Jump to content

Talk:Miscegenation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Splitting Proposal

[edit]

WP:SIZERULE says that this section "Almost certainly should be divided" because the section is 288 Kilobyte or Kilobit idk which one but still very large. Sebbog13 (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

yes Geysirhead (talk) 01:53, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I propose splitting into History of miscegenation with current regional and national headings; considering the term's offensiveness, alternative titles may be an improvement. Such split warrants reviewing current information to check for needed updates and inaccuracies. Exemplary is the Brazil section's semmingly original analysis of the 2010 census data and overreliance on Gilberto Freyre, an anthropologist and historian whose conceptualization of race in Brazil is controversial. XxTechnicianxX (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I just tried to read this article for the first time. It is very long, obviously, and it has an extremely offensive title. But it is also a very interesting and well researched discussion of the history of interracial personal relations. (We need to come up with a better title stat; I thought about interracial relationships, but I don't know if I want to use that as the title for an article that has so much discussion of situations where an enslaved person or war captive ends up having an interracial child in a situation where consent is dubious or frankly nonexistent. There are similar problems with mating, a term we usually used to describe animals procreating. Interracial procreation? I don't know. Splitting it up by culture or historical group might be good but since I am enjoying all of the sections together, perhaps having smaller sections that link to more detailed discussions of specific situations might be good. Because I'm a fast reader and there's no way I will finish this article tonight! Yaeltiferet (talk) 04:47, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So in other words, you are attempting to obfuscate the reality of situation, by giving it a more appealing name? Sounds like white fragility. Raininja (talk) 01:53, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Dear god this section. I could split it off now but which parts should be left in this article per summary style? PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the entire section copy pasted into another article is still seven thousand words over the "you should split" limit on WP:TOOBIG (22,369). We might need to split the split by region. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:55, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Japan and racial attitudes

[edit]

The Japan section here is at best outdated--and thus misleading. Japan, like France, for example, does not officially recognize race or ethnicity. If one holds Japanese citizenship, one is legally a "Nihonjin" (a Japanese), regardless of ancestry. So-called "international marriage" (kokusai-kekkon) is common and almost universally accepted. RoanSuda (talk) 11:02, 26 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Health risks

[edit]

The "Health risks" section (added 1st August 2024) seems to parrot anti-miscegenation propaganda that circulates in white suprematist circles. The entire section seems ideologically motivated (it even claimed that African Americans are "a hybrid species", as if Africans and Europeans were two different species). Sources should be checked and if found to be unreputable the whole section should be deleted. 109.54.1.122 (talk) 13:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. Indeed, this paragraph

"Multi-racial Americans are the most likely to be diagnosed with a mental disorder. 34% of biracial individuals had been diagnosed with a psychological disorder as opposed to 17% of monoracial individuals. The higher rate held up even after adjusting for age, gender, and life stress. This disparity may be caused by miscegenation or outbreeding, rather than the environment or upbringing of biracial individuals"

is not supported by the source. First of all, the source only includes data from Asian Americans, and extrapolating to all biracial people is obviously invalid. Even if biracial people were more likely to be diagnosed with mental health disorders, if this were included in the article then it would need to be supported by a reliable source.

Furthermore the source does not suggest that the disparity may be due to "miscegenation". Indeed, the source says "Future research should investigate the factors that explain the higher rate of diagnosed psychological disorders among biracial Asian Americans, Zane said. Possibilities include influences of ethnic identification and experiences of ethnic discrimination.". In other words, it suggests the exact opposite of what the article is claiming.

I suggest that the entire section is removed altogether, or rewritten with the obviously biased misinformation replaced. 220.156.75.93 (talk) 08:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]