Talk:Racism/Archive 22

Archive 15

←

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Opening Section

The transatlantic slave trade (TAST) was about money, not racism. It is because humans are prone to generalizations that it manifested itself into racist practices because it was easier to make money by doing so. Was the original goal to subjugate Africans or was the original goal about settling lands and starting profitable business ventures? Therefore, the driving force behind the TAST was not racism. Further, you could say that the apartheid and segregation of the US was about the well-off groups retaining their standard of living and power - it also manifesting as racism.

As for the anti-white racism section in the talk, if it's possible to be anti-black then you can be anti-white. This mentality does exist in the West. By the 'power' argument you could say that anti-female sexism doesn't exist as females are actually more powerful than males in the West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.239.238 (talk) 08:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, but at this stage they appear to be only that. Wikipedia content depends on reliable sourcing, rather than original research. If you can show us an independent, reliable source presenting thoughts similar to yours, we may be able to take this further. HiLo48 (talk) 08:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between thoughts and pointing out logic flaws. If every source said 1+1=3 would Wikipedia then state that indeed 1+1 does equal 3? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.239.238 (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if every source said that 1+1=3 that would mean that that was the accepted conclusion and wikipedia would bring it. Furthermore, what you are pointing out is not a logical flaw, you are just making a controversial and highly problematic claim seemingly based mostly on lack of knowledge of the history of slavery and lack of understanding of what racism is.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a concept known as "You don't need to cite that the sky is blue" for really obvious things, but contrasting that is the prohibition on synthesis. 1 + 1 = 2 may be covered under WP:BLUE, but your perspective, while it may have some merit as a thesis, wouldn't. And can you please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). HiLo48 (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason you both are against the change is because you fear a personal backlash of it. The point remains, it makes no sense to leave one's homeland, go to a new one and along they way, enslave a group from a third place and bring them over - voluntarily assuming their cost of living - all for the purpose of subjugating that group. Why would one voluntarily associate with and pay for people they don't like? Its because it was for money, it just happen to manifest as a racist practice as it was both easy and successful to do so. 101.119.26.57 (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

No the reason is because it is not supported by a single source but only by your personal misguided reasoning. And because it is contrary to the principles and policies of editing wikipedia. ANy way your logics is severely flawed - if the only motivation was to exact maximal profits as you yourself ought to realize it would have been a lot cheaper to enslave Europeans, who were closer to home. That was not done. That was because it is much easier to convince people to enslave people that can be conceptualized as sub-human, or even non-human. That was the racist motivation that undergirded slavery, and it existed prior to the transtlantic slavetrade.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. I also didn't realise that you've done the costing on European vs African slaves. By your logic, everything would be produced locally today, but international manufacturing exists precisely because in many circumstances it is cheaper to make/get a product overseas than locally. 101.119.26.57 (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Most of us would agree with you that 1 + 1 = 2. I think we can all agree that the sky is blue. But your view presented here obviously doesn't have universal agreement, so you need an independent, reliable source. Until you find one, please stop wasting your time and ours. HiLo48 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Hat Note Clean Up

The current hat note is a mess: "Afrophobia" and "Negrophobia" redirect here. For Afrophobia in the United States, see Racism in the United States#African Americans. For Afrophobia in Russia, see Racism in Russia#Africans. "Racial supremacy" redirects here. For other uses, see Racial supremacist.

Can anyone make this more relevant? Why is it giving info about where it redirects from? Not sure why Afrophobia is repeated so much also. Maybe Afrophobia just needs its own article --Inayity (talk) 10:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this is your point, but I'm not sure why these two articles are listed as see alsos. They should probably be removed. Yes, it's possible the reader was searching for anti african racism in the USA or Russia, but it's also possible they were searching for the article on France or China or India or Australia or wherever.--Yaksar (let's chat) 09:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

It would make sense to have an actual article on afrophobia. What about afrophbia in country X, Y and Z? Should we just keep piling on the hat note? // Liftarn (talk)

Problem with lead definition

The lead definition explicitly implies that race doesn't exist and that anyone who says it does is a racist - "Racism is generally defined as actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems that are based in views that see the human species to be divided into races".

This isn't supported by the one source cited ("Racism" in Oxford dictionaries), I don't know about the other source.

However, I'm strongly against such an implication, even though most experts agree that race is a social construct, stating that race exists can hardly be interpreted as racism.--Kohelet2 (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I do not know who changed the lead but it makes no sense.--Inayity (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I tried merging the original with Inayity's definition. The structural component is important to mention, but the original definition was pretty terrible. I wouldn't mind adding a more sociological part to the lead (that unequal outcomes in institutions is a form of racism). EvergreenFir (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

We should spend some time / thoroughness to get this right. There are so many different definitions, many slanted by various agendas and PC. We should to some extent go by common meanings / prevalence. North8000 (talk) 21:09, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I dont mean to be off, but English is my first language and I challenge anyone to read that LEAD aloud. Just do it and you will see where I am going. How many "or" did the English teacher say were allowed in ONE sentence before it becomes muck?--Inayity (talk) 21:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that in terms of logic and content, that the lead (as of this moment) is pretty good. Prose etc. is another story. North8000 (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Breaking down the Verbose Current LEDE

Racism is generally (to verbose) defined as actions, practices or beliefs, or social or political systems (did we leave out anything?) that are based in views that the human species (species?)can be divided into races (we are defining Racism not Race) with shared traits, abilities, or qualities (e.g., personality, intellect, morality) are inherited and that this inheritance means(is this a legal document?) that races can be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to others, or that members of different races should be treated differently.

Now I speak English and have a lot of education on Racism (and I am confused), what about the person that speaks it as a 2nd language and is trying to learn something? The Lede just needs to go back to basics and GET TO THE POINT. The most central thing about Racism is Superiority and inferiority. The Def of Race has no place in this LEDE. Most of us know what a race is. So why is superiority/inferiority at the end of the sentence? Basic writing 1 on 1.--Inayity (talk) 21:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

The lead is fine in my opinion. It's long, but okay. We could break it up a bit if needed. The points you raise do not seem to hold any water to me.

• Yes, human species. That's what we are.
• The "is generally" is fine as it summaries the underlying theme of the various definitions of racism.
• To define racism, we must define race in terms of a social construct as that's what it's related to.
• Genes are inherited... we're not talking about heirlooms.
• Not all conceptions of racism are about superiority/inferiority.EvergreenFir (talk) 23:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Take that sentence to an English teacher and ask them is it well written? Or read it aloud. It is a basic test. So How could it be fine? These are not subjective things, the sentence structure is muck. Try getting a PhD with that def.

• Now Human beings are a species, so what? Who does not know that? Are aliens planning of reading Wikipedia that you need to clarify that point.
• The purpose of an article on race is to define race. Per WP:LEAD we discuss Racism. Not go into details on what race is, or what species human beings are. What for?
• So you will list everything?
• the Lead should sum up, leave the details of rare exceptions to the body. B/c 9/10 Racism is about superiority and inferiority.

I suggest you step back from what you have written and read it objectively, b/c the fact that to people have said it is poor prose should be enough. --Inayity (talk) 07:02, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Now let us look at another definition: Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another,(do you see where the core point is placed?) that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another. (ADL)

Now I have done myself a favor and reviewed about 4 different definitions from scholars like Asante, Cornel West, Ani, and for a control ADL not ONE of them has a def like the one we have here. Not one of them explains RACE, or that humans are a species. And It is strange I should have to explain these kind of obvious problems which are characteristic of verbose writing. [1]Wikipedia should be readable to most English speakers--Inayity (talk) 07:11, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about racism, so we need to explain what racism is. It is not about the idea of "race". There are also different types of racism (even if they in reality is not as clear-cut) such as biological racism and cultural racism. // Liftarn (talk)

I'm going to try to tidy up the first sentence without changing what it says. North8000 (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

@North8000: I like the changes. @Inayity: Thank you for the well-wishes on my doctorate. I'm defending my dissertation proposal at the end of the semester and need all the positive energy I can get. As for the other issues, this horse is at about 60% life. Most of my books are at my office, but the old intro to sociology book I have has the following definition of 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." (from Sociology: exploring the Architecture of Everyday Life, Fourth edition by David M. Newman, 2002). That sounds a lot like our current definition and it mentions the belief in racial categories. If RS mention worldviews about race as part of the definition of racism, we must reflect that in our article. Actually, I'll add this as a ref for the lead. I can give you some more definition from other text books and a sociology dictionary if desired. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I can also go into a dusty shelf and pull out an academic book understood by 20% of the planet. But what is this Wikipedia page for, and we need to keep that in view? based in views that humans can be divided into races It is verbose, it is also redundant. The link to race already explains race. (looking at most books discussing racism very few waste space explaining what a race is, esp when race is not the only bases for racism) And this writing style is the problem when people come from Academia who are trained to write in a way that is looooooong, in the belief that verbose = intellectualism. It has become a culture, and as an academic reading academic papers day and night --get to the point--be concise .--Inayity (talk) 05:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It was from an intro text book, aimed at freshmen in college. While you argue for conciseness, I argue for accurate reflection of the body of the article. We must reflect what reliable sources say. Grammar and style must be an afterthought to accuracy and completeness. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

In your pursuit of accuracy you are actually (as a user noted [2]) creating an unclear def. If I did not know better I might make the wrong deduction from the lead. Nothing twarts clarity and being concise. We have the body for waffling on. See antisemitism does it define Semitic (which is a misnomer in the context of antisemitism) in the first sentence? As for RS, most RS do not explain away what race is in defining racism. And you can easily prove me wrong, if I am wrong. And w/o grammar (syntax)there is no meaning!--Inayity (talk) 11:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Did the change I just made help a little? It could be a valid point that "divided into races" is a generally accepted given rather than a defining attribute of racism. North8000 (talk) 15:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Not it didnt help because it is not the case that it is generally accepted that humans can be divided into races. And the belief in the existence of races is itself considered equivalent to racism by many (because the concept has no scientific basis).User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:05, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Good points, I didn't know that mere belief in the existence of races is considered by some to be racism. If so, the current sentence does need some work because it's not really worded to say that that alone is considered by some to be racism. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think the current wording does include that possible definition of racism, because it stresses that they are actions, views and practices based in the belief of race. The problem as I see it with the definition is that it is a run on sentence, that is very hard to read, and which doesnt clearly define the relation between the subordinate clauses. Ive added a comma and wording to clarify the relation between them.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a problem I see often with article first sentences. There is a sort of expectation that the first sentence defines the topic, and then whrn the definition is complicated the first sentence gets long. North8000 (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

True, in any topic with several competing definitions this tends to happen. Look at my recent changes to see if they make it a little clearer.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

@North8000 Thanks for the adjustment it simplifies it some. On another note Just remember we are not here to say if Race classification is scientific or not. Being socially real makes it pretty real. God is real to most of the world, yet it is not scientific. Avoid discussing issues with Race. B/c very few people discussing racism mention the issues of race.ref It is making the lead complicated. Just talk about Racism. And remember racism does not only apply to race classification. If you look at the usage of "You are a racist" it could be used for holding a view against a country. Or even a political movement. So we should not spend too much time on defining race. And I have avoided editing but I think the lead has a way to go. Currently I could easily read it to mean that belief in Race is Racist. It is not clear. --Inayity (talk) 03:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Just saw edits. They look good to me. Changed verb from "Racism are" to "Racism is". Nice efforts by y'all to resolve this. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Please add the white nationalism template

^^^69.178.195.104 (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this should be added, but if anyone thinks otherwise, please explain your reason here before adding it. Shalom11111 (talk) 03:37, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I concur, no need to add it.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

agreed. article not in template anyway. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Indirect Racism

I think the article should cover a modern type of racism that is indirect. This means that rather than being an open racist - the perpetrator (which could even be a news agency or wikipedia user for example - amplifies criminal or defamatory acts committed by people of that race.

For example: If 50 people are murdered each day. A certain news agency will only cover or disproportionately cover murders committed by Black people, or by Chinese people. This will bring a false assumption to the readers that this race commits more crime that they really do.

Another example is if a Newspaper or a Wikipedia user (for example) only writes about "Spanish people" when there is negative coverage. This will make it's readers believe that this race is a bad race.

We need to see if there are reputable sources for this. Bordguy (talk) 06:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Something like this would be interesting. You should definitely find sources and write a section like that. I'm also wondering about the way they show the "success" of Asians and Jews to reinforce the model minority myths.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That point that you brought out about showing the "success" - I never realized that yet. That is a good point though it will be challenging to find the sources on that. Bordguy (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The redirect templates in the article - is racism only about prejudice against Black people?

Greetings. User:EvergreenFir - I'm referring to your contribution here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism&diff=606205379&oldid=606204626

Now, yes indeed, I did remove the templates. Ok, I will explain why I did it - because in my opinion they suggest that racism can be only and exclusively anti-Black, which is a lie and is unjust to other racial/ethnic groups. With all due respect and love for Black people - there are also such ethnic groups like Hispanics, Jews, Poles, Gypsies, Armenians, Asians, Native Americans etc, who also suffered ethnicity-based prejudice back in history, and many of them still do. What is more, I don't understand why "Racism in Russia" against Black Africans is so "important" that it's highlighted right at the begining of the main article about racism. Racism is everywhere across the world, so please explain why specifically anti-African sentiment in Russia is so important that it needs to be stressed out in such a way. If so, then let's also highlight racism in Spain and Portugal, racism in France, in Britain and in the Netherlands - the countries that took active part in the Atlantic Slave Trade. Yatzhek (talk) 19:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Yatzhek: I only re-added it because it was unclear why it was removed. We should add those links to the See Also sectionbut keep the "Afrophobia redirects here" part. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Placing those hyperlinks in the "See also" section sounds better than placing them at the very top headline of the article. However, the "Afrophobia" redirect templates placed at the top headline don't seem fair to me, especially this one concerning racism in Russia. There are many other racist countries in the world like the USA, the UK, Australia, Israel etc, so why such a focus on Russia and the anti-Black sentiment there? I think Russians are more racist against people from the Caucasus (Chechens, Armenians, Georgians) than against Blacks. Yatzhek (talk) 21:52, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Racial/ethnic stratification - same as racism or not?

Please see a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology#Racial.2Fethnic_stratification_-_same_as_racism_or_not.3F. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It is not an identity. Stratification results as a combination of factors, two of which may be ethnicity and race either as socially identified with status or as intervening variables in economic status. I would re-direct both to social stratification, adding a note to the talk there that these topics need to be better developed in that article (which is pretty poor quality as it stands). In fact, I'll add it to my 'to-do' to check back here for further discussion then perform those tasks myself. I'm winding up my Spring and am not teaching Summer so will have some time. Regards, Meclee (talk) 15:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

We really need an RfC on this to get more input. Dougweller (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll wait for that to be posted, then. Meclee (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Not the same but closely related. Racial stratification is impossible without racism, but racism is possible without stratification.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If you could stub (DYK?) the related topics, it would be great, User:Meclee. PS. Technical note: Cam we copy those comments to WT:SOCIO? Splitting a discussion into two forums is not that good, I think.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Rf redirects

Currently racial stratification (28k GBook hits) and ethnic stratification (32k) redirect to racism. Proposed is to re-direct both to social stratification, adding a note to the talk there that these topics need to be better developed in that article (which is pretty poor quality as it stands). Meclee (talk) 17:36, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Ethnic stratification clearly should, in my view; and racial stratification, likely as well. Even better, as suggested, would be to begin to develop these into articles in their own right. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 09:51, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Per DAS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:57, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done See Talk:Social_stratification#Racial_and_Ethnic_stratification. Meclee (talk) 20:39, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Further Reading Diamond?

As much as I love Diamond, Jared (1999), "Guns, Germs, and Steel", Why is this in the further Reading section for Racism? Surely books directly related to the topic, Like Asante Erasing Racism would be better.--Inayity (talk) 17:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree, irrelevant book for this topic, and for most other topics.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Rephrasing the last Intro Paragraph

As a common reader I feel that the final paragraph really needs to be rephrased. I feel that the emphasis should be that racism is used, and has been used, as an excuse for many actions but that things like slavery can rarely be accredited solely to racism. I feel that the last paragraph should change from saying slavery was caused by racism to the more accurate idea that discriminatory ideas were used as excuses to ease consciences regarding slavery and the slave trade. Also, I feel that Wikipedia should refrain from implying that racism is solely from White to Other when it is really any race to any race. 98.227.138.148 (talk) 00:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

"Although racist ideologies have been widely discredited after World War II and the Holocaust,"

Where were they discredited? Where are the links?KevinFrom (talk) 17:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Try the whole fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, and nuero-biology. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:12, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Good point, actually. Ideologies really cannot be discredited. Changed to read: "Although theories of distinct biological racial markers in the human genome have been widely discredited since World War II and the Holocaust..." Meclee (talk) 20:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I disagree with that change and will revert it. What is meant is not only that the theory of biological race has been rejected, but also that racism is now considered politically, morally and ethically wrong.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:40, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

@Meclee: That changes the meaning of the sentence and does not match the rest of the paragraph. I believe a more appropriate change would be to "Although theories of racial superiority and inferiority have been widely discredited since..." EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:44, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Too many edits happening to make my change. Maunus, what do you think of it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it is better than the original, but still prefer my version. Could go as a compromise though if the other editors agree.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't feel strongly enough between my suggestion and your version, so if no one else cares, the current version is fine. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Everything about this topic becomes controversial! The current change is fine with me. Meclee (talk) 21:59, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I changed it to discrediting and was told by an editor I cannot make changes to the article. That is strange b/c i did not see that in the Wikipedia guide. But I did see this WP:CIVIL. repudiated vs discredited, please explain why one is better. based on dictionary definitions of course. --Inayity (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Discredited is the better word here as they've been shown to have no scientific basis. And I agree that Meclee was a bit out of line with that comment. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My comment was not that Inayity should not edit, but should not do so without reading the talk page and seeing that three other editors had already agreed on the "repudiated" language. That is not an uncivil remark and I still maintain that Inayity nor anyone else should go in and arbitrarily make a change to something others had already agreed to. However, I am not, unlike Inayity and EvergreenFir, willing to begin an edit war over it. Meclee (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Meclee - First, AGF. Do not accuse others of edit warring when they have not. Second, you don't know if Inayity read the page or not. Third, there wasn't board consensus for repudiate over discredit. Maunus added it when rewording the sentence. I said I didn't really care. Inayity pointed out it was not the best word. I agree. In reality, Inayity is restoring older wording that had more consensus than the current one that's been on the page for a whole day. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:40, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

It is uncivil because the tone is very disrespectful to someone who has been contributing to this article for such a long time. Actually it is just wrong period and does not create a good atmosphere, esp when I do not think we have opposing beliefs. AGF, I actually did not realize something so small was an issue when I made the changes. And I did not edit war over it. I did not read the TK page that deep either.--Inayity (talk) 20:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

My apologies as I intended no disrespect. I still consider it disrespectful to reverse an edit without reading the talk page and looking for the consensus -- however loose -- we had. "Discredited" is used several times in that same section and becomes redundant. "Repudiated" still seems the better term in this sentence. Ideologues only dig in deeper in face of facts. Social pressure from other ideologies -- in this case, equality and social justice -- can bring ideologues into disrepute, however. Certainly, racism itself as an ideology is still alive and well in the world and is considered not only credible but "the way things are" in much of the world. Meclee (talk) 12:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 August 2014

Please remove this heap of bullshit from the article "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon." 108.59.113.100 (talk) 23:32, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: It's sourced. User offers no reason to remove it other than WP:IDLI EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Prejudice+Power

Could the "prejudice+power" section be edited to add that such a definition would essentially make "institutional racism" redundant, and "individual racism" an oxymoron? I think that would help clarify what the position is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.17.143 (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

We use reference to get the sources for what the sentences say. And I am afraid i do not see your connection, since individuals (like Henry Ford) have power. --Inayity (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Frankly it should be removed. The sources are biased and unscientific. The brief mention of this concept isn't explored at all further on in the page. It is entirely out of place, an unneeded excess and an intrusion of needless pseudo-scientific politically charged language.

The point that you're not understanding is that with this definition of racism, all racism is thereby deemed "institutional" in nature and racism cannot, by definition, be aligned against one individual and not his class or social strata. So the point is that this definition of racism goes against absolutely every single working understanding of racism that we currently have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.201.25.65 (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference six and the sentence that accompanies it should be removed

The sentence in question is "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon.". This is not an accurate view off racism. No power is required to be racist.

The sentence is also referencing a study entitled, "Only white people can be racist", which in it self is a racism thing to proclaim. The exact reference is here:

" http://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/mcs/article/view/1075/1605 "Only White People can be Racist": What does Power have to with Prejudice? Pooja Sawrikar and Ilan Katz"

This sentence overall is very misinformed and frankly racist. Because I do not have the authority to remove it I feel someone else should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.157.116 (talk • contribs)

Well, be that as it may, it is a view that a lot of people hold. Nothing in that sentence deals with the correctness of the view. Whether or not a minority view like that should be featured so highly in the article just because it's currently trending on twitter is another thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.252.128.179 (talk • contribs)

It's not a Twitter thing, it's from sociology, gender studies, critical race theory, etc. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

• Regardless of whether you agree with the view the view exists, is prominent within studies of racism and therefore needs to be included.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:11, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

And that is the thing. Racism is not defined by one person to the exclusion of another. As long as people who know what they are talking about, say something then it is represented. Racism Requires power is such a popular concept esp among non-White people to ignore that view would be racist. --Inayity (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

More to the point it would be against wikipedia policy. :)User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:40, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Jews have more power than White people man for man so White people cannot be racist. 210.92.171.47 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah Mike, that is the problem with the prejudice plus power argument. It works for anyone who claims victim status. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the CCSJ article and reference, per se. It is a published view and is therefore valid to discuss in this article. Moreover, one has to understand this from the correct view. Prejudice (an idea) does no harm until it feeds into discrimination (action). My thoughts harm no one -- except for myself, perhaps. Only my action can harm others. The more power I have, the more my actions can be harmful. Meclee (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:OR and WP:NPOV. The idea only that the hegemonic racial group cannot can be "racist" is prevalent in social sciences. There's no reason to remove it. Your own opinion doesn't matter here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

I think you are writing it backwards. The idea is that only hegemonic groups can be racist, because while minority groups have prejudice they are not able to act on it, or create structures of discrimination.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You are correct. I started typing "The idea that POC cannot"... then edited it and messed it up. Fixed now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The idea is not "prevalent" in the social sciences, but it is in society. 74.192.227.151 (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I think it is actually.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:37, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

74.192.227.151 it is. All the scholarly work on it is from those fields. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

If one is saying that one idea prevails over the other in the social sciences, that statement is not correct. Theory in this area is divided with some falling on the one side and some on the other as to whether or not "reverse racism" or some similar mechanism of discrimination can exist. Overriding that is the theory of power, which definitely states that the social category with the most social power has the ability to exert the most effective social control over other categories. Therefore, whatever prejudices a minority category may hold would be "sterile" in terms of the power necessary to institutionalize action (discrimination). Meclee (talk) 22:52, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted to move this sentence to its proper place, which is under the section that deals with academic viewpoints; as the "prejudice+power" is not a viewpoint that is universally accepted by social scientists. It keeps getting moved back into the main text with weak justification. Can we get some attention to this? Quinkysan (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Opinion on edit request on 6 August 2014

The second sentence you wish inserted does not make sense to me, nor does the idea that the terms "Race-based oppression" or "Institutional race-based oppression" should be used instead of "Racism" in the described case of "Racism = Prejudice + Power". We seem to be getting overly caught-up in this "Prejudice + Power - racism" phrase which is just a catchy mnemonic device.

One can hold ideas about race(s) that include stereotypical associations with characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or other races but, without power, such ideas do not affect society. While popular language may refer to one individual's thoughts as "racist", this is an incorrect use of the term. One individual's thoughts may include racial prejudice and stereotyping, but the thinking itself is not "racist". When an individual combines their racial thoughts with discriminatory action, then we have behavior that is racist. When a whole lot of people in society behave in the same manner and norms and other social agreements legitimate such discriminatory action, we then have "institutional" racism.

I give students a specific definition of "social power" (rather than of economic or political power) that helps them understand how power contributes to social status, stratification, and "institutionalized" social practices: Social power is one's relative ability to initiate, sustain, or prevent social change. If I have purple skin color and have thoughts of prejudice and stereotyping about green people, I can add discriminatory actions that may express those thoughts, but if I have little social power, the effects of my actions are negligible.

These Hoyt references are rather odd. I suppose one can add some statement about Hoyt's views, but I hold Hoyt is plain wrong in his usage of "racist". I'd remove those references totally. Why make something more complicated than it actually is? Meclee (talk) 14:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

BTW, a close look at the above shows it does NOT preclude the idea that minorities can be racist; their behavior can be racist. It does mean that a minority's racist actions will NOT become institutionalized, however. By definition, a minority category does not have the collective social power to institutionalize racism. Meclee (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 August 2014

Please change:

One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon.

to

One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon. Other proponents recognizing the discord between individual and systemic prejudice favors "Race-based oppression" to explain this phenomenon.

The second reference does not support the view in the original text, but instead supports the terms "Race-based oppression" or "Institutional race-based oppression" should be used instead of "Racism" in the described case of "Racism = Prejudice + Power".

Mentioning this in relation to the above text, moving the second reference (Carlos Hoyt Jr) to the new text, would make for a more honest and less misreferenced description.

Cyrenbyren (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. - Arjayay (talk) 16:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

References

Prejudice + power (again)

I have attempted to move the line "One view holds that racism is best understood as 'prejudice plus power' because without the support of political or economic power, prejudice would not be able to manifest as a pervasive cultural, institutional or social phenomenon." from the opening paragraphs into the section "Academic variants" as this is not a mainstream definition of the term in the social sciences. It has been reverted twice with the justification "no-one agrees with you [that it should be moved there]". However, in this talk page, there seems to be quite a lot of discussion about this very sentence and its validity. Certainly, I think there is ground to move this definition into the section that has been created to for exactly that purpose. It is difficult to argue for any good NPOV reason for this view to be repeatedly promoted to the main paragraphs. Quinkysan (talk) 12:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed. If you would like to read that you are welcomed. But your changes have been reverted. You do not have any consensus on this TK page for the change so then why are you pushing it? --Inayity (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The point of the section it is being moved to is alternative views. It belongs there. Telling someone they're wrong about something only makes the point your trying to push less strong. JamieA350 (talk) 12:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed. Its popularity as a valid definition has yet to be disproved. Why are you moving it? No serious argument. If you would like to read that you are welcomed. But your changes have been reverted. You do not have any consensus on this TK page for the change so then why are you pushing it? talk page for ease of use--Inayity (talk) 12:43, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Its popularity has yet to be proved as well. The citations provided prove that it's an academic view; not that it is the mainstream view. Indeed, most other sources on this page use a different definition, which should be reason enough to accept that the line is best placed in the "Academic views" section. To paraphrase you: "You do not have any consensus on this TK page for the line's current status so then why are you pushing it?" Quinkysan (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, it's been reverted a third time with no engagement with my point by Inayity. I will not revert again because I don't want to start an edit war, but I invite comments and third-party commentary on what I consider rather blatant POV-pushing. There are severalcomments on this very page pointing to the problematic nature of this line, some using rather more pointed language than mine. There is room for a discussion here, which Inayity seems unwilling to engage in. Quinkysan (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been proven either way. The only reason that it is near to top I suspect is an attempt to push a view. Funny how the view which you seem to support rather strongly is to be the only one that belongs up at the top of the page? The view is an alternate view, not a defined one by a dictionary, so it belongs in the section for such. And about there not being a general consensus on it being at the top, please show me where, for you seem to be one of two pushing for this. JamieA350 (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I accidently put this in reply to the wrong person. That was meant to go to the person pushing the view of it being up the top. Sorry. JamieA350 (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Any accusation of POV pushing needs a rationale of what exactly is being pushed. I do not get why someone is moving something placed in the lead to a hidden part of the article? It is a pretty important def considering that most discussions of racism are "academically" defined. It is a very popular def in Critical race theory, in Afrocentrism, in Whiteness studies and beyond. So read what your position is, then you leap frog to POV pushing. --Inayity (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The prejudice+power definition is a view within certain areas of academia as you mention, but it is not a mainstream view. Unless and until you can justify your claim that it is, the line belongs naturally in the section that is made for the varying academic views on racism. That section is not "hidden" any more than any other subsection of any other Wikipedia entry. By forcing it into the main article, it is being elevated to the status of a consensus view within social science, which it is not.

Mainstream view? How do you test that? An academic view is a mainstream view when it is so discussed. This is not a Pop Idiol topic, Racism is a social studies discourse for the large part. I am not sure what mainstream has to do with Wikipedia representing the definitions of a complex title like racism. Actually next to nothing in this lead is mainstream and most ref are scholarly ones.--Inayity (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's certainly not in any dictionary I've seen. It seems it is simply a redefinition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieA350 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

WELL WELL, The dictionary was not written or reflective of people of color and their views, or the victims of racism. But beyond that Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:DICTIONARY and you will find most of the content of these lead is also not in a Oxford Dictionary. Do we move that into the body also? We cannot define racism as one thing and not the other, so the lede carries a PLURAL definition as rep by sources RS Sources.--Inayity (talk) 13:06, 3 August 2014

"An academic view is a mainstream view when it is so discussed." If that were the criterion, creationism would be a mainstream view in evolutionary biology. Your reasons don't seem grounded in an objective analysis of current academia. The academic areas you mention are far from the whole picture of social sciences.

(UTC)

Is it so hard to sign your post? Well as I said the Lede is not here to represent social science, but racism as defined within different departments, ONE department in Social Science, in Critical Race Theory, in multi-cultural studies is power + Prejudice. I do not know how that view could not be important for the lede. No Evolutionary Biology is one topic, Creationism is a different topic under a different title on Wikipedia. The lede is inclusive and hence we see language such as According to some, Some believe that... Its plural, not a copy of Oxford. --Inayity (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for forgetting to sign posts. You seem to be arguing quite convincingly for the line being one among many definitions, which is what the section for academic views is for. Putting it in the main paragraphs elevates its position as an important definition over all the other views in the "academic views" section, which is an NPOV violation. Since it is not a majority view, it really should start with "One minority view..." which instantly reveals how the line is misplaced in the lede.Quinkysan (talk) 13:21, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

By minority view you are introducing a bias to one view over the other. Or do you mean "Ethnic Minority" view.? Some people hold that. is the warning the reader gets to the prevalence of the view. per WP:LEAD if it is only an academic view, then the lead is supposed to sum up all central views represented in the article body. And if we went over to Agency (sociology) you will find that the def, like racism, is the domain of the academic fields. So racism is not only defined by Mainstream Reality TV or Stephen Hawkins, but by people like Social Science scholars and we represent that diverse reading of a complex term.--Inayity (talk) 13:28, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

EDIT CLASHING -- On a side note I am edit clashing a lot and it is messing with what I am trying to say at times. I save the page, it takes a long time, and then it conflicts with other discussions. I am then trying to copy and paste back what I wrote.--Inayity (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Alright, fine. If you can provide sources that can show that this definition really is a mainstream, important view that is held by social scientists outside of a few specific fields, then the line is fine where it is. Otherwise, it needs to be moved. Quinkysan (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"By minority view you are introducing a bias to one view over the other". That's nonsense. If a view is only held by a minority of academics (and of course I don't mean 'Ethnic minority') then it is not introducing bias to point this out. Conversely, pretending that a minority view is held by a majority *is* in fact introducing bias. What I am arguing is that including this view in the lede while excluding other minority views is doing exactly that. Quinkysan (talk) 13:35, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

DId you do a headcount? All views on racism are unique to certain communities. Everyone states, however, it is hard to define. On wikipedia if you were here a while you would have seen many ppl say that. Now If this thing is a "fringe view" then I just purchased a book on Racism, a popular book, Racism and on the 2nd page he found power + prejudice so important he addressed it as "a popular view" in certain circles. I have nothing more to add. You are yet to prove another definition is better, or that this is a fringe view (as you originally stated). So we see from academic sources that it is a heavily discussed view. WP:NOTABLE and hence included in the LEAD --Inayity (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Heavily represented by a Google search and hence WP:NOTABLE Google scholar search on popularity of the view--Inayity (talk) 13:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be thinking, again, that discussion implies consensus. And you mention yourself that your source finds it a popular view IN CERTAIN CIRCLES. More and more, you're arguing my own case for me - this is a view that deserves inclusion on the page; but in the section of the article that deals with different academic viewpoints. I mean, the phrase itself admits to being a statement of one viewpoint among many. It is the only such line in the lede. The line will still be in the article; I cannot understand why you are fighting against its placement into its proper position, unless you want to give it undue weight to a casual reader of the page - which is, again, POV pushing.Quinkysan (talk) 13:53, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

When you have a ref, a source, an article to prove your case please let me know. I have given you everything you need per Wikipedia WP:NOTABLE criteria. If you feel another view point has lost out-- Please share it with us. (with RS ref of course to its Notability).What I sense you do not have a case but a WP:IDL cuz since discussing you have shown no ref only a POV. (unsourced) ALL def of racism are controversial, and disputed by someone somewhere.--Inayity (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of other viewpoints which are already in the article, in the section designed for it. All I'm asking is that this particular viewpoint isn't given special privilege over the others. Quinkysan (talk) 14:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

It isnt, it is one of many views and shares space and shares mitigating language to show that it is not the only view. Per The criteria of Wikipedia the view is prevalent enough to be in the lede. Moving it away would only marginalize a critical view held by ppl who study racism (experts) or are the victims of racism. (see Lee Jasper).--Inayity (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

So you're arguing that one particular view of what racism is, but not the other views of what racism is, deserves to be in lede and not in the "views" section because relegating it to the same status as the other views would marginalize it? Quinkysan (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I am arguing with references, With what books say on the topic, with Google Scholar, on the Notable variety of definitions on Racism. Most of them cam all b summarized in the lede if one knows how to write. So prove notability, and add them to the lead if that is the real issue.--Inayity (talk) 14:42, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

This "prejudice + power" phrase is simply a short-hand way to discuss a principle that has been central to mainstream discussion of race, ethnicity, and discrimination for more than 60 years. Social action of any kind is not possible without power. Here are just a few references. Even Google doesn't have enough space for all the references.

http://www.clarke.edu/media/files/Multicultural_Student_Services/definitionsofracism.pdf

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/caleb/racism.html

http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/08/racist-against-white-people/

http://www.socresonline.org.uk/4/lawrence/anthias

http://books.google.com/books?id=T8KIAgAAQBAJ&dq=racism+power&lr=&source=gbs_navlinks_s

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2155929?uid=3739920&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21104030358991

Regards, Meclee (talk) 18:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Pick up any intro to sociology, women's studies, critical race theory, criminology, political science, etc. book and you'll find a variant of this definition, typically in the form of institutional racism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Then put the definition in a topic about institutional racism or academic definitions of racism, not racism because they are very much two different things. Starsmine (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

so many ips and new editors coming in just to discuss this topic. when you get a ref saying inst racism is not racism share it here.--Inayity (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Pedagogy of the Meaning of Racism: Reconciling a Discordant Discourse by Carlos Hoyt Jr (http://www.andover.edu/About/Newsroom/TheMagazine/Documents/8-PedOfRacismSWJournal.pdf). It is actually already used as a reference in this article. Cyrenbyren (talk) 10:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Opinion on edit request on 6 August 2014 - Followup

The reason for the second sentence is to offer the "other side" of the argument that racism is not in fact racism if held by a minority group/group not in power, which is what the reference is in reference to.

I am also in favor of actually moving that statement to the subsection "Academic variants", but that does not seem to be very popular among some of the editors here.

I don't feel just removing the reference is a good idea, simply because it is not in favor of that view. That just seems disingenuous and POV-pushing. There is an actual discord in the definition of this term, and addressing that seems to be what this page should be about.

The Hoyt reference is indeed addressing the idea that minorities can have racist behaviour while lacking the power to institutionalize that behaviour, but institutionalized racism should not be the default definition of racism, hence the suggested "race-based oppression". And personally, this whole discussion would be hard to have if the consensus was that "racism" is always institutionalized. It seems most of the time people use this it is in reference to the behaviour (prejudice+race). That is my opinion however, and not really a point in this discussion.

Cyrenbyren (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I throw my weight behind Cyrenbyren here. Surely we want this to the best, most accurate article it can be. Quinkysan (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Popularity among editors has no barring no whether it should be included in the lead or not. Its weight in the academic community does. And it's quite a popular framework in most social sciences. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not contesting its popularity as defined by social science, but that is not the only definition there is. And that definition in itself is problematic, which is why there are texts written about the discord in the definition. One of those texts is even used as a reference to support this - which it doesn't. There is an obvious issue with that text, no matter if you support the definition or not. Cyrenbyren (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Nothing in the article suggests that it is the only definition there is. And the text does support the fact that this view exists and that it is important, the fact that the text itself is arguing against it is irrelevant for that point. The article very clearly shows that there is no single definition of racism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

So we agree that definition is specific to social sciences? Why is it then in the lead instead of in academic variants? Cyrenbyren (talk) 19:51, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to jump in, this conversation has already occurred! It has already been explained, and the new editor who has just created this account to have this conversation should read the previous post on this topic to avoid beating a very old dead horse. --Inayity (talk) 20:02, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I've read enough to notice that a lot of the editors here are supporting the social science stance, and I disagree, especially since the reference included (which I actually did read because I found it interesting) does not even support the view. And yes, I am new. Hi. Does that affect my reasoning so far? Cyrenbyren (talk) 20:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement noted for all new accounts recently created, per Wiki criteria it stays in the lead. --Inayity (talk) 20:26, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Your popularity versus mine trumps my suggestion I suppose. Should we perhaps change the line from "One view holds that" to "A popular view within social sciences holds that"? Seems more accurate and specific. Cyrenbyren (talk) 20:34, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Is it really a "popular" view, though? If it is, then how come so few other academics cite the references that we give in the lead? Sawrikar's paper is cited by a grand total of three other articles, while Hoyt's is cited by only four. Considering that this is a level-3 vital article, I would expect the references that we give to be cited by dozens (if not hundreds) of other academics, especially if we're including them in the lead – do any such references exist? If so, why aren't they listed in this article? This is beginning to sound like a matter for the fringe theories noticeboard to me – perhaps it might be prudent to take the issue there, and see if they can offer any advice. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 19:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

if what you wrote is the criteria, then almost everything in the lead would be fringe. So searching any one "view on racism" returns no "100s of reference to it. It is strange to put that kind of standard to determine if something is valid or fringe. That is not what Fringe means--esp when dealing with something as complex as racism, which NO ONE, has perfectly ever defined. It is a popular view because even the detractors say it is. See other comments on this matter with references from books on Racism.--Inayity (talk) 20:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, they're not my standards; they're the standards laid down by Wikipedia's content guidelines (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and in particular the fourth bullet point). That said, I'm a lot happier with the Operario reference that has recently been added – it's a pity that it wasn't included earlier. But if something is going to be mentioned in the lead, then it needs to be repeated and/or expanded upon in the main body of the article. Currently, that hasn't happened with that particular sentence. A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 20:25, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

On that last point I agree. It is something that was discussed but never done. --Inayity (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Things are getting bogged down on that phrase, again. This is not at all a "fringe theory" but it is somewhat of a "fringe" phrasing of a theory central to racism, ethnocentrism, elitism, and other "isms", which is the the theory of social power. Even though it is a popular mnemonic, leave the phrase out if necessary. What is important is the theory of social power. Regards, Meclee (talk) 22:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 01:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Highly dissapointed

I'm dissapointed because i checked the headings for all the subsections and none of them talk about the causes of racism. I was expecting at least a paragraph that would tell us whether racism is a learned behaviour or whether it is genetically ingrained into our human DNA. 80.43.182.123 (talk) 04:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If the article does not deal with motives of racism I think a section should be added. It is strange that it neglects to do so.--Inayity (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

[I think this section deals with it a little].--Inayity (talk) 10:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Need for reorganization and re-write

In reference to several of the sections above, it is clear that the article is in need of major reorganization and re-write. It is not something I can take on at the moment, but might could later in the year if no one else can. Regards, Meclee (talk) 11:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we need this minority observation in the lede?

'Some consider any assumption that a person's behavior is tied to their racial categorization is inherently racist, regardless of whether the action is intentionally harmful or pejorative, because stereotyping necessarily subordinates individual identity to group identity' I do not think this statement is needed in the lede because it does not make a popular argument. Added to that further down it states that it is usually considered racism when it has in malice. Just seems like the issues of racism regardless of harmful or not is too fine an observation. Added to that the writing style is very prolix.--Inayity (talk) 10:22, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That whole part seems a better match for racialization, which has its own article. Not saying they are unrelated, but I do not see a specific need for it in this lead. Cyrenbyren (talk) 14:12, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

An Entire Article on Racism and no Israel

It is funny that this article talks about African Americans racism towards Jewish people, African racism to Arabs. But no where does the State of Israel get mentioned with racism. Strange considering it is probably one of the most common associations today (per Google scholar and google search).--Inayity (talk) 07:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that the state of Israel is racist? Do you have reliable sources that say so? HiLo48 (talk) 07:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me clarify Racism in Israel =/=Israel is racist. So we do not need the straw man. Are you seriously then asking me for sources for Racism in Israel? --Inayity (talk) 08:08, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Everything in Wikipedia must be properly sourced. (Did you click on that link above?) And can you please answer my first question in words, rather than using mysterious symbols? HiLo48 (talk) 08:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

No I will not reply to a ridiculous request. I would suggest you reply to my initial comments.--Inayity (talk) 08:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I did. HiLo48 (talk) 08:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I did also, Next constructive comment pending.--Inayity (talk) 08:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Zionism is a religious doctrine based on racial/ethnic divides. To the extent that the State of Israel embraces Zionist policies (such as settlement expansion beyond 1967 borders), Israel is racist/ethnocentric State. To the extent that the citizens of this State engage in institutionalized discrimination, the society is racist/ethnocentric. Certainly Israel could be cited as one of many examples of racist/ethnocentric societies.Meclee (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion. I make no comment on it, just as I made no comment on Inayity's opinion above. But we really do need some sources!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Meclee and Inayity: An article about racism in Israel already exists on Wikipedia, so it might be possible to summarize that article here. Jarble (talk) 19:01, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

All your arguing aside, the real reason this page sucks is that it is written for phds.

If you can't explain your ideas to high school students, give up your editing privs 174.26.206.222 (talk) 09:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions please. How, for example, would you rewrite the lead? HiLo48 (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Why does racial inequality redirect to this page?

I noticed that Racism in the United States and Racial inequality in the United States are separate articles that discuss separate concepts. Nonetheless, the racial inequality page currently redirects to racism on Wikipedia.

These terms are not synonymous, but they still redirect to the same article. How can we resolve this contradiction? Jarble (talk) 00:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Only the development of a separate article could fix this problem. --Inayity (talk) 06:57, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Owen Alik Shahada

Is there anyone more notable or accomplished than this man that we can get to represent an African point of view? I mean, he's being listed with David Hume... Solntsa90 (talk) 04:12, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Is this sentence needed in Lead

However, some consider any assumption that a person's behavior is tied to their racial categorization to be inherently racist, regardless of whether the action is intentionally harmful or pejorative, because stereotyping necessarily subordinates individual identity to group identity.[citation needed] I do not think this is a strong or clear view or a popular one to be in the lead. Racism for most is a negative experience I am not sure Chinese complain about everyone thinking they are super smart.--Inayity (talk) 06:37, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

And this sentence does not seem to be saying anything new, and could be merged: Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes--Inayity (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

history in lead

While the article itself starts the history of racism in Antiquity and then goes onto the medieval Arab world, the lead's history seems to only concern itself with the European Early Modern Age. This is something to look at '''tAD''' (talk) 05:37, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Racism a driving force?

"In history, racism was a driving force behind the transatlantic slave trade, and behind states based on racial segregation such as the U.S. in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and South Africa under apartheid." - It strikes me that this statement gets progressively truer as it goes along. Is it really accurate (or is it in the source?) to say racism was a driving force behind the slave trade? I had always supposed that economic factors were the driving force, and racism was a justification. Dionysodorus (talk) 20:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I think it is true to the extent that racism was the driving force behind the fact that the transatlantic slavetrade was white people trading in brown and black people. In a non-racist world there could still be slavery, it just wouldnt be based on color or ancestry. Racism gave was the driving force behind the form that the slavetrade took, I think is what is meant by that phrase. If you think you can give a clearer or more accurate wording please go ahead!User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 20:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Slavery was not and is not simply an act of white people twoards brown/black people. http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish-slave-trade-the-forgotten-white-slaves/31076 is one historical example without delving back into the premodern history. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@PhilomenaO: it was an act of White people against non-Whites. Irish were not "White" back then. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The preceding post seems anachronistic. Yes, the British elite held Irish Catholics in contempt, but I'm sure the racialised concept of "negroes turned inside out" came at least a century and a half after the events mentioned in the linked blurb. So until you find a quote from James II saying something along the lines of "those Irish folk are black, I shall enslave them", we have a case of Translatlantic slavery not based on racism but just xenophobia or democide '''tAD''' (talk) 05:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

New additions to Arab and Conquest

I think we can see that Race had a low priority in Arab conquest and Arab slaving if we are treating racism and race as two interlinked phenomena. Most scholars on Arab slave trade comment on its non-racial nature, Arab conquest maybe more religious than racial. I think marrying it with the TST is problematic because TST was overtly race driven just like apartheid in SA and to some extent Zionism in Israel. It brings in too many problems. And I would actually say we should be careful of getting into complex issues in the lead. Like discussing Greeks and Persians "racism". And for me the latter is a issue of WP:WEIGHT, if that is so important then we must look at it from a WP:WORLDVIEW and ask why mention that, and not all the other things which can be filed under racism in Japan, India, on and on?--Inayity (talk) 10:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Right now the section sticks out like a sore thumb as only highlighting racism by people from Europe. Later in the article it even states that Arab prejudices were not based on religion but on race, and there are quotes from notable figures of that era describing Sub-Saharan Africans in contempt. There's a documented racial element to it, just as TST and colonialism had economical elements does not cancel that it was racist. It also still exists, in a country where all religions except Islam are banned, somewhat negating the religious argument. I would also argue for Zionism to be included, as a UN resolution has classed it as racism and it has a significant history and geopolitical impact. '''tAD''' (talk) 05:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Almost every expert on the Arab slave trade comments it could not be characterized by racism like the TST. Ali Mazrui states it was Uniracial. TST , Apartheid SA (which was also economic) and Nazi Germany (very politically motivated racism) are NOTABLY racist, not saying racism does not exist in other systems but the unique placement of race in the aforementioned warrants them being mentioned in the lead. Too many examples of racism, but I do not think we should start getting into religion, and focus on hardcore Race. Mauritania, like India, is almost a caste system. And India needs mention long before the Arab trade. I would love to see you try and get Zionism in the lead. I would back you all the way, but I promise you on Wikipedia that will never happen, but please try just to prove me right. --Inayity (talk) 07:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

And please note I also removed mention of the Greeks from the lead, not just the Arabs, using the very same argument. The minute we come off of clear cut race, we open up a world of problems, next gay rights will be in the lead.--Inayity (talk) 07:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The Arab Conquest should not be in the lede because their is no substantial evidence that it was based on race. Putting Zionism in the lead is opening up a huge can of worms that won't be able to be closed. Zionism has certainly been categorized as racism as have many forms of nationalism including Arab Nationalism (and even more specifically Palestinian Nationalism). What's more Anti-Zionism has also been categorized as antisemitism and racism. It would be like putting Affirmative Action in the lead and calling it racist. I HIGHLY recommend against it. Lets focus on what racism is and established forms of racism that scholars can agree on fairly consistently.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

While I disagree with Rainbowofpeace on his analogy, I think you would be asking for Wiki World War 3 if you tried it at the expense of the article. And I agree with let us at least stick to clear Race issues in the interest of progress. We had the Zionism debate a few months back. Let me not return to that so early in the year.--Inayity (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Ecological fallacy

can someopen add the link in where approprioate as this fallacy deals explicitly with racism in the exampels given to explain it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.244.172.137 (talk) 13:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Othering

Please add the following section on "othering" to the contents page, under Types. It is a relevant aspect of racism that has not been addressed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AkuraJ (talk • contribs) 15:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Othering is the process in which a person or a group is placed outside of the norm, into the margins. It is a system of discrimination whereby the characteristics of a group are used to distinguish them as separate from the norm. Othering plays a fundamental role in the history and continuance of racism. By objectifying a culture as something different, exotic or underdeveloped is to generalise that it is not like ‘normal’ society. Europe’s colonial attitude towards the Orient exemplifies this as it was thought that the East was the opposite of the West; feminine where the West was masculine, weak where the West was strong and traditional where the West was progressive. By making these generalisations and othering the East, Europe was simultaneously defining herself as the norm, further entrenching the gap. Much of the process of othering relies on imagined difference, or the expectation of difference. Spatial difference can be enough to conclude that “we” are “here’ and the “others” are over “there”. Imagined differences serve to categorise people into groups and assign them characteristics that suit the imaginer’s expectations.

References

Done; happy editing! -- Orduin ^Discuss 01:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2015

i would like to add something

Nothing123456789 (talk) 16:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

As stated in the template, in your request you need to post the exact change you wish to make in the format of X to Y.(existing text to your proposed text) Simply saying you want to add something will not be accepted. 331dot (talk) 16:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

SSCI2831

I plan to add non-white academic insights into racism, and institutionalized racism from academic sources.

Arfa tahirr (talk) 17:54, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Edit request

The section called "Colorblindness" in this article is very poorly written. It desperately needs attention from an editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.242.132 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

The section appears to have been removed.

I am also removing the POV tag from the front page as there is no specific challenge to any POV on this page that hasn't already been answered. If someone has a legitimate challenge it should be thoroughly explained here on the talk page BEFORE placing a tag on the front page. Meclee (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

POV and Voice.

In the section on colorblindness (which has reappeared) Stumink edited a sentence adding a passive voice clause, saying, "Shouldn't be in wikipedias voice." Please note that active voice is the preferred writing style for clear communication and does not imply person (see here). Active voice does not imply that what is written is written in first person; i.e., 'Wikipedia's voice". In this instance, the second person voice is that of a 3rd party, the author of the reference. I am once again removing this awkward phrasing that adds nothing to the meaning. If someone has a relevant reference indicating the passive voice clauses are superior, I ask that it be cited on this talk page before changing again. Meclee (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Noting the flurry of edits on this article recently, I'll simply request that all of us editors consult reliable sources carefully as we make further edits. I have collected a list of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations that I share in user space for all Wikipedians to use, and I encourage all of you to suggest other sources for that list, which I update from time to time. Most articles on this topic and related topics would benefit from drawing on the hundreds of reliable sources that are available on this article's topic and its subtopics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 13:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't the author of reference be mentioned then? Stumink (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2015 (UTC)