Talk:Racism/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Definition

Do not change definition. This is wikipedia, not a Huffpost/FoxNews blogpost. thank you. Nezi1111 (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That's very unhelpful. If you have a definition you think is better, put it here, with your sources, and explain why it's preferable. Don't attack other editors. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just telling the individuals, who think their own interpretations of racism should be on the lede, Don't! because it isn't this is not a blog post. If you want to post opinions, go to fox news, huffpost, whatever. Nezi1111 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You are currently the one thinking that only their interpretation/opinion should be in the lead and that definitions from reliable academic sources should be excluded. So maybe you should get a blog.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't tell me to take it to the talk page while not being willing to discuss what's wrong with the lede you don't like. WP:LEAD makes it clear it should be a summary of the article, and looking at the article I'd say there's no justification for removing "ideologies". Doug Weller talk 17:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• Garner, 2009 in the book "Racisms: An Introduction" p. 11 summarizes different definitions of racism and concludes by listing three necessary elements of any definition of racism: 1. a historical power relationship, 2. a set of ideas (an ideology), 3. forms of discrimination (practices). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

is that the source used in the lead? NO? then keep your mits off of it. hate to get all aggressive but there's a pattern here. you 2 don't seem to get it what numerous people try to communicate to you. DON'T CHANGE THE DEFINITION. Nezi1111 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You are the one trying to change a definition that has been stable for a long while, adding a dictopnary definition instead of one that is supported by actual scholarly usage. So you keep your "mits off of it", untill you can provide a definition that is actually in line with how scholars define racism today. And Garners definition is not simply a definition - it is a summary of what relevant scholarly definitions have in commmon, which is exactly what the definition in this article should be.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Dictionaries are usually WP:Tertiary sources and they should be used minimally. There's an interesting essay at Wikipedia:Dictionaries as sources. We should be using scholarly sources. And dictionaries get it wrong too often on specialist subjects, I still remember one that defined archeaology as the study of prehistory. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

your(incorrect) definition has been there for a while, because you 2 obsessively and continuously rewrite it to have it in line with your views. Also, source(s) for the CORRECT definition are reliable. Unlike your source who comes off more as a maverick or activist, to redefine the whole concept, than a well established respected source. Racism has a clear definition. If it's not what you want it to be? well you'll have to make peace with it. and don't give me this BS on how oxford should not be used. you're just trying to force your POV, even going as far as to trying to prove one of the most respected academic sources should be used minimally. Are you kidding me??. Nezi1111 (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Mavericks and activists do not write introductions to complex academic topics that are published by Sage or Harvard press. Also what Garner is doing is summarizing other scholars definitions. That you are familiar with only one of the many definitions of racism does not mean that that definition is correct and all the others are not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

And yet more attacks. This is nothing to do with personal views (although yours come through clearly), this is to do with how we write articles. We should not and do not depend upon dictionary definitions for our articles. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

not accepting your POV over reliable sources is not an attack. because i sure as hell didn't call you names(at least i don't remember that i did). anyway. i can see where you're angling ith this. you're trying to get me blocked so you can rewrite the definition to be more in line with your views. arent you? Nezi1111 (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

You clearly dont know how we assess the reliability of sources here. Your view is in ing to line with the dictionary and you are trying to enforce that view over the dozens of others given in other dictionaries and by other scholars. Unfortunately the definition of the dictionary would be considered highly problematic by most contemporary scholars of racism (because it allows the perpetuation of kinds of racism that falls out of its narrow scope) - even if many people still use it as a common sense definition of the concept. So what you need to do here is provide a coherent argument (based in policy) for why we should privilege your favorite dictionary definition to the exclusion of other dictionary definitions and the definitions of scholars.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've commented on the editor's talk page, this doesn't belong here. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. I was previously rather discouraged from commenting by the tone above. I agree that whilst a dictionary is a useful tool in arriving at definitions, it's not absolutely definitive. In this case it is quite clear that social effects that are not caused by hatred, or an assumption of superiority, are now part of the mainstream definition of racism; as, for instance, in institutional racism. I'm speaking here in the role of a potential reader, rather than a subject expert, who can spot that the OED definition is wanting without necessarily being familiar with the choice of better sources. William Avery (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Additionally all contemporary definitions acknowledge that racism does not need to rely on ideas of biological superiority, but can equally well operate on assumptions of cultural superiority.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Piping in here to say that I am shocked that the current definition in the introduction has replaced the old one as of 1st Jan 2016: "Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against an individual or group based on their race." That is much better than the current "Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. ". Racism doesn't need to have the embedded idea that their own race is superior at all. Steroid Maximus (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Indeed that is an entirely inadequate definition, I had not noted that Neszi111 had inserted their definition again. The broader original definition has been reinserted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Great work on the current definition. Much better. Steroid Maximus (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Obvious WP:Sock violation. Possibly by user snunɐɯ·. Steroid Maximus only edited on 2 occasions last year, odd that he pops up just now to tip the balance of a consensus argument and has vanished again from editing since. Nezi1111 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

  I'm not a fucking sock, I noticed the blurb was weird and came to talk to notice if anyone else had noticed. I assumed that was the way Wikis were supposed to work? Steroid Maximus (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree. Hopefully the editor I just reverted with come comment here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment. DO NOT revert my comments without my approval. Nezi1111 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Ryubyss please read the discussion in this section and the one above about the definition and join the discussion here. Please don't make unilateral chances to the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The definition in the lede has now become

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

This is not a definition. Rather, it's a comment about the origins of racism. It belongs somewhere in the middle of the article. 67.170.236.50 (talk) 18:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Somethings are defined by the way they are created.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:54, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The lede was discussed some time ago. It contains a description of racism and how it can become manifest in society. The section titled Etymology, definition and usage contains several definitions. Meclee (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

bias and brevity in "History" section

I'll admit that I've only browsed through it and done searches, but I find it amazing that the history of racism against the Irish isn't mentioned, very little is said about the Jews and the Chinese (see yellow peril), and seems to be mostly (but even there unsatisfactorily) directed at the racism against the black. I think that the history of racism deserves its own page with the history of racism against every race included successively. Not something I'm willing to take my time to work on, but something that I think would be an incalculable contribution. Philologick (talk) 14:54, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I've thought much the same thing: That HX of racism needs to be split into a new article on its own and expanded. If we get consensus, I can do the split but will need to leave expansion of the article to others. I will put a split tag on the article. Meclee (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Discussion of Proposed Split

See the topic immediately above that discusses this possibility. A Split tag has been added to the article. Discussion, support and opposition may be discussed below. Meclee (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, we need a history of racism article. When that article is written then we can replace the section here with a summary o the main article. No need to do any actual "splitting".·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:42, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree that the new article should come first, but I'd like to point out that the history section is fairly comprehensive, contains over 4K words, and has some very reliable and cross-cultural references. In brief, it could stand on its own as at least a "start" class article. Meclee (talk) 01:05, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

But we wouldnt gain anything by having a stand alone "start" class article and a summary of the start class article here. As long as the section is not completely unwieldy we are better off keeping the material unified here I think. The work that actually improves the encyclopedia here is to write a good full article on the history of racism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:35, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dewsburyreporter.co.uk/viewarticle.aspx?sectionid=28&articleid=2955186

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:34, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Re-organized and re-written lede and intro paragraphs

The first draft of a re-organized and re-written lede and intro paragraphs is available here. Please let me know if it might be better to copy the material to this talk page for discussion. Alternately, we can discuss on the sandbox talk page. Comments expected and welcomed. If no comments are made within 7 days, I will make the changes to the existing article. Meclee (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• I dont think we should define racism as a concept, although I see the attraction in doing so, given the difficulty of getting an accurate definition. Especially I think it is a mistake to define racism as belonging to specific academic disciplines (and "pop culture"?!). Racism is an actually existing social phenomenon that exists in human beings lives, it is not just an academic analytical concept. I dont know what sources your definition builds on, but I think they clearly contradict the scholarship and the literature - which is pretty clear that whatever else racism is it has to involve both ideas and practices that somehow produce racial discrimination and injustice. I think the second two paragraphs and the etymology section are really good.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that saying something is a concept is the same as saying it does not actually exist, but I'm not married to the word. The following addresses both of your objections:

Racism is a term used in, but not limited to, law, the social and behavior sciences, humanities, and popular culture to describe the complex interaction of race-based ideology with prejudice and discrimination in a given society. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, attitudes, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities of differing races. The underlying ideology often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior. [1] Meclee (talk) 13:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a reminder that changes to this article are still pending comments until tomorrow, 3/6/2016, at which point I will make the indicated changes if there is no further discussion. Meclee (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I think "term" is worse than concepts, because the article is not about the word.[[ · snunɐɯ· 22:59, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The article is about the way the term is used, as are all articles. I am frankly loathe to reify the concept too heavily for a couple of reasons. One, it will only draw more people to edit the page to assure the world that racism is merely something that "exists" only in people's minds. Two, it IS a social phenomenon and the idea changes in meaning from culture to culture. The only alternatives I see are to leave the first sentence off altogether or use some other language to which many more people will object and change. Do you have another alternative, ·maunus? Meclee (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

No articles are not generally about terms or how they are used. That is what a dictionary is for, not an encyclopedia. See e.g. WP:REFERS.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:22, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

After more contemplation, the following wording came to me:

Racism is a product of the complex interaction in a given society of race-based ideology with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, attitudes, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities of differing races. The underlying ideology often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior. [1] The term is usually found in, but usage is not limited to, law, the social and behavior sciences, humanities, and popular culture.

If that wording is still unsatisfactory to you, ·maunus, I will create a request for comments to elicit other ideas to be discussed on this talk page. That will likely open a larger can of worms, but may produce an improved lede. I will wait a couple of more days for your response. Meclee (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I think that one is much better. I would suggest the following minor changes (which makes the second sentence less redundant, and implicitly introduces the aspect of "power" as participating in the translation of prejudicial attitudes into racist practices):

Racism is a product of the complex interaction in a given society of race-based worldview with prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion into discriminatory practices. The ideology underlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior. [1] The term is usually found in, but usage is not limited to, law, the social and behavior sciences, humanities, and popular culture.

I am not against the idea of an RfC at all. I think it is a can of worms that should be opened by as many people as possible.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

OK. I'll use the paragraph you have above and the other changes as per my sandbox page here. That should cut down on the un-discussed changes a bit and then we can do a RfC a little later. I may be moving in April, so I might not have as much time as I'd like to work on the RfC and comments, but I'll make a good start at least. Thanks for your input. Meclee (talk) 00:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Changes have been made. The lede paragraph includes some minor changes from above for readability but no substantive changes. We'll see how it goes. Meclee (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I also still think that we need a thorough literature survey of definitions. But I dont currently have the time or inclination to undertake this myself.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:03, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to introduce one or more of these sources after "worldview". Smedley, A. (2007). Race in North America: Origin and evolution of a worldview. Westview Press./Smedley, Audrey, and Brian D. Smedley. "Race as biology is fiction, racism as a social problem is real: Anthropological and historical perspectives on the social construction of race." American Psychologist 60, no. 1 (2005): 16./Smedley, Audrey. "ANTECEDENTS OF THE RACIAL WORLDVIEW." Race and Racialization: Essential Readings (2007): 31./Keita, Shomarka OY, and Rick A. Kittles. "The persistence of racial thinking and the myth of racial divergence." American Anthropologist 99, no. 3 (1997): 534-544./Gravlee, C. C. (2009). How race becomes biology: embodiment of social inequality. American journal of physical anthropology, 139(1), 47-57. Chicago ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to add those refs as cited. I agree it could use more literature review. Hopefully we'll get some good suggestions from others and I'll probably add more over time, too. Meclee (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The first paragraph is very bad. Too much jargon and waffle. Should be simplified somehow. 109.149.67.52 (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The lede as it stands has been thoroughly discussed and has consensus. If you have specific suggestions to make, please start a new topic at the bottom of this page to propose those changes. Regards, Meclee (talk) 11:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Pejorative

The term Racism is almost always used as a pejorative attack against someone, often reliant on the race of the person being accused. This seems to be left out of the article for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.75.105 (talk) 07:21, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

This usage of the word would be better treated in another article... perhaps Racist (insult) as an analogy to Fascist (insult) which is separate from Fascism, since people who use the word as an insult generally are not describing someone who adheres to the system. There is already an article on a related topic, race card, but I think "race card" is broader than responses to uses of "racist" as an insult. Shrigley (talk) 20:20, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

factual errors

Blumenbach was not polygenist but monogenist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucfo (talk • contribs) 10:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC) cf Claude Blanckaert, CNRS member who made his thesis about monogenism and polygenism from Buffon to Broca in Isabelle Poutrin dir., Le XIXe siècle. Science politique et tradition, Berger-Levrault, 1995, p 22. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucfo (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Blumenbach was particularly appreciated by Henri Grégoire, friend of blacks, cf. B. Gainot, "L’abbé Grégoire et la place des Noirs dans l’histoire universelle", Gradhiva, 2009, n° 10 n.s., p 24.

Gobineau was christian so his conclusion was monogenism, even if his book is more polygenist oriented

I will try to find some references soon Lucfo (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)lucfo

Gobineau's christianity is irrelevant to his polygenism. The two are of course entirely compatible for someone who simply classify some humans as non-humans.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:26, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

yes very few people succeeded in conciliation of polygenism and christianism.

Léon Poliakov wrote about Gobineau's "incohérence", "monogéniste en théorie, et polygéniste en pratique"

in his book Le mythe aryen (sorry I cannot give you the page).

I would not say that Gobineau was polygenist, even if his american traduction was made by H Hotze & JC Nott who were clearly polygenists Lucfo — ::Preceding unsigned comment added by Lucfo (talk • contribs) 15:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I think those details are probably best presented at the article on Gobineau, not here where the point is simply to introduce the reader to the basic concepts and their relevance to early scientific racism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 16:04, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

thank you for your answers, ok, I try to be clear now.

in the section : Polygenism and racial typologies.

I can read about Gobineau : He was one of the first theorists to postulate polygenism, stating that there were, at the origins of the world, various discrete "races."

I would simply like to erase this sentence which is wrong in two ways, polygenism is much older, Gobineau did not clearly postulate polygenism, but I don't want to erase it without a talk...

Lucfo —Preceding undated comment added 20:38, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence as you suggest.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:57, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Simple definition

First of all article is too complex and even lacks simple definition of Racism. My suggestion is to improve article by writing in the beginning simple definition "the belief that some races of people are better than others". To start article with what Racism is product of means making understanding of subject impossible task. Even Simple English variant of article is far more better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.239.156.142 (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

The article will not become better by providing an incorrect, but simple, definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 13:28, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

How about we state the fact that racism has several competing definitions none of which are accepted as definitive? Some say it refers to making any distinction based on race, some say it can only happen when a societally powerful race discriminates based on race, the current definition is pretty hazy.--Sardinefig (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

First paragraph should define what racism is

The article begins by talking about where racism occurs, etc. without first defining it. This is topsy-turvy. 86.151.233.126 (talk) 08:45, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Part about nazism, change needed

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

Semi-protected edit request on 10 July 2016

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

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

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

Notability of Israeli racism against Ethiopian Jews, Palestinians

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

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

Restoring balance - reverted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

This page is racist

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

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

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

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

Turning a merge decision into deletion?

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

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

Too much POV on color blindness

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

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

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

The Introduction has no sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah I'd think I'd take the definition as given by multiple "dictionaries" and as used by the vast majority of people (given that language is defined by its common usage) over a seemingly fringe left-wing POV with no sources. Bubblehum6 (talk) 20:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Map needed

World Value Survey can be used to create an interesting world map, see this article: [1]. Can anyone create it and add it here? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Usage of term "colored' in lead photo

I was stunned to see the offensive word 'colored' used in the lead photo caption. Recognizing that it was in use at the time of the incident depicted, I looked through old talk pages to see if there was some discussion of this usage. I didn't find anything. Willing to be corrected on the talk page discussion if I missed it of course. But, absent some awfully good reason, this is a really offensive term to use. And here we are in the 'racism' article. It used to say "African-American' as recently as March 2016 and I suggest we go back to that. Just hoping someone has an explanation here that I missed, otherwise I will make the edit. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 20:27, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

The change from "African-American" to "colored" was performed by User:Cynulliad. He/she also changed other instances of "African-American" to "Black people". You could ask him/her for the rationale behind the changes, though he/she seems to be inactive since March. Dimadick (talk) 12:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@DMorpheus2—I just reverted to 'African-American'. The term 'colored' was not an accepted, neutral term even at the time of the photo. At that time and place 'colored' was part of the ideology of white supremacy and should not be used in a current encyclopedia. + Description of image from the U.S. Library of Congress uses the phrase "..one of the first African Americans.."— Neonorange (talk) 13:12, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree completely, thanks so much. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:10, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

On dividing this topic

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

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

@Pablo.paz: Hi, I've removed the split template as consensus appears to be against the change. DrStrauss talk 08:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Nature Vs Nurture

There has been some research, albeit limited, on wether or not racism is an inborn or taught trait. The evolutionary suggestion implicates an innate process, but the WP:OR I have found all points towards biases emerging in adolescents that are more significant in those with less racially diverse peer groups. Three pieces of OR, one with roughly 1300 participants, one with 15,000, one neuroimaging study of 32 persons amygdala response to race, and a meta analysis of 63 studies showing racism associated with lower intelligence. This might balance out the evolutionary section, providing a nurture viewpoint

1. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262053425_Verbal_intelligence_is_correlated_with_socially_and_economically_liberal_beliefs

1. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1162/jocn_a_00311

1. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797611421206

1. http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1088868313497266

Petergstrom (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

rac·ism ˈrāˌsizəm/

2017 Definition: Anyone who does not agree with an individuals point of view on politics, religion or any other aspect of life. 2605:6001:E20B:C200:B4F3:6AC2:4CD0:3235 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

emprical evidence

This article ought to place much more emphasis on the actual empirical evidence for and against the existance of various statistical disparities in phenotype between different races, instead of just editorializing and poisoning the well. 2600:8801:0:1530:B479:48D0:6B69:DDE9 (talk) 09:09, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree that review of the overwhelming empirical evidence for the existence of racism and socio-economical disparities along race lines should be more prominently featured. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:08, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

wikipedia Assignment

Topic for my argument essay is “racism”. This article’s intro is good source for my essay because it has definition of racism and history of racism. However, scientific racism from this article is not really work for my essay. First of all, if it’s talk about psychology experience about racism it’s will work but it just talk about face composition evolution theory. In addition, this doesn’t fit my essay topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.51.93.171 (talk) 07:08, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Please do not use Wikipedia for the source of the paper you are writing. Use this article as in introduction and survey of the topic. Then use the citations for this article as sources and/or pointers to other reliable sources. You should check with your teacher about what sources are allowable. — Neonorange (talk) 09:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Useless last sentence in the 2nd paragraph

A somewhat mysterious, digressive final sentence of the 2nd paragraph in the intro: "Researchers have found that teaching students about the Holocaust may require a more in-depth coverage.[3]"

Huh? This isn't an article about the holocaust or pedagogy. Why the sudden segue into pedagogy of the holocaust? I'm sure it's a reliable source and all that, it's just irrelevant to the article, and particularly the intro. It's enough to just say the holocaust was the classic example of racism... death of millions, etc.

68.175.141.8 (talk) 02:27, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever fixed this! 68.175.141.8 (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Donald Trump

I have updated the article a couple of times to include an image of Donald Trump, as shown to the right here. It has been taken down each time, with various people threatening to ban me for "soapboxing" or being "political" even though the image has relevant sources.

Here is my problem with this. Trump is easily the best-known person in the world who has been widely accused of being racist, bar none. There is literally no one else on earth right now who is known as a household name across the globe who is frequently accused of being racist. This is not a personal opinion: it is a fact that he has been widely accused of being racist. There are thousands of sources of people calling Trump racist, so this is certainly not some random gesture, nor is it "political" in nature since it crosses partisan lines. Paul Ryan, for example, referred to Trump's denunciation of a federal judge with Hispanic heritage as "a textbook example of racism" and John McCain denounced Trump's claim that Barack Obama was born in Africa.

It is not absurd to have a more relevant photograph of someone who is accused of being racist than a 50 year old black and white photograph that implies that racism is a thing of the past. Someone reading up on racism should not only be informed about past transgressions, but should have the opportunity to learn about how racism exists in the present day. At the moment, this article does not include a single visual representation of racism in the modern world.

I find it ridiculous that I am being threatened to be banned. This is a very well-documented accusation that includes citations. Being the best-known individual on the planet who is accused of racism seems like a fairly good reason to be included in an article on racism. The article on the alt-right, for example, mentions Trump 44 times, as does the article on racism in United States politics. Rather than shutting me down and threatening me, I feel this should be open to debate. BeaverYabor (talk) 15:38, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Redacting image and pinging Acroterion. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. Unfortunately, for years certain Wikipedia editors have "whitewashed" wikipedia articles. Just today I attempted to make a long-term edit to a document regarding "gentleman's agreements" to reflect how they were used during the trans-atlantic slave trade to keep slavery in place. Within about 2 minutes the edit was removed and I received a "Warning". My IP address/account have been blocked in the past. But the big problem is that Wikipedia allows the whitewashing and bullying. Sadly, since so many professors, students, media researchers, politicians use Wikipedia as a source of information, the racist articles that ignore the role of white racism, European/American imperialism, is truly a large factor in helping brainwash people. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:F5EF:54E3:F0AB:39EB (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Article is not written well, many logical fallacies

1. Racism is part of many religions but the article leaves this fact out. Also, the first group mentioned are the Jews, but not only were they not the original Jews, black Africans suffered (and still do) from much more racism. Finally, the United Nations lumping Racism and Ethnic discrimination together is as stupid as a group lumping rape of females into the same category as bank robbery. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:BDFB:CCC0:B48A:177E (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The article certainly needs much work, and I agree that racism against Africans and African Americans should be mentioned in the lead, especially considering that when sources discuss racism, Africans and African Americans are often the first topic discussed or are significantly discussed. The lead used to somewhat touch on this aspect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:36, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree with you. But remember to keep racism in place, articles on Wikipedia are purposefully vague and/or racist. Further, the UN is setup to keep imperialism and racism in place not to end the destructive ideologies that lead to racist wars, and imperial/colonial strategies. Thanks for your response. BTW: For years I've tried to edit the racism out of certain Wikipedia articles that I found, however, there are far too many racist editors here, and I have learned the background of history of Wikipedia and I finally understood why Wikipedia allows racism and downplays the destruction that Europe, America, white majority regions caused on black, brown civilizations. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:F5EF:54E3:F0AB:39EB (talk) 07:57, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

You are agreeing with the IP above, but, going by the IP ranges, are you not the person who also operated that IP? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Dead link to International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Correct URL indicated below

The footnote to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination is a dead-link. I found the updated link, however, since the original article regarding racism is locked, I have no way of updating the footnote. Please add this URL (Uniform Resource Locator): http://www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CERD.aspx --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:246A:78BB:79C0:F747 (talk) 09:18, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2017

Please remove 'whites' and replace with majority/majorities as not only whites are racist, all majority communities have shown some degree of racism or majority preference.

thank you 27.253.58.164 (talk) 03:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

N Not done. Wikipedia articles are based on reliable sources. Any conclusions or facts must be from such sources, presented from a neutral point of view, giving due proportional weight to competing ideas and assertions.

So someone does not want the word "white" used in articles about racism? So we should ignore the truth and act as though racism, the trans-atlantic slave trade, the thousands of blacks lynched by white Americans, the scramble for Africa, did not happen and were not by white people. What's next? We ignore that the Natives in the nation we call America suffered at the hands of white Americans? Even the blacks, and brown people that seem to be racist are responding to both the racism they've experienced and also often suffering from PTSD which was caused by white racism. We need to create a world where skin color is not a factor in determining human worth, but we won't get their by acting as though white racism is a myth nor by acting as though blacks caused racism and are equally guilty of using it as a tool of oppression. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:F5EF:54E3:F0AB:39EB (talk) 08:02, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

No. And who is 'we'? Did you read the lengthy explanation below? Including that the word 'white' or some variation occurs ninety times in the article? — Neonorange (talk) 09:54, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The word 'whites' (or some variant like non-white) occurs ninety times in this article if the lists of sources an further reading are included: Below is a list of some of the occurrences:

1. While much of the research and work on racism in the last half-century or so has concentrated on "white racism" in the Western world, historical accounts of race-based social practices can be found across the globe. (From source—Gossett, Thomas F. Race: The History of an Idea in America. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997. ISBN 0195097785)
2. Wellman defines racism as "culturally sanctioned beliefs, which, regardless of intentions involved, defend the advantages whites have because of the s subordinated position of racial minorities". (This is a direct quote from the source used.)
3. Much American fictional literature has focused on issues of racism and the black "racial experience" in the US, including those written by whites such as Uncle Tom's Cabin, To Kill a Mockingbird, and Imitation of Life, or even the non-fiction Black Like Me. (this is a correct statement of fact; the authors are white.)
4. These books, and others like them, feed into what has been called the "white savior narrative in film", in which the heroes and heroines are white even though the story is about things that happen to black characters. (From source—Watson, Veronica T. (2013). The Souls of White Folk: African American Writers Theorize Whiteness. Jackson, MS: The University Press of Mississippi. p. 137. ISBN 9781496802453.)
5. African American writers have been sometimes portrayed in African-American studies as retreating from racial issues when they write about "whiteness", while others identify this as an African American literary tradition called "the literature of white estrangement", part of a multipronged approach to challenge and dismantle white supremacy in the US. (See above.)

If you check the additional occurrences you will find much the same type of reasons for the use of the word 'white'. In addition, reading the first five sections of the article will perhaps answer your concerns. So, as you see, substituting 'majority/minorities' for 'white' will produce inaccurate statements. Requests for 'semi-protected edits' must be specific. — Neonorange (talk) 07:13, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't think you comprehended my response properly. I was suggesting that in this talk section some (including possible you) don't want any reference to the term "white" to be included at the beginning of the article with the term racism, when in actuality ignoring this, lambastes all humans are possible racists and participating in it. This is not an accurate portrayal of actual homo sapiens sapiens history. Yes not only whites participate in racism, but it's the white system that perfected it and to this day, practice it. I think that some apologists for white racism edit Wikipedia articles. If a male that is against the abuse of females edited out sexist male language, that male is not anti-male but anti-sexism, oppression. In the case of whites that may edit out references to the white racism, it's not a noble nor academically honest edit, but one that leads to white-washing to actual articles and dilutes Wikipedia article accuracy. Further, all your sources are from "white writers" that itself is evidence of bias. You're attempting to justify a mostly white-washed article by quoting white writers. However, in all fairness, it would be more historically and logically sound to at least quote some black, African-American, non-white writers, publications. Your response is analogous to white Jews reading and requesting edits to articles written and mostly edited by non-Jewish Germans, but being given quotes only written by non-Jewish Germans and told to, basically, be quiet and accept the one-sided quotes, and existing edits in the locked Wikipedia article." --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:246A:78BB:79C0:F747 (talk) 09:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC) --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:246A:78BB:79C0:F747 (talk) 09:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is produced by thousands of volunteer editors. Mostly, these contributors have never met face-to-face. This is a very different situation from political struggle in the wider world—here we can only judge a contributor by what they say. Wikipeda only works if the very disparate editors here concentrate on providing reliable sources for all the content presented—no opinions from editors are allowed. Discussions on what should go in an article must be based on reliable sources—not what a contributor believes to be true.

When I first begin to use, and then to edit Wikipedia, I could see no way for it to work. Polemics don't work, the volunteers here are not going to sit around studying R. Palme Dutt.

This is not "my" article—I've made only a few changes here. You are just as welcome to improve this article as anyone else. I admit I've never read the entire article—only worked around the edges. Writing an important article of this size usually requires a collaboration of many editors—it is never finished. The original emphasis may have changed. It is always open to change. The requirements for change are an agreement among active editors on the best presentation of the best supported facts and theories. All you need to participate in improving this article is to register an anonymous account (which is much more anonymous than exposing your IP address). Currently this article is semi–protected to prevent vandalism. Anyone with a registered account that is at least four days old and who has made ten edits is autoconfirmed and can edit any semi-protected article. Only a few articles are protected—most may be edited by you right now. If you register an account, you can have a talk page, and discuss articles and changes that may be necessary. You may, if you wish, leave messages at my talk page If you have questions—I will try to help (just tap on the blue hyper–link my talk page). Neonorange (talk) 13:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Merging Racism in Sport into this article

I suggest merging Racism in Sport into this article for the following reasons:
- The former has been requiring cleanup since 2007.
- It is too extensive, convoluted and specific for its own page.
- There are no links to it in the page on Racism.
Please let me know what you think! - DrStrauss talk 08:12, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. There's enough material in racism in sport for a free-standing article, and racism is extremely broad/doesn't need the material added. Yuchitown (talk) 16:47, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown

No one else has commented in the last two months, so I'm removed the merge proposal tags. Yuchitown (talk) 04:06, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Yuchitown

Not a very good idea. Simply because a wikipedia page doesn't have links to the other page, doesn't indicate that the pages should be combined. Simply add a link to the Racism in Sports page onto this page. 2. The fact that an article seems convoluted, doesn't mean that it is. What is your evidence. 3. Racism in sports is a serious problem, what gives you the authority to determine that it's too extensive? 4. If the former has required cleanup since 2007 and that hasn't happened, why haven't you done it? Further, there are many articles that haven't been cleanedup in a long-time that doesn't mean you merge a supposedly not-cleanedup article with one that is. Your logic is flawed. --2604:2000:DDD1:4900:7C3D:C0D1:2058:B975 (talk) 11:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Racism:Morphology

Added the phrase differecial morphology in the opening paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.81.84 (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.[1]

Should be

Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards others (not only people) based on their differencial morphology. Today, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.44.81.84 (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Popular usage

I would consider the current Popular usage section to be very one-sided and should be edited to include more viewpoints regarding the popular usage. There are at this moment competing popular usages of the word racism. Rikskansler (talk) 09:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

And they are? (with the sources please). Doug Weller talk 12:30, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm talking about the common usage stated in dictionaries such as these: 1 2 3 4 If the sections name is Popular usage, the definitions should be included. Rikskansler (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/61DocT4xh?url=http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm to http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cerd.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.northern.edu/hastingw/baumedts.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110614002623/http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/2F848EFD-6B29-43E5-BB1C-497CD77BB2BF/0/FICHES_Racial_discrimination_EN.pdf to http://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/2F848EFD-6B29-43E5-BB1C-497CD77BB2BF/0/FICHES_Racial_discrimination_EN.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://scm.oas.org/doc_public/ENGLISH/HIST_02/CP09414E07.DOC
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://userwww.sfsu.edu/~epf/journal_archive/volume_X%2C_2001/hernandez_b.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C25524906-2703%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0%2C25197%2C25339291-28737%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 May 2017

On lines 4-6 of this article, it states "The Holocaust is the classic example of institutionalized racism which led to the death of millions of people based on their race." I suggest changes the wording to "The Holocaust is a classic example of institutionalized racism which led to the death of millions of people based on race.", i.e. removing the qualifier "their" from "race" as this perpetuates an objectified and individually/group-possessed (as opposed to socially-constructed) connotation of this term. I would also suggest changing the word "the" to "an" as there have been other major and catastrophic enactments of institutionalized racism, such as the system of American chattel slavery of African Americans. Drichards iv (talk) 05:01, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done for first half of proposal; not sure I understand about the reference to changing "the" to "an" so didn't do this part. -- Euryalus (talk) 01:46, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Racial discrimination

Notice to editors who watch this page: I have just split racial discrimination (which used to just be a section on this page) into its own page, and replaced the section here with a brief summary and a link to the main, new article. Everymorning (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Sources

These sources are interesting and scientific, but I can't add them to the article. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/10770563/Babies-show-racial-bias-study-finds.html http://www.medicaldaily.com/can-babies-be-racist-infants-show-racial-bias-over-fairness-when-choosing-playmates-277196 Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro 7 (talk) 12:05, 30 June 2017 (UTC) Note: if I am not allowed to include them personally, I ask someone who do that. Thank you. Cristiano Ronaldo dos Santos Aveiro 7 (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Etymology

As a long-term, confirmed editor of Wikipedia, why is my edit on the term's etymology not immediately appearing? I am trying to give credit to the originator of the term, Magnus Hirschfeld, and correct the commonly circulated misinformation that the word was coined by the communist Leon Trotsky. Here is my addition to the section, Etymology, definition and usage:

Specifically, the word "racism" appears to have been coined by Magnus Hirschfeld, a German-Jewish medical researcher who specialized in the field of sexology, or the scientific study of sex. The second edition of the Oxford English Dictionary (1989) lists the first known use of the word in English as appearing in the 1936 book The Coming American Fascism by Lawrence Dennis, a self-described fascist and advocate of fascism in America. However, Hirschfeld, who died in 1935, used the word in the title of his book Racism, written in German a year before the first known use of the word by Dennis, and the word "racism" is used throughout the text. The word is a pejorative and was always intended as such; Hirschfeld himself denounced those he viewed as racist, and very few if any people use the word to describe themselves or their ideas, only those ideas they disagree with or find reprehensible.

P.S. Why is adding to existing comments in the talk sections easy and obvious, but the method of adding new comments hidden and obscure? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimMagic (talk • contribs) 16:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

@TimMagic: I wonder if your browser and Wikipedia aren't playing together nicely today. Maybe some bizarre caching anomaly? In any event, the content you refer to is certainly there now. The article is semi-protected, but your account should be autoconfirmed, and even if it weren't, semi-protection would prevent your edit from appearing, not just delay it.

To add a new section to a talk page, click the tab just to the right of the "edit this page" tab at the top of the page. (Depending on your user preferences, it will be labeled either "new section" or simply "+".) And type four consecutive tildes (~~~~) to sign your talk-page posts.

Most importantly, the content you added requires one or more citations. The OED is a reliable source for at least some of what you wrote. See WP:CITE for more information on citing sources, and don't hesitate to ask at the help desk or Teahouse if you need help. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:47, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2017

Websters (ninth) collegiate dictionary does not include 'ethnicity' as part of racism, only race. I checked several other sources around the house and online and they all concur, that racism is tied to race. I was rather shocked to see 'ethnicity' as part of the definition of racism..... 2606:A000:4D49:7500:90B2:4C10:853:2796 (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. There may be other sources these editors used that tied racism to ethnicity. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

This doesn't seem a request so much as a discussion point. Racism is tied to race, race is tied to ethnicity. Dictionaries generally give extremely simplified definitions, sometimes completely wrong. I found one that defined archaeology as the study of prehistory, which is ridiculous as archaeologists also study contemporary archaeology. I'm surprised that you didn't read the lead which discusses in detail the issue of ethnicity. It also points to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination which defines racial discrimination as "...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." Read the sources we use, eg " Newman, D. M. (2012). Sociology: exploring the architecture of everyday life (9th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE. p. 405. ISBN 978-1-4129-8729-5. racism: Belief that humans are subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as superior or inferior." Or if you want a dictionary, how about the Oxford Dictionary?[2] Definition 1.2: "A group of people sharing the same culture, history, language, etc.; an ethnic group. ‘we Scots were a bloodthirsty race then’" Doug Weller talk 20:34, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Biracial dyads article - where to include it?

I have found this interesting meta-study of the USA culture, which show that most of USAns do not like working in biracial pairs ("dyads"):

Participants in same-race dyads tended to express marginally more positive attitudes about their partners (r = .07), reported feeling less negative affect (r = .10), showed more friendly nonverbal behavior (r = .09), and scored higher on performance measures (r = .07) than those in interracial dyads.

Dyadic interracial interactions: A meta-analysis especially when the pair is also of different sex.

I am not sure how to integrate it into this article. Maybe in the Aversive racism section that discusses "person's unconscious negative evaluations of racial or ethnic minorities"? Or is it a conscious evaluation, in both directions, also towards the racial majorities, and thus should go elsewhere here? Zezen (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence ("Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity.") should be something like "Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their assumed race or ethnicity" or "based on ethnicity and the conception of race". Otherwise it suggests that something like race actually exists, which is not the case from a scientific point of view. --Sibajaleoaj (talk) 15:42, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with you, although "presumed" or "perceived" might be a better word than "assumed". It probably would be a good idea to seek consensus before making such a change. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:02, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm also one of the people who believes that race, in the biological sense regarding humans, does not exist, but race is a concept and I don't think that the current lead sentence is reinforcing anything on the matter. It's already a widely held concept that is seeing no significant change regarding enlightenment among the general public. I also think that "assumed," "presumed" or "perceived" wording calls into question the "race"/ethnicity of the person when it's usually the case that the "race"/ethnicity is known. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:30, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

In the german wiki it's defined like that: 'Racism is an ideology, in which people are categorized as 'race', based on few extern physical characteristics which hypothesize a common descent.' I think something like that would be good. --Sibajaleoaj (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Article contains US American national bias

The article contains US American national bias because it shows a picture with a caption starting with "In 1899 Uncle Sam balances his new possessions" without explaining who Uncle Sam is. Readers outside the United States of America may not be aware that Uncle Sam is a personification of the USA. The caption assumes that everyone must know who Uncle Sam is. Please fix this issue by making the words "Uncle Sam" be a wikilink to the Uncle Sam article. To not discriminate against readers reading a printed version of the article we should also include an explanation, like "Uncle Sam (a personification of the USA)". Δεν είμαι Αμερικάνος (talk) 18:25, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Changed. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. For future reference, the point you made is summed up in WP:GEOSCOPE.--SamHolt6 (talk) 18:48, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

And Wikipedia:Systemic bias is a good essay to read. It's an ongoing challenge. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:10, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Israel bias

Why does the tiny country of Israel have an entire paragraph dedicated to it in Racism#Contemporary, but there is no mention of the extreme racism and anti-Semitism in Arab society? Arab countries are by far the most racist and anti-Semitic in the world. See Antisemitism in the Arab world and Racism in the Arab world. This article is typical of the anti-Jewish bias of left-wing publications like Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:fd0a:fb00:1a5:6158:d30d:3d04 (talk • contribs) 1 September 2017 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT EvergreenFir (talk) 19:12, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 September 2017

Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their PERCEIVED race or ethnicity. 81.104.113.139 (talk) 09:54, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:45, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308115725/http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7243.html to http://press.princeton.edu/titles/7243.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)