68.98.172.64 (talk) |
Flyer22 Frozen (talk | contribs) Undid revision 623182591 by 68.98.172.64 (talk) Unless you are that editor, don't change the comment. |
||
Line 77: | Line 77: | ||
::::::Note that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_%28human_classification%29&curid=25931&diff=623034979&oldid=622999745 with this talk page edit summary], WeijiBaikeBianji stated, "Many sources support 'sociopolitical construct,' including official publications of the United States Census." I'll leave this wording of the lead matter to WeijiBaikeBianji and others. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
::::::Note that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Race_%28human_classification%29&curid=25931&diff=623034979&oldid=622999745 with this talk page edit summary], WeijiBaikeBianji stated, "Many sources support 'sociopolitical construct,' including official publications of the United States Census." I'll leave this wording of the lead matter to WeijiBaikeBianji and others. [[User:Flyer22|Flyer22]] ([[User talk:Flyer22|talk]]) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
:::::::There is no shortage of sources on social construction, just a quick google scholar search sorts that out. As I mentioned the issue is the lead almost institutionalize race like if it was nomenclature or solid as periodic tables. Race is very subjective and the race-biology position is a dying position. --[[User:Inayity|Inayity]] ([[User talk:Inayity|talk]]) 16:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
:::::::There is no shortage of sources on social construction, just a quick google scholar search sorts that out. As I mentioned the issue is the lead almost institutionalize race like if it was nomenclature or solid as periodic tables. Race is very subjective and the race-biology position is a dying position. --[[User:Inayity|Inayity]] ([[User talk:Inayity|talk]]) 16:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
(Outdent). I'm puzzled by Flyer22's reasoning that academic sources constitute less of a RS than...what, exactly? |
(Outdent). I'm puzzled by Flyer22's reasoning that academic sources constitute less of a RS than...what, exactly? If using "sociopolitical construct" in the lead starts an edit war, that doesn't by definition impugn the term's POV so much as those who dispute it. All that matters is what RS say on the subject. I'm new here, but doesn't Wiki recognize a reliability hierarchy according to which peer-reviewed academic sources are the most authoritative? There is certainly tons of literature on the subject, and I'll start reviewing Weji's resource list, but because of this, source quality seems especially important to consider. Inayity is correct that the concept of race as some kind of biological marker amenable to discrete classification like elements within the periodic table is extremely dated among both hard & social science scholars, as well as those within clinical medicine. Surely many lay folks disagree, which is a perspective worth discussion, but not legitimization in Wiki's own voice, per preponderance of the most reliable sources. [[User:AgentOrangeTabby|AgentOrangeTabby]] ([[User talk:AgentOrangeTabby|talk]]) 21:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC) |
||
==Dubious statement in lead== |
==Dubious statement in lead== |
Revision as of 14:50, 28 August 2014
![]() | Race (human categorization) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | ||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 26, 2004. | ||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Former featured article |
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Rewrite draft
In my user space I am drafting an outline for a restructuring of the article. Feel free to comment at its talkpage. You will notice that it in contrast with the current version it doesnt treat the constructivism/biology debate as the main focus, but includes the extensive literature on inequality and on racial history. Really the biology debate accounts for a rather small part of the global literature on race.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting us know. That looks like a good start to a much improved article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
- +1 Although I have worked on the biological race debate, I agree that the article should be restructured and that your draft looks very promising. I'd also be happy to give you feedback on your draft. --David Ludwig (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Weaselword
[...] "in the 17th century, people began to use the term to relate to observable physical traits."
What people? The Chinese? The Hindus? The Eskimos? The Europeans, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.253.73.146 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Single word change in lede?
I'm sure that over the course of 36 archived pages the lede terminology has been exhaustively parsed, BUT...I must ask since I've studied critical race theory quite a bit: Have folks here ever considered referring to "race" as "a sociopolitical construct" rather than "a system of classification" in the first lede sentence? I can cite abundant reliable academic sources defining "race" as the former, while the latter terminology strikes me as a little colloquial for an encyclopedic entry. And is it really accurate to define "race" as "a system" of anything? The term "system" implies some kind of objective or at least consensus-based criteria, whereas all the possible qualifiers of racial identity are not systematized in the least. Since determinants of race are in fact quite arbitrary and contested, it seems more accurate to define it terms of the fluid "sociopolitical construct" that it is. Hope that makes some sense! AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- We should go with what the reliable sources say, per Wikipedia content guidelines. What sources do you have in mind? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
- By far the most widely-cited source in academia that argues the sociopolitical fluidity rather than empirical basis of racial identity is an article by RC Lowentin, published in 1995 in the journal Evolutionary Biology, entitled "The Apportionment of Race." Abstract: http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-9063-3_14).
- Another seminal paper arguing the arbitrariness of "race" as a concept is entitled, "The conceptualization of racial identity and other 'racial' constructs," by JE Helms et al. in the 1994 text Human diversity: Perspectives on people in context (part of the Jossey-Bass social and behavioral science series., pp. 285-311, San Francisco, CA, US: Jossey-Bass, xxii, 486 pp.). Link to its abstract: http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1994-98838-013.
- From a public health standpoint, the following influential article published in the American Journal of of Public Health in 2000 argues that any attempt to aggregate & analyze statistical data by "race" is inherently problematic & doomed to futility due to conceptual irregularities and lack of empirical criteria justifying racial distinctions in any context but sociopolitical: http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/pdf/10.2105/AJPH.88.9.1297.
- I could go on, and would be happy to, but those sources are the biggies for folks in clinical medicine and the social sciences. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 23:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding this edit, I don't see anything wrong with "classification system." Plenty of WP:Reliable sources refer to race as that, and "a sociopolitical construct" sounds too POV; by "too POV," I mean that it is bound to cause WP:Edit wars, especially with regard to those who first and foremost argue that race is biological. We should weigh the sources and give especial WP:Due weight to what the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources state, not to "[b]y far the most widely-cited source in academia." Flyer22 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- It will be helpful to specify sources here. I have a source list for Wikipedians in my user space, compiled over several years with suggestions from fellow Wikipedians, and on the particular point at issue here, it will be helpful to see what those and other sources say. Who has specific citations that are on-point with the issue being discussed in this talk page section? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:46, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Regarding this edit, I don't see anything wrong with "classification system." Plenty of WP:Reliable sources refer to race as that, and "a sociopolitical construct" sounds too POV; by "too POV," I mean that it is bound to cause WP:Edit wars, especially with regard to those who first and foremost argue that race is biological. We should weigh the sources and give especial WP:Due weight to what the vast majority of WP:Reliable sources state, not to "[b]y far the most widely-cited source in academia." Flyer22 (talk) 09:19, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note that with this talk page edit summary, WeijiBaikeBianji stated, "Many sources support 'sociopolitical construct,' including official publications of the United States Census." I'll leave this wording of the lead matter to WeijiBaikeBianji and others. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- There is no shortage of sources on social construction, just a quick google scholar search sorts that out. As I mentioned the issue is the lead almost institutionalize race like if it was nomenclature or solid as periodic tables. Race is very subjective and the race-biology position is a dying position. --Inayity (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
- Note that with this talk page edit summary, WeijiBaikeBianji stated, "Many sources support 'sociopolitical construct,' including official publications of the United States Census." I'll leave this wording of the lead matter to WeijiBaikeBianji and others. Flyer22 (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
(Outdent). I'm puzzled by Flyer22's reasoning that academic sources constitute less of a RS than...what, exactly? If using "sociopolitical construct" in the lead starts an edit war, that doesn't by definition impugn the term's POV so much as those who dispute it. All that matters is what RS say on the subject. I'm new here, but doesn't Wiki recognize a reliability hierarchy according to which peer-reviewed academic sources are the most authoritative? There is certainly tons of literature on the subject, and I'll start reviewing Weji's resource list, but because of this, source quality seems especially important to consider. Inayity is correct that the concept of race as some kind of biological marker amenable to discrete classification like elements within the periodic table is extremely dated among both hard & social science scholars, as well as those within clinical medicine. Surely many lay folks disagree, which is a perspective worth discussion, but not legitimization in Wiki's own voice, per preponderance of the most reliable sources. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 21:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Dubious statement in lead
"Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete,[5] and generally discourage racial explanations for collective differentiation in both physical and behavioral traits." The only known survey on the question put a majority supporting a partially genetic reason for group performance differences. Writing your POV and adding a couple of cherry picked individuals to support you violates NPOV. ColonelAnguish (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
- Come again about the "only known survey" and how it "put a majority supporting a" where or what? Just trying to understand the exact objection and how or why it violates NPOV. AgentOrangeTabby (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)