Talk:Racism

This page is racist

Why the hell are we telling people about racism? Disgusting practice, wikipedia, hang your heads in shame, wikipedia. If decency prevailed, we would have no racist propaganda here.--Sardinefig (talk) 04:51, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sardinefig: Do you have any specific suggestions to improve the page? If not, this is not a forum for tsk=-tsking wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Here is an article that shows this wiki article to be racist: http://www.clickhole.com/article/internet-win-wikipedia-page-racism-getting-absolut-2934. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardinefig (talk • contribs) 10:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

@Sardinefig: Oh lawdy, I hope you are trolling, quoting a Clickhole article like that :^) --71.14.116.224 (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Part about nazism, change needed

The article states that the nazis graded people from Aryan, to non-aryan subhuman, this is not stated in sources. The nazis never claimed everyone who were not Germanic to be subhuman, they claimed slavs(Russians, Polish etc.) to be subhuman. In mein kampf Hitler divedes people into three parts: culture makers, culture upholders and culture destroyers. The germanic peoples were culture creators (a superior race), most others were culture upholders and the Jews were culture destroyers. The slavs were described as subhuman.37.253.212.32 (talk) 00:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2016

In recent years, the overuse of the word, especially in America, has led to the definition morphing somewhat. With the increasingly charged political atmosphere leading to more bitter political rivalries, the terms racism and racist have become synonymous with anyone who disagrees with the official party line of some American political parties, regardless of the beliefs held by the accused.

ModernProgressive (talk) 12:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

And what are the sources supporting that claim? Where in the article do you think that should be added? Huon (talk) 12:13, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Notability of Israeli racism against Ethiopian Jews, Palestinians

How is the racism against Ethiopians notable while Palestinians are not mentioned? FWIW Google has 12 times as many results re the latter. Keith McClary (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, a Google count is not a good indication of notability. Secondly, discrimination of Palestinians is not based on race but on other factors such as citizenship and religion. Huon (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Restoring balance - reverted

My contributions, e.g. this one, including even fixing the missing blockquote tag, were reverted en masse by @·maunus.

Example of my text, where I added these historical facts, to restore balance:

However, the Umayyad Caliphate invaded Hispania thus creating Al-Andalus, whereby Muslim Berber invaders annihilated the Visigothic rulers, occassionaly massacring the Jews (e.g. in Granada in 1066), while at the same time contributing to the Golden age of Jewish culture. It was resisted by the centuries-long Reconquista, terminated under the Catholic monarchs Ferdinand V and Isabella I. The legacy Catholic Spaniards then formulated the Cleanliness of blood doctrine. It was during this time in history that the Western concept of aristocratic "blue blood" emerged in a racialized, religious and feudal context, so as to stem the upward social mobility of the converted New Christians. 

->Please review the changes and decide if e.g. the hiddden Antisemitism=Christian antisemitism in the current version is POV or my referenced fixes are POV. Zezen (talk) 07:25, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• There was no missing blockquote, since the statement you put in blockquotes is nt supposed to be a blockquote (I have not checked the book, but it is not supposed to be a quote - if it is then it should simply be removed). Changing the link to Christian Antisemitism is not necessary or usful since that paragraph is specifically about the history of antisemitism in Europe - for which reason the article on Christian antisemitism is the apt. There is already a link to the general article on antisemitism further up in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

I have reverted by reversion of your additions, and apologize for being so rash. On reviewing them I think they actually did improve the content by introducing some balance and not least adding sources to otherwise unsourced statements. I apologize for acting to fast.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 07:51, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

• I checked the quote you put in blockquote and it was not a quote from the source given, and the source given was not Rushton, to whom it was for some reason attributed. Rather, Lewis quotes Toynbee on the "swarthy" vs. "ruddy", but the text here is not a quote from either Lewis or Toynbee.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 08:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Dear ·maunus - My hat off to you, and the virtual kudos in your snunɐɯ·Talk Page for your "these edits by Zezen were not as bad as I first thought" self-revert. I was just correcting blatant historical nonsense, quoting the refs accepted in the other relevant more specialized Wiki articles. Let this power of objectivity stay with you and the other editors hereof. Zezen (talk) 13:26, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Turning a merge decision into deletion?

Race-baiting was supposedly merged into the article, yet "bait" is not found on the page. So in effect the article has been deleted. Google gives me the Conservapedia definition and articles about the presidential elections... Prevalence 00:55, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

"Race baiting" would have to receive coberage in the article relative to the amount of coverage it would have in a general textbook on racism. I can imagine that more than a line or two would be justified - it is not clear to me into which section those sentences might go - the concept seems particular to the political context of the US so maybe it will be easier to include in the article in Racism in the United States.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Too much POV on color blindness

The section on color-blindness is totally biased towards a specific leftist, academic ideology of anti-racism. It presents only one side of the debate on color-blindness -- namely the view that color blindness is itself a form of racism. People who don't share this view find it rather incoherent... The lede of the full Wikipedia article on color-blindness is much more balanced. 178.39.122.125 (talk) 00:46, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:DUE. Do you have any good (academic?) sources that discuss color-blind racism in some other way? Preferably a WP:SECONDARY source as this concept is often covered in textbooks. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:45, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah, that section has to be removed as an example of racism, that's entirely inappropriate. Any other sources? Did anyone actually read the wiki article on the subject? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(race)_in_the_United_States Obviously an approach to combat racism (the position is amazingly not even included!) can't be listed as a form of racism because some thinkers disagree with the approach. As for secondary sources, how about John Rawls and his use of the veil of ignorance found in A Theory of Justice? It is, after all, not only the basis for the popularization of the concept but one of the most important works on socio-political philosophy ever written. Including color blindness under 'aspects of racism' is ridiculous, not to mention a blatant contradiction of the wiki article on color blindness. This, seemingly, is another example of some very questionable ideological slants in this article. Color blindness is listed under aspects of racism, and controversial definitions of racism are included because it's cited from a Huffington Post editorial written by a film critic? Oh boy... Maxxx12345 (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

on dividing this topic

As a person who has studied and taught about this subject for many years, i had not thought to look at this article before today, but a friend asked me to review it. I cannot argue in general with what has been written, but i do support separating it into two articles, provided that a brief and summary history of the development of racism, especially in Western (Euro-American) Culture is included in the Racism general article with good hotlinks to the History of Racism. Furthermore, i insist that someone (unfortunately other writing does not permit me the time) needs to develop the history article more fully. It is a bit too Euro-Centric. It needs to start more generally with our genetic disposition to identifying in-groups and out-groups leading to ethnocentrism and discrimination. The correlation between racism and slavery is also clearly delineated in numerous scholarly studies, as well as the enemy distortions of war. An important lacuna in the current discussion of the origins of institutional and cultural racism in Western society is the connexion between racism and the Crusades, the Inquisition as well as the Reconquista of Spain and the expulsion of Jews and Muslims from Iberia, and other parallels with anti-Semitism as justification for legalization of racist laws. Someone should condense the research that develops the strategic teaching of racism to whites in the British colonies of North America after the first slave and Indigenous rebellions in the 17th Century. These necessary aspects for a complete understanding of this history are among chief weaknesses of the current content.

~ D. Pablo Stanfield H., Inter/Act Intercultural Relations, Seattle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pablo.paz (talk • contribs) 23:18, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The Introduction has no sources

Let's be clear about something. This is a hot button subject and should in no case be used for political or personal motives or needs. The most established, original and unobscured meaning of racism is the following:

Cambridge Dictionary:: The belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/),

Collins English Dictionary: The belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others (http://www.collinsdictionary.com/)

Macmillan Dictionary: A way of behaving or thinking that shows that you do not like or respect people who belong to races that are different from your own and that you believe your race is better than others. (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/)

When writing and speaking of neologisms and other modern parlance, take note that it is an added issue that can be added and expanded for further reference and discussion, but should not be presented as the established official definition as defined by any good academic encyclopedia or a dictionary. Anything other then that, is false, misleading and rueful. So let's stick to facts and leave aside the emotional outpouring and the political or personal sensitivities. Wikipedia is not a blog or a forum for expressing cherished views, "beautiful" values and how I feel with my chums things really are or should be. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. With prudence and respect, IBestEditor (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

You may want to read This essay about Wikipedia not being a dictionary. We do not use dictionary definitions as basis for defining topics in our articles, but we describe topics the way that they are described in the relevant academic literature. In this case the "ordinary language" definition of the dictionaries contradicts the way that academics working with race define the topic, hence they are not useful for our purposes.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:40, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should be a encyclopedia as I stated with proper sources listed and presented. But the introductionary sentence should have the brevity and exactness that a dictionary has. The expanded discussion in the WP article is very much about reliable academic sources that present a rounded and fairly evaluated scholarly view, without partisan unbalance. Words hopefully mean something and should strive towards meaning and accuracy. That is all. With prudence and respect, IBestEditor (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Brevity and concision is certainly desirable but not always possible if one is to avoid oversimplifying or misrepresenting a complex topic.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:21, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. WP:LEADSENTENCE for example. Neutral point of view isn't about false balance, it's about summarizing the predominant views of a topics as presented in reliable sources and giving due weight to various "sides" of a topic. The lead sentence should summarize the main points of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

I am IBestEditor on this for the most part. The lead line overcomplicates the concept of racism. Racism is a simple thing. It is the belief that certain races are superior to others, and/or a dislike/hatred of a race. The opening line can be too easily misconstrued. Not to mention that, for only having 14-15 words over 3 letters, it's hard to follow.

"Racism is a product of the complex interaction in a given society of a race-based worldview with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination."

Even if you try to break that down by removing adjectives and qualifiers (which can help one to understand the basic statement in a sentence), it still makes no sense.

"Racism is a product / of the interaction in / a society of a worldview with prejudice, etc."

That sentence is not only complicated (not complex), but it is badly written, has no sources, and is essentially just wrong. If the first line of an article is going to deviate so far from the ACTUAL definition of its own subject, it should be very well-backed by proper, non-fringe, trustworthy sources. It would be my guess that whoever wrote it was pushing the ideology that all racism's origins are systemic. While this may be the case with some racism, if not a majority, it is not true with all, therefore making it a false ideology. The opening needs to be re-written and better sourced.98.215.130.156 (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2016 (UTC)