Talk:Race (human categorization)
Page contents not supported in other languages.
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is thetalk page for discussing improvements to theRace (human categorization) article. This isnot a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies |
| Find sources: Google (books ·news ·scholar ·free images ·WP refs) ·FENS ·JSTOR ·TWL |
Archives (index):1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35Auto-archiving period:2 months  |
 | This page isnot a forum for general discussion aboutRace (human categorization). Any such commentsmay be removed orrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions aboutRace (human categorization) at theReference desk. |
 | Race (human categorization) is aformer featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, checkthe nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
 | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page asToday's featured article on October 26, 2004. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| Current status:Former featured article | |||||||||||||
 | This level-4 vital article is ratedB-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale.It is of interest to multipleWikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Thecontentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article relates tothe intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, a contentious topic. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
 | Arbitration Ruling on Race and Intelligence The articleRace (human categorization), 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:
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. |
 | Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experiencedtrolling. 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 todeny recognition and refer toWP:PSCI,WP:FALSEBALANCE,WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards.Legal threats and trolling are never allowed! |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between29 March 2022 and3 June 2022. Further details are availableon the course page. Student editor(s):WordlyWaleed (article contribs).
In the newest revision of this page (5 July 2024) someone changed "categorization..." to "pseudoscientific categorization..." in the beginning of the article, without changing the rest of the definition or adding references. In my opinion, that is a big claim and should at least be cited, if not removed completely, especially because it's the first thing users see after opening the article. Without proper expansion of that claim, I think it does not belong to this articleWojtek703 (talk)10:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
| OP blocked as a sock. —The Hand That Feeds You:Bite16:44, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
"Modern science regards race as a social construct", in the opening section. This is weasel wording. You have three American sources for this statement. Later in the article international surveys show such an idea is common *only* in America. It's my understanding that American bias should be avoided, especially when claiming to speak for modern science. This sentence should be changed to reflect the lack of international consensus. Something like "The status of race as a biological or social construct continues to be debated."Raffelate (talk)09:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
| WP:NOTFORUM |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed.Please do not modify it. |
The POV of this article (and articles which rely on it) is that "race" doesn't really exist. Skin color, shape of facial features, straightness or curliness of hair, don't really divide humans at all. We're just making it up: it's asocial construct. I think this is an exaggeration, though well intentioned. I believe the purpose of this is to undermine the basis ofracism, particularly racial supremacy. "We are better than you, because you race makes you inherently inferior." While I applaud the effort to undermine racism (indeed, my mother and grandfather did a lot of civil rights work), the assertion that there are no inherited, readily apparent differences between large groups of people is simply oneWP:POV even it has become mainstream in the English-speaking West. We should rather describe the evidence and reasoning of those who wish to destroy the concept of race, instead of tacitly agreeing with them. There are five basic skin colors: black, brown, red, yellow, and white. Whether or not any people of a certain color look down on others with darker or lighter skin doesn't change the fact that people are born with skin color that is inherited from their parents (the theory is that there is a genetic cause for this). People of a given race tend to have a similarculture, and perhaps this is the cause of the difficulty in writing objectively about it (or at least in the NPOV style). No one wants to admit that their culture is responsible for producing unfavorable social outcomes like poverty, ignorance, and crime. Since it can't be race -- because race doesn't even exist! -- it must bediscrimination. Perhaps so, but Wikipedia should not endorse or espouse this view. It should inform our readers about it. Who believes it, and why? --Uncle Ed (talk)14:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
|
%2c_early_1900s%2c_Central_Africa%2c_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo%2c_Pende_people%2c_wood%2c_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG)
