Talk:Racism/Archive 21

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

Archive 15

←

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

→

Archive 25

I've removed two lingering POV templates--a full-article template dating to April 2012, and a section template dating to September 2010--per the instructions at Template:POV:

"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant."

The April 2012 appears to have been added without any discussion here. Discussion of the section template was archived two years ago after the single comment "Section tries to promote the idea that Racism has existed as an ideology before it, apparently, historically existed. NPOV cleanup". I've therefore removed the templates, but if any editors here consider the discussion of these issues ongoing, please restore the tags and begin a discussion here so that the issue can be resolved. Thanks everybody for your work on this one. -- Khazar2 (talk) 03:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

In the introductory paragraphs one sentence in particular associates racism with the political right. This is political bias and represents the same type of prejudice and judgement without knowledge that constitutes racism---although, of course, far less injurious.

This ignores the fact that it was Republicans who were crucial in passing the major civil rights legislation, while many Democrats fought it to the end. One could go on, from Lincoln forward, but I'll end with this: check out the convention vice presidential nomination speech given by Lodge at the 1960 Republican convention (the one that first nominated Nixon)----it stresses civil rights, while the Democrats were light years away from addressing the issue in such a forum.

Wikipedia should remove that one sentence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.47.224 (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

The statement is sourced, albeit to a book, which could take a bit of tracking down. But there seems no reason to dispute the claim, which is explained in some detail. HiLo48 (talk) 00:32, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure if the Lodge mentioned about was Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr. or his brother John Davis Lodge, but neither, I believe, would be described as being on the "political right" Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 00:47, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that some correlation between racism and the FAR right is probably true (just as there is in the US between being black and rate of commission of violent crimes) and both are probably sourcable, but both are probably wp:undue and not appropriate here. Sourcability/sourcing is a requirement for inclusion, not a reason for inclusion. North8000 (talk) 01:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Why is it undue? (Forget the black crime rate. It's way off-topic.) HiLo48 (talk) 14:56, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It just seems like a factoid cherry picked to leave a certain impression, knowing that people will not absorb the "FAR" qualifier. North8000 (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

It just seems, as Bob Marley put it, "If the cap fits, let them wear it." Carptrash (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the book being referenced, but there is no evidence I've found through history linking the political right "commonly" with racism. The Republican party was established after the fall of the whig-abolitionist in 1840. This was called the "abolitionist" party as a sort of joke by the Democratic party because all the abolitionist party talked about was the emancipation of slaves and equality for all mankind. This party's platform was for the equality of man and civil rights as we understand it. It was founded on that principle and throughout history you can see in the party foundation that it is firmly anti-racist and the Democratic party is firmly in the camp of keeping it. So much so that the Democratic controlled government (Executive and Congressional) voted that all bills regarding anti-slavery be automatically tabled. For close to 50 years the Democratic party bucked anti-racism/anti-slavery movements by platform or by voting record. Starting roughly 50 years later, the Democratic partry started integrating civil rights into its party platform but it was easily a century before Democrats stopped voting down/repealing any civil rights issue. All this information is based on information found in the Library of Congress. So whomever this book is and whatever "fact" he is citing is clearly contradictory to history. Not only that it sounds like a biased "fact." I do not advocate that there were NO racists on the right, but the vast majority of white supremists and general xenophobes (as was referenced in this article) were on the LEFT with the Democratic party from the beginning. The vast majority of what we would deem as "Racists" were actually on the left. History proves that guy wrong based on the logical fallacy of Induction. "There are some racists on the "far right" doesn't mean that it's "commonly found" there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixdirk (talk • contribs) 17:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the text in the article is deceptive. North8000 (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Can someone with the power to edit locked articles please change that sentence (where racism is attributed to political right)? It is unnecessarily insulting, too broad, and extremely inflammatory. Racism can be observed on the generally outermost fringes of both parties: Democratic condescension, in which African-Americans are too stupid to do anything without the help of the White Man (the assumption that they cannot get a good job or go to a decent college on their own power, the assumption that they will always vote Democrat without question), and Republican xenophobia (blacks cause white flight by ruining cities, blacks are always violent, blacks are incapable of being responsible). I'd be willing to find some kind of reputable article as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tejanochica (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Both parties? Do you mean Liberal and Labor? HiLo48 (talk) 05:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I just needs an autoconfirmed user. I took the sentence out. In addition to your points and those above, I think that there are other good reasons. Two I put in the edit summary. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

This article has two instances of this file, one at the very top and one towards the bottom. Is there a reason for that? Can we remove one of the instances? —Entropy ^(talk) 18:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Good catch. I fixed it. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Following the third paragraph, Reference #7 leads to a 404 link. 74.37.136.61 (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The topic is way, way too broad for a subsection of a single article. I was orgiinally thinking that it should be spun off into a separate "history of racism" article. But would even that be too broad? It might make more sense to have articles about racism in a specific time and place. "Racism in medieval Europe", "Racism in 19th Century Europe" and so forth. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I found it rather interesting in this article that there is little mention of the history of racism in the United States, in some ways, I think this article actually excludes the American side of the subject. Considering this is topic is a broad one, would it be better to eliminate this section altogether and add various entries pertaining to historical aspects of racism? At the very least maybe links could be posted directing readers to other articles for historical insights.Cgayhea (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)cgayhea

The section beginning "The Aztlan movement has been described as racist" utilizes a dead link to a questionable source. It also absolutely falls under the "extraordinary claims" definition as follows:

"Exceptional claims require exceptional sources See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources. Red flags that should prompt extra caution include: surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources; challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest; reports of a statement by someone that seems out of character, or against an interest they had previously defended; claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in science, medicine, history, politics, and biographies of living people. This is especially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them."

This section should be removed based on the above. This is a fringe theory bandied about by political groups as political propaganda, and until it can be verified by multiple high quality sources it should not be allowed back. This isn't a forum in which various groups get to point to groups they don't like and accuse them of racism. it's an informational article, and should be based on verifiable fact.

Genobeeno (talk) 19:50, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

There needs to be content on affirmative action being racist. 71.255.80.25 (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2013 (UTC) As can be seen in the above discussions, the editors on Wikipedia are biased. 71.255.80.25 (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on published reliable sources. We do not base content on the opinions of contributors. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:37, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

A quick search would reveal that numerous legitimate sources show that it is a major viewpoint. The current revision only has a wikilink under "Further information". The article currently does not follow the Wikipedia neutral point of view policy. 71.255.83.32 (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is a problem here. North8000 (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2013: (UTC)

The problem is that a series of people, mostly anonymous, keep making this fringe theory assertion, which has no solid sources behind it. Just whining, "OMG, us poor persecuted powerless white hetero males are being deprived of our rightful privileges" doesn't turn affirmative action into racism. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I think it's simply "differential treatment based on race"; not that big creative straw man that you just wrote. North8000 (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Strange POV, when affirmative action is created as a means of restoring racial balance in all areas in a society that is racially imbalanced in the favor of White people (men esp). Now the issues with AA are usually not that it is racism, but that it is promoting sub-standard. Affirmative action then is a fix (or a band aid) on institutional racism.--Inayity (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Note that the total nonsense comment by Orangemike was written by an administrator who is among the 400 most active Wikipedians. People like him are the ones who do the most writing of Wikiepdia articles. 174.236.70.9 (talk) 04:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Racism is most commonly understood to mean negative action or attitudes against someone based on their race. Affirmative Action obviously doesn't fit that definition. I can see that those who are not beneficiaries of AA could feel that it is a racist act against them, but it's not in the same ball park as most direct racism. HiLo48 (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

So, if whites were under represented in some desirable area, a quota system that gave whites preference/priority would not be racist because it positive (not negative) towards whites regarding their race? North8000 (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes. HiLo48 (talk) 22:10, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hilo48, how is racial discrimination not a negative action against someone based on their race? 71.251.42.89 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

May I remind editors (myself included) to remember WP:FORUM, our job as editors is to follow the sources, and NPOV. This hypothetical"if whites..." is outside the scope of this page talk page.--Inayity (talk) 15:00, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm the person who started this topic. I originally intended to discuss the content of the article before things got off topic and some administrator hid the entire discussion instead of just the parts that went off topic. Reminders that this is not a forum are enough. No need to close the entire thing.

Here are steps for someone who has time to work on the article.

After finding sources:

1. Write sentence describing history/supposed purpose and basic definition of affirmative action.

2. Write sentence on how some view affirmative action as discrimination/racism, possibly mentioning the term "reverse discrimination".

Possible sections in article to insert sentences are under the "institutional" and "contemporary" sections. Remember to focus on the parts regarding race, so as to not go outside the scope of the article. 71.251.42.89 (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest keeping several eyes on the category. Currently such nation-specific topics as Polish joke and Category: anti-Polish sentiment can be discovered there (one of Poles even argued that there is no distinction between racial discrimination and ethnic discrimination at all; see also here). Such apparently unrelated modes of discrimination as ethnic nepotism also dwell in the racist category. IMHO inclusion of ethnic-related stuff to the category about racism defeats the purpose of distinct categories for discrimination by different factors. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 14:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This is true, but what do you think of Jewish vs. German (Holocaust). Is that not a Ethnic issue since both Jews and Germans are White people, i.e. One race?--Inayity (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that an ethnic conflict never is racially motivated. I said that discrimination of Poles and ethnic nepotism are not forms of racism. Discrimination of Jews, indeed, was. Nazi thought that Jews constitute a distinct race (it wasn’t so silly; modern genetic studies indicate that Semites are distinct from Europeans). They reject Jews on genetic (bloodline) grounds. They did not reject Poles on genetic lines: contrary, they kidnapped Polish children and raised them as Germans. IMHO any reasonable person (with probable exception for Polish nationalists) understand that anti-Polish sentiment has nothing to do with racism in those countries where it actually exists. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

All i am saying it is a fine line. wide and open to subjective interpretation. The polish example by all accounts is not racism (I would have to hear from them why it is). But Jews are NOT a different race to White Germans. No more than Hutu are a different race to Tutsi. Amhara to Oromo. DNA has never determined race--never could, race is social, dna is science. Sicilians are distinct from Spanish. Our lay usage of the term aside, European Jews are not Semitic either (Semitic is a language, not DNA). And on the subject of lay terms. RACISM, while it contains the word Race, today, is used in a very broad categorization which is used outside of the social construction of "race". Only R.S (and not us editors) can determine what is racism. So if a R.S. source says x killing y is racism, then it is racism.--Inayity (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

When a thread is closed, for whatever reason by an admin, and you have something else to say with regard to the development of the article then start a new subject and discuss how to improve the article there. Undoing a closed discussion because it is forum or off-topic in nature is not the solution.--Inayity (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing a thread is not an administrative action (does not require administrative powers), so anyone can close or unclose a thread. 71.251.45.247 (talk) 05:13, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

This section contains many, diverse statements that seem all to have a single source. The page linked to the reference indicates the source is a literature review, which justifies there being many, diverse statements, but nothing on that page indicates that the source is about racism: the title refers to political tolerance. I hope someone has checked the statements are well founded.

19:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.149.119.22 (talk)

"A recent study suggests that human beings are born with or develop (as early as 9 months) racist tendencies naturally, even without the presence of other races." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2139735/Babies-develop-racist-traits-aged-months-coming-contact-races.html

This has nothing to do with racial bias or racial tendencies. None of the baby control subjects separated from each other or encamped themselves in sub groups according to outward appearance. It just dissects on how babies recognize differences in facial geometry. That's all. Facial Recognition or instinctive recognition in outward phenotype appearance is not synonymous with racial bias by definition. This is a flawed interpretation of the article and I've elaborated on this part in the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentrazemine (talk • contribs) 18:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no way whatsoever that the Daily Mail should ever be used as a source for such material. Any scientific claims should be sourced to recognised peer-reviewed scientific journals and sources of a similar quality. The paragraph in question is clear synthesis anyway, combining three different sources in a way that none of them will support individually. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pentrazemine (talk • contribs) 21:50, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that the third source given [1] is being cited for a generalisation it doesn't make, I am going to remove the entire paragraph as WP:OR/synthesis. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. From the source: "Babies from the five-month-old group were far more adept at distinguishing faces from different races"! Wow, it's easier to distinguish a black face from a white face, and that means the baby has a "racist trait". I hope they pay those journalists a lot, because it would be hard to make up a stream of nonsense like that, day after day. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that the remainder of the 'Evolutionary theories about the origins of racism' section may need substantial further work too - not least because it seems to be confusing ethnocentrism with racism. I'll see if I can get hold of the New Scientist article, to see what that has to say. As for The Selfish Gene, it was published in 1976, and can hardly be considered representative of any contemporary scientific perspective. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking along the lines of John Rawls that several institutions make up the basic structure of society, and if that's so, it might be that the economic part of racism is also an institution in itself. And of course, if that's true, then anything economic concerning racism would also be institutional racism. In fact, anything in the basic structure of society would be institutional. The section on institutional racism does not seem to include anything economic except in cases where people are denied goods (primary goods, in Rawls' terms) by organizations due to almost an explicit racism. And the economic part does not take into account that capitalism, it's markets and so on, are an institution that might affect racialized people differently, and so count as racism in a more subtle way. It would be good to take a look at this further and then add a few sources to make the changes official. I'm thinking that there should just be one section on the different kinds of institutional racism and contrast that with cases where individuals are racist (although I understand this might mean that because most individuals always belong to some institution, individual racism is institutional racism, and institutional racism is individual racism...except maybe in the case of laws, where racism can be more abstract).

70.72.45.131 (talk) 23:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that "Racism" is a cultural Marxist propaganda term. A slur used against White preservationists. --41.150.199.225 (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Can you direct us to a reliable source expressing that view? HiLo48 (talk) 10:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed it is. If the article was truly NPOV it would include that information. I suggest adding a reference to White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century, by Jared Taylor.Winston S Smith (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely 'NPOV' in anything Jared Taylor writes. Wikipedia articles are based on credible mainstream sources, and not on the ramblings of fringe proponents of white supremacist ideologies. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing remotely "NPOV" about the ramblings of Noam Chomsky, an admitted anarchist. Anarchism isn't really "mainstream." Yet Wikipedia frequently references him. "NPOV" does not apply to the person, it applies to the article. Articles can and do cite non "neutral point of view" persons, any political figure is not going to be "neutral" in the strictest sense. The article should, however, cite the opinions of figures from across the political spectrum and not rely completely on proponents of one ideology. Also, Taylor is not a White Supremacist, that is a libelous accusation and you should delete it from the record.Winston S Smith (talk) 04:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I will delete nothing. Taylor is a white supremacist, and as such utterly unsuited to make any assertions as to whether "Racism" is a cultural Marxist propaganda term. Which it self-evidently isn't, given its etymological roots, which predate Marxism, 'cultural' or otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Taylor has no qualifications that would render his opinions or his psuedoscience as reliable sources of information on this topic. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 04:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Winston in principle but then what Artifex is saying over rules Winston's argument. NPOV should never be applied to a person or their org (exceptions do exist), because everyone on this planet would come up short. No human is NPOV. BUT, Noam, unlike Jared, is usually used in areas where his opinions are relevant. Who would argue with Noam on Linguistics for example? Even Frances Cress Welsing has some solid arguments on the topic of White supremacy. --Inayity (talk) 06:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

First a sidebar note to Artifex's comment. WP requires wp:reliable sources, but (unfortunately) wp:reliable source criteria do not require and have nothing to do with actual reliability (objectivity, expertise etc. with respect to the topic or statement at hand) so the standard of exclusion that you are implying does not exist.

That said, a claim that the entire term, it's growth and usage is a "cultural Marxist propaganda term" is clearly fringe. If there is some specific information missing (e.g. on where the term started) I don't see any discussion of it above. And despite, my previous comment about wp:rs, as editors we can decide/agree to use sources that are also actually reliable. If there is some significant angle in actually reliable sources that we are not covering, we should do it. North8000 (talk) 12:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Islamophobia has been a battle field they are describing it as both racism in the article and they are trying to add it to the racism category. I was hoping some of the editors of this page would come over and share their opinion because they focus on racism and know the definition.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:35, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

I added my 2¢ EvergreenFir (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Williams syndrome, they do not make distinction between groups. Hypersèscoces (talk) 18:11, 22 October 2013 (UTC).

If something is used that way, but not always I do not then believe it should be in the lead as if the two terms are like for like. They are not. They can be completely different in different parts of the globe.--Inayity (talk) 21:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Please remove the following from the Economics section since it's citation is an editorial page from a website:

In a 2011 news story, Investor's Business Daily wrote, "Before the mortgage crisis, Attorney General Janet Reno accused banks of racism for failing to market mortgages to poor minorities with weak credit. Fear of prosecution set off a stampede of risky inner-city lending that led, in part, to today's record home foreclosures. Now Reno's deputy — current Attorney General Eric Holder — is prosecuting banks for doing too well what he and Reno ordered them to do before the crisis: "targeting of minority communities" for subprime and other high-cost loans."

63.246.173.50 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

And why would that fact merit its removal?--Inayity (talk) 08:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Done A good reason to delete it is to be found in WP:NEWSORG: "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact." So the question is whether we are talking about economic racism or about the editorial views of Investor's Business Daily. I assume the former. --Stfg (talk) 11:08, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

It's about the "compare and contrast" views of the Investor's daily. As a sidebar, it is highlighting some factual material which I think is unchallenged. North8000 (talk) 12:21, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Can we not find some NPOV sources that document those facts rather than quoting a rather large chunk from an oped? Language like "... prosecuting banks for doing too well what he and Reno ordered them to do before the crisis" is blatantly opinionated. And highlighting that Holder was (once) Reno's deputy to imply inconsistency is blatant synthesis. --Stfg (talk) 12:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I think that it is borderline for the article the way that it is written. I think that it points out reverse-discrimination, but the manner that it is written is not good, and this is a racism, not discrimination article. My initial thought was that it should go to talk, but I'm going to self-revert and take it back out. North8000 (talk) 12:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, North8000, that's appreciated. --Stfg (talk) 13:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Your calm, reasonable and well-reasoned response is what made me think hard about it and reverse my thoughts. North8000 (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

This section is definitely needed, but we need better sources than text books. There is actually a whole page on it: Symbolic racism. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I dont think symbolic racism and modern racism are the same thing. They are two different theoretical perspectives and characterize contemporary racism in somewhat different ways.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain the different to me? From what I've taught in intro, I treat them the same. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Also the linked article looks like an essay to promote a new idea, and the persons trying to promote it are given as sources. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly not a new idea. The article may be poorly written, but it is mainstream in sociology and psychology. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Few quick sources: 1 and 2 and 3. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:36, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Symbolic racism is certaoinly not new it is a standard mainstream concept, and goes more than 35 years back. As far as I can see the "modern racism" concept emerged in the 1980s and has been used very limited in the last decade or two. Here is a source to the differences:[2] User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:04, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Modern racism is widely used in sociology and still being developed (e.g., Bonilla-Silva's work). I've been getting conflicting opinions from fellow sociology grad students on whether or not symbolic racism and modern racism are the same. I'll try to find more info. From what I can tell, they are very similar. We might need to create a modern racism page though and stick a link in the See Also section of this article. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at the link I provided which describes them as two different but similar approaches. It states that the difference is in what they consider to be the causes of prejudice, and the predictions about behavior they make. Also they are tested on two separate scales. Also related is aversive racism.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:38, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I just ran into this when a new editor was adding dubious sources to various articles. I've added Romantic racism as a 'see also', but it could use eyes. Dougweller (talk) 09:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

I thought I heard it all-- romantic racism? Reminds me of the New Antisemitism which claims (dubiously) that people who say the Jews are GREAT might actually still be antisemitic. I don't know but seems pretty obscure and should just be moved here, although I have seen many examples of this with African history-- a kind of noble savage. --Inayity (talk) 10:05, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Maunus - Can you please provide some citation or examples of theories who call it "racialism" and a "worldview"? I've not heard those terms used before in reference to race.

It is also not clear from the definition that culture, not biology, can be the target of hatred. The term "inherited" implies that racists believe that culture is genetically transmitted... can we think of a better wording for this? EvergreenFir (talk) 00:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

If you look at the sources already there that was the actual definition used - the current wording is a close paraphrase of the definition in Britannica - the definition in Schaefers encyclopedia echoes it. Somewhat had changed the definition to a restrictive one that is not supported by the sources. "inherit" to me does not necessarily imply genetic inhertiance, culture is also inherited - indeed we talk about cultural heritage, and the original meaning is of "inherit" has to do with offices and wealth not genes.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Schaefer's definition "Racism generally means believing that a person’s behavior is determined by stable inherited characteristics deriving from separate racial stocks; each of these distinctive attributes is then evaluated in relation to ideas of superiority and inferiority. This implies that there is a social construction in which certain groups of people are superior to others. This social construction is the result of social, economic, and political factors that have ascribed power to some groups, while leaving others powerless." and "Racism is a belief that race is the primary determinant of traits and capacities and that racial difference produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the definition. Still feel like the definition is a bit muddled though. I'll revisit it later if I come up with anything. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree with the change, but it might still be too narrow. I think that the common meaning is even broader, but would be a quagmire to try to define. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The language is clumsy have a look at "the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races". What is that supposed to mean-- sounds like the Borg from Star Trek speaking? I dont think the concept of race is so alien that it needs that kind of language. It almost seems that "race" is a fringe theory. Also racialism has many meanings. And we cannot merge them b/c people in the UK do. The anti-apartheid programs for empowerment in SA are racialized but not racist. So is affirmative action.--Inayity (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Race should not be defined in an article about racism, because def racism alone is pure work. The link to the article on race is enough for any visitors from Mars who do not know what race means. Also racism is not only used for Races. Racism is used between Two Europeans, Between Religions. Muslims in the West use Racism in this way, Jews use it in this way (even when it is clearly not race). --Inayity (talk) 16:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

The "biological entity" part is because "race" itself is in large part a cultural construct, but racists tend to pretend that it is a hard measurable real thing with rigid boundaries, with such bizarre consequences as the one drop rule. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:18, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I would dispense with trying to describe discrimination, tribalism, ethnocentricity, etc. with an article about racism. Taking on racism is more than enough for one article to cover. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackContractor (talk • contribs) 19:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

This is strange because there is no information on anti-White racism in the article. Anti-White racism should have its own article, just as there is a separate article for anti-Japanese racism, anti-German racism, ect.Winston S Smith (talk) 03:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Only if it includes the plethora of scholars who point out that there is no such thing as anti-White racism. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course it exists, even if some want to say it doesn't. But I'd never want to waste time writing or reading such an article. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

It depends on which definition of "racism" you accept. If you go by the now-standard proposition that "racism" should be applied solely to a system which reinforces the current domination structure, then there cannot be "anti-white racism" in the Western world, although there could be in Japan or China. (And there is no excuse for capitalizing "White" in any of this.) --Orange Mike | Talk 13:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that your post says or implies several things as fact which are highly controversial at best. But good point on the capital "W". If I had any interest in the possibilities in this thread, it would be that reverse discrimination (whether it be official or PC orthodoxy) is anti-majority racism and prolongs anti-minority racism by creating or fueling backlash. But using assertions by nasty people as sources in this area would be bad news. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

In sociology, for example, racism is thought of as structural, not interactional, and thus there is no "anti-White" racism in the West. There can be, however, discrimination or prejudice against Whites. As for capitalization, I always capitalize White and Black when referring to race. They are category labels, not colors. Capitalizing them emphasizes their nominal, as opposed to descriptive, quality. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:36, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I think there are several views in sociology and anthropology, although I agree that the structural racism paradigm is probably the most prominent. I also agree that the literature generally capitalizes White and Black exactly to show that it is not about kin color but about social categories.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And what is the "current domination structure?" Look at Harvard university. According to its webpage[1] Blacks are 11% of the student population, not too different from their 13% of the population nationally. Whites are 54% of the Harvard student population. Jews are 30% of the population[2], meaning that White gentiles represent only 24% of the university population despite being 61% of America's population. With statistics like that, it is highly debatable what the "current domination structure" is. Wikipedia should have an alternative view. Winston S Smith (talk) 01:19, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

1. http://www.admissions.college.harvard.edu/apply/statistics.html

2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Jews#Concentration_of_American_Jews_at_various_American_higher_education_institutions.5B87.5D

Notice the subtle anti-White bias in that Harvard page. We are told the ethnic figures for all non-White groups, including the over represented Asians, but are left to calculate the figure for Whites, the race that doesn't get a mention because in the minds of Harvard, it doesn't exist.Joe B Lan (talk) 03:13, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Blacks are the dominant race in South Africa. And I guess since Asians are over represented in high places in America, that means they can't be victims of racism, right?Joe B Lan (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

The question of whether it should have a section here or its own article depends on the amount of sources about it, and the amount of weight it is given in general works about racism. My impression is that it accounts for a minuscule portion of the general literature on racism and that it does not require its own section in this article, although a mention might be alright. IF the original poster knows of sufficient liteature to build an article then I suggest writing it and removing the redirect.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:59, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe just mention that the term can refer to racism in any direction , with that being an illustrative example. North8000 (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Hold up does being Jewish exclude you from being White? talking about Harvard stats on Jewish students. Black people like Jewish people is a category name it should be capitalized. Wikiped however does not seem to do this. I believe Racism requires power, and unless African Americans have power their attempts at racism hardly affect the lives of Whites in America. --Inayity (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As a Jew of Color being Jewish is an interesting group. Yes theey are white but in the same way Hispanics are white. Jewishness is an ethnicity that definatly does affect how people treat you whether or not you are actually of Jewish religion. So yes there are white Jews and white Hispanics and other groups that face racism. However I think that whether a Jew is white is really partially up to self-identity and as for the power structure Jews certainly have certain white privileges but there are other white privileges Jews do certainly not have. Almost no white supremacist would consider a Jew to be white so they are not the power base in the racist system of the west which is held by non-Hispanic Gentile Whites.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 14:09, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

As the Harvard stats tell you, the West is not dominated by "White supremicist" gentile Whites.Joe B Lan (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Jews look White to me but there is still a lot of understandable hostility between them and the rest of White America. The president of the United States has power. Not every Black person is a ghetto child and not every White person is heir to an estate. Discrimination against Whites in government employment certainly effects their lives.Joe B Lan (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

IMHO this whole thread is sounding sour from both "sides". Let's either gel this to the point of a specific proposal or end it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:18, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

There are pages for many different kinds of pornographic acts. Is there enough "literature" on them but not on the subject of anti-White racism?Joe B Lan (talk) 03:10, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh look... you're back. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:34, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't look like this thread of discussion can go anywhere. People who cannot be objective about this subject matter should just go back to the sites that support their views. Race was a classification system that reinforced societal ideals about how people should be grouped and how those groups should be ranked. I have never seen a model that claimed "Blacks" were superior to anyone. Also, I know of no racial theories supporting the "Jewish" race or the "Hispanic" race. We need people to stay focused on the topic. All of these other issues should not be grouped under an article dedicated to "Racism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackContractor (talk • contribs) 00:22, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

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

remove / change this line

It should be more of a general nature, not specific to one race. That in of it's self is racist.

Racism is not just about whites, and blacks. Whites and Asian. Indians and Mexicans. See how it goes on and on

67.77.123.3 (talk) 00:33, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Good point, but I don't see a specific proposed edit. North8000 (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Not done: the sentence doesn't say that racism is about whites. It begins "Critics argue that ...", and is just saying that (according to those critics) the concept is applied "differentially", i.e. that some people focus more on racism on the part of whites than other racism. It's well enough cited. @North8000: my understanding is that the OP is referring to the phrase "with a focus on such prejudices by whites", quoted in the title to this section. --Stfg (talk) 11:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, it is rather pointless to focus on non-"White" racism. I think people have to understand what Race is before talking Racism. If you are just talking about discrimination, that is a totally different concept. Racism is rather specific. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackContractor (talk • contribs) 00:27, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

According to this article, I'm a racist because I believe that blacks and whites are two different groups, one of which I observe to have dark skin and one of which I observe to have light skin. Shouldn't this definition be a bit more specific? I will wait for feedback on changing this and if I hear nothing, I will make the necessary change because in its current form, the article's definition of racism is absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.243.27 (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow, where to start? What use do you make of that "obvious" classification? What about the offspring of one black parent and one white parent? Where do you draw the line on mixed race people? What about Australian Aboriginal people, commonly known as blacks, but some of whom look quite white? Why pick on just that one, genetically minor attribute to classify people? What use is it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

How is what you're saying relevant to my point? I'm giving an example of why the definition is flawed. Just because there are outliers/mixes/etc. doesn't change the fact that black people have a racial attribute of darker skin than white people. This article claims that I'm a racist for observing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.243.27 (talk) 08:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Where? Racism is when, as the lead says, you believe that the different "attributes...make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior, or superior". Unles you feel the skin colour does any of that, then you're not racist. HiLo48 (talk) 08:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Racialism (racial categorization)--Inayity (talk) 10:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the OP clearly misread the article. It does not state that noticing differenf skin colors means a person is racist. Whst is actuall says is that racism is declairing certain groups as inferior to others based on these characteristics. There is a clear difference between saying X has dark skin and X has dark skin therefore he is more likely to rob me because of his skin colour.--70.49.73.6 (talk) 06:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

First half of the very first sentence implies that even the recognization of racial differences is racist, and so I believe it is you and not the OP that is misreading the article. This is what the OP is complaining about, and I agree. The definition of "racism" could and should closely resemble the definition for "sexism", except refer to racial prejudices rather than gender-based ones. The Wiki entry for "sexism" is vastly superior in this regard. That entry treats sexism as synonymous with sexual discrimination, and I believe the racism entry should be synonymous with "racial discrimination". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.235.88 (talk) 20:07, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Racism is not the same as racial discrimination. It is not treated that way by scholars. We do not make definitions based on edits opinions, we base them on reliable sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I don't know why the definition from Webster's was not chosen. I think the current definition while wrong, does point out some interesting things. Science has already debunked race. Maybe the definition could be restated and then the whole scientific view on race should be state separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackContractor (talk • contribs) 19:36, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Racism just like misogyny and other systems of discrimination rely upon structure. Such structure requires power - power that manifests through societal institutions (ie Political, Educational, and Religious). Racism is not simply a matter of preferential tastes, biases or discriminatory tendencies. It's far more complicated; thus, a better definition that includes these connections should be crafted.shiznaw (talk) 15:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

'Race-baiting' isn't defined in this article, and its one mention in this article redirects to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.8.61 (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This is not a fringe theory; sociology related to crime, urbanicity, and race always study it. We use dissimilarity indices to measure segregation of cities and its effects. I can write a whole paragraph on it if you like as it's been very well studied. William Julius Wilson, Douglas Massey, Sugrue, Ruth Person, Lauren Krivo, and other heavyweights in sociology have all studied it and is a classic example of structural racism. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:31, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Confirming and elaborating upon what was in my edit summary what is wp:undue/wp:fringe is not a claim that there may be instances of this, but wording that implies that it is the norm, and also a claim that segregation (e.g. even including self-chosen) is per se "racism". North8000 (talk) 21:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Quite frankly, it is the norm both in the US and in academia. We see de facto segregation in all cities to varying degrees. Perhaps most start is Detroit's 8 Mile Road. Scholarly literature views it as structural racism, noting factors that keep people segregated even when they wish to not be. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed it is not fringe. But it should also be made clear that it is not considered to be the same as enforced segregation, and that the opposing view is that it is simply natural that people stick to their own and that that has nothing necessarily to do with racial oppresion. It should be possible to find this view in some kind of source.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:27, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose: Some have argued that racism is prejudice combined with power.(bluner 1968)(Jones 1972),(Wilson 1973)(Developing New Perspectives on Race: An Innovative Multi-media Social Studies Curriculum in Racism Awareness for the Secondary Level, Pat A. Bidol) And that the power component is critical in making racism effective. a disproportionate ability of an individual or some group to influence another's outcome. Without both variables, power and discrimination, racism could not manifest itself at the cultural-, institutional, and individual phenomena 2(this is just to start and then more ref can be added once it is in there. As you can see it is odd that an extensive article on Racism can leave out such a notable opinion. --Inayity (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

"Some have argued" is not goof. We need to know which groups of scholars use this definition.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

According to this article the definition is common in sociology.[3] This article by the way gives a very useful overview of how different academic ields tend to focus on different aspects in their definitions of racism, for example in psychology the definitions tend to be cognitive, and in the legal field they are about legality of discrimination etc. The article gives two examples of sources that use the sociological definition: (Carmichael, S. & Hamilton, C. V. 1992, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation (Reissued.), Vintage, New York.)(Cazenave, N. A. & Maddern, D. A. 1999, ‘Defending the White Race: White Male Faculty Opposition to a White Racism Course’, Race and Society, vol. 2, pp. 25-50.) I would suggest writing, "Within Sociology it is common to define racism as prejudice combined with the social power to execute a systematic discrimination of a less powerful group. This definition has the consequence that members of minority groups cannot be defined as engaging in racism, because they ted to lack the power to systematically discriminate against the dominant group. The definition is commonly used by activists and sociologists to understand the ways that some groups and individuals have a disproportionate ability to engage in discrimination, but some scholars have criticized it for emphasizing power too much, and for failing to engage with harmful prejudice from members of minority groups."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, b4 moving on I suggest we have a short mention in the lead and this text that we are drafting as a section. What would the section be called? As sociology is already defined. under types of racism? --Inayity (talk) 15:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I think User:Shiznaw is trying to put forward an argument, but is not posting it in the right place, he says: Racism just like misogyny and other systems of discrimination rely upon structure. Such structure requires power - power that manifests through societal institutions (ie Political, Educational, and Religious). Racism is not simply a matter of preferential tastes, biases or discriminatory tendencies. It's far more complicated; thus, a better definition that includes these connections should be crafted. I think the point--if not already discussed in the article--needs representing. (i have no read the entire article).--Inayity (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I can see how some would like to promote that concept, but it is just that, not a part of the fundamentals of racism. North8000 (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be a popular enough aspect of Racism so I am not sure how it is not part of the fundamentals. After all racism, like every other thing, is defined by those sources that say this is what it is and what it is not. What the user wrote is hardly illogical or OR. I am sure Naim Akbar and Cornel West as well as Molefi Asante (eradicating Racism) both discuss this. And these are the historical victims of racism who might know a thing or two about it. ref--Inayity (talk) 19:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

It is the fundamental definition of racism in sociology. EvergreenFir (talk) 21:42, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Then we need to find a way of mentioning it. I just would like help framing the sentence. and where it should be placed.but is far to notable to ignore, actually I am shocked this article found a way to skip it. --Inayity (talk) 08:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Racism is prejudiced with powerToo many sources discussing the power dynamic. The power to actually cause harm to someone's life. If I am just calling someone names but cannot cause fear, death, lost of equilibrium, etc then it is not the same.--Inayity (talk) 08:27, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

This whole thing is too complicated for me. I directed one of my undergraduate students here at the Univ. of Utah to look at the wikipedia entry for the Definition. He came back to me with it and my jaw dropped. I put my two cents worth on your talk page only to receive a warning from one of your high and mighty Grand Wiki Wizards. So, from this point forward, I will tell my students to stick to academic and scholarly works because it's painfully clear to me that many of you here have no earthly idea as to what Racism is, but would rather pretend to hold some ephemeral power over fashioning definitions to meet your own preconceived notions. John Allen Shaw, Ph D Candidate - Economics and Public Policy - Univ. of Utah. shiznaw (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

shiznawThat is not the solution. And it might be worth it to read the rules of Civility and not accuse people of "not knowing" as a PhD I am sure you do not use that argument in a dissertation. We also do not need to air our personal/academic background, only quality contributions. Wikipedia is only as good as those who contribute to it. Can you please write a line of text to express what you want included and we will see about getting it included as long as it has references. Do not let one bad experience spoil the experience. --Inayity (talk) 11:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The scholarly literature is just as complicated, if not more so. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• It is definitely a very common understanding of racism that it is necessarily tied to power differentials. It shouldnt be too difficult to find good sources for that. the challenge of writing this article is that there are many different definitions, some of which are narrow and others that are very broad. In the past the article has tended to take some very narrow definitions, much narrower than what most scholars working with racism do. The article is in a really sorry state and really any contributions and improvements that are based on knowledge of the scholarship should be welcomed. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I would like to take steps to formulating a line or two for the lead to sum this up. Def sources are not a problem see my offering from a brief scan alone. Should we start the line "Some argue that racism is tied to a power differential between groups with power having the power to impose their racist ideologies ..." (suggestions)?--Inayity (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest something closer to: "Structural racism is often understood as an aspect of group relations in which a powerful group systematically dominates another through favoritism and subtle discrimination, using a hierarchical racial world view as an instrument. In this view racism relies crucially on the existence of power and hegemony to legitimize and perpetuate itself. And racism without power amounts only to individual prejudice, which lacks the ability to regulate social structures the way that racism tends to do."User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay once something is there then it would be easy to expand it in the lead and in the body. --Inayity (talk) 19:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

There are two hugely different ideas floating around in the above thread. One is to define structural racism. The other is to in essence to assert that if it isn't structural racism it isn't racism. (via defining racism in general as structural racism) North8000 (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I think that logically we are not going to redefine racism to mean only structural racism. But on the other hand there is a body of literature that uses that definition and who tend to see individual prejudice as less relevant than hegemony and privilege for understanding the phenomenon of racism. We need the article to contain all that and more. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

This topic is still not addressed in the article and I do not want it to slip away. We need something in the lead that mentions the relationship between power and racism--Inayity (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly there are instances of racism associated with every race, every position of power/nonpower, and thousand of other things. I don't see how selecting any particular one of those is appropriate. What I'm most concerned about is promulgating "it's only racism when the other guy does it" definitions except in the context of claims stated as such, attributed to by whoever is making them. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I think you are not understanding what is being proposed. No one is proposing that the definition of the article should be narrowed or changed to conform with the view that racism involves exercise of power. What is being proposed is that the article should reflect the literature on the topic which is currently doesn't do very well. There is a large literature on racism, and it is quite standard within that literature to distinguish between "racial prejudice" which is individual animosity against members of other racial groups, and "racism" which is prejudice supported by some kind of structure of power that enables a systemic enactment of prejudice in an asymmetric way.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 21:33, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

With respect to a definition, I found about 12 definition in 4 major dictionaries, and NONE of them had any mention of power as a component of the definition. The closest that any of them came to power was government-instituted related. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:36, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary definitions rarely serve for complicated concepts. We had an RfC about this at some point.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

A little funny looking in a dictionary for a authentic understanding of what we are discussing. Per ref from notable scholars who would know a thing or two about Racism I have no idea what what the "major" dictionaries have to do with what is under discussion here. I struggle to see how they even matter? Are they the head office of a people's experience? A place where African American scholars, like Asante, and Cornell West, Ani, and Na'im Akbar should first look to define their experience? It almost ignores something the very article discusses institutional racism. And we are including another dimension not replacing the def, so i am not sure what the issue could be. --Inayity (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Your responses seemed to miss my preface "with respect to a definition" (where respected dictionaries are certainly relevant) which was key to what I wrote. And more specifically addressing a definition that Maunus was stating as fact and in exclusive terms: " "racism" which is prejudice supported by some kind of structure of power ". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I haveb't stated that as fact. Lee Jasper has. Inayity and I have stated that it is prominent VIEW within the literature.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I dont think that is what was stated. As others have noted. And there is something called the Dominant Race class, so I do not think normalizing racism to everyone does it" should distract from reality. No African created Apartheid in Europe, no Native American created Jewish Holocaust. So If I find 9/10 African Americans discussing the power relationship with racism it then becomes notable and not to include it is a problem.Reality is racism bends in the direction of power.--Inayity (talk) 01:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

And we must remember we are not here to voice our political views on what is and isnt racism. If there is content on a subject which is notable then we include it. Nothing more to it. Lee Jasper said Racism is prejudiced plus power is he alone? No --Inayity (talk) 01:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Please see revert, I did not see this revert and myself re-added it. Rainbow has cited "controversial". But unless I have missed something everything in this article is controversial. And with all the issues and anti-Zionist movement from South Africa to USA on the rise, I do not think discussing/including Zionism with this motley bunch needs any mitagatory language. And What worries me most of all is why have rules which protect Zionism yet Pan-Arabism gets to stay ?--Inayity (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to understand the origins of Zionism. While the state of Israel does many racist things. Zionism is actually an attempt to stop racism. Zionism believes the only way to end Anti-Semitism is for Jews to remember their culture and form a nation of their own. Therefore saying Zionism is racist might be partially accurate but so would many branches of the Civil Rights Movements around the world. Zionism is either both racism and a civil rights movement or it is neither. I personally would rather have it be on here as neither but if you want it to be added as a racist movement I'll information about it as an anti-racist movement as well. Anti-Zionism has also been been called racism. Should I add that also.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:32, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sure if you dig deep enough into the origins of Aryanism or Black Supremacy you will find it friendly and benign. Outside of what you and I may think the harsh and ugly reality is What Zionism means today. What Zionism meant to the Durban Conference on Racism, What Zionism means per all the voices globally that see it as a racist ideology which persecutes non-Jews (and even non-White Jews). I am pretty sure that King's version of Civil Rights could ever create what Zionism has created in Israel. See United Nations General Assembly Resolution 3379--Inayity (talk) 18:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Zionism has been discussed as a racist movement and you could find many reliable sources that would say so. However I can also find reliable sources that state that Anti-Zionism is racism. So why don't we add both then. I'm willing to comprimize that. So lets add both. That's sounds reasonable.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 18:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

What serious sources say Anti-Zionism is racist, when Most Anti-Zionist are people like Noam Chomsky and know human rights activits. It is like calling the Civil Rights Struggle racist, or using dubious sources to say affirmative action is racist. Already I have left in Pan-Arabism that should be the compromise. --Inayity (talk) 18:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

http://cifwatch.com/2012/03/19/anti-zionism-is-racism-an-essay-by-judea-pearl/

There is at least one source from a noted civil rights activist stating that Anti-Zionism is racism. So please don't continue this unless you plan to add Anti-Zionism as well.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Just because you have a source,(from a wordpress blog), and a source will say anything and on its own does not merits inclusion.Not how Wikipedia works. The google search that says Anti-Zionism is racist is a tiny so it is not a notable opinion. Also Anti-Zionism in the context of the sentence is NOT an ethnocentric ideology. And therefore makes no sense to include it. --Inayity (talk) 19:08, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure that it is possible to find a published adherent somewhere for any viewpoint you could imagine. But there has to be some metric for whether to include it in Wikipedia. We can and should report that the UN passed a resolution calling Zionism racist, which is sufficiently notable in my book, but we can report that without endorsing it. The view that anti-Zionism is racist is not notable. Joe Bodacious (talk) 19:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Based on the link provided (an advocacy blog), I would have to agree. The view that anti-Zionism is racist seems to be held by a small minority, usually themselves proponents of Zionism. It's instead typically regarded as a form of opposition to Israeli nationalism. On the other hand, anti-Semitism is a well-established form of racism. Zionism has likewise often been characterized as such due to the actions and beliefs of some of its more radical adherents. Middayexpress (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Many sources have acknowledged that it often has a common meaning of a synonym of anti-Semitism even through that is not it's technical meaning. North8000 (talk) 19:29, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/anti-zionism-and-racism/26279/

There is another source on the speech by Judea Pearl

http://defenseoftheisraelipeople.wordpress.com/2013/08/28/martin-luther-king-anti-zionism-is-anti-semitism/ http://www.israelifrontline.com/2013/01/yes-martin-luther-king-really-did-say.html

These sources state that Martin Luther King equated Anti-Zionism is anti-semitism

http://archive.adl.org/anti_semitism/speech.html#.Us2oTYd3v4Y And this is by the ADL stating that Anti-Zionism is Anti-Semitism

This article is about Racism. --Inayity (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Zionism

Racism is discrimination based on race or ethnicity. Antisemitism is racism, Hispanophobia is racism, Anti-Arabism or Arabophobia is racism. Any form of discrimination based on race or ethnicity is racism. Now I ask you to either remove Zionism or add Anti-Zionism. As it is clearly stated to be racist as well.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Zionism is not the same as antisemitism. The correlation of the two is highly debated. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I never directly said it was. I pointed out there are sources that state it is. My point is I don't feel the article should state that Zionism is racism without pointing out that this is controversial. If it were up to me I wouldn't have Zionism mentioned on here at all. The fact is Inayity has shown there are sources that state Zionism is racism. The fact is I have shown there are sources that state Anti-Zionism is racism. So we should either remove Zionism completely from the article (my preference) or state that labeling Zionism as racism is controversial and that Anti-Zionism has also been labeled as racism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Rainbowofpeace. By the technical meanings of the terms neither Zionism or Anti-Zionism is racist. With regards to practice, there is a stronger case for anti-Zionism being called racist than Zionism. North8000 (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

An article on racism does not need the technical meaning of anything. Per what has been already proven there is no strong precedent for anti-Zionism being called racism. Seriously now. But there is a very popular global diverse opinion that Zionism is racism coming from a plural world community which includes Jews, Africans, and different people of diverse political opinions. I dont even think that is something in serious debate. The special interest position which detracts from Anti-Zionism is almost exclusively Zionist and Pro-Israeli. The same sources that say Critique of Israel is anti-Semitic. The sentence in question is about ethnocentrisms so again Anti-Zionism is not an ethnocentrism. while Pan-Africanism, Pan-Arab, Pan-German are similar. --Inayity (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

And on that note something simmilar came up before someone wanted to add Affirmative Action as a form of racism. SURE you can find sources that say it is. But for all the same reasons we did not add it. It is like calling MLK a racist for fighting Racism - a common political ploy used by racist against anti-racism. Anti-Zionism is largely made up of anti-Racist people. --Inayity (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is not how Wikipedia works. What you say doesn't matter. My personal opinion and your personal opinion which you are discussing doesn't matter. I have clearly layed out several sources. By the way Martin Luther King was part of that if you had bothered to look. Sources are what matters if you want to prevent Anti-Zionism from being added to the page you need to do a source check and have someone at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard take down all five of my sources stating they are inadmissible. My opinion (which doesn't matter) is that neither Zionism nor Anti-Zionism is racist although both have helped harbor racism. You have provided a source stating that Zionism has been considered racism. I have provided source(s) that state that Anti-Zionism is racism. And I will add that to the article probably in a statement similar to this "Zionism is controversially seen as racism by many scholars. Anti-Zionism has also been seen as racism by scholars and activists including Martin Luther King and the Anti-Defamation League. However this is controversial for many of the same reasons." Followed by source upon source upon source. I would add a statement like that because it shows that there are more than one sides and allows this article to maintain a NPOV on said issue. My suggestion for you. Go to the reliable sources noticeboard. If you can invalidate my sources AND I am not able to find more sources. Then you can keep your statement and I won't be able to put mine up. If not however please cease this discussion as this page is not a forum for personal opinions or even arguing on behalf of others opinions.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:59, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

U might be missing a lot and have wasted your time writing the above. Why would we go to the RS noticeboard? The issue has never been about RS. And If you notice Your version of what should be is in the minority. You have failed to prove your case on this talk page. And please do not tell other editors to cease this discussion or make silly remarks about WP:FORUM. There is no discussion here that meets the forum criteria. Also you seem to be confusing Antisemitism (a complex enough term) with Racism (another complex term). Please take your ref to the antisemitism article. This sentence in question is about nationalism, and i suggest spending time reading the context of the sentence! --Inayity (talk) 08:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that you are understanding Racism either. Please see Racial antisemitism. Antisemtism is not always discrimination against Jews as a religion but as an ethnic identity. Racial Antisemtism is Racism against the Jewish people. I would also like to say that such an opinion can not be called fringe when it is supported by one of the largest civil rights orgainizations in the United States the Anti-Defamation League as well as one of the greatest civil rights leaders to have ever existed. Martin Luther King Jr.. Are you going to call the Anti-Defamation League a racist organization? Are you going to call Martin Luther King Jr. a racist? On accusations that my opinion is fringe as well you have shown no evidence for such. I really don't think that any of the movements you have listed Pan-Arabism, Pan-Germanism etc has been shown to be racist either. Have racist things been done in the name of these movements. Hey, not going to argue with you there. Have racist things been done in the same of Zionism. Hey, not going to argue there either. However I have shown that racist things have been done in the name of Anti-Zionism as well. How about as a new compromise instead of calling these movements racist we use the infinitely more accurate term ethnocentric. I see no problem what so ever with Zionism being called ethnocentric. As a matter a fact I don't even see a problem with it being said that Zionism has been used to do many racist things. My problem is that you are labeling a movement that was originally created as a way of fighting racism and labeling it and many others as racism. In short summary Antisemitism is not always but often and I would go so far as to say usually racism. Martin Luther King Jr. and the Anti-Defamation League have both labeled Anti-Zionism as a form or racism as well. Pan-insert racial, ethnic national or religious identity here is not inheritantly in itself racist but instead ethnocentric although it can lead to and historically often has led to racist policies and actions. Why don't we call each one of these ethnocentrism which has often led to racism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 08:31, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat. Also you seem to be confusing Antisemitism (a complex enough term) with Racism (another complex term)for the purpose of simplicity let us just discuss racism and not collapse two controversial (in their own right) terms. B/c I heard anti-Racist advocate Desmond Tutu was called Antisemitic. ADL is a Zionist/Pro-Israeli org. Not a NPOV, according to them everyone seems to be antisemitic. How it was originally used it agreed. But cant you remove yourself for one second and see that in the broader world Zionism is associated with Racism! And this is by popular opinion so much so that most of the World agreed it was racism! Desmond Tutu, Kwame Ture, Noam Chomsky, Norman Finkelstein, Gilad Atzmon, Alice Walker,most of South Africa, all Pan-Africanist that is a very significant opinion pool. The rev is not true. --Inayity (talk) 08:51, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I will repeat. Antisemitism usually is racism and ethnocentrism is an infinitely more appropriate term for these movements than racism. I think very few people could argue these movements are not ethnocentric. Also in reference to "But cant you remove yourself for one second and see that in the broader world Zionism is associated with Racism!" association does not equal the same thing. Zionism is associated with racism because the State of Israel has done several racist things in the name of Zionism. However I could do many racists things in the name of a religious book. That does not mean that the religious book or the religion that it founded is inheritantly racist. I strongly suggest you consider my proposal call all of those movements ethnocentric and state that they have led to or are related to racism. I won't argue about that. There really isn't a way I can argue about that Pan-______ by its very nature is ethnocentric as is Zionism. Now on a purely personal level I want to apologize for any over-the-top statements I have made which may have offended you. As a person of mixed Arab and Jewish heritage who has family of all three of the major Abrahamic religions sometimes I get extra-sensitive on topics such as Zionism or Sharia being called racist. So in short why don't we restructure the sentence to call these movements "ethnocentric movements that have often led to racism".-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a good approach. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok I have left this for two days someone respond or I'll go ahead with the changes.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I think this article is about racism. Not ethnocentrism and without "racism" why would the sentence be there? You seem to be taking the very long road to avoid the fact that we go by sources which (outside of special interest groups) identify Zionism as racism (enough and globally so) that it merits inclusion with Pan-Arab, and Pan-Turkish. It must remain, as out of all of those groups Zionism is the most commonly associated with racism (per popular opinion). The sky is blue, but I bet if you look at it from a funny angle it might look red. Your revisionist apology for what Zionism is a POV not expressed in the ref, and rememberWP:CENSORED and I think it is best to suck it up. If every editor brought these personalized arguments to protect what they love i think Houston, we would have a problem. I would go and re-write all of Wikipedia around my reality, as opposed to RS. That would not make Wikipedia quality if we start to introduce favoritism. It would mean if Wiki has a lot of pro-Israel editors articles will bend in that direction. Which is wrong--Inayity (talk) 08:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

First of all I don't want to single out Zionism. I don't believe any of these are INHERITANTLY racist. They often lead to racism. And that's what I'm saying the definition of these is much closer to ethnocentrism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 09:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

They lead to racism is the point the sentence is making. To even be clearer, these ideologies HAVE lead to racism. I think there is not much more we can add to that. I would say, just like Antisemitism, Afrocentrism is in the same boat. It is often now associated with so-called reverse racism. Though it lacks the power to build walls between itself and the other.--Inayity (talk) 10:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I never stated they havn't lead to racism. I have stated that they are not INHERITANTLY racist. They are inheritantly ethnocentric that I won't argue. But you aren't saying in the sentence they lead to racism you are stating that they themselves are racism which I disagree with for all 4 listed not just Zionism.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 10:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The sentence in question does not say or imply anything is inherently racist.--Inayity (talk) 10:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

To a typical reader it reads that way, and that the sentence is making the association, although if you precisely parse it out and dissect it one could say it doesn't. North8000 (talk) 11:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)