Talk:Racism/Archive 18

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

← Archive 17 |

Archive 18

| Archive 19 →

Incorrect assertion

In the definitions section, the following appears: "the US Government's Human Genome Program has announced that the most complete mapping of human DNA to date proves conclusively that "race" itself does not exist."

I found this quite surprising, so I consulted the reference given and found this: "DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans... no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another."

These statements do not accord with the statement in the article and they appear to have been misunderstood. The source is saying that DNA studies don't show the existence of clear racial divisions - this is quite different from saying they prove conclusively that race does not exist.

As a deliberately absurd analogy to highlight the error, consider this: DNA studies do not show that different languages exist. This is perfectly true. It is false to say that as a consequence, DNA studies prove that languages do not exist. They do exist, but they exist in a manner which lies outside of the framework of this particular type of DNA analysis.

A correct paraphrasing of the research would be something like "[the research] indicates that there is no distinct genetic basis to racial types." 217.43.81.99 (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this up; it's been changed to your suggested wording now. -kotra (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we should it is a good idea because the two things do mean almost the same thing. By Bob Heffermen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.0.26 (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Racism Article is Extreme Anti-White Propaganda

How can anyone believe, for a second, that racism is predominantly white? Yet the vast majority of the text is an attack on white people.

It is hypocritical to discuss racism as being a "bad thing" while stereotyping whites!

I know quite a few white people that have been on the receiving end of physical violence from groups of blacks - in London and Tokyo. In my experience I've never thought that whites were more predisposed to racism than any other race. But THIS ARTICLE cites almost no balanced reports of racism initiated by non-whites.

Are Zimbabweans racist? What about Hutu/Tutsi Rwandan violence? How about Black/Mexican racism in the USA? What about Japanese racism towards all foreigners?

Seems to me the author(s) of this article are nothing but ni.. blacks with an axe to grind against white people with absolutely no valid reason. Wanna cry about slavery several generations STARTED BY AFRICANS??? If there weren't whites to buy the slaves I guess your grandpappy would just have been killed by other Africans. What about the Europeans forced to work in German labour camps during WWII?

GROW UP!!! STOP ATTACKING WHITES YOU RACIST BLACK SUPREMACISTS. YOU COWARDLY PATHETIC SUPREMACISTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.140.87 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this, some points are worth making.

Firstly, the intro to the article appears entirely objective. It does not take a view from any particular perspective.

The article itself contains references throughout to international history, and several mentions of the United Nations, which is not a black or white body, but international.

Similarly, the inter-African racism brought up in the above is of a different order to the European/Afican racism and one should bring different standards to bear in assessing it's significance, given that there is not room for everything to be included in the article. There are probably countless examples of racism which could be cited, from most regions on earth. However the "white European" history is particularly significant for several reasons including the history of global colonialism, which has no equivalent elsewhere, and the German state which led to the outbreak of World War II. These deserve prominence in an analysis of the subject. Also, the emergence of science in Europe led to Darwin and genetics which have a particularly pronounced one-sidedness in the perspectives they fostered, because science was something particular to privileged white men, and is a dominant force in European society.

(As for Europeans forced to work in German labour camps - I don't see the relevance to racism. Jews were incarcerated because of their race; Europeans were incarcerated for other reasons, eg political views. There were Germans in the camps too!)

Another issue is the existence of reliable sources. It would be valuable to have solid information on racism in South East Asia, South America, or within Africa for example - but sources will not be as easy to come by. However I would welcome some additional coverage provided it is encylopedic. 217.43.81.99 (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

""white European" history is particularly significant for several reasons including the history of global colonialism which has no equivalent elsewhere" This is not true. There were many international empires centuries before the European empires of 1492 onwards. To give just one example Genghis Khan's Mongol empire was the biggest continuous empire the world has ever seen. It stretched from Central Europe to the Sea of Japan and was built on extreme brutality. It's estimated that between 30 and 40 million people were killed to build that empire - all in the lifetime of one man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too much talk of non-racism/anti-racism in this article

There have clearly been some defenders of Greek and Moslem history in this article who have brought up examples of anti-racism from those cultures and in the case of moslems it seems the examples of racism towards blacks have largely been removed. I'm not sure there is room in this article for this - it is after all an article about racism not anti-racism. If we're going to go down that line then we might as well mention people like William Wilberforce who devoted his life to ending slavery or the 800 000 Britons who signed petitions to end slavery in one year in the 1800s or the hundreds of thousands of Britons who boycotted slave products, mainly sugar, as a protest. Maybe this all needs to be in an anti-racism article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-White Propaganda definition

"racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

This is race theory. Not racism. Racism is about non-equal rights based on race and not race differences. The article define science as racism. This article is nothing but international socialist hate propaganda. Filosofen (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [1],[2], etc. This is the definition of racism. Do you count mainstream dictionaries as part of "international socialist hate propaganda"? -kotra (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 3 is nothing but anti-white socialist propaganda build on the idea that all humans are identical inside. It reject all science and mix facts with human rights. In real life nobody would say someone is a racist for saying European jews have higher iq than whites. But if one say whites got higher iq than black then it's suddently racism. This definition is only used for hate against whites and NEVER WHEN WHITES ARE NOT A TARGET.

Reference 2 writes: "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.". Note "and has the right to rule others" means unequal rights. But this definition say that the first example below of racism is not racism because it say "one's own race is superior" too and this is an obvious lie as racism does not require this statement.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_diversity Racism is the notion that one's race determines one's identity. It is the belief that one's convictions, values and character are determined not by the judgment of one's mind but by one's anatomy or "blood."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC826955 Racism is an ideology which claims the human species can be divided into a number of discrete biological groupings that determine the behaviour and success of individuals within that group. This belief views "races" as natural and fixed subdivisions of humans, each with its distinct and variable cultural characteristics and capacity for developing civilizations. Thus, the biological factors can be used to explain the social and cultural variations of humans. This ideology also includes the belief that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones.

Correct definition which nobody can give one example of is not valid: Racism is an ideology where humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called race which determine their will (metaphysic) and political rights (metapolitics)

Example of racism:

Determinism: Jews are born evil. Its in their genes

Politics: Jews should be gassed to death because their are too smart (high IQ - average 108) and we don't like superior races to our own white race (average IQ 100) as a superior race get too much power

Jews should not be allowed to do banking work (because their mind is born criminal)

White people should be killed because they get too much power. Only indians should rule the world as they are born with justice in their mind.

Negros should be allowed to use as slaves because they do not have same rights as white people because they are not born with a soul or are born evil

This is NOT racism but your communism definition make it racism:

Japanese are at average born with higher IQ than white people and are superior in this field.

Negroes are born with longer legs than Japanese and superiour in running fast

IQ references that show science support different IQ for different races. Science is not racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/361IQParke.html

I've changed the definition to this which is close to correct:

Racism is the belief that race determine the behaviour and success of individuals within that group and includes the belief that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones (i.e. unequal rights)^[1]

Filosofen (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I reverted your changes back to the consensus version for a couple of reasons - first, the way you have written it is unclear and confusing; the previous way was much clearer. Second, because the mention of "unequal rights" could be seen as violating neutral point of view policy. Third, because "unequal rights" are not mentioned in the source that you cited.

Is there any general consensus about how the lede should read? Dawn Bard (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dominate inferior ones means exactly the same as unequal rights to the benefit of one group. Not everybody understand "dominate". The previous was nonsense and wrong defined as proven here. Filosofen (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it has been "proven" that the previous definition is wrong. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It say science is racism and does not mention rights at all and everybody know racists want unequal rights. That is proof enough. My reference does not say such nonsense. "Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities". This is science (links above proves it) not ideology as IQ is such a capacity and science is not an "ism". Racists holds that it's "behaviour" which is determined as my reference writes. "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" is science, not ideology. What is written now is not even close to something reasonable. Can you prove anything wrong in what I've written and that the old definition is more correct than the new I wrote with reference? Nobody here has even tried argue against this.Filosofen (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are drawing conclusions not contained in your references. The consensus definition does not "say science is racism" - that's your conclusion. Your source does not state in an unqualified way that "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," it says that racist ideology assumes that "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," which is completely different than simply stating it as fact. If you read farther down in your own citation, it says that "Research shows these assumptions to be wrong and largely based on the untenable position that nature (biology) is a single causal agent. Evidence showing that differences within groups are greater than differences between groups, and that social factors have an impact on behaviour argue strongly against racist beliefs." Consider checking out Wikipedia's policies on original research and neutrality. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"he consensus definition does not "say science is racism". It does implicit as explained above. "Your source does not state in an unqualified way that "racist ideology assumes that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" is not true. It's science that holds this. "Research shows these assumptions to be wrong" has no reference at all to any proof against the fact that different races have different IQ. Show me one single research article on entire internet with statistics holding this and I'll agree with you Filosofen (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<---(undent) Again, you are coming to conclusions that are not present in the source. Wikipedia does not publish original research, including syntheses of published materials to advance a position. And again, "research shows these assumptions to be wrong" is from your source, so if you believe it is wrong, maybe you shouldn't edit this article based on it. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My source is for definition of the word and nothing else so you're totally wrong. This source also holds that "1) biological differences are equal to cultural differences; 2) biological makeup determines the cultural achievements of a group; and 3) biological makeup limits the type of culture a group can develop." is wrong. This has nothing with definition to do but a theory about race differences which one may agree or disagree with.Filosofen (talk)

Dawn Bard is correct. The original, consensus-based wording is more accurate and intelligible, and your assertion that it was factually incorrect is contradicted by the sources present in this article and your own offered source. If you wish to advance a different definition of racism, we will need to find reliable sources that directly define it in such a way, or it is original research. -kotra (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I wrote was: Racism is the belief that race determine the behaviour and success of individuals within that group and includes the belief that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones (i.e. unequal rights)[1]

My source write: (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC826955) Racism is an ideology which claims the human species can be divided into a number of discrete biological groupings that determine the behaviour and success of individuals within that group. This belief views "races" as natural and fixed subdivisions of humans, each with its distinct and variable cultural characteristics and capacity for developing civilizations. Thus, the biological factors can be used to explain the social and cultural variations of humans. This ideology also includes the belief that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones.

webster write: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism) a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race determine the behaviour and success" is not same as "determinant of human traits and capacities" as the last include IQ and the first does not.

"superior races can dominate inferior ones" is not same as "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" as the last include science but not rights and the first include rights and not science

"your assertion that it was factually incorrect is contradicted by the sources present in this article and your own offered source"

What is the contradiction? Filosofen (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no argument here, just an "more accurate and intelligible" because I say it is so type argument. "If you wish to advance a different definition of racism, we will need to find reliable sources that directly define it in such a way". What makes you think webster is more reliable? I've proven it's nonsense already as it implicite writes science is racism and it does not mention rights at all which everybody know racists include in their view with not a single exceptions in the entire history of humans.Filosofen (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Filosofen, you haven't "proven" that the consensus definition is "nonsense." Please read what we're telling you about original research - you have come to a conclusion that is not supported by the consensus source or by the source you added. And you're misrepresenting Kotra's argument - it's not because Kotra "says so", it's because your assertions are contradicted by the sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think racism should include implicit science as IQ differences? This is nonsense because science is not an ideology (ism) and you have not argued against this but ignores my argument totally and not even commented it. Second you have not even commented the fact that racists think that different races should have different rights but this is not written in the definition of webster. Do you really deny this? I've never in my life read about someone denying this fact. All theories of racism writes about how racists want more rights than other races. Slavery is only one typical example. My source include this fact. Webster does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States follows from my definition but not from webster as it does not mention rights at all in any way. "superiority" does not imply unequal rights. A lot people and scientists (link above for reference and proof) think whites are superiour black people in IQ, but they don't want different rights for that reason. Seems you totally ignore my arguments for political reasons. Some people never accept proof no matter how good they are. Prove I'm wrong or do not reply to this at all. I'm not interested in repeating robot-answer "you haven't "proven"" when I actually has proven it by logical arguments (and reference that support me).Filosofen (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prove you're wrong? This is from your cited source: "Racist ideology is based upon 3 false assumptions: 1) biological differences are equal to cultural differences; 2) biological makeup determines the cultural achievements of a group; and 3) biological makeup limits the type of culture a group can develop. Research shows these assumptions to be wrong and largely based on the untenable position that nature (biology) is a single causal agent. Evidence showing that differences within groups are greater than differences between groups, and that social factors have an impact on behaviour argue strongly against racist beliefs." The same source says nothing at all about rights. And I'm clearly not ignoring your arguments - look at how many times I've replied to you here - I'm pointing out that your arguments don't conform to Wikipedia policy and should not be included in the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once again you ignore my arguments. My source was used for definition only and not race theories and you ignore this once again. Second, you write "The same source says nothing at all about rights" which totally ignore my argument that it in fact writes this implicit by writing that one race dominate another in the definition. It is logically impossible to dominate another race if everybody got equal rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominations writes "Domination is the condition of having control or power over people, animals or things". One cannot have control over other humans if they have equal rights. The only way to control other humans is that if they does not have the right to control themselves. If you don't understand something simple as this do no answer me. I don't discuss with someone who ignore basic logic like 1 + 1 = 2 Filosofen (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, first of all, you don't get to tell me not to reply - this talk page is for anyone interested in the Racism article. Secondly, you're misreading your own source. It doesn't say that some races should dominate others, it says, in defining racism, that racist ideology holds the belief that "that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones." It then goes on to state in no uncertain terms that the assumptions that support racist ideology are false. So you're ignoring my arguments and the source that you yourself cited. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't say that some races should dominate others". This is a straw man argument as I in fact wrote "in the definition" which you have ignored. I don't say that this page holds the idea that one race should dominate another. You answer to be is nonsense. "the assumptions that support racist ideology are false." is not relevant for the definition of the word and not relevant for what I'm writing about here. This is not a discussion about if racism is based on facts or not but what the word means. It's obvious you try to escape from what the topic is about because you got no valid arguments Filosofen (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agreed with Kotra's original reply, so didn't post anything myself. We need to place the main emphasis on definitions found in mainstream sources. William Avery (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You give no argument for webster is more correct for definition of the word than my source thecanadianencyclopedia.com but I've proven that webster is wrong and totally nonsense which define science as racism Filosofen (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your "proofs" do not exist; bald assertions of what you interpret your source to mean do not constitute "proof" but rather (as people keep pointing out to you) original research (and poorly reasoned at that). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (my emphasis) William Avery (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You ignore my proofs written here. You don't comment my arguments at all. Robot-answer "Your "proofs" do not exist" is btw. typical method from the anti-white hate group to avoid giving arguments. One can always write that no matter how good proofs are and just repeat it like a robot. Do you got one single example in the human history where public known racists want equal rights for all races? If not, then explain how webster definiton logically implicit include that racists want unequal rights. If you cant do this you know my proof is logically correct and you know you're wrong even if you robot-answer me with "you got no proof once again"Filosofen (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implicitly tying another wikipedian to "anti-white hate groups" is really not cool - please have a look at Wikipedia's policies regarding keeping it civil and assuming good faith. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. That is a matter of acknowledged policy. "Proofs written here" is original research. Logical correctness doesn't enter into it. William Avery (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I attack his argument style, not person. His argument style is just repeating "you have no arguments/proofs" without comments the actual arguments/proofs". This style is always used by the anti-white groups to deny facts like unequal IQ between different races. But nobody ever comment the proofs. They just deny that they exists because they got no arguments. I've argued for the failure of the webster definiton for years and never got a single argument against my arguments but always the same robot-answer "you got no arguments/proofs" which is the standard answer to anybody who talk about race differences. Even the arguments on the links I've given above is always attacked with "They got no proof. End of discussion. Bye".Filosofen (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not interested in debating whether your proof exists or not. We are only interested in whether your definition comes from a reliable source or not. You are not a reliable source, and neither am I. None of us are. Webster's Dictionary, even if it gives an incomplete definition, is a reliable source. You have not offered a reliable source for your changes, and the definition of racism is an extremely contentious issue, so we cannot implement your changes. You are wasting your time by trying to convince us something is true. Some of us probably agree with you already. But we need reliable sources to make your changes. -kotra (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Webster's Dictionary, even if it gives an incomplete definition, is a reliable source.". Prove it is reliable and not only the personal opinions of the very few humans who write this dictionary. In fact you can't. Webster is not a scientific source at all as there is no arguments for their definitions anyplace on they www page. You write it's reliable and my source is not because you personally agree with webster and not my dictionary. This is how anti-white groups spread lies. They pick the source who support them and everything else is "not reliable" no matter arguments and proofs Filosofen (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you are probably aware, Merriam-Webster is one of the most authoritative dictionaries of the English language (OED is another). Here we are asking for a simple definition of "racism", not a scientific analysis of it. M-W, as an authoritative dictionary, is a reliable source for this purpose. I never said your source was not reliable (although, as an encyclopedia, it may not be for this purpose), but it contradicts what you are trying to make it say, so we cannot use it for your proposed wording, regardless of its reliability.

Also, please understand that your comparisons of other editors' attempts to adhere to Wikipedia policy to the actions of "anti-white groups" are not helping your cause any. In all controversial areas, we try to adhere to the same exact policy. -kotra (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When something is proven wrong, it's wrong no matter if it's the most used dictionary or not. If it writes 1+1=3 then it would be logical wrong holdning that it should be used as a reference, but that's exactly what you do in this case. You got no arguments at all and ignore what I write Filosofen (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignoring what you're writing, but... verifiability, not truth. -kotra (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been too polite to say it before, but your arguments are utter and arrant nonsense, which is why you continue to be unable to find any reliable sources for them. They use the meaningless assumption that different distributions between arbitrarily-defined populations mean something about the groupings used. It is racist to define people on the basis of averages of a class to which they happen to belong. "Whites" as a class has no intelligence: it's a demographic grouping. "Jews" as a group has no superiority or inferiority: it's a meaningless generality. Individual human beings are intelligent or unintelligent, fast or slow, tall or short, witty or stolid: "races" are not. Quit trying to cram people into pigeonholes; it's a disgrace to whatever group(s) you happen to belong to yourself. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's analyze this using rational arguments and not personal feelings as you obviously use as method when you write "I'm not ignoring what you're writing". Statement 1: "which is why you continue to be unable to find any reliable sources for them" ignore the fact that I gave one reliable source (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC826955) which all of you without one single valid argument rejected and replaced with something that is proven to be wrong (webster anti-white propaganda definition which is only used to attack white people and never used in one single other case in entire history of humans). Statement 2: "It is racist to define people on the basis of averages of a class to which they happen to belong." ignores the fact that I've not argued for what you write here and therefore is a Straw Man (http://esgs.free.fr/uk/log53.htm). Nobody "define people on the basis of averages". Science only mean the average with IQ as example. With "European Jews have superior IQ" means they average IQ is higher than other races. "Individual human beings are intelligent or unintelligent". Oh really? Why don't you tell me that humans have two feet and not four while you start talking to me like one talk to people with IQ less than ones shoe number. Conclusion: You end your irrational nonsense here by 100% ignoring all of my arguments and therefore "your arguments are utter and arrant nonsense" is what is called a projection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection which writes: In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism where a person's personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.Filosofen (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, "I'm not ignoring what you're writing" was mine, not Orange Mike's. As for the rest, Wikipedia is not a forum. Find sources of equal or greater reliability to Merriam-Webster (OED perhaps?) for the definition if you want to change it. -kotra (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I have (fascinated-ly) read my way through this entire string, trying to figure out what exactly the disagreement is about -- and it finally clicked... Filosofen seems to have read a lot about IQ-tests written by people who place their faith into them. His whole argument seems to (by now) have boiled down to the point where he claims that nobody questions the idea that blacks are dumber than whites, based on IQ-scores. He should do more research and read up on sources that highly doubt the validity of any such tests due to their possible, inherent bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seb az86556 (talk • contribs) 14:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The introduction

The first sentence of the article doesn’t summarize it best and it’s arguable. Defining racism as a“belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits” seems OK when it’s considered in general. But there are areas in life where race can be a factor predisposing an individual to ceratin activities like sports where the dominance of black athletes is motivated biologically – not culturally (like in basketball, sumo or ice hockey)

Well, I would think that the second part of that opening sentence would clarify that. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 05:49, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s my proposition of opening sentences: “Racism is an aversion to people of other races and ethnicities. Historically this attitude had been backed by various quasi-scientific ideologies that attribute general superiority to certain groups based on their racial characteristics.

Here is a list of common definitions found on the internet: [3] Just out of curiosity though, is there evidence to support that certain activities are excelled at because of racial genetics? How do you know, for example, that the Japanese are better at sumo than say the French because of genetics rather than the mere fact that sumo wrestling is more common in Japan? Now, I don't doubt that genetics are involved (eg. there is a different percentage of tall people among blacks than among whites), but is it really relevant to the concept of "race"?

As to the issue at hand, the current definition comes directly from here: [4] so I think that if you were to change the definition in this article, you would have to find a source that is just as (or more) reliable than that one. Also, can you please sign your posts by typing "~~~~", it makes things easier to follow, thank you. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 16:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read with understanding – I gave the example of sumo as a sport where the dominance of Japanese sportsmen is determined CULTURALLY as opposed to athletics where Black people have biological predisposition. I think You may find this article from NY Times interesting.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/00/04/16/reviews/000416.16holtlt.html

As far as introduction is concerned, I’ve found a good definition In the links You gave.

”racism: the use of race to establish and justify a social hierarchy and system of power that privileges, preferences or advances certain individuals or groups of people usually at the expense of others. Racism is perpetuated through both interpersonal and institutional practices”

I think it’s better than the current one which is framed unclearly so that anyone who claims that a person is determined by race In ANY WAY can be called a racist. This one focuses on the crux of the matter which is disrimination. Ofcourse the present opening sentences should be mentioned too Ifurther In the article as an alternative definition.78.131.137.50 (talk) 06:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You understood the opening as exactly what it means: Anyone who presumes that race determines a person in any way other than physical appearance is a racist. Go through the archives of this talk page and you will see that this problem came up time and again. And time and again, somebody has to explain to the crypto-racist that he/she is wrong.Seb az86556 (talk) 21:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very emotional. Please, read the discussion before joining in (links too). Also take a look at the introduction once again. It's different from how you described it.78.131.137.50 (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it. If you want us to read links, you should provide links that are accessible for everyone -- the one you gave is for members/subscription only.Seb az86556 (talk) 16:15, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try Googling up "black athletes dominance" and enter the first result ("nobody does it better"). It's the article.78.131.137.50 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. So, what you are saying is that the current definition in the first sentence of this article, would imply that something like what is described in the NYT article would constitute racism? I do rather like the definition you provided above, if it is from a source as reliable as Merriam-Webster, I think we can replace the current one. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 16:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for your support:) The definition comes from a site by American Anthropological Association. Here's the link: http://understandingrace.org/resources/glossary.html 78.131.137.50 (talk) 03:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The provided article is a book review and remains highly skeptical of the discussed work's merit. As such, it is not a valid source. Just because the NYT writes about a book does not mean they concur with or validate its contents/thesis. The article's first lines are very educational: they talk about basketball's once being labeled as a "Jewish" sport. Note that the historical period in question was rampant with antisemitism. When antisemitism faded, basketball was no longer considered a "Jewish" sport. One could very reasonably conclude that the notion of "black athletic ability" fades once racism has been exterminated.

(And by the way: Please fight yourself through the (very long) previous string above -- somebody tried to sell a similar point before and did not prevail with his arguments)Seb az86556 (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to be impolite but You read inattentively and it's becoming tiring. Firstly, the reviewer is not skeptical (13th paragraph). Secondly, where Jim holt mentions Jewish basketball players he adds "but the case of black athletes seems somehow different."

Anyways let's hang it and come back to the main point which is that the introduction doesn’t summarize whole article best and is framed unclearly so that things that are not racism fall under it.

For example the wikiarticle on lactose intolerance. According to it, race does determine persons capabilities in digesting milk dramatically. Is it a racist article then? Or the article on puberty- a phenomenon that affects kids' behaviours have been shown to start at different ages depending on race which may cause difference in behaviour between kids. Is it racist article too?78.131.137.50 (talk) 03:57, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(response below)Seb az86556 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't talking about that article- I merely said it was interesting. I read through the crap above when I first posted here, and do see the similarity- there is some controversy, it would appear, as to what the definition of racism is. So we can summarise this dilemma like this: either racism is a) any belief in race as a factor in genetics or b) the discrimination of individuals based on the belief that race is a factor in genetics. I would definitely say it is the latter, and I think a definition similiar to the one anon provided above should be used in the lead, provided a reliable source can be found. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 00:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My disagreement is not with you, Dominik92; it's with the anonymous person who started this string. We're on the same page: If said person can find a valid source, we can discuss that. Thus far, there is no source. So, whoever you are, "78.131.137.50," provide a source. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(response to inserted comment) I read very attentively, don't give me that.

I now see where the problem is: your incorrect definition of what constitutes a "trait." Webster's first definition of "trait" (in the sense we use it here) is "a distinguishing quality (as of personal character)". The secondary definition of "trait" (in the sense here discussed) is "an inherited characteristic." Note that in both of these cases, "characteristic" in this definition points towards character/personality. The example of lactose-intolerance (and the other well-known differences in vitamin D-production) are therefore not "traits." Therefore, talking about differences and correlations that are scientifically, biologically measurable is not racism.

The reason why I criticized (and will continue to criticize) comments about differences in both IQ-scores and athletic ability is that neither one of these observations has yet been proven to have its origin unequivocally and solely in race (unlike aforementioned lactose intolerance and vitamin D). The jury is still out as to weather or not other factors are responsible for low academic achievement etc. A simple observation of facts does not constitute a cause-and-effect correlation. As long as there is no proven, scientific, mass-scale cause-and-effect relation, we have to assume all other possible factors can have equal import(ance). Seb az86556 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not make this discussion more complex than it needs to be. We were discussing the lead definition of "racism". The dispute is whether that comprises any belief in racial genetics determining characteristics, or whether it merely means the suppression and prejudice against individual based on this belief. Right now, the overall discussion of whether or not race determines traits is irrelevant; let's say a scientist believes that race is the primary cause for varying intelligence levels, athletic abilities etc. Now, even if said scientist had no evidence and was the most incompetent individual in the field, I don't think people would consider him "racist" merely based on that. However, if he said something like "blacks are inherently inferior to Jews because genetics and statistics show a higher average IQ level among Jewish people and therefore the former should not breed to pass on the inferior genes"- I think we can rightfully assert that that is a racist statement and that the scientist is most likely a racist, My point is, what we consider "racism" is the belief in the social inferiority of certain races (due to genetics) and NOT the mere belief that race is a factor in determining human traits (mental or physical). The Dominator^Talk_Edits 04:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with you (I consider such people racists), but let's assume that the scientist you give as an example is not a racist. Yet, said scientist's views are on the fringe and are unsubstantiated -- should they be included in wikipedia? Maybe. Should they be included in and article on the scientific view? No. Should they be included in the introductory definition? Absolutely not. I'm absolutely certain that you can find unsubstantiated, yet passionately defended views on every possible subject on earth. Still, the Evolution-article does not mention Intelligent design, the Moonlanding article does include hoax-accusations but only at the very end, not in the introduction. Seb az86556 (talk) 21:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seb, it seems we are not going to convince eachother, so maybe we should start seeking compromise. I think that since definitions of the term vary significantly and it's caused disagreement among editors, we should enlist more definitions to give the reader wider scope rather than defending someone's favourite one. Here's my proposition that comes from a site by American Anthropological Association.

http://understandingrace.org/resources/glossary.html

I'm waiting for more propositons from everyone reading us, and maybe we'll be able to make an edit soon, together.78.131.137.50 (talk) 01:04, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not say something like: "Racism may take the form of a personal aversion to people of other races. the advocacy of unequal treatment of people of different races, or the use of race to explain inequalities among people?" Slrubenstein | Talk 00:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I think the lead needs to be completely rewritten and expanded to include all the definitions we listed and possible disagreements. However, we need to reach a compromise on what the first sentence is going to read. So how about this: "Racism is the belief that race is the primary detriment of human characteristics therefore justifying the existence of social hierarchies based on race; racism may take on an institutional form or personal aversion advocating the unequal treatment of individual races based on a perceived inferiority". I tried to combine several definitions mentioned in this discussion. You think that can be used? The Dominator^Talk_Edits 03:22, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"detriment"? detriment=cause of injury or damage. Seb az86556 (talk) 06:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, obviously, I meant "determinant" basing it off the current definition. The Dominator^Talk_Edits 17:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the definition in the introduction is incomplete. It ignores the second part of the definition (i.e. the definition from Merriam Webster) cited that deals with racial prejudice. One need not believe that one race is superior to another in order to engage in discriminatory or abusive behaviour toward people of another race.--Barbthedarb (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

reverse discrimination

there is no such thing as reverse discrimination or reverse racism. there is only racism. a person who is discriminated against due to their perceived race regardless of the relative size of that perceived group was racially discriminated against. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.78.199 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 September 2009

That may be the case, but this page is only for discussion of how to improve the Racism article. If you want to add a counter-argument to reverse racism, Reverse discrimination is the place to do so, and you will need to cite a reliable source. -kotra (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Section for racism by region?

A separate section for racism in different regions may be helpful, linking to articles such as Racism by country, Racism in Africa, Racism in Europe, Racism in Asia, etc. Right now there is a section for state racism, but that's a somewhat distinct concept. Shawnc (talk) 23:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC) --Docjp (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)--Docjp (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)Again a failute to differentiate "religion" and Spirituality. What is largely overlooked by those who limit themselves to the physical and intellectually obvious characteristics of individuals is the psychological factors of racism, which if considered tends to include all races as racist. Also excluded from much written herein is reference to how racism is diminished relative to a person awakening to the Reality of Life as opposed to the illusion of life. The Reality being Esoteric [not observable via one physical senses], and the illusion of life being that which ones physical senses can perceive. The more awakened one becomes to ones Spirituality, the less able one is to be a racist. This is a fact, but it will not likely be "proven" because few researchers can conceive of a means of testing the Esoteric dimensions of man.--Docjp (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)--Docjp (talk) 15:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Logical definition?

Valid reasoning points to racism being a specific form of the "Correlation Implies Causation" fallacy, where people assumee sociological or achievement gaps between apparent races are caused by the characteristics of the races themselves and not other factors (like the long-term effects of slavery)...but I see no reference in the article. I think it would be very valid to at least include a reference or link to the article on this fallacy. 68.123.154.74 (talk) 14:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

afrophobia vs. afrophilia

on the opposite end of the spectrum of anti-semitism is philo-semitism (a love of all things jewish.) similary white racism against asians (yellow peril) is contrasted with white love of all things asian (asia-philia). i am no scholar on the subject, but shouldn't there be discussion in this article, or a link to, the opposite of afrophobia? (clearly the other forms of white racism i've mentioned can be best understood by examining both sides of the coin, the black experience is no different). again, i am no position to write the article i'm advocating, but here are some sources for those more capable than i. http://books.google.com/books?q=afrophilia&btnG=Search+Books

There is no need to. The entry is about racism not 'afrophilia', whatever that is? 'Afrophilia' is not a word in common usage, well it's new to me. 77.102.240.29 (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

what about the holocaust?

in the section about the 20th century. i think something should be writen about the nazi movement and the holocaust. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.0.245.33 (talk) 08:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thorny issue. By including it here, one would support Hitler's claim that Jews constitute a different "race," which was not the case. Seb az86556 (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

racism is destructive to all people it can break families up and ven sometimes make people go intgo a mental hospital because there child hood can ective the way the rest of your life is if you have children and they are being teased like you were it can bring back back memories..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.152.73.48 (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

speaking of 20th century, ther needs to be a mention of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.35.147 (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculosity of Biblical Racism Account

The writer of this article sites a passage in 1st Samuel as Genocide. If you ever read the Bible, you will realize that any wars against a nation were not because of its race, but due to the issue of sin/rebellion. Please revise this article and do more research on the subject. A genocide is a racist slaughter of a population, but in the Bible, the war against the nation of Amalek were due to sinfulness. If you read Deuteronomy 25:

"17 “Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, 18 how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God. 19 Therefore when the Lord your God has given you rest from all your enemies around you, in the land that the Lord your God is giving you for an inheritance to possess, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven; you shall not forget."

Amalek had a repeated history of violence against the Hebrews. Any sort of war was that of regional differences, not genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.180.181 (talk) 05:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, and removed the last sentence of the paragraph: There is no indication that this cited passage is racially motivated (which is questionable anyways since the warring parties were by no definition of different "races"). The rest of the passage is ambiguous and needs more scrutiny (at least it has more cited sources); if said sources are relevant, they will have to be attributed more clearly to their author(s)/origin. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to add that these matters should be addressed via policy - if we have a reliable source that states that there is a signficant view that these passages are racist or record racist views, fine. My point is that interpreting historical documents is often controversial, especially when they are old and even moreso when they have religious significance to people today. In such situations, relying on our core content policies is a way to ensure that this doesn't become a war between editors who take any disagreement personally, and instead offers hope that, in trying to comply with policies, editors with different views can nevertheless work collaboratively towards a consensus. I have my own iunterpretation of these verses, but I look to an enncyclopediaq to learn what historians and Bible scholars (meeaning people with PhDs from places like Oxford or the University of Pennsylvania in Ancient Near Eastern Studies, who read Egyptian hieroglyphics, Sumerian, etc.) think. How such verses may be used todasy by politicians in situations of ethno-national conflict may also be salient although for different reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk 07:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Unfortunately, (almost) all the other sources given in that passage are offline, so I couldn't do any back-checking on what exactly it is they're saying. Hence my {{who?}}-tag. I'm sure there are a lot more who?'s in this article, though... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is ridiculous here is to pretend that the fate of the Amalek was not genocide. Any attempt to wipe any trace of an entire people off the face of the earth is clearly genocide. The hebrews are not instructed to kill the armed forces who have carried out attacks against them or to break the will of the Amalek to wage war against them - they are instructed to kill every man, woman and child too. Any attempt to hold an entire nation (including babes in arms) responsible for the aggression of one section of that nation is by definition racist. Your definition of genocide is questionable too. What happened in Cambodia is described as a genocide even though it was primarily one socio-economic section of an ethnic group killing another section of that same ethnic group. You have quoted the bible's given reasons for wiping the Amalek off the face of the earth but we could take any genocide in history, including the holocaust, and quote its perpertators' reasons (which no doubt in their minds seemed completely reasonable and valid). I strongly suggest that this section should be re-instated:

"Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. 3 Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." (1 Sam. 15:2-3). " —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While this does fulfill the criteria of genocide, it does not necessarily fulfill the criteria for racism. The Amalekites were considered to be descendants of Esau and thus relatives of the Israelites. Both groups would be considered to be part of the Semitic race (in old classifications).199.90.28.195 (talk) 14:35, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am surprised to see that the expulsion of 16 Million Germans, the associated Benes Decrees and generally post War crimes of racism or ethnic cleansing are not mentioned here.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.73.109.118 (talk) 20:51, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those cases are between groups that are generally considered to be of the same race: the Caucasoid or European or White race. 199.90.28.195 (talk) 14:27, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The modern trend is to consider that racism exists within 'races' - for example if an Irish person tried to get a room to rent in an English house but there was a sign saying "No Irish, No dogs" most people would consider this to be racist. I am personally very suspicious of attempts to avoid using the r-word. Someone once told me that the Rwandan genocide wasn't racism, it was some mysterious thing called "tribalism", nothing to do with racism at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 17:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on who you are talking to. In the U.S., there is a large faction which considers true "racism" to only apply to discrimination by the dominant color/cultural group (i.e., whites, esp. White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) against other, powerless color groups, as part of a fully-developed system of cultural dominance. Thus, while a given African-American person or faction might be bigoted, they would not be racist, since they do not have an entire societal structure reinforcing their discrimination. Those who hold to this definition can get quite vehement in insisting on it, since in their view the use of "racism" for all discriminations postulates a non-existent moral equivalence for the two types of discrimination which ignores the historical realities of power relations. The idea that some Sassenach putting up a "No Irish Need Apply" sign is to be classed as "racism" would leave most such folks apoplectic with indignation. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:17, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I may not be well known here, but I must still respectfully disagree with your statement, Orange Mike. Attempting to avoid offending every single person would create a blank encyclopedia. I think we could all agree with racial quotas being racist, and they are not discriminating against the "other, powerless color groups". In addition, "white" isn't a race any more than "yellow" is a race. I am a proud American of German descent. If you differentiate between Chinese and Japanese, you should differentiate between French and German.

Hmm... am I rambling? IdiotsOpposite (talk) 01:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As state-sponsored activity"

"The politics of Zimbabwe promote discrimination against whites, in an effort of ethnically cleansing the country."

As part of a section which is completely POV in all respects, this statement is utterly over-simplifying the Zimbabwe situation. No member of the Zanu-PF government has ever suggested that they are for "ethnically cleansing the country". The government's alleged racist attitude is perhaps of note, but the way that this is presented is completely out of order.

Firstly, the statement is very subjective. Just what would you regard as promoting discrimination. It is a matter of debate, and not a fact, as this statement seems to suggest. Even the article which he has cited, an American source which is, in my view, exceptionally biased concering this topic, does not try to state it as fact in the way that it is here. Instead, the statement is quoted from one of the white commercial farmers whose land has been reposessed, someone who is hardly going to have a neutral view on the topic. Thirdly, what on earth are "the politics of Zimbabwe". Zanu-PF? The MDC? Simba Makoni? That doesn't really make much sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.129.128 (talk) 15:32, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

really strange

why is there no mention of Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck, the two most prominent racists in America? 69.140.35.147 (talk) 01:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you have that wrong. The two biggest racists in America are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. The three biggest racist organizations in America are the NAACP, ACLU. and the ADL. Just wanted to set the book straight here. --98.236.11.20 (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's no mention of them because there is no absolute, cited proof of their racism. Find some, from a reliable source, and it may be considered, although I doubt it would be placed. If a pejorative term is applied to a living person in an encyclopedia, then the subject of the term application could easily call the encyclopedia defamatory... and he or she would be right. IdiotsOpposite (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://mediamatters.org/research/200910130049

Load of cites on Limbaugh's racist quotes.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200605030014

Load of cites on Beck's racist spoutings.

Safe to say, they are both racists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.252.66 (talk) 15:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Racism in Religion section

The "racism in religion" section has been added and deleted a couple of times today, so I thought it worth starting a discussion here. The section in question consists in its entirety of:

According to[139] Islam the Muslims will be the successors of the world[140], and the leaders and rulers of mankind, to whom people will submit.

I don't at all think this belongs in the article. It has nothing to do with race or racism that I can figure out - Islam isn't a race any more than Christianity or Buddhism are. Thoughts? Dawn Bard (talk) 21:51, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when did definitions change from "defined" to "usually denotes"?

From wiki: "Although the term racism usually denotes race-based prejudice, violence, dislike, discrimination, or oppression, the term can also have varying and contested definitions."

How about defining the word first. Since when is a definition a discussion or an subjective opinion? Define it to discuss it. Are all definitions debatable? No? Then why this word?

Dan +†+(talk) 08:49, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Inter-minority variants

What definition of minority is being used here? For instance, the anti-black demonstrations in China. Who was demonstrating? The Chinese? If that is the case, are they not the majority in China? If it is not the Chinese, would it not help to say?

Of course it is clear what is meant by minority - it means non-white. That is correct, in Europe and North America (and other places). But it is not the case everywhere or in the world as a whole. Surely to define a minority as such is, at least, ethnocentric. Would it be correct to assume, given the first two paragraphs in this section, that it is written from an American perspective?

Be that as it may, surely this section is guilty, at the very least, of simply being inaccurately labelled? I have therefore re-labelled the section 'Non-white and inter-minority variants'. I am unconvinced this is satisfactory; they are rather different (depending on what one thinks of theories of power in society, and what one perceives as society) but it is, I think, an improvement. The more satisfactory outcome, seperating out the two elements and substantially expanding the former, is, alas, beyond my ability. Sam1930 (talk) 21:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(e.g. "Asian people are horrible drivers.")

This is a generlization though.. Not racist, as it does not claim superiority over their race, but classifies their driving capabilites based on regional data. C'mon, I mean... Everyone knows they drive like maniacs, as do a lot of people in the western hemisphere, so this really isn't racist. What it should be changed too is something like "Black African people have inferior mental capability" Or "white Americana's are weedy and pathetic" This example just confuses me... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stakingsin (talk • contribs) 17:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed this . It is weasel wording and itself racist to give prominence to an example in the introduction. I doubt it is acceptable to give any examples of racist statements within the article for it to describe the subject. Lumos3 (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear mods, I really think this article missed a section.

"As state-sponsored activity" only limited to state racial policy. I move that we add section about nation that is openly stated that they are based on a specific primary race, and have constitution that endorse racial discrimination. This is should be the definition for racist country or racist nation.

Racist nation categorically is institutional racism however it is in much greater impact because it is not only a single or limited or localized racist policy.

Racist Nations Racist nations are nations with constitution supporting race discrimination. List of current racist nations:

1. Malaysia Malaysia declare its nation as Malay nation, with Malay as the primary race. Malay formed 54% of Malaysia population. The law and even the constitution discriminate its citizen on racial basis. In Malaysia racist doctrine, the Malay people called Bumiputra is the supreme race in Malaysia (Ketuanan Melayu). This doctrine encouraged by article 153 of the Constitution of Malaysia. In education, for example, non-Malay students are banned from attending the state-owned University Teknologi Mara (UiTM), which has a student body of 120,000. In 2008 the government rejected a proposal to reverse this policy. In employment, preferential quotas in the civil service privilege the Malay majority. For example, in early 2010, Malays accounted for 98.47% of civil service jobs in Johor state, according to its Chief Minister. Meanwhile, around 54% of the state’s population is Malay. Issues of racial discrimination cannot be discussed publicly in Malaysia without running the risk of prosecution under criminal law. After it published a letter criticising Malay “special rights”, the website Malaysiakini was raided by police in 2003 and closed down temporarily under the Sedition Act.[[5]] Until 2010 Malaysia refuse to ratify CERD.

2. Australia White Australia policy perhaps has long been eliminated, however the Australian constitution still allow racial discrimination. Section_51_of_the_Australian_Constitution granting the Australian commonwealth power to make special laws for people of any race.

The races power was inserted to allow the Commonwealth to pass racially discriminatory laws. Sir Edmund Barton, Australia first prime minister, made the position clear when he told the 1897-1898 constitutional convention that the power was needed so that the Commonwealth could "regulate the affairs of the people of coloured or inferior races who are in the Commonwealth". The 1967 referendum extended this power to Aborigines. Ironically, for an event seen as such a positive change, nothing was put in the constitution to say the power could only be used for their benefit. On both occasions, in 1998 for native title and in 2007 for the Northern Territory intervention, a federal law provided that if it was racially discriminatory it was to operate despite the Racial Discrimination Act.[[6]]

3. Burma Burma has racist constitution and active racist policy against its minority ethnic. Burmese racist constitution was created in 2008 by its military dictator. [[7]]

4. Fiji Following a coup on 1987, in 1990 a racist constitution was drawn up that gave ethnic Fijians a permanent majority of seats in Parliament. [[8]]

114.120.55.68 (talk) 13:31, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Scarlet butterfly knight, 2 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} racism is a belief in separating of humans by color and facial features based on superior traits and enforced by the government rules from the constitution to uphold superior status. It is a white supremacist mindset that the so called white race [which is the same race as all man] is some how the superior race due to the caucasoid features and fair skin of white people.

Scarlet butterfly knight (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what all is going on in this posting, but if the above is a suggestion of language to be added to the article it needs a lot of work before that will happen. The editor involved might start with putting a capital letter on the first word. Then find a good/accaptable source for the rest. Carptrash (talk) 20:05, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

racism

i need some information about relastic racism for my project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.89.174.48 (talk) 02:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I've made a small edit to reflect historical variation in the definition of the term racism.

While the notion that race (as it applies to human taxonomy) is an invalid or vague concept is reflected in the article's body, I feel it should be mentioned in the first section. Modern use of the term reflects widespread acceptance of a concept, human race, that is not widely accepted scientifically, and I think this discrepancy should be mentioned right away. Also, sorry for the anonymous edit, my password is not saved on this computer.

UPDATE: User "Orangemike" objects to my use of the word "many," as in "many scientists," in the third paragraph of the opening. User initially said "modern scientists," implying total unanimity in the scientific community - dubious, since there is no consensus about what the term means for humans. After objections and undoes (clearly explained in my edits' comments), user changed to term "most scientists, " implying he'd done some kind of poll. User then used Edit Warning/Content Dispute to prevent further disagreement. My edits, and the reason they were anonymous (I was not on my home computer) are all clearly explained here or on edit comments. As is the edit where I initially ADDED THE PARAGRAPH IN THE FIRST PLACE (see above paragraph). For unknown personal reason user Orangemike has decided to make his stand and use edit comments to fling epithets around. These are not "weasel words" meant to subtly advocate a position I do not take. It is simply MORE ACCURATE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theotocopolis (talk • contribs) 20:17, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it best to avoid using either most or many (for now). Who are these scientists? Davtra ^(talk) 07:19, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Davtra; see WP:WEASEL. "Most" and "many" are in fact specific examples given of weasel words to avoid. Modern science does in fact reject the idea of race in the sense of an actual meaningful entity the way 19th and early 20th century people thought of it, and the way a few untrained thinkers still discuss it; so "modern scientists" seems to me to be the most accurate language. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

see reference 3 for why the above, correct, objections do not change the fact that many scientists continue to use the term, though they often have caveats for what they mean by it. as for what "modern science" in general rejects, i'll leave that to you. i've never met the guy.Theotocopolis (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

per the above, i note that "science says" is one of the examples cited in WP:WEASEL. in this case, references support both assertions: that race does not exist/is not a valid classification, and that scientists, however informally, continue to use the term. a more precise exploration already exists in the article's body, and i think it's important not to use generalizations that would leave people scratching their heads, or questioning this article's validity, because they heard a biologist talk about race. for that matter, a reader might wonder why Wikpedia's own article Race (classification of humans) contains the assertion "The notion of race is widely used by forensic anthropologists, who analyse skeletal remains, and those involved in biomedical research and race-based medicine."Theotocopolis (talk) 22:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 84.215.58.72, 31 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I think the section on arab/moslim racism (under the heading: "Middle Ages and Renaissance") is biased. It starts with "Though the Qur'an expresses no racial prejudice,..." - but this seems to ignore the racist depictions of jews in both the quaran and even more so in the hadits of the moslem tradition. Moreover, this section gives the impression that arab/moslem racism has nothing to do with the arabs, it is simply due to influence from jews and christians (and from Aristotle!). But why should arab racism be explained away as the result of judeo-chirstian influence, which sort of amounts to blaming it on the jews (and christians), whereas all instances of white (European) racism is attributed solely to whites themselves? Are arabs not capable of thinking for themselves? In accordance with my first point, I propose to change the first part of the first sentence: "Though the Qur'an expresses no racial prejudice against blacks, such prejudices developed among Arabs due to several reasons..." As for my second point, I have no specific proposal for an edit here, since I do not have expert knowledge within this field; however, as a lay reader of these paragraphs I do get the impression that this historical account is biased and therefore not entirely trustworthy.

Moreover, I find this quote to be quite ridiculous: "According to Arnold J. Toynbee: "The extinction of race consciousness as between Muslims is one of the outstanding achievements of Islam and in the contemporary world there is, as it happens, a crying need for the propagation of this Islamic virtue."[71]" This is pure political propaganda and should be striken. Toynbee was a well-known opponent of the state of Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_J._Toynbee) and certainly not a neutral expert in this context. I therefore strongly suggest to remove this quote. Especially in light of today's spreading antisemitism in Europe, which is typically associated with muslims and neo-nazis. (See http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/news/study-anti-semitism-in-europe-hit-new-high-in-2009-1.284032)

And finally, under the heading "20th century", why is not the relationship between Hitler and the Mufti, Haj Amin Hussein, mentioned at all? This was blatant racism and a very significant fact in context of the current situation in the Middle East and Europe. I hope it is not omitted because it is not "politically correct"? References: http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php http://www.tellthechildrenthetruth.com/gallery/

I hope you agree with me that these edits would make the article on racism more balanced and more informative.

84.215.58.72 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template may only be used when followed by a specific description of the request, that is, specific text that should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

Not done. Chzz ► 02:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having a discussion with a friend

Hello, I thought you could maybe help me.

A man is getting sued for saying this: "Muslims rape their daughters" to a newspaper.

Some people call it racism, however I argued that since Islam is not a race and have people of all colors it should not be considered as racism. Which of us is right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobtrll (talk • contribs) 20:34, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many issues. Defining race is difficult. If you look it up in Wikipedia you will find many definitions. Obviously Islam is a religion, not a race, but many non-Muslims associate it with people from the middle east. Then it becomes what many would call a racist issue. As for the the statement "Muslims rape their daughters", I would just call it ignorant bigotry. HiLo48 (talk) 21:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definition is incorrect and biased

The definition: "Racism is the belief that the genetic factors which constitute race are a primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." is incorrect and misleading.

Please explain how thinking that genetics play a role in our mental and physical capacities is racist?

If I believe that two people of the same race have different intelligence or physical ability due to genetics, does this make me a racist? Or if I don't believe that genetics plays a role, but that racial differences produce superiorities of particular races, then I'm NOT a racist.

Please explain how this definition is even remotely accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.186.220.93 (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharpnova (talk) 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)Sharpnova[reply]

The definition sounds like some Eugenics-based argument. I've lived in the south and I highly doubt the racists there have genetics on their mind. I think the definition should be altered to explain the more commonly held belief of inferiority based on skin color. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:48, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand the question. Firstly, the definition is only talking about differences related to race, so it is irrelevant to your first question about two people of the same race. Your second question seems to suggest that you think that racial differences are not genetic. That bit I just don't get. While it's difficult to define race, what most people call racial differences, skin colour, etc, simply ARE genetic. Can you explain your question further? HiLo48 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles are supposed to be based upon reliable published sources. 173 countries are contracting state parties to the ICERD. Article 1 contains an internationally agreed-upon definition, i.e.

the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.[9]

Even if you decide to include other published criteria, the article lede should probably reflect the legal definition too. Racism certainly does include descent, but can be based upon other factors. harlan (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is confusing, as it is comprised of two distinct claims, which don't necessarily have anything to do with one another: 1) The genetic differences which constitute race are the primary determinants of human character traits. 2) One/some racial group(s) is inherently superior. It's possible to believe 1) without believing 2), and to believe 2) without believing 1). Those who believe in 1) might be termed "genetic determinists", and those who believe 2) might be considered "racial supremacists". Indeed, there are many self-described "racists" who reject the ideas of evolution, natural selection, and genetics. While there may be some overlap between the two groups, I agree with the previous comment that the ICERD definition is more authoritative than Merriam-Webster's dictionary. 97.81.102.44 (talk) 18:35, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apologetic section removed

I have removed the following sentences [10] on the grounds that they are nothing more than pro-Islamic apologetic SYNTH, added by Jagged 85 a well-known agenda-based editor that was the subject of a recent RfC. The purpose of the history section of this article is to illustrate the evolution of racism by pointing to specific instances in early cultures, NOT to defend early cultures using SYNTH and weasel-wording. Athenean (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved editor I somewhat endorse the change. --mboverload @ 02:04, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's funny. I remember you removing the material I added on Greek proto-racism, and yet you are more than willing to keep the material I added on Arab racism! Do you seriously expect me to believe you don't have any agenda yourself? Sure, whatever. Jagged 85 (talk) 10:49, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's funny is you accusing other editors of agenda-based editing. I mean, of all people. I'm not the one who added megabytes of apologetic text about the ancient Greeks, nor did I make sure to say that racism originated with the Muslims (as you did with the Greeks, if only by implication). Real interesting that this article and Slavery are perhaps the only ones where you make sure to give the ancient Greeks plenty of "credit", while bending over backwards to do the exact opposite everywhere else. Not that there is any point engaging you, but this is just too rich. Athenean (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't accusing you of anything, but was just pointing out the fact that there's an obvious double-standard in your accusation directed exclusively towards me, when that same criticism applies to yourself as well. That's what I'd call "too rich". I certainly never claimed racism originated from the Greeks, but added the Babylonian Talmud as the earliest example, before I even mentioned anything about the Greeks. As for Greek slavery, I certainly don't remember "crediting" the Greeks for slavery, though if I did write anything on it, it must have been very insignificant compared to all the "credit" I gave to the Arabs for slavery. The same goes for this article, where I gave the Arabs far more "credit" for racism than I did for the Greeks, which was basically just one or two sentences for the latter. I haven't given the Greeks anymore "credit" here than I did in any of the other articles I contributed to. Jagged 85 (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you are in specific interest groups and should just take a break from editing the article. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

/* As state-sponsored activity */

The article plays a heavy handed biased and often unquoted "facts" (including inexistent links) about a so-called stated sponsored racism in the Dominican Republic. The quotes should the marked for deletion until quoted material can be sourced from verifiable and reputable sources. Also, I recommend that this section be marked for protection (editing) from anonimous and new contributors.

The most slanderous, exagerated and preposterous claim is the 'epilogue' that ties that supposed "state campaign" with no less that Nazi racial politics! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flurry (talk • contribs) 21:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty International is a reliable source. As for the dead link, the Wayback Machine has that covered: http://web.archive.org/web/20080327000254/http://www.primicias.com.do/articulo,5408,html -- -- Irn (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^ "racism". The Canadian Encyclopedia. 2009-05-19. Retrieved 2009-03-16.

[C-E-1] "racism". The Canadian Encyclopedia. 2009-05-19. Retrieved 2009-03-16.

[1]