Talk:Miscegenation/Archive 2

Merge with Mixed-Bloods
The short article Mixed-Bloods refers to the same topic as Miscegenation. Mixed blood already redirects to Miscegenation. Mixed-Bloods does not have sufficient distinctive information to stand on its own. It should be merged into this article.

Neelix (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed merge and I oppose to the addition of "mixed blood" to the lede.

This article is about miscegenation, that is, "race mixing". It is about the process by which different "races" (racially defined ethnic groups) become mixed, through marriage, cohabition and sex. (In genetics this is called admixture). This article is not about the end result of such mixing, which is the birth of multiracial people (who may or may not identify as such]], or the formation of "mixed" groups. By the way, "mixing blood" is a now obsolete term for "race mixing", so that term definitely does not belong in the lede.

Genetically "mixed" social groups may or may not be categorized or self-identify as a racially mixed group, depending on definitions of "race" and "race mixing". It all depends on how those who participate in, and others who observe, discuss, and categorize such "mixing", define race. See the articles Passing (race), Multiracial, Mestizo, Mulatto, African Americans, One drop theory, Métis etc. on how individuals and and groups of "mixed race" have self-identified and/or been categorized. You will notice many differences depending on region and historical era. See also social interpretations of race and historical definitions of race.

Race is in many aspects primarily a social construction. This article explains how and why the term "miscegenation" came in to being (in 1863 in the US), which has been in the context of the European colonization of and migration to the Americas, and the institution of slavery(in the English-speaking world, "amalgamation" was an earlier term for racial or ethnic mixing). This article alludes to how the term "miscegenation" and concepts of "race-mixing" has been present in legal practice and in social discourse. It is an article that introduces the reader to the connections between the process of "race-mixing" and observations of and perceptions about this process.

The article Mixed bloods (which is badly in need of sources), is about people/groups of mixed Native American and (primarily) European ancestry. In North America, there are many groups of partial Native American descent who identify either as a distinct "mixed" group or as Native Americans. It would probably be best to preserve the article, provide sources, and links to relevant other articles about Native Americans and the colonization of the Americas. Fairlane75 (talk) 13:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I see that Mixed blood has been merged/redirected into this page! That is unacceptable. When I was new to wikipedia, I merged Interracial marriage into this article, and I was rightly reprimanded for this action. I now see that it was not a good idea to merge in the first place. But the more important point is that you always have to wait for others to vote on your proposal. Always wait for a consensus to form. I think Mixed blood should redirect to either Multiracial or Mixed bloods, although that is another discussion. See the talk page of Mixed blood. Fairlane75 (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Mixed blood has not been merged into this article. It never existed as a page unto itself; it has existed as a redirect page to this article for two years.  No merging has taken place without adequate discussion on this talk page.


 * If articles like Mixed-Bloods, Half-breed, and Half-caste refer to a separate topic from Miscegenation, they should be merged together apart from Miscegenation. If this should be done based on geographical location, so be it.  This still holds true of Mixed-Bloods and Half-caste, as they both refer mainly to people groups of Native American and European ancestry.


 * Neelix (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was too hasty in my second comment. Mixed blood never existed as an article, only as a redirect, you're right. Mixed blood should not be a redirect to this article though, and the term does not belong in the lede of the article. And Mixed bloods should not be merged into this article.

I'm not sure whether all the articles you mention should be merged into one. Whatever opinion you have on this also depends on whether ou are a lumper or a splitter. I think it would be a better idea to preserve the Mixed bloods article, and also to have a good look at the existing information on the mixing of Native Americans and whites in other articles to see what links you could provide from the existing article to other articles. I also think it is important to do a bit of research into the background of these terms. Halfcaste, for instance, has also been used in Australia to refer to people of mixed Aboriginal and white ancestry. The Multiracial article already provides an overview of the topic of mixed-race people and groups. That is a good place to have this dicussion about merging some or all of the different articles you mention. 195.73.22.130 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'll remove the merge suggestion and do some more research. Perhaps I'll start another discussion on the Multiracial talk page if I come to a more definite conclusion about what should be done about the different articles pertaining to people descended from multiple races.


 * Neelix (talk) 16:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd
According to the U.S. Census, in 2000 there were 1,432,908 Hispanic Origin-white marriages. "Whites" and "Hispanics", aren't really comparable groups, since somewhere around half of US Hispanics consider themselves white. I'm not against it being there, I just think it should be re-praised as "non-Hispanic whites". Sorry I'm so picky about it, my ex girlfriend is of Hispanic descent, and she always made it very clear to people that she is white. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.254.15.210 (talk) 07:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

US Miscegenation Page, or more detail here
I was amazed to find that the original Rap Parker Junior song Ghostbusters was not shown on MTV since it depicts a fictional relationship between the singer and a white woman, and according to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Parker_Jr. Ray Parker Jr. page]"MTV refused to play his Halloween-themed video due to its depiction of an interracial relationship". Wow! How disgusting! And by MTV!! But there is nowhere that I am aware of in Wikipedia that relates the non-legal yet systematic discrimination against mixed race relationships.--Timtak (talk) 08:51, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom
This section of the article is clearly being used to put forward a pov against certain communities rather than making objective statements. Certain parts will be deleted or edited unless it can be proven otherwise. Khokhar (talk) 17:06, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

done.Khokhar (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Introduction .... say what?
What is with the ridiculous sentence at the end of the introductory paragraph?

"Furthermore, miscegenation is promoted by Marxists who rule all Western nations in the 21st century, in media such as pornography, advertising, music, television and film."

This is my first time visiting the 'other side' of Wikipedia but wanted to highlight this for you regulars to edit out.

Stopping the traffic (talk) 15:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that. Topics like this can attract editors whose views are outside the mainstream.   Will Beback    talk    21:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Section of no relevance
The below section (which concluded the United States section) is riddled with inconsistency, is poorly written, and its relevance is questionable. I also feel the section ends better with the previous paragraph. I have removed it. Any objections?--Tidewater86 (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

In recent years, interracial pornographic films, which most commonly refers to a black male/white female films,[177] have increased in popularity, becoming one of the fastest-growing and biggest-selling genres.[178] Interracial films that include black men and white women together have a majority audience of white male viewers,[179] which has led some people within the porn industry to speculate that the largest orders for interracial porn comes from the Southern U.S.[180][181] 177.	^ In a 2006 interview, performer and director Lexington Steele said that "in porn, interracial always means black males with white females." Justin Quirk (February 2006), "The New Porn Apartheid", Arena. 178.	^ "Black/White: Sex, Race & Profit". SexTV. 2006-09-09. http://www.sextelevision.net/archives/episodeArchivesDisplay.asp?episodeID=179&segmentID=472&seasonID=8. Retrieved 2007-07-19. 179.	^ Poulson-Bryant, Scott (2006). Hung: A Meditation on the Measure of Black Men in America. p. 139. http://books.google.com/books?id=fQFdAAAACAAJ&dq=Scott+Poulson+Bryant&source=gbs_book_other_versions_r&cad=1_1. Retrieved 10 January 2009. 180.	^ Nathan, Debbie (2007). Pornography. p. 30. http://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=WzYEAQAAIAAJ&dq=%22white+men%22+and+%22interracial+porn%22+and+%22black+men%22&q=%22white+men%22+and+%22interracial+porn%22+and+%22black+men%22&pgis=1. Retrieved 10 January 2009. 181.	^ [1]

Your removal of this content seems to have been a good idea. The content would be better suited at Ethnicity of performers in pornography or the Interracial pornography article which is in discussion to be separated from it. Munci (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking of no relevance, the section on Jamaica has nothing to do with miscegenation other than the fact that it's implying that whites are having sex with Jamaican Black men with HIV. Again, not applicable to this article on the word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.39.118.74 (talk) 12:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Hybrid vigor aka Heterosis
There needs to be a section here about hybrid vigor (heterosis) and the increasing number of studies on people of mixed race. Books like Alon Ziv's "Breeding Between the Lines" are filled with examples of studies showing the increased health or mixed race individuals. People of mixed race are empirically shown to be more attractive, have higher IQs, "smell" better, and are more successful than average. This is an important part that has been left out of this wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.17.230 (talk) 21:03, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Here are two studies from a cursory google search: http://psycnet.apa.org/index.cfm?fa=buy.optionToBuy&id=2007-10421-011 http://www.perceptionweb.com/abstract.cgi?id=p6626 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.17.230 (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about that. I would be willing add material about hybrid vigor existing if I see serious discussion in Science or in Nature or in New York Times Book Review or something of that regard in multiple cases. Serious scientific claims need to be backed up by multiple reliable sources. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 02:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Rollins v. Alabama (1922) doesn't merit mention in this entry.
At least not in the context it's being used. For convenience and clarity, here's that context: between two paragraphs, one beginning "Genetic research suggests that a considerable minority of white Americans..." and the other beginning in "The Motion Picture Production Code of 1930..." was found the following (bold added):


 * '''In Rollins vs Alabama, 1922, a black young man, Jim Rollins, was convicted for a sexual relation with a white woman. Rollins appealed and argued the white woman was not white at all: she was Italian from Sicily. The judge, P. J. Bricken, recognized the Italian woman could not be proven to be of white race and acquitted Rollins of any allegation.

"'There was no competent evidence to show that the woman in question, Edith Labue, was a white woman, or that she did not have negro blood in her veins and was not the descendant of a negro. This fact was essential to a conviction in this case, and, like any other material ingredient of the offense must be proven by the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty. The mere fact that the testimony showed this woman came from Sicily can in no sense be taken as conclusive that she was therefore a white woman, or that she was not a negro or a descendant of a negro''"

- Rollins v State, Court of Appeals of Alabama, January 17, 1922


 * Matthew Frye Jacobson argues that "if the court left any room for the possibility that Edith Labue may have been white, the ruling also made clear that she was not the sort of white woman whose purity was to be "protected" by the bulwark of white supremacism, the miscegenation statute.". 

If the statement "The judge, P. J. Bricken, recognized the Italian woman could not be proven to be of white race and acquitted Rollins of any allegation" be true, then it be also a textbook example of equivocation if it be taken to have any bearing on her race: the court recognized only that she'd immigrated from Italy or Sicily--not that she was of Italian or Sicilian descent. Note that the words "Italian" or "Sicilian" don't even appear in the opinion; this might be in recognition of the potential for this kind of misinterpretation. The statement "Rollins appealed and argued the white woman was not white at all: she was Italian from Sicily," might or might not be true, but it doesn't matter because that's not what the court found or based their decision on.

What the court found was that there wasn't enough evidence to support the allegation that LaBue "was a white woman, or that she did not have negro blood in her veins and was not the descendant of a negro"--or, indeed, that Rollins "was a negro or a descendant of a negro." The court likely here recognized what that great early-21st-century philosopher Donald Rumsfeld reminded us: that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. Apparently the prosecution was arguing that LaBue was white based 1) on the defendants' confessions, which the court found inadmissible, and 2) on the fact that she was from Sicily and, presumably, Sicilians are white, therefore she's white. What the appeals court was saying is that she's not necessarily of purely Sicilian descent just because she's from Sicily, if she's not necessarily purely Sicilian, she could be of any descent at all, "of a negro" is a kind of descent, therefore she could be "the descendant of a negro."

Distinguish between types and tokens here. The court was saying nothing whatsoever of the whiteness of Sicilians as a whole or of "negroes" as a whole; they were saying that nothing legally recognizable had been proved one way or the other about the exact nature of the ancestry of this particular Sicilian immigrant and this particular natural-born U.S. citizen, therefore no one should be convicted based on it.

Put simply, the court was making no statement about qualities of the relationship between Sicilian-ness and whiteness: they were making a statement about the lack of evidence for qualities of Edith LaBlue's ancestry pursuant to evidentiary rules of the state of Alabama in 1922. If the opinion say anything about the whiteness-or-not of Sicilians, it say the same of the "negro"-ness-or-not of "negroes." Surely, we wouldn't attribute the cosmopolitan egalitarianism to early-20th-century Alabaman courts that one might possibly've ruled that blacks might not have special qualities to set them apart from other races. Just like the guy's not saying "blacks might not be black," he's not saying "Sicilians might not be white." He's saying the prosecution hasn't legally established their case by just saying, "They're guilty... like... basically just 'cause look at 'em!"

This is not an article about Edith LaBlue. This is not an article about Jim Rollins. This is not an article about rules of Alabama court procedure. This is not an article about corpus delecti. The case says nothing special about race or its perception. The case is of no special interest to the topic of miscegenation. Talking about it at any length in an entry about it here is like talking at length about O.J. Simpson's trial and "If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit!" in the entry on murder. --Dan (talk) 20:42, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Bad Statistics
The caption under the DeNiro picture cites a reference indicating 117,000 b&w marriages in 2006. Just under that in the US Demographics section, however, it cites a reference indicating 422,000 b&w marriages in 2005. Something's not right here. 204.248.24.165 (talk) 14:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

You have probably moved on, but I'll explain anyway. The De Niro statistic is for white husband / black wife marriages only, while the larger number is for all black/white marriages. Nemokara (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Editing an Offensive Word / Can we just change the title?
Does writing the words "... which has taken place since ancient history but has become more global through European colonialism since the Age of Discovery. Historically the term has been used in the context of laws banning interracial marriage and sex, so-called anti-miscegenation laws. It is therefore a loaded and potentially offensive word." make any sense when describing a word that was being posted anyway? And, using language that was popular when first, slavery was legal and then later, when a lot of people viewed minorities as slightly less than being "Real Human Beings". There is much debate over something that would be better entitled "Interracial Relationships". Instead Wikipedia is redirecting "every" less offensive term on this topic to this offensive one. Arizona Mildman 11:51 Saturday, 08/21/2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arizona Mildman (talk • contribs) 19:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Dubious sentence, possibly OR
Since there are an estimated 6 genetic loci involved in skin color determination it is possible for someone to have 15–20% African admixture and not possess any of alleles that code for dark skin.

Do you have any source and explanation for this? Why no more than 15-20%? Theoretically, there should be no limit.--90.179.235.249 (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

New Zealand
The section on New Zealand contained references from authors know to cause controversy over their disparaging views of Māori and other minorites. I've tried to balance the scale by adding descriptions and references from well-known academic sources, while also capturing the essence of what is a fairly highly politically charged topic. --Che tibby (talk) 23:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Iberian Peninsula
When determining "genetic admixture" -as difficult as it is- in a given population the usual procedure is a meta-analysis of related studies giving special importance to recent papers. The Adams et al. study is a bit controversial in the population genetics community for its outlier results, prompting even some researchers who participated to relativize some interpretations in it. Please check Genetic History of Europe.--88.24.157.14 (talk) 15:26, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation
This article could benefit from some IPA. &mdash; Music  Maker  5376  02:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Why has no one added a pronunciation key? I've never heard it used. . .Who uses this word today? It is in danger of having its pronunciation lost through disuse. 68.55.223.238 (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I just added IPA for the standard pronunciation, which is basically missegination. I've heard the word mispronounced mixegination, but I can't find any support for that as an alternative pronunciation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:22, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

One of the reasons I came to wik was to learn the pronunciation, and there isn't one.75.120.69.20 (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Definition
The word Miscegenation was a juristical word used to describe the interracial marriage in the U.S., so most of the content should be move to that article. This article should only remain the interracial marriage happened in the America. --WWbread （Open Your Mouth?） 06:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Katrina Kaif ???
Look up pure blooded Kashmiris that would pass off for white, Salman Rusdhie, Rohit bal. Then there's Katrina Kaif, but what about Zarine Khan, who is putatively of Pashtun descent and looks like Katrina Kaif, are Pashtuns considered white? If a Pashtun and Hazara/Uzbek/Turkmen/Kyrgyz have kids, are they bi-racial, what about Pashtuns and Punjabis ?. Use more clear examples of mixed race, due to the fact that Katrina Kaif's nationality is disputed according to Pakistan's Kashmir conflicted, and the race of kashmiris is vague as there's a significant minority of white looking kashmiris, no they didn't mix with Alexander the great whether you say they are Greek or Macedonian, Macedonians are Greeks, not Fyromian slavs -_-. --108.173.174.134 (talk) 04:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Needs fiction section
This subject needs a section "Miscegenation in fiction". This charged subject is likely to have generated a good deal of fiction, probably in the horror genre (Lovecraft and contemporaries for one). -- Auric    talk  00:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Is there a way to disable images?
I want to read this article, however I find most of the images extremely offensive. Thank you!70.176.239.63 (talk) 06:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Help:Options to hide an image Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 07:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

File:Katrina-Kaif.jpg Nominated for Deletion
Just for the record, this was resolved and the image is now available in Commons,. --Hunnjazal (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

American miscegenation
The paragraph on pornography is irrelevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.212.36 (talk) 03:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

Rape in Japan
The two paragraphs starting "According to Peter Schrijvers..." seem to talk about the prevalence of rape in post-war Japan. There's nothing wrong with the content as such, but is this really relevant to miscegenation? Is there a better place for it? Jpatokal (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw your message and agreed. Presumably the subject ties into miscegenation if those rapes produced children, as they must have sometimes. But there was no mention of that occurring. So they were irrelevant paragraphs, and I removed them. The section still contains content that seems irrelevant, though. SamEV (talk) 19:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Per the definition, it is relevant, since miscegenation involves not just procreation, but mere sexual relations between races. So I've just reversed my action of yesterday and restored the content. But if you still want to remove it, I wouldn't be opposed. SamEV (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I have removed this paragraph: "However, despite being told by the Japanese military that they would suffer rape, torture and murder at the hands of the Americans, Japanese civilians "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy." This is largely irrelevant to the subject matter, as whether or not there was "humane treatment" really doesn't change the fact that rapes occurred which is why it is relative to the article in the first place. This extra bit just seems like an apologist tacked  it on so that people don't judge America too harshly. 75.158.37.149 (talk) 09:48, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Duplication - Merge?
Large tracts - very large indeed of this article and the article on Interracial marriage are near-complete duplication. I just looked up occurrences of the word "Portuguese" and the sections where it comes up are 90% identical. I guess much of the rest is too. In my mind these are candidates for a merge, though I say that aware that elsewhere above on this discussion page an editor wrote in 2008 "When I was new to wikipedia, I merged Interracial marriage into this article, and I was rightly reprimanded for this action." Well, between then and now a lot has happened, I don't know the background as to why the editor was reprimanded. And there is also a page on Mixed-blood with further pages in the section "See Also". I think that in some of these we are saying the same thing over and over. Rui &#39;&#39;Gabriel&#39;&#39; Correia (talk) 03:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I think rather a rewrite to get material in the most appropriate article. Try and keep children in Mixed-blood and marriages in Interracial marriage, etc. This article has an unfortunate title that it's easy to read as pejorative. Pinkbeast (talk) 07:48, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Russia?
What about Russian men who are married with foreign women?--95.113.207.244 (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

venice
"In the Republic of Venice in northern Italy, it was common for foreign Arab and Berber traders, known to Europeans as the "Moors", to take local Italian wives. This became a subject matter in several William Shakespeare plays, most notably Othello, involving an inter-ethnic relationship between a Moorish Othello and his Venetian wife Desdemona, based on Giovanni Battista Giraldi's "Un Capitano Moro" which was itself inspired by an actual incident that occurred in Venice around 1508. "

I removed this paragraph because is not resurced and uses inflated claims.the mercants in venice weren't arabs and berber since the muslim states used jews as intermediaries for their tradings with the western nations.besides those merchants were confined to warehouse under strict controls and hardly settled in venice. As for othello,the original novel by cinthio was a moral against venetians women from marrying foreigners in general and anyway was hardly a frequent occurrence in venice. the only sustantial population of slaves in italy were women from the caucasus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circassian_beauties

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jojalozzo (talk • contribs) 00:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Diannaa (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I see no problem, merely a short quote with a source.-- Auric    talk  23:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Copy and pasting
Why are we copy and pasting 100 year old info into this article? I am sure modern sources that can be paraphrased could be found no? A bit out of date and primarily about sexual slaves over this topic of miscegenation....has this had an impact on the current populations??-- Moxy (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * For what Moxy means, see this (followup edit here) and this edit regarding 's additions.  And this is Voekt's edit without the extensive quoting. Flyer22 (talk) 03:15, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I removed the quotes and left the paraphrased material which is sourced with recent secondary sources. I have included a source published by University of Chicago Press in 1998: Asia in the Making of Europe, Volume III: A Century of Advance. Book 4: East Asia.. One of the sources also mentioned red and auburn hair among present day people in southern Taiwan as a result of this so it is connected to the present day population. If anyone has a problem with quoting, then just remove the quotes and leave everything else.Voekt (talk) 05:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

SSCI 2831
I plan on working on this article for my course assignment.

Arqam.masood (talk) 16:47, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Jerry Falwell
Falwell was not opposed to segregation, as a simple Google search would indicate. I will fix the article when I have access to a PC. In the meantime, the sources are a thesis (not a reliable source) that doesn't support the statement, and a self-serving interview that also doesn't say what it's being cited for. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 14:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article itself says he changed his mind on segregation. The thesis says this as well and it does say he became opposed to segregation. It says he "eventually became more accepting of the notion of integration...which is shown by Falwell’s Thomas Road Church becoming more accepting of racial harmony within the community". It also notes that he had "tak[en] an almost apologetic view of his then ideas about segregation". So it should be noted both that he was initially opposed but then became supportive, as every source states. 98.119.19.110 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What rot. First, the thesis is not a reliable source. Second, even if it were, the thesis doesn't say he "came to support interracial marriages". I'm deleting the whole sentence, as it's based on a single late-in-life interview with Falwell, and that's self-serving. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 21:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
 * All you did was ignore what he said and repeat yourself. How's the thesis unreliable? And it does say he changed his position on segregation. Both sources report he used to be in favor of it, but then was opposed to it. There's no one that says otherwise. 12.31.71.58 (talk) 00:19, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's guideline on reliable sources says that some theses are reliable: those written as part of a requirement for a PhD and which are publicly available. This article's source is a MA thesis. Neither the thesis nor the interview said anything about the subject of this article—miscegenation, or interracial relationships—and they certainly didn't support the statement that Falwell "came to support interracial marriages". — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 01:22, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Related edits in the article are a bit disruptive. I've semi-protected for three weeks to allow consensus to be reached on this here talk page. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Miscegenation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120304214347/http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2010/06/20/local_news/news01.txt to http://www.ivpressonline.com/articles/2010/06/20/local_news/news01.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120704122701/http://www.rae.es/rae-index.html to http://www.rae.es/rae-index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Turkey
The article says that the difference in genetics between Turkey and the Turkic people of Central Asia is because of marrying European slave women during Ottoman times.

Really? The land now called Turkey was inhabited by many different peoples before the Turks ever came there. Are we to assume they simply disappeared?

Such cases as Hungary show that linguistic conquest is much more common than genetic conquest. I'm sure there are sources to back that up. &#39;&#39;&#39;tAD&#39;&#39;&#39; (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Turkish men also marry non-Slavic European women and non-white women. But there were also enough Turkish women who marry foreign white, black and arab men.--Aitor Nagy (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Southeastern and Eastern Europe
The degree of miscegenation is very high in the former Soviet Union. (Copyright content removed) The majority of such marriages occur among Russians, Ukrainians, Belarusians and other Slavic peoples. Low levels of mixed ancestry are, in some areas (especially urban), almost universal, and generally go entirely ignored and unnoticed unless persons wish to identify themselves with ethnic minorities. Highly visible divergence from the local ethnic majority is also treated differently depending on whether the individual identifies with the local culture or not. In modern times, attitudes towards miscegenation in the former Soviet Union vary greatly, depending on the race and gender of each partner. For example, unions between Slavic males and Oriental (Asian) or Turkic, Northcaucasian, Southcaucasian and Finno-Ugric women are almost universally tolerated, and their children are generally identified and treated as members of the local ethnic majority.

However, unions between Slavic women and visibly non-Slavic men may meet varying degrees of discrimination, from light to none for Asian men (depending also on origin, whether they are immigrants or were born in the Soviet Union, and where in the Soviet Union they were born), to some hostility for Finno-Ugric, Turkic and Northcaucasian men (although much of this is due to the assumption of their faith as Muslim) and Jews, and quite high intolerance towards those who marry blacks or have children by them (young African-Russians in Moscow are often scornfully called 'Children of the Olympics', under the assumption that they were conceived by visiting tourists during the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games). The situation is also highly affected by self-identification, since many people of Asian or Turkic blood have assimilated to the point where they identify themselves as Russian/Ukrainian/etc. and are socially accepted as such.

^^^^^^^^^^Is there any confirmation that that is true? It seems as if though that entire section is written based on assumptions rather than facts. So, what is the point of keeping this in the article? --Al Khazar 05:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

There are also White Slavic men who marry Oriental (Asian) women. Finno-Ugric and Northerncaucasian people are white and not all Turkic and Eastern Asian people in Russia and other post-soviet countries are muslims by the way.--Aitor Nagy (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Bias
No mention of Asian women married to white men in places such as North America and Australia. Article needs work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.213.208.92 (talk) 14:25, 20 September 2012 (UTC) Try the entirety of the Americas. And Australia as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.22.212.36 (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

There a little bit to much information about Chinese men, I mean there were also Chinese women who for example married the local men in Latin American states. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anders Longholm (talk • contribs) 16:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

What is "White" People?
Looking at Central Asia, it talked about "mostly White Iranic " population. Then in the China section: "The 836 law specifically banned Chinese from forming relationships with "dark peoples" or "people of colour", which was used to describe foreigners, such as "Iranians, Sogdians, Arabs, Indians, Malays, Sumatrans", among others." In which the Chinese in 836 viewed Iranians as a "dark people", ie obviously darker than the Chinese. Are Persians/ Iranians, "white" or "dark"? 86.178.172.152 (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know what is even remotely noteworthy about a given ethnicity being regarded as "white" in one country and "dark" in another (other than just further making the point about race being nothing more than a social construct), but ultimately it does not matter what they are. The only thing that matters is how they were regarded in the relevant texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.18.24.111 (talk) 10:06, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Only Europeans count as Whites Iranians are Middle Easterners.--Anders Longholm (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Undue focus on Chinese in odd places
In the "History of ethnoracial..." section, undue focus is placed on mixture with the Chinese (to the exclusion of almost all mention of other racial admixture) in the subsections on Hawaii, Madagascar, and, most egregiously, Latin America. None of these are places that experienced very significant amounts of mixture with the Chinese relative to other peoples, and I suspect the subsections were copied from some page about Chinese racial admixture around the world.

I am thinking of removing these subsections since they give a pretty misleading view of the ethnoracial histories of the places they describe, but I'm not sure how to replace them. Writing a replacement section on Latin America in particular would be an enormous undertaking, perhaps warranting its own page. Perhaps the subsection already existing on Latin America under the "Genetic studies of racial admixture" section can suffice (it isn't really focused on genetics).

In any case, if anyone wants to keep the offending sections I mentioned (5.1.2, 5.2.3, and especially 5.2.4), speak now or forever hold your peace. I will probably remove them in a week or so with no objections. A2soup (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * The article isn't exactly the best in the world anyway. Dougweller (talk) 15:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Why most information about Chinese people who married foreigners are about Chinese men who married foreign women? There were also female Chinese immigrants who married foreign men.--Anders Longholm (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

This is the same stuff one user named Gass Gess has been spraying all over Wikipedia. This post notes with approval those who have been reverting those changes. I got rid of most of this material this morning, which had also been dropped into other pages. Sprucegrouse (talk) 16:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Reorganize This Material
I agree with a number of you who feel that this article lacks focus, that it overlaps too much with the article on Interracial Marriage, and that some of the material here belongs in the Multiracial article, rather than in either of the above. Fixing this will require some major surgery, and I hope this general idea garners enough support that folks can make some bold suggestions that will lead to a new consensus, so that the changes can be made smoothly.

Here are some of my thoughts, which I invite everyone to criticize or elaborate, or to suggest something different. To summarize: I propose (i) limiting the scope of the Miscegenation article to the history of US laws against "Miscegenation, " as defined in those laws, (ii) merging the relevant portion of the current "Interracial Marriage" article, (iii) moving the photos of celebrities with interracial backgrounds to the Multiracial article (to the extent they are not there already), (iv) moving the (largely identical) country and regional sections of both the Miscegenation and Interracial Marriage articles to a new article with some title like "International Interracial Admixture" and (v) deleting material that is not encyclopedic and doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all.

An encyclopedia should record the racism of centuries past without reviving and perpetuating it.

As this article points out, the term "miscegenation" is a narrow one. It's a 19th century coinage whose whole purpose was to support a newly-defined offense. The term is used only by people who are against miscegenation, i.e. those who enacted laws against it, that is, racists, or by opponents of anti-misegentation laws. The term has never had any real-word usage outside of the concept of the those laws, which made interracial marriage and other sexual relations illegal. The story of the enactment of those laws, their social effects, the legal definitions of "race" these laws required and their absurd results and eventual removal are proper scope of an article about "Miscegenation." Put another way, if there were an article about "Miscegenation Laws," I don't think there should be a separate article about "Miscegenation."

"Interracial Marriage" is simply a polite term for "miscegenation," whose use began in the mid-20th century, when the repeal of miscegenation laws in the US (and presumably elsewhere) was being debated as part of the Civil Rights movement. Pollsters track attitudes toward "Interracial Marriage" rather than toward "Miscegenation," since no one would ever say they are "in favor of miscegenation" (they would instead say they are "opposed to keeping miscegenation laws on the books"), while approval rates for interracial marriage have moved from low numbers to very high ones in the last 75 years.

"Interracial Sex" is what a lot of the content that's been added to both of these articles is actually about. There is no Wikipedia article by that name, and as one of you pointed out, a search on Wikipedia for "Interracial Sex" redirects here. This is a big mistake. As a result, all citable material relating in any way to interracial sexual relations--from marriage, to love affairs, to prostitution, sex trafficking, rape and pornography--are jammed into an article about something else. An "Interracial Sex" article could be a home for some of this material, too, as well as for current trends in pornography, if anyone feels that they are are of encyclopedic interest.

It's only on Wikipedia that the term "Miscegenation" is taken to refer to any sexual relationship between persons of different races in any society at any place and time. Most of this article (Sections 5 & 6) consists of mini-articles about a fairly random assortment of countries (mostly small ones) and one U.S. State. Classing these discussions under the heading "Miscegenation" is to pass a harsh, negative judgment on all romantic and sexual relations between people of different races in all these times and places. It also makes it seem like the problem with international sex trafficking isn't the exploitation of women and children, but rather the "race mixing" that's involved. The topic of these sections isn't "miscegenation" or "interracial marriage" at all, but rather "International Ethnoracial Admixture" social attitudes towards it. I suggest moving all this material to a new article with that title, and moving the same material now in the Interracial Marriage article there as well.

Interracial Enthnoracial Admixture" will not be a great article at first or, maybe, ever, but it will at least make the Miscegenation one make sense. And it will highlight the current absurdity of putting together in one article accounts of sex trafficking and the happy marriages of the parents of celebrities with diverse backgrounds. My feeling, which I know some of you share, is that much of it is tired old 19 and early 20th century anthropology, that no one is interested in today (except maybe in an article on racist old-school anthropology), and should simply be dropped entirely as "non-encyclopedic."  Frankly, some of the material that found its way into these articles smacks of a kind of prurient interest in the subject that's unsettling and inappropriate, and I would just as soon see it deleted, but the first step it to move it to its own article, and see how it fares.

Members of all migrant groups have love affairs and intermarry to a greater or lesser extent wherever they wind up, but that doesn't make that aspect the story of every migration in human history a fit subject for a section of these articles.

The material about sex trafficking and prostitution, forced or otherwise, should be in articles about those subjects. There are real and important human rights issues, and there's something creepy and prurient, and demeaning to the victims, about intertwining their plight into articles about interracial marriage or miscegenation. (Don't get me started about the Eurasian article, which suffers from these same indignities.)

Your thoughts are welcome.

Sprucegrouse (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I have to disagree with you.
 * "limiting the scope of the Miscegenation article to the history of US laws against "Miscegenation, " " Why would we limit an article with a global scope to just the United States and its obscure laws? That sounds as a case of Americentrism to me.
 * "merging the relevant portion of the current "Interracial Marriage" article" . Marriage is only one of the aspects of miscegenation. Why I would not mind a merge of material from another article, it should also cover interracial sexual relations and procreation.
 * "moving the photos of celebrities with interracial backgrounds to the Multiracial article (to the extent they are not there already)". The photos should match the content of the paragraph of the article they illustrate. What are you suggesting to replace them with?
 * "moving the (largely identical) country and regional sections of both the Miscegenation and Interracial Marriage articles to a new article with some title like "International Interracial Admixture"". I fail to see how the new title would not cover the United States and "interracial admixture" gets about 2,440 results in googlebooks. Miscegenation gets 741,000 results.
 * "deleting material that is not encyclopedic and doesn't belong on Wikipedia at all." You don't really cite examples of such material.
 * "The term is used only by people who are against miscegenation, i.e. those who enacted laws against it, that is, racists, or by opponents of anti-misegentation laws." Not really, the term is also used in studies of the concept such as the books "What Comes Naturally: Miscegenation Law and the Making of Race in America" (2009) by Peggy Pascoe, " "Miscegenation": Making Race in America" (2010) by Elise Lemire, and "Segregated Miscegenation: On the Treatment of Racial Hybridity in the North American and Latin American Literary Traditions" (2014) by Carlos Hiraldo.
 * "Interracial Marriage" is simply a polite term for "miscegenation," It seems to have a narrower scope since it only covers relationships in a marriage.
 * "Interracial Sex" is the proper definition of miscegenation and this material seems relevant, though I would not oppose creating a new article without the judgemental term.
 * "An "Interracial Sex" article could be a home for some of this material, too, as well as for current trends in pornography, if anyone feels that they are are of encyclopedic interest." Pornography is encyclopedic by definition and we do have WikiProject Pornography to consult for the creation of such an article.
 * "all romantic and sexual relations between people of different races in all these times and places." That is within the global scope of the article.
 * "Members of all migrant groups have love affairs and intermarry to a greater or lesser extent wherever they wind up" While I agree that the statement is highly plausible, I would expand this to claim that interbreeding between supposedly separate human population groups has been the norm for much of human history. I frankly believe that it is more possible to find unicorns than racially or ethnically pure human beings. Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Dimadick, for your thoughtful comments. I agree with you 100% that racially pure human beings are as nonexistent as unicorns.

I also thank you for pointing out the concept of Americentrism, but having studied it, I have to think that the Miscegenation article in its current state is an egregious example of Americentrism, and that my proposal would resolve that problem.

To be clear, I am not proposing to delete the material in Sections 5, 6 and 7, but rather to move them to their own Article, where the individuals concerned will no longer be demeaned by being grouped under a derogatory heading that speaks from an American perspective only. Miscegenation (as opposed to interracial sex and marriage) only exists where it's frowned upon and made unlawful, as in Nazi Germany's Nuremberg laws. I'd propose retaining a section on Germany in revised Section 5 on those laws, even thought there scope was obviously vastly broader than their US counterparts'. Discussions of other countries with a similar history would also be retained.

The dictionary definition that begins the article defines Miscegenation as:

"1. marriage or cohabitation between two people from different racial groups, especially, in the U.S., between a black person and a white person: In 1968 the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that state laws prohibiting miscegenation were unconstitutional. 2. sexual relations between two people from different racial backgrounds that results in the conception of a mixed-race child."

This makes clear both the U.S. connection and the focus on both legality and constitutionality, and the article's second sentence (correctly) drives this point home "Historically, the term has been used in the context of laws banning interracial marriage and sex, known as anti-miscegenation laws."

The footnote to this sentence brings you here, to an authoritative source that groups this term under the heading "Outdated or Offensive Language," noting that the term "implied disapproval" and is viewed as "derogatory" today, and the second paragraph notes that scholars today therefore avoid the term, except in the context of anti-miscegenation laws.

You are right that when I wrote above that the word "miscegenation" is only used by racists and their critics, I should have added "scholars writing about the battle between the two." The three books you cite make my point about this being a word specific to one period in American history (and its direct analogues). Two of the books actually have have the "Making of Race in America" as their subtitle!

Grouping any and all recorded instances of cross-cultural romance and sexual relationships under this obsolete derogatory heading violates the Wikipedia core content policy of Neutral Point of View, since it implies strong disapproval. Obviously, many of the cases cites are worthy of disapproval, such as cases of sexual slavery, but we disapprove of them because of the slavery, not because of the racial differences between the parties.

I see no call for grouping under the heading "Miscegenation" the following text from Section 5.3.7 (Indian Subcontinent):

"The Indian subcontinent has a long history of inter-ethnic marriage dating back to ancient history. Various groups of people have been intermarrying for millennia in South Asia, including speakers of the Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, Austroasiatic and Tibeto-Burman languages. The origins and affinities of the approximately 1 billion people living on the subcontinent of India have long been contested."

Similarly, but on a much smaller scale, the following about Bolivia should not be treated as an example of miscegenation. This wasn't illegal in Bolivia, ever, and wouldn't have even violated the US anti-miscegenation laws, which were directed only at marriages between white and "colored" persons.

"During the colonial period, many black people often intermarried with the native population (mostly Aymara). The result of these relationships was the blending between the two cultures (Aymara and Afro-Bolivian)."

It does a particular disservice to Mexico to group its multiracial experience under this derogatory heading:

"In Mexico, the concept of mestizaje (or the cultural and racial amalgamation) is an integral part of the country's identity. While frequently seen as a mixture of the indigenous and Spanish, Mexico has had a notable admixture of African and Asian heritage since the Colonial era."

For an example of "non-enclyclopedic material that does not belong an Wikipedia at all, see the following, which was until recently part of a section on Guyana (which is in South America, nowhere near Fiji)" " One account of an Indian woman in Fiji at an auction reported that she said 'Tell the fat one that it's where he can't get his bands on it... between my legs.' after a man said to 'Ask the little slut where her bank is' when she managed to outdo his bid, according to an Australian overseer,[114] and other people criticized Indian women as well, 'The great majority of women imported from Calcutta are very loose in their habits. They were bad in Calcutta and so they will ... remain in Demerara.' as reported by a Guiana-based missionary, 'The Hindu woman in this country, is like a rudderless vessel with its masts broken being whirled down the rapids of a great river without any controlling hand. She passes from one man to another and has lost even the sense of shame in doing so.' said by Reverend C.F. Andrews.[115]

I would urge you to read the whole article again with these clarifications in mind, and hope that you will agree that this should be two articles, and not one, out of respect to those concerned.

Sprucegrouse (talk) 13:22, 2 December 2015 (UTC)Sprucegrouse (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

On Australia's commentaries
I am referring to recent well-intended edits from an anon. I am all for opening such a section in this article, and including more history, particularly non-US history, but in a more encyclopedic fashion and tenor. This means, to present a consensus of the field (not simply any source) and in a manner as far from an advocacy declaration as possible. Any thoughts? Hope you understand. Caballero / Historiador ⎌  13:58, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Indian Subcontinent
Article is highly biased and misleading. Instead of focussing on the topic of miscegention and providing some facts or statitics abou the extent of it in the subcontinent, it largely focuses more on war rapes and slavery. It is made even worse by the communal and racist undertones. Granted that these seem more like crime against women than "racial" mixing, but inter-religious,inter-caste marriages are still discouraged, sometimes resulting in honor killing of the female and/or the murder of the male.Since the most of the persian, turkic , pashtun, uzbek people still follow Islam in the native Hindu majority country, any genetic/racial admixture between these two groups usualy happened during wartimes.
 * Religion (hindu, muslim, japanese christian) used in a topic which is entirely race related.
 * It gives a general idea of conveniently hiding facts like not mentioning any pre-islamic period war rapes or events which may have led to miscenegation, "hindu" harems.
 * It also debunks the Prehistoric Indo-Aryan migration theories which is still considered the only valid theory as opposed to the out of india theory which is supoorted by the article.
 * It also silent on the war rapes, capture, enslavement and trade of mainly persian, uzbek, turkic women during mughal aggression against other lesser rajas and nawabs, post fall of the mughals, kashmir (especially from 1750 onwards), and also during the partition of India.
 * Many staements without citations

Request to edit the section and if possible remove it till the quality of the section is improved. As an Indian, I can assure you the section is written in a highly inflammatory style. Pardon me for grammar mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.41.229 (talk) 04:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm deleting said portions of the article for the aforementioned reasons until citations are produced. Even if they are produced, the article requires major revisions to balance the evident racial, national, and religious biases of the author(s). PaxIndica (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I replaced deleted content that either had sources or mentioned the sources in the text. Rather than chopping out large sections wholesale, I think we need to take them one small bit at a time and only delete them when we can provide specific reasons for each particular deletion. Joja  lozzo  23:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, as you can see, this is my first edit on Wikipedia. I will follow your advice next time. PaxIndica (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The article also doesn't mention the Portuguese "política dos casamentos" in Goa that encouraged Portuguese male settlers to marry native women. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.112.182.236 (talk • contribs) 21:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Miscegenation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://arinave.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/INCORE-Paper-2001-PDF1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://arinave.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/INCORE-Paper-2001-PDF1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Miscegenation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://arinave.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/INCORE-Paper-2001-PDF1.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://arinave.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/INCORE-Paper-2001-PDF1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:56, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Hispanic is not a race, so it make no sense
Hispanic is not a race, its a U.S. only, self voluntary ethnicity. The "Demographics of ethnoracial admixture" didn't specify what race the Hispanic was. So I would say it's stats are not relevant to this article which is about miscegenation. A white American male who self identify as a Hispanic and a white American female who doesn't is not miscegenation since its in the same race. So it makes no sense. I think it should be changed or be more specific. Stating the race of the self identifying Hispanic. I will give three days to be fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret killer (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I'll edit it right now. SamEV (talk) 02:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The section is mostly sound. However, one of its sources ( clearly misrepresents Hispanics as a race. It does despite the fact that it uses data from Sharon M. Lee and Barry Edmonston, "New Marriages, New Families: U.S. Racial and Hispanic Intermarriage," Population Bulletin 60, no. 2 (2005), a work which makes no such mistake. That's why I removed the source. SamEV (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC) To be fair to the PRB source, the problem is really the USA Today/Gallup Poll source that PRB used. It's from 1997, so it's dated and can hardly be expected to reflect today's reality. But more important, I'd say, it was done before the nature of Hispanic and Latino origin as an ethnicity and not a race had been really clarified by the OMB and Census Bureau. SamEV (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2010 (UT

Miscegenation is when when 2 different races marry and reproduce with eachother and have a mixed offspring.XxG3773xX (talk) 04:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Which is why the word race needs to be precisely defined. JamesPoulson (talk) 06:13, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Confusing Terms
From a non-American standpoint, this article is very confusing - If we are using terms to define "race" (Caucasoid, and Mongoloid, and Negroid), should we apply it throughout? I understand the word "Caucasian" is the fad to describe the "white race", but it gets really confusing when you describe "Asians" because it's so broad in the context of this article (i.e. where an "Asian" is from, and not necessarily the "race" of the "Asian"). So if a person is a 8th or 9th generation "Asian" living in the United States is still called that, but a person of the same pedigree from Europe is automatically referred as a "Caucasian"?

Furthermore, are there anybody in Europe, unless you're from the Caucasus region, call themselves a "Caucasian" (further confusing a person's place of origin and the person's "race")? Satanstorm (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd say that "Caucasian" may be infrequently used in the UK and in French the word "blanc" (white) is used with "caucasien" being an anglicism that most often pops up in badly translated US tv series. JamesPoulson (talk) 06:20, 5 December 2016 (UTC)