Talk:Racism/Archive 23

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

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Regarding the WW2 discrimination photo of a Jewish business

This is just a thought here, so forgive me if it's taken the wrong way. Looking at the article itself, it specifically speaks in regards to discrimination based on race; and not in regards to discrimination based on religion. The photo here poses something of a problem, since the Nazi policy was not racist per se, but rather antisemitic. Even then, Jewish people were not defined as a specific race of their own, and it's only recently that Neo-Nazi groups have taken to arguing that Jewish people are a race; as opposed to a religion. I propose removing the photo, since it doesn't really fit with the theme of the article itself. Yes, it is about discrimination; but no, it is not about racism.151.190.254.108 (talk) 07:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

According to the definition of "racism" defined in this article antisemitism is included.--Inayity (talk) 07:36, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I could explain why Jews and antisemitism are included in this article, but the topic is about the photograph, which I presume you to mean this one. I think it's unnecessary and potentially misplaced, yes, but I don't think your reasoning is correct. From my understanding, Jews were treated as a race by the Nazis, and even Jews who converted to Christianity or renounced their Jewish heritage were targeted for this very reason, as is stated in the article linked in the caption. Jews were targeted as an ethnic demographic during the Holocaust, so there is reason to believe the classification of Jews as a race is not just a Neo-Nazi convention; even some Jews classify themselves as constituents of a Jewish race. You're right that Nazi policy was antisemitic, but it was also racist. That is probably why the image, and content about the Nazis and Holocaust, are included in the article. As for whether to remove the photo, I'll defer to whatever consensus, if any, is established. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk • contribs) 03:22, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Racism by Europeans, but noone else

Isn't this wikipedia page a little too focused on European racism? Every single people counqering are to some exstent racists, and wars haven't been more prevalent in Europe than anywhere else. Olehal09 (talk) 05:01, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your observation, Olehal09. Most of the ideology and rationalizations held by racists (whether they realize it or not) originated in the rabbinical teachings in the Talmud. See Serpent Seed. Many Jewish writings are blatantly racist, and much older than all the other forms of racism derived from them. Likewise, there are black racist ideologies. But the term "racist" only seems to be applied to European Protestant groups. Why does this article preserve that bias? Cadwallader (talk)

Can't agree with "most" as there is racism in countries not influenced by Jewish teaching, see for instance Ethnic issues in China. The statement may be true for European racism. Doug Weller (talk) 12:12, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Whenever I see a complaint like this, I ask, what sources do you recommend? Presumably articles in English Wikipedia are written mostly by people who read European languages, especially English itself. If you know of other sources about a broader worldwide perspective, please recommend them here. You could check a source list I keep in user space for some books and articles to check. It happens that I read Chinese as a second language, and have lived in Chinese-speaking places, and I certainly agree that racism is a worldwide phenomenon, but we can't just rely on personal experience to edit Wikipedia, but have to find reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 17:59, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

There are many sources. Take for example the Mongoles, they belived in their right to rule the world. Which resulted in the genocide of many people who didn't surrender. The Japanese was exstremly brutal in China. They caused many millions to die, and they also belived they were the superior race. Every people conqering are in some part fueld by the belife that they are worthy of ruling over others, and based on that, they have racist thoughts. They are superior to others and have the right to rule. This also goes for the Romans, Greeks, Vikings and so on. History is full of this kind of thinking Olehal09 (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that Olehal09 is proposing a much broader definition of racism than was used originally in preparing this article. If we make the definition broad enough the idea doe back to pre-history. I don't think that's what we need to do, here, especially as we already have an article on the philosophical concept of the "other". So, I am left wondering if we need to rename this article to something like racism (social sciences) in order to avoid it stretching out to include all of world history. Meclee (talk) 00:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I've changed the part about colonization beeing racist based on what you've written here. Since it were conquest like any other. That the trans-atlantic slave trade were based on racism are wrong. Because the Africans sold other Africans to the Europeans, and were the only slaves they could get their hands on. Slavery in Europe were illegal. Olehal09 (talk) 02:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Olehal09: Go read WP:LEAD. There are many sources that say it was based on racism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to pick your sources more carefully. There are a lot of people who want everything whites does to be based on racism. The conquest carried out by europeans have always been referd to by historians to be based on a wish to convert heathens to christianity and for profits. And maybe to proove their manhood to their women. Olehal09 (talk) 02:41, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN is on you. Please stop with the edit wasting and WP:POINT. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:11, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I have made arguments and written why I think the article should be changed. Although you have not made proper argumentation for your point of view, only refering to the 19th century part of the article. The colonization of the Americas happend from 1500 to 1700. Most American countries were free by the 19th century. The countries in Asia were colonized in the same periode as the Americas. Africa were colonized in the late 1800s. Nothing of this can be viewed as more racist as any other conquest. And I do therefore not understand why this singeling out of european nations is so important. It's not different from any other nations. Olehal09 (talk) 03:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

@Olehal09:, in an earlier reply above, I asked, "what sources do you recommend?" And in your next reply, you wrote, "There are many sources," without naming any. I respectfully suggest that if the task here is editing an encyclopedia (and that is the task here), then the thing to do is to suggest verifiable sources to the other editors who are working on this article, who have plainly read many of the sources already cited by this article, rather than merely expressing personal opinions without citing a source. You could win me over to the idea of rewriting some sections of this article (I doubt that it is perfect, or even up to featured article quality level, yet) but only by citing specific reliable sources that specifically back up changes contrary to the consensus among the editors who are actually reading the sources (I am one of those editors). Take your time to look up some reliable sources and cite those here, please. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:23, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Sociological Definition

Proposal for a change from "Some sociologists" to merely "Sociologists have defined racism as a system of categorical privilege"?

First, he various disciplines of sociological sciences (and anthropology) have a majority near-consensus that racism is defined as racial prejudice that is necessarily "structural" or "systemic" in society, not merely an individual's beliefs (in layman's terms: "racism = prejudice + power"). Prejudice alone is merely prejudice or racial bigotry. Racism is an "-ism", an ideological support for a system of categorical privilege, distinct from mere individual beliefs that evince racial bigotry or racialized anger or hatred.

Moreover, in the global literature on ethnic conflict, "racism" is rarely used when enmity is between two groups neither of which is advantaged in the social structures.

Lastly, purely stylistically, all the examples of sociologists in this Wikipedia article conform to the definition. Until someone proposes a citation of a sociologist that does not view racism as a "system of categorical privilege", we have no reason to not write merely "Sociologists have defined..." followed by such supporting examples. Runningya (talk) 14:27, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Definitions aren't something you can cite evidence for or even debate. There's no essence to a word that can be discovered by inquiry. Think about it - how do you go about discovering what a word "really means"? At most you can survey how the word is actually used by native speakers, but that's a moving target. The fact is that sociology and common use have differing definitions for the word and neither one is correct because there isn't anything to be correct about. Entiex (talk) 20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What source do you suggest on this point? What reliable source can we cite for a definition or for a statement about the consensus of a field? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Wait. Anti-semitism is defined in this article as "racism". However, in that case it is the object of the racism that has the benefit of structural social advantage. Clearly, whether the racists are looking up or looking down on the group they hate is not material to the definition. Cadwallader (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

So you're saying that Jews have the benefit of racism>"structural social advantage"? That undoes the definition. 64.184.158.144 (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, both claims are nonsense and is based on not understanding the concept of privilege which is relative and contextual. In Israel Jews as a group have a structural privilege relative to Palestinians. In the US as a group they have a structural privilege relative to African Americans, but a disadvantage relative to WASPs. etc. Privilege or advantage is not absolute. Just like races are not natural classes but contextual social configurations.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Please do some research on Gentile Privilege, Jewish History and also analyze to what extent Jews get power. Also, look at what type of Jews do get into power. Do you see many Jews in Hollywood for example that wear kippahs, speak Hebrew as a first language, have peyas or other clothes. No, absolutely not. Do some research and you will see that antisemitism is an issue and that listing a few examples of people in power does not discredit systemic oppression of a group of people.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 06:38, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

"What type of Jews get power??" This is sounding less like a discussion than a rant. Racism is related to the concept of race, which would treat all Semites as a race, I'd think. Arabs and Jews. Avocats (talk) 02:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

You need to read up on race and racism. You could start by reading this article.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Reading this article made me wonder about the future of Wikipedia. I know about race and racism despite having read the community college diversity class materials posted here.64.184.158.144 (talk) 01:33, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Unconcious racism

My edit was reversed based on a perceived need for support for the notion that "unconcious racism" is a controversial theory. Yet the article already states: In sociology and psychology, some definitions include only consciously malignant forms of discrimination.[4][5]. Avocats (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Hmm...

May we add Leon Trotsky the Leader of the Communist Red Army etc. was the person who coined and invented the term, "racism", o, I don't know, for totally non-scientific purposes? Can Wikipedia at least pretend to try to be even-minded...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Trotsky authored "History of the Russian Revolution" (1930) where, on the first time on planet Earth, a page contained the then neologistic word, "racist"/"racism"-

Magnus Hirschfeld LATER wrote "Racism" in 1933 (trans. English approx. 1938) -

How is this not relevant data about the Trotskyite origins...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Probably not relevant since the word 'racialism' (with the same meaning) pre-dates Trotsky's birth by 8 years. [1] Though I note that you cite no source for your claim. Not that it matters much since this is an encyclopaedia and primarily concerns itself with topics, rather than with etymology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I see the attempt to make things slightly more balanced is foredoomed in all realistic harshness here. Wikipedia is not immune to the way its own society molds its lenses of perception, but I cannot alter things alone. I give up. You all "win" - good day. P.S. Please do not insult needlessly by introducing the ridiculous argument that the dead-letter etymology carries no undergirding of conceptual groundwork itself and is somehow magically, discretely separable from the other domains involved... Bye. - A Jewish Anti-Marxist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

The only ridiculous argument here seems to be that Trotsky introduced a word in 1930, when the Oxford English Dictionary apparently notes that it was used in 1903. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

To my knowledge, Trotsky never wrote in English, so I wonder what Russian or Ukrainian word has been translated as "racism". Meclee (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

It was first used in 1903 in the book Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the Lake Mohonk Conference of friends of the Indian which deals with equal rights and claims that Indians do not have the same rights as other races: http://radikal.net/filosofi/kapitalisme/proceeding.png

"Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges, rights or goods among different racial groups" is correct definition and writes about the same as this scientific definition which also is very good: http://understandingrace.org/resources/glossary.html#r — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filosofen (talk • contribs) 17:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Mistake on label

This phrase... "Students protesting against racial quotas in Brazil. The sign reads: "Want an opening (i.e. job opening)? Pass the entry exam!" is wrong.

"Quer uma vaga"... it is about a place, a seat. How many seats are available in University of Sao Paulo yearly? Almost 11000. Those places are disputed (there are more candidates than available seats) therefore attendees must to pass the entry exam to "get a place". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.244.97 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

OED citation 1907 in Etymology section

The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics Front Cover Dieter Kastovsky, Arthur Mettinger

p267

available on google books.

is not, and should be cited

Not sure what you're asking, but there is not 1907 source in the OED so I removed it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Repugnant -- Isn't that, well, WP:NPOV ?

Some how I just can not! Stop! Myself! from stepping my foot in this. :) However there is a desire to remain encyclopedic in Wikipedia and one of the better ideals that embodies that desire is WP:NPOV -- Neutral point of view. The lead-in of the extant article suggests that racism is repugnant however the use of that adjective is something of a biased, non-universal point of view. Yes, it's repugnant to you, repugnant to me, repugnant to maybe two thirds of the planet's populace, but I believe that there is extant statistical research which shows that racism is not repugnant to something like a third of the planet's populace.

Somehow I don't see Britannica or Mirriam or Webster utilizing the word. I don't know, it's just that because of The Onion's recent article I thought I'd come take a look at the extant page and that word just kind of leapps out as not very professional or NPOV.

Please don't hurt me for suggesting maybe the word should be stricken. :) Damotclese (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I caught it and immediately reverted it, and you should do the same if you see something like that again. Simple vandalism like that should be reverted, especially when it's obviously WP:NPOV.

--OCCullens (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Definition

Would it be possible to use the dictionary definition of racism, something concise and direct, rather than the hodge-podge of sociology-speak we have know? It should read: Racism IS, not blah blah blah centering on blah blah blah, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocats (talk • contribs) 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

That's a good demonstration of the problems of dictionary definitions, trying to simplify a complex social construction. I recall one that defined archaeology as the study of prehistory (which is nonsense). Doug Weller (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia entry should begin with something concise that summarizes the entry. It's not an effort to simplify a complex social construction. It's an effort to get the language coherent and readable. Sociology jibber-jabber does not convey information. Avocats (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Having a concise definition that mischaracterizes the topic is not an improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Any definition should be confined to what most speakers mean and what most listeners understand when the speak or hear the word. If the topic is controversial or politically loaded, then it might be limited to what most educated speakers mean and understand. Otherwise we are describing something different than when we actually use the word and understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7710:B570:A5BA:4968:DD76:B515 (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Mischaracterizing a word with a concise definition is not an improvement. 217.114.83.129 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I was going to mention this too. The dictionary definition is far too limited in its meaning and is certainly not an improvement. To say that racism is a feeling of racial superiority doesn't consider other reasons for racial prejudice, such as (for eg.) a feeling of inferiority of your own race in the light of some perceived threat and thus an outward projection of hatred towards the perceived 'superior' race. Also considerations of racism against your own race by another race could lead you to have negative prejudice towards the oppressing race. I will change the definition back. Ljgua124 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

The Othering topic could be expanded to state that racism is just a form of othering. People can be stereotyped, regarded as inferior, or discriminated against based on any characteristic, such as sexual orientation, age, handicap, social class, urban or rural residence, or origin in part of the country. Race is only one example of othering. 2602:301:7710:B570:A5BA:4968:DD76:B515 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

POV Check

I'm seeing a lot of politicized writing in this article, which I expected as it can be considered a hotbutton issue. My main complaint:

It does not include the primary and almost universally accepted definition of racism.

--OCCullens (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Which is, by what reliable source? ldvhl (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Hatred or prejudice based on race, usually based on an innate belief in the superiority of one's own race: as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Websiter.--OCCullens (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:DICT makes it pretty clear dictionaries are not preferred as sources. ldvhl (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:DICT makes it clear that that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--OCCullens (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, meant WP:DICTS ldvhl (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

ClickHole article about this article

Pretty funny: [2], but hopefully it doesn't lead to lots of vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

I doubt it won't, honestly. xkcd, for example, has inspired countless vandalism edits whenever it mentions Wikipedia pages in its comics. Booyahhayoob (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Even worse, Seth MacFarlane shared it in his facebook [3]. --Xyzrt (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, great. Can we seriously get temp partial protection? Ogress _smash! 00:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

it's on my watch list, so if it happens. Doug Weller (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Racism is separate from Religious discrimination

The definition of racism in the wikipedia article says "Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes." The sources cited do NOT include discrimination based on religious stereotypes to constitute racial discrimination ( Not in the Schefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society and not in the sources define variation of skin colour as a factor to be used as a basis for discrimination in the 'skin whitening creams radio programme') - thus this is definition is incorrect and needs to be amended. Acc to the Schefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society, the only major religion which can be considered to also denote an ethnic or racial group, is Sikhism. Reference : Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1982] UKHL 7 is a United Kingdom law case on racial discrimination. It held that Sikhs are to be considered an ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976. Apart from this isolated case, racism does include discrimination based on religious beliefs. This apart the term racism cannot be used to include discrimination on the basis of religion.Uypoi (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Racism and religious discrimination are of course two different things - but that doesnt mean that they are not related or that some definitions of racism doesnt include religious discrimination. Discrimination against muslims is for example very commonly considered a form of racism and anti-judaic discrimination would of course be considered a form of anti-semitism which few people would consider not to be a form of racism. So, you cannot simply exclude religion from among the traits along which racial boundaries and racial discrimination are defined.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

While probably true, this point requires better sourcing. If our sources do not include the relation, then we can not include it ourselves. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Uypoi and Dimadick. At best, we might be able to say that religion can be an intervening variable in racism, but I don't have a handy source for that. There are plenty of sources already cited right here on WP, however, to support that religion has been used to justify racial discrimination. Meclee (talk) 19:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

It is quite simple really - religion, as ethnicity, language, social status etc, is sometimes a factor in defining racial categories, and hence it is also sometimes a factor in racial discrimination and racism. And there are plenty of source for this. Some of them are given below.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is particularly the case when referring to Jews, who are both an ethnic and a religious group. I would also like to point out an Australian law, the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 which defines "race" to include "ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin; hence some religious discrimination is legally defined as racism.Ljgua124 (talk) 06:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

These references all describe the ways that religion and religious discriminaiton are sometimes closely tied to racism and cannot be simply severed from it:

Hall, D. L., Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2010). Why don’t we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 126-139.
Tariq Modood. Multicultural Politics: Racism, Ethnicity, and Muslims in Britain. U of Minnesota Press, 2005.
Dunn, K. M., Klocker, N., & Salabay, T. (2007). Contemporary racism and Islamaphobia in Australia Racializing religion. Ethnicities, 7(4), 564-589.
This one states it plainly: "Racism and xenophobia may be defined as attitudes based on stereotypes about ... Differences of race have many manifestations, the most visbile of which is skin colour, but which may include language, culture, ethnicity, religious or other belief," Patrick Twomey, David O'Keeffe. Legal Issues of the Amsterdam Treaty Bloomsbury Publishing, Dec 1, 1999
[http://www.racismnoway.com.au/teaching-resources/factsheets/9.html Racist behavior may include: Refusal to cooperate with other people because of their colour, ethnicity, religion or language

] ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:24, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Those seem to be adequate sources, ·maunus, especially Hall et al. and Dunn et al. Who would like to do the editing? Meclee (talk) 10:02, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Asians and Blacks

Unconstructive comment. GAB^Hello! 19:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Asians and Blacks have started using the term "racism" to justify forced assimilation and sexual intercourse with other races. As far as I am concerned racism did not have to do with forced sex with other races or preferences with sexual mates. A good source is the horny chinese crisis in toronto where a fat and ugly asian woman was used to provoke a negative reaction from a coworker who did not fall for the sexual advances of this unattractive person.

Owen 'Alik Shahadah

A discussion thread about the reliability and notability of this author and his pages is taking place at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Owen 'Alik Shahadah, please comment there so we can get a final consensus. Rupert Loup (talk) 12:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

I felt as though this article was very thorough in tackling the multiple forms of racism. The article provided multiple facts and sources and remained a neutral tone throughout which is great when discussing such a controversial topic. I would suggest breaking the article down some (paragraphs) to make it seem less daunting of a read. I'm reading a very interesting article about how problematic the film industry can be towards race - check it out! http://www.deseretnews.com/article/991817/Mystical-black-characters-play-complex-cinematic-role.html?pg=all — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:5B0F:2800:F8EB:BDB7:58D4:B1FA (talk) 14:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lede

Recent changes to the lede seem to be POV slanted. Not all racist practices are based in hatred. I propose the following as the lead sentence:

Racism consists of human behavior based in social stereotypes and prejudice. This behavior produces measurable patterns of discrimination resulting in observable racial inequality in the distribution of privileges, rights, and economic goods and services.^[1]

Meclee (talk) 17:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

false. racism is hatred. income inequality is income inequality. stereotyping is ignorance. Nezi1111 (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

{{citation needed}} ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

References

^ Roithmayr, D.(2014). Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock In White Advantage. New York: NYU Press.

Recent reversions to lede

As a FYI for other editors, User:Nezi1111 had repeatedly reverted reversions of his change to the lede, Both User:EvergreenFir and myself had revert his initial change and asked it to be discussed on the talk pages. I posted a polite explanation to User:Nezi1111 's Talk Page and pointed to relevant WP policies. User:Nezi1111 refuses to acknowledge the policies or follow the requests. I have now reach the 3 reversion limit so I leave the matter to other editors. If User:Nezi1111 continues to ignore other editors, I may seek dispute resolution. Regards, Meclee (talk) 15:53, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

As an update, I have reported User:Nezi1111 to the Edit War notice board: {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Nezi1111_reported_by_User:Meclee_.28Result:_.29] Meclee (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. This seems to be the user's MO... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:09, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Wiki is not a sociollogy activism page.

if you so desperate want to redefine racism, legitimize it somewhere else. until then, keep the reliable dictionary definition. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPOV. Sociology is an academic social science. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:14, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Maintaining this article

This article and White privilege are two of the most difficult pages to maintain on WP. Everyone has an opinion about race and racism. Please note that the article should NOT be about someone's opinion (see WP:NPOV). It is about a complex and specific subject that has been the topic of numerous academic studies and stories in popular publications. So, if you cannot cite at least one reputable source for a concept you want to add or change, please DO NOT make the addition of change. It's ALWAYS best to propose any substantive (as opposed to minor copy edits, or removal of vandalism or unsupported opinion) on this talk page BEFORE you make a change. We have many Wikipedians who are qualified experts on this topic; if you feel something in the article is questionable or needs further verification, DO feel free to tag it for attention (see WP:EX). Please note also that so-called "soft science" studies (e.g. social and behavioral sciences) are valid sources. Just because something is a subjective cognitive construct does not mean that it "doesn't exist" (said at the risk of sounding too phenomenological). Edit warring, folks making unsubstantiated claims and other folks trying to claim the topic is too subjective or non-existent are responsible for the current rambling nature of the article. I'd offer to do a re-org at some point but the edit wars that start over such actions make it too time-consuming for me right now.

As an aside, in reference to a discussion above, WP:NAD doesn't mean that dictionaries aren't valid sources for definition, it does mean that WP articles are NOT dictionary entries and should be encyclopedic, giving a more full explanation of a term or concept. Happy editing, everyone! Meclee (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Efforts simply to improve the English have been reverted without explanation. Hardly seems worth investing in when one person decides that he or she is the ultimate owner of the page. Avocats (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I am not aware of any such reversals, which is not to say it hasn't happened. There have been times when I've seen a lot of editorial controversy over the specific use of one word or another because of our society's sensitivity to issues of race. If it's taken a lot of effort for several editors to agree on a specific phrasing, a new editor coming to an article and changing a word could spark a reversal. I myself often restrain from editing this article specifically due to those circumstances. Meclee (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Practice vs. belief?

The lead currently characterizes racism as ideologies or practices that seek to cause or justify the unequal distribution of privileges or rights. I think this is not accurate, first of all on the basis that racism is a belief which may lead to such practices, but the practices themselves are not racism - they are racist practices. Second, I don't think it is necessarily true that all racism seeks to cause unequal distribution of privileges or rights. That may be a common outcome of racism, but isn't its inherent nature, which is simply the belief that members of of one race are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of another. For example, consider a fictional person who devotes her life to helping aboriginal people out of a belief that they are less intelligent than other races, and fights for equal rights for those people out of the belief that they should not be discriminated against on the grounds of their lower intelligence. Her beliefs would certainly constitute racism, but those beliefs wouldn't lead automatically to seeking the unequal distribution of privileges or rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.73 (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016

This edit request to Racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The article on Racism is clearly biased.

(1) It is absolutely inappropriate to list the concept of Color Blindness as a type of racism. It definitely must be separated into a separate section - separate from the types of racism.

(2) The article will remain incomplete until it reflects all the major types of racism - including the anti-white racism which has become an important phenomenon of the American life. 96.255.164.148 (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Your two requests seem to be self contradictory. Color blindness is widely considered one of the forms of racism in the literature. "Anti-white racism" is largely considered fictitious in the literature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2016

This edit request to Racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I would suggest that the last words "used sexually" in the sentence below be replaced with something less ambiguous such as "sexually abused".

"Some 70,000 black African Mauritanians were expelled from Mauritania in the late 1980s.[167] In the Sudan, black African captives in the civil war were often enslaved, and female prisoners were often used sexually.[168] " Fourth paragraph under the 'Contemporary' section.

Jimangei (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Done --allthefoxes ^(Talk) 22:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2016

This edit request to Racism has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Mads er racist

131.165.102.90 (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Anti-White Racism Redirect

Why is it just a redirect and not its own page? I filled the page with a bunch of info (which took a day) and then I look back later and its all deleted. What is going on exactly?

This page is SJW dross. Abandon ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B07B:1FBE:362:AE77:D07:B4AA (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Editor Bias

There seems to be a huge push by many editors of this page to include one particular notion of racism (particularly the one tauted in the SJW setting) at the exclusion of all others. As an encyclopedia page, one should write articles with a neutral tone, reporting things based on source material and not inject our own thoughts and feelings into the material.

While racist systems are problematic, they are not the only meaningful representation of racism. The dictionary definition of racism is just as much a meaningful definition of the word as the one tauted by social justice warriors. Spirit469 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I think you mean to say touted? Also, please, what is SJW? Meclee (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on reliable sources. A large body of recent literature happens to support the view of "Social Justice Warriors" whereas older narrow definitions based on a view of race as biology are clearly outdated and unsupported both by date and by current understandings of what race is, and how racism operates in society. Wikipedia is not here to give equal coverage to viewpoints that are not on an equal footing within the relevant literature. To say it bluntly, it is not the case that a page is more neutral because it more accurately reflects one's personal view of the matter. There is not "one dictionary definition" of the word racism, and the lead definition needs to be broad enough to include both all the academic definitions as well as all the dictionary definitions. That is why current race scholarship generally does not talk about racism as a single concept, but rather put it in the plural and talk about racisms.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

citation needed. this is not an activism page. Nezi1111 (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

″A large body of recent literature happens to support the view of "Social Justice Warriors" whereas older narrow definitions based on a view of race as biology are clearly outdated and unsupported both by date and by current understandings of what race is″

Racism has a traditional definition, agreed upon by multiple dictionaries as evidenced by the general usage of the term. It is relatively simple and concrete. Expanding the term to refer to a variety of theories and concepts does not clarify or improve understanding of anything. If you want to refer to a set of theories or concepts, you could call it race theory, or critical race theory, or racism theory. What's the point of redefining the term? How does that clarify or simplify anything, especially when the new definition has little to do with the original definition?

For a good example in scientific literature read up on centrifugal force vs. centripetal force. tldr version - Newton discovered that centrifugal force didn't really exist (as a force in the pure sense) and coined a new term to describe forces that cause an object to move along a curved path. Jbmcb (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely clear that WIKI has biased gatekeepers when it comes to topics, issues etc.... that all belong under social science(a field that is absolutely subjective). To me it is just amazing, because it proofs how biased peopl are and can be. This page clearly has " Social justice warrior " types here. RACISM has a clear definition, but because SJW want to yell OPPRESSION and PROBLEMATIC everytime they see something, they need to redefine words, so that everything is racist or sexists or oppressive. Pls get help.

That a simple definition exists of something does not mean that that definition is more accurate. Wikipedia articles summarize the literature on the topic. The literature on racism provides dozens of different theoretical approaches and definitions of the term. The article needs to cover them all. The narrow dictionary definitions are widely considered to be erroneous by scholars. Social sciences are not a single unified field, and they are not "absolutely subjective" - saying stuff like that makes you look ignorant. If you want to know more about racism you need to read the social science literature, because racism is a social phenomenon. I am a lover not a fighter, but if I were to be a warrior for something then social justice would absolutely be among the first things I would fight for - and it is kind of odd to me that anyone would use that label as an insult. But social justice is irrelevant here, as Wikipedia policy demands that we summarize the literature and avoid giving simplistic dictionary definitions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Please consider every person who agrees with the previously established definition of the term as a person who could have written literature on racism, but chose not to since their view was already covered. Then take this number into account when you "summarize the literature on the topic". Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's truer, especially in a climate where it affects political agendas. I personally think more effort should be put into checking public opinion on what the term means, rather than studies that only a small minority of people even read. 213.89.32.84 (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge is not democratic. The silent majority in fact tends to be wrong and misinformed. Wikipedia is not in the business of writing what a majority of people think they know about the world. But what those who actually know about the world think the rest of the world ought to know. That is the business of an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The term "warrior" is pretty obviously used mockingly since it refers to people whose fights boil down to heated arguments in front of a PC. I have consulted quite a few sociology and anthropology dictionaries and not one did report the pearl of newspeak "racism=prejudice+power". I have no doubt that somewhere there is some obscure tome that does indeed list it as its main definition of racism but it is safe to assume it is a niche opinion at best. 90.204.88.187 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that it isnt a widely shared definition, it is found in a particular branch of social science. But the definition we give in the first line needs to be broad enough to accommodate this and other of the words many definitions currently in use.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Miss-using source to redefine racism.

And the war for the right to redefine racism continues into the year 2016. I see at least 2 users misusing source material to support his/her own agenda which is in violation of WP:NPOV. Source(Oxford) given for definition says nothing about racism consisting of ideologies and practices that seek to justify or cause the unequal distribution of privileges or rights. the 2 REAL definitions given by oxford are:

Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:

The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:

~~DO NOT MISSUSE source to promote your own agenda. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)~~

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The lead sentence should define and summarize the concept, preferably in a way that represents the bulk of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox for proposed changes to article

As outlined above, I have started a sandbox to develop a new first section (after this is completed, a new lede can be written). So far, all I've done is combine the current first two sections into one section titled Etymology, definition and usage, re-writing and rearranging some of the information contained therein.

So far, these sub-section headings have been added (though some are presently blank):

1.1 Legal
1.2 Sociology and behavioral science
1.3 Humanities
1.4 Popular usage

There is also proposed a following section entitled "Aspects" into which some of the previous subsections have been moved and others are proposed to be moved under that section title.

The proposed changes are far from complete. I just needed a place to start. If you have comments related to sandbox organization or content, please place those on the sandbox talk page. Thank you, Meclee (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good beginning. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

~~You have my support. I also attempted multiple definitions, but apparently 3 (Doug, Manaus and Evergreen) user took ownership of the page. WillsonSS3 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC)~~

@WillsonSS3: Once is ignorable, but twice is not. Stop making personal attacks. If you look up the talk page, we had discussed the idea of multiple definitions in a new section before you arrived here. Between your reverts and your personal attacks, this is my only warning to you. Either engage in discussion over this perinneial content dispute like an adult or this goes to ANI. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Doug attempts to intimidate me with my history (which is clean BTW), you pretty much accused me of taking WP:ownership of the page with my pet definition. Try taking your own advice first. I hate when things get personal. WillsonSS3 (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You tried to strongarm one specific definition into the lead without paying attention to an ongoing discussion about how best to solve that very problem, and then proceeded to accuse others of ownership and other misbehavior. You could easily have avoided anything becoming personal by observing standard editing practices. Now calm down, grab as many sources you can and participate in the discussion about how to improve the definition. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You accuse me of strong arming? I added your definition and the ADL/Oxford definition. That's not strong arming, that's editing and giving reliable source as justification. You and your buddies, Evergreen and Doug Weller have this page on lockdown it seems. WillsonSS3 (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

. Thank you for your support. So far, the comments about the above proposal have been positive, so I think we will be able to arrive at a consensus about the re-org/re-write.Meclee (talk) 18:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I truly do think that we can arrive at a consensus solution. I look forward to comments on the above mentioned talk page. Meclee (talk) 19:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for new section and lede

The issue of defining racism has become quite contentious. I propose we add a new first section titled "Definition and usage". This section would start with a statement that there exist many different definitions of racism. Then, several definitions could be listed as quotes direct form the sources. In this manner, future edits can also add an editor's "pet" definition as long as the quote is from a reliable source. The conclusion would give some examples of how the term has been used in the humanities, social sciences, and law--again keeping close to a reliable source.

Once this section has been developed, the lede can be re-written to also accommodate the fact that there are many, variable definitions. I welcome comments below but will start a sandbox mock-up of the section in the next few days. I will repost here with a link to the sandbox. Meclee (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, but we still need an adequate lead sentence that summarizes what racism is. I think that's where most of the battleground behavior is coming from. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

True, a lot of this comes from people seeing the lead definition and being annoyed that it doesnt reflect their own favorite definition. There is not a good way to avoid that - unless we decide to ignore the rule that the first sentence should be a definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the correct thing to do is to first find a gamut of sources with different definitions, preferably recent specialist academic sources, and then see how different they actually are and which of them appear to be more prominent. Then I think we should start by presenting all the definitions as a collection here on the talkpage and then have an RfC where we ask editors to rank them according to the weight they think each definition should be given in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I think the list and new section, once we have it, will point us to what we need for the lede. I'll post a sandbox link to such an approach when I get started. Meclee (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Now another editor has appeared and inserted a specific definition to the exclusion of the broader encompassing one - this time from the ADL. Again the definition they give excludes structural racism, aversion racism, "colorblind racism" and other established forms of racism that do not require explicity ideologies of superiority or acts of deliberate discrimination against individuals.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

: wikipedia requires sources, not original research. your added definitions violate WP:Original. I suggest you follow wiki policy instead of edit warring especially on a controversial topic such as this. WillsonSS3 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You made a bold edit and it was reverted. You should have discussed it then, not reverted yourself. Maunus only reverted you once, so he's not edit warring. Nor is the other editor who reverted you. You then reverted that editor. So you have now reverted twice. I've also reverted you and am asking you not to do it a 3rd time. Get agreement here. Complain at WP:NOR if you want to, but don't keep reverting or you put yourself at risk of being blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

looking at the history of both the main page and the talk page, Maunus has been involved in edit 'tug of war' with multiple editors for a long time. I'm just warning him beforehand. WillsonSS3 (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I should have looked at all the warnings on your talk page first. And you've been told about WP:BRD by another Administrator/senior editor, so you know that after you were reverted the first time your other edits can be seen as edit warring. You've had at least 5 warnings. You don't get 3RR as a right, another revert and I or someone else can report you for edit-warring. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't appreciate threats. And if you look even closer, I was reported twice, by edit warriors, but it was my reporter, who got blocked on one of the occasions and I didn't get blocked the 2nd time. WillsonSS3 (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Definitions

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

"Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, 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."[4]

"Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior ...or...The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism"[5]

Original research lead

The lead as it stood, Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify or cause unequal treatment of groups or individuals that are conceptualized as racially or ethnically different. is, to put it bluntly, BS. I see 3 sources given, including one by myself(the anti defamation league) and none of those sources describe it as a ideology that seeks to justify discriminatory practice. It is belief that some races are superior to others due to biological reasons. WillsonSS3 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of the lead is not to give definitions. It is to summarize the article. It is the one area where SYNTH is allowed to a degree so long as it's not undue. We do not need a dictionary definition. In fact, that would be undue as it does not represent the entire range of definitions. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

~~Sources give a diferent description, than lead as it stands. Belief of superiority vs seeking of justification. WillsonSS3 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2016 (UTC)~~

You are ignoring sources for structural and systemic racism. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

We can add those, but giving the definition of structural racism alone in the lead gives that particular view WP:Undue weight to that particular definition. WillsonSS3 (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The current lead definition gives weight to all definitions. It's broad and encompasses them all fairly well. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Is that why the bickering over the definition is going on for years now? The page comes off as having a WP:Ownership issue. give multiple definitions a chance, don't force your own alone. WillsonSS3 (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

That's why the lead had support in past discussions - it encompasses many definitions, not one person's pet definition. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

that's odd coming from you. since you're the one who removed 2 definitions for the sake of one. If you look again, i haven't removed your definition. but you reverted mine. I was sourced by the ADL itself might I add. WillsonSS3 (talk) 18:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

The difference is that your two definitions exclude a wide range of other definitions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:08, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

~~No it doesn't, since your definition is part of it. You are the ones forcing you POV. WillsonSS3 (talk) 19:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)~~

No it is not. In fact some of proponents of the other definitions of racism would consider the Oxford definition itself to be an example of racism.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Added both definitions

~~It has come to me that just leaving one or the other gives the particular definition WP:Undue weight. WillsonSS3 (talk) 18:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)~~

That is correct, but adding two out of the dozens of different definitions also give undue weight to those two (which happen to be quite similar and exclude a bunch of other frequently used definitions). This is exactly why we are trying to get a broad all-encompassing definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

~~and what are those dozen definitions? are they all backed by sources like ADL and Oxford? WillsonSS3 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)~~

They are the ones used in scholarship about race which include structural racism, aversion racism, colorblind racism, etc. You can read about these views of racism in pretty much any book about the topic. I have referred specifically to Garners book on racisms, but there is a very large literature on the topic. Using a dictionary definition is not an option here, because racism is not a thing that has a single widely accepted definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

~~Those are just sub categories. WillsonSS3 (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2016 (UTC)~~

No they are entirely different definitions that do not require any direct intent to discriminate or any belief in innate racial hierarchies.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Sockpuppeting

WillsonSS3 was confirmed to be a sockpuppet of Nezi1111 (as was Socyology101). Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Nezi1111. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Opening statements

In the opening paragraphs:

In sociology and psychology, some definitions include only consciously malignant forms of discrimination.[5][6] Other definitions also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes.[3][7] 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.[8][9][10]

"One view" is not required there, the term "one view" aims to delegitimise the view that racism(prejudice backed by the state, military, groups, political parties, gangs) is what it is by inferring that its actual definition is a minority view and creating the false perception that there are opposing definitions to the actual one.

So I would like to request its removal.

Noemonas (talk) 22:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

. Thanks for your comment. We will be re-writing the lead paragraphs (lede) later. Your request will be given proper consideration. Once again, I encourage you to make your comments on the sandbox talk page where I'll be looking for comments. Meclee (talk) 23:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the first and so far only edit of Noemonas (talk · contribs).·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:46, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Defintion of racism

With the current lede on the article, it seems that Wikipedia is defining racism in a weird way that would make, for example, calling an African-American the N-word not a racist action, as such an action isn't an attempt to justify inequality. I'm surprised at the current amount of insensitivity being presented by this article. Am I to understand that this article is seeking to allow white supremacists the ability to excuse their hatred of non-whites under the auspices of "if they have the same legal rights as us, we can do whatever we please and it's not racist until we want them to have less rights?" This makes zero logical sense. Please correct this. We can't allow such an extreme right-wing definition to stand 2607:FB90:44:1B39:0:4B:69ED:C501 (talk) 21:48, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed already in the talk page. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Improper Definition

The current definition of racism is wrong. According to it, limiting the amount of people of a certain race (like Asians or Jews) who tend to have greater economic privilege, based on race alone, from working in high-paying jobs would not be racist. Harvard's practice of limiting Jewish enrollment in the 20th century would not be racist, but anti-racist. This conflicts with the most relevant Wiktionary definition, "Prejudice or discrimination based upon race." I believe that we should adopt the Wiktionary definition instead of the un-cited, heavily opinionated and grammatically incorrect one which exists now: "Racism are ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges or rights among groups that are conceptualized as racially or ethnically different." Thoughts? As the definition has been changed several times in the recent past, I didn't want to edit the article, to avoid edit-warring, especially with maunus, who has repeatedly removed other definitions and added the current one.Zaixionito (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

We do not accept the wikitionary defition. Wiktionary is not a reliable source and wikipedia is not a dictionary (see WP:DICDEF). The definition needs to be wide enough to include all the definitions used in the relevant literature. Your claims about the consequences of the current definitions make no sense to me, it does not follow from the definition in the way that I read it. The Numerus clausus policy of Harvard and other universities (which today affect people of Asian descent) would be a way to limit the privileges of the group whose numbers are limited relative to the group in power - hence it is potentially racist. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree the definition is not adequate. But taking a random dictionary definition is even less adequate. What someone needs to do (and what I will do eventually) is get some actual reliable recent academic secondary and tertiary non-dictionary sources about racism and list how they define the concept. The standard definition in the social sciences does not limit the concept to overt discrimination or to explicit ideas of racial superiority. Hencer, the definition here cannot do so either.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

However, any reputable dictionary, has a more reasonable definition. See the one cited in the article, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/racism , "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior." The definition that you're pushing is not inclusive, and only represents a very narrow, specific kind of racism.

- - 1. Asians are more privileged in terms of educational attainment(which is measurable) than other races in the United States. Asians 25+ are about twice as likely to have bachelor's degrees than the general population. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/asianamericans-graphics/
  - 2. Denying Asians admittance into universities based on their race is a form of racism as regular people understand it. We could have a policy that only allowed 60% of currently admitted Asians into universities. This would decrease degree inequality, however, by bringing Asian degree attainment down to the level of the average American.
  - 3. This is not racism, according to the given definition, because it does not cause unequal distribution of privileges or rights. It actually redistributes the privilege of education more fairly across groups. This is the opposite of racism, according to that definition.
  - 4. Therefore, the definition is unacceptable.
- It's not a random dictionary definition; it's Oxford's. The purpose of Wikipedia isn't to define terms based on the beliefs of its users, but to give unbiased, widely-accepted, and neutral definitions. The solution isn't to randomly comb recent (and therefore controversial) academic sources until you find sources you like, especially if that definition can be proven wrong. Zaixionito (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

OXford is as random a dictionayr as any other, and its definitions carry no more scientific weight than any other dictionary (i.e. none). It is not objective or unbiased unless it represents the actual scientific usage of the concept. Your own original research on what is an istn racism accoriung to your own apparnelty quite limited perspective of the world is utterly irrelevant and merits no answer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

in the absence of one single inarguable definition, why not "Choose Your Adventure" approach. start off with the simplest possible definition, i.e. "racism is a form of prejudice based on race" and then reproduce a number of different definitions from different POV's, allow readers to make up their own minds.--Ryubyss (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The problem with that is that simplicity is the enemy of accuracy when dealing with complex concepts.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

@Maunus:, is the current lede satisfactory to you? I think it does precisely what User:Ryubyss is suggesting, and I think it does it quite well. I think it's pretty much perfect.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 19:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I think it can be simplified a little by getting rid of the "Justifies, causes or seeks to cause the unequal distribution of goods and privileges" part which is pretty convoluted and almost legalese. I think the "ideologies and practices" is necessary, but I think it would be more reader friendly to write "that justifies or causes discrimination of people based on racial or ethnic classification". or something along those lines.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand why the definition of racism is so elaborate and confusing on this page. Surely the definition should be just like all other "isms" on wikipedia. 'Blank is prejudice or discrimination based on one's blank.' EG: Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's gender. This was the definition, why did it change? Yes, it can branch out into different types and be more specific but I believe the straight up first line should be "Racism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's race." It is simple. It is correct.·Luxorbostian · User talk:Luxorbostian· 18:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the first and so far only edit of Luxorbostian (talk · contribs) - an account created the same day Nezi1111 was first blocked for editwarring. Smells like a sock.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The coincidental nature of my account does not in any way effect the argument. It is just a coincidence.Luxorbostian (talk · contribs) 02:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

If you read the many argument offered against the argument on this very page you would understand why neither the argument or the definition you propose are correct. I dont believe much in coincidences. One coincidence may occur, but your edit is an entire series of coincidences. 1. You registering your account the same day a proven sockmaster is blocked, 2. a month later you appear to make your first edit in the same discussion in which they were blocked, 3. you make the same argument which the sockmaster and his socks were making. Those are more coincidences than I believe in. I am starting a sockpuppet investigation, this is your notification.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary Comment

User:UnequivocalAmbivalence removed a statement I had added quoting the Urban Dictionary as a reference under the sub-heading "popular culture". I would argue that the Urban Dictionary is relevant to usage in "popular culture" so I have restored the statement. Taken in context (i.e., "popular culture") it is a relevant reference though it is not necessarily "authoritative." The purpose is to show the wide range of usage of the term with differing shades of meaning. If User:UnequivocalAmbivalence decides to delete it again, I will leave if rather than continue arguing since it is not intended as an "authoritative" source, though it is relevant and removing it will deprive the reader of one meaning attached to the word in our society.. Meclee (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Since it is not a reliable source (also not for "popular culture"), I think it should go unless a secondary source of some relevant type refers to it.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, it is currently violating OR, because the top definition is not being used. If we are to use Urban Dictionary to show common usage (Which we shouldn't), we should at least use the top definition because that is a truer indicator of what Urban Dictionary says (which again, I don't think Urban Dictionary is a worthwhile source for anything at all) rather than pick a single part of a lower definition that we personally agree with in order to make a point. UnequivocalAmbivalence (talk) 00:04, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, I was assuming it was the top definition of UrbanDictionary.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:07, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

As I said, I will leave it. Whether the "top" or not, it is information about popular usage of the term, which is the only intention in using it. Meclee (talk) 01:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes but it is original research to select an urban dictionary definition and represent it as popular culture. Popculture references also needs to be sourced to secondary sources to be significant enough to include. Urban dictionary would be a primary source for pop culture.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:16, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

[1] Roithmayr, D.(2014). Reproducing Racism: How Everyday Choices Lock In White Advantage. New York: NYU Press.

[1]