Talk:Racism

Archives
November 2001 – February 2002 February 2002 – September 2002 September 2002 – December 2003 December 2003 December 2003 – April 2004 April 2004 – August 2004 August 2004 – October 2004 October 2004 – May 2006 Archive 9

Honesty is needed

When i add content against Israel, i get called blah blah see above, i have just witnessed all the content of israel being stubbed, i have seen someone just chop the entire Israel section on racism by country. Now i dont see this system being applied to any other country. we have more content on mayalsia (of all places) what is the bases for having this section? i am ashamed of others who edit here that do not seem to have the sprit to resist this group which disallows any form of content which is critical of Israel, the same camp which is extensive in adding as much content as possible about crimes against Jewish people. so this section expands to be the largest, while critic becomes 1 line. I will state again the worst most vile thing on this planet is imbalance. No one wins. One way morality, one sidded truth is against humanity and against balance and this editor is here to make sure balance is on this page.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 22:58, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And the more editors show terrible bias the more this editor will have to balance the scale. so all attempts to throw this article to one pov one groups experience will be balanced back. if you want 10 lines for you then allow 10 lines for African Americans, 10 lines for Arabs. It is about balance. dont add content for your cause and delete content VALID Content against your cause--what is that?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Halaqah, you misunderstand what balance means. See WP:OWN. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 23:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

You cleary are shooting in the dark with the above claim, you have a history of making any claim which is closet to your right hand. ask yourself how does that apply? it actually reflects again poorly on you and what you represent. Please feel free however to reply to what balance means. R u running out of excuses?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

When logic and balance fail now comes lets pray to God the other editor is a novice and will be halted by stating some abstract wiki policy, is it related? No it doesnt have to be even remotly related. A vulgar attempt to justify what is beyond justice. If one calls to truth, calls to balance, fair play, one set of rules. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Halaqah, but Humus sapiens is correct. If you are going to edit Wikipedia, you are going to have to "play by the rules." If you don't like the rules, then either don't play or, if you seriously feel that the Wikipedia rules are unjust, then lobby to change the rules. I can assure you that you will not get very far if you choose to go down that path though since these rules are generally agreed upon to be as fair as possible. --GHcool 06:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen another voice from the same choir backing up your pal is not valid, what rules are these. What wiki rules have i violated. please stick to wiki rules, stick to discussions which improve this article and avoid empty rhetoric. speak in clear specific terms. Do not out weight this article by reducing content which is valid and sourced while expanding content which suits your POV, discuss that and leave the rabbling and aimless statements to forums. Please list the wiki rules, because you certainly are not following them in your attempts to whitewash racism in Israel. or is there no racism in Israel as your friend above said? (see previous debate "clearly there is no racism in Isreal" lol)--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

There is clearly racism in Israel, after all, racism is an evil that exists all over the world, and this article should discuss the phenomenon of racism all over the world. Thus, Israeli racism should and must be addressed as well. However, Israeli racism should and must also be addressed in proportion to the level of racism that exists elsewhere in the world. Feel free to add well cited, NPOV information about Israeli racism, but keep in mind that in the history of the world, racism committed by Israelis is miniscule in comparison to racism committed by the Americans, the Europeans, the Japanese, etc. --GHcool 19:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry admins do not allow any content which is against the state of Israel. There is no source which is good enought, even the same sources they use to prove their points. Yet they source all kinds of extream sites. WP:POINT, strange that on Racism by Countries only one country is being deleted from that list, none of the other countries even have sources.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Its been a while since I've done one of these, but, unfortunately, the opportunity has once again presented itself:

• The Accusation: "[A]dmins do not allow any content which is against the state of Israel [sic]. There is no source which is good enought, even the same sources they use to prove their points." - HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ). Talk:Racism#Honesty_is_needed. 20:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC).
• The Reality: This claim is easily and embarrassingly falsifiable. I direct HalaTruth and anyone else who falsely claims that criticism of Israel is "not allowed" on Wikipedia to the articles about the Israel lobby in the United States, the targeting of civilian areas in the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict, or Zionism and racism allegations. --GHcool 01:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Racism is just a bunch of poopy junk

It's crap. There is more genetical difference of the wildebeests just in kenya than in the entire human species. If you only have one life, other people should be nice to you. (golden rule) duh! DUH! kkk=stoopid

racism even lives on the racism page. take a look at the side bar. WHERe is Africa? the one continent which across the world receives racism isnt even on the list, we have Against cultures:

Arabs Armenians Canadians Catholics Chinese Europeans French Germans Greeks Gypsies Hindus Indians Iranians Italians Jews Mormons Muslims Polish Russians Turks

Where is the African? is that balance? Again and again we see editors removing content on Israel, the same Israel that is forver in the news. Racism by country is proof of the horrid imbalance on wikipedia, where a 500 word collection of junk on chile is allowed without zero sources, yet a few lines on Israel sourced to the teeth is deleted illegal, but editos say nothing about this behaviour.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I quite agree with you about one point. Racism against Africans is at least as significant in world history and sociology as anti-Semitism, and I would argue that it is much more significant a subtopic of racism than Francophobia, anti-Hellenism, or anti-Canadianism (I never even heard of those three)! I suggest creating an article about racism against Africans in the mold of those articles and then adding that article to the discrimination series banner. I think the time and energy spent creating such an article would be well spent since it would help increase awareness of the evil of racism against Africans worldwide. On the other hand, if that same time and energy were focused on prooving that Israel is a racist state with reliable sources would be spent poorly since such efforts will be an uphill battle, inconclusive at best, and increase almost zero awareness to of the evil of racism against Africans worldwide. The choice is yours, HalaTruth, but if you are good at cost-benefit analysis, I have no doubt that you will make the right decision. --GHcool 06:47, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Will someone read what has just been added to the Israel section?

These editors have just added that content, read it and give honest feedback, it will be deleted as it is a whitewash, but i will leave it in as evidence of what continues to go on. The discussion is about racism yet there is 2 lines for the Arab issue and about 10 lines explaining the Arabs are the issue. very balanced.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:38, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

i don't see the problem, there is a mention by pro-palestinian group making an accusaion, a response by a group on the other side of the fence, a serious discussion by a well regarded proffesor who admits to a certain degree of inequality and exlains it's origins. and then there's extra information on the druze community and the arab israeli-citizens representatives in israeli high positions. i must also add i was personally offended by your implication that struggles in africa resemble the slaughter of jews by the nazis.. apparently you don't know much about "nazi eugenics" and the position of jews in germen society.. for example, einstein considered his scientific discoveries as germen... then again.. at 1933 they passed a law that jews can no longer be lecturers at universities.... to the topic, if israel is mentioned under the "racism claims" subcategory than a balanced representation is in order and i think the current information represents balanced perceptions that are based on facts and not anti-zionist or anti-palestinian propaganda. Jaakobou 23:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The section is an blatant piece of Israeli propoganda. The section basically says (1) Arabs in Israel are treated great. (2) They deserve what they get. (3) anyone who dares accuse Israel of racism is no different to Bin Laden. Does no-one else find this section totally out of order? Abu ali 22:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

no, the section says this (1) israel is attacked for being racist, (2) pro-israelis attack these attackers, (3) serious article on nationality admits anti-arab israeli bias while stating the sources of this bias is in part due to palestinian arab interaction with the state (i havn't seen better treatment of either jews or palestinians in arab countries). (4) druze arabs are mentioned as a group which chooses to share obligations with the jews, a mention made to prevent discrimination between arab-palestinians with israeli IDs and other non-jewish israelis (5) there's a fair mention on arab representation in roles of power.

honestly, why do you insist on disrupting/disputing israeli related materials when you've repeatedly stated (not explicitly but in context) that you're too emotionally attached to your anti-zionist ideaology ^[1][2][3] to make for an objective presentation?

as for your claims on racism, there are certainly some issues but i don't see your claims as justified. perhaps these samples will convince you (1) video of israeli apartheid against an arab on israeli TV channel 10 .. the guy is muzzled and chained and they don't let him speak!!! skip to minute 2:26 .. ok.. so actually they treat him very nicely and they interviewed him quite nicely before that part. (2) here's another sample right here where they dare make newspaper articles about arab girls in yafo who play soccer!!! (father is prominent arab-israeli who held municipal positions): [4] .. ok.. maybe there's not much much racism behind an encouraging article promoting the girls' aspirations to make the first female arab soccer team in israel... perhaps the entire globe (i'm not that learned on the issue of soccer so i could be wrong here). Jaakobou 23:06, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Lets agree on sources

If a website has only one view point on a very controversial topic then it shouldnt be used. If a website only reports one side of a story with extream bias on a disputed topic it is an extream source. if the content is antisemitic, anti_African, anti-america, anti anything then it must be treated with care, esp when citing info that is disputed. A site which is dedicated to demonizing one group without any balance shouldnt be used to bring balance. use the guardian or NY York, economist, Times, which are less obvious with their racism.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:05, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

you cite The guardian as a balanced source??? how about we add the independant also while you're at it...here's a sample "subtle" anti-israeli article - http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1833884,00.html - anti-israel... 500 words.. israeli statements/opinions/info... paragraph and a half... final death toll i believe was set at 28 not 60. Jaakobou 17:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I never said it was balanced i said it was a blatent unbalanced source, i also stated the racism in these papers is less obvious. compare that to some of the sources used here. A site dedicated to demonizing Muslims in all areas of the world from Darfur to Detroit. The entire website is this slant. This is the info which needs to be avoided. and again when dealing with hot topics. if they say "the sky is blue" then its cool.And anti-Israel anti-War, anti-South Africa isnt a crime or illegal or a sign of imbalance. to be anti-Jewish or anti-African, anti-Muslim is another issue. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 17:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to make accusations here but last i checked you wrote this down: use the guardian or NY York, economist, Times, which are less obvious with their racism, i couldn't care about going into your claims about certain sources, that is not the issue i replied you for... i only replied as to your claims that the guardian is balanced... btw, you should inspect the charecteristics of anti-israeli promoters... you might find that it's the new anti-semitism.. here's a sample documentry for you: blaming the jews. Jaakobou 00:00, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Sources used must be reliable and must directly refer to RACISM

That should be simple enough, shouldn't it? I'll repeat it: Sources used must be reliable and must directly refer to RACISM. Please abide by Wikipedia policy. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:06, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

So does that rule apply to the entire article? Just let me have the answer and i will start cutting stuff. Like the last chapter in Racism Against Jews and the new anti thingie. cuz i dont see anything saying racism there. You r trapping yourself with your words,. apply that to this whole topic.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

==Does this refer to racism?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! In a recent incarnation, extremist groups, such as Neo-Nazi parties and Islamist groups, claim that the aim of Zionism is global domination; they call this the Zionist conspiracy and use it to support antisemitism. This position is associated with fascism and Nazism, though it is becoming a tendency within parts of the Left as well, and termed New antisemitism.[38][39]

So when i deleted it was it added back? ohh i see anti-zionism is racism.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:18, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Isnt it funny the Israel section whitewashes racism

No one denies racism in USA, i dont think they will try and blame the African-Americas for that. Or the Arabs or the chinese. yet one read of the israel section does more to vindicate accusations of racim than to discuss racim. this article is not about middle eastern politics, it is about racism that has occured is occuring. Very simple. Trust me if that poll was taken in Britian i dont think British people who deny it and whitewash it. That is the difference.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 16:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are almost 200 countries in the world, and I'm sure there are allegations of some sort of institutional discrimination or "racism" in almost every single one. It's part of the human condition. Please explain why this article only deals with 6 of those countries, and why certain editors feel the need in particular to single out Israel for this condemnation over close to 200 other candidates? Where is the section on racism in Saudi Arabia? Where is the section on racism in Algeria? Where is the section on racism in Egypt? Where is the section on racism in Indonesia? Where is the section on racism in Pakistan? Where is the section on racism in the Ivory Coast? Your singular passion for finding racism in Israel is noted for what it is. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:27, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to add sections on racism for all of these countries. And if these sections used bad sources I would encourage all editors to improve them. But why do you and other pro Israel editors continually remove content about racism in Israel from this and Racism by country? Abu ali 21:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason the material on Israel was deleted was because it was original research from unreliable sources, as has been explained. In addition, of course, it would fail the WP:NPOV#Undue weight clause of the NPOV policy. You've had 2 1/2 months to focus on some country besides Israel, and have failed. Please stop canvassing people to edit-war for you: [5] [6], and please stop violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL by referring to those you disagree with as "pro-Israel editors", "Zionists", and "american supporters of Israel". Enough is enough, this is your last warning. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Please be so kind as to explain why it would fail WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Regarding your comment "You've had 2 1/2 months to focus on some country besides Israel, and have failed." I would have to respectably remind you that I am not your servant and focus on whatever countries and whatever issues interrest me at the time. You have brought up the question of Saudia Arabia, Pakistan etc, and in this I offer my encouragement, assuming that your aim is to improve this article by making it more complete rather than diverting attention from the subject we are discussing. You accused me of "canvassing people to edit-war for you", when what I was doing was asking other editors who are knowledgeable on the subject to help improve the article. You will note that I have not edit wared on this article, but have instead attempted to argue my case on the talk page. I think that my desciption of editors who have been removing the section on Israel as "pro-Israel editors", "Zionists", and "american supporters of Israel" is fair and would be accepted by the editors in question. No offence was intended. I interpret your closing sentence "Enough is enough, this is your last warning" to mean that I am about to be banned. As you are on the arbitrarion committee I imagine that you could do this at the touch of a button. This may be convinient in terms of preventing me from asking questions. But I hope that instead we will be able to reach a consensus on the question racism in Israel. Abu ali 22:09, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Until more countries are represented on this page, single-minded focus on Israel will inevitably fail WP:NPOV#undue weight. There's no indication that either editor you canvassed knows anything in particular about this subject, but RolandR, for example, is a noted anti-Zionist activist who even has a website devoted to this, jewsagainstzionism.org, as I'm sure you're aware. As for your characterizations of various editors, just stop; it is against policy, and impolite. I have not threatened to ban you, but I will indeed take action if you don't stop. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:15, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam Keller is an Israeli who has spent decades fighting racism, so I am sure that his input into this subject would be most constructive. I do not know who RonaldR is in real life and have never heard of the jewsagainstzionism.org website. But on wiki he has been a victim on numerous personal attacks and vandalism and has always given me sound advice when I approached him. I am glad that you have not threatened to ban me. I see no harm in characterising the work of other editors as long as these characterisations are not offensive. Abu ali 22:37, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Adam Keller is a left-wing Israeli political activist; I see no indication that he "has spent decades fighting racism". As you now admit, there is no indication that RolandR is at all familiar with racism in Israel. The harm in "characterising the work of other editors" is that these characterizations are violations of WP:CIVIL, and therefore will eventually invite sanctions. Use the Talk: page to discuss article content; I'm not going to explain it again. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:47, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I have made no such admission regarding RonaldR. From his contibutions he does seem knowledgable regarding Israel. If he chooses to contribute to this topic, I would hope that his contributions are judged on their own merit. Abu ali 22:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

There are many editors on Wikipedia who are Israeli, or from Israel, and therefore knowledgeable about Israel. RolandR, however, is British. You claimed RolandR was "knowledgeable on the subject". Can you link to an edit of his that indicates he is knowledgeable about racism in Israel? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:56, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

As you have asked me to discuss article content rather than editors, maybe it is best that you do the same. Abu ali 23:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. And please don't recruit other editors to edit-war for you in the future. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Again I haven't recruited anyone to edit war for me in the past. But I will ask other editors more knowlegable than myself to help out when I think this can improve the encyclopedia. Abu ali 23:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the Israel section currently has no reference to institutional racism committed by Israel. In fact, the section is evidence of the exact opposite: that institutionalized racism is forbidden in theory and in practice in Israel. I propose the section be deleted. --GHcool 03:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Institutionalized racism is forbidden in theory and in practice in Israel? Try telling that to a Migrant worker who is awaiting deportation, to his children who were borne in Israel but denied citizenship, to an East Jerusalemite Arab whose baby is denied an ID pending investigation into the location of the families centre of life, or a Marocan who was denied entry to an accademic school, to the a Yemenite woman whose baby was taken away from her to be adopted by an Askenazi couple, to the Etheopian whose children are taken away to be educated at a religious ashkenazi bording school. Abu ali 10:22, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Are these kinds of rules unique to Israel, or, on the contrary, common throughout the world? Abu ali, could you be so kind as to explain exactly on what ground 4 generations of Arabs living in Lebanon are denied Lebanese citizenship? Jayjg ^(talk) 14:24, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Lebanon, I would say racist grounds. And thank you for your concern for Paletinians living in Lebanon. Don't worry, the government of traitors and criminals in that country will not survive for long. And I would agree that these rules are not unique to Israel. Racism is all to common around the world.Abu ali 15:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

U know what isnt being realized, visitors to wiki also look at the talk pages. And when i first started doing some non-related research, i started to realize most of the cover-up surrounded Israel. I have no real interest in Israel, it is just another country,(my only interest is my people Beta Israel dont get treated too good--just like America in the 60's) but i noticed how Desmond tutu voice on Israel was removed. Didnt Tutu get highlighted for a fact finding mission? So isnt he valid? yet the entire section about his observation is gone. Every 5 minutes people are researching new ways, new threats to stop people from improving wiki. Now it is "undue weight". OResearch, Or HalaTruth why dont you go and work on the African section it would be more efficient, It would be, but that doesnt change the use of force going on here, the coverup the whitewashing. I am happy for these talk pages. Please do not remove my tag!!!!--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:35, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

can u dig poor Abu Ali being accused of trying to get help? Wow, look how many people he is battling with. I am a part-timer. But Ali is the one in the wrong. I am a pro-African editor, is that wrong if someone says i am pro-African, or anti-racism? So clearly wiki has people who protect the interest of their country, it isnt in our imagination, or is it?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 11:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Abu ali, a migrant worker is a difficult issue all across the globe and not just in israel, and israel is doing an effort to deal with this situation with quite a lot of humanitarian consideration (such as children above age six get immediate citizenship and younger are given a chance to make their case), so i really don't understand why you nitpic on israel on the working migrants issues.. as for the child born in israel claim, it is a sad reality that some 3rd world migrants choose to have a child in israel on purpouse in an attempt to stay here (i personally know 4 of those), it's not my place to judge them as they come from a very harsh situation, however it is not racism to not accept all of them as citizens... as for the other topics, i'm appauled that you accuse that children are being taken away... it really destroys your only possibly valid (yet disputable) point about arabs of eastern jerusalm... which you should have added citation for... in any event, i was more pleased with the way the article was after my edit which gave out a nice amount of valid information. Jaakobou 11:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Shalom Jaakobou, Could you be so kind as to explain exactly on what grounds a child of a migrant worker born in Israel is not automatically granted Israeli citizenship? Thanks Abu ali 11:29, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

sure, a migrant worker gets a 2 year working permit and knows that she will not have her visa extended afterwards so she gets pregnant close to the end and stays in israel illeagally - the police usually let's that migrant go if she's pregnant but after the child is born, both mom and child are illeagal and the situation will be under review - and if they are caught before the child is allready hebrew speaking then there's a good chance that they will be deported. Abu ali if you have questions/accusations about topics that you are not very much informed about, i'll be happy to share of my knowledge so we could avoid unnecesary conflicts on wikipedia. Jaakobou 10:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. And I share your desire to avoid unnecessary conflicts. But just so that I am fully informed and understand the situation, if the pregnant migrant workers happens to be Jewish, will the child still be deported? And is there such a thing as "Mishteret HaHagirah" in Israel, and if so what do they do? Abu ali 10:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in but if that law was in the USA imagine telling someone you have to leave if you cant speak english, it is clearly not the equal paradise for all. so the entire society is pro-one group. I am not saying other countries do not do the same (maybe they do maybe they dont--like Muslim countries) but does that make it fair?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 10:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

there is no such thing as a pregnant migrant jewish worker, everyone who wishes to become citizens of israel must follow standard protocol (including jews) which is indeed pro-jewish, the intention of the state was to be a safe place for jews after the non-stop attrocities which convinced that there could not be a safe living without statehood... Abu ali, i try to assume good faith despite our previous interactions but i really don't appreciate the tone of your questions as if to create implications. every country has some sort of immigration police - if you don't know what immigration police does around the world, i suggest you open a dictionary or encyclopedia. HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ), apparently you did not understand the text as it was reffering to a situation of "illeagal mom n' child" and explained that if the child does not yet know hebrew (i'm guessing age under 1.5) then he's probably not assimilated yet and they will probably be deported .. i'm not an expert on illeagal working laws in the US but i don't think they are much different... in any event the quoestion: but does that make it fair? is ridiculous. the world is not fair.. but that is partly the reason for the jewish state.. consider the Jews in Yemen and the 1670 mauze atrocities as example (or the jews in jerusalem in 1000 and 1300 or the palestinians all over the arab world) and compare it to israel of today - there's simply no comparisment... in any event, i think we covered this topic (migrant workers in israel) enough. Jaakobou 11:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for explaining this subject to us. The only point I am not clear about is the status of a migrant worker's child who speaks Hebrew fluently. Does he have protection from deportation? Abu ali 11:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

i believe you can find the answer in my previous answers which reffered to treatment of illeagal children of illeagal migrants. Jaakobou 12:42, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I think will you find that this [7] ynet article provides a different and more accurate story. Anyway as far as I can tell any Jewish Kid born in Israel automatically gets citizenship at brith. Foreing worker kids are not given citizenship, and often recieve no legal status. Is this racism or is it racism? Thanks for being so informative. Abu ali 12:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(1)there's allways some difference between the state law and the actual application on field (just now in yemen, jews had to leave their homes due to death threats despite the gouvernment claiming they are safe).

(2)you are wrong about illeagal jewish kids... it's not automatic (usually jews don't try to smuggle themselves into the country by having a child).

(3)Vered Luvitch, the YNET writer is just one person telling the story from a pro-immigrant/anti-gouvernment standpoint at 2006 (feel free to look her up with google) - just recently (2007) there was a debate about a 6 year old girl in the knesset so i suggest you look for more reputable sources than ynet writers, such as courthouse information. Jaakobou 13:40, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

(4)your repeated attacks on israel "Is this racism or is it racism?" (see above) start/contunue^[8],[9] to smell like racism. Jaakobou 13:47, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Give me one example of (2) Abu ali 13:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid you will have to give me an example of the opposite, i.e. a jew trying to smuggle into israel, having a child while unter the status of illeagal and having his child denied citizenship despite knowing hebrew and being under the age of 6.... good luck. Jaakobou 14:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

"Hok HaShvut" (the law saying that Jews can get Israeli citizenship easily), is in itself discriminatory (but not racist), because a Jewish person would just get citizenship and not reside in Israel under and illegal status. Therefore, it's impossible to find you a source for this but if a person was Jewish and an illegal resident, I suppose they'd be deported (or jailed) and they'd have to apply separately for Israeli citizenship by right of them being Jewish. Just because possibly the court system might take into account that they are probably going to get citizenship soon and therefore not rush sending them back to their native country, unlike a Chinese worker for example - doesn't make them racist, it makes them discriminate based on common sense. By the same token in which you're making Israel out to be racist, you could just as well say that the United States is racist because one can only become president of that country if one was born there. In addition, immigrants who want to receive a citizenship need to show a basic knowledge of English - I suppose that's racism towards the non-English speaking people then, isn't it? Yonatan (contribs/talk) 11:25, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Strange "Counter-Racism Science" paragraph

I have deleted the so-called "Counter-Racism Science" paragraph because it is uncited original research and is written so poorly that it doesn't make sense in the English language. Even the term "Counter-Racism Science" doesn't seem to make any sense, and the content in the paragraph has nothing to do with science. Here is the text I deleted

The Counter-Racism Science definition of racism is that racism is the scientific practice of unjust subjugation, misuse, and/or abuse of persons classified as "non-white", by persons classified as "white", on the basis of color or non-color, and/or, on the basis of factors "associated with" color or non-color. It goes further to note that Racism and White Supremacy are the same and that it is incorrect to use the term "White Racism". To use this term is to imply that Racism exists in a form other than White Supremacy.

I'm really not sure what this paragraph is trying to say, and what it is based on. Spylab 16:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Clean-up needed

This needs some clean-up. I suggest that the part "Racism by country" be completely forked-out to Racism by country, and keep this article for racism in general and explanation of the phenomena of racism, which clearly goes by an explanation of what is (was?) scientific racism. I don't know if we should keep trivia about racism in sports, maybe... Tazmaniacs 03:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree that there is no need for the "Racism by country" section in this article, now that there is the Racism by country section. The "Racism in sports section" is pretty flimsy; it should either be vastly improved, or it should be deleted. Spylab 16:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

What about the "Racism against specific groups?" I would also favour leaving it for a specific article (and such an article needs constant watching to prevent it being transformed into a vast incoherent collection of examples of racial discrimination against such or such...). The subsection "anti-semitism" should also, I think, be reserved for a specific article, for various reasons. First, the subject itself is huge. Second, some parts of it recover things already said (limpieza de sangre and Reconquista, scientific racism, etc.) Third, a reason which might be more controversial, but although clearly anti-semitism and racism are related in some ways, it is not evident that they are exactly the same thing. As has said our friend Hala, anti-semitism is, at least for traditional anti-Judaism, as much related to religion issues than to "race" issues (from this to jump to the conclusion that "racism" is only targeted against a different "race" is already making the controversial claim that "races," do in fact exist - if such is the case, then it would need to be defined, and one thing that modern biology has shown us, is that ethnic groups are not defined by the amount of melanin in the skin - usual popular criteria for judging one's membership to a "race" - but by much less appearant genes). Finally, I think we should just merge the section on "academic racism against Africans" with the subsection on "colonialism," as these subjects greatly overlap between themselves (see scramble for Africa). What do you think mate? Tazmaniacs

References

These references are not accessible via the links provided. They are numbered 1 and 2 and support the lead section of the article. 5, 6, and 7 are also similar to this: [10]. I am removing them. - Fred 09:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Racial discrimination & racism vs specific groups

I think these sections should be merged. Beside, I also think that it is more easy to work with a historical account than a thematic classification of various types of racism, as a historical account will in itself display the differences of racism (there is nothing comparable between old Christian anti-semitism in the Middle Ages, 19th century scientific racist theories, and "post-modern" racist theories which have integrated the cultural relativist argument but just claim that it is "better" for everyone to "live separately" and not mix ethnic groups together. What do you think? Tazmaniacs 17:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Field: racism, an American term?

The first subsection, "Definition of Racism", quotes Barbara Field, which seems to be a reliable source. But the account of her theory suggest that she claims racism is an American term. This is obviously incorrect; can someone provide some explanations on this claim? Tazmaniacs 17:18, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I moved the text here for discussion. If it is to be kept, it should surely be explained why racism is a "US term". PS: She may actually be speaking not about "racism" but about "race", which is certainly a term more used in the US than in Europe, where ethnic groups is preferred. But this needs confirmation, and correspondent reformulation. Tazmaniacs 14:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Historian Barbara Fields argued in Slavery, Race and Ideology in the United States of America that racism is a "historical phenomenon" that does not explain racial ideology at all. She suggests that investigators should consider the term to be an American rhetorical device, with a historical explanation. She suggests that using race as a word with real meaning is a common error akin to superstition. However, other scholars say that races do exist, and that the concept has significant meaning.

This is not very well written, but to claim that someone claism that racism is an American rhetorical device does not in any way mean it is only an American device. Professor Fields is a scholar of US history so she is only being prudent in limiting her arguments to US history. But the fact that a book is primarily or even entirely about US history does not mean that it excludes other histories. I would be surprised if she claims that racism is uniquely American, I am sure she is just analyzing how it has functioned in America. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that Barbara Fields would not have put her thoughts like that. I simply removed the comment, and put it here on talk page, so someone who has actually read her book can explain better. A main problem of this entry is that over time things have been reduced to one sentence, with one reference, and then another sentence, which jumps to another subject, and with another reference. This makes the whole article incoherent. Let's hope that someone can explain her thought better, or else, we'll do without. Tazmaniacs

Racism by country & clean-up

As proposed a few days ago, I entirely removed the "Racism by country" subsections, sending to the relevant article for this. IMO, this is a too important subject to be treated in three lines for each country. This article is about the general phenomenon of racism, and "racism by country" articles are very important for precise examples and cases of racial discrimination. But there is no need to overweight this article with three sentences such as "this country is racist." Racism is a reality in all of the countries of the world (for once that I agree with Jaygz ! cheers! ). I believe this article is important enough to operate a massive clean-up, have it seriously written with modern, reliable sources on the matter (WP:CS, WP:RS). They are sufficiently enough intelligent and dedicated people working on "race questions" today to have a serious article, which however manages to give an accessible presentation of the problem. I hope nobody is opposed to such clean-up. Tazmaniacs

PS: I have also proposed to do the same for racism against specific groups (and actually include these sub-articles in the article "racism by country", as I see no much difference in "Racism in Europe", "Racism against Jews" (aka anti-semitism, no? - note debate however concerning relations between racism & anti-semitism; anti-semitism is lot older than "racism", I think), "Racism against Arabs", etc. etc. Tazmaniacs 16:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Limit this page to racism, direct references to racism, by the def of race. and yes Racism in Europe is the racism against Jews, I dont know if Jews are a RACE. or a religion and hence it is very confusing. and avoid things that allude to racism, it has to speak to racism, not things we want to be racism, just to get listed.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 19:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

"Subtle racism"

I move this here. The meaning isn't clear. It's not because there is a reference that the sentence means something. If that's supposed to means racism can be "unconscious" and affects not only explicit racists who proudly presents themselves as such, well, I'm not sure it warrants a specific subsection. Racism clearly affects a lot of people, and, more than a question of individuals, it is a discourse which affects us all, at least all of us who live in this Western civilization. Beside, "aversive racists" or not, racists usually "discriminate without acknowledging their prejudice because they excuse or justify their behavior on 'reasonable' grounds": that's exactly the use of the racist discourse, which legitimize racism acts. Tazmaniacs 14:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Subtle and hidden racism (subsection)

Elmar Holenstein uses the term crypto-racism as a synonym what he calls "hidden racism".<ref>{{cite web|url=http://them.polylog.org/4/ahe-en.htm | title = Document describing crypto-racism as hidden racism|work=A Dozen Rules of Thumb for Avoiding Intercultural Misunderstandings |publisher=Forum For Intercultural Philosophy}}</ref> It is important to consider for whom the racism is hidden, and for whom it is very visible.

Some scholars use the term aversive racism to refer to the "subtle, unintentional form of bias that is presumed to characterize a substantial proportion of White liberals."<ref>Leanne S. Son Hing, Greg A. Chung-Yan, Robert Grunfeld, Lori K. Robichaud, and Mark P. Zanna. "Exploring the Discrepancy Between Implicit and Explicit Prejudice: A Test of Aversive Racism Theory" in ''Social Motivation: Conscious and Unconscious Processes''. Joseph P. Forgas, Kipling D. Williams, Simon M. Laham, eds. Cambridge University Press. 2004.</ref>

Because they have internalized liberal egalitarian values, aversive racists consider themselves non-prejudiced, even though they have unconscious racist feelings, and sometimes express them. "Thus, aversive racists are able to discriminate without acknowledging their prejudice because they excuse or justify their behavior on ‘reasonable’ grounds” (ibid, 290).

More references and better organization needed

There sure are a lot of uncited claims in this article. If you add new paragraphs or sections, you should provide references to show where those ideas come from. Also, this article needs to be organized better. I tried to group similar topics together, but there is still a lot or disorganization, and I suspect there is a some repetition of topics in more than one section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spylab (talk • contribs)

Sure! A lot of the recent editing was actually just copy-paste from others articles with some slight copy-editing (see nationalism article where I realized that an ethnic nationalism & liberal nationalism articles existed, which is quite a good thing; see also scientific racism for changes concerning this section, and all.) I'm not sure where sources are needed; I'm sure some people will "disagree" with that, but I find it hard to disagree with, say, the fact that Francis Galton invented eugenics, or that Romantic nationalism was a main inspiration of the Völkisch movement, which itself has influenced Nazism. Maybe putting some citation tags on controversial claims could help).
Concerning organisation, I completely agree with you. Putting up "ethnic nationalism" before "scientific nationalism" may be a good thing, as it is probably less surprising for most readers. I'm thinking about your change concerning chronology, but it also may be actually better to start from the most modern and leave middle ages & limpieza de sangre for the end. But this poses the problem of where to put "Post WWII racism", since such a section would hardly be comprehensible without a previous introduction to "scientific racism" which doesn't seems to be of a purely historical interest.
I am, however, a bit baffled about your separation of "human zoos" and "Racism & European colonialism in the 19th century": human zoos can not be understood out of the colonial context, nor, for that matter, out of the "scientific racism" theories. This is exactly why they are an "interesting" phenomena: they are at the crossroads between popular racism and propaganda in favour of imperialism, the whole concept was possible because of imperial conquests (the exhibited people usually came from territories which had been just explored, making for some "trends" favorizing such or such ethnic group), and they are definitely related to "scientific racism" as scientists came to look and examine them.
You could even compare these zoos with some sort of open-air laboratories; and, exactly as in laboratories, scientists finally understood that the context of the observation itself corrupted its subject, prohibiting neutral, objective observation. Georges Cuvier's examination of Saartjie Baartman, as well as Madison Grant exhibiting Ota Benga in the Bronx Zoo. I've seen, here or there, some dismissals of "scientific racism" theories as being just "folk sciences": this is an obvious misinterpretation based on... positivism ideology (that is, that modern science is finally correct in its assumptions, rejecting its past as pure proto-science or pseudo-science). But that is more than contestable: thinking that biases and prejudices have stopped affecting modern scientists is a pure view of the spirit...
I may have gone a bit off topic, but this to show that I think that "human zoo" should be merged with "European colonialism", which itself should not be separated from "scientific racism": they were contemporary events, and well interlinked together. It is not a simple coincidence it the real beginning of the era of human zoos overlap with the scramble for Africa and the New Imperialism period, and that such exhibitions would continue until the beginning of the decolonization period post-WWII. Maybe titling the section on "Scientific racism" simply "Racism in the 19th century" would allow for such different views on the same phenomena? Tazmaniacs

• I put the Human Zoo section as a subsection of the Scientific Racism section because human zoos are part of the topic of scientific racism. I think it makes more sense to organize this article mainly by topic than by time period. Most readers will be looking for information on specific aspects of racism, not for particular time periods. Organizing by time period would be more appropriate for an article called History of racism (or something similar). As for references, if something isn't obvious, then there should be references showing where that information came from. Your examples of topics that are "hard to disagree with" aren't obvious to readers who have never heard of them before. Spylab 12:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

True — concerning your last observation. About the "topic vs period", you're also probably correct — although I personally tend to disagree with this approach as I have a tendency to believe that we can only understand things by exploring their history (a very traditionalist POV, isn't it?:) Both ways have their cons & pros (?). Anyway, we are always limited to explaining things in a linear way although you need to get the full picture to really understand how they go together, so it's probably no great deal separating "human zoo" & "colonialism" - by this I refer to the current exposition, with the "Middle Age-Renaissance" period between these two subsections. But Renaissance period brings the limpieza de sangre matter, and thus colonialism again: whatever mode of exposition we choose, we'll have to make choices. So I'll trust your judgment. A little intern link in the "human zoo" section: "See 'colonialism subsection' for further information" will probably resolve the problem rather easily. Else, I will try to provide more sources (right now thinking about the two last paragraphs of "ethnic nationalism" section, Maurice Barrès statements, etc. I'll have no problems for that).

The "ethnic cleansing" subsection is fundamental, but has 2 problems now: most of its content should be moved in "Colonialism" section (should we think about making a more, transhistorical "colonialism" section? I tend to clearly mark a cesure with 19th century scientific racism, I don't know) ; and I think it should succeed to the "colonialist" section, and not precede it. If we take Hannah Arendt's words, and other, more modern research, ethnic cleansing belong both to the modern, 19th-20th century period, and are related to colonialism - a controversial thesis, especially due to the specific place of the Holocaust, but the Herero and Namaqua Genocide has been officially recognized as such by international instances and Germany. And the prerequisite to extermination of the Other is deshumanizing him, a process which has happened during the imperialist period - racism was an important part of that deshumanization (as already the Valladolid controversy demonstrated). I was reading the other day Carl Schmitt's Theory of the Partisan, who, despite his POV, says no other thing than that: to exterminate an enemy, you first must make of him an absolute criminal, or outlaw him. Schmitt knew about what he talked. This to argue my point that "ethnic cleansing" section should not immediately follow "ethnic nationalism", but succeed to "colonialism" and "Nazism" section, since the Holocaust does provide the main frame according to which we standardly considers genocides. Tazmaniacs

Affirmative Action

How can affirmative action be added to this article? Or are the double standard police patrolling this article? Rbaish 00:33, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I have consistantly had my edits deleted that do nothing but shed light on the fact that racial discrimination is not experienced exclusively by minorities. I believe it is very important that on such a huge topic such as this that we make sure to allow all sides of the story to be heard. Misrepresented information in either direction is biased and misleading. We need to minimalize this.

---

affirmative action for black people should be thought as: 'black skin privilidge'

Instead of endlessly inserting AA here, editor would be nice & respectful of others to argue his case here. There clearly is no consensus to include AA as a form of "racism," much less scholarly sources to back it up. Tazmaniacs 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank Heaven references are not limited to scholarly sources. I don’t feel there is a consensus to leave AA out of this article either. Rbaish 11:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. --Orange Mike 23:34, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. Tazmaniacs

There isn't a consensus, but I think it's clear to most editors that only a very small but vocal minority want it included. Most people in the country don't see affirmative action as a form of racism; on the contrary, they see it as a measure against racism.Pihanki 15:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If most people thought it was a means to correct or prevent racism, they would have voted for it to continue in CA and Michigan. EVERY time AA is on the ballot, it is voted down by HUGE margins. Most people DO think AA is racist and they go to the polls to speak their voice. Rbaish 19:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow your reasoning here. Are you claiming that the votes in California and Michigan were not motivated by racism and right-wing lobbying? The articles, op-eds, letters to the editors, etc., made it quite clear that most of those supporting the rollbacks did so because they thought "others" were getting too many rights over traditionally privileged white Anglophones. --Orange Mike 20:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC) (a white Anglophone heterosexual evangelical Christian Southern male, in case you were wondering)

No, what I am saying is that Americans don’t want AA. For someone to say that “most” people don’t see it for its negative aspects is simply baseless and false. It’s a simple enough concept for the average American to understand, so any push from either side (I see you conveniently left out the push from the left in your statement :S ) was neutral. AA is a racist policy. AA oppresses people (poor and MC whites) who were not responsible for the “racism” AA supposedly aims to fix. It creates a dual-class structure for hiring, college admission, grants, and gov. contracts based on race. This is racism. Rbaish 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

AA is certainly relative to the US. However, the concept is discussed in other countries. The fact that you think that "Americans don't want AA" is not something to argue on the "Racism" entry on Wikipedia, but something that you might want to consider talking about your local governor. This page is dedicated to "Racism", and is not named "Race issues in the United States". If you want to argue in the latter article that AA is "racist", well, good luck! But please stop badgering us here. Actually, your arguments are not all so much non-sense as this appear to be: classifying people on race is not necessarily a good idea. But the US chose to ask people to self-define themselves according to "race" on their annual census. So, if you follow your logic to the end, it is not only AA that is "racist" (although it clearly is aimed at countering a racist bias in US society), but the whole social structure of the US which is racist, starting with its census. In any cases, this is off-topic, as this article is dedicated to the phenomena of racism in the whole world, and not on a discussion on AA. Tazmaniacs

What a very Orwellian statement. Rbaish 10:50, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

1974 ref & the Enlightenment

I'm not sure the following has its place in the article, much less in a subsection pertaining to the Enlightenment:

Oxford academic J.R. Baker listed that a civilization is comprised of 21 basic components which where critical to demarcate the degree of civilization of a race. His conclusion was that Caucasians met all 21 criteria in Iraq, Crete, India, and in Egypt, and the Asians met them all in China. The Africans and Australian aborigines met virtually none of the 21 criteria.

Tazmaniacs 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Reformat. When you leave a space at the beginning of a line the result is that you get exactly what you type on screen, and lines do not automatically wrap to the screen width.

You get
            something
  like this sometimes.

It's better to use <blockquote> passage </blockquote>

I would favor taking the passage out.

P0M 02:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I prefer to use the former format than "blockquotes" in order to highlight the content. Not a great deal, but no real reason to reformat it. Thanks anyway for your trouble, Tazmaniacs

Molefi Asante: passage moved to talk

I moved this here, for discussion. It was placed in the first subsection, "Definition of racism." However, apart of it being US-centric (and this is a general article on racism, not "racism in the US"), it does not provides much for general understanding of racism and concerning the "definition of racism." Maybe it could be re-included in some other part?

Molefi Asante, an African American academic, describes racism as a "wall of ignorance" that hides the long history of racial injustice from public consciousness.<ref name="Molefi Asante on Race"> {{cite book | editor = [[Molefi Asante]]. | title = Erasing Racism: The Survival of the American Nation | origyear = 2001 | url = https://www.gop.com/contribute/join.aspx?key=L1M7U8Y0F0 | accessdate = 2003 | edition = Hardback | year = 2003 | month = September | publisher = [[Prometheus Books]] | location = USA }}</ref > He argues that most whites view racism as a thing of the past; a problem that was solved by civil rights. He says African Americans continue to experience racism in many areas of social life.

Furthermore, I'd like to point out that although Asante may argue that, I doubt he does it in so massive a way. The very existence of affirmative action shows that this many White people disagree with that statement. Tazmaniacs 22:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Dubois quote

I also move the Dubois quote here. I'm not sure it belong to this general "definition of racism" here, and the necessity to involve the fuzzy concept of racialism here. Furthermore, Dubois' POV is not even explicit (does he maintain that different races exist? i.e. does he considers himself a racialist?). Tazmaniacs 23:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

W.E.B. DuBois argued that racialism is the belief that differences between the races exist, be they biological, social, psychological, or in the realm of the soul. He argued that racism is using this belief to promote the idea that one's race is superior to the others.

Global apartheid

Moving this to talk (it was in "Economics & racism" subsection). "Some say..." (sic) Many people say... Etc. It's meaningless (to reduce international economics to some sort of racist conspiracy is ridiculous). To say that the current economic system favorizes a mostly white, male population living in the so-called "First World" (North America, Europe and... Japan) has got some more sense (but challenges the notion of a "white conspiracy", unless Japanese have become white since they became a major power). Tazmaniacs 23:31, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Global apartheid is a phrase used by those who argue that the international economic and political system is racist and is designed so that a white minority internationally accrue more wealth and power and enjoy more human and legal rights than the non-white world majority.

First line (Racism is...)

The first line of this article reads as follows:

"Racism is a belief system or doctrine which postulates a hierarchy among various human races or ethnic groups"

This would apply to someone who believes for example that Whites are better than Asians who in turn are beter than Blacks. While this belief definitely is racist, it seems far too narrow to me. What about the belief that there is not a single racial hierarchy but that there are multiple hierarchies for each human characteristic based on race? For example that Whites are more intelligent than Blacks but that Blacks are more athletic than Asians? I would have thought that this is a far more common application of the term 'racist'. In general to make any comparison of human races is considered racist. To make any negative observation of a characteristic specific to a human race is considered racist. To make a positive observation is less commonly considered racist. Can we change the first line to something broader to include these more common types of racism? 193.203.156.236 13:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

No. The common stereotypes that, say, "Blacks are more athletic than Asians" (or Whites), or that they "play music better", is a racist stereotype (nothing "positive" about it except its appearance) which limits Black people to physical force & sensuality (i.e. they "have no brains"). Simple racism, your definition of "multiples hierarchies" in fact fall under one hierarchy, if you get what I'm trying to say... Tazmaniacs 14:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, now the first line reads "Racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially to distinguish it as being either superior or inferior to another race or races". Is it just me or is it true that all members of a race possess characteristics specific to that race? i mean if they didnt, how would you possibly define a specific race? even things like possesing certain genetic characteristics must, by definition of the term "race", be held by all members, otherwise you wouldnt define them as a member of said race. I agree with the superior/inferior thing, that would be racism, but we need to accept that members of a race must possess these defining characteristics, otherwise they wouldnt be members a part of it. I'm going to have a stab at changing this, if anyone disagrees please feel free to revert it, but only if you will also discuss it here. thankyou! Trottsky 19:03, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

State racism

Moved this here. Not uninteresting, but lacks source and although most of it is correct, there are some vague generalities. This probably because of the mixing of very different subjects together, which may not be the best idea. I don't know, I suppose we could work it out in a much better paragraph. All in all, it does have some interesting stuff. I will strike-out parts which are particularly erroneous:

State racism can be divided into three:-
1. Expulsion and extermination of ethnic minorities or native populations.
This category includes relatively new genocides such as the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide and the ethnic cleansing in Bosnia. However, genocide is as old as time itself and the worst sufferers were primitive tribes and indigenous natives simply because they lacked the technological advancements that the more advanced societies had. Europeans had been the worst offenders of genocide as they travelled the globe searching for new lands and treasures at the expense of the native populations. The most famous being the culling of the Red Indian tribes in North America by white colonialists (also referred to as "cowboys") [ NDLR: what about Africa? Oceania? etc. ] .
2. Forced assimilation - destruction of culture and identity.
This category means an attempt by the dominant race to impose its values upon the weaker ethnic race. During Saddam Hussein's reign in Iraq, the Kurds were forced to speak Arabic and in Turkey, the Kurds were forced to speak Turkish while their traditional language which is Kurdish, was banned. In communist and socialist countries, such as the ex-Soviet Union, Indonesia and Thailand to name a few, ethnic minorities were banned from giving their children "ethnic" names. Also, slavery is a form of forced assimilation as descendants of slaves in the United States have Anglo-Saxon names such as John Smith rather than their traditional African names such as Kunta-Kinte (Refer to "Roots" by Alex Haley) [NDLR: much more contestable section, although there might be a link, I don't know if you can that easily qualify assimilationist policies, whatever the degree of violence and oppression exerced, with "racism".]
3. Discrimination and unfair allocation of resources of one ethnic group over the other.

This category is the least despised but is racism just the same. Apartheid and Zionism are two examples. In France, black communities are discriminated against preventing them from rising out of slums and poverty [NDLR: why Blacks? why not talk about Arabs, who are at least as much discriminated? ]. Ethnic discrimination is a form of state racism that results in ethnic groups being disadvantaged in economic and financial areas of the country [NDLR: is that really the definition of ethnic discrimination?]. In Zimbabwe, white farmers had more land than black farmers which resulted in President Mugabe's controversial land confiscation policy. In South Africa during Apartheid, minority whites controlled the economic resources of the country [and much more, NDLR]. In Israel, Arabs are discriminated against by certain legislation such as banning them from marrying non-Israelis and curtailments on property and land buying.

Maybe the original author, or somebody else, wants to work on that to salvage what's relevant, but as it is now, it is too simplist and lacks references. Furthermore, institutional racism might be the best word for that. Tazmaniacs 20:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

---

Hi, i don`t use wikipedia too often but i just saw a vandalism that says "FUCK ARAB BASTARDS AND JEWS~~!!", so i`m just gonna remove it, i do not know how to sign my edits or anything, never done any, but i`m pretty sure its better if that comments isn`t there, Sorry for not signing my comment :(!

"Racism first appeared in Europe"? Surely not...

The version of the page as of this writing states "As an ideology, racism first appeared during Early Modern Europe, in Spain...". From a separte source (www.answers.com), Britanica Encylopedia entry on Racism states "The idea of race was invented to magnify the differences between people of European origin in the U.S. and those of African descent whose ancestors had been brought against their will to function as slaves in the American South."

Surely "racism" and the "idea of race" predate Evil Bad European White Guys.... right? Go back through ancient history: isn't any subjegation of one peoples by another a form of racism? That is, if one culture has a "belief that a particular race is superior to others" and that is a justification for subjegation, isn't that racism, even if it not at that time expressly recognized as a social tennent, or "ideology"?

Harasty 19:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

You're looking for xenophoby or/and ethnocentrism. Tazmaniacs 22:06, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, racism is not an European invention. --Ezeu 22:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

racism is a natural human behaviour.

Racism on Colour biases.

Racism and discrimination on the basis on colour needs to be given a second thought.What is that people are being called – ‘a white’? ‘a black’?.Are we names of colours?The concept of calling white or black was completely on colour of the skin.Some have a reason of considering the white-‘The fair natured’ and black-‘The dark character’.In that case why not use the proper words instead of discriminating this way.We are human beings and not names of colours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wizzywiz (talk • contribs) 12:52, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Zionism

Zionism was an atheist socialist movement, not a religious one; it was opposed my almost all Jewish religious groups, from Reform to Orthodox. Also, the U.N. resolution was a purely political statement that was rescinded. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:16, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of its religous opposition, it was the nationalist movement of the Jewish people (a race) that was accused of racism by the foremost international diplomatic body. sounds notable to me. VanTucky 02:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose you could have made an argument that it was notable, except that it was a purely political statement, and that same body rescinded it. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Zionism was condemned by the UN resolution for racial discrimination at one time. The passage clearly mentions that it was rescinded, and brushing it under the rug is still not acceptable. Yes it was political. It was an official political statement by the diplomatic convergence of every free and democratic state on the planet. The passage does not allude to their supposed strategic intention for saying it nor the factual validity of such a statement. It only says that this UN resolution was passed, and then later rescinded. This is fact, and it is relevant to the topic of racism. End of story. VanTucky 03:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It was hardly "every free state on the planet"; on the contrary, almost "every free state on the planet" voted against it, while a series of dictatorships of one sort or another voted for it. The fact that it was rescinded seals the deal, making it effectively meaningless. What does it teach us about the topic of Racism? Nothing. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I was talking about the countries that make up the UN and uphold it's legitimacy, not those who voted for the resolution. But irrelevant to that, you still cannot contest the simple and absolute fact that the resolution was passed and then rescinded or that it is about racism. If it was just the victory of anti-zionist/antisemitic dictatorships then all the better to leave it in without further explanation in the section. Deliberately keeping it from inclusion makes it seem like a statement of the UN that Zionists want kept hidden; therefore legitimizing a rescinded statement opposing Zionism. But disregarding anything else, wikipedia policy of verifiablility supports its inclusion, and it is about racism. How important it is to the history of racism is totally immaterial, it simply is a part of the history of racism and therefore demands to be included. that is all that matters. VanTucky 04:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, you haven't explained the relevancy to the topic of Racism of a political vote, passed by various dictatorships and resisted by the free world, and subsequently overturned. Again, I ask, exactly what does it teach the reader about Racism? Be specific; what do you learn? Also, please avoid the conspiracy theories about thing Zionists want "hidden" and other demonstrations of bad faith. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

How simple can I make this...it was a resolution, passed and then rescinded by the United Nations, which condemned Zionism as a racist political ideology. Zionism...racism. Duh. But, through our discussion here, we have agreed that Zionism is a political movement, not primarilt a religous one. I will move the passege to another section. VanTucky 04:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You've just said what happened, you haven't explained what it teaches us about Racism. Please explain that. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, do not again delete someone else's Talk: page comments, even if you think they should be in a different section. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)\

According to WP Zionism is the political movement that suppors the statehood for the Jewish people. So it isnt a religion obviously and doesnt belong in that section. But nevertheless, when the UN passes a resolution accusing Zionism of racism, then it is relevant. "what it teaches us about racism" i.e. the important of its legecay is totally irrelevant to the fact that it about racism, however minor. VanTucky 04:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"However minor"? No, it's not about racism, it's about politics, and "minor" stuff (i.e. uninformative trivia) doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Zionism is not a Religion

VanTucky, Please remove the "Zionism is Racism" red herring from the Religion and Racism section. Zionism is not a religion and Jews are not a race. I think your point is more appropriately made here. Doright 04:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not my point that Zionism is racism. That's cockamammy bs and so was the resolution. I am glad it was rescinded, but that doesnt erase the fact that it actually was passed. I moved it to the racism against middle eastern people section for obvious reasons. But beyond that...if to be a Jew (which I am) is more than a religion yet not a race/ethnicity, what the hell is it? VanTucky 04:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I dunno. But in case you've forgotten, the topic isn't 1970s geopolitics, it's Racism. What does it teach us about Racism? That's the key question. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

yeah, I caught that. Dont be patronsing. Is this bit of trivia about the resolution in the anti-Zionsim article already? VanTucky 04:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:42, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

When discussing a broad concept like racism, it is important to comprehensively describe the manner in which that concept has been used. If a fringe nut group had claimed Zionism=Racism, then it would be proper to discount that, as mentioning it would then violate WP:UNDUE. But, regardless of the merits of this particular decision, the United Nations is not a fringe group; to the contrary, it is one of the most important international organizations in existence. A brief mention is reasonable under these circumstances. In order to ensure WP:NPOV, I have added a cited rebuttal from the Anti-Defamation League in which they claim that the charge itself constitutes antisemitism. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 04:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this version. VanTucky 04:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As I pointed out, there is already an article that addresses your concern: Zionism and racism allegations. Did you answer Jayjg's question? Doright 05:08, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

In general, I don't like the idea of forking specific criticisms off into separate articles. As for Jayjg, which question were you referring to? Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The question I am referring to is the one Jayjg said is key: "What does it teach us about Racism?" There is no forking here. You might better see that perspective if you answered Jayjg's question.Doright 06:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I posted a RFC on this article, so hopefully we can get a few more editors to weigh in, and determine a consensus. Right now it looks like 2 editors in favor of including the modified passage (VanTucky and myself) and two opposed (Jayjg and Doright). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Zionism is a religion and Jews are a race? Am I totally off here? Tewfik^Talk 05:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue. It's whether the Un resolution calling Zionism racist is relevant to the racism article. and of course, Zionism is not a religion and Jews are not a race, they are an ethnicity (according to the wikipedia def). VanTucky 05:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, Zionism is not a religion (it's an ethnic nationalist movement). Nor are Jews a race (to the extent that term has any real biological meaning at all). But that's beside the point. As per WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If the UN claims, for 16 years, that "Zionism is racism," then that fact should be included, along with prominent criticisms from Jewish organizations (I included an ADL criticism; I'm sure there are others that could be used, as well). I find it bizarre that we include fringe sources like Black Flag [11] and Z Communications [12], but can't mention a prominent and highly controversial UN resolution. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 05:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I applaud the balanced presentation, but the question raised above about what this adds to the discussion if it was struck from the UN and roundly denounced. It does seem like something more relevant to a discussion of politics than racism, especially since that seems to be the UN's conclusion... Tewfik^Talk 06:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a political issue, its an important factoid in the history of racism in the middle east and officially-sanctioned racism. VanTucky 06:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

We're not here to evaluate the subjective instructive value of the addition, only its verifiability and literal relevance to the topic. VanTucky 06:33, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, we are here to evaluate the instructive value of the addition, since we are primarily editors. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and this factoid is about politics, not racism. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

RFC

I think the "Zionism is racism" resolution is one of the most shameful episodes in United Nations history. But NPOV requires that it be included in the article--not least because it's the leading example of United Nations racism. But it only merits two or three sentences with a {{main}} tag referring to a larger article on the controversy, something to the effect of

In 1975, at the behest of anti-Zionist governments, the United Nations passed UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 condemning Zionism as racism. Many Westerners condemned the United Nations for this political act, with many noting that no other ethnic nationalist movement was considered racism, and President George H. W. Bush stating that it mocks "the principles upon which the United Nations was founded." The UN revoked the resolution in 1991 in a 112-25 vote in UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86. Some commentators call Resolution 3379 itself an example of racism against Jews.

with appropriate cites to avoid the weasel words. The aftermath section of UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 could use some work. //THF 10:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

"United Nations racism"? That's interesting indeed, as much as this "shameful episodes", as you say. Characterizing Zionism as racism or the UN as racism is both totally beside the point. Someone might argue that they are racists among Zionists, but they are racists among about all groups of people, sadly. In any cases, this subject does not concern "Religion & racism", which in any cases is an irrelevant section. Racism is not concerned by religion, but by "race". Islam and slavery and Christianism and slavery are articles which belong to Slavery. The UN General Assembly Resolution 3379 has nothing to do here in the current state of the article, but would be relevant, as you say because it is a fact, in the Zionism article (or to Zionism and racism allegations). With, of course, the UN General Assembly Resolution 46/86 repealing it. "Racism against Jews" is ordinarily named "anti-Semitism." Tazmaniacs 16:38, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing an important conclusion we have reached consensus on in this discussion. Zionism is not religious in the least, but is the nationalist movement of ethnic Jews. Ethnicity being a separate definition from race of course. The point is not about the nature of Zionism, its that the foremost international diplomatic body passed a resolution accusing Zionism of racism. It should be placed under the "...against middle eastern people" section logically. VanTucky 18:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a link to Zionism and racism allegations is sufficient. Tazmaniacs 19:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

If the passage is covered in the page (which I think it is) then a sentence summarizing..."throughout history blah blah blah" then a link. Just having a link is not sufficient. VanTucky 21:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is, since you still haven't been able to explain what it adds to this page. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:31, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I have explained myself, you simply have chosen to disregard my arguments. Let me reiterate my point again...first of all if you care at all for actual Wikipedia policy, then per previous notation by several editors from RFC it demands to be included as a significant occurrence in the history of state/nationalist racism and racism against middle eastern people; being a resolution by the United Nations. Second, if you want to forget about simple policy and delve into postmodern navel-gazing discussion of how instructive it is...it is highly informative that enough UN member nations (whether they be legitimate democracies or foul anti-semitic dictatorships) supported a resolution accusing the Zionist movement of being racist. It is even more instructive concerning the development of the understanding of the racial implications of Zionism (and thus ultimately what racism is and is not) that it was rescinded. Furthermore, you cant just dismiss it as political manouvering. The nations that pushed the resolution into passing were fully fledged antisemitic governments. However, you are correct in that it was also a very political action that doesnt just have to do with condemning a supposedly racist movement. This is important to the Racism article becuase it is a very notable example of the use of racist/anti-racist rhetoric for political purposes, which is important to understanding why racism will always be a source of controversy.VanTucky 22:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You keep saying it is "highly informative" and "instructive", but refuse to say what exactly it teaches us about Racism. Explain, clearly, what the rescinded Resolution teaches us about Racism. Not about geopolitics, but about Racism. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the above. VanTucky 22:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I see you changed your comment after I made mine. So, does the article discuss anywhere the use of the term for political purposes? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The sections on colonialism, state racism, and others all seem to me to focus on the idea of using racist rhetoric to gain political/economic adavantage. VanTucky 22:32, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

As soon as you have a specific section about the use of the rhetoric of racism for political purposes let me know. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:54, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, on the more literal side of things I think it fits in "declarations against racism". But I think it fits better in "ethnic nationalism", considering Zionism is ethnic nationalism. VanTucky 22:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Your reasoning goes beyond my logical capacities. Tazmaniacs 23:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Very funny Taz. I'm dying with laughter. It was a declaration against Zionism as racist, and then against the resolution as racist in itself. therefore, declarations against racism. I think it fits better in the section of ethnic nationalism because that's what Zionism is. Or, you could leave it in "against Middle Eastern people" because the argument with the first resolution was about racism against Middle Eastern people (Arabs/Palestinians) and the resolution that rescinded it was declaring that the original was motivated against what is now a Zionist/Jewish state in the Middle East. VanTucky 23:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Why should controversial declarations against "racism" should be included in the section dedicated to official declarations against real racism? If so many people agree that Zionism, in itself, is not racism, I see no reason to include it on this page (my statement was not supposed to be funny, I'm very serious about it: I don't understand your reasoning, do you find that so strange?) Tazmaniacs 12:32, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

It is a fact that Zionism has been accused of being racist or a form of racism, and this fact ought to be mentioned somewhere in this article (along with the allegations against the War on Terror and Hollywood). On the other hand, the rescinded UN resolution is a poor way of presenting this topic. I believe the most appropriate way to introduce this issue in this article is to give a short paragraph that states that Zionism has been accused of racism, with a link to Zionism and racism allegations, where the UN resolution is more appropriate.--Doron 20:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I'm with Doron. Israel/Zionism has been accused of being racist (see the "Allegations of Israeli apartheid" article for example) so I think it probably deserves a mention here in some form. But doing it through the UN's rescinded "Zionism is Racism" resolution does not seem an appropriate way to introduce the topic. Gatoclass 13:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Definition/Psychological disorder

Racism: a schizo-affective behavior that distorts the thought processes causing delusions of grandeur in thought and action. It mirrors most schizophrenic behavior by causing a split in the logical thought processes which allows two or more identities to exist within the same person. One identity is capable of behaviors such as: love, empathy, selflessness and shame, among others. However the other identity becomes apparent, overtly or covertly, when stimuli are present. These stimuli triggers a display of anti social behavior, such as loss of empathy, selfishness, delusions of superiority, lack of shame, rage, fear and lowered impulse control. As with schizophrenia, the perception is seen as reality. Constant psychological intervention and psychotropic drugs can contain these thoughts but nothing short of love will cure them. - Cynthia

Definitions of racism

Please remove the prehistoric, left-wing anti-racial mythology based on 40 years old discoveries of "modern genetics". Genetics has advanced a lot in the meantime, and especially during the last decade. Self-reported racial classification or geographical origin can now be established with virtually 100% accuracy. 82.100.61.114 15:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Your comments are contradicted by every citation to reliable published scientific sources available. Please remember that the test for inclusion as content is not whether something is true, but rather if it is backed by a reliable published sources. You failed to provide any source at all for your statements. You might want to read WP:Citing sources. VanTucky 20:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Arab-Israeli conflict

AIC is polarizing and complex, and many WP articles are already dedicated to its coverage. There are attempts to spread it to more articles. It is wrong to present it as a a racial conflict, especially one-sidedly as anti-Arab racism by Israel. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 10:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it presents it as a racial conflict, only that racism or the accusation of racism is product of and part of what fuels the conflict. VanTucky 17:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Padishah5000 00:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

"racism or the accusation of racism is product of and part of what fuels the conflict" is your POV. There are many accusations flying around. Please stop adding one-sided accusations of racism in the AIC. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 19:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I don't know what universe you live in, but in this one the idea that racism by and against Israelis is a widely published view of the conflict. Is it just the links youre objecting to? And please do not start edit wars by reverting content still under discussion. that is not a good display of respect for civility and Wikipedia consensus process. VanTucky 20:12, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is also a widely published view of the conflict. One of the links you keep adding is already there on the previous line, and the other simply does not belong here. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to add reliable (as in generally known to have factual accuracy). Just assumed you wouldnt break good faith and think I was talking about raving nutcases and antisemitic propaganda. my bad. So I take it youre not for deleting the whole section, just the links? that is fine with me. VanTucky 20:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Correct. Thank you for being reasonable. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Definition

Please discuss before reverting the definition. Racism is a belief ("an acceptance that a statement is true". the def isnt limited to religious faith) and an ideology because an ideology is organised and a belief is not. Racism has existed as both and they are very distinct aspects. Also, since modern science completely discounts the idea that all members of each race share a certain set of behaviorial and physical characteristics, Racism is also just the idea that they do share such traits. Think about it. Anyone you've ever met who was racist based this on the fundamental idea that all Jews are this, all Blacks are that. It is the fundamental precursor to all degrees of racism. Also, this is the OED definition. VanTucky 21:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

This is exactly my point: the idea that 'all members of each race share a certain set of behavioural and physical characteristic' is actually a definition of race, not a definition of racism. You then say, 'racism is also just the idea that they do share such traits'. Well, who's 'they' in this sentence? is they the members, or the 'races'? Can you not see how its a circular argument you are making, and how the two entail each other? Eyedubya 02:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're going to end up talking at cross purposes here if we're not very, very careful. My edits were intended to say exactly what you are saying about what racism is in terms of its categorical effects. However, a definition of racism that opens with the line that 'Racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race' creates a problem. This way of putting it accepts the idea of race as a legitimate, uncontested notion that, as you have pointed out, has been discredited by modern science. To say 'Racism is a belief or ideology that all members of each race' suggests that there is some unproblematic category called race that really exists out there in the world, and the only thing of importance is that some people use it unwisely or ignorantly or nefariously. I disagree with this view, because racism and race go hand in hand, its hard to have one without the other, impossible in fact. For example, the following statements do not require the concept of race: 'there are brown-skinned people' or 'they are Jewish people' or 'I know some Chinese people'. Such statements are merely reporting an empirical fact - some people do possess such attributes. But to say that 'All brown-skinned people are athletic' is a statement that depends on the concept of race for its validity, and it is also racist (and thus a case of racism) because: a) it makes a distinction that puts people into groups based on a single attribute and b) creates a hierarchy between them. Saying that 'All brown-skinned people are athletic' implies that: 'not all non-brown-skinned people are athletic', and even, that: 'unless you are brown-skinned, it is unlikely that you will be athlectic', as well as: 'the reason why some people are more athletic than others is because they have brown skin'. It is not possible to use the concept of race without also being racist, even if its only very mild. But to those people implicated by such statements (and we all are in different ways), the effects are the divisive effects of racism. I think you and I want to say the same thing here. I think you are right about belief, I accept your definition. And perhaps I have caused you think that I may have a point about changing the first line to link racism and race in a way that doesn't accept the concept on its own terms? Also, if WP is going to use definitions of words from a source like OED, then why not just quote the whole definition and properly cite the source? Eyedubya 00:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

First off, whether it is scientifically and culturally rejected in modern society does not negate the fact that the concept of race exists. Read carefully: the concept exists. Using the word race does not in any way speak to the veracity of the concept. The definition only recognises that racism is indelibly tied to the notion of race. This is fact, and one published by reliable sources (which, of course, is the only test of inclusion on Wikipedia, not truth; the rambling, confused definitions previously included were part of what necessitated the original research tag). What you're arguing is that to say "chinese people" or "black people" doesnt depend on race. Well, that's true because you're referring to the scientific concept of ethnicity. Race and ethnicity are vastly different, mainly: one is concrete and absolutist, while ethnicity is more fluid. But the existence of ethnicity does not make the idea of race (and therefore, racism) disappear.

To think that acknowledging prejudicial racism as the product of the idea of race is perpetuating racism itself is totally ludicrous. That is politically correct facism. To simply define racism for what it is in no way legitimizes it. Besides, as you admit, if "it is not possible to use the concept of race without also being racist..." then how the hell do you define racism? You can't just make up a new definition to suit your moral ideas. About citing it, this is something I have planned on doing, but I have been too busy reverting vandalism to the page and complete rewrites of the definition. Also, I prefer not to directly quote (which doesnt kill citing) because of the use of dictionary-speak within/around the definitions. VanTucky 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

As I said, unless we're very careful we're going to end up talking at cross-purposes. Let's take this one step at a time:

1) Brown-skinned people, people who subscribe to Judaism and people who speak Chinese could only have been considered to have constituted 'races' if the concept of race existed. The statement 'Jews are a race' is logically impossible without the concept of race.

2) The differences between ethnicity and race maybe to do with fluidity, but as ways of making distinctions between people on the basis of group or collectiev identity, they suffer in the end from the same problem - categorical thinking. Whether one is identified by others, or self-identifies as a 'member of a group', the problem of stereotyping, exclusion and inclusion remain. An ethnic descriptor will do just as well as a racial one for bigots.

3) Political correctness has nothing whatsoever to do with this. It is all about logic. The concept of race entails racism. The concept of gender entails sexism. The concept of class entails classism. As soon as a distinction is made, it necessarily follows that meanings will attach to the products of the distinction. That is how the mind works, that is how language and culture operate.

4) If you are going to make qualitative distinctions between types of racism, such as 'prejudicial racism' or 'scientific racism', then these need to be defined in the WP entry itself (maybe it is, I haven't read that far down, I'm interested in the initial definition, all else flows from that). But at the beginning needs to be a definition of racism that is sufficiently abstract to allow it to be subject to the degree of differentiation and qualification that occur in the remainder of the article.

5) I agree that the concept of race exists, regardless of its scientific validity. I also agree that racism exists and has immensely powerful effects, regardless of its morality or ethics. However, it is important to understand how it works, and how the concept of race entails racism. Unless that is understood, any moves to understand racism itself are flawed.

6) What makes you think I'm trying to make the concept of racism or race disappear? As far as I can tell, the difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary is that the former will shed some light on the reasons and debates about why a word comes to have the definition it does, not merely to be a longer version of the latter. If you use a dictionary definition without stating it as such, it compromises WP as an encyclopedia.Eyedubya 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Eyedubya 01:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

To define racism is necessary to a following discussion of racism. To say defining racism compromises an encyclopedic study of the subject is patently insane. Okay, let's quit arguing about peripherals here and get to the heart of the matter. Show me an alternative wording to the definition of racism here so we can reach some kind of consensus. But frankly, you have not given any arguments about how the current definition is in fact inappropriate per Wikipedia policy. Once again, truth is of no concern, only verifiability. Writing your own definition is not acceptable when a reliable published definition exists. VanTucky 01:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You may not like the arguments, but I have made some. To move on, I request that you edit the article to beging with the entire OED definition of racism, prefaced with: The Oxford English Dictionary defines racism in the following way:. That at least establishes the source of something which is contested - note previous edits of the definition in WP - that is incontrovertible, verifiable evidence of a difference of opinion. Some have agreed with my views, some with 'yours', which you are saying is really the OED. SO, fine, let the OED speak. Plagiarism is plagiarism! Eyedubya 02:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

PS I have already contributed wording which I believe covers my issues, but you rv'd it. It was a minor change really, and someone else improved it before you got to it.Eyedubya 02:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, a preface like that isnt usually done. An inline footnote citation is what is preferred. But if you insist, that's fine with me. VanTucky 02:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Is that the whole definition? I can't tell where it begins and ends - is the bit about the spanish in the OED? If its just the first line, then the OED suffers from the intellectual confusion I've discussed above (see near the top of this section, quite simple really). Eyedubya 02:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence is the primary def, the second is the secondary one. The history is not in the OED, its a dictionary remember? VanTucky 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, Dude, no worries. I've tried my best to work with your line. So this is what I've done. I've noted that lower down there is a sub-section on 'definitons', underneath which is a link to 'historical definitions'. But the material in this subsection isn't definitional in nature, its more of a typology. So I've renamed it 'types of racism'. Now, having done that, and noted that there is a whole article devoted to historical definitions of racism, I've reworked the opening paragraph of the main racism page. I think a lateral and sensible way to deal with the verifiable differences in current definitions of racism is to triangulate what you started by counterposing two other well-known dictionary definitions with the OED. There are important differences of the kind that lead to the sort of disagreement you and I have had. Thus, the case for the new prefatory remarks is established in a verifiable and upfront way. So the first line sets the scene - Racism is something that people disagree about; next few lines - examples of different definitions from reliable sources; final line - in sum, what do these different definitions have in common? This means the first para is about definitional issues. We can then move the stuff on history, which is also highly contested to the next paragraph, and clean that up later.Eyedubya 06:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Racism against Jews

Before we get to any arguments about the content itself, I think User:Humus sapiens, a practicing Jew, has not shown very much respect for NPOV or possibly Conflict of Interest in persistantly deleting any attempt to show both sides of the issue Racism against Jews. It is a serious and hotly debated issue in reliable published sources whether the charge of antisemitism has been used to excuse actions taken by the state of Israel. This is directly related to Racism against Jews, and I think that any removal of it violates NPOV in that it fails to account for all reliable published POV's on modern issues affecting the topic of racism against Jews. VanTucky 21:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)