Talk:Racialism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Inaccurate lead

@Bonadea:

Racialism is the belief that the human species is naturally divided into races, that are ostensibly distinct biological categories.

Does racialism include the belief:

• 'that races are ostensibly distinct biological categories' or
• 'that races are ostensibly distinct biological categories'.

I assume the latter to be true, in which case the current sentence is objectively inaccurate. To see why, you must realise that while defining a belief, one must not reflect whether the belief contains accurate/true prepositions. To illustrate:

• Spontaneous generation is not written as 'formation of living organisms ostensibly without descent from similar organisms, because that body of thought didn't believe generation is ostensibly spontaneous, but that generation is ostensibly genuinely spontaneous.
• Geocentric model is not written as 'with Earth ostensibly at the center', because that's not what the geocentric model entails.

Give an accurate definition. You have every right to afterwards remind the reader that the belief is considered inaccurate/obsolete/whatever you wish, but please, define it accurately.

Many dictionaries define the term racialism as synonymous with racism.[1]

Source [1] objectively states "In most dictionaries, the terms racist and racialist are pretty much synonymous." (Emphasis added). I don't accuse anyone of intentionally failing to correctly read the source. Still, failing to include pretty much in the current statement seems to make the statement (i) an inacurrate referencing of a source xor (ii) an unsourced statement. So am I wrong in calling it inaccurate?

Please do not take this as anything other than a mannered approach to resolving what I understand to be inaccuracies. If my understanding is incorrect, I will be thankful if you correct me. And please explain why you wrote 'and inappropriate tone' so that I may avoid being inappropriate in the future.Kuiet (talk) 16:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Your understanding is incorrect. As for "inappropriate tone", that referred to "pretty much" which is not only superfluous (synonyms are almost never exact, and adding that kind of modifier acts as weasel wording) but also overly informal phrasing. --bonadea contributions talk 18:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

When disagreement becomes apparent, one, both, or all participants should cease warring and discuss the issue on the associated talk page, or seek help at appropriate venues.
—  Edit warring

I am new but I've made an effort to present my views so that we may resolve our disagreement. Stating 'Your understanding is incorrect', then addressing only the third part of the issues I presented does not seem to me like you have corrected my understanding not does it seem to me like you are 'discussing the issue'. Am I interpreting the above quote incorrectly? If not, please address the rest.Kuiet (talk) 23:08, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The relative clause is non-restrictive. It adds information about the term, not about the belief. I have amended the relative pronoun to make that clear. --bonadea contributions talk 06:21, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

"Racial homogeneity" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Racial homogeneity should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 23#Racial homogeneity until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. BDD (talk) 21:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

aracialism: dismissing the notion of race, not necessarily due to the denial of the science of genetics

aracialism: anticorporealism; dismissing the notion of race, not necessarily due to the denial of the science of genetics

Dismissing the notion of race, as a sociological attribute of the individual.

Write about it because:

• it has goods: like the aracialist French State, no official compartmentalization of the citizens is officially accepted under the racial criterion (different jobs, sexes etc remain acceptable attributes to be examined by the national office of statistics; we cannot abolish statistics in general; private companies usually are allowed to perform private surveys even on race).

• it has bads: Aracialists want to blend cultures; not by force, but naturally. Some citizens either don't want to blend cultures, or they want corporeal criteria of the flesh to be linked with specific cultures.

No opinion is neutral. Any opinion has two sides, but some might be huge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2149:8410:1F00:B91E:A5A2:78B1:EB35 (talk) 22:55, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

"Some U.S. medical studies..."

This is regarding this edit.

The cited sources did not appear neutrally summarized, which risks WP:OR. As one example, "partial genetic correlations" is ambiguous and potentially misleading, especially considering the broad scope of the article. This source discusses racialism in medicine in some detail, but it makes few direct conclusions, and as it is from 2005, is relatively old for a WP:MEDRS anyway. As that source goes to great lengths to point out, race and health is complicated and controversial. Further, there is already too much overlap with other articles. To avoid topic creep, this article should be narrowly focused on the topic of 'racialism'. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)