| Revision as of 18:02, 21 February 2016 editDoug Weller (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Autopatrolled, Oversighters, Administrators264,124 edits →Recent edits: editor knows about WP:BRD having been told about it more than once, about 5 warnings on his talk page← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:07, 21 February 2016 edit undoWillsonSS3 (talk | contribs)215 edits →Recent editsNext edit → | ||
| Line 230: | Line 230: | ||
| :You made a bold edit and it was reverted. You should have discussed it then, not reverted yourself. Maunus only reverted you once, so he's not edit warring. Nor is the other editor who reverted you. You then reverted that editor. So you have now reverted twice. I've also reverted you and am asking you not to do it a 3rd time. Get agreement here. Complain at ] if you want to, but don't keep reverting or you put yourself at risk of being blocked. ] ] 17:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC) | :You made a bold edit and it was reverted. You should have discussed it then, not reverted yourself. Maunus only reverted you once, so he's not edit warring. Nor is the other editor who reverted you. You then reverted that editor. So you have now reverted twice. I've also reverted you and am asking you not to do it a 3rd time. Get agreement here. Complain at ] if you want to, but don't keep reverting or you put yourself at risk of being blocked. ] ] 17:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| :: looking at the history of both the main page and the talk page, Maunus has been involved in edit 'tug of war' with multiple editors for a long time. I'm just warning him beforehand. ] (]) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ::I should have looked at all the warnings on your talk page first. And you've been told about ] by another Administrator/senior editor, so you know that after you were reverted the first time your other edits can be seen as edit warring. You've had at least 5 warnings. You don't get 3RR as a right, another revert and I or someone else can report you for edit-warring. ] ] 18:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC) | ::I should have looked at all the warnings on your talk page first. And you've been told about ] by another Administrator/senior editor, so you know that after you were reverted the first time your other edits can be seen as edit warring. You've had at least 5 warnings. You don't get 3RR as a right, another revert and I or someone else can report you for edit-warring. ] ] 18:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC) | ||
| ::: I don't apreciate threats. And if you look even closer, I was reported, but it was my reporter, who got blocked. ] (]) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
| ===List of Definitions=== | ===List of Definitions=== | ||
Revision as of 18:07, 21 February 2016
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Racism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | Race baiting was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 09 September 2010 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Racism. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
|
|
 | The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
,_early_1900s,_Central_Africa,_Democratic_Republic_of_the_Congo,_Pende_people,_wood,_fiber_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08700.JPG){kind=small}
 | Racism was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (May 27, 2006, reviewed version). There are suggestions below for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
 | This Racism has been mentioned by a media organization: |
Practice vs. belief?
The lead currently characterizes racism as ideologies or practices that seek to cause or justify the unequal distribution of privileges or rights. I think this is not accurate, first of all on the basis that racism is a belief which may lead to such practices, but the practices themselves are not racism - they are racist practices. Second, I don't think it is necessarily true that all racism seeks to cause unequal distribution of privileges or rights. That may be a common outcome of racism, but isn't its inherent nature, which is simply the belief that members of of one race are intrinsically superior or inferior to members of another. For example, consider a fictional person who devotes her life to helping aboriginal people out of a belief that they are less intelligent than other races, and fights for equal rights for those people out of the belief that they should not be discriminated against on the grounds of their lower intelligence. Her beliefs would certainly constitute racism, but those beliefs wouldn't lead automatically to seeking the unequal distribution of privileges or rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.177.43.73 (talk) 15:02, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
Anti-White Racism Redirect
Why is it just a redirect and not its own page? I filled the page with a bunch of info (which took a day) and then I look back later and its all deleted. What is going on exactly?
This page is SJW dross. Abandon ship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1000:B07B:1FBE:362:AE77:D07:B4AA (talk) 21:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Maintaining this article
This article and White privilege are two of the most difficult pages to maintain on WP. Everyone has an opinion about race and racism. Please note that the article should NOT be about someone's opinion (see WP:NPOV). It is about a complex and specific subject that has been the topic of numerous academic studies and stories in popular publications. So, if you cannot cite at least one reputable source for a concept you want to add or change, please DO NOT make the addition of change. It's ALWAYS best to propose any substantive (as opposed to minor copy edits, or removal of vandalism or unsupported opinion) on this talk page BEFORE you make a change. We have many Wikipedians who are qualified experts on this topic; if you feel something in the article is questionable or needs further verification, DO feel free to tag it for attention (see WP:EX). Please note also that so-called "soft science" studies (e.g. social and behavioral sciences) are valid sources. Just because something is a subjective cognitive construct does not mean that it "doesn't exist" (said at the risk of sounding too phenomenological). Edit warring, folks making unsubstantiated claims and other folks trying to claim the topic is too subjective or non-existent are responsible for the current rambling nature of the article. I'd offer to do a re-org at some point but the edit wars that start over such actions make it too time-consuming for me right now.
As an aside, in reference to a discussion above, WP:NAD doesn't mean that dictionaries aren't valid sources for definition, it does mean that WP articles are NOT dictionary entries and should be encyclopedic, giving a more full explanation of a term or concept. Happy editing, everyone! Meclee (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Efforts simply to improve the English have been reverted without explanation. Hardly seems worth investing in when one person decides that he or she is the ultimate owner of the page. Avocats (talk) 09:22, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
- I am not aware of any such reversals, which is not to say it hasn't happened. There have been times when I've seen a lot of editorial controversy over the specific use of one word or another because of our society's sensitivity to issues of race. If it's taken a lot of effort for several editors to agree on a specific phrasing, a new editor coming to an article and changing a word could spark a reversal. I myself often restrain from editing this article specifically due to those circumstances. Meclee (talk) 18:33, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Editor Bias
There seems to be a huge push by many editors of this page to include one particular notion of racism (particularly the one tauted in the SJW setting) at the exclusion of all others. As an encyclopedia page, one should write articles with a neutral tone, reporting things based on source material and not inject our own thoughts and feelings into the material.
While racist systems are problematic, they are not the only meaningful representation of racism. The dictionary definition of racism is just as much a meaningful definition of the word as the one tauted by social justice warriors. Spirit469 (talk) 18:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
- I think you mean to say touted? Also, please, what is SJW? Meclee (talk) 00:03, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is based on reliable sources. A large body of recent literature happens to support the view of "Social Justice Warriors" whereas older narrow definitions based on a view of race as biology are clearly outdated and unsupported both by date and by current understandings of what race is, and how racism operates in society. Misplaced Pages is not here to give equal coverage to viewpoints that are not on an equal footing within the relevant literature. To say it bluntly, it is not the case that a page is more neutral because it more accurately reflects one's personal view of the matter. There is not "one dictionary definition" of the word racism, and the lead definition needs to be broad enough to include both all the academic definitions as well as all the dictionary definitions. That is why current race scholarship generally does not talk about racism as a single concept, but rather put it in the plural and talk about racisms.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
- citation needed. this is not an activism page. Nezi1111 (talk) 05:06, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- ″A large body of recent literature happens to support the view of "Social Justice Warriors" whereas older narrow definitions based on a view of race as biology are clearly outdated and unsupported both by date and by current understandings of what race is″
Racism has a traditional definition, agreed upon by multiple dictionaries as evidenced by the general usage of the term. It is relatively simple and concrete. Expanding the term to refer to a variety of theories and concepts does not clarify or improve understanding of anything. If you want to refer to a set of theories or concepts, you could call it race theory, or critical race theory, or racism theory. What's the point of redefining the term? How does that clarify or simplify anything, especially when the new definition has little to do with the original definition?
For a good example in scientific literature read up on centrifugal force vs. centripetal force. tldr version - Newton discovered that centrifugal force didn't really exist (as a force in the pure sense) and coined a new term to describe forces that cause an object to move along a curved path. Jbmcb (talk) 02:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It is absolutely clear that WIKI has biased gatekeepers when it comes to topics, issues etc.... that all belong under social science(a field that is absolutely subjective). To me it is just amazing, because it proofs how biased peopl are and can be. This page clearly has " Social justice warrior " types here. RACISM has a clear definition, but because SJW want to yell OPPRESSION and PROBLEMATIC everytime they see something, they need to redefine words, so that everything is racist or sexists or oppressive. Pls get help.
- That a simple definition exists of something does not mean that that definition is more accurate. Misplaced Pages articles summarize the literature on the topic. The literature on racism provides dozens of different theoretical approaches and definitions of the term. The article needs to cover them all. The narrow dictionary definitions are widely considered to be erroneous by scholars. Social sciences are not a single unified field, and they are not "absolutely subjective" - saying stuff like that makes you look ignorant. If you want to know more about racism you need to read the social science literature, because racism is a social phenomenon. I am a lover not a fighter, but if I were to be a warrior for something then social justice would absolutely be among the first things I would fight for - and it is kind of odd to me that anyone would use that label as an insult. But social justice is irrelevant here, as Misplaced Pages policy demands that we summarize the literature and avoid giving simplistic dictionary definitions.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Please consider every person who agrees with the previously established definition of the term as a person who could have written literature on racism, but chose not to since their view was already covered. Then take this number into account when you "summarize the literature on the topic". Just because it's newer doesn't mean it's truer, especially in a climate where it affects political agendas. I personally think more effort should be put into checking public opinion on what the term means, rather than studies that only a small minority of people even read. 213.89.32.84 (talk) 01:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
- Knowledge is not democratic. The silent majority in fact tends to be wrong and misinformed. Misplaced Pages is not in the business of writing what a majority of people think they know about the world. But what those who actually know about the world think the rest of the world ought to know. That is the business of an encyclopedia.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The term "warrior" is pretty obviously used mockingly since it refers to people whose fights boil down to heated arguments in front of a PC. I have consulted quite a few sociology and anthropology dictionaries and not one did report the pearl of newspeak "racism=prejudice+power". I have no doubt that somewhere there is some obscure tome that does indeed list it as its main definition of racism but it is safe to assume it is a niche opinion at best. 90.204.88.187 (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it isnt a widely shared definition, it is found in a particular branch of social science. But the definition we give in the first line needs to be broad enough to accommodate this and other of the words many definitions currently in use.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 02:58, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Improper Definition
The current definition of racism is wrong. According to it, limiting the amount of people of a certain race (like Asians or Jews) who tend to have greater economic privilege, based on race alone, from working in high-paying jobs would not be racist. Harvard's practice of limiting Jewish enrollment in the 20th century would not be racist, but anti-racist. This conflicts with the most relevant Wiktionary definition, "Prejudice or discrimination based upon race." I believe that we should adopt the Wiktionary definition instead of the un-cited, heavily opinionated and grammatically incorrect one which exists now: "Racism are ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges or rights among groups that are conceptualized as racially or ethnically different." Thoughts? As the definition has been changed several times in the recent past, I didn't want to edit the article, to avoid edit-warring, especially with maunus, who has repeatedly removed other definitions and added the current one.Zaixionito (talk) 00:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- We do not accept the wikitionary defition. Wiktionary is not a reliable source and wikipedia is not a dictionary (see WP:DICDEF). The definition needs to be wide enough to include all the definitions used in the relevant literature. Your claims about the consequences of the current definitions make no sense to me, it does not follow from the definition in the way that I read it. The Numerus clausus policy of Harvard and other universities (which today affect people of Asian descent) would be a way to limit the privileges of the group whose numbers are limited relative to the group in power - hence it is potentially racist. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- I agree the definition is not adequate. But taking a random dictionary definition is even less adequate. What someone needs to do (and what I will do eventually) is get some actual reliable recent academic secondary and tertiary non-dictionary sources about racism and list how they define the concept. The standard definition in the social sciences does not limit the concept to overt discrimination or to explicit ideas of racial superiority. Hencer, the definition here cannot do so either.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 00:31, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- However, any reputable dictionary, has a more reasonable definition. See the one cited in the article, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/racism , "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior." The definition that you're pushing is not inclusive, and only represents a very narrow, specific kind of racism.
- 1. Asians are more privileged in terms of educational attainment(which is measurable) than other races in the United States. Asians 25+ are about twice as likely to have bachelor's degrees than the general population. http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/asianamericans-graphics/
- 2. Denying Asians admittance into universities based on their race is a form of racism as regular people understand it. We could have a policy that only allowed 60% of currently admitted Asians into universities. This would decrease degree inequality, however, by bringing Asian degree attainment down to the level of the average American.
- 3. This is not racism, according to the given definition, because it does not cause unequal distribution of privileges or rights. It actually redistributes the privilege of education more fairly across groups. This is the opposite of racism, according to that definition.
- 4. Therefore, the definition is unacceptable.
- It's not a random dictionary definition; it's Oxford's. The purpose of Misplaced Pages isn't to define terms based on the beliefs of its users, but to give unbiased, widely-accepted, and neutral definitions. The solution isn't to randomly comb recent (and therefore controversial) academic sources until you find sources you like, especially if that definition can be proven wrong. Zaixionito (talk) 00:49, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- OXford is as random a dictionayr as any other, and its definitions carry no more scientific weight than any other dictionary (i.e. none). It is not objective or unbiased unless it represents the actual scientific usage of the concept. Your own original research on what is an istn racism accoriung to your own apparnelty quite limited perspective of the world is utterly irrelevant and merits no answer.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:32, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
- in the absence of one single inarguable definition, why not "Choose Your Adventure" approach. start off with the simplest possible definition, i.e. "racism is a form of prejudice based on race" and then reproduce a number of different definitions from different POV's, allow readers to make up their own minds.--Ryubyss (talk) 03:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that simplicity is the enemy of accuracy when dealing with complex concepts.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Maunus:, is the current lede satisfactory to you? I think it does precisely what User:Ryubyss is suggesting, and I think it does it quite well. I think it's pretty much perfect.--Shibbolethink 19:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think it can be simplified a little by getting rid of the "Justifies, causes or seeks to cause the unequal distribution of goods and privileges" part which is pretty convoluted and almost legalese. I think the "ideologies and practices" is necessary, but I think it would be more reader friendly to write "that justifies or causes discrimination of people based on racial or ethnic classification". or something along those lines.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 19:56, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Maunus:, is the current lede satisfactory to you? I think it does precisely what User:Ryubyss is suggesting, and I think it does it quite well. I think it's pretty much perfect.--Shibbolethink 19:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that simplicity is the enemy of accuracy when dealing with complex concepts.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 06:16, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 4 January 2016
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The article on Racism is clearly biased.
(1) It is absolutely inappropriate to list the concept of Color Blindness as a type of racism. It definitely must be separated into a separate section - separate from the types of racism.
(2) The article will remain incomplete until it reflects all the major types of racism - including the anti-white racism which has become an important phenomenon of the American life. 96.255.164.148 (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
- Your two requests seem to be self contradictory. Color blindness is widely considered one of the forms of racism in the literature. "Anti-white racism" is largely considered fictitious in the literature.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:11, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Not done: as you have not requested a specific change in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
More importantly, you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 18:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Definition
Do not change definition. This is wikipedia, not a Huffpost/FoxNews blogpost. thank you. Nezi1111 (talk) 13:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- That's very unhelpful. If you have a definition you think is better, put it here, with your sources, and explain why it's preferable. Don't attack other editors. Doug Weller talk 14:31, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just telling the individuals, who think their own interpretations of racism should be on the lede, Don't! because it isn't this is not a blog post. If you want to post opinions, go to fox news, huffpost, whatever. Nezi1111 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are currently the one thinking that only their interpretation/opinion should be in the lead and that definitions from reliable academic sources should be excluded. So maybe you should get a blog.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Please don't tell me to take it to the talk page while not being willing to discuss what's wrong with the lede you don't like. WP:LEAD makes it clear it should be a summary of the article, and looking at the article I'd say there's no justification for removing "ideologies". Doug Weller talk 17:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not attacking anyone, I'm just telling the individuals, who think their own interpretations of racism should be on the lede, Don't! because it isn't this is not a blog post. If you want to post opinions, go to fox news, huffpost, whatever. Nezi1111 (talk) 16:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- Garner, 2009 in the book "Racisms: An Introduction" p. 11 summarizes different definitions of racism and concludes by listing three necessary elements of any definition of racism: 1. a historical power relationship, 2. a set of ideas (an ideology), 3. forms of discrimination (practices). ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- is that the source used in the lead? NO? then keep your mits off of it. hate to get all aggressive but there's a pattern here. you 2 don't seem to get it what numerous people try to communicate to you. DON'T CHANGE THE DEFINITION. Nezi1111 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
- You are the one trying to change a definition that has been stable for a long while, adding a dictopnary definition instead of one that is supported by actual scholarly usage. So you keep your "mits off of it", untill you can provide a definition that is actually in line with how scholars define racism today. And Garners definition is not simply a definition - it is a summary of what relevant scholarly definitions have in commmon, which is exactly what the definition in this article should be.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 01:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Dictionaries are usually WP:Tertiary sources and they should be used minimally. There's an interesting essay at Misplaced Pages:Dictionaries as sources. We should be using scholarly sources. And dictionaries get it wrong too often on specialist subjects, I still remember one that defined archeaology as the study of prehistory. Doug Weller talk 09:20, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
your(incorrect) definition has been there for a while, because you 2 obsessively and continuously rewrite it to have it in line with your views. Also, source(s) for the CORRECT definition are reliable. Unlike your source who comes off more as a maverick or activist, to redefine the whole concept, than a well established respected source. Racism has a clear definition. If it's not what you want it to be? well you'll have to make peace with it. and don't give me this BS on how oxford should not be used. you're just trying to force your POV, even going as far as to trying to prove one of the most respected academic sources should be used minimally. Are you kidding me??. Nezi1111 (talk) 09:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- Mavericks and activists do not write introductions to complex academic topics that are published by Sage or Harvard press. Also what Garner is doing is summarizing other scholars definitions. That you are familiar with only one of the many definitions of racism does not mean that that definition is correct and all the others are not.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- And yet more attacks. This is nothing to do with personal views (although yours come through clearly), this is to do with how we write articles. We should not and do not depend upon dictionary definitions for our articles. Doug Weller talk 10:18, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- not accepting your POV over reliable sources is not an attack. because i sure as hell didn't call you names(at least i don't remember that i did). anyway. i can see where you're angling ith this. you're trying to get me blocked so you can rewrite the definition to be more in line with your views. arent you? Nezi1111 (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- You clearly dont know how we assess the reliability of sources here. Your view is in ing to line with the dictionary and you are trying to enforce that view over the dozens of others given in other dictionaries and by other scholars. Unfortunately the definition of the dictionary would be considered highly problematic by most contemporary scholars of racism (because it allows the perpetuation of kinds of racism that falls out of its narrow scope) - even if many people still use it as a common sense definition of the concept. So what you need to do here is provide a coherent argument (based in policy) for why we should privilege your favorite dictionary definition to the exclusion of other dictionary definitions and the definitions of scholars.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:22, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- I've commented on the editor's talk page, this doesn't belong here. Doug Weller talk 12:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
- not accepting your POV over reliable sources is not an attack. because i sure as hell didn't call you names(at least i don't remember that i did). anyway. i can see where you're angling ith this. you're trying to get me blocked so you can rewrite the definition to be more in line with your views. arent you? Nezi1111 (talk) 10:59, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. I was previously rather discouraged from commenting by the tone above. I agree that whilst a dictionary is a useful tool in arriving at definitions, it's not absolutely definitive. In this case it is quite clear that social effects that are not caused by hatred, or an assumption of superiority, are now part of the mainstream definition of racism; as, for instance, in institutional racism. I'm speaking here in the role of a potential reader, rather than a subject expert, who can spot that the OED definition is wanting without necessarily being familiar with the choice of better sources. William Avery (talk) 13:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
- Additionally all contemporary definitions acknowledge that racism does not need to rely on ideas of biological superiority, but can equally well operate on assumptions of cultural superiority.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Piping in here to say that I am shocked that the current definition in the introduction has replaced the old one as of 1st Jan 2016: "Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against an individual or group based on their race." That is much better than the current "Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. ". Racism doesn't need to have the embedded idea that their own race is superior at all. Steroid Maximus (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed that is an entirely inadequate definition, I had not noted that Neszi111 had inserted their definition again. The broader original definition has been reinserted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Great work on the current definition. Much better. Steroid Maximus (talk) 12:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed that is an entirely inadequate definition, I had not noted that Neszi111 had inserted their definition again. The broader original definition has been reinserted.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 17:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: Obvious WP:Sock violation. Possibly by user snunɐɯ·. Steroid Maximus only edited on 2 occasions last year, odd that he pops up just now to tip the balance of a consensus argument and has vanished again from editing since. Nezi1111 (talk) 13:18, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agree. Hopefully the editor I just reverted with come comment here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. DO NOT revert my comments without my approval. Nezi1111 (talk) 14:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Ryubyss please read the discussion in this section and the one above about the definition and join the discussion here. Please don't make unilateral chances to the lead. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:58, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2016
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I would suggest that the last words "used sexually" in the sentence below be replaced with something less ambiguous such as "sexually abused".
"Some 70,000 black African Mauritanians were expelled from Mauritania in the late 1980s. In the Sudan, black African captives in the civil war were often enslaved, and female prisoners were often used sexually. " Fourth paragraph under the 'Contemporary' section.
Jimangei (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2016
| This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Mads er racist
131.165.102.90 (talk) 09:01, 19 January 2016 (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. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:33, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070816151826/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com:80/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006636 to http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0006636
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130906070456/http://oregonstate.edu:80/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/las_casas/Aristotle-slavery.html to http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/distance_arc/las_casas/Aristotle-slavery.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091210021701/http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org:80/visit_see_victory_cfexhibition_infosheet.htm to http://www.royalnavalmuseum.org/visit_see_victory_cfexhibition_infosheet.htm
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110108042234/http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=731&issue_id=75 to http://www.fcnl.org/issues/item.php?item_id=731&issue_id=75
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140316015953/http://www.theage.com.au/world/fears-of-a-nofun-olympics-in-beijing-20080718-3hkb.html to http://www.theage.com.au/world/fears-of-a-nofun-olympics-in-beijing-20080718-3hkb.html
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130603113008/http://www.antigone.gr/en/library/files/educational_material/080407.doc to http://www.antigone.gr/en/library/files/educational_material/080407.doc
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090912010953/http://www.dailypress.com:80/bv-hispanics010320,0,4967522.story to http://www.dailypress.com/bv-hispanics010320,0,4967522.story
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100307234325/http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/12/race-riot-put-down-at-california-state.php to http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2006/12/race-riot-put-down-at-california-state.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—Talk to my owner:Online 21:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Miss-using source to redefine racism.
And the war for the right to redefine racism continues into the year 2016. I see at least 2 users misusing source material to support his/her own agenda which is in violation of WP:NPOV. Source(Oxford) given for definition says nothing about racism consisting of ideologies and practices that seek to justify or cause the unequal distribution of privileges or rights. the 2 REAL definitions given by oxford are:
- Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:
- The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races:
DO NOT MISSUSE source to promote your own agenda. Nezi1111 (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. The lead sentence should define and summarize the concept, preferably in a way that represents the bulk of the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Proposal for new section and lede
The issue of defining racism has become quite contentious. I propose we add a new first section titled "Definition and usage". This section would start with a statement that there exist many different definitions of racism. Then, several definitions could be listed as quotes direct form the sources. In this manner, future edits can also add an editor's "pet" definition as long as the quote is from a reliable source. The conclusion would give some examples of how the term has been used in the humanities, social sciences, and law--again keeping close to a reliable source.
Once this section has been developed, the lede can be re-written to also accommodate the fact that there are many, variable definitions. I welcome comments below but will start a sandbox mock-up of the section in the next few days. I will repost here with a link to the sandbox. Meclee (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Not a bad idea, but we still need an adequate lead sentence that summarizes what racism is. I think that's where most of the battleground behavior is coming from. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:16, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- True, a lot of this comes from people seeing the lead definition and being annoyed that it doesnt reflect their own favorite definition. There is not a good way to avoid that - unless we decide to ignore the rule that the first sentence should be a definition.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- I think the correct thing to do is to first find a gamut of sources with different definitions, preferably recent specialist academic sources, and then see how different they actually are and which of them appear to be more prominent. Then I think we should start by presenting all the definitions as a collection here on the talkpage and then have an RfC where we ask editors to rank them according to the weight they think each definition should be given in the article. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 18:20, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
- Good suggestions. I think the list and new section, once we have it, will point us to what we need for the lede. I'll post a sandbox link to such an approach when I get started. Meclee (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Recent edits
Now another editor has appeared and inserted a specific definition to the exclusion of the broader encompassing one - this time from the ADL. Again the definition they give excludes structural racism, aversion racism, "colorblind racism" and other established forms of racism that do not require explicity ideologies of superiority or acts of deliberate discrimination against individuals.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 15:36, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- wikipedia requires sources, not original research. your added definitions violate WP:Original. I suggest you follow wiki policy instead of edit warring especially on a controversial topic such as this. WillsonSS3 (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- You made a bold edit and it was reverted. You should have discussed it then, not reverted yourself. Maunus only reverted you once, so he's not edit warring. Nor is the other editor who reverted you. You then reverted that editor. So you have now reverted twice. I've also reverted you and am asking you not to do it a 3rd time. Get agreement here. Complain at WP:NOR if you want to, but don't keep reverting or you put yourself at risk of being blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- looking at the history of both the main page and the talk page, Maunus has been involved in edit 'tug of war' with multiple editors for a long time. I'm just warning him beforehand. WillsonSS3 (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- I should have looked at all the warnings on your talk page first. And you've been told about WP:BRD by another Administrator/senior editor, so you know that after you were reverted the first time your other edits can be seen as edit warring. You've had at least 5 warnings. You don't get 3RR as a right, another revert and I or someone else can report you for edit-warring. Doug Weller talk 18:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
- I don't apreciate threats. And if you look even closer, I was reported, but it was my reporter, who got blocked. WillsonSS3 (talk) 18:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
List of Definitions
- Garner, 2009 in the book "Racisms: An Introduction" p. 11 summarizes different definitions of racism and concludes by listing three necessary elements of any definition of racism: 1. a historical power relationship, 2. a set of ideas (an ideology), 3. forms of discrimination (practices).
- "Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another, that a person’s social and moral traits are predetermined by his or her inborn biological characteristics. Racial separatism is the belief, most of the time based on racism, that different races should remain segregated and apart from one another."
- "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior ...or...The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism"
Original research lead
The lead as it stood, Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify or cause unequal treatment of groups or individuals that are conceptualized as racially or ethnically different. is, to put it bluntly, BS. I see 3 sources given, including one by myself(the anti defamation league) and none of those sources describe it as a ideology that seeks to justify discriminatory practice. It is belief that some races are superior to others due to biological reasons. WillsonSS3 (talk) 17:32, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Categories:- Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class sociology articles
- Top-importance sociology articles
- B-Class Discrimination articles
- Top-importance Discrimination articles
- WikiProject Discrimination articles
- B-Class Ethnic groups articles
- Top-importance Ethnic groups articles
- WikiProject Ethnic groups articles
- B-Class Human rights articles
- Top-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- Mid-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class ethics articles
- Mid-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- B-Class law articles
- High-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class Crime-related articles
- High-importance Crime-related articles
- WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles
- B-Class history articles
- Top-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- B-Class history of science articles
- Mid-importance history of science articles
- WikiProject History of Science articles
- B-Class Anthropology articles
- High-importance Anthropology articles
- B-Class Evolutionary biology articles
- Mid-importance Evolutionary biology articles
- WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles
- Former good article nominees
- Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press