Talk:Miscegenation

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miscegenation&diff=prev&oldid=1272929987 Miscegenation: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia], Rather than engaging in personally attacks like you did here, Could you please explain what problem do you exactly have with the text and the source and how it is factually untrue:

The word is no longer commonly used because of its racist implications.{{Cite book |last=Newman |first=Richard |title=Africana: The Encyclopedia of the African and African American Experience |title-link=Encyclopedia Africana |publisher=Basic Civitas Books |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-465-00071-5 |editor=Kwame Anthony Appiah and Henry Louis Gates Jr. |edition=1st |location=New York |page=[https://archive.org/details/africanaencyclop00appi/page/1320 1320] |chapter=Miscegenation |quote=Miscegenation, a term for sexual relations across racial lines; no longer in use because of its racist implications}}

Miscegenation&Usage, Nothing in the article suggests that this term is commonly used. And I am not "miscegenated" or mixed-race as you maybe assumed ("emotional ") in your edit summary. This is blatant WP:I don't like it.

Another source I found referring to it as "derogatory": [https://pressbooks.pub/terrorandtranscendence/chapter/introduction-mestizo-miscegenation-and-metamorphosis/ Introduction: Mestizo, Miscegenation, and Metamorphosis – Terror and Transcendence: A Survey of American Literature]. A simple google search about it's meaning warns it as derogatory.

I didn't expect this from an experienced editor. @DaltonCastle

:You are jumping to several conclusions here. There were no personal attacks, but your edit history seems to suggest in your brief time on Wikipedia you have gotten into several disputes, made personal attacks against editors you disagreed with, and been warned about civility before. It would be best if you took a step back and reflected. If you are routinely engaging in edit wars maybe you are the common denominator.

:As per the term, just because some people use the word does not mean that is the exclusive use of the word. The WP entry on the word is about the word. Not about your interpretation of it. The Nazis used the word Europe - should we consider use of the word Europe Nazi? Plus, the sources you found have dubious reliability at best. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:I am not engaging in this further because personally I don't have much interest in this topic and only stumbled upon it through PTPrime. About that incident of incivility, an experienced editor pinged me and I accepted and rectified my mistake. Theofunny (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Theofunny (talk) 22:50, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:While I do appreciate the civility here, I would like to note for any passers-by that the above user is currently under investigation for sock-puppetry. If they are innocent and there is nothing going on, no harm no foul. However, if they are indeed guilty of the accusation, then this would appear to be a means of appearing to be more compliant with WP policy. I am going to assume good faith until there is concrete evidence, but I am noting this. DaltonCastle (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:I made this manual revert errantly while trying to revert PTPrime's edits which doesn't mean that you need to blame me for the entire content which was not originally added by me. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miscegenation&oldid=1270328886 Miscegenation - Wikipedia] Theofunny (talk) 22:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

:[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miscegenation&diff=prev&oldid=1259134848 Miscegenation: Difference between revisions - Wikipedia] Also, I based my addition of content on the state of the artice before POV OR coatrack content was added by a single purpose editor. Theofunny (talk) 23:03, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

{{reflist-talk}}

I FIRMLY believe that this entire page/article is offensive and more importantly incorrect.

My previous objections were included in the talk page, but I can’t see them now!

All I ask is that the article state at the beginning the same words which are to be found at the beginning of the article on “Race.”

“Modern [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science science] regards race as a [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_construct social construct], an [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Identity_(social_science) identity] which is assigned based on rules made by society. While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning. The concept of race is foundational to [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism racism], the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.”

I got an argument from someone that what I am proposing above doesn’t have citations. But the citations did not copy and paste when I tried it.

the citations to the original article are as follows:

1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

i just tried to copy and paste them, but could not.

All that I am requesting is that the disclaimer above stating that race is an unscientific construct of society be added to this article. The citations are just as valid as they are in the original article entitled “Race.”

I’m recopying it here:

Modern science regards race as a social construct, an identity which is assigned based on rules made by society.{{Cite book |url=https://nap.nationalacademies.org/read/26902/chapter/1 |title=Using Population Descriptors in Genetics and Genomics Research: A New Framework for an Evolving Field (Consensus Study Report) |publisher=National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine |date=2023 |doi=10.17226/26902 |pmid=36989389 |isbn=978-0-309-70065-8 |quote=In humans, race is a socially constructed designation, a misleading and harmful surrogate for population genetic differences, and has a long history of being incorrectly identified as the major genetic reason for phenotypic differences between groups.}}{{cite journal |last1=Amutah |first1=C. |last2=Greenidge |first2=K. |last3=Mante |first3=A. |last4=Munyikwa |first4=M. |last5=Surya |first5=S. L. |last6=Higginbotham |first6=E. |last7=Jones |first7=D. S. |last8=Lavizzo-Mourey |first8=R. |last9=Roberts |first9=D. |last10=Tsai |first10=J. |last11=Aysola |first11=J. |date=March 2021 |title=Misrepresenting Race — The Role of Medical Schools in Propagating Physician Bias |editor-last=Malina |editor-first=D. |journal=The New England Journal of Medicine |publisher=Massachusetts Medical Society |volume=384 |issue=9 |pages=872–878 |doi=10.1056/NEJMms2025768 |pmid=33406326 |issn=1533-4406 |s2cid=230820421 |doi-access=free}}{{cite magazine |last=Gannon |first=Megan |title=Race Is a Social Construct, Scientists Argue |date=5 February 2016 |url=https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ |url-status=live |magazine=Scientific American |issn=0036-8733 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230214120609/https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/ |archive-date=14 February 2023 |access-date=1 March 2023}} While partly based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.{{refn|name=Barnshaw}}{{refn|name=Britannica}}{{cite journal |last1=Yudell |first1=M. |last2=Roberts |first2=D. |last3=DeSalle |first3=R. |last4=Tishkoff |first4=S. |date=5 February 2016 |title=Taking race out of human genetics |journal=Science |publisher=American Association for the Advancement of Science |volume=351 |issue=6273 |pages=564–565 |doi=10.1126/science.aac4951 |pmid=26912690 |bibcode=2016Sci...351..564Y |s2cid=206639306 |issn=0036-8075 |url=https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aac4951}} The concept of race is foundational to racism, the belief that humans can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.

7) Yudell, M.; Roberts, D.; DeSalle, R.; Tishkoff, S. (5 February 2016). "Taking race out of human genetics". Science. 351(6273). American Association for the Advancement of Science: 564–565. Bibcode:2016Sci...351..564Y. doi:10.1126/science.aac4951. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 26912690. S2CID 206639306.

Let’s start with this and then get rid of the page on mixed marriage and especially let’s get rid of the picture of Prince Harry and Meghan Marlkle that is displayed!

Ridiculous, incredibly incorrect scientific nonsense from a supposedly reputable encyclopedia.

When I was in college 40 years ago, no historian, archaeologist, anthropologist or other academic expert would ever consider the article on miscegenation and mixed marriage as being appropriate for an encyclopedia because of it’s assumptions and stereotypes such as these! It’s very plainly biased and as such is no longer acceptable.

Please do not delete this post a second time! Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 18:49, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

:{{ping|Kanchan M Mahon}} I see only two comments made by you (in your contributions) and both are in the section at the top of this page. If you made other comments as an IP or under a different username, they're probably in the archives. Comments are not, generally speaking, deleted from talk pages. RegentsPark (comment) 19:08, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

::Thanks for letting me know that! I’ll have to look into it. 38.70.107.131 (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

:There's no need to include this in this article as well. (Especially not in the lede.) The reader can find out more by clicking on the word race in the lede. WP:Build the web! Dingolover6969 (talk) 09:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::If the article is about “mixed race” people and the fact is that that term is not scientific or valid in any way shape or form but only a social construct, then the entire article should be taken down because it’s neither from a scientific point of view nor from a properly historical point of view unless you begin the discussion with the fact that race is an entirely social construct.

::It’s a myth, it’s a lie. You can certainly discuss the historical context of the subject of race, but you MUST begin with the fact that it is only a social construct throughout history and that it is a classification system that doesn’t refer any scientific evidence or have any scientific validity.

::END OF STORY Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::Also:

::It says further on:

::“In the present day, the use of the word miscegenation is avoided by many scholars because the term suggests that race is a concrete biological phenomenon, rather than a categorization which is imposed on certain relationships. The term's historical usage in contexts which typically implied disapproval is also a reason why more unambiguously neutral terms such as interracialism, interethnicism or cross-culturalism are more common in contemporary usage.”

::This is why the whole page should be re-evaluated and removed. Because even within the article it says that the word is outdated and derogatory and furthermore it furthers misperception about the validity of race.

::I further propose the removal of the article on “mixed marriage” and definitely remove the photo of Megan Markle and her husband.

::These are not appropriate entries for an encyclopedia. As I stated before, decades ago before the internet, no encyclopedia would countenance such unscientific entries. They would have to be written from a historical perspective and not just spouting nonsense about how different people are. We are all one race and we all have different cultural backgrounds. END OF DISCUSSION FOR ME ANYWAY Kanchan M Mahon (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

{{reftalk}}

I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Miscegenation's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Britannica":

• From Race (human categorization): {{cite encyclopedia |last1=Smedley |first1=Audrey |last2=Takezawa |first2=Yasuko I. |last3=Wade |first3=Peter |title=Race: Human |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |url=http://www.britannica.com/topic/race-human |publisher=Encyclopædia Britannica Inc. |access-date=22 August 2017}}
• From Portugal: {{cite encyclopedia |title=Al-Andalus |url=https://www.britannica.com/place/Al-Andalus |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica |access-date=19 March 2021 |archive-date=3 March 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210303184305/https://www.britannica.com/place/Al-Andalus |url-status=live }}
• From History of Iran: [https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-32981 Encyclopædia Britannica] 23 January 2008 {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071215140348/https://www.britannica.com/eb/article-32981 |date=15 December 2007 }}
• From Mizrahi Jews: {{cite encyclopedia|title=Mizrahi Jews |url=https://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/432355/Oriental-Jews |encyclopedia=Encyclopædia Britannica|access-date=8 March 2015}}

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 11:57, 4 May 2025 (UTC)