Talk:Race and sports

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mikescheg. Peer reviewers: Mikescheg.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Whereis10.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Davidickes, Tronan8801.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jtoney1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 10 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ajohn1234.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 12 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jputty, Etsegethopwood.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Balance

I've removed several paragraphs of unreferenced vagueness. This leaves essentially nothing except Jon Entine. Some properly sourced alternative opinions are badly needed; the existing external links might be a good start. – Smyth\^talk 10:14, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Is this really necessary?

Outside of a few black supremacy groups, I have yet to see a compelling study indicating that African-Americans are naturally more athletic. In reality we only see black dominance in basketball, sprints, and to a lesser extent American football. I think until we actually discover more scientific research on this, it should be written a pseudo-scientific theory, not a credible work. Applez2Applez (talk) 23:00, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Is what really necessary? The article does not appear to show that the idea of black athletic superiority has mainstream support or credibility. I found a credible refutation of Entine's assertions here, so that certainly could be worked into the article for balance. Feel free to do what you can to help it along. Location (talk) 23:29, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Race and sports: racial discrimination

An article on race and sports should discuss racial discrimination in sports. The title move has defined race and sports very narrowly, forgetting to take this into account. On the other hand there are plenty of books on the subject—e.g."In black and white: race and sports in America" by Kenneth L. Shropshire—which cover racial discrimination. Readers will expect to see some coverage of that. Having chosen this new title for the article, it should therefore reflect this wider common usage of the term. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will add some material on this.Miradre (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be many books and articles on this subject. The meaning I took is probably the principal meaning, so the article will probably have to be completely rewritten from that perspective. Here are some other references, found randomly:

• The unlevel playing field: a documentary history of the African-American experience in sport, by Wiggins and Miller, University of Illinois Press
• Race and Sport: The Struggle for Equality on and Off the Field, by Charles K. Ross, University Press of Mississipi
• Advancing the Ball:Race, Reformation, and the Quest for Equal Coaching Opportunity in the NFL, by N. Jeremi Duru and Tony Dungy, Oxford University Press

It is probably best to start with a systematic literature search, given that the topic has been much discussed by academics and others. Even the Olympics in Nuremberg will probably warrant some kind of mention in a future history section. I will add a template until the subject is properly covered. Good luck, Mathsci (talk) 06:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There really should have been some discussion here before renaming the article. Although "Race and sports" is a perfectly legitimate subject for an article, the concept of "black athletic superiority" is a major part of that subject. Attempting to "whitewash" the subject by eliminating the term from the article is silly. The two sections and the first four supporting reference specifically address the history behind that particular concept; not the history of how Chinese athletes or those of other races are viewed. Location (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Mathsci (talk) 06:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

"Black athletic superiority" is in itself a NPOV violation. Anyhow, blacks do not dominate all sports, there are many where other races dominate.Miradre (talk) 06:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the phrase "where other races dominate" also very heavily POV? You should rely nn what WP:RS say, not your own personal opinion. Mathsci (talk) 06:33, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Swimming is dominated by whites: [1]Miradre (talk) 06:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The original article was about athletics. But now that the title has changed, material on racial discrimination in sports needs to be added. The lead section at the moment is poorly written. It is disjointed and there are several grammatical errors. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 06:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please correct. Thanks.Miradre (talk) 06:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not going to edit the article, since you created this mess all on your own. I have advised you how to start adding material on racial discrimination by doing a literature survey. You don't appear to have done so. There is no rush. Just remember to be systematic and above all encyclopedic. Adding points by thinking up a topic yourself and then finding support for it in the literature is probably not the way to go, given the four references I have listed above. I will watch how you edit, but, because of my self-imposed topic ban, I will not do any article edits here. Besides, I know next to nothing about sport beyond the prowess of Eddie "The Eagle" Edwards. Mathsci (talk) 07:00, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Also your move has messed up all the categories. This is still classified as "athletics". Please correct this, or move the article to a more appropriate name, after having gained consensus. Why not leave a note on WikiProject Athletics or WikiProject Sports? Mathsci (talk) 07:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see any category stating athletics. Which one is the problem?Miradre (talk) 07:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The category applies to this discussion page. Mathsci (talk) 07:17, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah. Thanks for pointing this out. Fixed.Miradre (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, "black athletic superiority" does in fact exist as a concept or an idea that many people believe to be true and that many others have challenged as untrue, and the article did present that information in a neutral manner. There is a huge difference in stating 1) "'black athletic superiority' refers to black dominance in sport" and 2) "'black athletic superiority' refers to the idea that blacks dominate sports". Location (talk) 07:06, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

But the title states it as a fact, not as a dispute, which violates NPOV. Look at other articles. The titles carefully avoid taking a side in the dispute. Anyway, I have added a source stating that whites dominate swimming.Miradre (talk) 07:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is the article before you touched it. It did not state that black athletic superiority was a fact. What was stated as fact was this: "Black athletic superiority is the IDEA [emphasis mine] that black people possess certain traits that are acquired through genetic and/or environmental factors that allow them to excel over other races in athletic competition." Reporting that some people believe in the IDEA of black athletic superiority is not NPOV. The swimming information is not neutral because it implies that white swimmers dominate due to genetic factors. There is no agreement that genetic factors, rather than environmental factors, are the cause. And you're comparing only black to white and not other races. Location (talk) 07:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That the lead is npov does not save the title. The title itself must follow NPOV. There is no agreement that blacks are overrepresented in running due to genetics either.Miradre (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutralising the title is easy enough: "Black performance in athletics" would have been a perfectly good alternative. Perhaps we should move it to that now. Mathsci (talk) 07:32, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Do not move without further input from others. The title "Black athletic superiority" is neutral because it is the name given to the idea (believed to be true by many people and not believed to be true by many others) that black people possess certain traits that are acquired through genetic and/or environmental factors that allow them to excel over other races in athletic competition. Location (talk) 07:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That many people believe something does not mean we should name an article so. Anyhow, the article now also includes more than just black overrepresentation in athletics.Miradre (talk) 07:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Gee, like White supremacy? Location (talk) 07:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

White overrepresentation in swimming is not related to White supremacy anymore than black overrepresenation in running is related to Black supremacy.Miradre (talk) 07:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is not about swimming. This is about Wikipedia having articles discussing what people believe. You said: "That many people believe something does not mean we should name an article so." Many people believe in the idea of white supremacy and many people believe in the idea of black athletic superiority. White supremacy begins this way: "White supremacy is the belief, and promotion of the belief, that white people are superior to people of other racial backgrounds." That article does not state that whites are truly superior to other races, nor did this article state that blacks are truly superior to other races. Location (talk) 08:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Should WP have an article called Democratic Politics Superiority? Or Democratic Politics Superiority? Lots of people believe strongly in either alternative. But both violates NPOV so WP should not have articles titled so.Miradre (talk) 07:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I get 624 GBook hits for "black athletic superiority"; I get exactly 0 (zero) for "Democratic Politics Superiority" and "Republican Politics Superiority". Location (talk) 08:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That you can find a phrase like "black athletic superiority" is hardly evidence for that this is the common term for a concept. Finding many such three words phrases is not difficult. Anyhow, are you arguing that there should be two articles? Miradre (talk) 08:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, what other term is given for those who believe black athletes to be superior? Regarding your question, I would be OK with Black athletic superiority redirecting to a section within this article for the time-being. Location (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That seems to be a very good suggestion. I will amend may delete vote.Miradre (talk) 08:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Cheers! Perhaps we can work together on this article in the future. Location (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

That would be good. I think there is much that can be said on this topic.Miradre (talk) 08:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you imagine a heading in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_intelligence called White Intelligence Superiority? It could never happen. No, instead there are a bunch of topics about the tests lacking validity. The amount of white guilt on Wikipedia is staggering. 65.184.113.99 (talk) 10:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Problem is it should be called "Jewish and Asian Intelligence Superiority" then. Even out-and-out racists (more precisely hardcore white supremacists), in my experience (from poking around a bit on Stormfront and the like), acknowledge grudgingly that people of Asian and Jewish ancestry statistically speaking perform even better than non-Jewish Europeans on IQ tests, but try to downplay it by claiming Asians are less creative or crap like this. It's clearly mighty inconvenient and embarrassing for them, even though Asians and Jews aren't the focus of their hate these days anyway, but blacks and Muslims. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

For future reference

Articles to use:

• Black men CAN swim
• On the block: race, gender, and power in the NFL draft

- Location (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Topics to address:

• Discrimination in golf
• Latinos
• Native Americans
• Absence of blacks in NASCAR
• Potrayals in film

-Location (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Sourcing

The extra material needs to be sourced. Please add WP:RS, e.g. some of the above books, in a reference section. The topic is also international. Here is an academic collection about the UK:

• "Race", Sport and British Society, edited by Ben Carrington and Ian Mcdonald, Routledge: discusses ethnic groups and sports in the UK

Mathsci (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not think brief summaries of main articles need to be sourced if there are sources in the main article.Miradre (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Hm, cannot find anything about this specifically but WP:LEADCITE states that there is not an exception for the lead although it is less likely to be challenged. So if Mathsci is challenging this material we should add sources.Miradre (talk) 19:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I am talking about the material in the main body of the article that is being added. At present most wikipedia rules for writing are not being observed. I have mentioned five academic books whose content is essentially that of the title. So I would expect large segments of prose, not anecdotes and one-liners. The five books should certainly be added to the references to help other potential editors. Having opened the Pandora's box of "race and sports", this is the way to go. Mathsci (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. Please contribute and add the material with sources that is missing.Miradre (talk) 20:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I've told you why I will not be editing the article. You haven't added any academic sources yourself. The book of Shropshire cited above covers the new material added by Location. Having created a new title for this article yourself, don't you feel a certain obligation to cover the material in an encyclopedic way? That surely includes racial discrimination in sport, since it's so widely covered in the literature, far more indeed than the original topic of this article. Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I have added several academic studies including one in the discrimination section.Miradre (talk) 20:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

None of them are comprehensive like the sources I've mentioned. The usual scheme for writing wikipedia articles is to locate the best secondary sources which cover the material. That normally means scholarly texts in the case of a well-trodden subject. That is the case here. Encyclopedia articles are not written by piecing together short notes: that is WP:SYNTHESIS. Mathsci (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing sourced is stated that is not in the sources. I certainly agree that the article would improve by adding more material. But many Wikipedia articles are not as good as they could be. Many articles are just stubs. With collaborative efforts hopefully the article can improve to be as long and as good as it deserves to be.Miradre (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There are unsourced statements by Location (which are correct and in the source I mentioned). The article is in a very poor state. Your own extensive interest in race—the only topic you edit on wikipedia—apparently appears to stop short of the topic of racial discrimination. If that is the case, why did you choose this title, which in the literature is almost exclusively concerned with racial discrimination in sports and access for minorities in sports? Mathsci (talk) 20:57, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I edit other articles also such as IQ for which I have received praise. I have added material on racial discrimination to this article including from academic sources. I choose the title because it fits the pattern of several similar articles. Now, the article was originally only on black athletic superiority so obviously the material will initially be biased in that direction. With time the article will hopefully grow to also cover other aspects more comprehensively.Miradre (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I created the MLB, NBA, and NFL sections to assist in the formation of a proper article about "Race and sports"; the information in those sections has been grabbed from their respective main articles. I agree this specific information should eventually be sourced, but it is not high on my list of things to do right now given that it is uncontroversial compared to other implications made in the article. I certainly welcome the assistance of others in helping make this a better article. Location (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Most of it is in Shropshire, so best just to add that in a reference section and add inline citations later. Mathsci (talk) 21:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I found it on GBooks. Give me a few minutes. Location (talk) 21:22, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

There was also a 2005 statement by the United Nations inviting "Member States to demonstrate greater commitment in fighting racism in sport by conducting educational and awareness-raising activities and by strongly condemning the perpetrators of racist incidents, in cooperation with national and international sports organizations." [2] Mathsci (talk) 04:07, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

There is already an article Racism in sport so perhaps this article should be moved, merged or deleted. What a mess! Mathsci (talk) 04:12, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, this should be the main article with Racism in sport either a section here or on its own as a legitimate fork. There is a lot of information that can fall under "Race and sports" that is not racist. Location (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Discrepancies

I noticed that the discrepancies section was very biased, so I decided to add some sourced statistics based on various Olympic performances and championships.

I believe that it is important for the reader to know that there is no scientific basis behind this concept (race and sports), and that just because certain groups excell in different disciplines, does not mean that it is due to their ancestry or racial genetics.

There are tons of examples - non-white Tiger Woods in white dominated Golf, non-white Williams sisters in white dominated Tennis; the list could go on and on.

Also, I felt that it was a bit US-centric, because most of the percentages given were for the United States and not the world. Ex. Serbia/Yugoslavia has won more basketball world championships than the US, despite being 1/10th the size, and with all-white players on the teams. And the fact that African countries have never won any medals in international basketball, despite their large population and the race-sports stereotype. In terms of personal opinion, I think that this stereotype is definitely not international because I have lived in quite a few parts of the world, and the only ones where people stressed race/ethnicity and sports performance was the United States (and Canada, probably due to the cultural influence of the US.)--Therexbanner (talk) 15:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your view, but adding raw statistics and drawing novel conclusions form them is not the way to solve the problem. We need some sources that make those arguments. i nkkow there are some there as I have added some myself, the interview with Joseph Graves who makes similar arguments.·Maunus·ƛ· 15:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, that makes sense, I'll try and find some quality sources, and then maybe phrase it differently, in a paragraph or so. But, this would only work if the whole percentages sentence regarding the NBA, MLB, etc. is removed because that only confuses people as to the purpose of the article. The first thing I though when I read it, was - wait, if there are so many stats given for the number of Black/Asian people in sports, why not do the same for White athletes, for equality purposes. Thoughts?--Therexbanner (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you, too, but it is SYNTH and OR to take statistics and add your own analysis to them. The reason that there is more discussion regarding black athletes than white athletes is not because of my bias, but because of the bias in the various sociology texts. Those references even acknowledge that race/athleticism debate touches all people but focuses primarily on black athletes. I am happy to help with the phrasing if there is a reference and a point that you wish to make. There is certainly tons to be done with this article. Location (talk) 20:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll look into some additional sources. In general, I think the article is pretty good (in terms of neutrality).

Also, I think the percentages in the section need to go, because A) they are misleading (they change year-to-year, and there's no good source that counts how many X race athletes there are.) And B) there is no objective definition of race (How do you objectively define White, Black, Asian, Mixed, Others, etc.) to state percentages as fact.

The statements describing the general prevalence of certain groups in sports (without the percentages) should suffice.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:46, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding A: Although the exact percentages are probably not completely necessary, I think quantifying just how prevalent certain groups are in some sports may be important. For example, I've seen someplace how the numbers of black athletes in the NBA vs. MLB may impact how some whites view the two sports.

Regarding B: I completely agree that the terminology problems of "race" need to be addressed. Unfortunately, the section I started to address this issue was recently stripped by another editor who seemed not to recognized that Wikipedia is a work in progress. The lack of objective definition for white, black, etc. is one of the problems and hopefully we can find a source saying exactly that. Location (talk) 00:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

How about saying something like "A significant majority of NBA players are black. More than half of the NFL is comprised of black players.", instead of giving X percentages? In regards to your second point, I see nothing wrong with your addition. Given the fact that the other user reverted without discussing the issue, I think that you should restore that part, and expand on it.--Therexbanner (talk) 16:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Update: I have big doubts about the MLB numbers/claim. For example, one source states that about 18% of the MLB is Black, and 18% Hispanic which is roughly in line with the current demographic situation. (http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst?docId=5002259241). This one (http://www.science.smith.edu/exer_sci/ESS200/Raceh/Raceh.htm) says the % of Black players in the MLB is 15%.--Therexbanner (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Update 2: According to most recent statistics, African Americans (including players of mixed ancestry) make up about 70-75% of the NBA rosters. From (http://www.slamonline.com/online/nba/2010/06/study-2010-nba-racial-and-gender-report-card/). The report mentioned below also states 76%-75% of the NBA is African-American.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

As an aside, from the National Consortium for Academics and Sports's latest (2008) Gender and Race Equality Report, the MLB was 8.2% African American, 29.1% Latino, and 2.8% Asian. That means that the statement on the MLB is definitely incorrect. If anything, the MLB has less African Americans than the average population. "The 8.2 percent African-American player total in 2007 was the lowest percentage in the more than 20 years of the publication of the Report Card." Link to the report: http://www.ncasports.org/Articles/2008_RGRC.pdf Also, I think everyone should refrain from citing any numbers/"facts" provided by Jon Entine, as he and his book were deemed to be somewhat racist, and incorrect (the data was way off).--Therexbanner (talk) 18:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

we need a new kind of tag for this kind of article

Is there a {{idiotic}} tag somewhere that we could just slap on this piece of junk?Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

For starters, all this score-keeping about which race is better at which sport needs to be simply removed, with extreme prejudice, from this article. Wikipedia is not a forum for this dysfunctional weird score keeping.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The article was originally about the concept of "black athletic superiority" before it was hijacked by people with an agenda attempting to encompass views about all "races". As far as I'm concerned, it should go back to the pre-April 2011 title and text as this one bites off more than anyone can tactfully chew. Location (talk) 04:29, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I've seen this solution happen before: i.e. "We don't have a parent article for this subject, so let's move a more-specialised article there and re-work it". Never works well. I think it is a good idea to have articles for both the notions of black athletic superiority and a general race and sports one, dealing with the wider implications of race in the field (not just the stereotypes of who is better at what). SFB 06:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

SFB, that would be my preference, too. Although there are an enormous number of sources that discuss just the notion of black athletic superiority, one gets accused of WP:UNDUE if you try to build the article here. Alternatively, if you try to balance the coverage, it's labelled "dysfunctional weird score keeping". Location (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

What would be the reason behind emphasizing "black athletic performance" as opposed the performance of all races? Seems extremely racist, and fringing on the attempt to use Wikipedia to discriminate. As far as I know, there are tons of "theories" (stereotypes) about athletic performance for various races.

Just like the article says, Asian people have been often stereotyped into being poor at certain sports and better at others. Same thing for White people (are you forgetting Nazi Germany and modern supremacists?), and Black people.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I do agree with Volunteer Marek that the article (and others like it) does more harm than good, and I would support deleting it, and Race and Intelligence, and Race and Crime.

These article do nothing but bring the readers attention to stereotypes without directly dispelling them, due to "evidence" in the form of some lunatic "studies".--Therexbanner (talk) 18:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Emphasizing" a discussion of one stereotype while avoiding a discussion of others is not something I suggested, so I will expect that you will retract your bullshit implication of "racist" editing. There are multiple issues here: one is that the notion of "black athletic superiority" receives significant coverage in independent reliable sources (much more so than other athletic stereotypes) and is a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article, another is that athletic stereotypes of other ethnicities and "races" have received significant coverage and are legitimate topics for Wikipedia, and a third is how to discuss these things in Wikipedia while avoiding what Volunteer Marek has termed "dysfunctional weird score keeping". If you think something can be improved, now is the time to step-up and contribute useful information to the article. Location (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I was not implying you were racist, I said that if it happened (the article concentrating on black stereotypes only), it would be racist and discriminatory. Please remain civil and do not swear.

Unfortunately, I do not agree with your first issue. It's true that Black sports superiority receives "significant coverage" on black and white supremacist websites, and in similar places. But to say that "Black Athletic Supremacy" receives significantly more reliable coverage is just wrong. In fact, I would like to see any mainstream encyclopedia, or magazine/newspaper (legitimate magazine/newspaper) discussing this issue in detail in recent years. The kind of research that has been cited in the article is absolutely useless, and was written by "experts" who are extremely biased and not acknowledge by the scientific community.

I agree with points two and three, that's why I think that it is ok to mention the stereotypes without going into the statistics that are used to support them, and therefore avoiding the score keeping. However, there has to be equal covereage on all races.

Also, I have tried improving the article previously, but received few responses to my last comments. You can see my attempts right above this talk section.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:36, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

1) You suggested that I was "emphasizing" something that I do not, then claimed that to do so was racist. That's BS and it is uncivil.

2) There is definitely much more discussion in reliable sources accessible to English readers regarding black athletic stereotypes than the stereotypes of other races.

3) Whom are the experts to which you object? Harry Edwards? Jane Margolis? Jon Entine is merely an author but his book brought massive attention to the subject in recent years. His misconceptions have been countered by others, thus the reason for inclusion of Ian Kerr's rebuttal. Adrian Bejan's view of a physiological explanation for the success of whites in swimming is countered by Margolis and Joan Ferrante sociological explanation in the very next section. Who are the experts you need to comment on all of this? Anderson Cooper? Greta Van Susteren? A writer for The New York Times? Location (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

1)I did not suggest you were emphasizing that (read my statement again, if you wish), I said that the article would be racist if IT emphasized that. Swear some more, and you will be taken to ANI, you are the one being uncivil and it is not helping the article progress. 2)Not true. Prove "much more" in quantitative terms for reliable sources. 3)They are marginals and are not reliable. Neither their research, nor the rebuttals to ridiculous claims need to appear in an encyclopedia.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

1) ANI? That's rich! You know fine well what was the implication in your statement.

2) Use GBooks for starters.

3) Let's start with two statements in the article: "John Milton Hoberman, a historian and Germanic studies professor at the University of Texas at Austin, has acknowledged that disparities in certain athletic performances exist. He has asserted that there is no evidence to confirm the existence of 'black athletic superiority'." "Joan Ferrante, a professor of sociology at Northern Kentucky University, suggests that geographic location, financial resources, and the influence of parents, peers, and role models are involved in channeling individuals of certain races towards particular sports and away from others." Where are the ridiculous claims here? Again, who are those that you claim are reliable sources on this subject? Location (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

We are scholars here, not politicians. It is entirely appropriate for us to cover humanity's analysis of the implications of race. Whether you agree or disagree with the implications is irrelevant (and should always be per WP:Neutral Point of View). I can see, Therexbanner, that you've come in for quote a bit of a clobbering here, but understandably so. In terms of your stated wish to remove all reference to race-related topics, I can only urge you to be more open-minded. Hundreds of years of social, psychological and scientific discussion of race will not disappear if we delete this, just as female circumcision will not cease to exist if we choose not to document it.

I entirely understand that hijacking of topics of this type is widespread, but I think it is defeatist to give up documenting them entirely (discussion, collaboration and article protection should be enough to maintain quality).

In terms of "black athletic superiority", I am quite surprised that you see the presence of such as article as some proof of a racial agenda. The idea is the agenda – a much discussed one which we should cover here too. This might sound immensely patronising but perhaps you should read a little more about the physicality of blacks in relation to the African slave trade. It may well surprise you that the roots of the concept derives not from black supremacists, but from paternalistic white Europeans who used it as a tool to justify their own economic and social superiority. SFB 19:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I just want the article to be fair and NPOV (which you mentioned.) I understand what you're trying to say, but we need to make sure all issues are covered equally.

If you read up on the physicality of white people or asian people, or mixed people, you will see tons of people claiming some sort of major differences that provide advantages or disadvantages. That does not mean such information is reliable. What I would like to see is serious research proving that race directly and inherently affects performance in any sport, without referring to other related factors (income, social status, demographics, climate etc.) I would be surprised if you found any. Nazi, South African Apartheid, and Black Panther "studies" do not count.

I hope that everyone understands that race and ethnicity have absolutely nothing to do with your inherent abilities. Social conditions such as urban African Americans having, on average, less income and not being able to play expensive sports. are not part of race itself (ex. being "black" does not automatically mean you have to be poor), but of historical events. Being black or white does not automatically give you any advantage or disadvantage in sports.

When referring to poor sources, I specifically meant fringe sources like Jon Entine. Even if anyone actually spent time writing a rebuttal to his ramblings, it gives his fringe theories undue weight.

Which is why I support Marek's edits in removing useless details, and concetrating on the core issue:

Yes, these stereotypes exist (for all races). No, they are not true (if someone doesn't agree with this, then that's a problem far more serious than the issue at hand). That's it, basically.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Performance disparities between "races" DO exist and reputable sources acknowledge that. To counter those that think that those performance disparities are based solely or primarily on inherited attributes, the article needs to address the very significant and legitimate POV that "other related factors (income, social status, demographics, climate etc.)" are responsible. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, so we are obliged to address significant POVs. I don't think Jon Entine is right but his belief that black people possess inherited attributes is a significant POV shared by many people, so it's not really a "fringe theory" In fact, Hoberman reported that "[h]alf of the respondents to an American poll in 1991 agreed with the idea that 'blacks have more natural physical ability'." I am not saying that those people are/were right, but it does represent a common view/stereotype. Location (talk) 00:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. As I mentioned a couple of months ago, can someone define race? How do you define black/white? According to these "scientists", the blacker you are, the higher you can dunk? The whiter you are, the better you are at golf? All people on Earth are mixed in some way, so how do we calculate percentages and sports skills? Personally, I think this is ridiculous. --Therexbanner (talk) 23:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Regarding your postscript, we had this discussion previously when I told you my attempt to address the concept of "race" was "stripped by another editor", to which you replied: "In regards to your second point, I see nothing wrong with your addition. Given the fact that the other user reverted without discussing the issue, I think that you should restore that part, and expand on it." When I did so, with further explanation, it was removed again by a different editor. If you take the time to read some of the references noted, you'll see that the various authors acknowledge the problems inherent in the term "race". Heck, the second one is entitled: 'Race', Sport, and British Society [note the emphasis on "race" in quotes]. You keep placing terms like "studies", "scientists", and "experts" in quotes as though you know of better references. I've asked you before for better references, so let's have them. And other than Entine, which reference, which quote is troublesome to you? Location (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, Location. While I understand entirely where you are coming from Therexbanner, I think you have somewhat missed my point. We should be documenting a very prominent social conception. Whether it is well-founded or not is another matter entirely. As a comparison, you will likely not find sources confirming without question that a divine power said pork was not halal, but that has no effect on the worth of discussing halal. Still, a much much better title for a sub-article would be Black athleticism. I don't think that means we must have a sub-article on every race's perceived propensity for sporting talent – we don't need to discuss Slavic athleticism, for example, because it is an idea which is not really prevalent in any way. SFB 17:33, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Absolutely not. "Black athleticism" as you call it, is in no way different from any other race's. Read up on some statistics and you will find black (of African descent) athletes to be under-performing in 95%+ of the sports that exist on Earth compared to the population (1+ billion). From lacrosse, to swimming, to hockey, to weightlifting, to chess, etc. etc.

This includes people from Africa itself, and people that went through the slave trade to North and South America.

Even in basketball, per capita, former Yugoslavia (especially Serbia) absolutely dominates basketball, having won as many championships as the USA with a pop. 30 times smaller. Out of any champions or participants in world basketball competitions, there is only one country with any black minority, and it's the USA.

These statistics do not mean black people are inherently any worse than others. I am shocked that one can argue that a certain race is better than other, even when these stereotypes do exist among limited groups. What's next an article called "White intelligence" or "White wealth"? Sorry, but I fully object to such generalizations.

I believe these stereotypes must be discussed, but only after re-affirming the belief in that we are all equal, when it comes to inherent abilities. Saying that is not so, is the very definition of racism ("Racism is the belief that there are inherent differences in people's traits and capacities that are entirely due to their race, however defined..." and "racism is the practice of the different treatment of certain a group or groups, which is then justified by recourse to racial stereotyping or pseudo-science."), and I know that's not the case here.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect, these are (as you say) your beliefs. The purpose of the article is not to forward an argument. You are correct to point out that Slavic nations have had athletic success – that was precisely the reason I chose that phrase. Google the two terms I linked. You will find that one phrase will deliver a lifetime's worth of material to study, while the other will deliver no discussion on that matter (and actually will show material relating to the other phrase, such is its ubiquity). What you are doing here is stating your opinion on a phenomena, not documenting its presence. SFB 22:58, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I didn't realize that bots would automatically fix the references. Although I added much of the information that you removed, I am OK if you remove it again. The more I think about it, the more this article appears to be one of those that sucks up a lot of time and energy without progressing very far. Location (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is rather poorly-organized at the moment but I don't think blanking around a third of it is the best solution. There are reliable sources that discuss both the notion of "black athletic superiority" and the possible reasons for racial disparities in sports achievement. We should either split the article into two articles about these two topics, or clean up the current article so that it discusses both concepts in a better organized manner. I'm fine with whichever possibility is favored by consensus.Boothello (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

"Cleaning up" usually involves first the removal of unnecessary and problematic information. Location, I will remove the text again - I can see how some of it could be used as part of a more general and thorough written text but we don't have that here - and make sure the references don't get screwed up.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Having reviewed your changes, I think that your approach is quite logical and acceptable.--Therexbanner (talk) 18:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

In my opinion, an article entitled "Race and Sports" should discuss primarily 1) The history of Race and Sports and 2) the current situation. Things like which race is supposedly better at what sports are tertiary, if that. There's a little bit of 1) and 2) already in the article but it is woefully underdeveloped, especially given the vast number of sources on 1). Jackie Robinson, for example, gets a single sentence. But there are literally tens of millions of books written about him and his impact out there. Negro league baseball also gets only one line although, again, there are millions of sources on that. Basically, the core of the article should be something like the "Racial prejudices, discrimination, segregation, and integration" although I would re-title it "History of Race and Sports" or something, and make it more in line with such a heading. A section like "Portrayals in film", which should really be "Portrayals in media" is likewise just begging for an expansion - there's books, thesis, articles, whole journals devoted to this.

The sections: "Participation and performance disparities", "Explanations for participation and performance disparities" and even "Public views and stereotypes" should go to the end of the article and be trimmed down. Some of the things in that section need to be simply removed. I would suggest not getting distracted and bogged down in discussing these aspects of the article, simply cut most of the inappropriate text from them, and instead concentrate on developing the parts that this article really should be about.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. This stereotype article should be treated like other stereotype articles on Wiki. In fact, I see no reason for the disparities section at all. They are poorly sourced, and serve no purpose in dispelling the stereotype.--Therexbanner (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason that participation and performance disparities need to be addressed is because they DO exist (e.g. black people are under-represented in the sport of swimming) and stereotypes have sprung-up because of them (e.g. black people can't swim well). I am a bit dumbfounded at the suggestion that ignoring well-reported disparities (e.g. the percentage of black athletes in the NBA) will dispel stereotypes (e.g. white men can't jump). On the issue of "poorly sourced" references, at some point you are going to have to "put-up or shut-up". I've asked you for better references at least two or three times and you've ignored the request everytime. The fact that editors can be so far apart on understanding issues like these is why I think this article is destined to be a waste of time and energy. Location (talk) 23:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

If you think addressing disparities is acceptable, then there should be more than NBA, and NFL listed there. Why not list all the hundreds of sports that exist, and the respective percentages of races participating? That would be OR, but so is including bare NBA and NFL data. Also, since race is a global issue, this has to be dealt with globally.

That means, removing all the US centric info. or adding information about why the Brazilian polo team has 99% white players with black people making up 5% of the population.

It makes absolutely zero sense in accounting for actual discrepancies, unless they are all documented.

For the sources, the burden of proof lays on you since you are the one claiming there are more sources for black sports performance, compared to others.--Therexbanner (talk) 12:29, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

There was information regarding disparities of other races and in other sports, but Volunteer Marek just removed it. His edit also removed information explaining why the NBA and NFL data is particularly important here: "Jane P. Sheldon, a professor of psychology at University of Michigan–Dearborn, suggests that the large proportion of black athletes in baseball, basketball, and football (which she describes as 'three of the most visible and highly valued sports in the United States'), as well as the domination of black sprinters in the Olympics, has contributed to the belief that blacks are 'naturally athletic'." This information was all from academic sources discussing racism, prejudice, and inequality in sport. In other words, it was not simply bare data, or SYNTH or OR on my part. If you have a similar source about the Brazilian water polo team, then I think it would be great addition. If you are stating that the sources used in the article are bad, the you have an obligation to at least provide some specific examples. If you are stating that you have better sources, then you have the obligation to at least bring a couple to the table. Whether or not "black athletic superiority" is discussed more than other athletic stereotypes is a side issue, however, here are some sources discussing it. It's time for you to provide one good reference for this article. 15:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, I agree that "Race and athleticism" (which is a title that SFB may have recommended at once) is only a part of "Race and sports". Keep in mind that this article was about one particular part of "Race and athleticism" (i.e. "Black athletic superiority") before the name of the article was unilaterally changed by Miradre. I will happily take credit for adding the Jackie Robinson statement (which was meant to be a start for which others could add information), starting the other relevant history sections, and the "Portrayals in film" section. I'm just waiting for people to start contributing... Location (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

David Ickes: I added more information about Jackie Robinson. I also added recent racial issues in the NFL. Additionally, I added some information on Kareem Abdul Jabar on his take on race and sportsDavidickes (talk) 04:10, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Ah, Miradre. Anyway, I think stuff on race/sports sterotypes could go in here - particularly on well worn ones like "white men can't jump", as can obvious racial disparities in sports like swimming. BUT, I would rather first see the expansion of the other parts of the article, otherwise it just looks wrong. I will try to expand a little in the near future.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Understood. Cheers! Location (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to start a new section on racial disparities in athletic performance. The stereotypes about black people (can't swim) and white men (can't jump) could be caused either (a) by inherent potential (e.g., it's in their genes), (b) by culture, upbringing, and opportunity (black parents don't give their children as many swimming lessons, whites don't hang out at a playground with basketball hoops as much), or (c) a combination of both.

No one believes that Americans living in California have any special inherent ability in surfing; most people recognize that the surfing craze simply started there. For one thing, a lot of Californians had plenty of money and leisure time. No one thinks there's a "surfing gene" that Okies lack: there simply isn't anywhere to surf in the Great Plains. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

same with wintersports which are dominated by people who live in regions with winters with ice and snow -78.42.252.102 (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Berlin Olympics

Couldn't this at least get a mention? --MacRusgail (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Strength Sports

There is no mention of "Strength Sports", such as the Bench Press. These sports are White Man dominated, meaning that they go against the "Black brawn and White brain" stereotypes mentioned in the "black athletic superiority" section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.20.61.184 (talk) 07:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Are "white man dominated" sports the ones that cost money to practice in? Ice hockey requires expensive ice time at a private rink - or that you grow up where there are many nearby frozen ponds, i.e., Canada. Weightlifting is best done in a gym, and most gyms charge a monthly fee. And don't even talk about NASCAR: even if you call it a "sport", you need millions of dollars in sponsorship.

Baseball, basketball and football are played with very inexpensive equipment; a vacant lot will do, or the typical schoolyard. --Uncle Ed (talk) 15:53, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

soccer is cheaper to play (than Baseball/Americanfootball) and you can't see any "racial" dominance in world wide soccer a sport play in most of the world (but ok the article is basicly/mostly about the us and us sports)95.208.187.120 (talk) 14:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

Percentages over time

I'd love to see a chart showing black representation in various North American sports compared to the proportion of blacks in the national population - and how this has changed since the mid-twentieth century.

Something like this, maybe:

Blacks in American baseball

Year	Major leagues	Population	Ratio
1945	2%	10%	1:5
1959	17%	11%	3:2
1975	27%	11%	5:2
1995	19%	12%	3:2

It seems like the under-representation of blacks in U.S. baseball ended during the early years of the Civil rights movement. --Uncle Ed (talk) 16:07, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

While I think a straight-forward listing of statistics might be informative, putting together statistics from two different sources and presenting an original conclusion is likely a violation of WP:SYNTH. I found a reference looking at 1991 statistics showing that 18% of MLB players were black but 44% of the starters in the all-star game were black... suggesting a double-standard based on race for getting into the major leagues (i.e. you need to be superstar material if you are black).[3] The argument could be made from this information that as a function of talent, blacks are underrepresented in MLB. And if black players constitute only 3% at the higher levels of youth baseball and in the NCAA Div I, then they are still underrepresented in the general population.[4] More recent figures show blacks to be 8 to 10% in MLB.[5] Location (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If the diversity of sources for the table is a problem, we can list each source in a cell. Better yet, let's find a source that has statistics for each year.

I don't like the idea of you or I drawing our own conclusions in a WP:SYNTHy way. Maybe we should quote someone who represents MLB, along with a critic of it, and let the reader choose whom to believe. The AP article you quoted implies that the current 1:1 ratio (a decline from 3:2) is due to lack of interest or subsidy support for youth baseball. Also, there is the question of whether dark-skinned Latinos are "[[black Americans|black]".

But I guess we agree on one thing: we should take a neutral approach to the color barrier / color line issue. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Merger proposal

There is a longtime merger proposal in this article. I have opened a discussion at the Racism in sport talk page, and hopefully we can build a consensus on whether the article should be moved or not, and the merge tags can be deleted. Please comment at the Racism in sport talk page, and not at this page. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Only the Kalenjin are exceptional runners

Not all East Africans or even black athletes are favoured genetically/physiologically, only a single ethnic group – and their descendants elsewhere in the world, see Kalenjin people#References. This needs to be rectified in the article. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Good observation. It's also touched on here. From these, it would appear that most of the elite distance athletes in the Great Lakes area are indeed Nilotic speakers like the Kalenjin. I've rectified this. Soupforone (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Very good, thank you. But why did you remove the Jon Entine paragraph? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 00:39, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Entine too is mainly alluding here to dominance by athletes of Nilo-Saharan ancestry like the Kalenjin [6]. Soupforone (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

OK. His book Taboo, however, is doubtless a central text on the topic, so I'm surprised it is not actually mentioned explicitly in the article body, or in the general references for that matter. I understand Taboo basically made this whole topic notable by spurring the debate. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:02, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

The "Graduation Rates" sub-section

Section I-B entitled "Graduation Rates" is wholly irrelevant to a "Race and Sports" Wikipedia article. On that basis alone it should be deleted. In my personal opinion, I would also add that it kinda reads like: "Before you read this article about the relative dominance of blacks in American sports, you should know that blacks are stupid." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.130.192 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Physiological Factors

The first two paragraphs of the section on physiological factors were placed there by an editor, Mre env, who is a collaborator of the author he cites. He's been adding non NPOV content related to Bejan's work in several articles, and it might be worth reviewing if that is the case here. The journal the article he cites was published in is even noted in its wikipedia page for potentially having very low standards: Wessex Institute of Technology#Design_and_Nature. 38.65.195.5 (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Restructuring

The article cries out for restructuring. Getting rid of the "and" in the title would be useful. This is why Wikipedia discourages "and" articles. Is this "Race in Sports"? "Racial factors determining success in sports" (which I think incorrect, though clear), "Participation in sports by race"? "Success in sports by race"? With an "and", the discussion kind of drifts and loses focus. Student7 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

User:Iselilja and User:Maunus were correct, of course, Racism in sport makes a lot more sense. Student7 (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

"Race" as a factor in athletic success in the US

In America, at least, "racial" differences have been disproved by a study showing that a white person, selected at random, has more similar genetics to any black person, selected at random, than any two blacks persons, selected at random. This might differ in other countries, but the article is mostly about the US. Student7 (talk) 23:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Race and sports. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110724084016/http://www.ncasports.org/Articles/2008_RGRC.pdf to http://www.ncasports.org/Articles/2008_RGRC.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005000736/http://bamboooffshoot.com/2012/02/27/hey-american-sports-where-are-all-the-asian-at/ to http://bamboooffshoot.com/2012/02/27/hey-american-sports-where-are-all-the-asian-at/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004221625/http://www.sportmarketingassociation.com/2010conference/2010conferencepresentations/S-05.pdf to http://www.sportmarketingassociation.com/2010conference/2010conferencepresentations/S-05.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blog.chron.com/sportsmedia/2013/04/lin-tells-60-minutes-his-ethnicity-may-have-stymied-college-recruiting-offers/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C1951044%2C00.html?artId=1951044%3FcontType%3Darticle%3Fchn%3Dus
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100715143122/http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/01/28/taboo/print.html to http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2000/01/28/taboo/print.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

CMAH mutations

Appearantly, humans have attained the CMAH gene, helping them to become much better in distance running. See here and here. I'm not sure however whether mutations of that gene (which all humans have) exist between races (for example Kenyan runners). Perhaps it can be looked into, and obtained info can be added to this page ? Genetics4good (talk) 17:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

"socially constructed races"???

I don't know much about this topic, but from what I've read/heard, it is generally accepted today that the concept of race is inherently a social construct, thus "socially constructed races" seems redundant & repetitive (and possibly confusing). "Socially constructed races" implies that there is some type/concept of race that isn't a social construct, and what is being referred to is specifically socially constructed. Is there any reason to specify "socially constructed"? The only other reason that I can think of is to stress that race is a social construct, but I don't see why it would be particularly important to stress that in the context of this article (any more so than any other), and even if it should be included to stress the point, it would seem more correct to include it as parenthetical I.E. 'races (which is a social construct)' rather than as an adjective.Yaakovaryeh (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point, Yaakovaryeh. It seems to me that the lead should be significantly expanded to clarify this issue though, rather than simply employing a parenthesis. But any work you might care to do to improve it would be most appreciated. Generalrelative (talk) 18:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

What is intended here?

There's a sentence which says According to a report by the Green Bay Packers, the NFL earned $7,808,000 from TV deals, and split it among its 32 teams evenly. This means that each NFL owner “made $244m last year in 2016”. Does not compute. And the quoted words do not appear in the reference. What is intended/missing here? Moriori (talk) 23:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Delete this quote

"If there is a 'black gene' that leads to athletic prowess, why then do African Americans, 90 percent of whom have at least one white ancestor, outperform blacks from African nations in every sport except long distance running?"

African countries are extremely poor. People there are malnourished. They don't develop their maximum athletic qualities. Also, there is not enough money to found the training of all the athletes needed to be able to compete in professional sports. This question is not serious and wikipedia should be serious so please remove it.

Wiki Education assignment: JMC 440 Research Methods in Public Relations

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 6 September 2022 and 1 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Natsturg (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Natsturg (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Georgetown University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2012 S1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:30, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Lansing Community College supported by WikiProject United States Government and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by Primefac (talk) on 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)