| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Racial color blindness article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
POV – article structure
edit | This section is pinned and will not be automatically archived. |
The "Support" and "Criticism" sections make for a bad article structure. Such a back-and-forth between proponents and opponents unfortunately doesn't offer any clue as to the relative weight that these positions hold. Any help finding sources that put these views in context would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
- It's also worth pointing out that the author cited 'in support' William Julius Wilson is implied to have a view which is a questionable read of the text, and in any case he later stated that if writing the book now he would emphasise the need for 'race-based policies' i.e. affirmative action programs. Whilst this doesn't make him a full-blown 'CJT' or whatever, it certainly makes him a questionable figurehead for 'colorblindism' - https://www.jstor.org/stable/23047451?seq=13#metadata_info_tab_contents
- Will likely edit this page to reference this shortly, but welcome conversation regarding this edit Maloot (talk) 07:28, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
"Support" and "Criticism" also rely on citations to supporters and critics, rather than disinterested secondary and tertiary sources, raising WP:WEIGHT concerns. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:11, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
"Criticism" and POV
editSeems like a pretty egregious violation of WP:NPOV to have a "Criticism" section that is more than twice as long as any other section of the article. The "Support" section has a single dismissive line noting that multiple US presidents have supported the idea, while giving multiple paragraphs to obscure sociologists and their theories, in a section that is already comically bloated. That reeks of POV to me. BUZZLIGHTYEAR99 (talk) 02:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
- There are problems with having separate "Criticism" and "Support" sections (see § POV – article structure above) but length is not one of them. We don't give equal page space to claims for and against Moon landing conspiracy theories either. Feel free to cite independent, reliable sources that establish the relative weight of any opinions mentioned in the article. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Color-blindness as future goal vs as current state of affairs
editThe article could say more about whether color-blindness (of the kind that specifically excludes class-blindness and economic-conditions-blindness) remains a valid goal for the future, even though you acknowledge that today's society is anything but color-blind. Also it could say more about whether cultures with a lot higher proportion of interracial couples and bi- or multi-racial children than the US fare better in this regard. Also whether cultures where no racial group ever mass-enslaved another group fare better. -- 91.63.148.93 (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
History
editThis article urgently needs a decent section on the history of this concept. For example, it does not mention Wendell Phillips, who was the first person to make the phrase popular, in the context of arguing for abolition. It would be really helpful to hear what role this idea played in the civil rights movement, etc. What about Thurgood Marshall? Doric Loon (talk) 18:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)