From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Racism:

  • More diverse representation from non-White, non-Western opinions/sources which might are poorly represented due to very issues of institutional racism discussed here. This article is victim of discussing the state of oppressed people by non-oppressed people. How many Native Australian ref? How many African ones, how many views from grassroots orgs?--Inayity (talk) 09:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

How on earth does the ethnic/racial background of the author(s) of an article create value or merit within an article's content at all, and, if that is the case, how on earth is that not the explicit assignment of value a priori based on race to the race, and so ironically in the reference article on racism? This seems to me a wholly inappropriate "to-do" item for any article, and especially so for "Racism".

Anti-White Racism[edit]

A user attempted to revert my edit about Sarah Jeong and anti-white racism. I believe I am wholly justified in posting relevant articles to justify the fact of Jeong's racism. -Noto-Ichinose (talk 13:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

it's WP:UNDUE EvergreenFir (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

:: I wouldn't consider The Guardian and Fox News minority viewpoints. -Noto-Ichinose (talk 14:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You misrepresented the articles. She was not a NYT employee, and it appears her remarks were mocking racism. Your claims are WP:BLP violations. O3000 (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
What makes you say "it appears her remarks were mocking racism"? It appears she was making racist remarks. Is the subjective whim of what you think appears to be the case grounds for editing an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:4992:29DB:D9DE:657E (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
This is not a discussion forum, and the Jeong non-incident does not belong in the article. —JBL (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a place to discuss Wikipedia edits, which is what I'm doing. The justification for removing the edit is poor and partly based on a subjective interpretation for Jeong's motives. On what objective grounds does the Jeong incident not belong in the article? And on what grounds do the incidents already included in the article belong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:A5DE:5307:65E6:6892 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You've gotten your answer, and the reasons have been clearly explained.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The reasons given seem subjective and not very reasonable. Again, on what objective basis does this incident not belong in the article? The above link does not establish any reasonable or clear explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:13A:F8E9:99F5:C708 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Because it is obviously undue: the "event" was three months ago, and it had no encyclopedic significance and no lasting impact on anything. In another 6 months no one except deranged obsessives will remember it, and with good reason. There is 0 chance of adding anything about it to the article. Further persistence on this point would be disruptive. --JBL (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Please provide a source that details objective grounds for what does and does not constitute an "undue" event. Should we comb through Wikipedia and analyze each entry for relevancy? Because we all can point to entries that are "undue" and that will be forgotten after a few months. Is there a 6 month relevancy Wikipedia criteria you can please point me to?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1b0:ae90:a52f:aab4:85a7:b2ba (talkcontribs)
No single event within the last months has any relevance for the way wikipedia should cover the broad and general topic of "racism". Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the links. I'm just trying to understand Wikipedia's criteria for what is and isn't relevant material for an entry.
I've struck through the original poster's remarks as he was a sockpuppet evading a block. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
There are a million events a day related to racism. Unknown millions of people have died due to racism. How does this tweet stand out as worthy of entry in a general article about racism in an encyclopedia? O3000 (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
As I said above, I'm trying to understand the objective standard for does and does not constitute a relevant entry. Someone's subjective take on a matter should not be the standard; there should be objective guidelines. Otherwise, what's the point of an encyclopedic collection of information?
Ideally, you would have something like a book from a recognized expert in the history/sociology/etc of racism, and that source should deal with anti-white racism generally, rather than trying to start with the opinion of pundits (who are after all, professional outrage-expressers and personal-opinion-havers) about some particular tweet (likely itself of no particular historic importance) and go from that particular instance into generalizing some statement about the phenomenon as a whole. The step of generalization there, of moving from particular instances to general assumptions and broad phenomenon, should be done by experts in the field, and we on Wikipedia should follow their analysis, rather than trying to formulate analyses of our own. GMGtalk 17:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2018[edit]

Change X 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.

To Y Racism is defined as a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. e.g. Basketball, Intelligence, work ethic, etc. The results are discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity, either for or against their benefit. (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The current lead is more concise; in my opinion, it's needlessly wordy. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek talktome 20:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Probably also note that racism does not result in prejudice. Racism is prejudice, and results in discrimination...and as far as I can tell, inherent inferiority or superiority isn't a necessary component. Compare almost cartoonish inter-war European antisemitism, of which a large part was/is not necessarily that Jews were inferior, but that Jews were evil...often seen as caricature-ish-ly successful, wealthy, cunning, so-on and so-forth, but nonetheless somehow preoccupied with taking over the world and drinking the fresh blood of Christian children, because vampires or something. GMGtalk 13:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"...Racism does not result in prejudice, Racism is prejudice."... The definition of prejudice actually supports the antithesis of this notion... The "antitheses" being "Racism" compels one to develop "prejudices"(results in), "racism" is, in of itself, NOT "prejudice"... I.E. the more likely scenario, or train of thought would be... "That person has black skin & I am intolerant of such therefore I am going to irrationally preconceive my personal judgment of that persons character, without actually having any prior knowledge what so ever of that persons character, based on the fact that that persons skin is black & my intolerance of such."... Not... "I have irrationally preconceived my personal judgment of that persons character without actually having any prior knowledge what so ever of that persons character even though nothing at all is compelling me to do so but immediately upon doing so I will become intolerant of people with black skin for some inexplicable reason."... Just like "racism" & "bigotry", the official notion that "racism" & "prejudice" are "synonymous" is grossly incorrect as the relationship between racism & prejudice is not one of "concurrent equality", but one of "consecutive compulsion".... The applicable action in relation to "racism" is harboring irrational, unreasonable intolerance due to ignorance, the applicable action in relation to "Prejudice" is passing irrational, unsupported judgment based on ignorance, are the phrases "harboring intolerance" & "passing judgment" synonymous with one another? No, they are not. Is the action of "harboring irrational, unreasonable intolerance due to ignorance" identical to the action of "passing irrational, unsupported judgment based on ignorance"? No it is not, therefore "Racism" & "prejudice" are neither synonymous in phrase or identical in action"....

Side note, interestingly enough, the relationship between "racism" & "prejudice" is the same going both directions as the act of "passing irrational, unsupported judgment based on ignorance." can also compel one to "harbor irrational, unreasonable intolerance due to ignorance."....Still a relationship of "consecutive compulsion" & not a relationship of "concurrent equality" though.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Disputed Accuracy[edit]

The current definition of racism as a belief is wrong and does not reflect the literature on the topic which has long distinguished between different forms of racism only some of which are primarily beliefs, others of which operate independently of any specific belief. The current definition is misleading and should be corrected as soon as possible, probably by reverting to one of the earlier longstanding consensus definitions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...yes...I was mulling this over in my head. There's plenty of literature for example on intitutional racism, which may often occur because of structural inequities without any certain individual holding any certain belief that draws a direct line from thoughts to outcomes. GMGtalk 14:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Institutional racism is holdovers of past racism. But, I think it’s kept alive long term by current racism. If a ray from outer space hit the earth and instantly wiped out prejudice, it would not wipe out institutional racism. But, how long would it continue without aide from current racist beliefs? In any case, the suggestion that we look at the literature is a bit vague. I think the term will morph as long as humans feel a need distinguish various groups. O3000 (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Institutional racism can also result from a poor institutional response to a social problem that is itself racially stratified in a way that is independent of the institutions that respond poorly to the social problem. So... off the top of my head, blacks are substantially more likely to die from heart disease, and a poor public health regime related to heart disease would therefore have a disproportionately negative effect on that group, even though on an individual level, white and black persons of similar backgrounds would both encounter the same poor public health regime. GMGtalk 15:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The definition should be broad enough to encompass all the main definitions of the term racism - it currently does not, but only includes one, and one which recent literature specifically tends to consider inadequate.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with this statement.--౪ Santa ౪99° 14:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree with: racism is the belief that there a races, and racial characteristics which are specific to their race. If you think that there are races, you are having a racist thought. (User:Pedant) (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I agree the definition should be broader, but I would say the belief segment can still ring true for many individuals following historical connotation from white supremacy. I find that points of contention in discussions regarding race often stem from different definitions. For example, I posit that it's possible if not common for an individual to make a racist remark without being (a) racist. So how about changing from X "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." to Y "Racism is discrimination or prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity, or a belief in the superiority of one race over another. The use of the terms "racism" or "racist" does not easily fall under a single definition." This would put the broader definition in front, immediately followed by a common layman connotation. 2601:601:9A7F:F1C4:6099:1E43:D57:A9E1 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether or not there are "races" is a scientific question, and few racists are interested in science. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to all other races, and should be treated differently. It is inherently irrational. For example, racists claim that Blacks are inferior because they are less intelligent than Whites, while Jews are inferior because they are more intelligent (cunning, crafty) than Whites. It has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with dominance. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2019[edit]

Racist = a person who seeks to create antifical difference between people, and/or seeks to maintain an artificial difference between people. Mrbikejoc1 (talk) 06:00, 15 March 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. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Contradiction in first paragraph?[edit]

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)

Grammatical error in Color Blind section[edit]

In the Color Blind section, I suggest "as way to address the results" be changed to "as a way to address the results" — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 08:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Racism of low expectations listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]


An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Racism of low expectations. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)