Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Caucasia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CaucasiaWikipedia:WikiProject CaucasiaTemplate:WikiProject CaucasiaCaucasia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ethnic groups, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to ethnic groups, nationalities, and other cultural identities on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ethnic groupsWikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groupsTemplate:WikiProject Ethnic groupsEthnic groups articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Europe, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to European topics of a cross-border nature on Wikipedia.EuropeWikipedia:WikiProject EuropeTemplate:WikiProject EuropeEurope articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Western Asia, which collaborates on articles related to Western Asia. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.Western AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject Western AsiaTemplate:WikiProject Western AsiaWestern Asia articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Asia, which aims to improve the quality and status of all South Asia-related articles. For more information, please visit the Project page.South AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject South AsiaTemplate:WikiProject South AsiaSouth Asia articles
Latest comment: 21 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I recently edited the first sentence of this article to replace "now-disproven" with "discarded". This change was reverted. Let me argue why the change to "discarded" should stand.
I begin by quoting from the three sources currently cited at the end of the first sentence.
From footnote 3: "the answer to the question whether races exist in humans is clear and unambiguous: no."
From footnote 4. "Results demonstrate consensus that there are no human biological races"
From footnote 5. "Race does not provide an accurate representation of human biological variation. It was never accurate in the past, and it remains inaccurate when referencing contemporary human populations. Humans are not divided biologically into distinct continental types or racial genetic clusters."
Therefore, given that race is purely a social construct with no basis in biological reality, it would be incorrect to claim that any particular racial classification system had been proved correct. It is equivalently and equally incorrect to speak of any racial classification system as having been proved incorrect. As the citations above make clear, racial classification systems are simply not susceptible to proof or disproof (unless, indeed, we are to consider them all equally proved false). Thus, "discarded" is a better word choice in the first sentence than "now-disproven." Cahoot (talk) 02:59, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Very wise words, indeed. How is a scientific construct disproven, but a social construct is not? The former is a organizational tool for convenience that reflects history and biological reality - the latter simply the worst of lay ideology (light skin, blue eyes), with poor taste. Race has always been a construct, but there is a difference between summarizing facts (scientific) vs summarizing beliefs (lay-thinking). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ba11boyz (talk • contribs) 15:39, 20 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
All racial classification systems have been proved incorrect, because all assume the existence of biologically different races. The disproof of the Flat-Earth theory doesn't mean that only the "Earth-is-a-disc" theory has been disproven, but also the "Earth-is-a-square" and "Earth-is-a-pentagon" theories. Rsk6400 (talk) 06:47, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, great! I agree! But the current first sentence implies that this specific racial classification system has been disproven while others have not been.
So may I suggest this improvement:
The Caucasian race is an obsolete classification of humans based on the now-disproven theory that there are biologically-identifiable human races. Cahoot (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
About Classification. The Uncertain category could be in title "Indoastronesian" and it could include "Malenese, Negrito, Australoid", "Malay, Polynesia, Maori, Micronesia". Also "Eskimo", "Inuit", "American" plus "Siberic" could be a second "North Mongoloid" Classification. DimitriosGeo (talk) 14:28, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion
In continuity to the previous classification topic, I think that it could not be presented only one theory, so: The subcategory "Hamitic" could be in "Negroid", the term "Aryan" must be removed as controversial pseudoscientific and be replaced by the terms "Nordic" and "Mediterranic". DimitriosGeo (talk) 14:39, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
