Talk:Miscegenation

Where is my objection to this page’s existence?

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 science regards race as a social construct, an 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 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. 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 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)

@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)

I agree. The lead paragraph introduces the term “miscegenation” as though it were a neutral biological term like “admixture” or “outbreeding”.

It is no such thing: “miscegenation” is an archaic, derogatory term for “race-mixing”, a fact evidenced by its containing the prefix “mis-“.

The term is inseparable from its imputation that “race-mixing” is deleterious to racial purity, outside which context it is almost never used.

It ought to be presented from the outset as belonging to a strain of long-discredited racialist pseudoscience. Foxmilder (talk) 00:33, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! ~2026-14371-82 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm not really sure if this is relevant to anything, but I thought I'd point out that the word miscegenation is formed from miscere as in miscible and genus as in race. As described in the etymology section. The idea that mis as in bad has something to do with it is a common misconception, which possibly we should flag on the page... Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I had no idea this was the case! Thankyou for correcting me on this. Foxmilder (talk) 01:06, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

References

SYNONYMS

In the first paragraph, "In contemporary English usage, the synonyms for miscegenation include the words interethnic, mixed-race, multiethnic, multiracial, and interracial." Miscegenation is either a noun or a verb. All of these "synonyms" are adjectives. That doesn't work. I can't "be guilty of multiethnic." I can be guilty of miscegenation. This should be corrected. I'm only visiting this page because I had my suspicions confirmed that the dictionary has the word flagged as derogatory and I thought I might find an appropriate euphemism here. Ironically, the article pretends to offer exactly what I'm looking for, but none of them work. Someone should address this. ~2026-26898 (talk) 17:56, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Addressed; thank you for mentioning that.

Also, 'miscegenation' is only a noun. The verb would be 'miscegenate'. DS (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

It's funny... this part of the lede was perfect for — what, months, years? — before a temp account changed it on a whim to the nonsensical new version. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Miscegenation&diff=prev&oldid=1333624012 And now it is fixed again. Dingolover6969 (talk) 08:49, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Merge into interracial

Would it be possible to merge this article into Interracial marriage? Wik206 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2026 (UTC)