Talk:Racism/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Contemporary

I removed some content from Racism#Contemporary today, because it is WP:SYNTH and original research. User:Beyond My Ken[1] has restored. But sources[2][3] doesn't mention "racism" and only Light skin. Next lines include misrepresentation of sources, about Caste, sources[4][5] doesn't confirm any points about it being racism or define it and the article's paragraph soon start mentioning that all scholars/academics reject caste being related to race. This is why we should get rid of the whole para entirely. Raymond3023 (talk) 19:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

A source doesn't have to mention the name of the article in order to be relevant to the subject of the article, and discrimination within people of color of those with darker skin by those with lighter skin is most definitely relevant to the subject of racism. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:15, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes your assumption totally speaks of WP:SYNTH. We need reliable sources for making assumption. Where does any of this article mentions discrimination of "discrimination within people of color of those with darker skin"? I think we should also add tanning products sales in western countries and social class (like Social class in the United States) system to the section, if you really want to give weight to half-baked fringe ideas. Raymond3023 (talk) 00:56, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no SYNTH if nothing is synthesized. An editorial decision is made that the material is related, and the reader takes it in and draws their own conclusion - no synthesis there. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:54, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

It is SYNTH if it is not supported by source, and exceptional claims require exceptional sources per WP:REDFLAG, main articles of these subject doesn't claim them to be racism so why this article should when there are no proper sources for it? Raymond3023 (talk) 04:13, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Agree with Raymond. Caste system and use of skin lightening products are unrelated and irrelevant to this article, while other bits of the section actually describe the hatred against specific races. It is WP:UNDUE as well. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:31, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with Beyond My Ken. It doesn't appear to be an exceptional claim at all, and a source doesn't need to use exact wording. We can say that the sky was blue on a given day even if reliable sources all say it was azure or even that it was just a sunny day. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:51, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

If it is not exceptional then why it hasn't been mentioned on main article or the sourcing is so poor? Raymond3023 (talk) 18:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

When we have already agreed that unreliable sources are misrepresented and used in wrong context then why we have to carry on this any longer? In place of restoring problematic content see WP:STICK. D4iNa4 (talk) 04:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Raymond3023's decision to remove the disputed content (consensus must be established to add information), but also find that some of said content is salvageable and could be implemented. The Boston Globe source ([6]) makes mention of both colorism and racism (they are distinct but often linked definitions), and the information regarding the Indian caste system could be added as another subsection with more polish.--SamHolt6 (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

The scholarly consensus on colorism, caste is that they are not racism. More on colorism:[7], Colorism, a term coined by Alice Walker in 1982, 4 is not a synonym of racism. Currently the colorism is not mentioned on article, because it is intragroup but so are caste. While "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another". Raymond3023 (talk) 06:38, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Moe than two sources are necessary to establish a "scholarly consensus". Please provide them, and do not make your proposed changes to the article again until there is a consensus to do so. So far, no such consensus exists. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:40, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

You are free to bring sources that would support your pseudoscientific edits. But so far you haven't other than misrepresenting consensus which is 3 are in agreement of removal. Though even if it is not based on vote, but your explanation as well as rivertorch's lack any policy based discussion. Raymond3023 (talk) 06:43, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Watch the personal attacks please! I have, in fact, made no edits whatsoever, except to revert your edits. It is your onus to provide the evidence that supports your suggested edits, not mine to justify what's been in the article for quite a while and therefore has survived the editing of many people without being removed.

Look, I'm not saying that you're necessarily wrong, I'm just saying that you must provide the evidence that supports your changes in order to convince other editors, such as myself, that they are acceptable changes. Please provide that evidence here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:55, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• Comment A request about this was also posted on WT:INB. I am not sure why this argument was even needed at first because per WP:COMMONSENSE, "all members of the various castes" belong to same race. [8] Mention of skin lightening and caste are indeed WP:OR and unsupported by sources and should be removed. Source only makes mention of some fringe activists at Durban conference making claims that caste is form of racism but their claims were rejected.[9] Discrimination has its own article where Discrimination#Caste has its section and number of other discriminations that have to do nothing with racism just like caste. Capitals00 (talk) 07:02, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

OK, since the two of you (Raymond and DiNa) have decided that you're willing to edit without a consensus and back each other up, and that you're simply not going to provide the necessary evidence on the talk page to gather a consensus, there's nothing much I can do, since it's going to look like I'm the asshole edit warring, when -- all along -- I've been the one asking for you to get a consensus on the talk, and you've been the ones refusing to provide the necessary evidence or argumentation. Therefore, I'm officially giving up, and leaving it to another editor to try to get you to edit properly. With any justice, the two of you will eventually be blocked for these tactics. In the meantime... well, you know, I don't really have to say it, do I? Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:04, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Burden is on you when you are restoring the objected content and it is not done by WP:STONEWALLING. D4iNa4 (talk) 07:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

"discrimination within people of color of those with darker skin by those with lighter skin is most definitely relevant to the subject of racism."

While I have heard of people with lighter skin getting preferential treatment (even TV Tropes covers it on the page But Not Too Black, we can't use our own experiences to write articles. We would need multiple, reliable sources making the connection to racism. There are many examples of discrimination that have little to do with racism, and are instead about social background, religious differences, social stigmas, or assumptions based on the way a person looks like. Dimadick (talk) 08:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

• I think the topic may merit inclusion, but it should be based on better sources that explicitly describe the light-skin preference in relation to racism in order to avoid SYNTH.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

First usage of term "racism": 1903 or 1936? The article seems to contradict itself.

I've done my best to review all two dozen talk archives to see if this has already been covered. From the article:

The revised Oxford English Dictionary cites the shortened term "racism" in a quote from the following year, 1903.[13][14][15] It was first defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as "[t]he theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race", which gives 1936 as the first recorded use.

What am I not understanding? How can the term "racism" be cited in a quote from 1903 if its first recorded use is 1936? --Bobagem (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

My best guess is that the second sentence refers to the entry for racism in the 2nd (1989) edition of OED; maybe somebody can check the source and verify that. The current edition of OED goes further and cites recorded uses of the term in 1903, 1926, 1932, and 1936 (and nine later examples). Ewulp (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Just use the current version, and update the article accordingly.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 11:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Legal vs Sociological Definitions

 This should be added to distinguish the two paradigms.

In modern sociology, racism is often defined as discrimination against a historically oppressed race. Proponents of this view argue that one cannot be racist against whites or at least in some contexts, Asians. Proponents of this view similarly argue that one cannot be sexist against males for the same reason.

In the US, nothing in the Civil Rights Act, US Constitution, or SCOTUS rulings support this definition. Equal protection in the US legally applies to all people, regardless of race or sex, including white males and Asians. Numerous courts expressly reject the sociological definition. However, some countries, like Australia (with respect to Aboriginals) and France (with respect to paternity rights), have limited instances where analogous concepts of equal protection exempts whites and males.

 Comment: Differing definitions are discussed in the section titled "Etymology, definition and usage". Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. WP:UNDUE - Not the American Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Added sourcefot citation needed

Here is a viable source for this citation needed 'At the end of the 19th century, proponents of scientific racism intertwined themselves with eugenics discourses of "degeneration of the race" and "blood heredity."[citation needed]'

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2687899/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.226.181.186 (talk) 04:30, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Racism Includes belief in Race

64.109.54.132 (talk) 20:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC) Protest logged. Done. This article fails to denote belief in race is racism and the cause root for all racism. Also color blindness racism is not denoted as an interpretation of some who believe in race and color to distinguish people's actions, choices, voice, and place in society, who are in fact thereby racist themselves. If you disagree, provide a consensus that belief in race is not racism, and that belief that there is no race is racism. I disagree, your precedent is destroyed, the article lacks neutrality. Done, and done. There is no such thing as race in any way shape or form. To pretend this is pitiful, and those who choose the view race is special are faced with opponents who can equally call them racist for believing there are different races other than human and any other animal in the first place. No neutrality. Period. REVISE...

64.109.54.132 (talk) 20:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC) As Evidence, Wikipedia is contradicting itself on stating things decidedly on color blindness here as being racist and that race is realistically a view that is not racist or those who do not subscribe to the human made idea of race are in fact themselves racist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_blindness_(race)

Race is a social construct, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Social constructs are real in the sense that people recognize them as real. It is pointless to assert that recognizing that "races" exists and identify with a race (e.g. as being "black") means you are a racist.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Slavery ≠ racism

Objective3000, Slavery is defined as "any system in which principles of property law are applied to people, allowing individuals to own, buy and sell other individuals, as a de jure form of property". It does not have to do with a person's skin color, ethnic background etc., which are the fundamentals of racism. Javiero Fernandez (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree. While in the USA slavery was closely connected with race, there are many examples of slavery in history and throughout the world where that was not the case. There is no inherent connection between the two. HiLo48 (talk) 01:29, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Your definition is spot on. But, you don't think that racism enters into many (if not most) of the peoples that are selected for slavery? Obviously the terms are not synonymous. But, most societies that have accepted slavery required some rationale to make the concept palatable -- to make moral and ethical excuses for taking advantage of others via enslavement. Racism is way up there in that category. An image of a slave market may not fit every facet of racism. But, it's pretty much one of the most serious results, and a couple of images, among others, along those lines surely fit into the racism article. O3000 (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Objective3000, I agree. And to expand on your very good reply—

Racism is expressed by consequences—slavery and genocide are the most pernicious examples. Racism is defined by consequences. This an encyclopedia article, not a definition in a dictionary. Readers come here to get an understanding of the subject, including a historical context. As I wrote in my edit summary when I restored the images: the 13th century slave market in Yemen, notice the racial dicotomy—the Arab slave traders and the sub-Saharan slaves. This a consequence of racism, an ideology. To continue, take the Holocaust. Nazi Germany combined slavery and genocide, justifying both with the ideology of racism. The Nazi propagandists included not only Jews in the untermensch category, but essentially every human to the east and south of Germany.

The lead image for this article is a photograph of the desegregation of the all–white University of Alabama in 1963. If unequal, segregated education is an example of and justified by racism, then so is slavery. If, in this article, racism is stripped of its historical context, then this article is no longer encyclopedic.

I could go on, but I'd like to hear from other editors. — User:Neonorange (Phil) 03:21, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

If those slavery images are included, they need to be accompanied by text that explains their relevance. Just sticking them there is not encyclopaedic, and implies that racism = slavery. It doesn't in most cases, so we need to explain the connection. HiLo48 (talk) 03:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It is impossible to separate the two. It would be mechanical to do so. Slavery is a certain form of the relationships of production. It begain to disappear as feudalism did. It took civil wars in the Americas to outlaw slavery—but the ideology continued. The outlawing of slavery came at different times in different countries—earlier in England with the start of the industrial revolution—later in countries where feudalism lingers. The supporting ideology not only lingers, but is advancing—in the U.S. and E.U., for example. Rather than summarily deletion of the informative images, the text should be expanded. — User:Neonorange (Phil) 04:49, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The word slave appears in the article 37 times, including the lede. The image use policy states: The purpose of an image is to increase readers' understanding of the article's subject matter, usually by directly depicting people, things, activities, and concepts described in the article. The images cannot portray every single facet of a long article. An image of a slave market is obviously relevant to an article that contains the word slave 37 times and the relevant text is in the article already. O3000 (talk) 11:24, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Slavery in the western hemisphere developed into a race-based system (though it didn't start that way), but this is not necessarily true in the rest of the world. The image would be fine if it could be supported with a referenced caption indicating that slavery in Yemen in the 13th century was also racialized; otherwise, the image is a total nonsequitur and doesn't belong. --JBL (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

We can remove the word Yemen from the caption. The point is that slave trading involves slave markets, this is an image of a slave market, and slavery is an enormous factor in this article. O3000 (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Since the picture is of a 13th century slave market in Yemen, removing Yemen from the caption makes no sense. Slavery was not the same in all places and all times. If slavery in Yemen in the 13th century was racialized [I have no idea if it was or wasn't, it seems you don't either or you would have said], this image is a good illustration and its caption should be made more explanatory. If it wasn't, this image is off-topic. In the latter case, what would be better than arguing about this off-topic image would be to find an image that depicts some aspect of a racialized system of slavery (Brazil? Haiti? the US?), to replace this image with that one, and to write a good caption for it. --JBL (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I know WP is not a source for itself, but the article Slavery in Yemen states Arab countries, including Yemen, contributed towards the growing African slave trade. Racism has a very broad definition. But, I think the Yemen slave markets fit even a narrow definition. A US example wouldn’t be bad either. O3000 (talk) 22:34, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

related categories

Related topics: Ethnic group Eugenics Genetics Human evolution

these dont really have much to do with racism. Other_(philosophy) would be more appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.198.74.178 (talk) 11:45, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 September 2018

There is only the Human Race, therefore racism is a nonsense word created to divide, and is used instead of using statements like "I do not like the colour of your skin" or is used to describe the class or status of some Humans as compared to other Humans in society. Any other descriptions for racism is utter nonsense and should be removed from all online sources and the word itself should be removed from any educational sources, e.g., schools, wiki. 80.5.34.209 (talk) 22:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

•  Not done: This is not a forum O3000 (talk) 22:07, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 September 2018

I wish for there to be an edit where at the end of the section there is a social definition stating "Racism is simply treating somebody differently, better or worse, because of their race. Meaning if someone especially nice to another person because of their race, that is racist. A conscious decision is being made to adjust the mindset of the person based upon race." D5stray (talk) 02:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

What source would you want cited for that definition? Dicklyon (talk) 02:58, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Hhkohh (talk) 13:26, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2018

Abraham Lincoln quote is under 'scientific racism' and is completely out of place in the paragraph. Deleting or moving it would majorly improve. InquisitivePoodle (talk) 16:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually the whole section of quotes is bizarre -- the actual encyclopedic content seems to begin in the first subsection. I have removed all the quotes. --JBL (talk) 16:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

R

Some thoughts about the article. There is "race," and there is also 'the idea that there is no such thing as race.' With the sentiments called "racism" also are the political ideas (ideology) about race and racism, where "racism" then means the promotion of racial segregation, and also discrimination, and also something unnammed which is the passive but real destruction caused to a people as a result of discrimination. There is then also violent racial discrimination and the idea that racial differences are sufficient basis for racialist violence and genocide.

In the history of the world, "racism" is the label for how the Great Powers have come under the influence of racialistic ideologies, which are identical to genocidal ideologies, and how these ideas are promoted in private and through channels of power that make it so that extreme wealth is powerless to correct extreme poverty. Racialism is the favorite pastime of the war monger, but then exposing a person for racialistic beliefs also exposes them as a genocidalist. Hence the term "race" is highly charged.

There is then also the "racism" which makes it so that the Heidi Klums of the world have it way easier than the Seals, which is to say there is a popular idea of beauty which contains a preference for lighter color skin, blonde hair, etc. This preferentialism is not itself bigotry, its beauty, or to say idealism about human appearance. But it does produce a kind of racism when people with the unpopular features are discriminated against. Inowen (nlfte) 03:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Better definition instead of trivialization of its crimes

Either you add racism as connotation or you add another section referring explicitly as slander word for nonconforming political view. Trivialization of Nazi-terror is a shame.

Racism can be precisely defined as having properties of 1. immutability 2. inferiority 3. no biological or any scientific foundation for the underlying properties of groups of humans or individuals of a certain group.

This explicitly excludes cultural background of a person or its group (culture can and does change permanently in history and so do cultural fights). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.77.157.137 (talk) 18:29, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Well, you didn’t provide a source. But, even if you had, I don’t think we can take one source for a precise definition of the term. O3000 (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017

Racism has only one definition. It is not ambiguous. It is not Power plus prejudice. you do not need POWER to be a racist. You only need to be prejudice. Correctingthewrongsofwiki (talk) 01:50, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

 Not done No specific edit requested. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The above is obviously referring to the line, "As of the 2000s, the use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition." The specific edit requested is to exclude this line as it is obviously untrue, if not obviously dubious at best, as clearly indicated by the previous line which begins, "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another"; this is a well-developed, long-understood and accepted singular definition that is so well-known and well-understood as to be considered common knowledge and requires no source, as further indicated by the fact that the definition of "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another" contains, in fact, no source. To add to the notion that "common knowledge" statements need no source, the statement "George Washington was the first President of the United States" is an example of a statement of common knowledge, and, in his entry on Wikipedia, the four *paragraphs* that open the article contain no references, despite going on to say he was far more than just the first President of the United States, but also that he was "a soldier, farmer, and statesman, and served as the first President of the United States under the U.S. Constitution." I would further contend that such an obviously dubious statement as the one in question should require more than one "source", especially if the "source" or the claim within the source lacks merit or credibility; just because someone was able to find an article that made the claim does not give the claim any merit or credibility, and, for further reading, I would recommend Wikipedia's own article on "Argument from Authority": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

I second the request to exclude this line - or to at least remove it from the defining paragraph - based on the aforementioned arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.25.204 (talk • contribs)

Sources are not generally needed in the lead. Please see WP:LEAD. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The introductory paragraph seems contradictory. It states that the term does not easily fall into a single definition, yet the open sentence defines it in a clear and simple way. There is a well understood definition for the term. Everyone knows this. I see someone already made a request to have this line removed. Why hasn't it been? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:4992:29DB:D9DE:657E (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

While the concept of racism is fairly well defined; within that definition, the use of the term race has broadened over the last decades broadening the use of the term racism. O3000 (talk) 12:57, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

So, the term 'race' has changed in meaning over the past few decades? I don't think this is true, nor has the definition for 'racism' gone through any revisions. There is a simple, clear, and widely accepted definition of the term. The only contexts in which this is not the case are within fringe circles and this wouldn't qualify as a major shift in meaning (which can be the case of popular usage). This is misleading and inaccurate, and it seems political. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:A5DE:5307:65E6:6892 (talk) 20:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Race is a human invention. It has variously been used to group people by language, nationality, physical traits, and religion. This has grown to include cultural and other groupings. Take racial anti-Semitism. This term applies to prejudice against Jews. But, Jews are not of a single racial categorization; and I believe most are Caucasian. Oddly, most Semites are Arab, not Jewish. The point is that the term race changes in meaning over time in the minds of those who indulge in racism. O3000 (talk) 13:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Your example of prejudice against Jews is an example of misuse of the term racism, as (like you pointed out) Jew is not a race. Misuse of a term is not grounds for the revision of a definition. For example, people sometimes use 'irony' when they mean 'coincidence', but this misuse is not grounds to claim that irony does not fall into an easily defined category. It maintains a clear definition despite being misused in some contexts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:B823:B2C4:5941:6BDB (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

"While the concept of racism is fairly well defined; within that definition, the use of the term race has broadened over the last decades broadening the use of the term racism."

Which does not have any effect on the definition of the term "racism", as the aforementioned definition still applies: "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another" is still the definition of "racism" regardless of how "race" is defined. For example, as technology has progressed, the definition of the word "file" has broadened, however, the definition of the phrase "file storage" as "a place where files are stored" still applies. As previously mentioned, we still have "a well-developed, long-understood and accepted singular definition that is so well-known and well-understood as to be considered common knowledge". Please remove the line to which this thread refers from the defining paragraph. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.25.204 (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Anyone can find several sources that clearly define the term racism. This is common knowledge, and there are very few people who can't define racism clearly and concisely. We all know what the word means, and it stirs no confusion. Yet, this introduction does cause confusion. Why is a misleading and ambiguous line included in the introduction that's only supported by a single source?

The problem is not a unique one that exists solely within this particular wiki entry, but, instead, a common, wide spread issue which this particular wiki entry is a result of, as well as contributes to. The problem is the lack of understanding, or even comprehension, of the significant difference between the terms "Racism" & "Bigotry", the two are even, officially, considered synonymous with one another when, clearly, by definition, they are NOT. This is what creates the misperception that the definition of "RACISM" is open ended & subject to Change & I'm sure the definition of "BIGOTRY" is just as often subjected to the same misperception....Yes they both are in the context of "intolerance", but that does NOT constitute a synonymous relationship. A synonymous relationship between the two would suggest that a racist can be correctly referred to as a bigot solely based on their racism & a bigot can be correctly referred to as a racist solely based on there bigotry & THIS IS INCORRECT. The former is intolerance of a person based on how they "LOOK", the later is intolerance of a person based on how they "THINK", are the terms "THINK" & "LOOK" synonymous with one another? NO, they are not. Therefore the terms "racism" & "Bigotry" CANNOT be synonymous with one another either....Exclude "racism" & "bigotry" from each others list of synonyms, perpetuate the correct notion that they are significantly different from one another in their specified definition & instill this difference within the parameters of "common knowledge" & this issue, as well as a plethora of other issues which are a direct result of the common misperception &/or the common ignorance of how the terms "racism" & "bigotry" are specifically, diferently defined, will be rectified...just sayin'

References

Anti-White Racism

A user attempted to revert my edit about Sarah Jeong and anti-white racism. I believe I am wholly justified in posting relevant articles to justify the fact of Jeong's racism. -Noto-Ichinose (talk 13:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

it's WP:UNDUE EvergreenFir (talk) 13:33, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

:: I wouldn't consider The Guardian and Fox News minority viewpoints. -Noto-Ichinose (talk 14:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

You misrepresented the articles. She was not a NYT employee, and it appears her remarks were mocking racism. Your claims are WP:BLP violations. O3000 (talk) 14:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

What makes you say "it appears her remarks were mocking racism"? It appears she was making racist remarks. Is the subjective whim of what you think appears to be the case grounds for editing an article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:4992:29DB:D9DE:657E (talk) 03:09, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a discussion forum, and the Jeong non-incident does not belong in the article. —JBL (talk) 13:43, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a place to discuss Wikipedia edits, which is what I'm doing. The justification for removing the edit is poor and partly based on a subjective interpretation for Jeong's motives. On what objective grounds does the Jeong incident not belong in the article? And on what grounds do the incidents already included in the article belong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:A5DE:5307:65E6:6892 (talk) 20:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You've gotten your answer, and the reasons have been clearly explained.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The reasons given seem subjective and not very reasonable. Again, on what objective basis does this incident not belong in the article? The above link does not establish any reasonable or clear explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:13A:F8E9:99F5:C708 (talk) 18:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Because it is obviously undue: the "event" was three months ago, and it had no encyclopedic significance and no lasting impact on anything. In another 6 months no one except deranged obsessives will remember it, and with good reason. There is 0 chance of adding anything about it to the article. Further persistence on this point would be disruptive. --JBL (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Please provide a source that details objective grounds for what does and does not constitute an "undue" event. Should we comb through Wikipedia and analyze each entry for relevancy? Because we all can point to entries that are "undue" and that will be forgotten after a few months. Is there a 6 month relevancy Wikipedia criteria you can please point me to?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1b0:ae90:a52f:aab4:85a7:b2ba (talk • contribs)

No single event within the last months has any relevance for the way wikipedia should cover the broad and general topic of "racism". Please read WP:UNDUE and WP:RECENTISM.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 10:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the links. I'm just trying to understand Wikipedia's criteria for what is and isn't relevant material for an entry.

I've struck through the original poster's remarks as he was a sockpuppet evading a block. Doug Weller talk 13:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

There are a million events a day related to racism. Unknown millions of people have died due to racism. How does this tweet stand out as worthy of entry in a general article about racism in an encyclopedia? O3000 (talk) 13:36, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm trying to understand the objective standard for does and does not constitute a relevant entry. Someone's subjective take on a matter should not be the standard; there should be objective guidelines. Otherwise, what's the point of an encyclopedic collection of information?

Ideally, you would have something like a book from a recognized expert in the history/sociology/etc of racism, and that source should deal with anti-white racism generally, rather than trying to start with the opinion of pundits (who are after all, professional outrage-expressers and personal-opinion-havers) about some particular tweet (likely itself of no particular historic importance) and go from that particular instance into generalizing some statement about the phenomenon as a whole. The step of generalization there, of moving from particular instances to general assumptions and broad phenomenon, should be done by experts in the field, and we on Wikipedia should follow their analysis, rather than trying to formulate analyses of our own. GMG^talk 17:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 November 2018

Change X Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity.

To Y Racism is defined as a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others. e.g. Basketball, Intelligence, work ethic, etc. The results are discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity, either for or against their benefit. 24.43.208.34 (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: The current lead is more concise; in my opinion, it's needlessly wordy. Thanks. ProgrammingGeek ^talktome 20:14, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Probably also note that racism does not result in prejudice. Racism is prejudice, and results in discrimination...and as far as I can tell, inherent inferiority or superiority isn't a necessary component. Compare almost cartoonish inter-war European antisemitism, of which a large part was/is not necessarily that Jews were inferior, but that Jews were evil...often seen as caricature-ish-ly successful, wealthy, cunning, so-on and so-forth, but nonetheless somehow preoccupied with taking over the world and drinking the fresh blood of Christian children, because vampires or something. GMG^talk 13:57, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

"...Racism does not result in prejudice, Racism is prejudice."... The definition of prejudice actually supports the antithesis of this notion... The "antitheses" being "Racism" compels one to develop "prejudices"(results in), "racism" is, in of itself, NOT "prejudice"... I.E. the more likely scenario, or train of thought would be... "That person has black skin & I am intolerant of such therefore I am going to irrationally preconceive my personal judgment of that persons character, without actually having any prior knowledge what so ever of that persons character, based on the fact that that persons skin is black & my intolerance of such."... Not... "I have irrationally preconceived my personal judgment of that persons character without actually having any prior knowledge what so ever of that persons character even though nothing at all is compelling me to do so but immediately upon doing so I will become intolerant of people with black skin for some inexplicable reason."... Just like "racism" & "bigotry", the official notion that "racism" & "prejudice" are "synonymous" is grossly incorrect as the relationship between racism & prejudice is not one of "concurrent equality", but one of "consecutive compulsion".... The applicable action in relation to "racism" is harboring irrational, unreasonable intolerance due to ignorance, the applicable action in relation to "Prejudice" is passing irrational, unsupported judgment based on ignorance, are the phrases "harboring intolerance" & "passing judgment" synonymous with one another? No, they are not. Is the action of "harboring irrational, unreasonable intolerance due to ignorance" identical to the action of "passing irrational, unsupported judgment based on ignorance"? No it is not, therefore "Racism" & "prejudice" are neither synonymous in phrase or identical in action"....

Side note, interestingly enough, the relationship between "racism" & "prejudice" is the same going both directions as the act of "passing irrational, unsupported judgment based on ignorance." can also compel one to "harbor irrational, unreasonable intolerance due to ignorance."....Still a relationship of "consecutive compulsion" & not a relationship of "concurrent equality" though.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.2.64.133 (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Boycot Jews april 1 1933.jpeg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

Racist = a person who seeks to create antifical difference between people, and/or seeks to maintain an artificial difference between people. Mrbikejoc1 (talk) 06:00, 15 March 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 09:39, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Grammatical error in Color Blind section

In the Color Blind section, I suggest "as way to address the results" be changed to "as a way to address the results" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.9.137.9 (talk) 08:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done. El_C 08:43, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Disputed Accuracy

The current definition of racism as a belief is wrong and does not reflect the literature on the topic which has long distinguished between different forms of racism only some of which are primarily beliefs, others of which operate independently of any specific belief. The current definition is misleading and should be corrected as soon as possible, probably by reverting to one of the earlier longstanding consensus definitions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Hmm...yes...I was mulling this over in my head. There's plenty of literature for example on intitutional racism, which may often occur because of structural inequities without any certain individual holding any certain belief that draws a direct line from thoughts to outcomes. GMG^talk 14:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Institutional racism is holdovers of past racism. But, I think it’s kept alive long term by current racism. If a ray from outer space hit the earth and instantly wiped out prejudice, it would not wipe out institutional racism. But, how long would it continue without aide from current racist beliefs? In any case, the suggestion that we look at the literature is a bit vague. I think the term will morph as long as humans feel a need distinguish various groups. O3000 (talk) 14:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Institutional racism can also result from a poor institutional response to a social problem that is itself racially stratified in a way that is independent of the institutions that respond poorly to the social problem. So... off the top of my head, blacks are substantially more likely to die from heart disease, and a poor public health regime related to heart disease would therefore have a disproportionately negative effect on that group, even though on an individual level, white and black persons of similar backgrounds would both encounter the same poor public health regime. GMG^talk 15:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The definition should be broad enough to encompass all the main definitions of the term racism - it currently does not, but only includes one, and one which recent literature specifically tends to consider inadequate.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 09:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this statement.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 14:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with: racism is the belief that there a races, and racial characteristics which are specific to their race. If you think that there are races, you are having a racist thought. (User:Pedant) 172.58.19.163 (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree the definition should be broader, but I would say the belief segment can still ring true for many individuals following historical connotation from white supremacy. I find that points of contention in discussions regarding race often stem from different definitions. For example, I posit that it's possible if not common for an individual to make a racist remark without being (a) racist. So how about changing from X "Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition." to Y "Racism is discrimination or prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity, or a belief in the superiority of one race over another. The use of the terms "racism" or "racist" does not easily fall under a single definition." This would put the broader definition in front, immediately followed by a common layman connotation. 2601:601:9A7F:F1C4:6099:1E43:D57:A9E1 (talk) 11:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. Whether or not there are "races" is a scientific question, and few racists are interested in science. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to all other races, and should be treated differently. It is inherently irrational. For example, racists claim that Blacks are inferior because they are less intelligent than Whites, while Jews are inferior because they are more intelligent (cunning, crafty) than Whites. It has nothing to do with biology, and everything to do with dominance. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Racism of low expectations listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Racism of low expectations. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Humanzoogermany.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:21, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 June 2019

Change X: Despite support for evolutionary theories relating to an innate origin of racism, various studies have suggested racism is associated with lower intelligence and less diverse peer groups during childhood. A neuroimaging study on amygdala activity during racial matching activities found increased activity to be associated with adolescent age as well as less racially diverse peer groups, which the author conclude suggest a learned aspect of racism. A meta analysis of neuroimaging studies found amygdala activity correlated to increased scores on implicit measures of racial bias. It was also argued amygdala activity in response to racial stimuli represents increased threat perception rather than the traditional theory of the amygdala activity represented ingroup-outgroup processing. Racism has also been associated with lower childhood IQ in an analysis of 15,000 people in the UK.

to Y: Despite support for evolutionary theories relating to an innate origin of racism, various studies have suggested racism is associated with lower intelligence and less diverse peer groups during childhood. A neuroimaging study on amygdala activity during racial matching activities found increased activity to be associated with adolescent age as well as less racially diverse peer groups, which the author conclude suggest a learned aspect of racism. A meta analysis of neuroimaging studies found amygdala activity correlated to increased scores on implicit measures of racial bias. It was also argued amygdala activity in response to racial stimuli represents increased threat perception rather than the traditional theory of the amygdala activity represented ingroup-outgroup processing. Racism has also been associated with lower childhood IQ in an analysis of 15,000 people in the UK. Nevertheless, there is some historical evidence which suggests that it is possible to be both racist and to have a high I.Q. at the same time. The twenty four Nazi or National Socialist defendants at the 1945-1946 Nuremburg trials were given various kinds of tests by their prison psychiatrists to determine their intelligence quotients, and as a result were found to be of above average intelligence, some of them considerably so. Suspended Time (talk) 07:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. MrClog (talk) 10:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 July 2019

Racism is a form of bigotry but neither racism, nor bigotry, IS a belief. Beliefs form predicates used in various forms of bigotry. But no form of bigotry is just a belief or predicate. Beliefs often change.

Racism is one, or more, ACTIONS. It is the action that discriminates. The predicate of a bigoted discrimination is invalid. The invalidity of the predicate is what makes racism immoral. Racist actions may be recorded, and are thus, permanent (as long as the history is not vandalized).

INCORRECT: a prison guard who implements a racist policy is only responsible for implementing such policy if the guard's beliefs agree with that racist prison policy. CORRECT: It is not the belief that is makes the guard guilty, rather it is (the action of) implementing the racist policy that makes the guard guilty.

Ethnic discrimination can be precise while no modern definition of race is precise. Racism must not combine race with ethnicity as is stated in the current version of the article.

Discrimination is not the same as bigotry, or any of its forms. Discrimination may be bad, good, or dependent on other factors. Denial of state driver license, to those under a specific age, discriminates though many agree with the discrimination. Some predicates of discrimination are legal and popular. 47.187.105.228 (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, keep in mind that this is not a forum. O3000 (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

NPOV/n discussion on inclusion of Islamophobia/Antisemitism/religious hate in Racism in X articles

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and other religious hate in "racism in X" articles may be of interest to talk page watchers here. The issue is whether to include Islamophobia, Antisemitism, and other religious hate in Racism in country X articles. Icewhiz (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 31 May 2019

Racism distinguishes between between human racial groupings. Such distinctions may or may not lead to discrimination and prejudice but linguistically has no necessary connection to concepts of ‘superiority’ and ‘inferiority’ outlined in some mostly left-wing ideological formulations. 86.9.65.94 (talk) 19:54, 31 May 2019 (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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, it's nonsense. O3000 (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

I think he's saying what I wrote above: The definition seems odd to me. Is racial supremacy necessarily a part of racism? By the current definition, one could discriminate and show prejudice on a racial basis, and that would not be racism. IOW It says that if you don't consider your race superior, then you are not racist - no matter how much you discriminate, or extol racial separatism, etc. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Bizarre use of terminology

In the brief discussion of Israel, and the accusations (whether valid or not) of systemic racism against Arabs or against darker-skinned Jews, the article refers to Israel as "the Zionist state", rather than using its proper name, Israel. Such language is typical of those who wish to deny Israel's legitimacy as a state, and to destroy it. WIkipedia should not be allowing such usage.

Further, if the accusations are going to be included in the article, then so too should information rebutting much of the accusation. (Yes, there is some racism in Israel, as there is everywhere, but the accusations mentioned in this article are ones that have been shown to be exaggerated or completely false). For example, the article suggests that there is systemic racism against darker-skinned Jews, but does not mention that over 50% of Israel's population is descended from Mizrachi Jews - those who spent the diaspora in the Middle East. Nor does it mention that Israel rescued the Ethiopian Jews from miserable conditions in Ethiopia, to bring them to Israel as free men and women. SO while they did and do face some discrimination, it is not society-wide, or institutional. And including the debunked smear about "forced sterilization", no matter how obliquely it is mentioned, is grossly prejudicial. Many of the Ethiopian women who were brought to Israel received an injected form of temporary birth control. Temporary being the operative word. It is also ambiguous whether most of the women gave informed consent for the shots, or whether they did not understand what they were receiving. Because of the cultural values they carried with them from Ethiopia, none of the women would publicly admit that they wanted the birth control - it would be considered a deep insult to their husbands. But many of the women returned to the clinics for follow-up shots, suggesting that it was something they wanted.

Although this is a blog post, it does a good job of summarizing the "controversy", and explaining what really happened. There was an official investigation of the charges, in 2016, which concluded that there was some miscommunication with the recent immigrants, but no coercion. https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-big-lie-involuntary-sterilization-of-black-ethiopian-women/

Further clarification: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-comptroller-ethiopians-not-forced-into-birth-control-1.5392931

Similarly, the claim of housing discrimination mentioned is based on land owned not by the government of Israel, but by a private Jewish organization which exists for the sole purpose of helping build and maintain the Jewish nature of the state. The lands owned by this group cannot be sold or leased to anyone non-Jewish, but are open to Jews of any skin color or background, including people of Arab descent who have converted to Judaism. So to characterize this as racism, and to give it credence by including it in a Wikipedia article, is extremely unethical. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PA Math Prof (talk • contribs) 19:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

"Not to be confused with Racialism."

Well, it's obviously not too far from "racialism" (it's not like it's the same word for different things, it's different words for similar things), so I would remove the above sentence and leave it to the "see also" section. --Eike sauer (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 November 2019

Please change X:

Aspects

The ideology underlying racism can manifest in many aspects of social life. Such aspects are described in this section, although the list is not exhaustive.

Color blindness

Main article: Color blindness (race)

In relation to racism, color blindness is the disregard of racial characteristics in social interaction, for example in the rejection of affirmative action, as a way to address the results of past patterns of discrimination. Critics of this attitude argue that by refusing to attend to racial disparities, racial color blindness in fact unconsciously perpetuates the patterns that produce racial inequality.

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva argues that color blind racism arises from an "abstract liberalism, biologization of culture, naturalization of racial matters, and minimization of racism". Color blind practices are "subtle, institutional, and apparently nonracial" because race is explicitly ignored in decision-making. If race is disregarded in predominantly white populations, for example, whiteness becomes the normative standard, whereas people of color are othered, and the racism these individuals experience may be minimized or erased. At an individual level, people with "color blind prejudice" reject racist ideology, but also reject systemic policies intended to fix institutional racism.

Institutional

Further information: Institutional racism, State racism, Racial profiling, and Racism by country

Institutional racism (also known as structural racism, state racism or systemic racism) is racial discrimination by governments, corporations, religions, or educational institutions or other large organizations with the power to influence the lives of many individuals. Stokely Carmichael is credited for coining the phrase institutional racism in the late 1960s. He defined the term as "the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin".

Maulana Karenga argued that racism constituted the destruction of culture, language, religion, and human possibility and that the effects of racism were "the morally monstrous destruction of human possibility involved redefining African humanity to the world, poisoning past, present and future relations with others who only know us through this stereotyping and thus damaging the truly human relations among peoples".

To Y (move section Color Blindness to subsection of Institutional Racism):

Aspects

The ideology underlying racism can manifest in many aspects of social life. Such aspects are described in this section, although the list is not exhaustive.

Institutional

Further information: Institutional racism, State racism, Racial profiling, and Racism by country

Institutional racism (also known as structural racism, state racism or systemic racism) is racial discrimination by governments, corporations, religions, or educational institutions or other large organizations with the power to influence the lives of many individuals. Stokely Carmichael is credited for coining the phrase institutional racism in the late 1960s. He defined the term as "the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin".

Maulana Karenga argued that racism constituted the destruction of culture, language, religion, and human possibility and that the effects of racism were "the morally monstrous destruction of human possibility involved redefining African humanity to the world, poisoning past, present and future relations with others who only know us through this stereotyping and thus damaging the truly human relations among peoples".

Color blindness

Main article: Color blindness (race)

In relation to racism, color blindness is the disregard of racial characteristics in social interaction, for example in the rejection of affirmative action, as a way to address the results of past patterns of discrimination. Critics of this attitude argue that by refusing to attend to racial disparities, racial color blindness in fact unconsciously perpetuates the patterns that produce racial inequality.

Eduardo Bonilla-Silva argues that color blind racism arises from an "abstract liberalism, biologization of culture, naturalization of racial matters, and minimization of racism". Color blind practices are "subtle, institutional, and apparently nonracial" because race is explicitly ignored in decision-making. If race is disregarded in predominantly white populations, for example, whiteness becomes the normative standard, whereas people of color are othered, and the racism these individuals experience may be minimized or erased. At an individual level, people with "color blind prejudice" reject racist ideology, but also reject systemic policies intended to fix institutional racism.

As Color Blindness presents itself as an issue in the form of Institutional Racism, by its own description in the article. Thus it would be more effective to move Color Blindness (2.2 in article) to a subsection of Institutional Racism (2.5 in article). SprayCanToothpick (talk) 17:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: The institutional aspect of color blindness is only one facet of it. Color blindness is also expressed by individuals and social groups. There is no obvious necessity to reverse the order. If you still think this is necessary for good comprehension by a reader, please feel free to start a discussion below to gauge the support such a change may have among other editors. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

References

Further Reading

Suggested addition, covers myths of blood, color, Aryan or Nordic superiority, and the Jewish myth:

• Comas, Juan (1951). "The Race Question in Modern Science: Racial Myths" (PDF). Paris: UNESCO. Publication 891.

Nick-philly (talk) 04:31, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Marxism

From the 19th Century subsection in the History section:

“On the other hand, Marxism also seized this discourse founded on the assumption of a political struggle that provided the real engine of history and continued to act underneath the apparent peace. Thus, Marxists transformed the essentialist notion of "race" into the historical notion of "class struggle", defined by socially structured positions: capitalist or proletarian.“

This is a misunderstanding of both the nature and genesis of Marx’s notion of class struggle, popularized most recently by the charlatan Jordan Peterson. The contradiction between bourgeois and proletariat existed in the works of Adam Smith and G. F. W. Hegel, among others, long before Marx was born. That the notion was an abstraction from or transformation of preexisting conceptions of race struggle is anachronistic and incorrect. Aufgehoben (talk) 14:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"On the other hand..." is not listed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch, but it should be. The paragraph of the article only cites one source, which suggest that this is editorializing. The fix would be to start with a reliable sources which specifically discuss Marxism, class struggle, and racism, and go from there. Grayfell (talk) 03:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Doug Weller's edit

I seem to have walked in on an edit war. I'm just guessing because of Doug Weller's comment. My point is that there is a difference between saying "Nixon said 'I am not a crook'", a true statement, and saying "Nixon is not a crook", a false stateement, and citing Nixon as a source. I don't know anything about this particular discussion, and so I don't have a dog in this fight. I just want to make the point that, yes, many racists pretend not to be racists. That's true, and citing their pretensions as non-racists can be substantiated by their quotes. This is very different from citing them, personally, as proof that their quotes are in fact non-racist. As long as that point is understood, then I'm happy to let Doug Weller take it from here. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction in first paragraph?

Racism is the belief in the superiority of one race over another, which often results in discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. The use of the term "racism" does not easily fall under a single definition.

Is it just me, or do these two sentences seem contradictory? The first sentence seems to give a definition, and then the second says that the use of it doesn't easily fit under one definition. Should the first sentence not reflect that? I'm not familiar with the history of this page, but it sounds like one definition was decided upon in spite of the second sentence.

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong --Ribose carb (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

You are not wrong. There was a discussion that pointed out this inconsistency, but it has since been deleted. The second sentence indeed contradicts the first. Furthermore, there is a colloquially accepted definition of the word that easily falls into a single definition. Suggesting otherwise is disingenuous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1B0:AE90:41E9:DAB3:EE50:7E2 (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I suggest the second sentence be changed to the following, but would like to see this change discussed here before I make it. "The word "racism" has often been used when ethnicity rather than race is the subject." I assume this is what the second sentence is hinting at. Comments? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The reference cited in support of the claim that the term does not fall under a single definition states in a synopsis that the author (Garner) uses "clear definitions and practical examples". The statement that racism does not easily fall into a single definition seems subjective. What does this sentence even mean? What does it mean to "easily" fall into a definition? As opposed to falling into a definition with difficulty? And, how is this relevant? Many words have multiple meanings (and we often defer to the definition that is most commonly used). Are we to highlight a word's dual-meaning status any time it has multiple meanings? I see no purpose for including this sentence other than to obfuscate, which is counter to the function of an encyclopedia.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1b0:ae90:310f:ed11:4471:74e5 (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The source lacks credibility. Dig _deeper ^talk 21:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

How does the source lack credibility? There is more than one definition. Article speaks on it. I expanded the lead with older lead writing.[10][11][12][13] Better than just the one definition. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

The definition seems odd to me. Is racial supremacy necessarily a part of racism? By the current definition, one could discriminate and show prejudice on a racial basis, and that would not be racism. IOW It says that if you don't consider your race superior, then you are not racist - no matter how much you discriminate, or extol racial separatism, etc. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:31, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Racism has more than just the one definition. The first sentence just defines the superiority definition. Then the lead takes on the rest. Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I think these edits[14][15][16] help.

Halo Jerk1 (talk) 10:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I have seen a racist defined as "someone who knows who they are." Could the lede definition then be made "Racism is the understanding of ones own racial identity"? Henry Hannon (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest that's a common, incorrect, definition used by racists. O3000 (talk) 23:06, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

In Wikipedia, "I have seen..." is not a reliable source. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Interesting. That would lead to the conclusion that while Wikipedia is edited by Wikipedians, Wikipedians are not reliable sources of information. Henry Hannon (talk) 22:58, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Individual Wikipedia editors are certainly not reliable and Wikipedia as a whole is user edited and therefore not considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. Besides, it can be dangerous to assume that anything is a good source for itself. See WP:NOTSOURCE. O3000 (talk) 23:10, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2020

Poiisi4 (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add a section about media and racism by using many scientific sources

Through the examination of a series of researches on the representation of economic and political refugees in the media, the following characteristics of the dominant frame have emerged: A) Lack of representation or even absence of the social, economic and political conditions that force people to emigrate (Philo & Beattie 1999) B) Closely related to the above is the presentation of migration and economic and political refugees as a natural phenomenon / disaster, the consequences of which the host country is called upon to confront (Pulitano 2013) C) Limited, or even completely absent, participation of the economic and political refugees themselves in shaping their image in the media. (Wright 2004) D) Emphasis on the classification of refugees depending on whether they have entered legally or illegally, whether they are entitled to asylum or not (Gilbert 2013)

The source is this scientific journal

Avramidis C. and Minotakis Al. (2017) “Infantilizing the refugees as a means of political domination: the case of the ERT’s news bulletins in Arabic”, Belgrade Journal of Media and Communications, 12

•  Not done This appears to be WP:REFSPAM. If I am wrong, explain. If I am correct, say so. O3000 (talk) 01:26, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

"Racism is a relatively modern concept"

New to Wikipedia, not sure if I'm doing this right, but someone should change this statement because it's a completely absurd and ridiculous statement. Racism goes back probably to the dawn of mankind. For more "recent" examples check history of persecution against jews, which dates back hundreds or even thousands of years.

The rest of the section is problematic also. "arising in the European age of imperialism, the subsequent growth of capitalism, and especially the Atlantic slave trade".

Another ridiculous statement... "arising"... "capitalism". Racism existed way before European Imperialism and capitalism, and the arabic slave trade of blacks existed before whites got into the market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreaskarlsson83 (talk • contribs) 20:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

As the cited source explains, racism is not the same as ethnocentrism. Further, racism is contingent on the acceptance of racialism, which is relatively recent. Your example of Jewish persecution is reasonable, but categorizing Jews as a race, instead of as a religion, or an ethnic group, or even as a loose collection of different ethnic groups, is controversial.

Your example of Arab slave trade is often cited on the internet, but is far from as simple as you are presenting it, and I would suggest looking at some of the sources at that article for more.

"Race" itself is ambiguous, and can mean radically different things in different contexts. Racial categorization, as opposed to ethnic or tribal categorization, is tied to capitalism, per sources, and is relatively recent. Grayfell (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Slavery was originally, throughout history, a humane effort to avoid killing all prisoners of war outright, but rather merely enslaving them. The Arabs enslaved prisoners of war whether they were white, black, or yellow. So, earlier, did the Romans. The idea of race (as distinct from tribe, which goes back to the dawn of time) cannot be traced back to earlier than the age of imperialism, where racism was used to justify the exploitation of entire peoples based solely on skin color.

It is true that, quite recently, the term "racism" has been extended to other forms of bigotry, such as religious bigotry, but this is not the way the word was originally used.Rick Norwood (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

See also

+ Historically black colleges and universities

23.121.191.18 (talk) 09:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Racism and coronavirus

There have been report of Asian-looking people being attacked because they are accused of spreading coronavirus. A baby at a store was stabbed, for example. This has been described as racism, but does the current definition in this article accommodate it?

"Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another. It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity."

23.121.191.18 (talk) 09:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)