Talk:Racism/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

The intro is disingenuous, the word "racism" is not some refined complex meaning word - at least anymore - it means prejudice involving race

The standard dictionary definition that pops up in a Google search and is in the intro is better than the part describing racism as a refined word about the significance of race. That dictionary definition that is in the current into defines racism as "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior".

This stuff about humans being distinguished by race can technically be identified as "racism" in the sense of an "ism" focused on race but the term that better describes that today is the term "racialism". This could be seen as splitting hairs, and it may be, but in modern political vocabulary "racism" is always associated with that that dictionary definition I described above explains, it is not about some nuanced analysis of the idea of race, the term as used now is about prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism involving race as described in the dictionary definition above. Earlier usage of the term in the manner used to what is now known as racialism could be briefly mentioned with a redirect to that article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.44.55 (talk) 19:18, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

We are not a dictionary. And we go by what reliable sources say about a topic. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:54, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 May 2020

In the last paragraph of the Ideology section, in the second sentence, change "address" to "addresses" (subject-verb number agreement [the Declaration addresses]). 108.223.8.32 (talk) 09:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Repair 2 dead links: ref name="KurzbanToobyCosmides2001ErasingRace"

Please repair the 2 dead links below (results from Internet Archive are provided). Thanks.

Dead Link #1

  |title=Can race be erased? Coalitional computation and social categorization
  |url=http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/eraserace.pdf
+ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080615041555/https://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/eraserace.pdf |archive-date=2008-06-15 |url-status=dead

Dead Link #2

  |title=(untitled)
  |url=http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/erasingrace.htm
+ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080627070117/https://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/erasingrace.htm |archive-date=2008-06-27 |url-status=dead

Chronull (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 04:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 4 June 2020

The term "race" doesn't come from arabic or hebrew of which the aforementioned words ra' or rosh are unreleated to any concept of race but from old italian "razza", evolving from latin "radix" meaning root. https://www.etymonline.com/word/race Augure (talk) 02:06, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Read the source again: "Etymologists say no connection with Latin radix 'root,'"...

If you have a specific wording change, please quote the current wording in the article, and then propose new wording that better reflects information in reliable sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Race Baiting

This concept was merged into Racism, but then not a single reference to it is found in its supposed new home. Why is this? Asgrrr (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Since this article is protected beyond my grade, I propose the following:

New item/chapter 2.8 in the article:

Race-Baiting is to utter or publish unfair statements about race, in the hope of provoking a negative response. Race-Baiting can consist of a racist attack on individuals or a population group, or portraying same as victims in a racial context without sufficient foundation. Race-Baiting can be compared to online trolling. Asgrrr (talk) 19:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I am in agreement that race baiting is definitely racism. In fact I think it is one of the worst forms (of racism) at the moment. It very often means stepping on the toes of those who are indeed against racism. I think (I would imagine) a lot of race baiting is directed towards "white people". It should be tackled as a very serious issue these days. Too often we are seeing race being inserted into the equation where it does not actually belong. An example could be a cop using excessive force against a suspect. If the cop is white and the suspect is black this does not automatically imply racism... it is just a cop and a suspect who has been arrested (and possibly treated brutally).--92.238.227.68 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you unsigned. Wikipedia is under increased scrutiny these days for alleged bias. It does not reflect well that in issue such as race-baiting should appear to be "ghosted" by wikipedia. I'm assuming good faith, but a critic might allege that this issue is being ghosted because certain editors find it uncomfortable. Asgrrr (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

What does "ghosted" mean in that context? Furthermore, I note that the article doesn't even mention race baiting, so I'm not sure what this is either? HiLo48 (talk) 23:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Does racism always mean discrimination against people of different races?

I am sure people can be racist towards people of their own race?

The first bit of the article says: "It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity." I think people can be racist towards people of their own race or ethnicity. Should this not be modified?--92.238.227.68 (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand how that could be the case. Do you have an example, or better still, a source describing it happening? Without the latter, nothing can be added to our article. HiLo48 (talk) 00:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There do exist examples of this, although it is not the norm. But, as said above, you need a reliable source. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

There are many examples of this, especially in the American South and Southwest. In an effort to show themselves in solidarity with the dominant class, many Blacks and Native Americans spoke out in favor of White racism and, within their own communities, considered light skinned people superior to those with darker skins. There are also examples of, for example, Jews who are Nazis. It doesn't make sense, but when did human beings ever make sense. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 June 2020

Racism is a relatively modern concept centred on European imperialism is a falsehood. Since antiquity racism has been expressed in various guises. The Romans, Egyptians, Greeks etc all had 'racist' policies and statutes and slavey was a key ingredient of their society. Before this the Devisonians and early hominids also displayed behaviours based on race. Cro magnon man deliberately targeted and ate the 'hobbit like' hominids of the south east asian coast around present day Thailand causing them to become extinct etc. My point being this wikipage seems to be incredibly narrow and perhaps at present with all that is going on it needs some futher research and wider reading. 92.25.41.249 (talk) 05:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done:: Conflating human races with early hominids is just one example of pseudoscience, but it's an extreme one. Not every division in human groups can or should be framed through the lens of "race". Tribalism is not racialism. See History of slavery and Slavery in antiquity for more on this. Grayfell (talk) 06:12, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Al-Andalus

This sentence is misleading:

"With the Umayyad Caliphate's conquest of Hispania, invading Muslim Berbers overthrew the previous Visigothic rulers and created Al-Andalus"

Arabs and Berbers fought in the army, and Andalus was ruled by Arabs (the Umayyad dynasty) for the first few centuries, and there is more of an argument to call it Arab conquest than Berber. I suggest removal of the word "berbers", and keep it as "Muslims". Another option is saying "Muslim Arabs and Berbers" but this is unnecessary and serves no point.

See: The Arab Conquest of Spain: 710 - 797, Roger Collins, Wiley-Blackwell.

It's ironic that the article about racism has become a playground for nationalists to inject weasel words in. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Can someone edit this sentence? I don't have the privileges to do it myself. Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

-

Edit request. Change:

With the Umayyad Caliphate's conquest of Hispania, invading Muslim Berbers overthrew the previous Visigothic rulers and created Al-Andalus,

To:

"With the Umayyad Caliphate's conquest of Hispania, Muslims overthrew the previous Visigothic rulers and created Al-Andalus"

Julia Domna Ba'al (talk) 06:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done: I went with "Muslim Arabs and Berbers". I think this helps counter the unfortunately common error on Wikipedia of treating Muslims as a monolithic group, so it makes sense to me to use roughly the same level of granularity as the Visigoths they replaced. Grayfell (talk) 07:22, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References

Merriam-Webster updated its definition

See this article: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/09/us/dictionary-racism-definition-update-trnd/index.html -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Intra-wikipedia linking/category/portal cleanup needed

Wikipedia has several other articles about racism, some of which are linked directly in the page, some via the Discrimination series. However, there is no easy "portal" blurb at the bottom as there is for many other subjects, like the one on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy

In particular, the article does not link to the overview of racism in different countries and cultures, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Racism_by_country — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snarkosaurus (talk • contribs) 18:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Racism already exists, and is one of many related templates which are already linked at the bottom of the article. Unfortunately, they are basically hidden because there are so many of them. These are included in Template:Navboxes ("Links to related articles") which is collapsed for all articles by default to prevent navboxes from overwhelming articles. This is not ideal here or anywhere else, but, as far as I know, nobody's come up with an optimal way to handle this which doesn't overload articles with redundant links. Grayfell (talk) 02:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

I've made it so the list is no longer collapsed. They are useless if nobody sees them. Grayfell (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 June 2020

I am going to request that the following be added to the first paragraph following the last sentence.

“Racism has evolved into one person simply not agreeing with another person(this is mostly on social media), not actually limited to disagreements about race.” 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:28 (talk) 03:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia depends for its content on what is said by reliable sources. Unless you can cite an appropriate source, we can't add that wording. HiLo48 (talk) 04:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Racism in Africa

Does anyone know anything about "black" (?) Racism in Africa? In the 90ies (1994), the Hutus killed the Tutsis, about 500.000 to 1.000.000 people got killed, mostly (?) Tutsis; seemingly just because of Racism; a Racism of one "black" tribe against another "black" tribe. There do not seem to be too many white people involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.144.210.216 (talk) 10:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Extended Protected Edit Request Jun 10, 2020 STILL NOT ANSWERED

Hoping to draw some more attention to this as it hasn't been answered yet. HartandShoul (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Add a section under Aspects that addresses linguistic racism and discrimination, redirecting to the main article on Linguistic discrimination Here is sample text for what that could consist of:

Linguistic racism consists of the marginalization and persecution of languages or dialects associated with particular racial or ethnic groups. Marginalized dialects and the speech of marginalized racial groups are commonly considered less comprehensible, credible, and authoritative by speakers of the standard variety. For example, Rubin (1992) found that the same recording of a lecture was judged to be much harder to comprehend when associated with the picture of a non-white lecturer vs. a white lecturer. Testimony of Rachel Jeantel in Trial of George Zimmerman was largely dismissed in jury deliberations (per an interview with Anderson Cooper with one of the jurors ) due to her use of African-American Vernacular English Typically, speakers of marginalized dialects report comprehending the standard dialect more easily than vice versa (see, for example, Wolff (1959) on dialect prejudice in Eastern Niger).

HartandShoul (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

References

 Not done for now: @HartandShoul: While I have no issue per-se inserting the content and think it passes a makes-sense check, I have declined to change this for now. Given the evolving nature of consensus on this topic, I would like to see more the addition of more recent sources before making the change. Best, Darren-M talk 14:59, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

History section needs an accessible introduction

I came to get a quick overview of the history of racism, instead there is an academic treatment. It needs a 1 or 2 paragraph summary. Possibly split off the History section into its own article? 94.9.146.6 (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Racism requiring belief in superiority

Increasingly in discussions of race-related topics those advocating for potentially racist positions claim those positions do not meet the definition of racism because they don't overtly relay on the superiority of one race over another. Is it really correct (and do the sources really support) the notion that treating races distinctly, separately, but equally, is not racist provided it is not motivated by a belief in the superiority of one or other other? So for example total racial segregation not motivated by superiority but by some kind of (horrendously misplaced) belief that miscegenation is bad for both parties? At present the opening line of the article implies this is correctly viewed as non-racist. Common sense, common usage and most sources would agree this is in actuality an extremely racist position to take. Dictionaries are divided on the point but this feels almost accidental in most of those contexts. In conclusion: surely the "and" at the end of the first line ought to be an "or"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.111.73.82 (talk) 10:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 3 September 2020

Racism is not a relatively new concept. Racism has been endemic around the world for all of time up to the 1700s. It is only since the 1700s that awareness of a problem with racism has grown and it has subsequently been increasingly addressed. The main actors in raising this awareness and addresing racism have been the states driven by the enlightenment concepts development in Western Europe. The Wikipedia entry on the removal of racism clearly shows the overwheming innfluence and action of those western europrean style states in activiely banning and removing racism. 86.170.48.94 (talk) 08:59, 3 September 2020 (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. Seagull123 Φ 11:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 September 2020

'Racism is a relatively modern concept, arising in the European age of imperialism, the subsequent growth of capitalism, and especially the Atlantic slave trade.'

This should be cut out because racism is not a modern concept and in other Wikipedia entries on racism this view is contradicted by 'Racism in Africa' as it describes racism long before capitalism and imperialism and the Atlantic slave trade.

I suggest 'It was also a major force behind racial segregation especially in the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and South Africa under apartheid; 19th and 20th century racism in Western culture is particularly well documented and constitutes a reference point in studies and discourses about racism.' should be altered to 'Racism was a major force behind racial segregation especially in the United States in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries and South Africa under apartheid; 19th and 20th century racism in Western culture is particularly well documented and constitutes a reference point in studies and discourses about racism' and that this below line be the replacement for the first one.

'Racism is a relatively modern concept, arising in the European age of imperialism, the subsequent growth of capitalism, and especially the Atlantic slave trade.', should be removed as misleading. Ascythian (talk) 19:16, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I recommend removal of the sentence 'Racism is a relatively modern concept, arising in the European age of imperialism, the subsequent growth of capitalism, and especially the Atlantic slave trade. [1]', as it is by no means clear how the reference given supports this claim. As this essentially states that the concept of racism did not emerge before 16th century, more rigor and traceability is desireable here. As I do not expect the statement can be properly backed up or improved I suggest no replacement. SturmLiouville (talk) 07:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The referenced Social Science Encyclopedia directly supports the claim. --Rsk6400 (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Of interest to WikiProject Genetics ?

This article is categorized as "High-importance Genetics article". Since biologically distinct races don't exist according to modern genetics (although some people don't seem to like that), I don't see what racism has to do with genetics. I'd suggest to remove the project flag and the corresponding categories. --Rsk6400 (talk) 10:23, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Revert by Rsk6400

Hi. User:Rsk6400 - you asked me to add this section if I think your revert was incorrect. "Unexplained change of figures (Polish victims), new content partly not sourced ("Turkic" admixture), no edit summary given". Therefore I'm explaining - the official number of Polish citizens who died during the WWII is approximately 6 million, including 3 million Polish Jews, and 3 million ethnic Poles. Moreover, it is a historical fact that German Nazis saw Croats, Bosniaks and Bulgarians as mostly Turkic peoples, also with Germanic (Goth) roots, and only some small Slavic admixture. Why do you claim different if there are many sources about it? I saw you also deleted the image "No entrance for Poles"[1] - you did not explain why you did it. To me it is a perfect example of racial prejudice in 20th century that led to mass-murder. And why did you delete the improved sentence syntax in the first section. I see you reverted it to the previous, incorrect form. I hope we will get some consensus here my friend. Yatzhek (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

No opinion on the sourcing issue, but that image seems a good addition - this section could do with an illustration on the everyday implementation of Third Reich racism. The two US examples are good; an equivalent image for the far more impactful Nazi version makes sense both conceptually and from a layout perspective. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

For the number of Poles killed by the German occupants, and for the claim that the Nazis saw Turkish admixture we need a source, obviously. I don't claim anything, I'm only stating the need for sources. The problem with the image is not so much the image, but the legend. You cited a primary source stating that Jews and Poles were seen as being on the same level by the Nazis. To justify the legend, we'd need a secondary source stating that the view of the primary source was typical.

The sentence at the end of the lede includes three lists separated by "as well as", the first list containing genocides, the second list containing colonial projects. Since a "colonial project" is not per se a genocide, "as well as" fits very well. Since - according to the article Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia - there is no consensus that it was a genocide, I had to remove it from the list. We'd need a neutral source showing that it is called a genocide by international (including non-Polish) historians.

Nothing that I said is about facts, I'm only talking about core WP policies. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

I added a different picture, which I'd prefer for two reasons: You don't have to know German to understand what's going on in the picture, and it shows Jewish victims. Since Jews were the Nazis' primary target, this seems appropriate. I say this without any intention to belittle the suffering of other victims. --Rsk6400 (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, good image. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@ User:Rsk6400

• OK, if there is an agreement that ethnicity-motivated mass murder of 120.000 Polish people, mostly women and children, is not considered a genocide, but only an "ethnic cleansing", then I will add it as "ethnicity-based massacres" as this is how most of the western world recognizes it.
• " Poles, Jews and Gypsies are on the same inferior level" - this is a literal QUOTE from the directive No. 1306 by Reich Ministry of Public Enlightenment and Propaganda from 24 October 1939. Do you claim it's a "legend"?
• User:Elmidae supported me in terms of the image, so Rsk6400, why do you suddenly search for a substitute and perform your own edits when there is 2:1 vote for the Polish image? Yatzhek (talk) 13:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Please read carefully. I didn't say that there is an agreement that ethnicity-motivated mass murder of 120.000 Polish people, mostly women and children, is not considered a genocide.

The word "legend" has several meanings, in the context of images it means the caption, i.e. the text that is written underneath the image.

I gave my reasons for the picture. Please remember that on WP there is no majority vote, but editors try to reach consensus. You should also read Elmidae's comment carefully. --Rsk6400 (talk) 13:50, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

You didn't react to what I said about the sentence structure. Although your new version doesn't directly call the Volhynia massacres a genocide, it is still in the genocide-part of the list. Since in human history there have been so many massacres motivated by racism, I'd rather only mention those massacres that neutral historians recognize as genocide. --Rsk6400 (talk) 14:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Rsk6400, my friend, at first you said that the word "genocide" is what's wrong about it - and so I've changed it. Now you still delete the entry and motivate it with something different. But OK, I understand.

The text that was written under the Polish image was a direct quote from the directive No. 1306. What was wrong about it? What if there would be no text under the image but the translation? What then? Could it be there? If not, why? If there is no majority vote here, then give me a good reason for deleting the Polish image, without personal opinions. Yatzhek (talk) 15:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I changed the formatting of your comment, because indentation by colons helps us understand what's going on in a discussion. Correct indentation is also considered polite.

I already answered your question regarding the legend / caption of the image, see above. Since the genocide of the Jews (Holocaust) is regarded by historians as an exceptional event, it should feature prominently in this article, including coverage by pictures.

I also see problems in the paragraph you added about Volhynia. You use two abbreviations without explaining them, and the reference to Filar 1999 is not complete. I also have my doubts if you present the motivation for that hideous crime (a word like "hideous" is allowed on a talk page) in a neutral way. Maybe the Ukrainian side would also add memories of discrimination during the Polish rule after World War I. None of the words "sadism", "brutality", "rape", "torture", or "mutilation" is used to describe any of the other crimes mentioned in the article. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:20, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, I understand that my action of adding a Polish picture inspired you to delete it and add a Jewish picture instead. OK. As for the Volhynian genocide (it is considered a genocide in the Polish law so I will refer to it as it should be called) - why are you talking about the Ukrainian side mentioning discrimination at the times when these lands were part of Poland? I consider your words highly inapropriate, as I've noticed that you are trying to justify an act of terror and genocide of over 120.000 people and diminish their suffering. Don't do that my friend. We are talking about an ethnicity-based mass-murder performed by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) and Stepan Bandera. One of their motives, apart from anti-Polish sentiment, was the so called "Greater Ukraine ideology". The same is in case of the genocide of Serbs performed by the Croatian Ustase and Ante Pavelić - they had their "Greater Croatia ideology". As you see these situations are very similar. But the world does not recognize the Volhynian genocide of Poles as a genocide. That's the difference. Why are you not so willing to talk about the earlier discrimination of Croats in Serbian territories then? Why you don't want to justify the Ustase, but at the same time, you search for any kind of justification for the UPA crimes? Yatzhek (talk) 12:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Once again, please read carefully. I didn't say what you are accusing me of. And, once again: Indentation is considered polite. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 16 September 2020

racism started in africa and america in the 1930s mostly

 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. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:31, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Black Lives Matter

I am wondering if there should be a category added or a redirect to Black Lives Matter in this article.

See also: Black Lives Matter

Maryphillips1952 (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

 Done --Rsk6400 (talk) 06:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

   Thank you for adding Black Lives Matter redirect! Maryphillips1952 (talk) 16:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Reference to Occupational Segregation

Hi all. I will be expanding the article on occupational segregation in the next few months and will add a link to it in the economic section of this page. Since currently Occupational segregation only talks about gender segregation, I will make the page more relevant to this article and discuss causes and effects, as well as possible solutions to racial occupational segregation. If you have any questions, feel free to check out my user page or sandbox! -Angelalin79 (talk) 01:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Ethnicity-based massacres by the Ukrainian Insurgent Army

@Suppcuzz: Let me explain the concerns I have regarding the paragraph on the massacres: (1) Concerns that should not be controversial: The two abbreviations OUN and UPA should be explained. The reference to Filar 1999 is not complete. "to helped" is not correct. In place of "Apart from Poles ..." I'd prefer a sentence starting with "In addition to Poles ...". (2) A possibly more controversial, but also more important concern: None of the words "sadism", "brutality", "rape", "torture", or "mutilation" is used to describe any of the other crimes mentioned in the article. There are a lot of crimes mentioned in the article, and they should be described in a similar way. That is, we should not use very drastic words here if we don't use those words for other crimes. Finally the most controversial point: NPOV demands that if we talk of the motivations for a crime we have to include all relevant motivations. That's what I meant when I referred to the motivations that the Ukrainian side would like to add. I have no intention to justify mass murder, massacres or genocide. I reverted you again, but I invite you to search for a consensus based on the rules of WP. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

As for the linguistic side - ok, no problem.

As for the substantive content - words "sadism", "brutality", "rape", "torture", or "mutilation" are all true as briefly describe how Poles were murdered just for being Poles.

If an Ukrainian husband had a Polish wife and half-Polish children with her, Ukrainians ordered him to kill his own wife so he will save his own and his children lives, if he refused to kill her, he and his whole family were murdered. So the methods included not only physical sadism, but also deep mental abuse.

Volhynian genocide (also known as Volhynian massacre of Poles) was the most sadistic genocide in the world. Methods of killing were extreme and unheard of ever before and after this tragic event. Here is an article in Polish, you can translate the content with your browser by right-click on the website and choosing "translate into English":

https://wmeritum.pl/362-sposoby-upa-mordowanie-polakow/33331

Finally, you say about the relevant motivations of Ukrainians, so I'm asking, what about the relevant motivation of the Croatian Ustase and their genocide of Serbs? Does the article mention that?

I'm not asking with irony, I'm asking honestly with clean intentions, because I don't see it. Please paste me the line here. Suppcuzz (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

All crimes against humanity are horribly shocking. And the more you go into the details the more shocking they become. One example may be Mengele. Many of his victims were Polish, and he was surely not Ukrainian. That's why your claim Volhynian genocide ... was the most sadistic genocide in the world. - while being true for you personally - is not a basis for discussing how to improve this article. And the talk page is reserved for discussing on how to improve the article. --Rsk6400 (talk) 07:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 January 2021

Change x (the current Institutional Racism sub-heading paragraph) to y (to include this section as well as what was already there) An example of Institutional Racism: An example of the effect of institutional racism on society can be seen in the Murder of Stephan Lawrence. The MacPherson Report was an inquiry into the investigation to see how the racism and misconduct within the Metropolitan Police affected and damaged the investigation of Stephan Lawrence. At the end of the investigation, Lord MacPherson concluded "Britain is an institutionally racist society." (MacPherson, William, 1999) This is an example of institutional racism because there was "the collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin" (Stokely Carmichael, 1960) from the Metropolitan Police. The Police failed to investigate a racially motivated murder of a black man with appropriate and professional service.

References: MacPherson, William, 1999. The Stephen Lawrence Inquiry. Report of an Inquiry. [United Kingdom] The Stationary Office. Angelajoli123 (talk) 16:17, 19 January 2021 (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. --Rsk6400 (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Angelajoli123 (talk • contribs) 11:28, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 March 2021

To possible editors of Wikipedia's article on "Racism": Could you please consider: (1) Deleting this article's first sentence "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."

   Why?  This sentence explains racism in terms of "behavioral traits", but racially prejudiced beliefs can include all sorts of traits, not just behavior.

(2) Then replacing that sentence with the following two sentences: "Pre-judging some characteristic (negative or positive) to be true about someone (or about a whole race of people) because of the race / skin-color of that person

   Also, the wider belief that each of the various races of people have different stereotypical characteristics true about them because of their race."  Why?  This first replacement sentence explains that "racism" is prejudice (pre-
   judgment) based on race, can include any pre-judged characteristic about someone else (not just behavior), and can include positive or negative pre-judgments.  This second replacement sentence explains that it's also racism if 
   someone believes that the various races / skin-colors of people have different sets of characteristics about them (i.e. other than their distinctive skin color).  In other words, when someone isn't thinking about a certain 
   specific pre-judged characteristic in a particular person, but believes in general that the various races / skin-colors of human beings are different from one another and have certain traits characteristic to their race.

(3) If you do make changes 1 & 2 suggested above, then the article's original second sentence no longer needs to mention "prejudice", since that is already mentioned by the two replacement sentences. So, please consider changing the

   article's original second sentence to "Racism often leads to, and also includes, negative treatment (e.g. hateful words or violence) or positive treatment (e.g. preferred hiring or acceptance) of someone because of the 
   prejudicially perceived characteristics of that person's race."

(4) If you do make changes 1 - 3 suggested above, should references [1] - [5] (which the article's original two sentences are based on) still be listed in "References" at the bottom of the article? If those are useful references, to

   what other sentences in the article could they be linked?

Thanks for considering my suggestions! RMS1964 (talk) 04:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)RMS1964

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Asartea ^{Talk | Contribs} 12:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Use of the term "non-white"

I wonder if we should question the use of the term "non-white." Many BIPOC scholars have argued that this broad non-specific category continues to center whiteness.

Here are some articles on the subject:

https://natalie4health.medium.com/the-end-of-non-whites-bcb702b0045e

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-justice-and-responsibility-league/201003/how-the-use-white-vs-nonwhite-contaminates-not

https://escholarship.org/content/qt1zq6b9vr/qt1zq6b9vr.pdf

Voz7 (talk) 16:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Development of racism in children

This article needs a section on the development of racism in children. It seems like the best place to do it would be to expand the "Theories about the origins of racism" section to include one part about the development of racism/race consciousness in children and another about what causes it to develop.

Basics facts that need to be included: Infants are able to recognize race by 6 months (often earlier)

Katz, P. A., & Kofkin, J. A. (1997). Race, gender, and young children. In S. S. Luthar & J. A. Burack (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Perspectives on adjustment, risk, and disorder (pp. 51–74). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

3-5 year olds not only categorize people by race but express racial bias

Aboud, F. E. (2005). The development of prejudice in childhood and adolescence. In J. F. Dovidio, P. S. Glick, & L. A. Rudman (Eds.), On the nature of prejudice: Fifty years after Allport (pp. 310–326). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Hirschfeld, L. A. (2008). Children’s developing conceptions of race. In S. M. Quintana & C. McKown (Eds.), Handbook of race, racism, and the developing child (pp. 37–54). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

Patterson, M. M., & Bigler, R. S. (2006). Preschool children’s attention to environmental messages about groups: Social categorization and the origins of intergroup bias. Child Development, 77, 847–860.

children may assume that they should avoid or dislike people with different skin colors than their own, even if no adult ever says this to them

Aboud, 2005

“the biases children exhibit are not random”. In fact, they often “reflect both subtle and not so subtle messages about the relative desirability of belonging to one social group as opposed to another” Katz & Kofkin, 1997, p. 62 Litch (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

"Anti-white racism" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Anti-white racism. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 16#Anti-white racism until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:58, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 20 August 2021

I will add more links to the "Aversive racism" section. WinnipegMA (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

racisim in artificial intelligence (AI)

in the entire article, there is no mention of racism in AI or any software-based discrimination even though its affecting society in a major way right now. for example in banking the insurnace industry and the justice system and also software-based hiring.

a few short videos on the subject:

https://www.ted.com/talks/gunay_kazimzade_racial_and_gender_biases_in_ai

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-Lxw5rcfZg

https://www.ted.com/talks/kriti_sharma_how_to_keep_human_bias_out_of_ai/transcript?language=en — Preceding unsigned comment added by RJJ4y7 (talk • contribs) 20:54, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Algorithmic bias. ––FormalDude talk 08:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion of Anthropology and Biology in the Justification of Black Subjugation

I am planning on revising the 19th century history aspect of this page to include the prevalence of the use of science and higher education to conclude that Black Americans were an inferior species, and thus made it okay to discriminate against. These individuals studied the cranial capacities of different races, and used the sizes to conclude that they were different species. There is a wide variety of research into this topic that I will make sure to cite with my article edit. Cmetoyer (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

You might want to have a look at our articles on Scientific racism and History of anthropometry. Feel free to add material here, but please consider adding to Racism against Black Americans, the more specific article. --Rsk6400 (talk) 04:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Scientifically invalid

It seems extraordinary to me to start an article about a socio-political concept like this by asserting that it's scientifically invalid. I'm not particularly interested in racism, personally, but I'm interested in science, and in encyclopedic neutrality, and I would like to know more about the science that's being cited here. (I properly placed a citation-needed template on the claim, but it was almost immediately reverted by AndyThe Grump, who I hope will comment here soon on his reasoning). Eleuther (talk) 20:30, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

If you want to know more about the well-established science behind the statement in the lede, I suggest you read the sources cited in this article, and in the Wikipedia article on race. And no, your 'citation needed' template was not properly placed, since the article body discusses this in detail, citing the necessary sources. The lede summarises the body of the article, and per standard Wikipedia practice, needs no citations. As for why the lede needs to stress the scientific invalidity of racist concepts, I would have hoped this was obvious, given the history of discredited 'scientific racism' that has bolstered 'socio-political' racism for so long. This is an encyclopaedia, reflecting, per well-established policies, the mainstream academic perspective on any topic covered by the sciences. It states consensus. Not Wikipedia contributors' consensus, but that of science. 'Neutrality' as Wikipedia understands the concept, does not extend to suggesting that experts on subject matter might possibly be wrong because some random Wikipedia contributor doesn't know enough about the subject matter to be sure a statement is correct.

I suggest that if you want to perform 'experiments' [2] on articles, you find a better way to do so than you have demonstrated here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:55, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Grump. My simple point is as follows. Starting the article with the term "scientifically invalid" is unnecessary, because the article is not about a scientific topic. The term's only purpose seems to be to relegate the topic to a political realm in which discussion is not allowed. Eleuther (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

There were a lot of scientists trying to justify racism, see Scientific racism. And some people still have those justifications in their heads, so I hold the term "scientifically false" to be very necessary. --Rsk6400 (talk) 12:52, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I fully agree. The Bell Curve is not that old, and it is still touted by certain people on the far right. It’s important for us to be without ambiguity concerning these matters where there is no ambiguity in serious science either (this is very much something else than "not allowing" (scientific) discussion). Cheers ⌘ _hugarheimur 13:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

This should not be in the opening sentence of the article, though. The lede sentence should cover what the subject is, nothing more. Racism is the belief that one race is superior to another. If there needs to be some comments about how some people have attempted to use science to prove their own agendas is important, but should be mentioned after the opening comments. To me "scientifically false" means nothing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion would be 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. Modern variants of racism are often based in social perceptions of biological differences between peoples. These views can take the form of social actions, practices or beliefs, or political systems in which different races are ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other, based on presumed shared inheritable traits, abilities, or qualities. There have been attempts to prove racism through scientific means, this has been overwhelmingly shown to be false. Or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:40, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that "...attempts to prove racism through scientific means..." is very well worded. I'd suggest that "There have been attempts to legitimise racist beliefs through scientific means, which have been overwhelmingly shown to be unfounded" would express it better. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd sign off on that. That's fine (I was really just trying to give a location for the info). Much better than the opening sentence. 08:14, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes it is better and better is good. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:25, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

I too don't understand "scientifically false". There is a difference between proven false and we have looked really hard and have no good reason to think it true. Here are examples from other pages, not because they are right, but they may be less fraught and therefore useful. They were selected from my personal train of thought.

Aether (classical element) 1st sentence: According to ancient and medieval science...

Geosyncline 1st sentence: A Geosyncline (originally called a geosynclinal) is an obsolete geological concept...

Flat Earth 1st sentence: The flat Earth model is an archaic conception....

Eugenics The vibe I get from the introduction is that it's fine, just don't misuse it.

Humorism 2nd sentence: Humorism began to fall out of favor in the 1850s...

Classical mechanics The vibe I get from the introduction is that it is science, as long as you don't look too closely (Ed. note: a bit like Human Race)

Race (human categorization) 3rd sentence: While partially based on physical similarities within groups, race does not have an inherent physical or biological meaning.

Steady-state model 1st sentence: In cosmology, the steady-state model is an alternative to the Big Bang theory Dushan Jugum (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for all the comments. There seems to be a sort of consensus that, while the idea of racism is unscientific per se, the use of the term "scientifically invalid" is out of place at the front of the lead sentence. Rather, the fraught relationship between race and science should be discussed a bit later in the article. Is that a fair summary? Eleuther (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:BOLD, I've made the change to the lede I proposed above, removing the phrase from the first sentence, and adding a new one at the end of the first paragraph. Obviously if anyone objects, we can discuss it further, but I think that should probably settle any concerns. The 'Scientific racism' section in the article seems to summarise the topic fairly well, and includes a link to the main article too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:43, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Well hey, now let us salute the editor who has so boldly removed the phrase "scientifically invalid" from the lead sentence, never mind that he earlier angrily reverted my attachment of a citation-needed template to the phrase. What guff. Eleuther (talk) 07:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Good point, Thanks Andy, Thanks Eleuther, personally I like to think of it as a team effort. I have just had a drink to us. So shall stop editing Wikipedia. WP:DRUNKEDIT there is link for anything. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:20, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Racism

Racism is like a Police violence is a leading cause of death for young men in the United States. Over the life course, about 1 in every 1,000 black men can expect to be killed by police. Risk of being killed by police peaks between the ages of 20 y and 35 y for men and women and for all racial and ethnic groups. Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police. Latino men are also more likely to be killed by police than are white men. On the other hand, the possibility that police officers are more racist than the average American does not mean that the job of police officer should be eliminated. Psychologist Steven Pinker has cogently argued that one of the biggest reasons why human beings kill one another at much lower rates today than they did at about any other time in human history is because of modern police forces (and the associated “rule of law”). In the 1700s, the annual homicide rate in what became the United Sates was about 30 per 100,000 people. Apparently, the founding fathers found a lot of reasons to kill one another. This value dropped to 20 per 100,000 by 1800 and dropped again to about 10 per 100,000 in 1900. In 2018, the annual U.S. homicide rate, high profile mass school shootings included, had dropped further to about 5 per 100,000. Most progressives thus realize that police officers do an important job. But they foresee a better potential future in which police officers take a kinder, gentler approach to maintaining public safety. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:1380:4420:740B:AA03:6BAA:4D55 (talk) 03:24, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

The data You've given, only shows a correlation between being non-white and getting killed by police. There are no evidences shown that this ia due to racism among policemen. 195.43.72.230 (talk) 04:24, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this suggestion which should provide insight into an overlooked aspect of institutional racism in America, a stumbling block for me is the start, I dont understand "Racism is like a Police violence" is it me, or is an edit required? 23Enigma (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Physical appearance

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

At the risk of raising another storm of invective, I question the use of the phrase "physical appearance" in the lead sentence of the article. The Nazi's didn't classify Jews on the basis of appearance, but rather on the basis of ancestry. I propose changing the phrase "physical appearance" to something like "their perceived ancestry". I have placed a discuss template on the phrase in the article, inviting you all to comment here. Thanks in advance for your comments. Eleuther (talk) 10:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

You are grossly misinformed. Nazi propaganda was riddled with stereotypes regarding physical appearance - both of Jews and of the 'Aryans' the Nazis imagined themselves to be. In apartheid-era South Africa, people were routinely legally assigned to 'racial' categories according to appearance - even when such assignments resulted in placing siblings in different groups. Appearance has always been central to racism, as the default means to decide where someone fits in whatever socially-constructed shoving-people-into-boxes scheme is normative in context. Beyond that, certainly, perceived ancestry often comes into play, but only when framed through social norms that have already decided what the 'valid' groupings are. Hence ignore-what-ancestry-means-entirely nonsense like the 'one-drop-rule' in the United States, the classification of Australian Aborigines as 'Blacks', and the endless arguments about where exactly the limits of 'being white' can be found. Racism isn't built around 'ancestry', it is built around assumptions that ancestry can be used as a means to determine where people fit into a predetermined and arbitrary scheme. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, I agree with a lot of that, except the "grossly misinformed" part. Is insulting invective really the only form of rhetoric you know? In particular, I didn't propose that racism is built around 'ancestry'. Rather, I used the term 'perceived ancestry', which is pretty much the same thing you're saying in your last sentence. My basic point is that racism is about the arbitrary scheme you refer to, not simply about physical appearance. So it seems overly simplistic, to me, to define racism in terms of "physical appearance" in the lead sentence of the article. In trying to come up with a more appropriate descriptive term for the idea of racism, as generally understood in the sources, I came up with "perceived ancestry" as a proposal, but other terms are certainly possible as well. Eleuther (talk) 09:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Another possibility would be to replace "physical appearance" with "a perceived idea of race", or something like that. Eleuther (talk) 10:08, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

"physical appearance and socially constructed classifications regarding ancestry' would possibly be closer. We certainly don't want to use 'race' to define 'racism' in the manner you suggest though, since once again it tends to imply that 'race' is more than a social construct. And because defining something using the same word (or word root) as the word being defined is desperately poor English (and arguably illogical, since if you know what a word means, you don't need it defined), even if the habit is widespread in Wikipedia ledes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:26, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The term "perceived idea of race", which I proposed, does not at all imply that "'race' is more than a social construct", or anything else about race. It is just a convenient way to kick the definitional can over to the article on race, which seems to me to be the most logical approach. We don't need to define "race" in two separate places, both here and there. Logically speaking, this article should defer to the concept of race defined in that article. That was the simple idea behind my proposal. Eleuther (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Eleuther I don't normally butt into important conversations. However, if we are of one race, that being the Human Race. Would our definition of racism be based on a created Social Construct of the Perceived Idea of Race to where how we are defining race on the basis of the amount of melanin in one's skin? The opening paragraphs of this article seem to misrepresent the historical construct of racism. This is a social construct that has been passed down for millennia that somehow a certain color of skin was superior to another color of skin. It is an extreme form of prejudice. Since racism is a prejudice with active discrimination, would that not be proper to clarify that into

If I were to suggest an opening line and some of the second line, it would go with one of these two options:

Racism is the Social Construct that has been created by humans to divide humans on the Perceived Idea of Race based on the amount of melanin in another human's skin and other characteristics. Racism is a form of prejudice that has been traditionally used as a belief of superiority through active antagonistic discrimination over another human.

Racism is the Social Construct that has been created by humans to traditionally divide humans on the Perceived Idea of Race by the use of prejudice that is used as a belief of superiority through active antagonistic discrimination over another human.

If I am correct here, racism is the active use of a prejudice, using discrimination. I just thought I would toss this out there but I could be completely wrong as to my rewrite ideas. Mjp1976 (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, Mjp1976. I like your use of the word prejudice. Indeed, if I had full freedom to edit the article, I would start it with something simple like "Racism is prejudice based on race", period, deferring the definition of the term race, and the sense in which it is a social construct, or is based on appearance, or ancestry, etc., entirely to the other article, where the discussion properly belongs. But I don't have this freedom, so the best I can do here is to argue for incremental changes. In this regard, I don't think your proposed prose is productive. It's too elaborate. Would you really continue to read an article that started with those sentences? Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 13:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

There's no denying that physical appearance is by far the most commonly used method of determining race, but it is not the only method. Eleuther's point about the Nazi's use of ancestry to designate Jews as a separate race stands, and to claim otherwise because the Nazis made claims about the physical appearance of Jews suggests that they would not have discriminated against Jews if they were identical to Aryans, which I think we can agree is untrue. The best solution is to recognize that both physical appearance and perceived ancestry are used to determine race.Gasolineman3 (talk) 02:48, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, thanks, Gasolineman3. You agree with me, then, that the current lead sentence is too simplistic ("on the basis of physical appearance"), because it doesn't take the important factor of perceived ancestry into account. This is why I placed the "discuss" template on the phrase. I'm hoping more editors will chime in soon, so we can get a better idea of the consensus. (The page has thousands of watchers, after all.) There are other generally-recognized cultural factors as well, such as speech (accents and dialects) and costume, and self-organization, and so on. My basic feeling is that the discussion of all these factors should mostly take place in the article on race, rather than here in the article on racism, simply on the logical grounds of reducing duplication. In other words, the article on racism should not try to provide its own definition of the idea of race. Do you agree? Eleuther (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi, all, this discussion seems to have stalled, so this is my attempt to revive it. There seems to be a consensus that the term physical appearance is not a valid proxy for race, so some other term is needed in the lead sentence. I have proposed the term perceived idea of race, deferring the definition of race to the article on that subject. Does this make sense? Eleuther (talk) 03:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No, for the reasons I have already given. 'Race' is a social construct, and as such has no basis beyond 'perceived ideas' in of itself. Your proposal amounts to a statement that 'racism consists of perceived ideas about (specific) perceived ideas'. And 'perceived ideas' is poor English, given its ambiguity. Who's ideas are being perceived by whom? AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add this link from Harvard that discusses the Stanford study to the conversation on the perceived idea of race: https://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/science-genetics-reshaping-race-debate-21st-century/ . I believe that if we can actually corner this concept with scientific studies on this, to show that this is actually the case, that there is a perceived idea of race, then one of the two sentences I wrote above would be accurate. I am leaning towards the first.

This entire article really needs a rewrite to properly articulate that racism is a made-up construct based predominantly on skin color. Physical appearance in this article does not denote accuracy on the topic, as that is more along the lines of Ancestral and ethnic prejudice and discrimination. (Such as not serving the Irish in new york Italian neighbourhoods in the 1800s, or blacks not being able to ride anywhere but the back of the bus.)

The problem is this article has become so hotly contested that we have ignored accuracy to please those that feel their position is correct, but not accurate. IMPO, We need to ignore illogical thinking on the topics and work towards accuracy. Mjp1976 (talk) 17:12, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nothing in the Harvard blog you link is remotely new to anyone familiar with the topic. And nor, as far as I can see does it demonstrate that this article has any problem with 'accuracy' that you have been able to adequately explain. The article could be improved, certainly. But that will require more than statements that it is 'illogical'.

And no, racism is not 'based primarily on skin colour'. It is based entirely on the premise, (as articulated in the blog you link) that 'race' has a biological basis. Skin colour and/or other physical characteristics are then used (arbitrarily, since such characteristics are a continuum across humanity) to classify individuals or groups into whichever socially-constructed 'races' are normative and/or in the interests at the time of those with the power to impose them. It isn't an exercise in chromatography, it is politics - as the Harvard blog again makes abundantly clear. That is what this article needs to emphasise. That is what the sources tell us. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:27, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the above post again, it clearly came across more aggressively than I intended. Apologies to Mjp1976. I should probably try to avoid making posts while short of sleep, and maybe think about this some more when I'm in a better mood to do so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, though, skin color does have a biological (genetic) basis. It is inherited. The genes in question are well-identified. There are many other inherited traits that are also correlated with race, such as the prevalence of sickle-cell anemia, etc. The question the article needs to address is how the present idea of race is related to these inherited traits. I think the answer is, not very much, but a little bit, i.e., you can't simply dismiss the ancestral element on ideological grounds. (Before you go into attack mode, Grump, please note that I am largely agreeing with you here.) I further think, as I've said a few times before, that the proper place to sort out these issues is in the article on race, not here in the article on racism. In this article, I still think the best approach is to just use a phrase like "perceived idea of race", deferring the heavy lifting to the other article. Eleuther (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Poor English: all ideas are 'perceived'. As for 'ancestral elements', so far, you haven't actually offered any explanation so far of how this has any relevance. Everyone has ancestors. Any suggestion that this has any meaningful bearing on 'race' appears to be based on an exercise in fallacious circular logic: assuming that 'race' is something that can be inherited, and therefore people must have inherited it from their ancestors. Neither ancestry nor population genetics do anything whatsoever to demonstrate that 'race' has an objective meaning: something which should be self-evident when one looks at just how arbitrary, contextual and overtly politicised it is, and always has been. Population generics has instead, in regard to the specific example you cite, the sickle cell trait, demonstrated that rather than being a consequence of 'race', its relative prevalence is instead the consequence of natural selection due to local environmental pressures (e.g. the presence of malaria-bearing mosquitos), and that 'race' has nothing to do with it. People with ancestors from areas where malaria was prevalent are more likely to have the relevant allele. Areas widely distributed across the world, with no correlation with 'race'. And much the same can be said for any other cross-population genetic variations - there are no genes for race. No single gene for skin colour. Skin colour is influenced by multiple genes, with distributions of different alleles varying widely in a manner that has next-to-no correlation with 'race' beyond the obvious one that the 'lighter-skin' people inventing the racial categorisations have been using 'darker skin' as one of their arbitrary criteria, as and when expedient.

So no, Wikipedia should not defer definitions of 'race' elsewhere. This is an encyclopaedia (or at least, tries to be), and articles are expected to actually discuss their subject matter. Not shuffle it off elsewhere because someone doesn't like what the article has to say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:53, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Further to this, it should be noted that the article cites four sources for the disputed sentence (the first in the lede) I have looked at three of them, and as it currently stands, the article concurs with what these sources say (I've not been able to check remaining source, as it is effectively a dead link to an Oxford Dictionaries definition of unknown date, and thus not much use as a source anyway). It is a requirement that Wikipedia articles be sourced - particularly anything likely to be disputed. Accordingly, per policy, we cannot simply revise the lede to say something else, based on our own personal opinions. Unless and until alternate sources are offered, the lede has to stand. If other sources of equal validity and weight are ever found suggesting that it should say something else instead, we may have to reconsider, and include what such sources say as well (not instead...) but that isn't the case now. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:49, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. But the article on race is part of the same encyclopedia. So deferring the elucidation of the term race to that article does not constitute "shuffling off" the issue. It is just a suggestion for organizing the overall material in a more logical manner, so that the same term is not defined separately, and perhaps conflictingly, in two different places in the encyclopedia. This should not be a controversial idea. Eleuther (talk) 19:36, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an article on racism. Like any other article, it explains in the lede what its topic is. And cites appropriate sources when doing so. Sources defining what racism is. Your personal objections to what the sources cited have to say on the matter are of no consequence here. Since you have offered absolutely no source-based or Wikipedia-policy-based justifications for changing the lede, I consider this topic closed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

I haven't raised any objections to the cited sources. You are imagining that, I guess as part of your general attack on my proposal, from every direction you can think of. I am only suggesting a better way to organize the material between the two articles. Cheers, Eleuther (talk) 20:55, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

This is an article on racism. Like any other article, it explains in the lede what its topic is. Go troll somewhere else. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:05, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Evaluation

The article is written well in the correct tone of voice. It flows smoothly and is arranged well with a solid outline/structure. More visuals can be added to the article, and more substantive information can be inserted into the section being edited. Most importantly, the author needs to be concise in describing material, as the article is lengthy and droning text will only bore readers (the author isn’t droning and their text is concise; this is just a point to keep in mind.) So far, the article is on the right track to improving its status. SageSab (talk) 02:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Contradicts other content in Wikipedia

"Racism in China" article has a "History" section that starts with an ethnically motivated massacre in 350 AD. Since this article states that racism is a relatively recent western invention, how can the history of racism in China start from 350 AD? Other example is that "Medieval Arab attitudes to Black people" article is listed in the category "Racism in the Arab world". But is the implication of racism being a recent western invention that racism in Medieval Arab world did not exist, or that when it did, only to the extent it was imported from the west?

2A00:23C7:EE82:7701:CCBA:1BC:2A3D:90D4 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Regrettably the Racism page and society at large use "Racism" in at least two different ways. The more academic usage based on the outmoded idea of Race (considered historically newish). And the common usage, which I would quickly define as prejudice based on traits associated with ethnicity. I am comfortable with saying the ancient Greek term "barbarian" was racist, but I don't think it fits the strict academic definition. Or it could be that even though racism, feminism and capitalism are newish ideas, you can look at older times through their lenses.Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Nicely put, Dushan Jugum. Generalrelative (talk) 04:05, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Note also that Wikipedia does not cite itself as a reliable source. Any changes to this article (or any other) needs to be based around what external reliable sources directly say, rather than on comparisons with other articles. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:35, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Physical appearance redux

I would like to raise again the idea of replacing the phrase "physical appearance" in the lead sentence of the article with something more appropriate. Please comment if you have a constructive idea on the subject. Thanks. Eleuther (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

I have just revised the lede. It no longer uses the term 'physical appearance', and now probably concurs with the cited sources more closely. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Eleuther (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Are we glancing past the question of definition: is the combination of othering and essentialization and hatred accurately called "racism" even in the absence of phenotypic distinctions between in-groups and out-groups? Perhaps we should report clearly the rather distinct minority view that no phenotypic distinction is required? Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

If a minority view is one that is held by a significant subset of relevant commentators on the subject, it should probably be discussed in the article. I'd think we'd need pretty strong sourcing to include it in the lede. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

We have a closely-related discussion at Islamophobia#Racism, but I feel that we need at least an explicit mention here. I'd also suggest that a sentence in the lede if only to spare others my own experience of confusion. I see limited, but I'd say significant, comments based on the assumption that any dislike of a group or its conceptual basis is racism, even if no heritable or visible distinction is involved. Heng's long argument for this idea does at least enable me to comprehend the redefinition used for these comments, even if I don't propose to use that redefinition myself.

So I propose that we include in the article, perhaps at the end of the section on etymology, definition, and usage, something like: "Some commentators argue that racism need not involve any heritable or visible characteristics, and that hatred of a group believed to have essential characteristics is sufficient to qualify as racism. Comments welcome. Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 12:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you have sources other than Heng making this argument? If so, we should try to get a sense of what their general consensus is. I'd assume that from a social-science perspective, it will have to be rather more nuanced than a simple suggestion that "hatred of a group believed to have essential characteristics is sufficient to qualify as racism", at least without a clearer definition of what 'group' means. Prejudice is essentialist almost by definition, and is frequently extended to 'groups' that have nothing whatsoever to do with 'race'. We need to be wary of implying that 'racism' is just a synonym for 'group prejudice'. It isn't, at least as I understand current academic consensus. It is a specific phenomenon, with specific historical roots, that set it apart as an object for analysis, distinct from say simple xenophobia, and from the all-too-common tendency to essentialise the 'other'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:27, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with you, but this spreading of the definition does seem to be, if not widespread, at least something that some writers insist on. See, not only Heng, but also "The Multicultural State We're In: Muslims,'Multiculture' and the 'Civic Re‐balancing' of British Multiculturalism", and Poynting on "transition from anti-Asian and anti-Arab racism to anti-Muslim racism". There is more. Unless you can think of a good reason not to, I propose to insert something as I proposed above. Sylvia de Jonge (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

References

Race or Etnicities

How about writing in The wiki that race or races isnt The right word for people and use the term sientificaly proven as a fact, Etnicities. There isnt enough diffrence in genes to divide People in Races, we are to alike to be called diffrent races, and thats as a fact. We are Not diffrent races and accualy diffrent Etnicities. Its not as in The text Race or Etnicities its only Etnicities. If People dont Change this The normal readers will continue beleve we are diffrent races witch is absolutly dumbfounded wrong. Pleace Edit to teach not Edit to missguide 46.15.169.172 (talk) 13:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Genetics and race Neither race nor ethnicity is detectable in the human genome. Humans do have genetic variations, some of which were once associated with ancestry from different parts of the world. But those variations cannot be tracked to distinct biological categories. Genetic tests cannot be used to verify or determine race or ethnicity, though the tests themselves are associated with an increased belief in racial differences. Exagon86 (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Should open Racism with this, that its a fact that we are Not diffrent races and that we have invented The Word Race to use as a discrimination against other Etnicities. Exagon86 (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

This is all stated very clearly in the article Race (human categorization), which is linked in the opening sentence. Generalrelative (talk) 14:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 22 December 2021

I suggest the addition of the following (or similar) paragraph to the Contemporary section:

Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orbán, in his 2018 speech at the meeting of the Association of Cities with County Rights, said We must state that we do not want to be diverse and do not want to be mixed: we do not want our own colour, traditions and national culture to be mixed with those of others. We do not want this. We do not want that at all. We do not want to be a diverse country.

Justification: the prominent use of the word colour in this context, in a well thought through speech constitutes racism. LifeDancePro (talk) 23:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: You would need sources linking this to racism, otherwise it's WP:OR. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Makes sense User:ScottishFinnishRadish. I revised my suggestion accordingly:

Hungary's prime minister Viktor Orbán, in his 2018 speech at the meeting of the Association of Cities with County Rights, said We must state that we do not want to be diverse and do not want to be mixed: we do not want our own colour, traditions and national culture to be mixed with those of others. We do not want this. We do not want that at all. We do not want to be a diverse country. This triggered U.N.’s human rights chief Zeid bin Ra’ad al-Hussein characterizing Orbán as being one Europe’s “racists and xenophobes” seeking “ethnic, national or racial purity.” Hungarian Foreign Minister Péter Szijjártó immediately condemned the commissioner's words and called Zeid “unworthy” of his position and demanded that he resign.

LifeDancePro (talk) 00:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Orbán has often been described as a racist, and that this designation has been deemed notable by reliable sources. Indeed, I'd be in favor of including that in the article about him. But I'm not seeing a compelling reason why we would add this to the article about racism in general. This article is not meant to be a list of all the racist people that have existed and the racist things they've said, but rather a general discussion of the topic. Can you explain how mentioning Orbán's remarks might inform such a general discussion? Generalrelative (talk) 00:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this article shouldn't be watered down with a list of even notable racist persons. While mentioning Mr. Orbán in a general discussion about racism would be distracting, the article has a History -> Contemporary section, and I believe Mr. Orbán's mention in the context of this section would be appropriate, for him being one of the leaders defining (for now mostly by vetoing) the future of the European Union. LifeDancePro (talk) 03:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. Perhaps a WP:RFC is in order. ––FormalDude ^talk 07:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

References