Talk:Scientific racism

This isn't related to scientific theories - advocacy issues

The Christian Bible was interpreted to sanction slavery and from the 1820s to the 1850s was often used in the antebellum Southern United States, by writers such as the Rev. Richard Furman and Thomas R. Cobb, to enforce the idea that Negroes had been created inferior, and thus suited to slavery.[61]

1. This isn't related to science. The source backs it up. But the source doesn't speak of science here. But if you read the source further, it does actually deal with "christianity+science" here instead

There was a growing movement in America shortly before the Civil War, as pressure against slavery was increasing, to justify slavery not just with scripture [edit: this refers to 1820-1850], but also with so-called "science". At this time, however, most biologists, known then as naturalists, were theologically trained. Biology was still considered to be a Biblically based study of "the creation" before Darwin came along.

This doesn't say 1820-1850 (it explicitly says that was only with regards to scripture!). I believe this should be understood as 1850-1860. By the way, this is just my insight, literal reading among intellectuals of the Bible was dropped long ago at this point in time - so far as science was produced by interpretting the bible at this point in time, it would have been considered fringe (due to standards that arose in the Enlightment Age). If you read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_biology there is no mention of the bible. 2. The source is also questionable and fails WP:RSSELF anyway, appears to be advocacy material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.237.80.141 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yo, I'm the same person, by the way, back in days the paragraph looked like this: [...] Unilinealism depicting a progression from primitive human societies to industrialised civilisation became popular amongst philosophers including Friedrich Hegel, Immanuel Kant and Auguste Comte, and fitted well with the Christian belief of a divine Creation following which all of humanity descended from the same Adam and Eve. In contrast, polygenist theory alleged that there were different origins of mankind, thus making it possible to conceive of different, biological, human races, or to classify other humans as akin to animals without rights. Early scientific racist theories such as Arthur Gobineau's An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races (1853-1855) were mostly decadent in that they did not believe in the possibility of "improvement of the race." The text marked with fat was removed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Scientific_racism&diff=prev&oldid=180954538 . Later a year after and fitted well with the Christian belief of a divine Creation following which all of humanity descended from the same Adam and Eve. was removed as well here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.214.100.36 . So the entire paragraph was kinda washed from any information that could put christianity in a positive light and replaced with information that could put christianity in a negative light. So it clearly appears like there is some anti-christianity advocacy going on here, especially because the new passage at the end of the paragraph has no ground (nor relevance). I have no idea whether it's worth to insert the christianity-friendly information back. My opinion is that we should have in mind that this is about scientific racism, not religious (anti)racism (otherwise we could go on talking about the christian abolitionism in the Roman Empire, etc.). The paragraph should definitely be fixed.130.225.188.131 (talk) 19:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

dave souza, hey, I'm a bit confused 130.225.188.131 (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that you're a bit confused, but your comments lack clear proposals for article improvement. The statement you're commenting on seems to me to be entirely appropriate as context. . . dave souza, talk 20:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Change article title. Use of the term "scientific" in the title is misleading

Imagine that you are a young child reading this article. It is the first time you read about racism, and you click on this article. There is nothing scientific about scientific racism. The better title would be pseudoscientific racism. The use of "scientific" in the article's title is not only wrong, but perpetuates the idea that somehow the illegal practice of racism can be scientific, and thus it takes on the prestige and validity that stems from scientific knowledge and inquiry. DTMGO (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It's a scholarly term, and a child is unlikely to accidentally click here looking for 'racism'. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It is widely known that children look at Wikipedia when doing homework.

Furthermore, this idea is as ridiculous as saying:

scientific sexism

scientific holocaust denial

scientific astrology

scientific flat earth theory

Can we at least add some chapter discussing about naming issues, what has been said by reputable sources about this issue of naming scientific (adverb) something that is not scientific.

This is like saying I have a blue car, but in reality, my car is yellow. You should not call racism scientific. This is a public ongoing debate. Can we add content on that ? DTMGO (talk) 20:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Are any of the examples you listed actually commonly used scholarly terms? If not then your analogy isn't valid. We already clearly define the term in the lead sentence of the article. This issue isn't uncommon and is covered by policy in WP:POVNAME. VQuakr (talk) 20:53, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

So do you agree that I can add content in this article covering the public debate of the name or naming of the concept "scientific racism"? DTMGO (talk) 21:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

You don't need anyone's permission per WP:BOLD. Since specific proposed changes or relevant sources haven't been provided, I don't have an opinion. From a WP:WEIGHT standpoint it's hard for me to imagine that we'd want to devote much space to it though. VQuakr (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

It's the WP:COMMON WP:ENGLISH name for this article's topic and has to be used for it.

On the other hand, your concerns aren't invalid and I'm completely in support of using snear quotes around "scientific" in this context in the title and all the way down the article. — LlywelynII 00:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with marring the article with sarcastic quote marks. As the lead makes plain, scientific racism is based on real science; the pseudoscience comes in with the belief that empirical evidence can be interpreted as supporting sweeping, erroneous generalizations about race (the irony there, of course, being that race itself is notoriously poorly defined). Iskandar323 (talk) 03:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

"Scientific racism is based on real science; ... " If science is in its essence about finding new knowledge, then there is no real science in scientific racism. Because there is nothing to be found. Nothing has been found. DTMGO (talk) 10:11, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

User talk:LlywelynII I second this. Great idea. DTMGO (talk) 10:12, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

We are obviously not going to insert MOS:SCAREQUOTES into the article. VQuakr (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

So newtonian physics is not science according to you. There is no reason to deny the history. 130.225.188.130 (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Huh? VQuakr (talk) 21:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Newton physics were wrong. Well, not if certain variables are isolated (considered as a "subset"), but as it originally was posited, it was wrong. But we don't call Newtonian physics pseudoscience by that reason. @DTMGO OP, wants to rewrite the history of science because the scientific community was wrong about some dangerous theories. Sad, yeah, but that's how it was. Eugenics were mainstream science back then. We understand history on its own premises, not on the premises of 2020. 176.22.160.62 (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

The comparison is wrong. Newton's mechanics were based on carefully planned experiments and his theories are still correct, only that Einstein and Heisenberg taught us their limits. Scientific racism was based on racist prejudice and those scientists just found what they had been searching for ("My race is superior"). That's why it was pseudoscientific, not scientific. But since WP:COMMONNAME applies here, we shouldn't change the title. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:48, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

No, Newton was practicing science. He came up with a model that fit available experimental data. That isn't relevant to the subject of this article, which is about racism under the guise of science. VQuakr (talk) 19:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

@Rsk6400, @VQuakr, neither of you are reading history on its own terms. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 19:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

K. VQuakr (talk) 23:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:BIAS

Obviously, as France's tilting against le wokisme likes to highlight, this field of study is—like English Wiki itself—dominated by Anglos prone to particularly intense sessions of naval gazing. That doesn't mean that we should allow the main articles—by WP:UNDUE focus or omission—to act like this was a US/UK joint project with French accompaniment that barely involved the rest of the world. Pseudoscientific racial essentialism is as old as civilization and has had proponents from the Greeks to the Indians to the Sinosphere. It didn't magically pop out of the British and French Enlightenment's head like a misbegotten Athena. It also wasn't principally (let alone solely) developed within French, English, and American sources.

People have put a lot of work into this but, when important figures like Oscar Peschel go entirely omitted but early modern Scottish jurists show up essentially just for repeating a belief in Genesis, there's still more work to be done. (More contentious, but I do think that a short paragraph is necessary ahead of the Enlightenment going through the general tendency of premodern religious cosmologies—which science initially tries to quantify and help prove—towards racial essentialism and hierarchies with links to the more important examples like the Brahmin caste and the 'division of the world' by the children of Noah in Genesis). — LlywelynII 00:45, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. Readable prose length is currently 65kB; there's room to grow. This is currently a C-class article. It has been assessed as "substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup." VQuakr (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Not touching a topic like this with a 10 ft pole. I get enough edit wars as it is trying to get random Spaniards to accept their own sources already in their own articles that the Tordesillas Meridian was never accurately defined, let alone measured, let alone implemented. Removing blocks of cited text in articles on "justified" racism is an entirely different level.

I'll still lay a marker and start the discussion about where things should be headed next, though. — LlywelynII 01:22, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

This isn't an article about racial theories or racial essentialism in general, past or present; it is about the misuse of science at the interpretive phase of the analysis (of empirical information) to produce pseudoscientific results, so no, not just any racist bunk from the past or present should be here, and it is post-enlightenment because that is when empirical science and racism intersect. Iskandar323 (talk) 03:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Between Renaissance/Chinese natural philosophy and early modern "science" (which they still called natural philosophy), that's just a game of moving goalposts to keep your Scotsmen (im)pure and at least needs to lay out its criteria and background more clearly than it presently does. Thanks for so clearly giving @VQuakr: an example of the strident my-opinion-as-pure-fact attitudes* that are common with the topic and why rebuilds require very slow consensus building to avoid pointless edit warring. (*I get that you very sincerely believe there's a clean line when people stop using ſ and talking about transmutation in print when this topic 'naturally' starts. Like I said, I disagree and think better context is called for. Alternatively, which I don't support, most of the current text in the article needs to be expunged because they were wearing wigs but not actually using carefully done studies or any form of what we consider modern science to meet the guideline you're advocating.) — LlywelynII 04:10, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: Unfortunately, you took a few leaps there. I don't care about any Scotsmen. I repeated the information that is already present, sourced, in the lead. It is the claim in this talk that the subject is missing vital aspects that is currently sitting out there naked and unsourced. I can cite literally any source I choose to make my point, but let's take this: The Origins of Scientific Racism - it starts with Darwinism and evolution. Quelle surprise. The point is that scientific racism is a defined thing that does not simply extend ad hoc and at whim to random aspects of pre-enlightenment bunk about the Bible or modern-day Brahmin fantasies, though I do agree that what is lacking here is a timely update of the ongoing outlets for scientific racism in the contemporary period. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:58, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Bernier and Boyle and various others from among the early enlightenment figures with a fondness for dabbling in racial theory seem like rather borderline examples. It is unclear how far their 'empiricism' went, and there may be some WP:SYNTH here with a range of garden variety European racists being introduced into the mix. I can certainly see a paucity of sources directly connecting many of these individuals with the term "Scientific Racism", which, given the literature, needn't be missing. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

The "antecedents" section generally seems rather overblown. All of this is essentially "background" and not the main 1800s topic itself, and might actually be better off in a separate article on Racial theory in the Enlightenment or something similar, although there are sources that can just about tie the two together and justify the inclusion for now, e.g. Revisiting Enlightenment racial classification: time and the question of human diversity: "The Enlightenment is commonly held accountable for the rise of both racial classification and modern scientific racism." But this is essentially the "History of X" equivalent stuff ready to be hived off later. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:32, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Nice summation

Speaking of, this review of Peschel provides an excellent summary of the intellectual problems involved in this endeavor:

Language, myths, habits, clothing, ornaments, weapons, are described in detail, while we are left without any sufficient information as to the stature, bodily proportions, features, and broad mental characteristics of many important groups of men. The reason is obvious. The former class of facts can be readily obtained by passing travellers; while the latter require the systematic observation of an intelligent resident and more or less skilled anthropologist, and can only be arrived at by means of careful measurements and long-continued observations. It is not sufficiently considered that in almost every part of the world there is more or less intermixture of races, brought about by various causes--as slavery, war, trade, and accidental migrations. Hence in many cases the passing traveller is altogether deceived as to the characters of the race, and any observations he may make are of little value. It is only by a long residence among a people, by travelling through the whole district they inhabit, and by a more or less accurate knowledge of the surrounding tribes with whom they may be intermixed, that the observer is enabled to disentangle the complexities they present, and determine with some approach to accuracy the limits of variation of the pure or typical race. Unfortunately this has yet been done in comparatively few cases; but anthropologists are now becoming impressed with its importance, and we may soon hope to obtain a body of trustworthy materials, which may enable us to determine, with more confidence than is yet possible, the characters and the affinities of many of the best marked races of mankind.

the mistake of course being that he should've been more open to the possibilities of those long-term studies and careful measurements finding no meaningful differences after adjusting for childhood nutrition, stimulation during early development, &c. and the concept of a "pure or typical race" being either a null set or a game of no true Scotsman. In any case, it could be used for sourcing here and in other articles that some people at the time realized most of the problems that seem so clear to us while still not quite being able to get through to the other side, generally except in religious contexts. — LlywelynII 04:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Recognizing Egalitarian Contributions

This article seems homogeneously negative, but it doesn't need to be. I have two specific suggestions to address the negativity:

• recognize that, in terms of historical context, practically all scholarship was racist until the end of the 18th century.
• recognize scholars who concretely enabled scholarship to replace racism with an egalitarian foundation.

As it stands, this article promotes negativity and cynicism for science that degrades all of scholarship in a wholesale fashion. This feeds popular cynicism about scholarship and truth that negatively impacts egalitarian society.

Regarding historical context: This page enumerates a huge collection of scholars that contribute to the perpetuation of racist beliefs. Given that that practically all relevant scholarship was racist through the end of the 18th century, tagging such scholarship as 'racism' is not always a meaningful distinction. It risks unfairly condemning some who were mere participants in the primitive state of period science. While this may be unavoidable, to a degree, readers would benefit from a disclaimer regarding said risk. Maintainers of this material should also seek to understand and clarify between dishonest manipulation of science, in contrast to science that was racist because it built from a context laced with racist components, but without deliberate scientific dishonesty. It should establish a clear standard for whether it assumes scientists act in good faith, and if so how it determines that evidence of bad faith is sufficient for documentation here. Casual references to historic scholars without robust evidence of bad faith is particularly unfair and unfortunate, given such scholars have no ability to defend their reputation.

Towards constructing the positive narrative, it seems there are a set of scholars who are easily identified as advancing the foundation of non-racist science and scholarship. In particular, I would document

• Galileo. His refusal to subordinate to religious doctrine regarding geocentrism was a pivotal point in giving standing to science as an alternative to religious authority as a source of truth. Also probably Newton and Bacon.
• Immanuel Kant. His Categorical Imperative articulated a secular notion of morality. This liberated morality from religious doctrine. It established that rights and duties apply to all rational beings, challenging the notion of his contemporaries that rights apply only to a restricted subset of humans such as white males. Kant also challenged his peers by asserting that all human races were derived from a single species, in opposition to popular theories regarding divine creation of races or distinct species for certain races.
• Charles Darwin. I believe his theory of Evolution enabled science to understand an alternative for creation of a species to divine act.
• The whole lineage of scholars who contributed to our understanding of DNA and molecular genetics.

I am sure there are many more scientists, some who may have held racist beliefs, but who were critical in enabling science to escape from a primitive, ignorant, racist state and enable the possibility of egalitarian science that modern society properly deserves and demands. If the community supporting this page is supportive I would be happy to help get things started, but I am a computer scientist by training and definitely not enough of a historian to own this project.

Separately, this article would also benefit from a discussion of the history of the term "scientific racism": when it was introduced as a concept, by whom, to what ends, and how it has impacted scholarship.

JBradleyChen (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

To begin addressing these concerns, I propose to add "Background" and "Etymology" sections to this article. See my draft here:

User:JBradleyChen/sandbox#Scientific Racism JBradleyChen (talk) 23:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 @VQuakr @LlywelynII @Dave souza @PatrickJWelsh Please note proposed updates to article wiki/Scientific_Racism JBradleyChen (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

@JBradleyChen: I suggest starting where sources that provide an overview of the subject start, e.g.The Origins of Scientific Racism. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:37, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for directing me to that reference. It seems representative of the overall problem, although I need to evaluate to what degree the problem is the article (Scientific_Racism) vs. my perception of the article.

Jackson and Weidman 2005 explains how Darwin's work was used by scientific racists. That I accept. What I find more problematic is organizing our discussion around Darwin's name, when the fact is the scientific racists would have happily started with whatever the predominant theory happened to be. Seems to me we could explain scientific racism without defaming the scientists who were actually competent. JBradleyChen (talk) 15:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi J, respectfully, I don't think most of your suggestions will be successful, at least not as they currently stand.

This article isn't about the idea of scientists being racist (or not) or being good (or not), but about a phenomenon, specifically: the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Personally, I believe it should remain that way.

Being neutral does not mean being positive; your proposal puts an incredible amount of undue weight on scientists who have very little to do with the pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority, especially by taking attention off the adherents of scientific racism. We do not need to give equal attention to racist and non-racist scientists when discussing racist scientists.

That being said, the etymology of the term would be helpful. I'm not sure if there's a need for a "Background" section, as that should be covered in the lead. If (some of) this content is included, I think it should be put in its appropriate section (such as putting Kant in #Monogenism and polygenism) to avoid a simplistic "criticisms" section. Wracking ^💬 23:39, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Wracking for the feedback. I will consider your feedback on neutrality, although I'm not sure I understand. If the page were simply about scientific racism in a static sense, your feedback would make more sense. As it stands it is about the history of scientific racism, and emphasizes one side of the history, so seems at odds with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and risks leaving a reader feeling cynical about science. If you are thinking of other articles which similarly have a two-sided history and present only one side I would like to consider them. Also, the failure to mention figures such as Douglass and Comas seem like critical omissions. But I'm fairly new here and am still learning my way around.

Even individuals who argued against racism in their times, such as Benjamin Rush, are lampooned for their mistaken beliefs, despite there being no better science at the time to believe. Rush has no opportunity to defend his reputation. Even if every fact in the article is correct, selecting a biased set of facts is not neutral. JBradleyChen (talk) 00:49, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

The article is not about the history of scientific racism, though– it's about scientific racism (per the title!), and includes discussion of modern scientific racism.

I don't think it's "selecting a biased set of facts" to report specifically on the adherents of a certain ideology in the article about that ideology. Could there be more information about their dissidents? Maybe, but as NightHeron pointed out, sources (specifically secondary sources) are needed to make these connections.

References aren't just to point Wikipedia readers where to go (and you can't reference a Wikipedia article), but also to prove that you didn't just make it up. For example, are there reliable, independent, secondary sources that discuss Galileo's connection to scientific racism?

(Also wanna note that, like you, I'm just a Wikipedia editor, and a fairly new one at that. This is just my two cents.) Wracking ^💬 03:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the feedback, and need to give this some thought. I know I can be prickly sometime. I'm sorry about that. JBradleyChen (talk) 07:10, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

No hard feelings at all! Wracking ^💬 16:48, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

In your proposed "Background" section the first two paragraphs are unsourced (except for a citation of Kant). There's a big problem of WP:OR in your proposed additions and also in your statements above (e.g., about the roles of Kant and Darwin). In the "Etymology" section the displayed quote by B.-H. Meir, although it's only 1 sentence, manages to use 4 terms that are incomprehensible to me and probably most wikipedians: orthodox-hieratic, bibliocratic, ancilla mysterii, and dialectical materialism. I have no idea what Meir is saying. NightHeron (talk) 23:45, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. Apologies for not providing sources; that obviously must be addressed before editing the article, although I was unsure how much sourcing I should do here when the proper course for the reader would be to refer to the main article (e.g. Galileo).

I too find the quote from Meir confusing. I serves more as an illustration. It is the earliest use of the term I found, so there is not an alternative quote to use. It could be omitted though. JBradleyChen (talk) 00:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

JBradleyChen, could your concerns be addressed by adding a section called something like "Criticism by contemporaries" ? That section could focus on scholars criticising racism in the 18th and 19th centuries, e.g. Blumenbach who rejected the idea of "Ethiopians" being less intelligent by pointing to an African-born German university teacher ? (don't remember his name right now) Rsk6400 (talk) 05:41, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion. It is probably a better approach than what I suggested in my sandbox. What I have been thinking about this evening is that the proper change is pretty substantial, revising the intro and potentially a lot of additions, removals and modifications elsewhere, but it's a huge undertaking and seems pointless unless tolerated and preferably endorsed by the people who maintain this page. JBradleyChen (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Obviously Galileo-vs-the-Church (to the extent that it was later publicized and used as a stick to beat the Catholics with in Protestant countries) doesn't belong here at all, even if it had any effect on the church or people's opinions of it, which it mostly didn't. Similarly the categorical imperitive, which seems to be misunderstood as in any way applying more generally than Christian and other moral systems already did. Similarly, the core of DNA research is entirely off topic inasmuch as it doesn't speak against racial differences in any meaningful way. &c. &c. &c.

This isn't a blog to laundry list the morality of science and scientists. It should drill very specifically into the use of science to 'justify' racist beliefs and practices. It's fair enough to point towards the history out of those beliefs (largely via science) but it should neither get this far off topic or use generalities ("eventually led to") to imagine that Darwinism or early genetics lead to anything but greater racism towards the 'less developed' races until well into the 20th century.

On the other hand, the generally unknown people who ran the actual studies showing greater variability within supposed racial groups than between them (the actual scientific basis for transcending 'scientific' racism) could be discussed and linked in a very helpful way. — LlywelynII 07:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I will reconsider inclusion of Galileo and Bacon.

I'm curious who you have in mind "generally unknown people who ran the actual studies" or maybe that is a research project.

Regarding "laundry list" I think that is part of what made me want to change this page. Some concerns:

• I don't think this page should list every scientist in the last 500 years who held a racist belief, especially before the 19th century when the primitive state of science meant that every scientist who held a belief on race held a belief that is easy to ridicule. So for example I don't see the relevance of the racism of Rush and Kant to this page.
• The material on Darwin is very disappointing; mostly hearsay and how his theories were abused by others. Meanwhile it generally ignores the critical importance of his contributions to enabling our modern scientific understanding. This aligns with the overall negativity of the article.

What seems missing to me, and what I tried to suggest in my draft, is a narrative that focuses a reader on the scholars that actually made a difference, positive or negative, on scientific racism. Overall I'm not fond of the sections of this page that are lists of people. A narrative that followed the development and dismissal of the relevant, flawed scientific theories would focus attention on people who mattered, and give proper exposure to individuals who moved competent science forward.

I'm very grateful for your feedback and patience. JBradleyChen (talk) 08:27, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Constructively, I think the article could be improved as follows:

• Replace sections Antecedents and Later Thinkers with a structure based on scientific racist theories, chronologically, so Polygenism, Craniometry, Eugenics, Phrenology, etc. These generally have their own Wikipedia articles, so should mostly be covered there.
• Explain the juxtaposition, both historical and conceptual, of the different theories.
• Recognize individuals whose intent was racism and who manipulated science as a means to an end.
• Recognize individuals whose intent was competent science, and who actively opposed bad science.
• Identify individuals whose intent was competent science, but who were incorrect/incompetent.
• Identify as victims individuals whose competent work was misappropriated by others.
• Acknowledge but avoid digressions into the casual racism littered throughout western history when it simply reflects period norms and has no further bearing on the course of scientific racism.

@Iskandar323 @LlywelynII @NightHeron @Rsk6400 @Wracking keen for your thoughts. JBradleyChen (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that your approach here and in the sandbox draft is a bit backwards. There are two ways an editor can arrive at material they want to add to an article: (1) The editor decides, based on the editor's knowledge and opinions, what the article is missing and what it should say; then writes a proposed text; and then finally looks for sources that support specific points in that text. (2) The editor first examines secondary sources (such as in this case the book "Superior" by Angela Saini, the textbook by Jackson-Weidman-Nadine, and perhaps the older classic "The Mismeasure of Man" by Gould) and learns how those sources describe the historical role of various theories and various scientists; and then writes a carefully sourced proposed text based on the consensus of the secondary sources. According to Wikipedia policy, approach (1) violates WP:NOR, and approach (2) is how Wikipedia is supposed to work. NightHeron (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am not familiar with Wikipedia processes so definitely appreciate the guidance. Part of why I suggested changes is it can be irritating when people complain but aren't ready to do the work. So I my mindset was volunteering to do actual work on this page.

Process is important but I am also interested in feedback on the ways I see to improve the page. So in lieu of suggesting changes here are some possible opportunities where the current material might be improvable:

• Scientific racism is about pseudo-scientific theories, but given the current organization it's not straightforward to identify the early theories, when they were relevant, who supported them, who opposed them, and why they failed. I imagine a list of pre-modern theories ought to include polygenism, craniometry, eugenics, and phrenology, but even inferring such a list is pretty hard. Should it be? It seems to me like this is a pretty basic thing for a reader to get out of this material.
• The page details a huge collection of racist beliefs for historical figures. While all racism is abhorrent, not all of it is consequential to the history of scientific racism. Some examples seem to be of little consequence. For example, it's easy to ridicule the beliefs of Benjamin Rush, given our knowledge of modern science, but the article fails to make the case that his mistaken beliefs had any impact on anyone, relative to (for example) the impact of polygenism. Similarly for Risley, Vogt, Stanhope Smith, and Hunter. Their inclusion would make sense if the page documented why their racism was of consequence to scientific racism, beyond the level of the casual racism that was sadly ubiquitous in pre-modern times.
• The a list-of-scholars format lends itself to character assassination without illuminating questions of science. For example, the discussion of Charles Darwin mentions "On the Origin of Species" only to dismiss it as "did not discuss human origins", then ignores the fact that Darwin committed an entire chapter of The Descent of Man to argue against polygenism. There is plenty of hearsay about Darwin's beliefs, but little consideration for what he himself wrote and believed. For example, in The Descent of Man, Darwin condemned slavery in the strongest terms, writing of "the sin of slavery." Two paragraphs describe commentary from Hofstadter and Himmelfarb on how Darwin was exploited by scientific racists who misappropriated his theories, with Darwin a victim, but nothing to identify the racists responsible for that misappropriation.
• The current discussion seems to neglect key figures in early scientific racism, perhaps because it ignores the trajectory of particular questions of science. Voltaire, David Hume, Prichard are all omitted, despite important roles in the question of polygenism.

These are the kinds of things I had in mind when I suggested my changes. As the new guy, I obviously played no part in creating the material that is here, and so I'm ignorant of the care and compromise that went into the current article. So I expect that people who were more involved will have better ideas than mine on how to improve it.

By the way, for people who looked at my sandbox earlier, i've added citations. JBradleyChen (talk) 04:44, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Also, regarding process, my draft is based on the sources I cite, which I consulted before / while drafting the change. I thought this was obvious, but will not take that for granted in the future.

My review of sources was motivated by the opportunities I see to improve in the article, which I outline above. JBradleyChen (talk) 16:46, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sensing a lot of support for these changes so I will abandon. I did see some support for a brief section on Etymology so I have left a draft of that in my sandbox for feedback. JBradleyChen (talk) 13:40, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I have no objection in principle to a brief section on etymology, but it would help a lot if you had sources that directly talk about the etymology. Doing your own research into when the term first appeared runs up against WP:NOR. As I recall, neither the Saini book nor the Jackson-Weidman book talk about the origin of the term scientific racism, but there might be other secondary sources that do. The version in your sandbox does not have sources that give the etymology. Also, your source [1] uses the term pseudo-scientific racism rather than scientific racism, and sources [2] and [3] put the word scientific in scientific racism in scare-quotes, which is not quite the same. NightHeron (talk) 15:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Regarding WP:NOR, I cite facts, so the issue is not obvious to me. Is the problem calling it "Etymology"? I could instead use "History of Usage" or something like that. Would that be better?

What would the basis for not treating "scientific" racism and scientific racism as equivalent? It seems wrong to ignore the former, as both seem common. See for example Mills 2017. What would be the basis for failing to inform a reader of the prior usage of "pseudo-scientific racism"?

I have looked and have not found any resources on the etymology of "scientific racism". I do not have access to the OED. Merriam-Webster and Cambridge dictionaries do not have entires for "scientific racism". Does that indicate doubt among scholars regarding its use as a term of art? JBradleyChen (talk) 15:43, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Well, it seems to me that we don't really know what the etymology of the term is. Unless we know that, based on reliable sources, we can't have a section on etymology. NightHeron (talk) 15:51, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've dropped the section heading entirely. I propose to add the text at the end of the last section. Any further feedback? JBradleyChen (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

By the way @NightHeron I apologize if I am trying your patience through my inexperience. I'm trying to learn the norms as much as anything. I proposed this addition because it's a part of what I was looking for when I read this article, but I do not want to violate WP norms. JBradleyChen (talk) 18:08, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No need to apologize; you're not "trying my patience". As far as the text in your sandbox is concerned, I don't see the value of citing some more-or-less random instances of early use of terms similar to scientific racism. As far as WP:NOR is concerned, it's a fact that those authors said the things you cite, but it's only your belief, unsupported by sources, that those citations played some sort of notable role in the history of scientific racism. So there would likely be objections to adding that text based on WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. NightHeron (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Okay; I think this is making sense. I'm not thrilled with this particular information void, but it does make sense that it may not be Wikipedia's role to fill it. I would like to understand more about how information voids figure in the Wikipedia strategy and culture, although this is not the best locale to discuss that. JBradleyChen (talk) 19:16, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

@JBradleyChen tagged me in because of a related discussion we had at Talk:Immanuel_Kant#Racism_revisions, and so I'll add my two cents as someone with general knowledge of intellectual history, but no special knowledge of this subject.

In general, I find the article to be well-sourced and objective.

It would be great if there were some broadly accepted way to group these thinkers that would minimize the tedium of cataloguing them individually. But that would be a huge project requiring (I assume) expert knowledge.

The lead makes it abundantly clear that scientific racism, the topic of the article, has been discredited and is a pseudoscience. I agree with @Wracking that there's no reason to add material about how great science is more generally.

A change I do support is the addition of a short section discussing the origin of the (admittedly unfortunate) term and how it contrasts with other species (so to speak!) of racism, and also, if it makes sense to do so, how it stands with respect to racism in general.

As suggested by @LlywelynII, a section at the end sourced to descriptions of the scientific research that specifically discredited scientific racism makes sense and would be a welcome contribution to the article.

Finally, if there is compelling evidence that any of these researchers were acting in bad faith, I agree that this should be clearly stated—or possibly the figure should simply be removed from the article, given that the cynical appropriation of scientific language for ideological purposes is the opposite of the scientific search for truth. The default assumption, though, should be of good faith efforts to advance anthropology and related disciplines. Science is just a messy business, and its history is full of dead ends.

Cheers, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

racism in philosophical anthropology

I have removed the following sentence from "Racial theories in physical anthropology (1850–1918)":

"The proposal that social status is unilineal—from primitive to civilized, from agricultural to industrial—became popular among philosophers, including Friedrich Hegel, Immanuel Kant, and Auguste Comte."

It is not supported by the source given at the end of the paragraph, which mentions only Kant—and very much just in passing. (Also, the phrase "social status is unilineal" does not make sense to me.)

The fact that the figures are out of chronological order, Hegel is named "Friedrich Hegel" (as no one in his life or in the scholarship refers to him), and Comte is lumped together with two German Idealists strongly indicate that the author of this claim had little idea what he was talking about.

If someone wants to add something about Kant, however, there are multiple sources to be found at Immanuel_Kant#Racism.

I do not think that Hegel fits into the category of scientific racism since race, on his account, is determined by climate and geography and is hence malleable. But I could be wrong. See Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel#Subjective_spirit for a few sources.

I've not studied Comte, but, as with Kant, if he is to be included this should be sourced and, most probably, discussed independently, given the many differences between his project and that of Kant (and Hegel).

Best, Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:05, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Thomas Malthus

I propose to add a section on Thomas Malthus, a draft of which may be found in my sandbox. I suggest adding this section at the beginning of Later Thinkers. JBradleyChen (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

His remarks as quoted have nothing to with race (plenty to do with class, though). AnonMoos (talk) 21:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Inclusion here is based on an authoritative source indicating this quote is representative. See pg. 6 of Chase 1977. JBradleyChen (talk) 23:55, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Since the long quotation in your proposed addition is indeed representative of Malthus's viewpoint and speaks only of class, not race, it contradicts Chase's opinion that Malthus should be designated the "founding father of scientific racism". You haven't given justification for a whole section of Scientific racism to be devoted to Malthus. NightHeron (talk) 00:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

If you read Chase you would understand how the quote supports his position. The section I cite is relatively short and available for free from archive.org. You may disagree with Chase, but wouldn't such a position be original research? As such I don't see the relevance here.

The justification is that an authoritative source identified Malthus as an important figure in scientific racism. Does that not justify inclusion of Malthus? How might I further justify this position without indulging in WP:NOR?

Chase explains later in his book how Malthusian arguments supported Scientific Darwinism and Eugenics, with generous recognition of Malthus by practitioners of those theories. If it would be helpful I could develop those threads. JBradleyChen (talk) 01:16, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The designation "founding father of scientific racism" is one person's opinion. Do you have any evidence that there's broad support among scholars for that designation? Of course, some of the promoters of social darwinism and eugenics cited Malthus's theories. Social darwinists and some racist pseudoscientists also cited Darwin's theories, but that doesn't mean that Darwin was a "father of scientific racism". NightHeron (talk) 01:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Google scholar, Chase's book is cited by over 800 works. There are numerous reviews, such as https://www.nytimes.com/1977/03/13/archives/the-legacy-of-malthus-malthus.html, https://www.jstor.org/stable/2826197, https://www.jstor.org/stable/1865122, many enthusiastic, some citing deficiencies but without denying Chase's basic premise. The book was issued in paperback in 1980, made into a documentary film, and received the 1978 Anisfield-Wolf Book Award for "important contributions to our understanding of racism and human diversity". In light of this reception I don't understand on what grounds we would question its premise, or its validity as a source.

Also, it's unclear to me why broad support is needed. The proposed text does not assert a consensus view that Malthus is the father scientific racism, it only notes the assertion of Chase. Maybe your point is that I should identify others who acknowledge the importance of Malthus? To that end I added a note about acknowledgement of Malthus in the 1925 Annals of Eugenics. The Hathitrust has thousands of articles on Eugenics that cite Malthus but a thorough review would be original research. JBradleyChen (talk) 14:53, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, I think you mean "Social Darwinism", not "Scientific Darwinism". NightHeron (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

yes thank you... JBradleyChen (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I have added additional citations to document the influence of Malthus. JBradleyChen (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Darwin had some vague prejudices typical of Englishmen in Victorian times, but he didn't try to construct an ideology out of them (and the Darwin-Wedgewood families, including Charles, were consistently opposed to slavery). For Malthus, you haven't yet shown that he even had vague prejudices... AnonMoos (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to do what you ask without doing original research. I'm citing an authoritative sources. JBradleyChen (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Try to find multiple sources, not just Chase, that describe Malthus as an important originator or promoter of scientific racism. NightHeron (talk) 16:19, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I can develop this; I agree it would make the argument stronger. That said, it's unclear to me why it's necessary. The position is clearly attributed to Chase, so the discussion is aligned with the core content policies (WP:POV WP:NOR WP-VER). Do you have a particular policy in mind in this advice?

Also, it seems you are suggesting a different standard for Malthus than for others mentioned in this article. Few have citations attributing their "scientific racism" as directly as Chase on Malthus. JBradleyChen (talk) 05:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

WP:WEIGHT discusses how we reflect prominence of viewpoints in our articles, which requires looking at multiple sources. The proposed text currently seems long and the lengthy quote isn't relevant to the subject of the article. VQuakr (talk) 05:52, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your sharing your thoughts. It does not appear to me that the contributions of Malthus to social darwinism or eugenics are disputed, hence his relevance to the article. The quote is illustrative of the mature thinking of Malthus with regards to population control, the link between his views to social darwinism and eugenics, as argued by Chase. Hence the relevance. JBradleyChen (talk) 13:27, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed text is over-reliant on Chase; it's effectively one-sourced. You have the feedback on the quote, so there clearly isn't consensus to add this as written. VQuakr (talk) 16:42, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

I have added additional references on the influence of Malthus, and replaced the long quote with shorter descriptive text. With these updates I believe I have addressed your feedback. JBradleyChen (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Do any of the 6 sources you added (other than Chase) connect Malthus directly to the topic Scientific racism? Most of your text is about Malthus's effect in providing a rationalization for callous neglect toward the poor. My impression is that the added sources also deal with class and very little with race. In order to justify having a whole article section on Malthus, you need a direct connection with the article. To say that his theories influenced later authors, and those later authors were promoters of racist pseudoscience is not the same as to say that Malthus was a promoter of scientific racism. NightHeron (talk) 15:27, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Chase is authoritative. I have cited authoritative sources who endorse Chase, and others who acknowledge influence of Malthus on Eugenics and Social Darwinism.

Chase says that Malthus was a critical influencer. My proposed change documents that influence. JBradleyChen (talk) 16:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

So I guess the answer to my question is "no", that is, none of your sources other than Chase claim that Malthus is directly connected to the topic Scientific racism. Repeatedly saying that "Chase is authoritative" does not address the question of WP:UNDUE for the proposed added section. NightHeron (talk) 16:52, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

What is the standard for relevance you are suggesting? It sounds like your suggested standard is that multiple authoritative sources refer to the individual using the term "scientific racism". JBradleyChen (talk) 17:01, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

The final sentence of the current version of the draft, Chase is not alone in recognizing the influence of Malthus on Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and other relevant themes is terrible and as near as I can tell supported by none of the seven (!) sources provided. It's the worst example of the overall feeling of the draft, that it's an essay stretching to establish a point rather than a neutral summary of the sources on Malthus. This is consistent with the default reaction of every editor here - that Malthus is known for his classism not racism, so the push for including him here is surprising. Needs a rewrite and a focus on quality not raw quantity of sources, but I don't want you to waste your time since to me this is headed towards consensus to exclude. What are the three best sources that connect Malthus with the topic of this article? VQuakr (talk) 17:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Terrible" is subjective; I'm sorry you don't like it though. I'd like to revise it to something you like.

I added that sentence because of feedback above asking for other support for the influence of Malthus. For three references I would suggest Chase 1977 for Scientific Racism, Wells 1907 for Social Darwinism, and Dugan 1915 for Eugenics. If you prefer newer citations, Shermer 2016 and Mayhew 2015. I apologize that I did get a little carried away with all the evidence.

I remain at a loss for understanding the objective standard we will apply for inclusion in this article. It sounds like the standard may be multiple authoritative sources that apply the term "racism". Is that the standard? If not, please suggest the standard you think we should apply. JBradleyChen (talk) 21:05, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Terrible" for reasons such as those noted at MOS:WEASEL, but again probably should focus on big picture of how much coverage is due (if any) before burning more time wordsmithing. Ultimately the standard for inclusion is WP:CONSENSUS. If you're looking for a more hard and fast rule, I'm afraid one won't be forthcoming. I'm not trying to be evasive, we just don't really work under strict rulesets here. I didn't see where any of those sources support the claim they are positioned after (that Chase's position is a popular one; my paraphrase). It seems like we're running into WP:SYNTH problems here. I do think that our reasons for citing an old (>~~50 years in this context) source should be quite specific. An analogy: we'd cite Principia in an article on Newton but not in an article about indefinite integrals. VQuakr (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe the claim in question is "Chase is not alone in recognizing the influence of Malthus on Social Darwinism, Eugenics, and other relevant themes."

• Wells 1907 discusses the influence of Malthus on Social Darwinism: "Loria, for example, in his book on social problems has a chapter under the head "Social Darwinism," which is essentially a discussion of Malthusianism"
• Dugan 1915 "Neo-Malthusianism and Eugenics" the entire article is about the influence of Malthus on Eugenics. It discusses how Eugenics accepts Malthus' purpose while substituting "rational selection" for "natural selection"
• Shermer 2016 states "His scenario influenced policy makers to embrace social Darwinism and eugenics."
• Mayhew 2015 states "eugenicists also claimed Malthus as their intellectual forbearer" and "whichever side of arguments about population control and social Darwinism one took, Malthus remained a key inspiration"

As such, I don't understand in what sense these sources do not support the claim, and I don't understand in what sense WP:WEASEL is appropriate.

In an attempt to demonstrate good-faith, I removed the long quote and researched additional sources, as requested. I'm keen to understand what kind of compromise others think would be appropriate here. If you're not interested in compromise then I would appreciate your being clear about that. JBradleyChen (talk) 03:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe I've already clearly said a couple of times that the likely outcome of this discussion is not to include a section on Malthus. None of the quotes you provided above mention Chase; they therefore don't support a sentence starting with "Chase is not alone in..." VQuakr (talk) 04:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry; I thought you were looking for support for the "terrible" sentence. For support for Chase, please see (for example) Fredrickson 1977 or Friedman 1977, which are supportive of Chase. You may also be interested in https://www.jstor.org/stable/2826197 which generally endorses Chase's analysis but objects broadly to the use of the term "scientific racism", asserting it as a "conspiracy".

You did not reply regarding the support I provided for the "terrible" sentence, so I assume you acknowledge my support as adequate. JBradleyChen (talk) 13:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the four sources I cited at 03:07 12 May 2023 support Chase's position, and the three additional sources from 13:21 12 May 2023 are support for Chase, so whichever you want I believe I have it covered. JBradleyChen (talk) 16:28, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I did reply. It's the same sentence. I suggest you quit assuming others' positions. VQuakr (talk) 16:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Apologies; I didn't intend to assume your position. I did intend to make sure I have fully responded to your feedback. I believe I have done so, providing support both for Chase and for Chase's positions (on the relevance of Malthus to Eugenics and Social Darwinism).

Returning to the central point, Malthus is relevant because authoritative sources speak to his relevance to scientific racism and to related theories such as Eugenics and Social Darwinism. I've provided support for both, and support for the support (e.g. the authority of Chase) as requested, and cooperated with feedback by modifying my draft. @VQuakr is opposed to including Malthus at all, asserts he speaks for the consensus (e.g. @VQuakr @NightHeron @AnonMoos) and says they do not like my sources but has not explained why. They say there is no "hard and fast" rule for what is or is not included in this article. I expected an objective basis for such decisions.

Is this a fair summary of the situation? JBradleyChen (talk) 16:55, 12 May 2023 (UTC)