| Revision as of 17:10, 21 December 2019 editMago Mercurio (talk | contribs)18 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 23:37, 9 April 2023 edit undoGeneralrelative (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users17,193 edits Take it to the talk page if you'd like to discuss improving this article.Tag: Manual revert |
| (6 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
*More diverse representation from non-White, non-Western opinions/sources which might are poorly represented due to very issues of institutional racism discussed here. This article is victim of discussing the state of oppressed people by non-oppressed people. How many Native Australian ref? How many African ones, how many views from grassroots orgs?--] (]) 09:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
*More diverse representation from non-White, non-Western opinions/sources which might are poorly represented due to very issues of institutional racism discussed here. This article is victim of discussing the state of oppressed people by non-oppressed people. How many Native Australian ref? How many African ones, how many views from grassroots orgs?--] (]) 09:07, 25 December 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
How on earth does the ethnic/racial background of the author(s) of an article create value or merit within an article's content at all, and, if that is the case, how on earth is that not the explicit assignment of value ''a priori'' '''based on race to the race''', and so ironically in the reference article on racism? This seems to me a wholly inappropriate "to-do" item for any article, and especially so for "Racism". |
|
|
|
|
|
I absolutely agree with the unsigned comment above and think this list should be removed. There is no reason to discriminate authors based upon their identity or race. |
|
|
--] (]) 17:03, 21 December 2019 (UTC) |
|