Talk:Scientific racism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

RFCBEFORE : Thomas Malthus

Considering feedback from @VQuakr and others I will try to clear up a few RPCBEFORE concerns before starting an RfC. Firstly, upon reflection I would like to first RFC the question of including Malthus in the current article. Once that is resolved I will propose separately that the article be rewritten. My concern is that a rewrite could take a very long time, and in the interim the public can benefit from improvements within the current structure.

Regarding relevance of sources to this article, VQuakr appears to suggest a source must "directly connect" an individual such as Malthus with “scientific racism”. The concerns from @NightHeron about WP:SYNTH suggest a similar relevance requirement. There are some problems with this standard:

• It is inconsistent with practice elsewhere in this article. For example, the discussion of Benjamin Rush cites a single reference, and that reference does not use the term “scientific racism” or "racism".
• We all seem to agree that scientific racism existed prior to 1960, but the term “scientific racism” did not, and was rare prior to being popularized by Chase and other authors in the 1970s. To my knowledge there were no uses of “scientific racism" prior to 1960 (but one use of "pseudo-scientific racism" in The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 45, No. 3, Jan 1955), and sparse usage in the 1960s. I would welcome evidence of earlier usage, but if there is none, the requirement that a historical source use the term “scientific racism” does not make sense.
• The OED suggests that the word "racism" was introduced around 1902.

If use of the term “scientific racism” is not our objective standard for relevance, then what should the standard be? I suggest that if a theory is scientific and it is racist, then it is scientific racism. This standard emerged from my discussions with @Rjensen. Applied to Rush: he published as a scientist, and his theory of skin color is broadly construed as racist, and so we assert the relevance of his work, despite the fact that the cited source does not apply the labels “scientific racist” or “racist”. Is this an agreeable standard? If not please propose an alternative.

There also seems to be some confusion about my sourcing. Chase 1977 is expansive and so relevant on many topics. Some seem inclined to disqualify Chase 1977, but I still don’t understand the argument to support that position. For the influence of Malthus on chattel slavery, my draft further cites Hodgson 2009 and Spengler 1935. For his influence on Eugenics, I cite Duggan 1915, The Annals of Eugenics 1925, Shermer 2023, Taguieff 2007, and Mayhew 2015, . For his influence on Social Darwinism, I cite Rumney 1966 and Claeys 2000. I cite additional sources regarding the general influence of Malthus on racist pseudoscience (Ridley 2015, Follett 2020). As with Rush and his theory of skin color, I assert that chattel slavery, Eugenics and Social Darwinism are broadly considered racist, although this is where the question of WP:SYNTH has been raised. I see the relevance of WP:SYNTH as in-scope for the RFC, so maybe we steer around it for now.

@VQuakr@NightHeron @Snow Rise @ScottishFinnishRadish @Jerome Frank Disciple I’m hoping you will help us reach consensus on these preliminaries. JBradleyChen (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

So, with regard to "it is inconsistent with practice elsewhere in this article" (or "elsewhere in X" style arguments generally), you will want to familiarize yourself with WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. That page is an WP:ESSAY and not a WP:PAG, but identifies a perpsective that is not just widely supported in the community, but also principle that is largely unavoidable in working on this project, due to WP:CONLEVELS. In short, the fact that fundamental policy is not being followed elsewhere on the project (or even the same article) is not an argument for also abjuring to follow it another instance. If anything, it is an argument that the existing issues need to be addressed, not replicated in a new context.

I'm going to try to impart a very nuanced fact about the firmness of rules in editing on this project that is difficult to impart, because delineating the precise contours of the rules can be difficult to do expressly, as opposed to learning them with experience. Still, this is a very salient point that could serve you well in your early ventures here, so I'll take a stab at it: technically there is an operational principle on this project that every rule could be made to bow to pragmatic concerns if it interferes with improving the encyclopedia. In practice, however, policies vary wildly in how vital they are considered to be to basic editorial activities.

And among those which as a general rule are treated as inviolable, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:OR/WP:SYNTH sit near the top. It's just virtually certain that a typical group of veteran editors forming WP:LOCALCONSENSUS for a given article are going to agree to allow challenged content to come in if you can't find an WP:RS that expressly supports the statement you want to add. Synthesizing an original outlook (which can't be directly sourced) from several predicate points (even if these can be sourced), is just regarded as one of the ultimate anathemas on this project. Furthermore, this article falls under the auspices WP:CONTENTIOUS TOPICS advisory (specifically the "race and intelligence" CTOP), meaning that is a recognized divisive field that generates a lot of controversy on- and off-project, and thus the level of scrutiny here is enhanced even further.

That said, by all means, if you wish to continue with RfCing the question of whether to include Malthus here, absent significant sourcing directly supporting his connection to the subject of this article, you can do so: it's your prerogative as a member of this community, it will be a good learning experience for you if nothing else, and no goodfaith group of local editors (even if brought in by the previous version of the RfC) would try to thwart further community input in such a case. But at the same time, I must tell you bluntly, that I think the rest of us largely consider the outcome a foregone conclusion. But to be encouraging and fair, and give you every benefit going forward, I'd advise you avoid any OTHERSTUFF-like arguments about how SYNTH has not been as scrupulously followed elsewhere in the article, because it is likely to be seen as a knock against your argument, rather than a point in support. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:21, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

So, I wanted to break my response up into two components here, both because that first point ended up being much larger than I'd have liked and to keep the issue distinct. Leaning towards something where we can find common ground, and I can be more encouraging, I have a different response regarding your inquiry about the semantics of "racism" and scientific racism". Now this too is a tricky area, and very sensitive to context. Because sometimes in order to justify inclusion of content, you really do want a very close match between what you want to state in wikivoice and what the source says. In this case, I do think there is some flexibility, however. Given the age of the topic, you are correct that sometimes sources which might reasonably be used to support content will not always have a 1:1 match on nomenclature.

Now that's not always going to be a super salient point, because the counter-argument is going to be "Well we really do like contemporary research anyway, and there's nothing stopping present-day sources from attaching label X to subject Y". But that said, if you can find sources expressly connecting Malthus to the development of racial theory and/or rqacial psuedoscience in any context, it can only help your argument. It won't necessarily be a silver bullet (without the actual phrase of "scientific racism", there will be much higher constraints on how anything you find can be used here), but any statement by a serious researcher expressly suggesting that Malthusian principles influenced the development of the scientific justification for racial categories could (heavy emphasis on that could) benefit your effort here. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:44, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Respectfully, I find your feedback condescending and unhelpful, but I'm hopeful that we can refocus. You've ignored my arguments and turned this into a discussion about process. In so doing you are applying a double standard, with my proposed contribution being held to a different standard than the rest of the article. I would be grateful for your engagement on the arguments, and in particular, collaboration on an objective basis for relevance to this article, one that acknowledges the article as written.

Regardiing WP:OTHERSTUFF would my time be better spent removing material from this article that doesn't meet the standards suggested for Malthus?

Regarding "any statement by a serious researcher" Please consider the twelve sources I cite.

Regarding "The development of the scientific justification for racial categories" Isn't this was more of an 18th century topic? The influence of Malthus, as I read it, was to support a more fluid notion of race and species, a departure from creation myth, based on organic processes and anticipating Darwin, Social Darwinism and Eugenics. JBradleyChen (talk) 10:19, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

"Respectfully, I find your feedback condescending and unhelpful, but I'm hopeful that we can refocus."

I'm sorry to hear that you feel that way. I honestly did not intend for those comments to be patronizing, but rather informative about some nuances about this project's processes and priorities which are not always well communicated by our policies or emphasized by our onboarding processes, and which thus become issues for newer users. I assure you that everyone here had to make some sort of adjustment to understanding the exact parameters of how synth works here, and it is not my intent to talk down to you if I try to explain some of the particulars.

"You've ignored my arguments and turned this into a discussion about process.

Well, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I believe I engaged in good faith with your arguments. I'm not entirely sure what you mean about re-orienting the issues towards process, but if you mean focusing on the content policies, I'm afraid there's no avoiding that. You seem to regard some of the PAGs pointed out to you as advisory, but as I mentioned in the previous post, in most cases they are much firmer rules than that, and the amount of discretion we have (as a group of editors on an individual article) to bend said rules is sharply circumscribed by higher level community consensus, as set out in policy (again, WP:CONLEVEL is not just a bureaucratic "process": it is an important factor in how we apply our editorial guidelines).

"In so doing you are applying a double standard, with my proposed contribution being held to a different standard than the rest of the article. I would be grateful for your engagement on the arguments, and in particular, collaboration on an objective basis for relevance to this article, one that acknowledges the article as written."

Respectfully, I think you have some things backwards here: it's not me being obstructionist of your desired additions if I support your having to meet a WP:WEIGHT/WP:ONUS threshold for those additions, even if other content here may arguably also not comport with those standards. I'm not a major contributor to this article: because of my background, I have been to this article before, but made only trivial contributions: I am here on this occasion in response to your RfC. The scope of my feedback thus has been limited to proving input on how policy applies to the issues you have raised regarding the additions you wish to make. It would not be helpful to speculate at length here about how I think those same policies would apply to other content on this article, though I think it is fair to say it would be a mixed bag.

"Regardiing WP:OTHERSTUFF would my time be better spent removing material from this article that doesn't meet the standards suggested for Malthus?"

To a large extent, only you can answer that question. I will say this: many a new user has gotten themselves in trouble by going on a rampage trying to remove content according to some content rule or another, after their own additions were thwarted by that same guideline. So long as the content you remove or propose to remove actually does conflict with policy, you are on safe ground and your contributions will probably be welcomed as improving the article. But even for a veteran user, I would urge caution that you are not letting ire or frustration colour your decisions, because disrupting an article or talk page to make a point about a policy you disagree with is considered WP:tendentious editing and can lead to community oversight and, at a certain point, sanctions that can limit the scope of what articles you are allowed to edit. So my answer to your question is a very big (and I'm sure unsatisfying) "it depends". If you want to raise specific concerns you have about existing synth in the article in a separate section, we could give more specific feedback.

"Regarding "The development of the scientific justification for racial categories" Isn't this was more of an 18th century topic? The influence of Malthus, as I read it, was to support a more fluid notion of race and species, a departure from creation myth, based on organic processes and anticipating Darwin, Social Darwinism and Eugenics.

Well it certainly is a topic which has many inflection points in the 18th century, yes. But that doesn't obviate us from needing to have sources which directly support inclusion of an observations we want to make about that development. Now as to your interpretation of the influence of Malthus, it may or may not be correct. My understanding is that Malthus, despite some arguable callousness in his views, was actually pretty vocal about rejecting the divisions of the races along lines of a perceived hierarchy of merit of their cultures or inherent worth in individuals according to race, in an express manner that was pretty rare for many of his contemporaries. You may very well have a different view based on a review of different discussion of the man. But the more salient point is that you and I (or any set of editors) debating our personal idiosyncratic perspectives on the man, rather than what the WP:WEIGHT of whats the sources say as to specific existing or proposed content, is at best a minor violation of WP:NOTAFORUM, and possibly a distracting exercise in WP:Original research.

As to your twelve sources, a significant number of editors has pointed out to you that all but one of said sources do not actually in any way directly support the assertion that Malthus is a person recognized to have played a significant role in the development of scientific racism, and that the one remaining source is dubiously sufficient to include much (if any) content linking him to the topic of this article, given the exceptional nature of that claim, and the large amount of content you want to add to such a prospective section, based on the dots you feel you have connected between the other 11 sources (which, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, would be textbook synthesis). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:18, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Comment: Haven't these two long threads on Malthus degenerated into a case of WP:IDHT by JBC and a time sink for the rest of us? NightHeron (talk) 12:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I would welcome feedback on this question, as well as constructive engagement on the questions of substance I am raising. JBradleyChen (talk) 17:34, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@NightHeron: agreed that at times it seems like JBradleyChen is squandering considered advice from some exceptionally respected and experienced editors (and also me). @JBradleyChen: when you mention "twelve sources", yet again, without acknowledging that all but one of them aren't usable per WP:SYNTH, or when you make an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument for the nth time immediately after it's been explained to you that that isn't a good argument, it has the potential to alienate other editors. Eventually, even the most patient amongst us would be tempted to simply write you off as not teachable. VQuakr (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback.

In response the feedback on WP:SYNTH, I have explained how I don't see the standard applied consistently in this article, and suggested a standard that to be relevant a theory should be scientific and should be racist. Was that an unreasonable response? If so, why? It's not just Rush, I think there are many comparable situations among the Enlightenment figures.

I believe that your objections to my edit are not due to bias against me or Malthus, but instead due to an objective, consistent standard that applies throughout. In order for me to participate in that standard you need to tell me what it is. JBradleyChen (talk) 22:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

There's no mystery about what the standard is. As we've told you repeatedly, you need multiple reliable sources that discuss Malthus's writings on race, if there are any. If Malthus theorized only about class and not about race, then he isn't relevant for this article. NightHeron (talk) 23:40, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Well, I would rather phrase it that there is inadequate sourcing connecting Malthus to discussion of race. Even if Malthus only ever discussed class, it would still be possible for his works to be expressly connected (by a significant number of RS) to discussion of race, such that we would be bound to mention it here. I'm sure that's what you meant as well, but I just want to be as clear as possible, under the circumstances. The issue is that we have here a man whose works have been widely discussed and debated in the last few centuries, by a long litany of experts and luminaries, and whose views have been widely influential on economic and social policy and logistics (and have been strongly repudiated in some empirical respects in modern times). So if, an all that vast corpus of debate over several epochs of research and scientific advancement, only one single RS has expressed a view that his works were a part of the development of scientific or institutional racism, that's just not enough WP:WEIGHT to mention him here (and certainly not if that one mention is going to become a WP:COATRACK for several paragraphs of synth based on sources that don't mention his connection to race at all). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 04:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

"In response the feedback on WP:SYNTH, I have explained how I don't see the standard applied consistently in this article, and suggested a standard that to be relevant a theory should be scientific and should be racist. Was that an unreasonable response? If so, why?"

The problem is that we (as a group of editors working on just this article) are not at liberty to create an independent standard like that. Or more precisely, any working rules of thumb we develop here cannot abrogate or lower the standard for inclusion that is established by the community at large, and recorded in a content policy. So even if each of us here agreed that your standard is logical in an abstract sense, in terms of what we can or cannot include in this article, we still have to comport with WP:V, WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, and WP:EXCEPTIONAL.

And what the interplay of those policies boils down to in this instance is that you need to have sources that support more or less exactly the statements you want to make. So if you want to say Malthus was a significant figure in the development of scientific racism, you need a source which says precisely that. It is insufficient and impermissible for us to agree here among ourselves that "X, Y, and Z are components of scientific racism, we can all see that and agree about that definition personally. And here's a source connecting [insert historical figure here] to X, and another source that says proponents of Y quote him frequently, and three that say Z follows naturally from views he espoused. Therefore, this person was significant part of the development of scientific racism." That's the crux of our policies on original research and synthesis: we are not allowed to connect those dots ourselves to arrive at an independent conclusion about the facts: the sources have to connect those dots themselves and make any statements we want to include. Even if we are really, super convinced of the logic of our personal conclusions about the interplay of other sources, those conclusions are irrelevant for the purposes of justifying inclusion of a given observation or statement. You might convince us all that your interpretation of Malthus' role in the development of scientific racism is dead-on accurate, insightful, and even a little brilliant, and our hands would still be tied in telling you we can't use it here. I hope that helps to clarify. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 05:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. In terms of the standard for inclusion, I'm having a little trouble interpolating between @NightHeron and @Snow Rise but for now that is mine to think through and I can ruminate on that.

A basic question, and one possibly appropriate for RFC, is whether Malthus must be demonstrably racist to be included in this article, or if it is sufficient for him to have influenced scientific racism. I could cite material documenting Malthus' racist views (e.g. 4th edition, Volume 1 Chapter 3, where he discusses the indigenous people of Tierre del Fuego, and a later discussion about indigenous Americans) but I'm not inclined to do so because I do not see evidence his racist views impacted scientific racism, not with the impact of his economic theories.

Regarding his economic theories, and with your feedback in mind, I did make some changes to my draft, separating the discussion of the more modern pseudo-science (Social Darwinism and Eugenics) from his earlier influence on chattel slavery, and also documenting his influence on the Irish Potato Famine, thinking we might consider those earlier situations separately. To me the relevance of these situations seems somewhat more obvious, although I mention it imagining you might have a critical view. If your view is that WP:SYNTH applies to these two situations I would appreciate your clarity on that. I would also appreciate your perspective on the standard for WP:WEIGHT, considering the tangible discriminatory impact of these two situations.

I offer these observations not so much to convince you, but rather in hopes of constructively clarifying where my assumptions for the standard of relevance for inclusion differ from your own. Thank you and apologies for not being more brief. JBradleyChen (talk) 01:51, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I would not waste your time RfCing the question of whether or not Malthus must be demonstrably racist in order for that he be mentioned in this article: the answer to that question is not in doubt: no, you do not need to demonstrate that. So long as you meet the burden to demonstrate that a significant WP:WEIGHT of WP:reliable sources feel that he influenced scientific racism, that is all that is required to include such a statement. But again, the problem is that (insofar as you have demonstrated to this point) you do not have the sourcing to support that statement. You have exactly one WP:RS, of of centuries worth of discussion of the man as a central figure in the development of modern economics, which supports that claim--a source from an academic working fifty years ago whose stance was apparently never adopted by any other RS. That is unlikely to be considered WP:DUE to include the WP:exceptional claim that Malthus was a significant figure in the development of scientific racism.

Further, even if consensus did find or a mentioning him here, it would be an extremely limited mention, and most of what is in your draft could still not be added, because the sources supporting that content do not discuss his research in terms of being connected to scientific racism, meaning it would still be WP:SYNTH (specifically WP:COATRACK synth). Let me blunt: I do not think you can argue your way around this deficit, no matter how long you try or how many angles you take on this problem. The one thing you could do which would stand a chance of moving the needle here is to try to dig up additional sourcing--sourcing which expressly and unambiguously connects Malthus to the topic of scientific racism without the need for synthesis to make those connections. Your problems here are less rhetorical and with format of your argument, and more fundamental and to do with your sourcing.

All that said, some of the information you want to add here might be appropriate for the article on Malthus himself. You'd face the same issues there as you do here, with regard to linking him to scientific racism, but (to use one example), if you have a source discussing him in the context of misadminstration during the potato famine, then that could easily be relevant to his own article, which discusses the influences of his proposals upon famine relief, amongst other policies. If you weren't trying to tack all of this information on to this scientific racism theory that is not independently supported in sources, you could almost certainly get some (not all, but some) into other articles piecemeal, because some of it is undoubtedly relevant to a discussion of Malthus in the general sense.

But if I can give some advice: if an when you propose some of this content piecemeal in other articles, consider adding some content to show some balance to the views: for example, as a matter of historical context, if you want to discuss that Malthus' work was misappropriated by American slaveholders well after his death, it probably helps to add that Malthus publicly attacked pro-slavery advocates whenever they tried to use his work to support their cause during his lifetime. Giving a little bit more context will go a long way to soothing concerns about adding a lot of negative content at once, which editors are cautious about when it comes to biographical entries. Of course, you can't do that in every instance of connecting his legacy to something negative, and no one expects you to bend over backwards to create false balance, but it is something worth keeping in mind where you can add this context. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 02:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughtful consideration of my efforts. That said, and I may be incredibly dense, but I'm still having trouble understanding these policies. One problem may be that I provide too many sources. It might help if we looked at a specific source for a specific question. How about Hodgson 2008, and the influence of Malthus on chattel slavery? From my draft:

• Hodgson documents how Malthus influenced 19th century pro-slavery positions both in the United States and in England. He cites a "Malthusian displacement model" as having a "significant role in sectional debates over slavery".

This is from Hodgson 2009. You can find the paper here, no cost but you must sign-in. This source clearly connects Malthus's scholarship to slavery. In what way is this source defective or limited? JBradleyChen (talk) 21:01, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

It's definitely not because you're dense--or if you are, you have a lot of company, because I guarantee you that everyone you are talking to here had some degree of adjustment period with these policies, and with WP:SYNTH in particular, in their early days here. It's just that these are not always the most intuitive rules and take a bit of time to internalize when it comes to figuring out what info is due for inclusion in what place, based on what you find in a particular source.

But in any event, to answer your question: the way in which the source in question is limited for our purposes here is in which article(s) it can be used and what statements it can support. It may very well be a perfectly appropriate source for discussing Malthus and the influence of his work, in articles about the historical debate about the economics of slavery in the U.S. (and we do have a non-trivial number of articles touching upon that subject). But nowhere does that source connect Malthus to the topic of scientific racism (or racism at all). Slavery and scientific racism are not the same topic. Needless to say, they influenced one-another, but they are distinct subjects, and just because a source is useable in discussing one topic does not automatically translate it to being useable in discussing another topic, even if the two subjects are related. The problem with these sources (at least for our purposes in this article) is that none of them (well, none but one anyway) discuss Malthus in the context of scientific racism, or make any kind of direct connection between that particular figure and that particular topic--and that's the key: it must be direct commentary. Every statement you want to add to any article on this project must be directly citeable to at least one source (and the more overall sources in existence on the subject, and the more exceptional the claim, the more sources you will need to support inclusion, in general).

By comparison, you want to fill in the blanks between these sources and the subject of this article by making what feel like perfectly principled, rational arguments which relate the topics of those sources to the topic of this article, but unfortunately that's precisely the crux of what WP:SYNTH prevents us from doing. Even if you aggregate fifty sources here which talk about Malthus in the context of a dozen subjects which you can rationally relate through personal arguments to the subject of scientific racism, and even if through those sources you convinced each of us (as individuals with personal opinions on these subjects) that your analysis was solid, and that it was undeniable that Malthus' work had played a role in the development of scientific racism, it would still be WP:original research and WP:synthesis, and as Wikipedia editors applying this project's editorial policies, we would still have to argue against including any connections you made yourself between the facts of those sources and any conclusions you reached about Malthus' relationship to scientific racism--even if were convinced they were correct and accurate to the truth of reality as we saw it.

What it comes down to is that there is no room in our process for inferences made by our editors, or reaching our own conclusions, even when we personally feel like those conclusions are painfully obvious. Every last statement, in every last sentence, in every last article on this project must be something that comes straight from a source that says more or less precisely the same thing. We cannot add statements that we feel flow logically from statements made in a source (or any combination of sources), no matter how certain we feel that conclusion is. Nor can we imply connections between collections of facts by placing them strategically together in the context of a given article: we would first need sources which themselves do the work of connecting those facts together and making those connections themselves. That's why your fellow editors here have focused on Chase as the one source that you have which might justify a mention of Malthus here.

But then, once you have a source like that, you move on to the next level of the analysis: does the source (or X number of sources in other situations) make the fact/statement WP:DUE for inclusion in a particular article/context? That's the phase we are moving towards now, because it seems only Chase is really working for you in your argument for mentioning Malthus here (and it would have to be a brief mention). Personally, I am dubious, because it's just one source talking about one of the most influential figures in the history of economics (about whom a lot has been written, in the historical and contemporary contexts) and no other academics endorsed or pursued this line of thought, as far as we can tell, in the nearly fifty years since Chase published his perspective: hence, the view has low WP:WEIGHT as we describe things here. Plus the claim is WP:EXCEPTIONAL and likely to be considered at least somewhat controversial, meaning the weight has to be significantly higher than if it was just any trivial observation.

So personally, I'd like to see another source or two supporting Chase's perspective before I would be 100% comfortable including Malthus in this article. There's no magic number to these things: we have to try to parse sourcing standards in relation to each individual disputed statement, and goodfaith opinions can vary quite a bit when it comes to making those calls, which is part of why we use a consensus model to try to reach a conclusion. So while I have doubts that one source connecting Malthus to the topic of this article is enough, and I think there are others here with similar concerns, you can use a process like RfC to bring in additional perspectives and we'll see how it bears out. Am I making this any clearer or just muddying the waters for your further? Again, these rules are not super intuitive for the most part, I realize. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 06:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed feedback. I have a few clarifying questions:

• It appears that the term "scientific racism" was not used before 1960 and the term "racism" did not exist before 1902. Also, some scholars disapprove of the use of "scientific racism" in competent scholarship [1, 2], maybe because it is an oxymoron. Do we therefore disqualify all earlier scholarship? If not, when is it relevant?
• How would you apply the guidance SYNTH is not a rigid rule on this page?
• I wouldn't have thought that connecting chattel slavery to racism would be WP:SYNTH. Do you think I would find this a consensus view among experienced Wikipedia editors?
• Given the strictness applied to the term "racism", what about the term "scientific"? Can we infer "scientific" from biology and chemistry without risking WP:SYNTH? What about psychology? Anthropology? Economics? Philosophy?
• Would it be reasonable to expect a scholar writing of biology to clarify that biology is scientific?

Please don't take offense if I attempt to restate your guidance, just to be sure I understand it: that a sub-section in this article should be supported by at least two sources for either "scientific racism" or "racism". The terms must be used literally, so associations with incidents such as chattel slavery or theories like Eugenics are insufficient. If I am misunderstanding you please correct me. JBradleyChen (talk) 21:55, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I guess @Snow Rise must be busy. I was hoping for help on these questions. @VQuakr, @NightHeron, any willingness to engage on these questions, or provide other feedback? Do you concur with the feedback I've received from Snow Rise? I am hoping for your help to achieve consensus on Thomas Malthus. JBradleyChen (talk) 06:42, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

We reached consensus long ago: you do not have adequate sourcing for talking about Malthus in this article without violating WP:SYNTH. It's long past time for you to accept that and move on to other things. NightHeron (talk) 11:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your feedback and your patience, but I still don't understand WP:SYNTH. I asked some pretty basic questions above (21:55, 24 May 2023), but nobody seems willing to engage, and so I still don't understand. JBradleyChen (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

We've explained to you several times how WP:SYNTH applies here. It's not complicated, and you're clearly an intelligent person. The problem is not that you don't understand WP:SYNTH, but rather that you don't agree with the consensus (that is, every editor who's commented except you) that WP:SYNTH does apply here. As I said, it's time for you to accept consensus and move on. NightHeron (talk) 13:24, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

To my mind, consensus is not a popularity contest. Consensus means working collaboratively to objectively understand and apply policy. When I ask a simple question I don't understand why, instead of a direct answer, the answer is that it is time to move on. That is not collaboration. JBradleyChen (talk) 16:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

One more WP:XYZ for you to consider: WP:SATISFY. You are entitled to engagement, but not to an infinite supply of editor time and attention. As an uninvolved party, it looks to me like that tipping point has long since been reached. Generalrelative (talk) 17:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Sorry JBradley:I had personal emergencies and fires to put out over the last few days and this is the first opportunity I've had to respond. Perhaps some of my answers might have been of much more use to you initially than they are now, but I'll include everything I had originally intended to relay regardless:

"It appears that the term "scientific racism" was not used before 1960 and the term "racism" did not exist before 1902. Also, some scholars disapprove of the use of "scientific racism" in competent scholarship . . . Do we therefore disqualify all earlier scholarship? If not, when is it relevant?

As a general rule we don't cite a whole lot to truly antiquated sourcing. It's sometimes valuable, particularly for certain types of clearly WP:attributed views, but the older a source is, the more likely it is to be cited as a part of the historical context and content of the article itself. 80-year-old research is definitely getting well into the territory where you don't necessarily expect to see it used in an unqualified manner, especially for a technical subject, and a source dating to before the twentieth century I would almost never expect to see used uncritically for a controversial scientific topic. But with regard to more typical, contemporary sources, there are going to be edge cases where some don't use the exact nomenclature of "scientific racism", but the label they do use is clearly a synonym or subcategory of the topic of scientific racism.

"How would you apply the guidance SYNTH is not a rigid rule on this page?"

So, I would be wary of putting too much stock in that principle. It's from an explanatory essay rather than the core SYNTH policy, and I don't think I've ever before seen it cited in a discussion, probably because SYNTH is generally regarded as big problem and the language in that subsection of the EE is incredibly brief and vague, without examples, and feels like the exception that could easily swallow the rule if we tried to apply it too frequently. It's essentially just a restatement of a more general Wikipedia principle, WP:IAR. But as a I mentioned above, just because we have a release valve that (in principle) enshrines the notion that rules should not become bureaucratic roadblocks to improving articles, that doesn't mean that we actually invoke that principle very often. The reality is that breaking with major policies on an IAR basis doesn't happens extremely rarely, and really only in very niche contexts where pretty much everyone agrees the rule is standing in the way of some common sense outcome. In the context of an article about a controversial topic like this, under the umbrella of a WP:CTOP advisory, you just are not ever likely to see experienced editors deciding it is a good place for throwing caution to the wind an abrogating a critical content principle like WP:SYNTH.

"I wouldn't have thought that connecting chattel slavery to racism would be WP:SYNTH."

Well, that's not really the most accurate (or at least not the most precise) way to describe what you want to do, insofar as the parts that are prohobited by policy. Of course chattel slavery is connected to scientific (and for that matter, unscientific) racism. That's why we have entire sections discussing the interplay between the two topics in this article. But what you want to do is use the subject of slavery as a bridge to let you try to make a connection between Malthus and race that is more or less absent from the sources. That's where the restrictions on original research and synth come in.

Yes, some advocates for slavery formulated justifications for the practice based on their interpretations of Malthusian economics, long after the man's death. Notably this was for reasons that had a whole lot more to do with the debate over whether the U.S. should be an agricultural or manufacturing power than any pro-slavery values to be found in Malthus' work: Malthus was vocally anti-slavery, and when others tried to use his work to justify chattel slavery during his lifetime, he made efforts to adapt later versions of his publications to make his perspective clear that those interpretations were contrary to his own views on how his theories applied to the advisability of slavery, a practice which he thought was contrary to reason and good policy. Anti-abolitionist southerners didn't attempt to leverage Malthusian ideas on the basis of any support for the practice by Malthus himself; rather they argued that focusing on agricultural production was critical for the U.S. to stay ahead of the Malthusian curve, and that slaves were essential to that objective. However, the previous details of this paragraph are somewhat besides the point, because even if Malthus had not been expressly anti-slavery in his own outlook--hell, even if he had been avidly pro-slavery--you would still need sources connecting him to the subject of this article.

"Do you think I would find this a consensus view among experienced Wikipedia editors?

Yes, I'm highly confident you would.

"Given the strictness applied to the term "racism", what about the term "scientific"? Can we infer "scientific" from biology and chemistry without risking WP:SYNTH? What about psychology? Anthropology? Economics? Philosophy? . . . Would it be reasonable to expect a scholar writing of biology to clarify that biology is scientific?"

I'll be honest, I'm not entirely certain what you are asking here. There's no particularly high bar with regard to mentioning "racism" here, other than factoring in WP:Exceptional in the usual way. Other than that, I'm not sure what link you are trying to make between the editorial concerns here and the question of whether or not "X article on empirical field of study Y" does or does not expressly mention the word scientific. Even if we assume for the moment that Malthus writings fall vaguely within the description of "scientific inquiry" (which, I think they clearly do), that still doesn't establish a connection in ther sources between his empirical works and the forms of psuedoscience discussed in this article.

"Please don't take offense if I attempt to restate your guidance, just to be sure I understand it: that a sub-section in this article should be supported by at least two sources for either "scientific racism" or "racism". The terms must be used literally, so associations with incidents such as chattel slavery or theories like Eugenics are insufficient. If I am misunderstanding you please correct me.

Yes, I would say that is a fair rephrasing of what I've tried to convey, give or take some small nuances. I can't guarantee that you wouldn't get some WEIGHT pushback even with two sources, but speaking for myself, even a single other source besides Chase would do a lot for your argument for inclusion. They wouldn't necessarily have to use the term "scientific racism" as a per se matter, but as a realistic matter, they almost certainly would do so, and regardless, they would at least have to unambigously connect Malthus to the specific subject of scientific racism (i.e. the abusive use or misrepresentation of science as validation for racist categorization or thinking), not just some topic that happens to be related to it (i.e. slavery or even eugenics). SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above regarding WP:SYNTH: it's not clear at all what any of this has to do with racism. The most one could say here is that some racists later used Malthus' theories as a justification for racism, although the same justification was used for classism, etc. Volunteer Marek 17:50, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

BTW, even with regard to the above we have, in the Hodgson article this line: As early as 1806 he (Malthus - VM) took offense when advocates of slavery used his Essay to further their cause (...) Malthus responded by adding an appendix to the third edition of his Essay (1806: 556-59) in which he explicitly called for ending that (slave trade - VM) Volunteer Marek 18:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup, Clear and unambiguous synthesis. JBradleyChen would be well advised to drop this before it results in sanctions. Contributors are not expected to show unlimited patience in the face of a refusal to accept that consensus need not be unanimous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Generalrelative @Volunteer Marek, @AndyTheGrump for the feedback.

@Volunteer Marek note I cite the same appendix in my draft. Other individuals cited in the Scientific racism article were opposed to slavery e.g. Rush, Darwin, Jefferson etc. so I did not imagine that impacts an individual's relevance. My working assumption is that relevance requires influence on pseudo-scientific racist theory or practice. JBradleyChen (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this is a correct interpretation of policy: an individual need not have been an active supporter of a given concept, belief, or movement in order to be cited as having influenced the development of that subject. There are any number of major thinkers (in the history of the last few centuries in particular) whose works or theories were twisted to provide support (sometimes quite substantial support) for ideas they were opposed to--sometimes even long after they made their opposition known. However, the difference between the other such figures that are already discussed in this article and Malthus is that the unwitting support that their works gave to the psuedoscience of scientific racism is well established in a significant volume of sources, and therefore discussion about how their ideas influenced the topic of this article does not require synthesis or coatracking. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Analysis of sourcing

I put together a little analysis of the pre-modern figures described in this article, and the sources cited for their support. The second and third columns are for a count of secondary sources that apply the term "scientific racism" or "racism." I allowed for similar terms, as noted in the last column. The fourth column indicates support from primary sources (works authored by the figure in question) and the fifth column is other secondary sources. Working with the sources can be tricky so I don't claim this analysis is perfect but I think it is indicative of the state of the article.

Of the twenty-two figures I scrutinized:

• Three lack a secondary source that designate either "scientific racism" or "racism"
• Seven lack a secondary source that applies the term "scientific racism" or close variants
• Only five have two secondary sources that designate "scientific racism"
• Eight have only one source

I'm interested in what others think of this level of sourcing, if it seems fine, or if it motivates changes.

Analysis of sources cited for pre-modern contributors to Scientific Racism.

Who	"Scientific racism"	"racism" or "racist"	primary source	other secondary source	Notes
Bernier	1*	1	2		*uses "'scientific' racialism"
Boyle	1		1	1	secondary source on polygenism
Bradley	1
Kames	1*				Cites "Race, Racism and Science"
Linnaeus	1		1	4	cites over a dozen sources in an extended discussion of whether Linnaeus was racist.
Hunter		1
White	1*				Cites "Race, Racism and Science"
Buffon and Blumenbach	1	1
Rush			1
Meiners	2
Jefferson	2*		2		Finkelman writes of "racist views which he tried to justify through pseudoscience."
Smith		1
Cuvier	2*		3		*If Jackson and Weidman does not apply the idiom "scientific racism." can we infer it from the book title "Race, Racism and Science"?
Schopenhauer			1
Pruner	1*				Cited passage does not use "scientific racism" but previous chapter is entitled "Toward Scientific Racism"
de Gobineau				2	seems not well sourced
Vogt	1
Darwin	1*		1	2	*cites Jackson and Weidman. One source argues Darwin is not a racist. Two sources discuss "Social Darwinism" rather than Darwin.
Risley		1		1
Haackel	2	2
Morton	2	2			not well referenced
Palacios		1	1

JBradleyChen (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

I think this is pretty useful, thanks. For those unsourced or only using primary sources an effort should be made to source the text with secondary sources and if such are sparse or nonexistent the text should be removed. Volunteer Marek 16:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the summary! I think the goal here should be to reframe the article layout, moving away from focus on individuals altogether. That said, there are additional sources at An Essay on the Inequality of the Human Races that could be used to improve the sourcing on de Gobineau. VQuakr (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

RFC (take 2): Thomas Malthus

Does WP:SYNTH prevent inferring the relevance of chattel slavery to "racism" in the context of this article? JBradleyChen (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Over the course of multiple weeks I have drafted and revised a proposed addition to this page on the influence of Thomas Malthus on Scientific racism. While feedback has led to numerous improvements to my draft, we are currently blocked on the assertion that influence of Malthus on chattel slavery is inadequate to establish relevance to this article, due to WP:SYNTH. I have also documented the influence of Malthus on the Irish Potato Famine, Social Darwinism and Eugenics. The other editors similarly reject Eugenics and Social Darwinism and are yet to comment on the Irish Potato Famine.

Some basic concerns with this strict application of WP:SYNTH are:

• The other editors insist a source use the term "scientific racism" or "racism" directly to avoid WP:SYNTH. This is problematic because these terms are fairly recent (1960. 1902), and also because some scholars question if they are appropriate for scholarly work. 1, 2],
• The strict application of WP:SYNTH seems inconsistent with the guidance that SYNTH is not a rigid rule. Expecting a source to document that chattel slavery is racism seems akin to documenting that biology is scientific, not a reasonable expectation of a source.
• Aggressive application of the WP:SYNTH A then B then C pattern doesn't make sense to me. For example:
  • Lassie is a dog, dogs are mammals, Lassie is a mammal.
  • Malthus influenced economics, economics is scholarship, Malthus influenced scholarship.

While the other editors (@NightHeron, @VQuakr, @Snow Rise) concur that WP:SYNTH applies, none have provided an explanation that makes sense to me as to why it applies so strictly here. None have explained the objective criteria for relevance to this page, beyond citing WP policies and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS when I identify inconsistencies. I have asked direct and simple questions (e.g. 21:55, 24 May 2023) to enable my understanding, and the other editors seem unwilling to engage. They assert that I am not respecting consensus, and suggest that various WP:XYZ policies that could apply to my behavior.

Consensus is not a popularity contest. Consensus is working constructively and objectively to forge agreements. Is that happening here? JBradleyChen (talk) 16:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: I've been casually following this conversation but have not felt the need to weigh in because NightHeron, VQuakr, Snow Rise, Jerome Frank Disciple and ScottishFinnishRadish have been doing a fine job of it. These other editors have been tremendously patient, and asking the community to now sink even more time into this is frankly unkind. It is emphatically not that these editors have failed to explain why SYNTH is relevant here, as e.g. NightHeron explains in his latest comment above, but rather that JBradleyChen refuses to accept that consensus is against them. Finally, I will note that the RfC question above makes very little sense to an uninvolved editor. How the question relates to Malthus is only clear by reading through the very long previous discussion. If an RfC were necessary here –– and I don't think it is –– a proper question would be much more concrete (i.e. "Should content X be included?"). I therefore urge JBradleyChen to remove the RfC tag and drop the stick, and barring that for this RfC to be speedily closed. Generalrelative (talk) 17:35, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy close per Generalrelative. Volunteer Marek 17:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy close. Not remotely a valid RfC question. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
• Speedy close per Generalrelative. As one of those uninvolved editors they mention, this RfC does not make sense and, to be honest, I am kinda disappointed to have been summoned by robot — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 19:32, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you @Volunteer Marek @AndyTheGrump @Generalrelative @OwenBlacker for your feedback on this RFC. I regret the complexity of the above discussion, especially when it became acrimonious. At this point it seems to pivot on a basic question of policy, the applicability of WP:SYNTH, and I was not getting engagement on relatively simple questions, so resolving the applicability of WP:SYNTH with an RFC seemed like an appropriate way to settle the question cleanly and move on.

  I would be open to discussing a better framing for this RFC, if someone has suggestions. If not, it's hard for me to see how a non-trivial question regarding WP:SYNTH would be framed more simply. A reviewer must understand the policy, chattel slavery, racism, and eventually maybe consider the Scientific racism article and references like Hodgson 2009. I wish it were simpler but ultimately these are the elements we are dealing with. JBradleyChen (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

JBradley, I'd like to suggest to you that you really consider Generalrelative's advice to WP:DROPTHESTICK on this matter, at least for the present time. Without entirely disagreeing with those who have, I've been personally loath to describe your persistence here as WP:IDHT, because I do perceive that your continued pushing is based in part in genuine confusion over what synthesis does and does not entail. But at this juncture, it's been explained to you so many times, in so many different ways, and by so many different patient and experienced editors, that the combination of your not yet understanding it, and yet plowing ahead with multiple faulty RfCs debating on how it applies to this article, is eventually going to give others serious WP:CIR concerns about your contributions here. It's understandable that you don't entirely understand the nuances of SYNTH: as I've tried to reassure you a couple of times above, it can take some time. But given your incomplete understanding, maybe it's just time to take what you have been told ad nauseum in the discussions above at face value: the policy does unambiguously apply to the content you want to add here, and you should let this one go, and take a more restrained approach to such question until you develop a more robust understanding of the relevant policies/community consensus, through experience.

Because at some point, you have to ask yourself "If X number of editors have been telling me I'm wrong about the application of a basic content policy for Y amount of time, what are the chances I'm going to find some angle on this that completely changes the consensus?" And I'm not proposing to give you exact metrics for the X and Y variables there--that's something you can come to your own decisions about as you gain experience. But I will say the point where you start to pull back should probably be well before "9 editors over the course of several weeks, with no one supporting my interpretation." And you would have no way of knowing this (and we try to avoid heavy reliance on arguments from authority here anyway), but for what it's worth, you've been talking to some pretty experienced editors here: there's probably somewhere between 100 and 150 years of Wikipedia editing experience between the (at least) nine editors who have engaged with you on this topic, versus your six weeks. So what are the chances that you are correct and we are all wrong about our interpretation of community consensus regarding one of this project's core content policies?

Don't get me wrong, there are definitely times on this project where you have to stick to your guns, the present numbers be damned. But I'd like to submit to you that this isn't one of them, and that your present level of intractability to all feedback, in the context of your present level of experience is just not a tenable way to go about learning how things operate here. You can always come back here in the longterm if you decide we're wrong, but I do think for the present moment we are verging on WP:disruptive territory--and from the sounds of it, some here are convinced we crossed that threshold some time ago. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 00:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

• Support speedy close. So here's the thing: as someone who spends a lot of time on this project responding to FRS notices for RfCs, I've noticed a sharp trend in the last few years that others may not be aware of, of calls for procedural closes to RFCs because of trivial concerns about RFCBEFORE or RFCNEUTRAL. Sometimes these come from involved users looking to abuse process to shut down a call for outside perspectives, and sometimes from respondents who are a little too anal about form, and too little considerate of the "get more eyes here" function of the process. So I've become increasingly inclined to look for a reason to keep the discussion open if there is a legitimate one. In this case, I can't make that argument. The problem is JBradleyChen has asked a question that is not in dispute, has an unambiguous answer under policy, and is not relevant to the reasons they have been told their additions are not WP:DUE at this time.

To wit, JBradley's prompt asks whether WP:SYNTH prohibits the inference of a connection between chattel slavery and scientific racism. Well, editors are always at liberty to make whatever personal inferences they wish about the facts, but critically their conclusions have no direct bearing on what content can and cannot be included in an article (WP:Original research). However, even if we charitably reinterpret the question into "Does WP:SYNTH prohibit our implying a connection between chattel slavery and scientific racism in this article?", the answer under policy is clearly "It depends: what do the sources say?" (as has been explained exhaustively above). Not only is the question one which has an answer that has not been in dispute at any point in the immediate discussions regarding the proposed additions, but in fact this article clearly discusses the links between chattel slavery and scientific racism at great length, in several sections. Therefore it is even more abundantly obvious that the question posed is not in dispute and that there is longstanding tacit support for discussing slavery in this article, per connections made by sources and a basic common sense interpretation of WP:DUE.

What JBradley is trying to get at here is whether or not it constitutes synthesis to include reference to a given figure in this article when the sourcing generally does connect him or his works to the subject of this article, but some sources do connect him to other topics and those third topics themselves have connections to the subject of this article. Putting aside for the moment that every single one of the numerous editors responding to this question in the voluminous discussions above has repeatedly said "Yes, this is textbook synthesis." (and I think there are nine such editors at this point), the fact of the matter is that even if that question didn't have established consensus at this juncture, it still is not the question asked in JBC's prompt. Therefore there's not really an option but to procedurally close this, as the stated question is not in dispute and any answers will be a waste of the time of respondents who could be answering another FRS notice that will be displaced by the request to comment here. Now, I don't know if there is a remaining patience to indulge in JBC taking yet another bite at this apple any time soon. I tend to doubt it, but that question has no bearing on whether this is a valid RfC inquiry: it's simply not. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks; I acknowledge the voices in unison here, and apologize for not making better use of your time. Unfortunately, none of the RFC respondents have responded to the substance of my question, and so I am still stumped as to how to apply WP:SYNTH in cases such as:

• sources that date before the terms "racism" or "scientific racism" were in use
• whether I can infer "scientific" from "biology", and if so, why it's different from inferring "racist" from "slavery"
• how to apply the WP guidance SYNTH is not a rigid rule on this page.
• why it is reasonable to expect a scholar writing of chattel slavery to clarify that it is relevant to racism

I thought an RFC would help me get some understanding, but that doesn't seem to be working out. JBradleyChen (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of an article-page RfC isn't to help a specific contributor gain 'understanding'. It is to determine broader consensus regarding specific clearly-outlined proposed article content, based upon the interpretation of contributors as a whole of relevant policy etc. This RfC fails to actually ask any such question. To be blunt, if you are having difficulty understanding how Wikipedia understands synthesis with regards to this matter, after all this time, after multiple attempts to explain it to you, that really isn't our problem. There is absolutely no requirement that consensus be unanimous. I'd strongly advise you to simply accept that you aren't going to get your way here, and find something else to work on. With broader experience you'll be in a better position to ask questions about the details. Or perhaps to decide that Wikipedia isn't for you, if you are unwilling to accept that you don't always get your own way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

sources that date before the terms "racism" or "scientific racism" were in use generally, more modern sources will exist if it's a widespread viewpoint. Use those, with historic perspectives pulled in sparingly and as support not the main sources for the article.

whether I can infer "scientific" from "biology", and if so, why it's different from inferring "racist" from "slavery" biology is a subset of science. Slavery is an economic and social system that has often but not always involved elements of racism. The two pairs of terms are not equivalent.

how to apply the WP guidance SYNTH is not a rigid rule don't. It's not an oft-cited page; stick to policies and guidelines for the foreseeable future.

why it is reasonable to expect a scholar writing of chattel slavery to clarify that it is relevant to racism I don't think that's a standard currently applied to the article or one that's been applied in the discussion above.

there's a definite change in the demeanor of the room with the responses to this RFC. The community is unanimously noting that enough time has been spent on this. It's time for you to show that you can respect a clearly-voiced decision even if you disagree with it by moving on to work on something else. VQuakr (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I've taken the unusual (but, it seems, necessary) step of removing the RfC tag myself: without disagreeing in the least with your appraisal that there is consensus to wrap this discussion up more broadly, at least for the present time, I note also that this is a procedural action regarding this RfC only: there is firm consensus that the RfC prompt is invalid, cannot be usefully engaged with via respondents, and is therefor a waste of notices that could be directing contributors to discussions where they can provide useful feedback. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 22:34, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

"[I] apologize for not making better use of your time. @JBradleyChen: To be clear, it's not the amount of time being expended, it's the manner. Honestly, I for one would be happy to continue to try to explain the nuances of the policy here for a while longer, if you genuinely think there's any benefit in it to you. But the problem is that you don't seem to just be looking for elucidation, but also want to continue pressing forward full bore with pressing for your preferred version, using processes inappropriately (not through intentional disruption, but just poor understanding of what you are doing), and just sucking in more and more engagement from and more users as a consequence of these actions.

Now you're permitted to make requests of additional eyes here, but there comes a point where it becomes necessary, once you've had the benefit of those eyes and everyone is saying the same thing, to accept consensus. If you still genuinely can't decipher some of the subtleties of synth, we're not gonna drop you like a hot potato. Although, it might be prudent to move that further discussion to a user talk page. Or, honestly, just backing off from the question altogether, letting it percolate, and getting experience seeing it applied on other articles may be the best way forward. Whatever you choose, please feel free to ask additional questions of me, if I can be of help. But let's maybe avoid further RfCs for now. SnowRise ^{let's rap} 23:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Thank you @VQuakr for closing the RFC. If anybody has interesting examples of WP:SYNTH that I might review to improve my understanding of this policy they would be welcome. JBradleyChen (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Definition of scientific racism

The first sentence should make it clear that attempting to "prove" the existence of races is scientific racism:

https://brill.com/display/book/9789004444836/BP000085.xml?alreadyAuthRedirecting

Scientific racism is the pseudo-scientific belief that there is a biological basis for the historical divisions of people into distinct racial groups.

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=07SBAgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA67&dq=info:7yyU90nJVfIJ:scholar.google.com/&ots=FgmuruCKvN&sig=j3vbOsBh5OLwoc1bTmNkhIvn4_A#v=onepage&q&f=false

Scientific racism refers, broadly speaking, to the notion that biological characteristics exist which are homogenous within a specific human collectivity and heterogeneous across several collectivities such that human species can be broadly subdivided

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687899/

scientific racism is a scientific tradition in which biology is used not only to prove the existence of race, but also, to maintain existing social hierarchies. Darmzy (talk) 04:08, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, your second attempt reads better. Thanks. I just made a minor copy-edit. NightHeron (talk) 09:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)