Talk:Cultural racism

About the merge

It has been proposed that this article be merged with Xenophobia. Cultural racism and xenophobi is not the same thing = CR should have its own article. It is not I who translated it, but there's nothing controversial with the content of the article, and the sources are good. I can put even more sources in if needed (english ones). Dnm (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cultural_racism. Nergaal (talk) 01:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dnm: So it took you 25 min to revert my edit, but you still haven't replied to my comment in 12 hours. Let me make this easy for you: "a review of the literature available online shows the notion is not universally accepted. Such a minority view should be discussed in the body of the article on racism and written from scratch in collaboration with the editors of that article". Just because Sweden has a fetish with "Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality" does make it any different from state propaganda. There is a very good reason my original edit mentioned highly NPOV. If you are opening this can of worms, make sure you actually bring out good references, not HuffPo or Swedish state propaganda. Nergaal (talk) 09:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

That was 5 years ago. I have no clue how that article looked, but it was nothing like this one i would imagine. If you want it deleted you can take it to "Articles for deletion". Your merge is not duable as I said above. Dnm (talk) 18:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I am reverting the merge. As you can see in the history the speedy deletion was declined because it was a translation and not the same article that was deleted 2012. Why do you now delete it witjout taking it up for a new discussion? That need to be done. Adville (talk) 22:06, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this link shows things better: "Speedy deletion declined. This has been translated from sv-wp and is different from the article previously deleted at AfD (CSDH)". It clearly shows that the AfD-discussion from 2012 are not applicable on this new article. It is a different one. So you need to stop the redirect edit waring. Dnm (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Adville: Dear, Swedish PC police, have you even opened the AfD discussion? You have yet to point out how any single point raised in AfD doesn't apply here. If you don't know the difference between delete and merge please stay out of encyclopedia discussions. In 3 months this is your second edit so you can't seriously expect me to take your participation here "out of nowhere" seriously. Nergaal (talk) 23:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Dnm: I have explicitly listed the items from AfD that still apply now, yet you did not address any of them in 6 days. Nergaal (talk) 23:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

No need to answer political argumentation. And articles should not be deleted because of political bias. Adville (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

@Nergaal: Not according to the admin: "Speedy deletion declined. This has been translated from sv-wp and is different from the article previously deleted at AfD (CSDH)".

And to be honest: your political views are of no interest to me. However i will report you if you do not discontinue this edit war. Dnm (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Article should not exist solely because a Swedish government agency wants to police the language. They can do that maybe in Swedish, but this is not their territory. You have yet to address any of the issues raised years ago. Nergaal (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

This has absolutely nothing to do with political views. You have reverted my edit 3 times already. Read wp:3R before continuing this. You have provided absolutely no argumentation for any issues raised, and plenty of days have passed in which you could have been bothered to address any single one of them. Nergaal (talk) 23:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

To any future reader: this single edit makes Dnm a clear partial participant on any subject revolving topics like this one. Nergaal (talk) 23:55, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, the only accessible reference used VERY clearly does not say what the text here implies. And every 8 of the 9 references used are inaccessible; even if these 8 references were actually correct and well used, it is essentially impossible for anybody (probably even those with access to Swedish language sources) to verify their veracity. In the two years since the article had been recreated, I find it extremely hard to believe that somebody with genuine interest in building an honest, objective article would have not provided some sort of verifiable references. Nergaal (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Every source are verifiable and are good sources. I understand that there is a language barrier if you do not speak Swedish, but there's nothing that says you may not use sources in other languages than English. Languages other than English does not disqualify an article. Dnm (talk) 01:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

When you have a controversial topic you can't expect to hide your point of view behind inaccessible sources. This is not a propaganda machine where people can pretend they use "good" sources to push an agenda. Verifiable sources are easy to check. Unless you are saying that such a topic only exists in Swedish sources. Nergaal (talk) 01:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Also, see Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:Userfication. Nergaal (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Do not make this about me. The sources are from the Swedish government, the swedish "version" of Encyclopedia Britannica, United Nations, and scholars. The arguments you are presenting are vague at best and seem more focused on me as a person than on the content of the sources, which you are just assume things about, on seemingly political grounds (your arguments from beginning to now are political). The study of the subject of Cultural racism are widely spread international, mainly in Europe, but also in the states amongst scholars. Dnm (talk) 02:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Dude, let me make this clear again: there is no source I can corroborate any of the statements you have added. There is a single verifiable source, and that one does not say at all what it is refecenced here to say. You have put zero energy into proving your point with verifiable sources. To me you seem to be more interested in "curating" content that already has verifiable sources than making your POV supported by similarly accessible ones. Nergaal (talk) 09:22, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

POV

To be truly neutral, this article must discuss the viewpoint that it is not racist or even wrong to view some cultures as superior to others. This article also focusses on the attitudes of white people and not examples of prejudices among POC, for example, the Rwandan genocide.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 12:50, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Remember that being WP:NPOV does not mean pursuing some sense of perceived total 'neutrality' but rather means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." As it stands, the body of literature on 'cultural racism' is not particularly large and is very Western-centric. Hence why this article only really discusses the situation in Western countries and does not spend time articulating arguments in support of cultural superiority. I think it does a fair job of summarising what the existing literature claims, but this article will not be able to expand to cover new territory until the literature on the subject does so first. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

MagicatthemovieS, could I ask that you remove the two tags that you have added? As far as I can see, you haven't raised any concerns that a) there are specific sentences in the article that fail to neutrally recount what the Reliable Sources cited say or b) that Reliable Sources exist that explicit apply the framework of 'cultural racism' to non-Western societies. If you have any such concerns, I would of course be happy to try and rectify them, but at present I'm not really sure that these tags are valid or necessary. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

They are valid and necessary until you add more to the article. There is a tremendous body of literature advocating the superiority of some cultures over others and the idea that there is nothing racist about believing that one culture is superior to another. The framework of cultural racism has been applied outside of the West. I am very busy and I wish you luck finding this literature through Google Books.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

You can't just insist that a body of literature exists and then refuse to name any examples. I've done the Google Book search ("cultural racism India", "cultural racism China" etc) and no results are coming up. I've also largely written this article in it's current form so it isn't as if I'm totally unfamiliar with literature on this topic. Please, if there is such a literature that you are aware of, provide some pointers. Otherwise the tags should be removed. Saying that you don't have time (particularly when you've just spent about five hours editing Wikipedia) is a bit of a cop out. Midnightblueowl (talk) 16:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I can find you more stuff later, but here's one article for you https://972mag.com/cultural-racism-helps-israelis-rationalize-inequality-discrimination/142534/ I would also prefer that this article be merged with "xenophobia."MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

That's just a randomly selected article from a Google search (I found it too). It's not really a top-quality Reliable Source. But there are some academic articles that apply the "cultural racism" framework to the situation is Israel, which I will incorporate into the article. As for a merger with xenophobia, I don't think that that would make sense. There is clearly overlap between concepts of "xenophobia" and "cultural racism", but they nevertheless remain distinct concepts with distinct histories. "Xenophobia" is a very old concept, one that even predates "racism"; "cultural racism" is a much more recent development, which is partly why there is not a particularly rich literature on the subject. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Cultural racism is indistinct from xenophobia. Also this article was deleted in 2012 and its existence has face opposition ever since.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 18:24, 14 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

"Cultural racism is indistinct from xenophobia." What? Where are you getting that idea from? That sounds like your personal opinion but it certainly isn't the view taken in the Reliable Sources written by sociologists and other scholarly specialists, which is what this article is (and should be) based on. I think we might have to get a third opinion in here to deal with these tags. Midnightblueowl (talk) 18:58, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

For anyone coming forward as a result of my 3O request, the main issue of contention here is whether the two tags that MagicatthemovieS placed onto the article earlier today are valid and if they should remain in place. The viewpoint of an uninvolved editor well versed in Wikipedia policy would be appreciated. Midnightblueowl (talk) 19:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I am not versed at all in Wikipedia policy but I agree with POV claim. It is hard to see difference with xenophobia and it is even harder to see how Islamophobia can be called racial when Islam is religion to which anyone can convert, seems like a fringe view. Polyison (talk) 18:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

This appears to be the first (and thus far only) edit by Polyison. I'm not saying that that intrinsically discounts their viewpoint, but I would like the 3O to come from someone who is actually very well versed in Wikipedia policy and can accurately judge the issues in question. Midnightblueowl (talk) 20:00, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you have some examples of text you consider NPOV? I don't have the time to read the entire article at the moment, but I could compare it to the whole later when I have time. I'm also not terribly well versed in Wikipedia policy, but it could help to have it laid out. Just from what you've said, considering there's not really a term (that I'm aware of) to describe discrimination by religion, I believe cultural racism is a term as good as any here. Praefect94 (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

As far as I can tell religious discrimination is just that religious discrimination. I am very curios to find out how islamophobia and Persecution of Christians in the modern era can be called racial at all? There are white muslims and arabic, indian christians who are discriminated and in extreme cases killed. I fail to see how you can correlate religion with race. Polyison (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

I do not believe that the tags are necessary. Neutrality is not always "balance", it is in accurately reflecting the consensus of reliable sources. The burden of an editor who wants to add material, such as has been proposed here, is on the editor who proposes it. MagicatthemovieS, that means you would need to actually say what references you're talking about (beyond a single one), not just handwave that they exist on Google Books. Please list specific sources which support your position, and then what to do with them can be reasonably discussed. Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC) Seraphimblade Talk to me 14:15, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Xenophobia

Xenophobia is indistinct from cultural racism. The two articles should be combined. Make it so that the article says "Xenophobia, also known as cultural racism..."MagicatthemovieS (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Please provide evidence for your claim that "xenophobia is indistinct from cultural racism." And by evidence, I mean a series of Reliable Sources that explicitly state that the two phenomena are one and the same (which, to be honest, I don't think you will be able to provide, because I don't believe said Reliable Sources exist, because cultural racism and xenophobia are distinct concepts with different conceptual histories). Of course there are areas of overlap between what the two concepts describe (just as there is overlap between what the concepts of 'xenophobia' and 'biological racism' describe) but that does not make them wholly synonymous. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Lead

While MOS:LEAD doesn't always require the lead to have citations, that is more applicable when the lead is a concise summation without significant controversies. The lead on this article is quite long in comparison to the rest of the article; it is very detailed, and contains material that looks to be the subject of ongoing disputes. Perhaps citing the content, and making the lead more concise, might help with some of the conflicts here. See MOS:LEADCITE. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:28, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I think that beginning to add citations to the lede will simply create more problems, to be honest. As far as I can tell, no-one has yet made a serious argument that any of the material in the lede is not also contained, and properly sourced, in the main body of the article. Regarding your second point, that the article could be more concise, I think you have a stronger argument. How would you suggest editing it down; perhaps trimming back the discussion of Islamophobia? Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I've cut the lead down a bit, which I hope helps deal with your concerns. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I propose islamophobia section from top of article and the body be removed completely. It is a fringe view, moreover this fringe view appears to be in minority or contested at best in UK, and entire section relies on UK perspective. This is not worldwide perspective. Polyison (talk) 14:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

The idea that Islamophobia should be considered a form of racism is hardly a WP:FRINGE view, at least as Wikipedia defines it. It may not be your view, and that's fine, but that isn't a reason to misrepresent the level of support that it actually has. Moreover, and this should be stressed, the Wikipedia article does not claim that "Islamophobia is racism" and present this as if it were unequivocal fact. It describes how some people advocate this idea, the reasoning they put forward for it, and then offers the views of those who disagree with them. That is as it should be. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Entire section is only about UK perspective, this is why I question how much widespread racial perspective is since it challenged even there, to me that indicates that perspective has low level of support globally. If there is support from Asia, Africa, Middle East, Americas as well as other European countries I would reconsider my view. Polyison (talk) 16:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Midnightblueowl that Islamophobia should be included in the article. As for whether or not the article is based on a UK viewpoint or a worldwide viewpoint, that don't make much difference. If it is focused on a UK viewpoint, then efforts should be made to make it more inclusive to worldwide beliefs, but that don't mean removing it entirely. Praefect94 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

POV

Starting a new thread on this issue. Like previous commentators, I think this article is missing the significant and noteworthy perspective that some cultures are better than others. This idea has a lot of noteworthy adherents. See a few prominent examples of this argument:

• Warraq, Ibn (2011). Why the West is Best: A Muslim Apostate's Defense of Liberal Democracy. Encounter Books. ISBN 9781594035777.
• Sowell, Thomas (1994). Race and culture: a world view. Basic Books. ISBN 9780465067961. (see here)
• Ferguson, Niall (2011). Civilization: The West and the Rest. Penguin. ISBN 9781101548028.

I don't think this article can meet the Good Article criteria of completeness or NPOV without including that line of critique. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 04:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Might also be relevant to include survey results showing that large numbers of people are "cultural racists", believing their own culture is superior to others. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 07:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The issue at hand here isn't whether some people have argued that certain cultures are objectively better than others (of course they have), but rather whether any of these individuals have specifically framed their arguments as a critique of the concept of "cultural racism". That I am unsure about. Certainly, I have yet to come across any such arguments. If, however, they exist in the form of Reliable Sources then they would certainly warrant inclusion in the article. It may be that as the idea of cultural racism becomes better known, so the criticisms of it will become more apparent and we can add them here. What we shouldn't do is just start adding material from sources that make no reference to "cultural racism" or any of its synonyms. That would probably end up becoming WP:Original Research or WP: Synthesis. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Taguieff

I have seen that Taguieff has been recently introduced in the body of the article, which is good thing (thank you), but he is still underrepresented despite the fact that he is a leading theorist of 'cultural racism' (perhaps 'the' leading theorist with Balibar). Since both Balibar's and Taguieff's books were published in the same year (1988), I would have used the style 'date=1988|edition=1991' and 'date=1988|edition=2001' to avoid confusion. I can help you with Taguieff, I'm familiar with his work and can read the original French if needed. Azerty82 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The ND shift from 'biological' to 'cultural racism' had already emerged by the late 1960s; it is not 'caused' (rather 'confirmed') by leftist opposition in the 1970s. Read GRECE, Alain de Benoist, Europe-Action, European Rally for Liberty , Federation of Nationalist Students, Jeune Nation, etc.

(Bar-On, 2001, p. 339): GRECE consciously avoided any conspicuous links with the discredited Fascist or Nazi cultures of the past. In order to return to cultural and political respectability and escape its marginalized status, the revolutionary Right had to abandon its petty infighting and sterile doctrinal disputes of the 1940s and 1950s as well as its violent, excessive tactics inherited from the colonialist and Fascist eras: extreme chauvinism, excessive militarism, the quasi-mystical cult of the leader, the totalitarian one party state, etc. Consequently, several important trends which began under Europe Action in the early 1960s would condition the thinking of GRECE and the ND in the late 1960s: the dumping of the hyper-veneration of the charismatic leader, a “scientific” doctrine of racism, and conditional support for the liberal parliamentary system. In addition, GRECE and the ND borrowed a number of themes inherited from Europe Action: the anti-Christian stance, a marked elitism, the racial notion of a unified Europe, the seeds of a change from biological to cultural definitions of “difference,” and the sophisticated inversion of terms like racism and anti-racism. As a result of the revolutionary Right militancy of some members within Vichy, Fascist, or France’s Organisation de l’armée secrète (OAS – Secret Army Organization) circles in the past, GRECE circulated a confidential internal bulletin to be later destroyed, which contained a warning against the use of outmoded fascist or proto- fascist language: “It is necessary to be very prudent in the conclusions which are drawn in Nouvelle Ecole (GRECE’s official journal). It is equally prudent in the vocabulary used. It is necessary to abandon an outdated language." Azerty82 (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: it is an otherwise great article! Really well written and structured. We just need to correct that little 'approximation'. Azerty82 (talk) 19:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent additions, Azerty82. Looks good. I'm happy to see more Taguieff used in this article; any particular points of his that you think need to be covered in greater depth? Midnightblueowl (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

I was probably exaggerating when I said that Taguieff is 'under-represented', all the important information are already included in the article.

One thing to note though: many Nouvelle Droite leaders were endorsing a biological view of difference in their early writings, before their eventual shift towards ethno-pluralism.

Alain de Benoist (1966):Race is the only real unit encompassing individual variations. The objective study of history shows that only the European race (white race, caucasian) has continued to progress since its appearance on the rising path of the evolution of the living, unlike races stagnant in their development, therefore in virtual regression [...] The European race does not have absolute superiority. It is only the most capable of progressing in the direction of evolution [...] Racial factors being statistically hereditary, each race has its own psychology. All psychology generates value." He has also endorsed apartheid as the "last outpost of the West" at a time of "decolonisation and international negrification" in 1965.

That's why the Nouvelle Droite has been widely criticized as a metapolitical disguise endorsing classical racism under a new shape deemed more acceptable in a post-fascist world. That said, I think that De Benoist has sincerely changed his mind since his early radical writings when he was 20–27 years old (this is also Jean-Yves Camus's point of view), unless he has been able to hide what he really thinks for 50 years but I doubt so. On the other side, many Nouvelle Droite leaders are indeed deeply racist and clearly use cultural racism as a metapolitical guise: Guillaume Faye has preached "total ethnic war" between "original" Europeans and Muslims in 2000, and Pierre Vial has called for an "ethnic revolution" and a "war of liberation" in the late 1990s. Azerty82 (talk) 15:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

The term 'racism' coined in the 1930s?

The term 'racism' was not coined in the 1930s, it became popular in the 1930s.

The French term 'racisme' first appears in 1902. (CNRTL). 'Raciste' first appears in 1892. (CNRTL)

The English term 'racism' was first used in 1903 by Richard Henry Pratt (NPR, quoting the Oxford English Dictionary)

Segregating any class or race of people apart from the rest of the people kills the progress of the segregated people or makes their growth very slow. Association of races and classes is necessary to destroy racism and classism. Azerty82 (talk) 21:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

PS: is Rattansi (2007) to be considered a reliable source? You cannot write a "Very Short Introduction [on Racism]" and state that it was coined in the 1930s, it is misleading...

PS2: of course, 'first appears' and 'first used' should be read as 'first recorded appearance' and 'first recorded use' in my comment. Azerty82 (talk) 21:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Azerty82: I just made the same comment in my review, inter alia! Please add any comments to the review here. Cordialement, --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Goldsztajn: I'm not familiar with GA Reviews. Should I add my comment within the table you have created or below the table? Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 22:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

@Azerty82: Follow this link: Talk:Cultural_racism/GA1, scroll down to the section "Other commentaries" and add what you would like there. Or this is a direct link for editing that section: [1] --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

You're quite right, Azerty82. This is a misleading sentence. Is anyone aware of any good articles or books dealing with the actual etymology of the term "racism", which could be utilised here in place of Rattansi's statement? Midnightblueowl (talk) 10:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: For the early history of the words 'racist/racism', you can use Taguieff (2001): pp 85–91. French 'Racisme' is thought to be either an adaptation of the German term Völkisch, or simply a derivative of 'race'. It entered the English language later in the early 1900s. The word 'race' itself stems from Italian 'razzia' and is way more ancient (with a different meaning; eventually used as a human categorization by the 18th century. Voltaire (1756): "la race des nègres est une espèce d'hommes différente de la nôtre, comme la race des épagneuls l'est des lévriers [the race of negroes is a difference human species from ours (...)]").

Fredrickson (2002, "Racism: A short history", pp. 4–5) uses a better wording (emphasis mine): The use of allegedly deep-seated cultural differences as a justification for hostility and discrimination against newcomers from the Third World in several European countries has led to allegations of a new “cultural racism.” (...) From the historian’s perspective such recent examples of cultural determinism are not in fact unprecedented. They rather represent a reversion to the way that the differences between ethnoracial groups could be made to seem indelible and unbridgeable before the articulation of a scientific or naturalistic conception of race in the eighteenth century. (...) The word “racism” first came into common usage in the 1930s when a new word was required to describe the theories on which the Nazis based their persecution of the Jews. Regards, Azerty82 (talk) 11:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

@Midnightblueowl: - Balibar (2009) pp1632-4 on etymology of the word racism in French and English. Discussion on first seeming use in English. Perhaps the point is that the term does not become routinely (?) negative until the 1930s and only decisively so from the 1950s.--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, have just noticed Azerty82 already cited the NPR piece.--Goldsztajn (talk) 19:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes, I had forgotten about this article from Balibar, thank you. Regarding the term 'racist', Nicolas Lebourg has stated in a recent conference that it was first used to refer to Southern (Latin) French replacing Northern (Gallic) French in the late 19th–early 20th centuries, the author calling for a 'racist' policy to constrain this phenomenon. Azerty82 (talk) 19:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

My thanks to both of you! We could certainly use these sources to make some choice alterations to those parts of the article when we discuss the concept of racism. Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have now replaced the problematic sentence with another that I have cited to Bowser. Midnightblueowl (talk) 15:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

"Cultural insensitivity" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Cultural insensitivity. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

'Biological racism' versus 'Scientific racism'

This article uses the term 'biological racism' 15 times. Scientific racism is used once, in the lead, where it is equated to biological racism. Biological racism is linked in this article, and redirects to Scientific racism, which doesn't mention the term.

I think of biological racism as a narrower term, and specifically about identifying innate, genetically derived differences. Scientific racism is broader, and refers the process of using scientific tools to justify its conclusions. A cultural racist's application of intelligence testing to argue for differences in intelligence between groups is scientific racism, but not necessarily biological racism. The definition of scientific racism here seems to bear out a broader definition of scientific racism, although after a quick search I didn't find a comparison of the two terms. FWIW, here's the Ngram comparison.

Do others agree that these terms are not synonyms, and we should be careful about equating them in the lead? And, how best to address that we link biological racism to an article that doesn't mention it? Pinging @Goldsztajn, Midnightblueowl, and Azerty82, who were involved in the recent GAN. LaTeeDa (talk) 13:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I would even argue that Biological racism should not redirect to Scientific racism. There is overlap, but no equivalence. Azerty82 (talk) 14:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I hadn't really thought about this before. I certainly do not have an intrinsic problem with creating a separate article on "Biological racism", but we would need to have the appropriate Reliable Sources to support it as a separate concept. Specifically, we would probably need Reliable Sources that explicitly state that biological racism and scientific racism are different phenomena. Otherwise it would be WP:Original research, which is obviously something that we must avoid. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Looking around, seems like while scientific racism may be a broader term, it is also the common name for biological racism. As a stopgap, I made this change to Scientific racism, but if anyone finds a good source regarding a narrower definition for Biological racism, this could probably be improved. LaTeeDa (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

I have quickly looked at the literature, and authors seem to use 'scientific' and 'biological racism' as synonyms; this not a reason not to be more precise than they are in this article though. Azerty82 (talk) 17:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Because we are dealing with pseudoscientific concepts their definitions are complex and they evolve over time to include new forms. I do not see a huge problem that when speaking to a general readership we indicate that biological racism and scientific racism are broadly synonymous. However, classifying psychological justifications for racial inequality as both cultural racism and scientific racism could be possible.--Goldsztajn (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Unusual and conflicting definitions of "racism" used in the article

The article uses multiple different definitions of racism within the same paragraph. The following excerpt appears to use multiple different definitions of "racism", some of which are unusual and not supported by the Wikipedia article on "racism":

"Three main arguments as to why beliefs in intrinsic and insurmountable cultural differences should be considered racist have been put forward. One is that hostility on a cultural basis can result in the same discriminatory and harmful practices as belief in intrinsic biological differences, such as exploitation, oppression, or extermination. The second is that beliefs in biological and cultural difference are often interlinked and that biological racists use claims of cultural difference to promote their ideas in contexts where biological racism is considered socially unacceptable. The third argument is that the idea of cultural racism recognises that in many societies, groups like immigrants and Muslims have undergone racialization, coming to be seen as distinct social groups separate from the majority on the basis of their cultural traits."

The first argument seems to be that the belief in inherent cultural differences is racist because it means hostility to different cultures, which leads to discrimination and hateful practices (hateful practices like, it is argued, the belief in existence of biological races).

The second argument seems to be that the belief in inherent cultural differences is racist because it can lead to biological racism (presumably defined as the belief in existence of biological races), it is racist because people who hold that belief are also often biological racists.

The third argument seems to be that the belief in inherent cultural differences is racist because it means believing that some groups have undergone racialization. So it is arguing that acceptance of existence of racialization leads to racism.

1. Racism means hostility to different cultures and discriminatory and harmful practices, such as belief in existence of biological races.

2. The belief is racist because people who believe that there are inherent cultural differences are often also biological racists.

3. Racism means believing in the existence of racialization.

When we go to the article on racism on Wikipedia we can find some support for the first definition ("It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.").

The second definition can be criticised as an example of a guilt by association fallacy, though a more cheritable interpretation would be that the argument is not that everyone who believes there are inherent cultural differences must be a biological racist, but that he is more likely to be a biological racist and there is a correlation between the two.

The third definition however I could find no support for at all in the article for racism, or in any other source. It is a bizarre definition.

There are no references given for the paragraph, in fact there are no references given for the first 4 paragraphs of the article at all. Somebody should add references for the first 4 paragraphs.

185.252.183.159 (talk) 13:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

The lead of the article only summarises the content of the rest of the article, where appropriate citations to peer-reviewed sources can be found. That is standard practice at Wikipedia. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:22, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

contradiction

Article reads: "This includes the idea that some cultures are superior to others."

The article should explain how the concept of cultural racism can be of any value when it is contradictory. That is, is a culture that is not culturally racist superior to one that is? If you answer yes, you are being culturally racist. If you answer no, then there is no point to the distinction between being culturally racist and not being culturally racist. 2600:4040:5D38:1600:8898:29E6:EB35:C26F (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2022 (UTC)