Talk:Institutional racism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Article length and word soupiness - how do we tackle?

Opening a new section for this as think it's a helpful standalone topic. This article is clearly far too long by any estimations. WP:TOOBIG says anything over 100kb should 'almost certainly' be divided. This article is a whopping 241kb. It is over 21,000 words long - or double the length of the longest undergraduate dissertation. There are also serious WP:BREVITY and broader readability issues here. Running the 'Classification' section through a Word readability test gives it a Flesch–Kincaid_readability_tests grade level of 22.3. (Scores are 0-100. Anything less than 60 indicates college-level readability. To be accessible, we should be aiming for 70+). Take the following as an example of a word soup:

Professor James M. Jones postulates three major types of racism: personally mediated, internalized, and institutionalized. Personally mediated racism includes the deliberate specific social attitudes to racially prejudiced action (bigoted differential assumptions about abilities, motives, and the intentions of others according to their race), discrimination (the differential actions and behaviours towards others according to their race), stereotyping, commission, and omission (disrespect, suspicion, devaluation, and dehumanization). Internalized racism is the acceptance, by members of the racially stigmatized people, of negative perceptions about their own abilities and intrinsic worth, characterized by low self-esteem, and low esteem of others like them. This racism can be manifested through embracing "whiteness" (e.g. stratification by skin colour in non-white communities), self-devaluation (e.g., racial slurs, nicknames, rejection of ancestral culture, etc.), and resignation, helplessness, and hopelessness (e.g., dropping out of school, failing to vote, engaging in health-risk practices, etc.).

This is clearly a high importance article in light of current events. I would welcome suggestions on how we move content out to other existing articles, or create them. I would also encourage editors (as I myself will be doing) to actively read through this article and copyedit into plain English to make this more accessible. Best, Darren-M talk 21:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Darren-M Maybe we should split the article into new ones, each one focusing on a different country. L.T.G (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

• Darren-M After looking over your edit I can see that there is lenght to the original paragraph in Classification; I also see where your more concise definition can shorten the word count, but does it explain how the practices and actions taken by govt, private corps, public institutions play into normalization of race based decisions that primarily affect persons of color or indigenous background? I see where there is room to reduce the lenght of the original, but don't throw the baby out with the bath water... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

This:

• The concept of institutional racism re-emerged in political discourse in the late and mid 1990s after a long hiatus, but has remained a contested concept that has been critiqued by multiple constituencies.[8] Institutional racism is the differential access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society. When the differential access becomes integral to institutions, it becomes common practice, making it difficult to rectify. Eventually, this racism dominates public bodies, private corporations, public and private universities, and is reinforced by the actions of conformists and newcomers. Another difficulty in reducing institutionalized racism is that there is no sole, true identifiable perpetrator. When racism is built into the institution, it emerges as the collective action of the population.

is not

• Institutional racism is where race causes a different level of access to the goods, services, and opportunities of society.* Is there room between the two for a more complete classification? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 13:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  CaptJayRuffins, As with all things, there is probably a happy medium, but this article needs to reduce by more than half. We need to be fairly liberal with the scissors if we're going to end up with an article that people can actually read. As L.T.G has said, I think we can look at moving content into other articles too.

  I think that for a layman, the revised wording is better and contains the gist of the previous text. I'm obviously comfortable with this going through iterations, but we do need to be careful not to reintroduce or retain any of the original research or POV pushing that exists in areas of this article. Best, Darren-M talk 14:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• Darren-M The view that this needs to be simplified for the avg joe to read is pure bunkum, the avg joe is a drumpf, they won't read it anyway. This has plenty of links to main articles, there's no need to move any of it to other articles, some of those are pretty large themselves and this is a synopsis. It's large because the problem is global in scope and the disparate threads get lost in the sheer inhumanity of what has been done over the years. There is no section on Columbus, yet that laws he imposed on Hispaniola gave a Spaniard the right the forcefully take any Taino woman he may encounter in the street, even in front of her husband. this was just a part of the genocide that he was arrested for once back in Spain. It was legal to take any woman, and kill any man who resisted. That is what we are describing in this article. But it's not there, because Leopold of Belgium ordered that any African who didn't make his quota was to have his hand chopped off. It's not there because it was culled already as covered elsewhere. It's not there becuz WP:NPOV. Not to belabor the point, the article was to show the subtle ways that Institutional racism crept into society, not the laws that outright imposed racism. There is no article for how signs for colored bathrooms/white only fountains appeared overnight in gov't offices in Wilsons administration without laws, where would the cites come from? Don't re-invent the wheel, the article may be long, if you can clean up sentence structure and grammar to whittle it down, fine. we can work to reduce sentences and paragraphs but to dis-appear the purpose of the article in the name of making it fit how articles 'should' look, there's no need. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

  CaptJayRuffins, I do not think the purpose of this article is to document every single example of institutional racism that we have seen in history. If we feel that such a list is useful, that's where it belongs - in a list, not here.

  Even if we move aside from the total article size for a moment, we need to tackle the readability of the actual prose. As referred to above, I think large parts of this article are borderline unreadable because of the complexity of descriptions used, or because of excessive use of run-on sentences. Darren-M talk 11:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• It should be clear to you by now, that most peoples inability to differentiate between their personal racial animus or lack thereof and institutional racism was the point, and why it was so in depth. I think it was BillBarr who just stated that there is no systemic racism in policing, just like there's no crying in baseball- nope. Doesn't happen...CaptJayRuffins (talk) 19:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Looking at this, my preference would be to move the vast majority of the section on United States to a new page, and I think this would then solve the bulk of the size issue with the article and would then just leave us with a task of copyediting the remain prose into being readable. Darren-M talk 11:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Darren-M I would disagree that it needs to be broken up, while some sections can benefit from better sentence structure, i.e run-ons and grammar, a wholesale makeover is not warranted. Lets get to brass tacks, where do you see bad prose? Lets id which section pique your concerns and go from there.CaptJayRuffins (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

  CaptJayRuffins, As a starter for ten, there's an example at the top of this section. Clearly more opinions need to be involved on whether the article be split, though. Darren-M talk 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

[1]"To provide readers with an understanding of the psychological causes and emotional reality of racism as it appears in everyday life, a university class comprised the following; the course incorporated the use of lectures, readings, simulation exercises, group research projects, and extensive class discussion to help students explore the psychological impact of racism on both the oppressor and the oppressed." The article followed that premise and if you visit this [2] see page V, the contents. In recognizing the scope of the subject matter this UN paper on racism as worldwide sectionalized the discussions and if we follow that conclusion, dissecting the whole to create piecemeal portions will only serve to reinforce the view taken by some that the subject is meritless. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 17:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

• Maybe we should just make a poll and see what others think. L.T.G (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Both sides

Reverted disclaimer that proports there are other sides to examples shown. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

effects on first nations children

This section was unhidden and updated with cites and links to more in depth coverage. Another difficulty in reducing institutionalized racism is that there is no sole, true identifiable perpetrator, but Canada's treatment of generations of indigenous children was egregious enough to merit coverage to better understanding of how embedded it became and lasted for more than a century, indeed continuing beyond it's exposure by use of language to hide overt racisms.CaptJayRuffins (talk) 13:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

How to get rid of systemic racism?

What has to happen for systemic racism to not exist? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.45.60.42 (talk) 17:16, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

• I could take a shot - Lets begin with the merit system. No more 'unfairly' failed to complete academy training. The black recruits to the FDNY were placed under such stress that one died. You can't say you're integrating, then punish minority applicants to have them DOR. (Drop out by their request). If they get called, lets them sink or swim with their fellows, no singling out for 'punishment'.

That would be a start. Your turn...CaptJayRuffins (talk) 19:31, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

CaptJayRuffins, 50.45.60.42 - this is a talk page to discuss proposed changes to the article, not to discuss the topic of the article itself. Best, Darren-M talk 23:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

ME

Revision as of 01:46, 19 July 2020 (edit) (undo)

67.68.30.163 (talk)

• a makeover tackling the sentence structure addressed the pacification of Algeria and the Colons. The colonists in Algeria were called that, colons. From the French invasion on 18 June 1830 until its independence, Algeria was administratively part of France, and its European population were simply called Algerians or colons (colonists), whereas the Muslim people of Algeria were called Arabs, Muslims or Indigenous. The Pied-Noir (literally 'Black-Feet') were called that, so I kept the wording even though it can be confused with the grammatic colon. Changing it to colonists may be correct as a translation, but it disguises the use of colons as it was originally used in describing the French Pied-Noir, a distinct people. I would like to change it back, just need some help in clarifying the term as applied. I'm thinking of changing colonists back to colons like this; Colons.. see the lede here French Algeria CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Harsh drug laws increased the federal prison population

I don't see how removing this section improves the article. If all factors that made up how IR affected incarceration rates are not examined, then it only serves as a mask to provide cover for actions that need attention for full roll back. It was restored. Show how it did not have an egregious effect on mass incarceration and validate it that way. Also, moving the edit on textbook non-inclusion of chicano removals to the education section missed the point. It's not an education issue, it the numbers it affected, of immigrants and non-immigrants.CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

IPP prisoners

I removed this large chunk which explicitly has nothing to do with institutional racism:

While problems with the treatment of minorities in criminal investigations were found institutional, another aspect of criminal conviction crossed the line, affecting both white and black convicts. For 7 years, the courts in the U.K. handed down sentences for minor crimes that resulted in virtual life in prison. By 2012, the use of IPP sentence guidelines were curtailed, however, three years after the sentences were abolished, more than three fourths of the 4,612 IPP prisoners still jailed in the system have passed the minimum sentence term set by the court. 200 more have been in prison for nearly a decade – despite being given a minimum sentence of less than two years. These guidelines were introduced to keep criminals behind bars until they were no longer deemed a risk to the public, but where their crimes did not warrant a fixed life sentence. Although they were designed for the most dangerous offenders, IPP sentences were given out for relatively minor crimes including affray (fighting in public), minor criminal damage worth less than 20 pounds, and shoplifting. They were ended in 2012 after the European Court of Human Rights ruled that all prisoners had the right to know how long they were being held for. UK courts stopped handing out the sentences, but the ban did nothing to impact those already serving an IPP.

In a kafkaesque turn, many cannot be released as they cannot complete the courses required as a condition of release due to them not being offered, and paperwork to conclude parole hearings is not prepared before the hearings, only after the hearing is concluded due to lack of paperwork. The situation has been exacerbated by budget cutbacks to prisons, probation, and the Parole Board, resulting in IPP prisoners becoming trapped in the system. A former Judge and Parole board member stated, "We've got a whole series of people who were caught up in indeterminate sentences who posed no danger to anyone – let alone society at large – and who are saddled with a need to remain in custody almost indefinitely." The law was originally to apply to 153 specific crimes and were expected to affect a few hundred convictions, instead it was applied widely, judges handing down 8,701 IPP sentences in just seven years – some for crimes far less serious than those specified in the original legislation. A senior high court judge describes those still incarcerated under IPP sentencing as 'the disappeared'. That these laws were abolished places those still being held under them as victims of an institutional policy gone awry, and the culture endemic to the poorer wards of the U.K.'s inner cities – drugs, fighting in the streets and general un-sociable behavior – was what brought them to be incarcerated in the first place, crimes that generally did not warrant life sentences.

82.71.12.56 (talk) 17:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

I think this is an example of 'putting a fist on the scale', where large chunks of text that clearly show the 'invisible pathways' of IR, are erased by editors 'hell bent for havoc' to reduce the size of the article. The paragraphs shown are a good example of how IR was shaped by a momentary change in British incarceration policy, which disappeared many into the prison system never to be released, similar to the French incarceration on Devil'sIsland. The IPP sentences are covered in the main article elsewhere in the encyclopedia, but without a link to connect it, so I will return it to it's place here. Give better reasons for removing it, it is cited and referenced. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the IP editor here. First of all, some of the sources are poor - legislation.gov.uk is primary, and a petitions website is absolutely not reliable. There's also some serious WP:EDITORIALIZING going on (In a kafkaesque turn...), and I get a RGW feeling from reading the prose. Most fundamentally however, this doesn't belong because none of the sources, as far as I can see, link IPP to institutional racism - the subject of this article. Any attempt to make the connection without it being explicitly referenced in the sources is OR. This has to come out, but I wouldn't be averse to something that was better-worded being included if reliable secondary sources can be identified that explicitly link IPP and IR. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

You removed a section on Institutional racism claiming it is irrelevant to the topic. Please explain how a government policy that lasted for 7 years before being ended by the European high courts decision (that prisoners have a right to know the length of their sentence) is NOT racism perpetrated by laws later deemed to have an excessive effect on minorities; (it is already proven that minorities suffer higher incarceration rates above their percentage of the population in England and wales). From where I sit, what the brits did here in creating open ended laws in terms of sentencing is equal to what they allowed the Navy to do when there was a shortage of volunteers, the policy of Impressment. Both took men away from family, home and freedom involuntarily, and many did not return to the life they had before. The only difference is the IPP sentences were legal, and thus Institutional Racism. Please return the section or edit it, removing it is contested. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC) (This comment moved here from User talk:Girth Summit GirthSummit _(blether) 12:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC))

CaptJayRuffins None of the sources that supported that content mentioned institutional racism - for you to link the two is what we call original research, which is not permitted. We do not evaluate stuff for ourselves, we summarise the content of reliable secondary sources. As I said above, if there are such sources that link IPP to IR, please provide links to them and we can discuss it, but in their absence there is no reason for this content to be in this article. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Fine, but the IP editor did not use those reasons for removing it and this just provides cover for the action taken. Find better sources, be the editor who is improving the article with better cites, they do exist. Just because the cites used did not explicitly state that this was IR, a term that was barely defined then when this was first edited in 2015, doesn't mean it's not. (Also; if I had said that the methods to get parole was a Catch-22, would you be objecting to Kafkaesque as editorializing? That was the Vice news, the Guardian used Kafkaesque CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

CaptJayRuffins, with respect, the term Institutional Racism as a term has been in common parlance in British media since at least 1999, when it was prominently mentioned in Macpherson's report on the inquiry into the Murder of Stephen Lawrence. Kafkaesque is the sort of subjective descriptor that we should never use in Wikipedia's voice in any article, but it is the sort of thing that could be attributed (so, for example, we could say something like Bob Smith, writing in the Guardian, described this situation as "kafkaesque"). Asking other editors to look for sources to support one's content isn't really fair - you obviously believe that IPP is an example of institutional racism, and I'm not saying that you are wrong about that, but the onus is on you to provide sources that demonstrate that if you want our article to say that. Seriously - that is how we write our articles - we find sources, then summarise them. We don't write content, then look for sources to support it. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

References

late to the game

Thanks to the editors who see thru the addition by LTG of NPOV and criticizing the writing. Where was s/he 5 years ago when we went thru these fights over this article. A little bit late to show up now and put a header without a factual basis and over 2,000 edits too late. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 15:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

The lede, as re-written, does not come to terms with the changes to dictionary Merriam-Websters definition of Racism, which it now also considers systemic racism. The scenes of Trump rallies where the older white male is shoving a young black African-American woman to leave the arena is a stark example of both racism and institutional racism - the individual doing the shoving is motivated by the tone set by trump (the political organization) where blacks have no place because they vote democratic(institutional), and in physically removing the woman he has rendered in his mind that no one present will object because she is up to no good in being there as a person of color(racism). In directing the lede away from Racism (and its sub form-Institutional racism) to Racial Discrimination renders the immediate topic confused in its direction. While this lede has been subject to some previous edits which at that time I allowed as part of the process where an article is best when done by multiple editors, these last two edits don't sit well, anyone? CaptJayRuffins (talk) 12:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

CaptJayRuffins, I think you are talking about my edit here. If so, a ping would have been helpful. I think I understand your point, so I'm happy for it to stay as racism. I've gone ahead and amended the visible text as your last edit has left the page as linking to racism, but showing as racial discrimination, which I think makes it even more confusing. I've now ensured that both the link and the text are 'racism'. Best, Darren-M talk 12:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC) **Thanks, I was waiting for input before reverting fully CaptJayRuffins (talk) 13:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

LTG tried to make a case for verbosity and wasn't convincing enough to warrant keeping the edits and templates. We did the fact checking back in 2015 and any sources that weren't strong then were edited out, the lede went thru many changes and to come along now calling subjective and emotional writing is just a case of I'm disagreeing and we can't come to any consensus that will please my POV, so lets agree to disagree. I've taken time to go over what you are bringing up but it not holding water in this particular subject. To explain how subtle racism has crept into everyday actions and institutions the easiest method is by showing instances that over time has fueled its rise until the push back is overt, like Rodney King and the Riots that followed in L.A.1992. Unless LTG is willing to add to the discussion of the topic, I don't see how the templates placed on the heading can stand. It's just vandalism, and should be taken down. CaptJayRuffins (talk) 01:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

CaptJayRuffins, I agree that the page is far too long, and I agree that there are elements within it which may not be WP:NPOV. I think those are both legitimate and reasonable views to hold. It is clearly not vandalism if an edit is made in good faith, and I think it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. As a point to note, your comments come across as slightly asserting ownership of this article. Best, Darren-M talk 12:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I did write the bulk of the article back in 2015, and have been fairly hands off since. Hard to not see the placing of the templates on the header as anything but bad edits, the only viable reason seems a bad faith effort to cloud the premise, as has been done by more than a few who were more overt in using more obvious language in the past. That the use of the term 'systemic racism' has cropped up in many places recently due to the BLM protests-if it is in no part affecting this particular editors actions, I have to say that's a dog of a different stripe. Complain as they may about the length of the article, I've not even contemplated the dutch in Africa, the Germans and the Mau-Mau, the Russians and the Armenian genocide, the Greeks/Italians and African migration, or any other issues of Institutional racism; because it would be too long. Dr. Fauci, the US infectious disease expert commented yesterday in testimony before a congressional sub-committee that he thought Institutional racism is dis-proportionally playing a role in the impact of Covid-19 on blacks in the US. The entire point was to illuminate the structures that were in place around the world that defined Institution racism, as a subset of general racist behavior. I see where edits have been done in the article to change the original wording by simply just one letter, completely fouling what was originally posted. So, please forgive if I seem a bit protective. I know when you don't challenge the small things, then things like what was just done on the header tends to slip by... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 17:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• Darren-M Thank you for your understanding. We all may have different opinions on the matter but, as long we presume good faith, we can make progress. Understanding that the perspective of others may have merits is the first step towards the truth, albeit oft an uncomfortable one. CaptJayRuffins I understand you may have some sort of an attachment to this article but know that only by challenging ourselves and our beliefs we can better ourselves. Here are some related quotes:

"He who stifles free discussion, secretly doubts whether what he professes to believe is really true." ~ Wendell Phillips

"If any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. … Though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied … Even if the received opinion be not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be held in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension [of] or feeling [for] its rational grounds." John Stuart Mill

Wish you the best L.T.G (talk) 20:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

@L.T.G: All you have contributed to this article are 3 accusations, and the deletion of a sentence. Since you believe the problems within this article are "atrocious", it is expected of you to aid in the redressing of them. Please heavily consider helping us in rewriting and/or amending this article's faults so it is less bias, unnecessarily long, and essay-like. Thanks, GyozaDumpling (talk) 01:28, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

@GyozaDumpling: My point was not to make "accusations" but to warn others that the article may not be completely neutral. I will try to make further improvements when I have the time, best wishes. L.T.G (talk) 07:34, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

No mention of Israel?

The article mentions the cases of colonial states such as French Algeria and South Africa, yet makes no mention of Israel and it's treatment of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, or the discrimination by Israel against Palestinians with Israeli citizenship. Why is that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.228.62.178 (talk) 19:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

This is covered extensively elsewhere and apartheid is the applied adjective... CaptJayRuffins (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Institutional vs. Systemic vs. Societal vs. Structural

I think there is confusion between the four terms above. IMHO, it's hard to classify "institutional" and "systemic" separately from "societal" and "structural" as these terms sometimes are used interchangeably (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_racism and https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-is-systemic-racism-and-institutional-racism-131152 seems to indicate "systemic" as also being a "society" level issue). At the very least, maybe we could link "societal racism" as a related article here?

Also wondering if there's a someone can link an article distinguishing all of these concepts better. Thanks!

Jeffxtreme (talk) 18:58, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Went ahead and made the appropriate edits to associate some of these. Please discuss here if there anything more we could do to clean this up; thanks! Jeffxtreme (talk) 21:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

The article is poorly written in the extreme, lacks NPOV and uses too many words

Neutrality - The article is promoting an agenda rather than objectively and neutrally describing the subject. Here are a few examples:

1." many black veterans were unfairly denied disability pension by the union army disability pension system" - from "In health and environment".

2."With the combination of severe and unbalanced drug possession laws along with the rates of conviction in terms of race, the judicial system has created a huge racial disparity - from "In criminal conviction".

3."Members of Congress and state legislators believed these harsh, inflexible sentences would catch those at the top of the drug trade and deter others from entering it. Instead, this heavy-handed response to the nation's drug problem... - from "Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986".

4. "While unfair treatment remains, other lasting effects have yet to be resolved." - from "In higher education".

5."If institutional racism is to be addressed in institutes of higher education, different types of interventions need to be created, in particular, interventions created specifically for the academy" - from "Impact on students".

Examples of verbosity

1." Studies in major cities such as Los Angeles and Baltimore show that communities of color have lower levels of access to parks and green space.[28][29] Parks are considered an environmental amenity and have social, economic, and health benefits. The public spaces allow for social interactions, increase the likelihood of daily exercise in the community and improve mental health. They can also reduce the urban heat island effect, provide wildlife habitat, control floods, and reduce certain air pollutants. Minority groups have less access to decision-making processes that determine the distribution of parks." - from "In housing and loan". Here is an extremely unnecessary and wearying description of what a park is.

In summation, this article is atrociously biased and essay like and therefore should be substantively revised. L.T.G (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

• I agree about your point under "Examples of verbosity"

  Baltimore is very weird to be used as a example for systemic racism, that city is not only black majority but everyone in a position of power in that city is black. It's mayor is black, so is the police chief, and even the person representing the district is a black man named Kweisi Mfume. Los Angeles is also a majority minority city and it too is ran by minority groups, mostly people of hispanic descent in this case. It's mayor is of partial Mexican and Jewish ancestry, the police chief is of Spanish descent and his birth last name is Sanchotena. So i fail to see how white people hold sway or oppression in these places as these article blatantly implies, considering that the power is concentrated in the hands of "people of color". 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:750C:DF1A:5738:EA94 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I do not agree with any of the points made above.

    The assertion that the Wikipedia page on institutional racism is poorly written and not neutral is unsupported. It cites problems by showing original text. That original text is referenced, your counter assertions are not. The dispute makes no effort to show how those passages from the article or their reference are biased or poorly written. Saying they are poorly written or not neutral does not make them so. Support your assertion.

    Additionally, whoever posted this Bot response about Baltimore is showing classic signs of institution denial of racism. The Wikipedia post on this topic points out the very definition of institutional racism - isn't about the people who make up the institution, but the underlying ways that institution promotes racism systemically, by denying education, employment, loans and funding, etc. That goes for any city or area no matter who is in charge. Those decisions aren't made by the people in "power" in the city of Baltimore. It comes by the lack of funding from a depleted tax base. Much of the high paying jobs are in predominantly white areas of the state outside of Baltimore. That's not an opinion. Look at the demographics of high paying jobs in the state and the percentage of of non-black population that live there. Why does that matter? Taxes. They pay for the police and emergency services, public education. What follows is poor education, unemployment and crime. Did the people in power in the city cause those those problems? Are they alone responsible for fixing them after the problem built up over decades and generations? How can you fix a low tax base? How can you fix chronic funding shortages? Even if the state kicks in funding, which it does, and the federal government, the problem persist because the underlying cause is not being addressed or fixed which is the disparity in top flight education and jobs that spur high economic growth in a community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.30.17.63 (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• • • It is for the writer to justify his or her writing, not the critic. To paraphrase Bertrand Russell, if I say there is a teapot orbiting the earth, it is for me to prove that it is there, not for someone else to prove that it is not there. The claims you're making are unsubstantiated, and your rhetoric is unconvincing. You seem to have taken your liberal arts education literally, but not seriously. Fountainpeninkwell (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

My post was not a "bot response" at all, and you saying that is just an ad hominem attack on me because you can't refute what I posted. My post was and is based upon logic and common sense. Most of the large cities in the nation have minority mayors, minority police chiefs, minority DAs, minority majority city councils etc etc - if there was systemic racism then that would not be possible - as the "systemic racism" of the people who are supposedly wielding invisible power [i suppose white people] would not give up power like that. Logic by itself refutes Baltimore and Los Angeles being given as examples of "systemic racism". Sorry but those cities are ran by minorities at every level and while you may not like those facts because it harms the narrative in this article, you are not entitled to your own facts. They are what they are. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:BD61:FFFA:D00:3C7D (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• L.T.G., I read over your post and thought I'd see if you were right. In your very first item, you say that the article is extremely biased and has an agenda and blah blah because it says that "many black veterans were unfairly denied disability pension"; you put "unfairly" in bold because, I suppose, you think that "unfairly" is biased. As it happens, there is a citation there (Wilson, S. E. (2010). "Racial discrimination in the union army disability pension system, 1865-1906". American Journal of Public Health. 100: S56–S65. doi:10.2105/ajph.2009.172759. PMC 2837429. PMID 20147675.) in which a researcher states that there was racial discrimination in the de facto awarding of disability pensions. I don't know if you read that source (I doubt it), but I did: the researcher investigated more than 40,000 cases to come to these conclusions. So, the only thing that I can conclude is that you must think that there can be "fair" racial discrimination, one way or another? To put it another way: if the very first item of your complaint is already prima facie invalid, I don't see the need to look at the rest of them. Drmies (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• Drmies First I want to note that writing 'blah blah' is a very mature and civil way of replying so thank you for your courtesy. It is really rare these days. Second that there is a citation does not mean anything regarding neutrality since the source may be biased itself. Third I put 'unfairly' in bold since it is clearly a subjective judgment and not the result of objective uncaring observation on the nature of USA's society. Here is a word of advice: Do not just assume that if I am mistaken (in your opinion) about one point that this implies the rest of my arguments are equally wrong as well, but rather try to give me the benefit of the doubt and figure out why did I make this claim in the first place. My problem with the article is that it seems like it tries to convey a sense of victimhood where it should have only cited the data collected by dependable sources without ever showing any kind of emotional writing which is so prevalent in this article. L.T.G (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Well, instead of "blah blah" I could say "you use way too many words, and you probably got a bunch of those words from a thesaurus, and it's really unhelpful because my time on earth is limited and I don't want to waste it". Here is the thing: if you CLAIM something is biased and the referenced CLEARLY says things were done unfairly, that is, based on race, then you are wrong. You can say "oh it's subjective" but it's not--and what you are telling us is that you a. don't understand how bias works (you say "the source may be biased itself", when that source is American Journal of Public Health) and b. you don't really understand how encyclopedic writing works. So if that is your first point, yes, and it's so clearly wrong, then I don't have the patience for your second point. So opinions are great, but if they are not based on solid facts and arguments, they're not very valid opinions. Drmies (talk) 17:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• CaptJayRuffins Again I appreciate the civility and non-judgmental attitude. You may want to deny all this, but it is totally fine, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. let's just agree to disagree. L.T.G (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• L.T.G., to add my opinion to this discussion, although the tone might have been abrasive, CaptJayRuffins and Drmies have good points. Many edits have been made before to this page many years ago, and your assertions of bias are your personal opinion. You quote multiple examples, but in no cases offer proof that the sources don't support the text. Proper research can indeed show that some people where treated unfairly, that sentences were harsh, or that some laws are severe, I don't think this is controversial. The onus is on you to show that these sources are biased, if such is your intention to put them in doubt. If you find some elements in the sources that disprove the quotes in question, or show that the sources themselves are biased or somehow flawed, then you would have a good point. Until then, this remains your opinion that the page is biased, not anything factual. I am neutral on the verbosity of the article, some elements probably can be shortened but I don't think this can be generalised to the entire article. I personally would remove the POV and Essay-like tags until more proof is advanced, because as they are now, they hurt the credibility of the page without valid reason. 2A02:120B:C3D9:F350:BDBB:6E88:B8F0:1238 (talk) 16:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
• Thanks, IP. Now, there are plenty of problems with the article; it's written like so many general, "container" articles--with no global coverage, with overwhelming slant toward English-speaking countries, and with very little understanding of the broad concept, so that as a result we have a plethora of examples and little sections but no idea of the whole. Even the start of the article is flawed cause it can't decide if it's about the term (which may have been used first in 1967 or whenever) or the concept (which is much older and is treated already in Jacob Riis)--and by hundreds if not thousands of writers who discussed European slavery practices. So in that sense LTG has a point about verbosity, but that's not their sense. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

• Now the tone is more conducive to civil a discussion so thank you for that. If you don't have time to read then just ignore my comments because sometimes we can't express ourself laconically and give a satisfactory answer at the same time.

1. With respect to what can be construed as biased here is an excerpt from wiki guideline about NPOW subsection 'Impartial tone':

"Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article.

The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone."

2. The examples I have given plausibly demonstrate a lack of impartiality. There are no facts to speak of since we are having a theoretical discussion about the article's journalistic quality rather than a scientific or mathematical discussion. Your stating that this is all my opinion is a bad heuristic since I can reply saying your rebuttal is only your opinion also. We are all trying, using rational guesses and abductive reasoning, to reach the best possible conclusion. Now I am not saying the source is biased, though it is not impossible. Take a look at what I edited out before I tag the article: "Another impediment to redressing the effects of institutional racism occurred in the 1990s after President George H. W. Bush attempted to eliminate affirmative action" from 'Affirmative action' on 4 of June 2020. This kind of wording, I think, is clearly biased. It displays a controversial topic from the viewpoint of the supporters, suggesting that those who oppose affirmative action are in reality trying to preserve 'institutional racism'. Using subjective language, I would say, is inappropriate and unbecoming for any respectable would-be encyclopedia. Words such as 'harsh', 'unbalanced' and 'unfair' refer to something that does not exist in reality, only in perception. A similar example would be stating that some rock bands are good or bad. Even with a reliable source, this kind of expression is subjective and should be removed.

If we cannot agree on this then no proof can be adduced by either side, for our reasoning is based on different axioms and criteria.

• Like I said before it seems we can not come to an agreement. That is fine, let's just leave it at that. I think any further discussion will serve no purpose since our fundamental premises are different and no progress can be made anymore.

(btw "probably got a bunch of those words from a thesaurus" is really funny considering I am using plain and simple English, lol.) L.T.G (talk) 15:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Brand new here. I created an account to ask about source [167] "Zhang, A., Musu-Gillette, L., and Oudekerk, B.A. (2016). Indicators of School Crime and Safety: 2015 (NCES 2016-079/NCJ 249758). National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education, and Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Washington, DC." It doesn't seem to be specified in the source which ethnicity the reported college campus hate crimes were against. Since the rest of the report details victimizations by ethnicity in various k-12 settings - and often the rates are either variable or disparate depending on type of victimization and ethnicity, it doesn't seem factually accurate to attribute all the college-reported hate crimes to systemic racism without having the data to support it. Thanks! ResearcherPersons (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Delete the article and start over

This article is patently ridiculous. The page has nearly 400 citations, many of which do nothing more than cite news websites. If institutional racism is real, which seems far from proven, it is hugely undermined by the waffle and original research on this page. In addition, the policy seems largely to be that things can only be added, not removed. The article has become, or perhaps was always, extremely political. Those who are first to the party in adding content have enormous privilege; it is for some reason for others to justify why the section should be removed, rather than the author having to justify why it should be added. This article should not be attempting to further the cause of institutional racism. Wikipedia is not a political platform. I have attempted to remove the portions of sections that do not comply with the guidelines, only to have the edit reversed, being told that I have to suggest removing a section in the Talk section. Wikipedia is supposed to be a source people come to for facts, not opinions.

Therefore I move that this article be deleted and rewritten in compliance with the Wikipedia guidelines. Fountainpeninkwell (talk) 10:51, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to delete the article, that process is WP:AFD. But I doubt you will have any support for it, to be honest. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

The page has nearly 400 citations, many of which do nothing more than cite news websites. That's what is supposed to happen. The information in this article is verified with WP:SECONDARY sourcing. WP:TNT does not appear to be required. Please make specific points about what should be changed and then those proposed changes can be discussed. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

This article has many assertions without reference.

The section on Algiers is particularly egregious. It is highly opinionated. The most ridiculous part is where the reason(completely unsupported) for the French invading Algiers is utterly ridiculous and the real reason is listed as an aside AND misrepresented. The real reason was state sanctioned piracy in Northern Africa. It was a HUGE problem for ALL seagoing people in the area. It was STATE SANCTIONED. It was even the motivation for the creation of the US Navy when the US decided to build 6 frigates to combat pirates in Northern Africa. Read about the Second Barbary War and learn that Algiers was RUN BY THE PIRATES. The Dey of Algiers (leader) was a pirate and openly pursued that endeavor. The French conquest of Algiers was considered one of the great CONTRIBUTIONS to human decency and lawful peace during the Napoleonic era. A pirate nation that murdered, kidnapped and enslaved huge numbers of people and made large swaths of European coastline uninhabitable was put down by the French. Assertions of racism need to include that FACT in order to have any hope of serious analysis and identification of racism. To characterize a huge and terrible problem that had destroyed and harmed so many people in Europe as an aside vs a flyswatter is so vapid and ridiculous that it throws the entire article into question.2600:1700:6D90:79B0:41BD:7137:1827:6C26 (talk) 02:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Lead: “is a term”

I’m looking to gain consensus to make what I hope is an obvious improvement to the Lead, although I’m anticipating that this might cause some (non-policy-based) controversy. The first sentence currently reads (emphasis added):

Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a term that refers to a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organization.

I think we should change this to:

Institutional racism, also known as systemic racism, is a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organization.

There are (at least) 2 policy-based reasons for this change: 1. WP:NOTDICT: This article is about institutional racism (the thing itself, the phenomenon), not about the definition of the term “institutional racism.” 2. WP:V: Our cited sources are discussing institutional racism (the thing itself, the phenomenon), and are not discussing the term “institutional racism.”

I’m anticipating some controversy re: this change based on discussions over at Talk:White Privilege about a similar issue (where it was correctly decided to refer to the thing itself, the phenomenon of white privilege), although the Talk archives on the Institutional Racism article don’t seem to have had the same discussions. Those who believe that institutional racism doesn’t exist may think that saying that institutional racism is a form of racism… asserts the actual existence of institutional racism, while saying that institutional racism is a term avoids this assertion. But this is mistaken. Saying that institutional racism is a form of racism does not assert institutional racism’s actual existence any more than saying that God is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent asserts God’s actual existence. Further, clearly, the term “institutional racism” exists, and so if we’re claiming that institutional racism is a term, then people who believe that institutional racism doesn’t actually exist would be falsely claiming that the term doesn’t exist, while those of us who believe that institutional racism does exist would be accurately claiming that the term does exist (but that is clearly not what the disagreement is over—the disagreement is over the actual existence of institutional racism, the thing itself, the phenomenon).

What are people’s thoughts on this change? Thanksforhelping (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

I’ve made the change. If anyone is unhappy with it, let me know.Thanksforhelping (talk) 20:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that "institutional racism" is very much a "term" (or perhaps a "concept"), and the fact that whether "institutional racism" is real is such a controversial subject is evidence that it would not be NPOV for the article to state, unequivocally and in its introduction, that society is, institutionally, racist. And I don't think that calling it a "term" (or "concept") is the equivalent of stating that it doesn't exist. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 23:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

It's real as any social science conceptualization (intelligence, race, crime, etc.). How it is operationalized is more what's debated among scholars. Some pundits like to say it doesn't exist because it's not an individual-level trait, but that's incorrect. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Of course “institutional racism” is a term (there it is in this very sentence, surrounded by quotation marks), and of course it’s a concept (which is how we’re able to think about it, since concepts are the mental analogs of terms). But this article is about institutional racism, the thing itself, not about terms or concepts. Our sources are talking about the thing itself, not about the terms or concepts that refer to the thing itself. And so, contrary to your claim, it would be a violation of WP:NPOV to say that it is a term or a concept, since that would be a misrepresentation of our sources. Please note that the Lead does not state, unequivocally or otherwise, that society is institutionally racist. Explaining, as the Lead does, what institutional racism is in no way says or implies that institutional racism is instantiated in society (I discussed this exact issue in my original comment). And the problem with describing institutional racism as a term or concept (as I also noted above) is not that that description implies that institutional racism doesn’t exist, but that such a description is inaccurate per our sources and inappropriate per WP:NOTDICT. Thanksforhelping (talk) 04:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nashun Overton.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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): Apinkins.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"Canada" section

English is not my native language, but I noticed someone noted that the section about Canada doesn't mention racism towards "Black Canadians". I indeed think that the section need to be reworked. There's already a "Further" template sending people to another article, and I think there are enough information over there for someone to rework the "Canada" section here and write about Black Canadians; probably like the "Anti-Chinese immigration laws" section. -Philippemorin123 (talk) 18:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

OK, so I did it myself, but it's really a temporary solution I think. 🤷‍♂️ -Philippemorin123 (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Needs better defining

There are clearly a range of different opinions on what constitutes racism, and maybe we can discuss whether or not there's any consensus or, if not, how best to present the term neutrally. But as it stands right now, this article appears to muddle vastly different phenomena together under the umbrella of 'racism'. For example,

"There were other anti-immigration policies throughout U.S. history against France and Ireland in the late 1700s, and Southern Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Jews, Africans, Arabs, East Asians and Indians with the Immigration Act of 1924."''

Immigration restrictions are not, ipso facto, examples of institutional racism. The Alien & Sedition Acts of 1798, for example, was the Federalist's response to revolutions in Western Europe and had more to do with politics than race. It is misleading to readers to present this content in a section on anti-Chinese and anti-Mexican immigration laws, which were vastly different phenomena.

The definition in the lead of the article is broad, encompassing "culture" and "skin colour" as well as "ethnicity" (another ambiguous term). This definition may work in the UK, which historically had a predominantly 'British' or 'Western European' population, but this is not how Americans understand racism, and it has little explanatory value in American history.

The Chinese Exclusion Acts were undeniably racist[3]. They denied entry into the US on the basis of biological differences and not just national origins. But The Alien and Sedition Acts occurred under a different context altogether. These were a series of 4 laws passed by the Federalist Party during a quasi-war or 'cold war' with France. The Naturalization Act, one of the 4 laws, merely extended the residency and notice periods for new immigrants, but had very limited impact since most immigrants could easily circumvent the new restrictions, which were repealed a few years later. Note in the Naturalization Act of 1798 article:

"most historians conclude it was really intended to decrease the number of citizens, and thus voters, who disagreed with the Federalist Party."

So there is agreement that this was a political posture and had nothing to do with race and is not an example of institutional racism. Jonathan f1 (talk) 19:26, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

South Africa Section

The South Africa section of this article needs to either be completely rewritten or thoroughly revised. It feels as if someone who knows absolutely nothing about apartheid wrote it and to such a degree that it would not appear out of place in a satirical space. Is apartheid not the single best example of this topic? I would assume that entire subsections could be transcluded from the page on apartheid.

I just can't help but laugh at how this article references a subject's similarity to apartheid on multiple occasions, without describing the substance of the similarity, and then barely musters one paragraph on the subject.

What I'm trying to say is that it's a very bad look. Pernicious.Editor (talk) 21:11, 11 December 2022 (UTC)