to my draft, we are currently blocked on the assertion that influence of Malthus on chattel slavery is inadequate to establish relevance to this article, due to WP:SYNTH. I have also documented the influence of Malthus on the Irish Potato Famine, Social Darwinism and Eugenics. The other editors similarly reject Eugenics and Social Darwinism and are yet to comment on the Irish Potato Famine.
Some basic concerns with this strict application of WP:SYNTH are:
  • The other editors insist a source use the term "scientific racism" or "racism" directly to avoid WP:SYNTH. This is problematic because these terms are fairly recent (1960. 1902), and also because some scholars question if they are appropriate for scholarly work. 1, 2],
  • The strict application of WP:SYNTH seems inconsistent with the guidance that SYNTH is not a rigid rule. Expecting a source to document that chattel slavery is racism seems akin to documenting that biology is scientific, not a reasonable expectation of a source.
  • Aggressive application of the WP:SYNTH A then B then C pattern doesn't make sense to me. For example:
    • Lassie is a dog, dogs are mammals, Lassie is a mammal.
    • Malthus influenced economics, economics is scholarship, Malthus influenced scholarship.
While the other editors (@NightHeron, @VQuakr, @Snow Rise) concur that WP:SYNTH applies, none have provided an explanation that makes sense to me as to why it applies so strictly here. None have explained the objective criteria for relevance to this page, beyond citing WP policies and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when I identify inconsistencies. I have asked direct and simple questions (e.g. 21:55, 24 May 2023) to enable my understanding, and the other editors seem unwilling to engage. They assert that I am not respecting consensus, and suggest that various WP:XYZ policies that could apply to my behavior.
Consensus is not a popularity contest. Consensus is working constructively and objectively to forge agreements. Is that happening here? JBradleyChen (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've been casually following this conversation but have not felt the need to weigh in because NightHeron, VQuakr, Snow Rise, Jerome Frank Disciple and ScottishFinnishRadish have been doing a fine job of it. These other editors have been tremendously patient, and asking the community to now sink even more time into this is frankly unkind. It is emphatically not that these editors have failed to explain why SYNTH is relevant here, as e.g. NightHeron explains in his latest comment above, but rather that JBradleyChen refuses to accept that consensus is against them. Finally, I will note that the RfC question above makes very little sense to an uninvolved editor. How the question relates to Malthus is only clear by reading through the very long previous discussion. If an RfC were necessary here –– and I don't think it is –– a proper question would be much more concrete (i.e. "Should content X be included?"). I therefore urge JBradleyChen to remove the RfC tag and drop the stick, and barring that for this RfC to be speedily closed. Generalrelative (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per Generalrelative. Volunteer Marek 17:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Not remotely a valid RfC question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close per Generalrelative. As one of those uninvolved editors they mention, this RfC does not make sense and, to be honest, I am kinda disappointed to have been summoned by robot — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you @Volunteer Marek @AndyTheGrump @Generalrelative @OwenBlacker for your feedback on this RFC. I regret the complexity of the above discussion, especially when it became acrimonious. At this point it seems to pivot on a basic question of policy, the applicability of WP:SYNTH, and I was not getting engagement on relatively simple questions, so resolving the applicability of WP:SYNTH with an RFC seemed like an appropriate way to settle the question cleanly and move on.
    I would be open to discussing a better framing for this RFC, if someone has suggestions. If not, it's hard for me to see how a non-trivial question regarding WP:SYNTH would be framed more simply. A reviewer must understand the policy, chattel slavery, racism, and eventually maybe consider the Scientific racism article and references like Hodgson 2009. I wish it were simpler but ultimately these are the elements we are dealing with. JBradleyChen (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
JBradley, I'd like to suggest to you that you really consider Generalrelative's advice to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this matter, at least for the present time. Without entirely disagreeing with those who have, I've been personally loath to describe your persistence here as WP:IDHT, because I do perceive that your continued pushing is based in part in genuine confusion over what synthesis does and does not entail. But at this juncture, it's been explained to you so many times, in so many different ways, and by so many different patient and experienced editors, that the combination of your not yet understanding it, and yet plowing ahead with multiple faulty RfCs debating on how it applies to this article, is eventually going to give others serious WP:CIR concerns about your contributions here. It's understandable that you don't entirely understand the nuances of SYNTH: as I've tried to reassure you a couple of times above, it can take some time. But given your incomplete understanding, maybe it's just time to take what you have been told ad nauseum in the discussions above at face value: the policy does unambiguously apply to the content you want to add here, and you should let this one go, and take a more restrained approach to such question until you develop a more robust understanding of the relevant policies/community consensus, through experience.
Because at some point, you have to ask yourself "If X number of editors have been telling me I'm wrong about the application of a basic content policy for Y amount of time, what are the chances I'm going to find some angle on this that completely changes the consensus?" And I'm not proposing to give you exact metrics for the X and Y variables there--that's something you can come to your own decisions about as you gain experience. But I will say the point where you start to pull back should probably be well before "9 editors over the course of several weeks, with no one supporting my interpretation." And you would have no way of knowing this (and we try to avoid heavy reliance on arguments from authority here anyway), but for what it's worth, you've been talking to some pretty experienced editors here: there's probably somewhere between 100 and 150 years of Wikipedia editing experience between the (at least) nine editors who have engaged with you on this topic, versus your six weeks. So what are the chances that you are correct and we are all wrong about our interpretation of community consensus regarding one of this project's core content policies?
Don't get me wrong, there are definitely times on this project where you have to stick to your guns, the present numbers be damned. But I'd like to submit to you that this isn't one of them, and that your present level of intractability to all feedback, in the context of your present level of experience is just not a tenable way to go about learning how things operate here. You can always come back here in the longterm if you decide we're wrong, but I do think for the present moment we are verging on WP:disruptive territory--and from the sounds of it, some here are convinced we crossed that threshold some time ago. SnowRise let's rap 00:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support speedy close. So here's the thing: as someone who spends a lot of time on this project responding to FRS notices for RfCs, I've noticed a sharp trend in the last few years that others may not be aware of, of calls for procedural closes to RFCs because of trivial concerns about RFCBEFORE or RFCNEUTRAL. Sometimes these come from involved users looking to abuse process to shut down a call for outside perspectives, and sometimes from respondents who are a little too anal about form, and too little considerate of the "get more eyes here" function of the process. So I've become increasingly inclined to look for a reason to keep the discussion open if there is a legitimate one. In this case, I can't make that argument. The problem is JBradleyChen has asked a question that is not in dispute, has an unambiguous answer under policy, and is not relevant to the reasons they have been told their additions are not WP:DUE at this time.
To wit, JBradley's prompt asks whether WP:SYNTH prohibits the inference of a connection between chattel slavery and scientific racism. Well, editors are always at liberty to make whatever personal inferences they wish about the facts, but critically their conclusions have no direct bearing on what content can and cannot be included in an article (WP:Original research). However, even if we charitably reinterpret the question into "Does WP:SYNTH prohibit our implying a connection between chattel slavery and scientific racism in this article?", the answer under policy is clearly "It depends: what do the sources say?" (as has been explained exhaustively above). Not only is the question one which has an answer that has not been in dispute at any point in the immediate discussions regarding the proposed additions, but in fact this article clearly discusses the links between chattel slavery and scientific racism at great length, in several sections. Therefore it is even more abundantly obvious that the question posed is not in dispute and that there is longstanding tacit support for discussing slavery in this article, per connections made by sources and a basic common sense interpretation of WP:DUE.
What JBradley is trying to get at here is whether or not it constitutes synthesis to include reference to a given figure in this article when the sourcing generally does connect him or his works to the subject of this article, but some sources do connect him to other topics and those third topics themselves have connections to the subject of this article. Putting aside for the moment that every single one of the numerous editors responding to this question in the voluminous discussions above has repeatedly said "Yes, this is textbook synthesis." (and I think there are nine such editors at this point), the fact of the matter is that even if that question didn't have established consensus at this juncture, it still is not the question asked in JBC's prompt. Therefore there's not really an option but to procedurally close this, as the stated question is not in dispute and any answers will be a waste of the time of respondents who could be answering another FRS notice that will be displaced by the request to comment here. Now, I don't know if there is a remaining patience to indulge in JBC taking yet another bite at this apple any time soon. I tend to doubt it, but that question has no bearing on whether this is a valid RfC inquiry: it's simply not. SnowRise let's rap 23:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; I acknowledge the voices in unison here, and apologize for not making better use of your time. Unfortunately, none of the RFC respondents have responded to the substance of my question, and so I am still stumped as to how to apply WP:SYNTH in cases such as:
  • sources that date before the terms "racism" or "scientific racism" were in use
  • whether I can infer "scientific" from "biology", and if so, why it's different from inferring "racist" from "slavery"
  • how to apply the WP guidance SYNTH is not a rigid rule on this page.
  • why it is reasonable to expect a scholar writing of chattel slavery to clarify that it is relevant to racism
I thought an RFC would help me get some understanding, but that doesn't seem to be working out. JBradleyChen (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of an article-page RfC isn't to help a specific contributor gain 'understanding'. It is to determine broader consensus regarding specific clearly-outlined proposed article content, based upon the interpretation of contributors as a whole of relevant policy etc. This RfC fails to actually ask any such question. To be blunt, if you are having difficulty understanding how Wikipedia understands synthesis with regards to this matter, after all this time, after multiple attempts to explain it to you, that really isn't our problem. There is absolutely no requirement that consensus be unanimous. I'd strongly advise you to simply accept that you aren't going to get your way here, and find something else to work on. With broader experience you'll be in a better position to ask questions about the details. Or perhaps to decide that Wikipedia isn't for you, if you are unwilling to accept that you don't always get your own way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
sources that date before the terms "racism" or "scientific racism" were in use generally, more modern sources will exist if it's a widespread viewpoint. Use those, with historic perspectives pulled in sparingly and as support not the main sources for the article.
whether I can infer "scientific" from "biology", and if so, why it's different from inferring "racist" from "slavery" biology is a subset of science. Slavery is an economic and social system that has often but not always involved elements of racism. The two pairs of terms are not equivalent.
how to apply the WP guidance SYNTH is not a rigid rule don't. It's not an oft-cited page; stick to policies and guidelines for the foreseeable future.
why it is reasonable to expect a scholar writing of chattel slavery to clarify that it is relevant to racism I don't think that's a standard currently applied to the article or one that's been applied in the discussion above.

there's a definite change in the demeanor of the room with the responses to this RFC. The community is unanimously noting that enough time has been spent on this. It's time for you to show that you can respect a clearly-voiced decision even if you disagree with it by moving on to work on something else. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I've taken the unusual (but, it seems, necessary) step of removing the RfC tag myself: without disagreeing in the least with your appraisal that there is consensus to wrap this discussion up more broadly, at least for the present time, I note also that this is a procedural action regarding this RfC only: there is firm consensus that the RfC prompt is invalid, cannot be usefully engaged with via respondents, and is therefor a waste of notices that could be directing contributors to discussions where they can provide useful feedback. SnowRise let's rap 22:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"[I] apologize for not making better use of your time. @JBradleyChen: To be clear, it's not the amount of time being expended, it's the manner. Honestly, I for one would be happy to continue to try to explain the nuances of the policy here for a while longer, if you genuinely think there's any benefit in it to you. But the problem is that you don't seem to just be looking for elucidation, but also want to continue pressing forward full bore with pressing for your preferred version, using processes inappropriately (not through intentional disruption, but just poor understanding of what you are doing), and just sucking in more and more engagement from and more users as a consequence of these actions.
Now you're permitted to make requests of additional eyes here, but there comes a point where it becomes necessary, once you've had the benefit of those eyes and everyone is saying the same thing, to accept consensus. If you still genuinely can't decipher some of the subtleties of synth, we're not gonna drop you like a hot potato. Although, it might be prudent to move that further discussion to a user talk page. Or, honestly, just backing off from the question altogether, letting it percolate, and getting experience seeing it applied on other articles may be the best way forward. Whatever you choose, please feel free to ask additional questions of me, if I can be of help. But let's maybe avoid further RfCs for now. SnowRise let's rap 23:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Acknowledged. Thank you @VQuakr for closing the RFC. If anybody has interesting examples of WP:SYNTH that I might review to improve my understanding of this policy they would be welcome. JBradleyChen (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of scientific racism

The first sentence should make it clear that attempting to "prove" the existence of races is scientific racism:

https://brill.com/display/book/9789004444836/BP000085.xml?alreadyAuthRedirecting

Scientific racism is the pseudo-scientific belief that there is a biological basis for the historical divisions of people into distinct racial groups.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=07SBAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA67&dq=info:7yyU90nJVfIJ:scholar.google.com/&ots=FgmuruCKvN&sig=j3vbOsBh5OLwoc1bTmNkhIvn4_A#v=onepage&q&f=false

Scientific racism refers, broadly speaking, to the notion that biological characteristics exist which are homogenous within a specific human collectivity and heterogeneous across several collectivities such that human species can be broadly subdivided

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687899/

scientific racism is a scientific tradition in which biology is used not only to prove the existence of race, but also, to maintain existing social hierarchies. Darmzy (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, your second attempt reads better. Thanks. I just made a minor copy-edit. NightHeron (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is CRT a political or intellectual movement?

It says at the top of the page: ""Race theory" redirects here. For the intellectual movement and framework, see Critical race theory."

I thought CRT was a political movement more than an intellectual one, although of course it has both political and intellectual aspects. Your thoughts would be most welcome. Polar Apposite (talk) 05:34, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's an interdisciplinary academic framework for analysis, as explained in the well-sourced article Critical race theory. Like several other academic areas (e.g., environmental science, epidemiology) the conclusions of CRT research can often lead to changes in policy and have political consequences. NightHeron (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The title mystifies

Why isn't this article titled "pseudo-scientific racisms" (plural, because it's not one continuous ideological bloc or conspiracy)? None of the stuff being discussed here is in the least bit scientific. Then there should be a re-direct for those who search for "scientific racism" that causes them to land here under "pseudo-scientific racism". Why would Wikipedia want anyone to believe that racism can be scientific?

Beliefs IN ANY FIELD, about ANY PHENOMENA, are not scientific if they contain any value-judgments whatsoever. You may believe that the reason cheetahs have speed and teeth is "because evolution is always seeking to make a better cheetah". If you believe that, you're an un-scientific fool. The true and scientific explanation is that evolution and nature don't care about what they make, and that slow cheetahs without teeth have been born. But, because they never get to eat anything, slow toothless cheetahs never live long enough to have children, and so the genes for slow speed and no teeth do not get passed on throughout the species's gene-pool in subsequent generations. Evolution is a RESULT, never a CAUSE, and certainly not a "purpose". The difference between a fast razor-toothed cheetah and a slow toothless one isn't that the former is "better" and the "latter" is worse. It's that the former will eat and pass on its genes, and the latter won't. But the latter cheetah's inabilities to either avoid starvation or create children don't make it "a worse cheetah". To say that would be to assume, without scientific justification, that the "purpose" of a cheetah is to eat and pass on its genes. No. Cheetahs try DO that, but it's not their PURPOSE, any more than each raindrop intends to act in concert with others to cause a flood. The reason that "in some cases two humans have unequal merits" isn't scientific is NOT "because all humans have equal merits". Rather, it's unscientific because it assumes that we can define "merit" without resting that definition on some a-priori snuck-in tacit assumption that already defines "merit". "Taller humans are better" assumes, tacitly, that "to be taller is to be better", which is just an assertion with no proof. WHY is taller better? There's no reason, except for reasons that rest on some OTHER a-priori assumption that something is better than something else. And so it goes, in a chain of infinite regression. But at least we CAN measure height, objectively. "Smarter humans are better" makes not only the "taller" mistake but makes yet ANOTHER error in that it assumes we can measure "smartness" just as we can measure height. We can't. There are so many variables involved in smartness that real life is the only valid IQ test. If you can have the life you want, you may be smart, but are you smarter than someone who CAN'T get the life they want? It's hard to see how you could verify that, because using real life as a valid IQ test would require you have to remove all variables EXCEPT what's in the person's head, and you can't do that. Someone may have been born to refugee parents in a war zone, and that might be why they can't get the education they want, and that in turn might be why they can't get the lifestyle they want. It's impossible to say unless you can run the experiment called "life" dozens of times over on the same person with all variables controlled, which is of course impossible. Belief in the superiority of ANYTHING such as one jet engine over another contains one or both of these fallacies.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

Why would you omit any mention of Leonard Jeffries's scientific views?

Why would you omit any mention of Leonard Jeffries's "scientific" beliefs that melanin confers superiority, that white people are "ice people", and that black people are "sun people"?. Charles Darwin said that black people had an inborn tendency towards friendliness and affability exceeding that of any other peoples he knew. This very article says that Arthur Schopenhauer believed that the punishing climate of icy regions vs. the abundance of food and warmth in tropical regions could have shaped the psychologies of whites and blacks. If white people have been shaped by centuries of adapting to the need to fight other people for food and shelter while black people for centuries got all that they needed without combat, Jeffries could be correct. If you're going to include Darwin and Schopenhauer, why not Jeffries's work that is in the same vein and equally unscientific?2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 04:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Scientific_racism&oldid=1181297109"