Talk:Racism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmetoyer, Ijwilliams (article contribs).

Physical appearance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At the risk of raising another storm of invective, I question the use of the phrase "physical appearance" in the lead sentence of the article. The Nazi's didn't classify Jews on the basis of appearance, but rather on the basis of ancestry. I propose changing the phrase "physical appearance" to something like "their perceived ancestry". I have placed a discuss template on the phrase in the article, inviting you all to comment here. Thanks in advance for your comments. Eleuther (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You are grossly misinformed. Nazi propaganda was riddled with stereotypes regarding physical appearance - both of Jews and of the 'Aryans' the Nazis imagined themselves to be. In apartheid-era South Africa, people were routinely legally assigned to 'racial' categories according to appearance - even when such assignments resulted in placing siblings in different groups. Appearance has always been central to racism, as the default means to decide where someone fits in whatever socially-constructed shoving-people-into-boxes scheme is normative in context. Beyond that, certainly, perceived ancestry often comes into play, but only when framed through social norms that have already decided what the 'valid' groupings are. Hence ignore-what-ancestry-means-entirely nonsense like the 'one-drop-rule' in the United States, the classification of Australian Aborigines as 'Blacks', and the endless arguments about where exactly the limits of 'being white' can be found. Racism isn't built around 'ancestry', it is built around assumptions that ancestry can be used as a means to determine where people fit into a predetermined and arbitrary scheme. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I agree with a lot of that, except the "grossly misinformed" part. Is insulting invective really the only form of rhetoric you know? In particular, I didn't propose that racism is built around 'ancestry'. Rather, I used the term 'perceived ancestry', which is pretty much the same thing you're saying in your last sentence. My basic point is that racism is about the arbitrary scheme you refer to, not simply about physical appearance. So it seems overly simplistic, to me, to define racism in terms of "physical appearance" in the lead sentence of the article. In trying to come up with a more appropriate descriptive term for the idea of racism, as generally understood in the sources, I came up with "perceived ancestry" as a proposal, but other terms are certainly possible as well. Eleuther (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to replace "physical appearance" with "a perceived idea of race", or something like that. Eleuther (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"physical appearance and socially constructed classifications regarding ancestry' would possibly be closer. We certainly don't want to use 'race' to define 'racism' in the manner you suggest though, since once again it tends to imply that 'race' is more than a social construct. And because defining something using the same word (or word root) as the word being defined is desperately poor English (and arguably illogical, since if you know what a word means, you don't need it defined), even if the habit is widespread in Wikipedia ledes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The term "perceived idea of race", which I proposed, does not at all imply that "'race' is more than a social construct", or anything else about race. It is just a convenient way to kick the definitional can over to the article on race, which seems to me to be the most logical approach. We don't need to define "race" in two separate places, both here and there. Logically speaking, this article should defer to the concept of race defined in that article. That was the simple idea behind my proposal. Eleuther (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Eleuther I don't normally butt into important conversations. However, if we are of one race, that being the Human Race. Would our definition of racism be based on a created Social Construct of the Perceived Idea of Race to where how we are defining race on the basis of the amount of melanin in one's skin? The opening paragraphs of this article seem to misrepresent the historical construct of racism. This is a social construct that has been passed down for millennia that somehow a certain color of skin was superior to another color of skin. It is an extreme form of prejudice. Since racism is a prejudice with active discrimination, would that not be proper to clarify that into

If I were to suggest an opening line and some of the second line, it would go with one of these two options:

Racism is the Social Construct that has been created by humans to divide humans on the Perceived Idea of Race based on the amount of melanin in another human's skin and other characteristics. Racism is a form of prejudice that has been traditionally used as a belief of superiority through active antagonistic discrimination over another human.

Racism is the Social Construct that has been created by humans to traditionally divide humans on the Perceived Idea of Race by the use of prejudice that is used as a belief of superiority through active antagonistic discrimination over another human.

If I am correct here, racism is the active use of a prejudice, using discrimination. I just thought I would toss this out there but I could be completely wrong as to my rewrite ideas. Mjp1976 (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, Mjp1976. I like your use of the word prejudice. Indeed, if I had full freedom to edit the article, I would start it with something simple like "Racism is prejudice based on race", period, deferring the definition of the term race, and the sense in which it is a social construct, or is based on appearance, or ancestry, etc., entirely to the other article, where the discussion properly belongs. But I don't have this freedom, so the best I can do here is to argue for incremental changes. In this regard, I don't think your proposed prose is productive. It's too elaborate. Would you really continue to read an article that started with those sentences? Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no denying that physical appearance is by far the most commonly used method of determining race, but it is not the only method. Eleuther's point about the Nazi's use of ancestry to designate Jews as a separate race stands, and to claim otherwise because the Nazis made claims about the physical appearance of Jews suggests that they would not have discriminated against Jews if they were identical to Aryans, which I think we can agree is untrue. The best solution is to recognize that both physical appearance and perceived ancestry are used to determine race.Gasolineman3 (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, Gasolineman3. You agree with me, then, that the current lead sentence is too simplistic ("on the basis of physical appearance"), because it doesn't take the important factor of perceived ancestry into account. This is why I placed the "discuss" template on the phrase. I'm hoping more editors will chime in soon, so we can get a better idea of the consensus. (The page has thousands of watchers, after all.) There are other generally-recognized cultural factors as well, such as speech (accents and dialects) and costume, and self-organization, and so on. My basic feeling is that the discussion of all these factors should mostly take place in the article on race, rather than here in the article on racism, simply on the logical grounds of reducing duplication. In other words, the article on racism should not try to provide its own definition of the idea of race. Do you agree? Eleuther (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, all, this discussion seems to have stalled, so this is my attempt to revive it. There seems to be a consensus that the term physical appearance is not a valid proxy for race, so some other term is needed in the lead sentence. I have proposed the term perceived idea of race, deferring the definition of race to the article on that subject. Does this make sense? Eleuther (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No, for the reasons I have already given. 'Race' is a social construct, and as such has no basis beyond 'perceived ideas' in of itself. Your proposal amounts to a statement that 'racism consists of perceived ideas about (specific) perceived ideas'. And 'perceived ideas' is poor English, given its ambiguity. Who's ideas are being perceived by whom? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add this link from Harvard that discusses the Stanford study to the conversation on the perceived idea of race: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/ . I believe that if we can actually corner this concept with scientific studies on this, to show that this is actually the case, that there is a perceived idea of race, then one of the two sentences I wrote above would be accurate. I am leaning towards the first.

This entire article really needs a rewrite to properly articulate that racism is a made-up construct based predominantly on skin color. Physical appearance in this article does not denote accuracy on the topic, as that is more along the lines of Ancestral and ethnic prejudice and discrimination. (Such as not serving the Irish in new york Italian neighbourhoods in the 1800s, or blacks not being able to ride anywhere but the back of the bus.)

The problem is this article has become so hotly contested that we have ignored accuracy to please those that feel their position is correct, but not accurate. IMPO, We need to ignore illogical thinking on the topics and work towards accuracy. Mjp1976 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in the Harvard blog you link is remotely new to anyone familiar with the topic. And nor, as far as I can see does it demonstrate that this article has any problem with 'accuracy' that you have been able to adequately explain. The article could be improved, certainly. But that will require more than statements that it is 'illogical'.

And no, racism is not 'based primarily on skin colour'. It is based entirely on the premise, (as articulated in the blog you link) that 'race' has a biological basis. Skin colour and/or other physical characteristics are then used (arbitrarily, since such characteristics are a continuum across humanity) to classify individuals or groups into whichever socially-constructed 'races' are normative and/or in the interests at the time of those with the power to impose them. It isn't an exercise in chromatography, it is politics - as the Harvard blog again makes abundantly clear. That is what this article needs to emphasise. That is what the sources tell us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the above post again, it clearly came across more aggressively than I intended. Apologies to Mjp1976. I should probably try to avoid making posts while short of sleep, and maybe think about this some more when I'm in a better mood to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, though, skin color does have a biological (genetic) basis. It is inherited. The genes in question are well-identified. There are many other inherited traits that are also correlated with race, such as the prevalence of sickle-cell anemia, etc. The question the article needs to address is how the present idea of race is related to these inherited traits. I think the answer is, not very much, but a little bit, i.e., you can't simply dismiss the ancestral element on ideological grounds. (Before you go into attack mode, Grump, please note that I am largely agreeing with you here.) I further think, as I've said a few times before, that the proper place to sort out these issues is in the article on race, not here in the article on racism. In this article, I still think the best approach is to just use a phrase like "perceived idea of race", deferring the heavy lifting to the other article. Eleuther (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Poor English: all ideas are 'perceived'. As for 'ancestral elements', so far, you haven't actually offered any explanation so far of how this has any relevance. Everyone has ancestors. Any suggestion that this has any meaningful bearing on 'race' appears to be based on an exercise in fallacious circular logic: assuming that 'race' is something that can be inherited, and therefore people must have inherited it from their ancestors. Neither ancestry nor population genetics do anything whatsoever to demonstrate that 'race' has an objective meaning: something which should be self-evident when one looks at just how arbitrary, contextual and overtly politicised it is, and always has been. Population generics has instead, in regard to the specific example you cite, the sickle cell trait, demonstrated that rather than being a consequence of 'race', its relative prevalence is instead the consequence of natural selection due to local environmental pressures (e.g. the presence of malaria-bearing mosquitos), and that 'race' has nothing to do with it. People with ancestors from areas where malaria was prevalent are more likely to have the relevant allele. Areas widely distributed across the world, with no correlation with 'race'. And much the same can be said for any other cross-population genetic variations - there are no genes for race. No single gene for skin colour. Skin colour is influenced by multiple genes, with distributions of different alleles varying widely in a manner that has next-to-no correlation with 'race' beyond the obvious one that the 'lighter-skin' people inventing the racial categorisations have been using 'darker skin' as one of their arbitrary criteria, as and when expedient.

So no, Wikipedia should not defer definitions of 'race' elsewhere. This is an encyclopaedia (or at least, tries to be), and articles are expected to actually discuss their subject matter. Not shuffle it off elsewhere because someone doesn't like what the article has to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Further to this, it should be noted that the article cites four sources for the disputed sentence (the first in the lede) I have looked at three of them, and as it currently stands, the article concurs with what these sources say (I've not been able to check remaining source, as it is effectively a dead link to an Oxford Dictionaries definition of unknown date, and thus not much use as a source anyway). It is a requirement that Wikipedia articles be sourced - particularly anything likely to be disputed. Accordingly, per policy, we cannot simply revise the lede to say something else, based on our own personal opinions. Unless and until alternate sources are offered, the lede has to stand. If other sources of equal validity and weight are ever found suggesting that it should say something else instead, we may have to reconsider, and include what such sources say as well (not instead...) but that isn't the case now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But the article on race is part of the same encyclopedia. So deferring the elucidation of the term race to that article does not constitute "shuffling off" the issue. It is just a suggestion for organizing the overall material in a more logical manner, so that the same term is not defined separately, and perhaps conflictingly, in two different places in the encyclopedia. This should not be a controversial idea. Eleuther (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an article on racism. Like any other article, it explains in the lede what its topic is. And cites appropriate sources when doing so. Sources defining what racism is. Your personal objections to what the sources cited have to say on the matter are of no consequence here. Since you have offered absolutely no source-based or Wikipedia-policy-based justifications for changing the lede, I consider this topic closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't raised any objections to the cited sources. You are imagining that, I guess as part of your general attack on my proposal, from every direction you can think of. I am only suggesting a better way to organize the material between the two articles. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an article on racism. Like any other article, it explains in the lede what its topic is. Go troll somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Physical appearance redux

I would like to raise again the idea of replacing the phrase "physical appearance" in the lead sentence of the article with something more appropriate. Please comment if you have a constructive idea on the subject. Thanks. Eleuther (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just revised the lede. It no longer uses the term 'physical appearance', and now probably concurs with the cited sources more closely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Eleuther (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Are we glancing past the question of definition: is the combination of othering and essentialization and hatred accurately called "racism" even in the absence of phenotypic distinctions between in-groups and out-groups? Perhaps we should report clearly the rather distinct minority view that no phenotypic distinction is required? Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

If a minority view is one that is held by a significant subset of relevant commentators on the subject, it should probably be discussed in the article. I'd think we'd need pretty strong sourcing to include it in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

We have a closely-related discussion at Islamophobia#Racism, but I feel that we need at least an explicit mention here. I'd also suggest that a sentence in the lede if only to spare others my own experience of confusion. I see limited, but I'd say significant, comments based on the assumption that any dislike of a group or its conceptual basis is racism, even if no heritable or visible distinction is involved. Heng's long argument for this idea does at least enable me to comprehend the redefinition used for these comments, even if I don't propose to use that redefinition myself.

So I propose that we include in the article, perhaps at the end of the section on etymology, definition, and usage, something like: "Some commentators argue that racism need not involve any heritable or visible characteristics, and that hatred of a group believed to have essential characteristics is sufficient to qualify as racism. Comments welcome. Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources other than Heng making this argument? If so, we should try to get a sense of what their general consensus is. I'd assume that from a social-science perspective, it will have to be rather more nuanced than a simple suggestion that "hatred of a group believed to have essential characteristics is sufficient to qualify as racism", at least without a clearer definition of what 'group' means. Prejudice is essentialist almost by definition, and is frequently extended to 'groups' that have nothing whatsoever to do with 'race'. We need to be wary of implying that 'racism' is just a synonym for 'group prejudice'. It isn't, at least as I understand current academic consensus. It is a specific phenomenon, with specific historical roots, that set it apart as an object for analysis, distinct from say simple xenophobia, and from the all-too-common tendency to essentialise the 'other'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, but this spreading of the definition does seem to be, if not widespread, at least something that some writers insist on. See, not only Heng, but also "The Multicultural State We're In: Muslims,'Multiculture' and the 'Civic Re‐balancing' of British Multiculturalism", and Poynting on "transition from anti-Asian and anti-Arab racism to anti-Muslim racism". There is more. Unless you can think of a good reason not to, I propose to insert something as I proposed above. Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Evaluation

The article is written well in the correct tone of voice. It flows smoothly and is arranged well with a solid outline/structure. More visuals can be added to the article, and more substantive information can be inserted into the section being edited. Most importantly, the author needs to be concise in describing material, as the article is lengthy and droning text will only bore readers (the author isn’t droning and their text is concise; this is just a point to keep in mind.) So far, the article is on the right track to improving its status. SageSab (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Contradicts other content in Wikipedia

"Racism in China" article has a "History" section that starts with an ethnically motivated massacre in 350 AD. Since this article states that racism is a relatively recent western invention, how can the history of racism in China start from 350 AD? Other example is that "Medieval Arab attitudes to Black people" article is listed in the category "Racism in the Arab world". But is the implication of racism being a recent western invention that racism in Medieval Arab world did not exist, or that when it did, only to the extent it was imported from the west?

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:CCBA:1BC:2A3D:90D4 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Regrettably the Racism page and society at large use "Racism" in at least two different ways. The more academic usage based on the outmoded idea of Race (considered historically newish). And the common usage, which I would quickly define as prejudice based on traits associated with ethnicity. I am comfortable with saying the ancient Greek term "barbarian" was racist, but I don't think it fits the strict academic definition. Or it could be that even though racism, feminism and capitalism are newish ideas, you can look at older times through their lenses.Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nicely put, Dushan Jugum. Generalrelative (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Note also that Wikipedia does not cite itself as a reliable source. Any changes to this article (or any other) needs to be based around what external reliable sources directly say, rather than on comparisons with other articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Race or Etnicities

How about writing in The wiki that race or races isnt The right word for people and use the term sientificaly proven as a fact, Etnicities. There isnt enough diffrence in genes to divide People in Races, we are to alike to be called diffrent races, and thats as a fact. We are Not diffrent races and accualy diffrent Etnicities. Its not as in The text Race or Etnicities its only Etnicities. If People dont Change this The normal readers will continue beleve we are diffrent races witch is absolutly dumbfounded wrong. Pleace Edit to teach not Edit to missguide 46.15.169.172 (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Genetics and race Neither race nor ethnicity is detectable in the human genome. Humans do have genetic variations, some of which were once associated with ancestry from different parts of the world. But those variations cannot be tracked to distinct biological categories. Genetic tests cannot be used to verify or determine race or ethnicity, though the tests themselves are associated with an increased belief in racial differences. Exagon86 (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Should open Racism with this, that its a fact that we are Not diffrent races and that we have invented The Word Race to use as a discrimination against other Etnicities. Exagon86 (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This is all stated very clearly in the article Race (human categorization), which is linked in the opening sentence. Generalrelative (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Etymology, definition and usage

The second paragraph states that most anthropologists, scientists, and biologists reject a taxonomy of races. There are newer sources for that to add , and it is only partially true.

It is partially true, because from the data we can see, studies referring to Eastern Europeans and Asians have shown the opposite. So the results should include that they are according to "Western" scientists.

As for the second sentence, "As of 2005, human genome research indicates that race is not a meaningful genetic classification of humans.", do we use this kind of data for other animals in determining if they are subspecies? It seems the distinction of "race," is close to "subspecies," and if we use similar classifications for subspecies based on phenotypes (or if we go the route of Lewontin and use the fixation index), either way, humans would be different subspecies. Humans are more heterozygous than other subspecies, and even than some other species that are polytypic. . The divergence of racial groups in time also surpasses various subspecies such as some birds and lizards (time being the primary reason why dog breeds are not considered subspecies (their variance due to their phenotypical plasticity and artificial selection)). Weagesdf (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

We're not in the business of establishing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS about what "race" means here. Instead, we abide by the longstanding consensus established at Talk:Race (human categorization). But to address the basic error in your premise (in the interest of perhaps saving us all some time), all extant human population groups belong to the same subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. Indeed, we are especially closely related for an animal subspecies. I hope that clears things up, but if not, the appropriate place to discuss this would be Talk:Race (human categorization). Generalrelative (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I will go to that page. My statements were questioning the premise that we are the same subspecies, given that we have more variance in a number of spheres than other polytypic mammals. The first part still applies to this wiki, I believe, though.Weagesdf (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but be aware that the fact that we all belong to the same subspecies is 100% supported by the scientific consensus. The only debate is over whether Homo sapiens can be divided into subspecies at all, since typically we only talk about "subspecies" when there is more than one. So it matters whether extinct members of Homo like Neanderthals count as subspecies of Homo sapiens or separate species. See e.g. [1] for a basic explanation. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is never 100% scientific consensus, and I am not sure whether the global supermajority would agree. As you can see from the very first link I posted, and the following two after that on the question of whether scientists believe race to be biological (more or less), a significant number believe that race is biological. And again, if we were to use the same criteria that we do for the taxonomy o fother mammals, we could easily separate humans into subspecies. I suppose it is more political than anything—a pushback from the prejudice of the older race realists (when the belief in biological race does not necessitate prejudice). But I suppose that goes beyond the scope of this wiki.Weagesdf (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You state: if we were to use the same criteria that we do for the taxonomy o fother mammals, we could easily separate humans into subspecies. This is false. But I am not going to debate it with you further. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Humans are as diverged as many subspecies, they are not "especially closely related" as GR writes above, although it's fashionable to say so sans data. I think what GR is getting at is that the subspecies level would be Neanderthal/Sapiens, so human races are a level below this, infrasubspecific. So you're both right and both wrong. David McDavis (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

I suggest the addition of the following (or similar) paragraph to the Contemporary section:

Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orbán, in his 2018 speech at the meeting of the Association of Cities with County Rights, said We must state that we do not want to be diverse and do not want to be mixed: we do not want our own colour, traditions and national culture to be mixed with those of others. We do not want this. We do not want that at all. We do not want to be a diverse country.

Justification: the prominent use of the word colour in this context, in a well thought through speech constitutes racism. LifeDancePro (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: You would need sources linking this to racism, otherwise it's WP:OR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense User:ScottishFinnishRadish. I revised my suggestion accordingly:

Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orbán, in his 2018 speech at the meeting of the Association of Cities with County Rights, said We must state that we do not want to be diverse and do not want to be mixed: we do not want our own colour, traditions and national culture to be mixed with those of others. We do not want this. We do not want that at all. We do not want to be a diverse country. This triggered U.N.’s human rights chief Zeid bin Ra’ad al-Hussein characterizing Orbán as being one Europe’s “racists and xenophobes” seeking “ethnic, national or racial purity.” Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó immediately condemned the commissioner's words and called Zeid “unworthy” of his position and demanded that he resign.

LifeDancePro (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Orbán has often been described as a racist, and that this designation has been deemed notable by reliable sources. Indeed, I'd be in favor of including that in the article about him. But I'm not seeing a compelling reason why we would add this to the article about racism in general. This article is not meant to be a list of all the racist people that have existed and the racist things they've said, but rather a general discussion of the topic. Can you explain how mentioning Orbán's remarks might inform such a general discussion? Generalrelative (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article shouldn't be watered down with a list of even notable racist persons. While mentioning Mr. Orbán in a general discussion about racism would be distracting, the article has a History -> Contemporary section, and I believe Mr. Orbán's mention in the context of this section would be appropriate, for him being one of the leaders defining (for now mostly by vetoing) the future of the European Union. LifeDancePro (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Perhaps a WP:RFC is in order. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)