Talk:Racial color blindness/Archive 1

Another Point of View
Sometimes people see race blindness as a bad thing. --71.247.213.232 18:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sometimes people see affarmative action a bad thing. --Zslevi 21:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

19 March 2008
This is the kind of repugnant, biased filth I have come to expect on Wikipedia. This is not even tagged as violating NPOV when the thing reads like a race-warfare screed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.195.161.155 (talk) 05:10, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to fix the problem if you have reliable sources to do so.  Yahel  Guhan  23:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In society
"Color blindness makes no sense in a society where people are, on the basis of group membership alone, have been, and continue to be treated differently"

Should'nt this be "Color blindness does not exist in a society where people are, on the basis of group membership alone, have been, and continue to be treated differently"? It's this sentence which makes no sense. 65.197.28.158 (talk) 17:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I fixed it.  Yahel  Guhan  03:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article still presents anti-color-blindness viewpoints as facts. Citing sources for these viewpoints isn't enough. The article clearly needs an overhaul and I marked it as POV. --Zumbo (talk) 08:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't call them facts, it calls them criticisms, and then cites them to show that they do indeed exist. You dispute that they are criticisms? They are compliments?Yobmod (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't call them facts, it calls them criticisms, and then cites them to show that they do indeed exist. You dispute that they are criticisms? They are compliments?Yobmod (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't call them facts, it calls them criticisms, and then cites them to show that they do indeed exist. You dispute that they are criticisms? They are compliments?Yobmod (talk) 11:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Definition
The definition section is very hard to read. It contradicts itself in many places, likely due to poor editing from many different people. Also, I notice a significant deal of liberal bias, and/or other bias against color-blindness, violating the neutral point of view rule. In one place, it actually seems to imply that Martin Luther King Jr. was not in favor of color-blind policies, and if that is not what was meant, then I would again point out that the wording is very confusing and unclear. I feel that the section, if not the whole article, should be re-written from scratch.

unnamed guest, Nov. 20 2009. edited Nov. 21 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.3.9.1 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 22 November 2009


 * It would be more helpful if you were more specific. For example, where and how does it contradict itself? In what way is there liberal bias? (The article includes accounts of both "conservative" and "neoconservative" views). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:10, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Liberalism, Conservatism
"In the United States of America, the term 'color blindness' ... is associated with modern American liberalism."

"From an American conservative standpoint, color blindness is generally perceived as unhelpful to either socially dominant groups or minority groups."

These are uncited and ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.197.130.3 (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

25 February 2008
"White people often adhere to practices of colorblindness as a means to avoid the topic of racism and accusations of racism, and thus hide their true racial views.[5] Color blindness is the most effective tool of conservative movements in attacking legal rights gained by minority groups.[6]"

Wow haven't seen rascism and misrepresentation like that in a while. It looks as though it is saying that by denying rascism and promoting Dr. Kings vision of a color blind world, conservatives are rascists. How dare they not divide people by race and color. (Sarcasm)

This article is extremely biased and I am disgusted by it Fuglewarrior (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll echo your sentiment that the long quote is unnecessarily harsh. It implies whites are all racist (but that only some of them try to hide it) and that conservatives are all out to destroy the legal rights of minorities. The "often" there is also highly dubious - I've only known one person who said she doesn't notice other people's race, and she wasn't white. Finally I'll also agree with you that MLK's "I have a dream" speech was definitely advocating a race-blind society, and in the interest of balance this article ought to mention it instead of portraying race blindness merely as the propoganda of the evil white oppressors. 205.175.225.22 (talk) 22:32, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I love when people pretend to have sophisticated arguments but somehow are not educated enough to properly spell a good portion of the words they use. That being said, the topic of racism and color blindness is a complex one, that I believe this article addresses very well. We should also read the authors who are quoted in this article, rather than just being 'disgusted' with the article because you think that they called you a racist.
 * This article does NOT imply that all whites are racist. Take special note when reading this article. The fact is that ALL people do stereotype based on information that they take from the world around you. You cannot possibly look at world as 'color blind' because, when it comes down to it, if I put Barack Obama beside John McCain and ask you which one is the Black guy, you will know the answer. The point I'm trying to make is that 'color blindness' is nonsense. Racism, is however a very real problem in the world and blacks, for the most part, do not have the same advantages as whites. There is a very real problem with this.
 * We all stereotype. There is no way to get around that. It is a mental shortcut that we use thousands of times a day in making little and big decisions that we don't give our full cognitive attention to. We need to all LEARN how to make decisions based on much more than the color of skin a person has, and look at the messages that the person is intentionally sending, rather than the color of skin that they were given by their parents/grandparents/great-grandparents. This should be a lesson for minorities who think that they are discriminated against as well as dominant group members who think that they are color blind. The way that a person dresses, speaks, smiles, and carries themself is who they are. We can all send intentional messages that way. When somebody, regardless of ethnicity, dresses like a thug, walks down the street with a scowl, and speaks like a delinquent, it is no wonder that people judge them. I don't care what color your skin is; when I see a gangster walking down the street at night, I am very aware of what he is doing as he gets near to me, and I will activate my fight-or-flight response if he moves an inch in a way I don't like (truthfully, I recommend running).
 * Race is a social construction that has NO biologically consistent evidence. Some Black people are a lot more dark-skinned than others. Some people have mixed ethnicity and it is often very hard to determine what their ethnic makeup is. Race is a social construction, and is created through limited/lazy perception and twisting of language. "Black" is the term used for people of African descent as well as people from the Islands. "White" is used to describe a number of different people from countries ranging as wide as Russia to Australia, New Zealand to Alaskan. Does that really make a lot of sense? Does Black or White really give you any idea as to where that person has been raised? We typically use Asian to describe Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese (among others) but there are other countries in Asia who do not reflect the typical black hair and facial structure that is VERY loosely used to describe these people.
 * Racism is a social construction. Ethnicity and country of origin are MUCH more accurate ways to discover a persons birthplace. Looking at how a person PURPOSEFULLY presents themselves to the world is the best way to 'stereotype', because we will ALL do this. So don't blame all of your lifes problems on black-ness/brown-ness/yellow-ness/white-ness/purple-ness/male-ness/female-ness/gay-ness/straight-ness/tall-ness/short-ness ET CETERA, but purposefully put yourself out there (dress the way you want to be treated) and put a smile on your beautiful face. It's contagious, and it'll difuse almost any situation you find yourself in.
 * Sorry if this got a little long-winded, but I feel really strongly about this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBC13 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "if I put Barack Obama beside John McCain and ask you which one is the Black guy, you will know the answer." What do you mean? One is pink the other is olive-brown.. Or did you mean their hair-color? ;) Seriously, being able to physically distinguish people by their skin and hair color does not automatically imply racism.
 * "Color blindness" is probably a misleading term, especially in a country that use a "one drop rule" where fair skinned people (often with a lighter skin than many so called "white" Europeans) is called black because some small percentage of their ancestors were from Africa...  Berlusconi did have a valid point when he jokingly called Obama "...bello, giovane e abbronzato"; "Handsome, young and sun-tanned"; even if he manages to sound like a jerk (and Berlusconi is a political clown, often managing to insult people), Obama is no more "black" than many Italians are "black". If we didn't know the American stereotype about "blackness" (that is more about hair texture and shape of facial features, than color)  many would consider him to be Olive skinned (the skin color common in the Mediterranean and Middle East).
 * Maybe I'm "color-blind" myself, but I'm often confused when someones "color" is suddenly an issue in American films and tv-series; I usually think of them as "Americans" not "black". If I have to describe a so called "black" american actor; I would think of them as dark or brown (rarely black since most "black Americans" are far from black; only somewhat darker than I can get in the summer) and curly haired; just as I would describe someone else as red-haired, blonde, long-haired and other (semi-)permanent distinguishable features...  Qvasi (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Racism is a social construction. Ethnicity and country of origin are MUCH more accurate ways to discover a persons birthplace. Looking at how a person PURPOSEFULLY presents themselves to the world is the best way to 'stereotype', because we will ALL do this. So don't blame all of your lifes problems on black-ness/brown-ness/yellow-ness/white-ness/purple-ness/male-ness/female-ness/gay-ness/straight-ness/tall-ness/short-ness ET CETERA, but purposefully put yourself out there (dress the way you want to be treated) and put a smile on your beautiful face. It's contagious, and it'll difuse almost any situation you find yourself in.
 * Sorry if this got a little long-winded, but I feel really strongly about this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RBC13 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * "if I put Barack Obama beside John McCain and ask you which one is the Black guy, you will know the answer." What do you mean? One is pink the other is olive-brown.. Or did you mean their hair-color? ;) Seriously, being able to physically distinguish people by their skin and hair color does not automatically imply racism.
 * "Color blindness" is probably a misleading term, especially in a country that use a "one drop rule" where fair skinned people (often with a lighter skin than many so called "white" Europeans) is called black because some small percentage of their ancestors were from Africa...  Berlusconi did have a valid point when he jokingly called Obama "...bello, giovane e abbronzato"; "Handsome, young and sun-tanned"; even if he manages to sound like a jerk (and Berlusconi is a political clown, often managing to insult people), Obama is no more "black" than many Italians are "black". If we didn't know the American stereotype about "blackness" (that is more about hair texture and shape of facial features, than color)  many would consider him to be Olive skinned (the skin color common in the Mediterranean and Middle East).
 * Maybe I'm "color-blind" myself, but I'm often confused when someones "color" is suddenly an issue in American films and tv-series; I usually think of them as "Americans" not "black". If I have to describe a so called "black" american actor; I would think of them as dark or brown (rarely black since most "black Americans" are far from black; only somewhat darker than I can get in the summer) and curly haired; just as I would describe someone else as red-haired, blonde, long-haired and other (semi-)permanent distinguishable features...  Qvasi (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * "Color blindness" is probably a misleading term, especially in a country that use a "one drop rule" where fair skinned people (often with a lighter skin than many so called "white" Europeans) is called black because some small percentage of their ancestors were from Africa...  Berlusconi did have a valid point when he jokingly called Obama "...bello, giovane e abbronzato"; "Handsome, young and sun-tanned"; even if he manages to sound like a jerk (and Berlusconi is a political clown, often managing to insult people), Obama is no more "black" than many Italians are "black". If we didn't know the American stereotype about "blackness" (that is more about hair texture and shape of facial features, than color)  many would consider him to be Olive skinned (the skin color common in the Mediterranean and Middle East).
 * Maybe I'm "color-blind" myself, but I'm often confused when someones "color" is suddenly an issue in American films and tv-series; I usually think of them as "Americans" not "black". If I have to describe a so called "black" american actor; I would think of them as dark or brown (rarely black since most "black Americans" are far from black; only somewhat darker than I can get in the summer) and curly haired; just as I would describe someone else as red-haired, blonde, long-haired and other (semi-)permanent distinguishable features...  Qvasi (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm "color-blind" myself, but I'm often confused when someones "color" is suddenly an issue in American films and tv-series; I usually think of them as "Americans" not "black". If I have to describe a so called "black" american actor; I would think of them as dark or brown (rarely black since most "black Americans" are far from black; only somewhat darker than I can get in the summer) and curly haired; just as I would describe someone else as red-haired, blonde, long-haired and other (semi-)permanent distinguishable features...  Qvasi (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm "color-blind" myself, but I'm often confused when someones "color" is suddenly an issue in American films and tv-series; I usually think of them as "Americans" not "black". If I have to describe a so called "black" american actor; I would think of them as dark or brown (rarely black since most "black Americans" are far from black; only somewhat darker than I can get in the summer) and curly haired; just as I would describe someone else as red-haired, blonde, long-haired and other (semi-)permanent distinguishable features...  Qvasi (talk) 12:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Geographic scope
I think this article don't write in worldwide views. The reason is below.

In most of the UK/Commonwealth (as far as I know, I only live in Hongkong), color blindness (or equal opportunity) is actually accepted way to battle direct or indirect discrimination (unless that discrimination can be reasonably justified). This is only USA labels/tags color blindness (or equal opportunity) as Right Wing or conservative. That kind of labeling or tagging may work well within the context of USA (I really don't know), but it is nowhere acceptable in UK/Commonwealth. On the other hand, US-style affirmative action is widely accepted as indirect discrimination in UK/Commonwealth, which is not tolerated by those who see Human Rights as a must. I think some effort is needed to make this article to represent worldwide views. --Kittyhawk2 (talk) 18:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree. FonsScientiae (talk) 17:14, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Support and Criticism section
There shouldn't be different sections for support and criticism. See:Wikipedia:Criticism FonsScientiae (talk) 12:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Inheritance Claim
I have add a section to the first paragraph:

"argues that this inheritance is unlikely to be forthcoming if one's ancestors were slaves, and privileges whiteness, maleness, and heterosexuality"

to this I have added a section regarding the inheritance tax was is designed to prevent wealth transfer. If we are to imply the notion that privileges are forthcoming because of "whiteness, maleness, and heterosexuality" then we must also show the side that tries to prevent that and that it is false to say one generations wealth is transferred intact to the next generation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.210.16.10 (talk) 17:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Um What does that add to the conversation? How does the fact that there exists an inheritance tax [which does not take into account race or unique racial experiences] influence anything? You're implying that this inheritance tax exists solely to tax white men, which is not the case; access to an inheritance has historically been denied to certain demographics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.28.178.52 (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Alternatives section
It is unfair to claim that whites benefit from a "system biased in their favor." "Researcher Jennifer Simpson proposed that "in setting aside color blindness, Whites must learn to see, accept, and experience their lives as raced and to explore the possibility that some of the good, ease, or rewards they have experienced have not been solely the result of hard work and just effort but of a system biased in their favor.""

I argue that wherever there is a numerical majority of any race, that race will dominate the region's resources simply because of statistical probability; this does not constitute an intentional and malevolent bias by one race towards another. It is entirely possible that when and if another race becomes the numerical majority, then that new racial majority will control most of the resources. --- Furthermore, even if their is "a system biased in their favor" for any given race, it is natural for people who share the same culture, ancestry and history to congregate together, and this is not an inherently negative or evil thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.3.218.123 (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Other uses
Often the term is used in non-political contexts, such as in the phrase "love is colorblind". I added a brief mention of this to the article; would love it if someone could expand it further, thanks! Stonemason89 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this should be in another article? This article specifically pretains to the term in regards to race so I don't see the need to point out that it is used in other realms.  Seems like this would be more appropriate in the color blindness(sight) article or it could be its own article along with other terms like seeing the world in "rose colored glasses." UselessToRemain (talk) 17:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "love is colourblind" is clearly used in this context, you are saying the phrase pertains literally to a medical condition of a concept, which is at odds with the common use of this term irrelevant of how nonsensical your use of it is. I must point out how willfully ignorant that appears, which is tragic considering the topic of the article, the seriousness of it and your place in trying to influencing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.6.161 (talk) 23:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Scope
Too much U.S and not enough information on other countries. Also this article seems to be wrote in a rather "all whites are racist point of view", please fix. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.51.50 (talk) 21:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Move
Are there any objections to moving this article to Color blindness (race)? I think this is the more common term used for the concept.  Yahel  Guhan  06:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, it should be "Racial color blindness in the United States". —User 000 name 02:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Kimmel (2008)
It's not clear what this work has to do with racial colorblindness, so I've removed it from the further reading section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:10, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Heritage Foundation, Federalist
Since when are The Heritage Foundation and The Federalist considered reliable sources on topics of sociology on general, and race relations in particular? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:43, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

The text relating to Carl Cohen (professor), sourced only to The Heritage Foundation, has been removed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:07, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Entertainment industry
I'm not too sure about this recent addition. A lot of it looks like improper synthesis, as in where a single journal article is used as evidence for "increasing disagreement with" color-blind practices. The weasel wording "some people in the entertainment world" is evidently not based on any source, and Slate seems a poor choice for any factual claims about what goes on in "Most of Hollywood". This all seems very "recentist", and I'm concerned about undue weight. I'd suggest moving most of these sources to "Further reading", or at least getting rid of the unsupported generalizations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:22, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, I was assigned to edit this section for a class, and before I edited it the article said that undue weight was placed on one minority opinion, so I was trying to provide more opinions and sources to give weight to multiple ideas. I thought what I did was okay, but I guess it wasn't, so I'm sorry. Of course, you weren't very nice in criticizing my writing, but that's fine. So if you can make it better, go ahead! I was trying to solve a problem that this article had that you hadn't fixed. I've done my assignment, so I'll leave now. Also, more people are going to be editing this article because it is a group project, so have fun with that! Should've fixed the article when you had the chance, buddy. Bye!
 * -Miranda Robinson 13 November 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.242.223.253 (talk) 23:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia certainly appreciates your efforts to improve the article. However, please be aware that long-standing practice has established certain core content policies, which include that editors should not • combine material from different sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly put forward by any source, or
 * Wikipedia certainly appreciates your efforts to improve the article. However, please be aware that long-standing practice has established certain core content policies, which include that editors should not • combine material from different sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly put forward by any source, or

• interpret the meaning of any source for themselves.

• In short, we don't go beyond what is directly stated in the sources. Naturally, not every article will be completely faithful to these principles at all times, but that is what we are aiming for. More about how Wikipedia operates is summarized under the Five pillars. Best of luck with your studies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:07, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent changes: November 2017
For some reason, user Sangdeboeuf has taken it upon her/himself to police this article to an extreme level. S/he seems intent on deleting whole sections of useful, properly cited information to the tune of 22,000 words, including removing everything by certain key authors in the colorblindness literature. If people agree that Support/Criticism make for a bad article structure (even though someone added them to strive for neutrality), then Sangdeboeuf could rewrite the provided sources in what s/he views to be better expressions of relative weight.

However, the colorblindess DEBATE as it exists today is still unsettled, with multiple viewpoints, so I do not agree that any of the information as a whole should be removed. Having an article on colorblindness with Wilson, Carr, Thomas, and other prominent thinkers who work on these issues is a transparent effort effort to silence important voices. If Sangdeboeuf thinks the article can be better, s/he needs to wait for useful discussion on how it can be improved or make some actual effort to improve it on a sentence-by-sentence basis, rather than deleting the most important authors from the article entirely. I'm going to restore the old version again, and if it disappears wholesale again, I will be forced to report violations of Wikipedia's editing policies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.124.163.81 (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2017
 * I'll try to respond to some of the points raised here: • The colorblindess DEBATE as it exists today is still unsettled – that appears to be your own analysis of the issue. What reliable, published sources support this conclusion? Also, please don't type in all capital letters, as it is considered rude, not to mention the sign of a crank.

• Wilson, Carr, Thomas, and other prominent thinkers – what reliable, secondary sources support the view that these authors are important to the debate?

• S/he needs to wait for useful discussion on how it can be improved or make some actual effort to improve it on a sentence-by-sentence basis, rather than deleting the most important authors from the article entirely – not true at all. Bold edits are perfectly legitimate. I judged for myself that the best way to improve the article was to remove a significant chunk of poorly-sourced and otherwise misleading info. Once again, which sources support the conclusion that these are the most important authors? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are being unnecessarily condescending. I am not a crank or being rude, and I haven't made any such comments.  Many people consider all-caps of one word to be the equivalent of italics, since that's what it grammatically is.  If you'd prefer to change the word with caps in it to italics to consider my meaning more carefully, you have my permission to do so.  I simply don't have the technological savvy to use italics in this kind of post, so please be careful what you infer.
 * Maybe it will help if I try to restate my overall point. The questions you are asking are completely legitimate ones that deserve ongoing discussion of multiple users and experts in this area.  My objection to the deletion of such a massive amount of information is that it was done without any discussion at all, and without others' chance to alter the flaws you saw with the article.  I am actually not attempting to impose "my own analysis" at all, since I would have written this page very differently and have not contributed to it in any way other than to stave off such a massive deletion of worthwhile information.  I am simply objecting to your "bold deletion" that crushes conversation and starts the work of this article over entirely (as opposed to a more acceptable "bold edit" that would be viewable by people not scrolling through the history bar).  Please either (a) open your points for discussion instead of simply deleting anything you find tangentially close to an objectionable point, or (b) edit more carefully to fix some of the problems you point out without just deleting all of that useful information from the page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:4301:9FE0:44CA:1932:E402:E9F8 (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I dispute that the information is useful at all. At least, the neutrality problems it creates outweigh whatever usefulness it may have. Some examples: —What "many"? Which "critics"? What is "the negative past"? Who is being quoted here and why is the quote significant?
 * I dispute that the information is useful at all. At least, the neutrality problems it creates outweigh whatever usefulness it may have. Some examples: —What "many"? Which "critics"? What is "the negative past"? Who is being quoted here and why is the quote significant?

—Which "experiences"? "Meaning" for whom? "Valuable" to whom? "Whether or not who [is] oppressed"?

—According to whom? What is the source of this quote?

—Which "proponents"? What exactly do they believe? Why is John Roberts significant? Being Chief Justice does not automatically make one an expert on sociology, discrimination, or race relations.

—Ditto. Being black and a Supreme Court Justice does not automatically make one an expert on race relations. Why is his opinion significant?

—How is this relevant?

—Why are Wilson's views significant?

—Why are Carr's views significant?

—Why are Wildman's views significant?

—How is this relevant?

—What is the source of this statement? —How are these events connected with racial color blindness?

—Who are these authors and why are they significant?

—Why is Marc H. Morial significant? Who are these "many critics"? What "people" are being referred to? There are numerous other examples of opinions and interpretations, with or without attribution to the source, being stated flatly with no context. A great deal is simply improper synthesis. Evidently this article has been assigned recently to several student editors, who have introduced a number of unsupported generalizations based solely on original interpretation of primary sources. Frankly, the current state of the article is simply atrocious, and I believe the best way to improve it is indeed to start over with only the most high-quality sources, even if it means cutting a significant portion of text. More can be added as reliable sources are found, evaluated, and properly summarized. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:47, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'll chime in here. It seems possible that student editors have contributed to this article, so that some clarification and careful rearrangment would be wonderful.  However, student editors are not necessarily wrong any more than the typical secondary or tertiary sources are.  Most importantly, this article is in need of editing based on useful secondary or tertiary sources or an expert or two in the field.    Although I think Sangdeboeuf's edits are well-intentioned, I don't think Sangdeboeuf knows enough about racial color-blindness to be making these calls alone.  It will take a more concerted effort, and I unfortunately don't have the time to devote to it.  To make my point, I'll reply to the above bullets: —"Many" and "critics" clearly refer, in introductory fashion, to the article below. If you think that's unclear, put "below" in parentheses rather than deleting whole sentences.  "The negative past" is a fairly clear statement of common knowledge, but if you think it's not clear or neutral enough, then clarify.  The quote is cited and pretty clearly in reference to the previous sentence.

—The sentence structure here could definitely use work, but it seems like you are being intentionally difficult. Which precise human experiences relate to race cannot be completely elaborated (nor should they be on an article on a different subject). "Who" is fairly clearly people who have or experience race; if you're not familiar with the sociological literature on race, check out its page or the citations to those sentences (or wait for an editor to this page who does know it to clarify the statements). Now what I would say about these sentences is that they may not be relevant to the introduction, and they are all on one side of the debate.

—Likely the last source. It's a common practice in many disciplines, like sociology, not to cite every sentence if they all refer to the same source. Check it before you delete.

—Agreed that "proponents" should be cited, or that the later section should be referenced. As for the Chief Justice question, the problem is that the colorblindness debate is not just a sociological one. It centers primarily on law and legal experts, and sociological criticism thereof. If the first sentence of the article were reframed, all of that would be clear. This is the reason you should only edit an article if you are familiar with the subject matter; otherwise, you won't catch where the misunderstanding is.

—Ditto.

—It's an example of colorblind policies, which are the subject of the debate.

—I'm tempted not to respond; I don't see how certain qualifications make one significant or not to citation. It should be enough that the actual views relate to the subject at hand. But in this case, I'll reply: The article actually expressly lists qualifications (which maybe should be irrelevant): Wilson is a prominent race scholar at Harvard who framed the initial debate on colorblindness and affirmative action. What other qualifications might he need?

—Similar points. If your concern is that people are named rather than only cited, take out the names and summarize their points.

—Same things.

—See the immediately prior and immediately following sentences.

—The sentence should have a citation, true, but my guess is that it goes with the last sentence referencing "critics," and that someone inserted something in between. Try checking. —Read the immediately preceding sentence.

—Already addressed.

—Seriously, the article is arranged as a debate between critics and supporters. Many of the prominent critics are named throughout. Morial, in that exact sentence, is presented as an example of one. That's why he's important. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.193.89.194 (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2017
 * Sorry, but none of that addresses the specific point I raised that these are mostly unsupported generalizations. I'm not asking for a citation to every sentence, but several paragraphs in the article have no citations at all. When I'm asking why someone is important to this topic, I'm asking for evidence based on published sources, not just one user's opinion. Being quoted in an academic secondary source on this specific topic would do nicely. Most importantly, it hasn't been shown that any of the newly added material is directly supported by any source. It's not up to me to "clarify" poorly-sourced information that's probably just original research anyway; it's up to those seeking to include disputed material to show that it belongs in the article at all, and to show that challenged material is supported by a reliable source. That can't happen until at least some of the statements quoted here are shown to be not just original evaluation and interpretation by Wiki editors. Whether student editors are not necessarily wrong any more than the typical secondary or tertiary sources are is beside the point. Relying on published sources is long-standing Wiki practice, as reflected in written content policies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the basic problem here is that you are seeking to edit an article that you have no real expertise on and are unwilling to put it any effort. It is in fact up to you as an editor to try to differentiate between original research and poor statements of encyclopedic knowledge (like overgeneralization).  If a whole paragraph seems like an overgeneralization because a student writes "most critics" without proof of that, and a simply change to "one critic" or a named critic would make the entire paragraph useful and accurate, then the problem is stylistic and grammatical, not one of original research.  Original research refers to using Wikipedia as its own primary source for publication, not grammatical exaggerations of points made by cited primary sources.  You yourself differentiate between original research and stylistic problems.  Both are indeed problems to be fixed, but the latter calls for thoughtful revision. Every example you listed above has properly cited material.  If there are paragraphs that in fact have no citations (and are not simply incorrectly cited, as some of them in this article are), maybe people wouldn't object to those being deleted.  If the problem is that there are not enough secondary sources in the article, call for them via the talk page and template messages.  A lack of secondary sources is not the same thing as original research.  Likewise, the kinds of qualifications and established prominence that you seem to be looking for via secondary sources is not required of everything said in a Wikipedia article.  Secondary sources are certainly desirable to organize an article and make sure everything that is there should be, but relevant primary sources are welcome and crucially important in many articles, as long as they are not misused (e.g., interpreted without use of a secondary source). All of the examples you reference in the bullets above are appropriate sources, so the question you ought to be posing is how they ought to be stated in the article.  I have to agree that the solution is to revise the article rather than simply deleting it completely.  Even if someone comes along with a useful secondary source or two and ends up deleting or replacing some of the information, shouldn't people be able to use the information that is here in the meantime?  Isn't it dangerous in terms of neutrality to simply delete large amounts of information because it is not (yet) perfectly presented?  Wikipedia's policy is not to simply delete all things that do not immediately and unequivocally conform to its guidelines.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.157.248 (talk) 02:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * See Editing policy: "On a Wikipedia a lack of content is better than misleading or false content". Weasel words and undue emphasis on certain viewpoints are misleading to the reader; they create the impression of an established expert or public consensus that does not exist. The difference between "one critic" and "(many) critics" is a stark change in meaning; it has as much to do with grammar and style as Donald Drumpf inflating his net worth based on his "feelings". Anyone who doesn't grasp that probably has no business editing an encyclopedia. Extrapolating from a primary source (an author's statement of opinion) in order to generalize about "these critics", "many people", "proponents believe", etc. is indeed original research; see No original research: "All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors". Changing such statements to simple in-text attribution to the particular author does not eliminate the problem of due weight: "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". It is yet to be shown that the above-mentioned authors are "prominent" in the published literature in any way (saying that Supreme Court Justices are significant because the topic has legal dimensions dodges the question entirely; politically-appointed justices are not the same as published legal experts). Once again, the burden to achieve consensus for the above material/sources is on those saying that they should be in the article. If the material is "encyclopedic" and accurate, then it should be trivial to demonstrate that fact with citations to published, reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think you are so focused on defending yourself and citing the rules (often in conflation or out of context) that you really are just missing the point. Nobody above has claimed that the information ought to stay exactly as is, so that misleading information is better than none.  The point the I'm seeing is that editing poor writing can fix most of the problems of this article pretty easily, while deleting everything just causes someone to start over without even the help of the existing information. Some important points: First, Wikipedia's policies themselves recognize that amateur writing errors like overgeneralizations are different from original research and synthesis. Second, you really seem hung up on secondary sources supporting the prominence of all the information in this article, but the idea that sources cannot be presented in disproportion to their prominence does not mean that they need to be proven "prominent" in the first place based on some subjective standard (except for not being part of a "tiny minority," according to the guidelines). They do have to be "reliable," but all of the sources cited in your comments fit the reliability criteria.  That's why everyone above is disagreeing when you ask for proof that some source is sufficiently "significant." Third, even Wilson, Thomas, Roberts, and other quoted people that you keep mentioned are cited by reliable, secondary sources--another reason it is better to edit carefully and attentively rather than simply removing large blocs of information. Fourth, it is not always "trivial" for people to get access to review articles and textbooks; it's not always true that such sources exist for every topic, that they are widespread and easy to find, or that every editor can afford to pay the high cost to access them (a particular ironic assumption, given the subject of this article). Fifth, the point is not how different "one" from "many" critics is, but how extensive the edits might need to be in such a case to improve the article: a single word that can be easily identified as a common writing error.  Sixth, you have gotten so defensive that you are being impolite, throwing insults, and using bold and quotations all over the place (again ironic, since you are the one who first started accusing people of being cranks).  Really, it's not that difficult to imagine that some of the information in the 20,000 words you deleted without any comment were valuable enough to keep and edit. If you want some support from the rules themselves, "Perfection is not required: Wikipedia is a work in progress."  More importantly, "Instead of removing article content that is poorly presented, consider cleaning up the writing, formatting or sourcing on the spot, or tagging it as necessary. If you think an article needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do so, but it is best to leave a comment about why you made the changes on the article's talk page."  The overarching Editing policy page (where those quotes came from) have plenty of other recommendations as opposed to just removing information.  And if you had explained your removal ahead of time via the Talk page and/or kept some of the information in either the Article or the Talk page, it sounds like this disagreement wouldn't have happened. I will close with a suggestion.  If you don't have the time or knowledge to edit a particular page, flag the places you think need editing with templates.  That's what they are for.  They call for other editors to help, and in the meantime while the article is imperfect, they remind users to be careful for certain flaws.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.23.157.248 (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Overgeneralization is not a writing error, but a thinking error; see Hasty generalization. Beyond that, there's nothing more for me to add; if anyone can provide the types of sources I mentioned, feel free to do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

comment - i agree with that the article has a serious nnpov "drift", towards a "(contemporary-)sociologically correct" view; the weakness of the treatment of classic liberal/enlightenment ideals of equality; weakness & limited treatment of "dissenting" opinions (with counter-arguements neatly emplaced); & the "absolute certainties" in the way the pro-"correct opinion" material is handled, are blatantly biased. i can get about a thousand "dissenting opinions" from the conservative & libertarian (& classical liberal) perspective; & while this is not my usual "go to" part of the ideological spectrum, it should be included. Lx 121 (talk) 19:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If there are additional secondary and tertiary sources that provide a balanced overview, feel free to suggest them. But please note that NPOV does not mean representing "both sides" equally; instead, we should treat opposing opinions with due weight, preferring more scholarly sources, such as textbooks and academic journals, over ideologically-driven ones such as opinion columnists. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Americanism and alternative, critiques
Firstly, the article is obviously about the United States. It's a discussion of an internal policy over there. References are made to American scholars and chief justices. The situation of the people in that particular country is given high regard, while the billions of people in other countries not given any consideration at all.

Secondly, the article fails to note the strongest opponents of racial colour blindness are racists and the extreme-right. The KKK and neo-nazi groups are on record with their belief of treating people differently by race. 106.39.146.14 (talk) 17:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please provide a reliable, secondary source that supports the relevance of the KKK, etc. to this particular issue. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the topic is relevant mainly to the United States (and international anti-racist movements) is explained clearly in the article; I've removed the globalize template accordingly. If there are reliable sources that examine the topic in relation to other countries, feel free to suggest them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that this article is deeply "America-centric", among other problems. Almost everything in the article is about the United States, except a tiny mention of South Africa in a study. The rest of the world has racial issues too. That makes 2:1, and before you say it, no, I am not the same person who originally tagged it & commented above. Go do all the sockpuppet investigating you want. You should not be removing tags added by other editors, especially when they are on articles that you have edited extensively, and the tag is criticizing your work. That is WP:OWN and you need to stop doing it. I am restoring the tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.195.145 (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Since no specific, concrete suggestions for fixing the "America-centric" problem have been offered, I've removed the globalize template. Cleanup templates are meant to be a temporary way of alerting editors to specific problems and proposed fixes, not a permanent badge of shame. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:46, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Recent changes
I've expanded the literature on this page to include recent research on the use of color blind ideology in the educational sphere. I understand this page has an American-centric tilt and the bias of the page is under dispute, so feel free to review the new additions for reliable sources and a balanced overview. Before making any Bold edits please discuss possible ways of improving the information if necessary. I'm a new student editor so please dialogue before deleting entire contributions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConMadden (talk • contribs) 07:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Additional sources
[in France]

also, on "universalism" as a necessary piece of this puzzle (which is not adequately defined in Wikipedia): — Preceding unsigned comment added by B802818827 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 26 September 2021 (UTC)
 * https://www.brookings.edu/articles/race-policy-in-france/
 * https://hir.harvard.edu/color-blind-frances-approach-to-race/
 * https://www.jstor.org/stable/3090581

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2021 and 7 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SOAMMS.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 10 March 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: move to Racial color blindness per 4-1 consensus in favour of natural disambiguation. Editors participating in this discussion have considered and rebutted the argument by BarrelProof that no sources use the phrase "Racial color blindness". (closed by non-admin page mover) feminist (talk) Слава Україні! 14:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Color blindness (racial classification) → Color blindness (race) – Revert to undiscussed move – Special:Permalink/931504425.&#32;Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)


 * , the current disambiguator seems more appropriate. Please take it to WP:REQMOVE to discuss with the Wikipedia community. Also, it is not a recent undiscussed move, but the page was moved in 2019 (26 months ago) by . TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * See this search for precedence of using "racial classification" as a disambiguation. "Race" could be confusing since it could refer to a concept of racing. However, looking back, "racial classification" may not be appropriate since it seems to refer to a person's race, and color blindness is not a race. Maybe a different disambiguator needs to be used other than "race" or "racial classification". Steel1943  (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I only see two instances of "racial classification" used as a disambiguator, in the cases of "brown" and "bronze". As you say, color blindness is not a racial classification. Race is the, making the proposed title more descriptive as well as concise. If it's too ambiguous with regard to , maybe a move back to the original title Racial color blindness would be the best option. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * For the record then, oppose proposed move per my above statmement regarding using "race" as a disambiguator for this topic. However, as stated above, I'm also questioning the status quo, even though I'm the one in 2019 who put the article where it currently sits. Maybe there's a better/clearer disambiguator? Steel1943  (talk) 16:58, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * How about the naturally disambiguated title Racial color blindness, with or without a hyphen? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Racial color blindness seems like a good option to me. –– FormalDude  talk  02:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Steel1943  (talk) 14:46, 13 March 2022 (UTC)5
 * Move to Racial color blindness per FormalDude. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 02:56, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Move to Color blindness (public policy) or Color blindness (policy) or Color blindness (social policy) or Color blindness in public policy or Racial color blindness in law and education: At its core, the article is about a policy issue in law and education – the question of whether policies should explicitly include differentiation by race. To some extent the article is also about a particular phrase as much as it is about a principle –  e.g., it lists all U.S. Supreme Court decisions that include the phrase "color blindness". It also only really considers law and education as its context. I don't think the other suggested titles –  especially "Racial color blindness" –  identify the topic with sufficient clarity. The concept of color is so closely tied to the concept of race that the phrase "Racial color blindness" –  when used by itself without context –  seems almost nonsensical. I suspect there are no reliable sources that actually use the phrase "Racial color blindness" –  at least by itself. A merge with Constitutional colorblindness (in one direction or the other) should also be considered. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The concept has been referred to as "racial color blindness" by Harvard and the American Psychological Association. –– FormalDude  talk  20:02, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting – I'm glad to hear it's not a Wikipedia invention. —&#8288;&#8202;&#8288;BarrelProof (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "Racial color blindness" returns over 900 results on Google Scholar. Not sure why anyone would think it's a Wikipedia invention. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2022 (UTC)