User talk:Tayylorsu/sandbox

I clicked on a bunch of random reference sources at the bottom of the article to search for credibility. For the most part, most links led me to scholarly journals on racism researches or history on the topic. Although, one site was a Spanish site, and since I'm not fluent in Spanish, I couldn't tell if it was credible or not.

For the most part, the content of the Racism article seemed to be relevant to the topic. I enjoyed the "Aspects" section the most because it all contained the general background about racism. I think this is a good section for someone who is just briefly trying to get an idea of the topic. Although subsections like Culture, Segregationism, or Supremacy was short and vague. I understood the content because I have prior knowledge on the topic and was able to make the connections to racism. Perhaps, for someone completely new to the topic, they might not be able to understand how these topics relate to racism.

It doesn't seem bias because the article just stated facts or generally giving a description. None of the statements argued for any sides.

Information comes from scholarly journals or sites that explain scientific data or researches. Nothing was written in bias because the article was clear when giving an insight from a "bias" position by specifying what the research/ study was on and who made the claim about certain data/facts.

Sections like "Anti-Racism," were too brief compared to all the other sections. Of the ten main sections, that last section is as short as subsections from the "Aspects" category. Every section had multiple subsections to explain/emphasize the topic and are substantially long. The Anti-Racism section seems way too short, and in a sense incomplete.

Checking more links, further at the bottom (including the ones with older dates, they all still look credible. No site, so far has given me any viruses.

Most dates seem up to date. The only ones that I might doubt are the earlier 2000's because it might be a source that explains racism in the perspective in that decade. Although, a source from 2003 can still be considered accurate, if the source was used to explain the perspective of racism in that year/ time period, rather than using it as a source to define racism or its aspects.

Tayylorsu (talk) 19:04, 31 January 2017 (UTC) Taylor Su

Copyedit an Article Assignment

Racism existed during the 19th century as "scientific racism," which attempted to provide a racial classification of humanity.[84] In 1775 Johann Blumenbach divided the world's population into five groups according to skin color (Caucasians, Mongols, etc.), positing that the non-caucasians had arisen through a process of degeneration. Another early view in scientific racism was the polygenist view, which held that the different races had been separately created. Polygenist Christoph Miners, for example, split mankind into two divisions which he labeled the "beautiful White race" and the "ugly Black race". In Meiners's book, The Outline of History of Mankind, Meiners claimed that a main characteristic of race is either beauty or ugliness. He viewed only the white race as beautiful. He considered ugly races to be inferior, immoral and animal-like. Anders Retzius demonstrated that neither Europeans, nor others are one "pure race" but of mixed origins. Discredited, derivations of Blumenbach's taxonomy are still widely used for classification of the population in United States. H. P. Steensby, while strongly emphasizing that all humans today are of mixed origins, in 1907 claimed that the origins of human differences must be traced extraordinarily far back in time, and conjectured that the "purest race" today would be the Australian Aboriginals.[85] Scientific racism fell strongly out of favor in the early 20th Century, but the origins of fundamental human and societal differences are still researched within academia, in fields such as human genetics including paleogenetics, social anthropology, comparative politics, history of religions, history of ideas, prehistory, history, ethics, and psychiatry. There is widespread rejection of any methodology based on anything similar to Blumenbach's races. It is more unclear to which extent and when ethnic and national stereotypes are accepted. Although after World War II and the Holocaust, racist ideologies were discredited on ethical, political, and scientific grounds; racism and racial discrimination have remained widespread around the world. From time to time when there is a revival of social and political tensions, new works are published which repeat past and discredited racial views such as J R Baker's 'Race'.[86] Because of the social disapproval of explicit expressions of racism, contemporary authors may achieve a similar effect by insinuating subtle unstated stereotypes in their work as in Gladwell's 'The Tipping Point',[87] a tactic President Obama called 'dog whistle racism'. Du Bois observed that it is not so much "race" that we think about, but culture: "... a common history, common laws and religion, similar habits of thought and a conscious striving together for certain ideals of life".[88] Late 19th century nationalists were the first to embrace contemporary discourses on "race", ethnicity, and "survival of the fittest" to shape new nationalist doctrines. Ultimately, race came to represent not only the most important traits of the human body, but was also regarded as decisively shaping the character and personality of the nation.[89] According to this view, culture is the physical manifestation created by ethnic groupings, as such fully determined by racial characteristics. Culture and race became considered intertwined and dependent upon each other, sometimes even to the extent of including nationality or language to the set of definition. Pureness of race tended to be related to rather superficial characteristics that were easily addressed and advertised, such as blondness. Racial qualities tended to be related to nationality and language rather than the actual geographic distribution of racial characteristics. In the case of Nordicism, the denomination "Germanic" was equivalent to superiority of race. Bolstered by some nationalist and ethnocentric values and achievements of choice, this concept of racial superiority evolved to distinguish from other cultures that were considered inferior or impure. This emphasis on culture corresponds to the modern mainstream definition of racism: "Racism does not originate from the existence of 'races'. It creates them through a process of social division into categories: anybody can be racialised, independently of their somatic, cultural, religious differences."[90] This definition explicitly ignores the biological concept of race, still subject to scientific debate. In the words of David C. Rowe "A racial concept, although sometimes in the guise of another name, will remain in use in biology and in other fields because scientists, as well as lay persons, are fascinated by human diversity, some of which is captured by race."[91] Racial prejudice became subject to international legislation. For instance, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on November 20, 1963, address racial prejudice explicitly next to discrimination for reasons of race, colour or ethnic origin (Article I).[92]

In this section of the Racism article, I edited minor punctuation and grammatical errors throughout the paper, as well as, deleted unnecessary words. Without these changes, the article can lose credibility. Readers want to know information if it makes sense or is well written. Although the information may be accurate and cited from credible sites, if the material is written poorly, then it, not only, would be difficult to read but also untrustworthy. If there are run-on sentences, the reader may get confused. Sometimes there were dependent clauses that did not explain anything specifically, thus making it sound like an incomplete thought. Grammar is important because it can make or break a paper, article, journal, etc.

Tayylorsu (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC) Taylor Su