Talk:UNESCO statements on race
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
edit
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 11:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Link
editIs there a link where we can download the revised statement on race by Unesco of 1995?--41.244.56.81 (talk) 21:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've added it in the references. More Unesco documents can be found at http://www.unesco.org/. This appears to settle the "dispute", so I'm removing the banner from the page as well. Brink 0x3f (talk) 02:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
==
Like all pages heavily edited by the full-time employee(s?) of a far-right society (probably of the Pioneer Fund or Galton Institute types) that works under nicknames Mirardre and Academica Orientalis, this page is heavily biased to suit the agenda of white supremacists, and to be more specific, eugenistic white supremacists. It is therefore totally unreliable, and thoroughly uneditable either, because as mentioned earlier, nobody has the resources to out-edit a full-time professional PR man (team?) with a quasi-millenarist cause.
Readers seeking information on the UNESCO statement should instead use google scholar and browse through reliable, non lunatic-fringe literature. 194.199.7.36 (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
The above is an unsubstantiated claim, and seems rather silly eight years later as the reputation of R.A. Fisher has been attacked this year, by those espousing leftist ideas.
Cite needed
editNobody doubts 1951 was just after WWII and the fall of the Nazis but we need a cite for this being relevant. We could put the UK had suffered an abdication or a hundred million occurrences. Without these sources this will be removed, the person who reverted me would have been more intelligent to add the refs he claims exists but hasnt indicated how we can verify this claim. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 17:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Equal
editAs soon as I meet my DNA carbon copy, I can say I have meet another with the identical genetic coding. Here it's "under the law". We all get dealt our own hand. Here, we are all supposed to have equal entitlement and protection, from what I've gathered. Note to self: revisit this and other topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:EFC0:105:199A:4B54:94D:5B71 (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Fisher
editWhy single out Fisher? As the UNESCO document itself states, "Darlington, Fisher, Genna and Coon are frankly opposed to the Statement." NPOV issue here obviously.
- Disagree that NPOV is an issue. More to the point, the placement of an NPOV template is inappropriate as the previous comment does not identify anything that is non-neutral or biased per se, but rather just raises a concern about the contextualization of Fisher's statements (all of which are verified and cited appropriately). I edited the article to address this concern by situating Fisher's opposition to the Statement in relation to other comments and concerns and statements of opposition that were published alongside the revised Statement (with citations to appropriate sections of the original source). Fisher's views on race and eugenics have attracted a lot of attention and his comments on the UNESCO document shed light on those views, so singling out his perspective in this setting given that broader context is appropriate. Aaron (talk) 21:10, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
first sentence of Criticism and controversy section
edit- Despite the introduction stating that "The competence and objectivity of the scientists who signed the document in its final form cannot be questioned", the first version of the statement was heavily criticized.
criticizing the people and criticizing the statement are two different things, but they're being conflated here. Were the scientists criticized directly, or just the statement? No citation so hard to look it up. As it stands the sentence is a clunker. 2603:8001:D300:A631:0:0:0:1D29 (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2022 (UTC)