Talk:Racism

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LillySLopez, Kaitleenwong, Erikpineda, Hugofabian97 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hugofabian97. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Darksol503.

Contradiction in first paragraph?

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.

Is it just me, or do these two sentences seem contradictory? The first sentence seems to give a definition, and then the second says that the use of it doesn't easily fit under one definition. Should the first sentence not reflect that? I'm not familiar with the history of this page, but it sounds like one definition was decided upon in spite of the second sentence.

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong --Ribose carb (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You are not wrong. There was a discussion that pointed out this inconsistency, but it has since been deleted. The second sentence indeed contradicts the first. Furthermore, there is a colloquially accepted definition of the word that easily falls into a single definition. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:41E9:DAB3:EE50:7E2 (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest the second sentence be changed to the following, but would like to see this change discussed here before I make it. "The word "racism" has often been used when ethnicity rather than race is the subject." I assume this is what the second sentence is hinting at. Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The reference cited in support of the claim that the term does not fall under a single definition states in a synopsis that the author (Garner) uses "clear definitions and practical examples". The statement that racism does not easily fall into a single definition seems subjective. What does this sentence even mean? What does it mean to "easily" fall into a definition? As opposed to falling into a definition with difficulty? And, how is this relevant? Many words have multiple meanings (and we often defer to the definition that is most commonly used). Are we to highlight a word's dual-meaning status any time it has multiple meanings? I see no purpose for including this sentence other than to obfuscate, which is counter to the function of an encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1b0:ae90:310f:ed11:4471:74e5 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The source lacks credibility. Dig _deeper ^talk 21:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How does the source lack credibility? There is more than one definition. Article speaks on it. I expanded the lead with older lead writing.[1][2][3][4] Better than just the one definition. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The definition seems odd to me. Is racial supremacy necessarily a part of racism? By the current definition, one could discriminate and show prejudice on a racial basis, and that would not be racism. IOW It says that if you don't consider your race superior, then you are not racist - no matter how much you discriminate, or extol racial separatism, etc. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Racism has more than just the one definition. The first sentence just defines the superiority definition. Then the lead takes on the rest. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think these edits[5][6][7] help. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

Racism distinguishes between between human racial groupings. Such distinctions may or may not lead to discrimination and prejudice but linguistically has no necessary connection to concepts of ‘superiority’ and ‘inferiority’ outlined in some mostly left-wing ideological formulations. 86.9.65.94 (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, it's nonsense. O3000 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think he's saying what I wrote above: The definition seems odd to me. Is racial supremacy necessarily a part of racism? By the current definition, one could discriminate and show prejudice on a racial basis, and that would not be racism. IOW It says that if you don't consider your race superior, then you are not racist - no matter how much you discriminate, or extol racial separatism, etc. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

Change X: Despite support for evolutionary theories relating to an innate origin of racism, various studies have suggested racism is associated with lower intelligence and less diverse peer groups during childhood. A neuroimaging study on amygdala activity during racial matching activities found increased activity to be associated with adolescent age as well as less racially diverse peer groups, which the author conclude suggest a learned aspect of racism. A meta analysis of neuroimaging studies found amygdala activity correlated to increased scores on implicit measures of racial bias. It was also argued amygdala activity in response to racial stimuli represents increased threat perception rather than the traditional theory of the amygdala activity represented ingroup-outgroup processing. Racism has also been associated with lower childhood IQ in an analysis of 15,000 people in the UK.

to Y: Despite support for evolutionary theories relating to an innate origin of racism, various studies have suggested racism is associated with lower intelligence and less diverse peer groups during childhood. A neuroimaging study on amygdala activity during racial matching activities found increased activity to be associated with adolescent age as well as less racially diverse peer groups, which the author conclude suggest a learned aspect of racism. A meta analysis of neuroimaging studies found amygdala activity correlated to increased scores on implicit measures of racial bias. It was also argued amygdala activity in response to racial stimuli represents increased threat perception rather than the traditional theory of the amygdala activity represented ingroup-outgroup processing. Racism has also been associated with lower childhood IQ in an analysis of 15,000 people in the UK. Nevertheless, there is some historical evidence which suggests that it is possible to be both racist and to have a high I.Q. at the same time. The twenty four Nazi or National Socialist defendants at the 1945-1946 Nuremburg trials were given various kinds of tests by their prison psychiatrists to determine their intelligence quotients, and as a result were found to be of above average intelligence, some of them considerably so. Suspended Time (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

Racism is a form of bigotry but neither racism, nor bigotry, IS a belief. Beliefs form predicates used in various forms of bigotry. But no form of bigotry is just a belief or predicate. Beliefs often change.

Racism is one, or more, ACTIONS. It is the action that discriminates. The predicate of a bigoted discrimination is invalid. The invalidity of the predicate is what makes racism immoral. Racist actions may be recorded, and are thus, permanent (as long as the history is not vandalized).

INCORRECT: a prison guard who implements a racist policy is only responsible for implementing such policy if the guard's beliefs agree with that racist prison policy. CORRECT: It is not the belief that is makes the guard guilty, rather it is (the action of) implementing the racist policy that makes the guard guilty.

Ethnic discrimination can be precise while no modern definition of race is precise. Racism must not combine race with ethnicity as is stated in the current version of the article.

Discrimination is not the same as bigotry, or any of its forms. Discrimination may be bad, good, or dependent on other factors. Denial of state driver license, to those under a specific age, discriminates though many agree with the discrimination. Some predicates of discrimination are legal and popular. 47.187.105.228 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, keep in mind that this is not a forum. O3000 (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV/n discussion on inclusion of Islamophobia/Antisemitism/religious hate in Racism in X articles

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and other religious hate in "racism in X" articles may be of interest to talk page watchers here. The issue is whether to include Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and other religious hate in Racism in country X articles. Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre use of terminology

In the brief discussion of Israel, and the accusations (whether valid or not) of systemic racism against Arabs or against darker-skinned Jews, the article refers to Israel as "the Zionist state", rather than using its proper name, Israel. Such language is typical of those who wish to deny Israel's legitimacy as a state, and to destroy it. WIkipedia should not be allowing such usage.

Further, if the accusations are going to be included in the article, then so too should information rebutting much of the accusation. (Yes, there is some racism in Israel, as there is everywhere, but the accusations mentioned in this article are ones that have been shown to be exaggerated or completely false). For example, the article suggests that there is systemic racism against darker-skinned Jews, but does not mention that over 50% of Israel's population is descended from Mizrachi Jews - those who spent the diaspora in the Middle East. Nor does it mention that Israel rescued the Ethiopian Jews from miserable conditions in Ethiopia, to bring them to Israel as free men and women. SO while they did and do face some discrimination, it is not society-wide, or institutional. And including the debunked smear about "forced sterilization", no matter how obliquely it is mentioned, is grossly prejudicial. Many of the Ethiopian women who were brought to Israel received an injected form of temporary birth control. Temporary being the operative word. It is also ambiguous whether most of the women gave informed consent for the shots, or whether they did not understand what they were receiving. Because of the cultural values they carried with them from Ethiopia, none of the women would publicly admit that they wanted the birth control - it would be considered a deep insult to their husbands. But many of the women returned to the clinics for follow-up shots, suggesting that it was something they wanted.

Although this is a blog post, it does a good job of summarizing the "controversy", and explaining what really happened. There was an official investigation of the charges, in 2016, which concluded that there was some miscommunication with the recent immigrants, but no coercion. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-big-lie-involuntary-sterilization-of-black-ethiopian-women/

Further clarification: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-comptroller-ethiopians-not-forced-into-birth-control-1.5392931

Similarly, the claim of housing discrimination mentioned is based on land owned not by the government of Israel, but by a private Jewish organization which exists for the sole purpose of helping build and maintain the Jewish nature of the state. The lands owned by this group cannot be sold or leased to anyone non-Jewish, but are open to Jews of any skin color or background, including people of Arab descent who have converted to Judaism. So to characterize this as racism, and to give it credence by including it in a Wikipedia article, is extremely unethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PA Math Prof (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with Racialism."

Well, it's obviously not too far from "racialism" (it's not like it's the same word for different things, it's different words for similar things), so I would remove the above sentence and leave it to the "see also" section. --Eike sauer (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)