Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Race science


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was no consensus, so keep. &mdash; Deckill e r 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Race science
no documentation of the term's use outside wikipedia, material is (or ought) to be covered in race article Pete.Hurd 03:38, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This term's use is not verified by sources, if it were then if would be a dic def . Further, as another editor has noted on the talk page, the article's topic ought to be covered under race.  A call for reasons not to delete this page has stood unanswered on the article's talk page since 25 Feb 2006. Recommend delete (assuming no material to be merged to race). Pete.Hurd 03:41, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * delete --Rikurzhen 03:45, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. SM247 My Talk  04:15, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Yale University Press book. Google Books, etc. Outriggr 04:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. This article is the inverse of Scientific racism. If that article can exist—an article that explains the positions of those who charactize The Bell Curve as "Scientific racism"—then an article can also exist that explains that The Bell Curve has been construed as "Race science", if anything a necessary and intermediate step before calling something racist (pseudo)science. If any merge occurs, it should be between Scientific racism and Race science; perhaps the title Race science and scientific racism would be appropriate. By deleting this article, Wikipedia would be taking an implicit POV position that there is no such thing as the scientific study of race, and that anything that purports to be race science is actually "scientific racism": as that article describes it, "a publication or propaganda with the veneer of science which was fabricated to support a racist paradigm". If you want to maintain NPOV, this article is required: the author of The Bell Curve and others might deem that book about "race science", but not allow that it is "Scientific racism". Phrenology isn't nominated for deletion because it is now considered junk science; equally, whether or not one likes it, the concept of "race science" surely exists and our job is to report it. Outriggr 21:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Race or Race and multilocus allele clusters or Genetic views on race should be sufficient. We don't need this article too. Merging with Scientific racism, if there were any usable material in this article, would be fine too. --Rikurzhen 07:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "the concept of "race science" surely exists", maybe so, but if that exact term is not widely used (one relatively obscure book with the two words in that order isn't "widely used" IMHO) then it's a neologism, and this page has no reason to exist when the material is already covered (several times) elsewhere. Pete.Hurd 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, just give me a few minutes and I'll paste all of the x-where-x-is-a-large-number number of links that refer to race science. This is where semantics kills me. I should shut up now, as I have nothing more to say that won't make me look bad - other than that being afraid of words in a certain order certainly won't help clarify truths what notable sources have called truth. I still contend the most valid place to talk about race science is under Race science. Neologism my arse. Outriggr (in a rotten mood)
 * I'm totally willing to be swayed by the evidence, you may well be right. Just show me the data.  Preferred would be undergraduate class curricula, course textbooks, scientific conferences, etc that self-describe as "Race Science", or the use of "race science" in the keywords field of journal articles, and I'm on-board.  Then maybe we can start to merge Race and multilocus allele clusters, Genetic views on race, and maybe a bunch of Human genetic variation, Race and Race into Race science. Pete.Hurd 02:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, subject keywords are always going to have "Race" and "Science" separately, but below is a small sampling of abstracts. As I get further into this I am amazed by the number of "race and..." articles on WP, which does mitigate my original concern to some extent. However, "Scientific racism", for example, is not much more "canonical" than "Race science" and "Racial science" combined, in a Google search. I still think the subject deserves a treatment that doesn't put the cart (scientific racism) before the horse (race science) so to speak, and a treatment that is not hidden within other articles, nor euphemized into oblivion. At this point, I would be content if "racial science" and "race science" redirected somewhere relevant. Regards, Outriggr 05:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Basu, Kunal, Searching blindly for the truth in black and white. Times Higher Education Supplement; 1/6/2006 Issue 1724, p12-12, 2/3p. Abstract: "The author looks at race science. The philosophy of race science has not changed over time which centers on determining the cause of differences in human beings. The author conducted a fictional experiment in his novel titled "Racists" about a black and a white child who grew together in an isolated area. It is said that people are seekers of difference and sameness."
 * 2) Reddy, Deepa, The Ethnicity of Caste. Anthropological Quarterly; Summer 2005, Vol. 78 Issue 3, p543-584, 42p. "The category of "caste" has had a long history both in and out of the Indian subcontinent, one that is frequently intertwined with that of "race." From H. H. Risley's use of late-nineteenth century European race science in anthropometric research, to Max Müeller's articulation of the Aryan theory of race and pan-Africanist expressions of racial solidarity with the lower castes of India, caste has frequently been redefined and politicized by being drawn into wider discourses about race."
 * 3) Prewitt, Kenneth, The Two Projects of the American Social Sciences. Social Research; Spring 2005, Vol. 72 Issue 1, p219-236, 18p. "This article focuses on the inseparable projects that make up modern social science. … It is obvious that neither the formulation of race-science nor its subsequent rejection can be understood solely in scientific terms--that is, by simply considering hypotheses, data, theory construction, better data, new hypotheses, theory modification, ad infinitum.…"
 * 4) Chalhoub, Sidney, What Are Noses For? Paternalism, Social Darwinism and Race Science in Machado de Assis. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies (Travesia); Aug2001, Vol. 10 Issue 2, p171-191, 21p. "Focuses on concepts of Machado de Assis on paternalism, social Darwinism and race science. Depiction of paternalism in the novel The Posthumous Memoirs of Bras Cubas; Darwinian concept revealed in passages by de Assis; Empirical views on noses."


 * Merge to Race. —Quarl (talk) 2006-07-02 09:05Z 
 * Keep as historical topic. See: Lux, Maureen K (2001:6) Medicine that walks. University of Toronto Press. ISBN 0802082955. On Google Books.  Moonraker88 09:18, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Sources appear to be self-referential to establish the term. Perhaps it would be more suitable after the term raciology enters Wikictionary. WP:SPAM Ste4k 09:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This has merit but needs better referencing. -- Alias Flood 17:11, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete 172 | Talk 06:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Your original, self-deleted comment "racist rubbish" is exactly the reason why I have written the comments above. Outriggr 07:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This topic is already contained at Race.  (That seems to be the more appropriate title, as race science appears to be exclusively used as a synonym for, or in the context of, scientific racism.)--Nectar 08:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Seems covered elsewhere.  --TJive 09:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.