| Revision as of 23:36, 6 April 2016 editMeclee (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers8,699 edits removing old tasks← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:03, 24 January 2019 edit undoMsennello (talk | contribs)5 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| 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". | |||
Revision as of 18:03, 24 January 2019
- 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?--Inayity (talk) 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".