Talk:Racism/Archive 20

Very anti-white
I find this article to be very negative against white people - it doesn't go into racism prevalent in other cultures or ethnicities (black supremacism, racism in Asia, etc) which all appear on Wikipedia as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.230.10.105 (talk) 17:13, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 May 2012
This page is full of non-truth and should be unlocked for edit by anyone so those with truth have just as much chance to edit as those with the protected untruths.

107.0.92.102 (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: The "edit semi-protected" template should not be used to request that the page be unlocked. For that, I recommend going to requests for page protection. Otherwise, if you'd like to edit this article, you can create an account and become an "autoconfirmed" user, which is fairly easy to do. Please feel free to contact me on my talk page if you have questions. ~Adjwilley (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Racism and Racial Discrimination are Completely Different Concepts
Webster's dictionary defines racism as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." Someone can hold a racist world-view without being engaged in the practice of racial discrimination. Can we please get the article's definition of racism to reflect this? 98.67.251.127 (talk) 01:47, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes please. I've marked the article as disputed untill it provides an adequate definition of the topic - supported by a wider range of scholarship.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:14, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, Maunus, clearly I needed to review a bit before my edit. Sorry. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead Rewrite
The previous lead spent one paragraph discussing why affirmative action doesn't generally fall under the definition of racism. clearly undue weight inserted as a response to POV pushing. The last paragraph made a point to show that while often associated with the far right "progressive" politics have also been associated with racism - taking as an example Rudyard Kipling and the concept of the white man's burden as examples of progressive politics! The source used is about the role of liberalism in imperialism - but obviously to anyone with a bit of education it doesn't talk about American style liberalism (leftism) but about classical liberalism. IN any case it was extremely undue weight to mention Kipling as the only historical example of racism. I have inserted a paragraph outlining the main historical events and practices associated with Racism - i.e. colonialism, slavery and the holocaust, apartheid and segregation. Sources will follow. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking this on. Let me know if you find sources of interest behind a pay wall and I will secure them for you. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While not suggesting it meets all of our sourcing needs, this...


 * ...seems to cover the salient points..—ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:48, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The source I've inserted actually also uses this definition although it says that it is the belief that "behavior is based on biology". (I do think this wording is probably unintendedly ambiguous and would not insert this precise wording in the article) I think the definition in your source is very good though. But we can't just choose the definition we like - we do have to find a way to show the different degrees of support for different definitions. This will surely be the hardest task. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we will find "degrees of support" as much as we'll find different usage in the context of scientific discipline or political framing (with "controversy" being the goal of most framing). Just thinking aloud... I could be mistaken. Regardless, I agree, it will surely be the hardest task. ...and don't call me Shirley. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is a very good point indeed. Unfortunately it will not make the task easier that we have to show which groups use which definitions.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yup. Racism starts from the belief that there are intrinsic 'races' - and these 'races' need have no basis in reality whatsoever. If someone wishes to 'prove' (for political convenience) that the Irish are 'an African race' they will do so. Likewise, Japanese can 'be Europeans', Tibetans can 'be Aryans' and the Maori, Protestant Northern Irish and Native Americans can all be members of the Lost Tribe of Israel. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with any 'biological' reality, and instead it is itself firmly rooted in culture - which is to say, it is learned:


 * ''You've got to be taught
 * ''To hate and fear,
 * ''You've got to be taught
 * ''From year to year,
 * ''It's got to be drummed
 * ''In your dear little ear
 * ''You've got to be carefully taught.


 * ''You've got to be taught to be afraid
 * ''Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
 * ''And people whose skin is a diff'rent shade,
 * ''You've got to be carefully taught.


 * ''You've got to be taught before it's too late,
 * ''Before you are six or seven or eight,
 * ''To hate all the people your relatives hate,
 * ''You've got to be carefully taught!


 * Rodgers and Hammerstein: South Pacific. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Second paragraph
I'm not sure about the lead's second paragraph...


 * From page 5...


 * From page 15...

Thoughts? I cast no aspersions; just asking. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In my paraphrase I may have mixed in ideas that aren't all present in that particular publication. I do think they are basically sound and supportable if we look at the wider gamut of sources. Everything I write is open to tweaking and editing and removal if it is found to be lacking in accuracy or neutrality.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

First paragraph

 * I came here by way of Jimbo's talk page, and have some things to nitpick about the lede. The first paragraph reads:
 * "Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others [1][2] or as practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups,[1] for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups.[3]"
 * The "generally understood" language is unnecessary. The term "belief" doesn't quite fit because belief implies "belief system" - not always what racism is. How about something like:
 * Racism is an overt or covert discrimination against people of a different racial group, typically an ethnic minority. Where racism is supported by a racial ideology, such ideology typically holds that certain physiological characteristics are meaningful in terms of defining a difference in human value.
 * Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Any suggestion on the second paragraph? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:33, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice with some sources in support of such a definition. What is meant by overt and covert discrimination and who uses such a distinction? Is it suggested that it is impossible to have racism without discrimination? (clearly incorrect). Is it possible to have a racism that is not supported by a racial ideology? (sounds contradictory and relies on a definition of "racial ideology").·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that the 'overt or covert' terminology may be problematic. The essential concept here is that racism is discrimination based on an idea of race. BTW there there is also typically some bleed-over with cultural discrimination. Ill try and dig up some reference materials. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:06, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note most definitions seem to focus on the superiority complex: "Racism is the belief that a particular race is superior or inferior to another," (ADL) "a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race  is superior and has the right to rule others." (Dictionary.com) " "Racism is the belief that characteristics and abilities can be attributed to people simply on the basis of their race and that some racial groups are superior to others." (Globalissues.com) "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." (MerriamWebster) etc.
 * We can stick with the essentials, that racism is discrimination based on physiological (and ethnic!) traits. After that we can add that its an ideology of superiority. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:14, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: The UN WCAR site points out succinctly the effects of racism (and gender discrimination) "The injustices suffered by victims of racial discrimination and related intolerance are well-known: limited employment opportunities; segregation; and endemic poverty are only a few among these." -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:18, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Would (from the source above) "Whether or not there is hatred, racism involves prejudice or discrimination. It may be personal or institutional, felt or unrecognized" support the use of "explicit or implicit"; with hatred/felt being explicit and unrecognized being implicit? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:20, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think its supportive. Others might disagree though, and they might argue for a literal use of 'overt or covert' or whatever language we choose. -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Cont.
Im working on it a little bit:
 * Racism is discrimination against people of a different racial group, based in a belief that different human physiological characteristics (such as skin color) are meaningful in terms of defining human worth and value. Racists view non-similar peoples as undesirable for association and interaction.

I think this is clearer for the lede. Lets look at the current verison:
 * "Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others [1][2] or as practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups,[1] for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups.[3]"

Ive struck out wording that looks unnecessary. The underlined part should remain somewhere. -Stevertigo (t | c) 08:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

reate concise definitions of complex topics, but really it doesn't work for the purposes here. The way to go about it is to find sources that have different definitions, compare those definitions and see what are the elements that recur and in which contexts, and which element vary. And then make a definition that can be supported by sources. The problems with your definitions here is that by the definitions we have sources for racism can be both a discriminatory practice or a belief in essential racial differences that may motivate a hierarchy - but it can also be either. Any one of those parts may constitute racism - it doesn't require the three of them. If I were to put my own definition (which I can source to literature) it would be "Any behavior that is informed by, or that perpetuates, racial stereotypes".·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Steve you are going about it the wrong way you are falling back in the habit of making highly abstract unsourced and often original definitions of complex topics. I know you like to use your reasoning abilities to c


 * I don't think racism = discrimination is too controversial or difficult to source. That still leaves the door open to talk about the difficulties in defining the term. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:13, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: And we can add that many definitions refer to a superiority complex. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:17, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Google has definitions now apparently:
 * 1: The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
 * 2: Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
 * In this case the natural definition is given second, while the abstract definition is given first. -Stevertigo (t | c) 23:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Like google, the two dictionary definitions we have used and presented both mention that racism can be either belief or discrimination. It is not difficult to source.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. However the current lede is written in a convoluted way. Taking the basic dicdef above, we can present the subject better if we start with the natural definition (prejudicial discrimination) and then give the abstract definition (superiority complex). Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * PS: Mind if I take a crack at it? -Stevertigo (t | c) 07:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * try it here at the talkpage first?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Well here's what we've got:
 * "Racism is generally understood as either belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some such groups are therefore naturally superior to others [1][2] [This is a run on sentence] or as practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups,[1] for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups.[3]"

Im still working on it. Looking at sources now. BBL. PS: Removing second paragraph, as it looks alright. I see your dilemma - there is the essence we call racism, the attitude we call prejudice, and the behaviour we call discrimination. Hm. BBL. -Stevertigo (t | c) 10:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well its more complicated than that even, because prejudice alone is also often considered racist "Ah, you're black so you must be great at playing music" or discrimination that is not based on prejudice is also racism ("we give priority to legacy students here") - plus racism can also be against groups that are not considered "races" (e.g. Armenians) - and the belief in inherent differences doesn't have to be biological (could be cultural differences also). So the "essence" of racism is quite vague - and it should be vague to cover all the kinds of behavior that is commonly considered racism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence we get to your earlier question 'is it racist if there are no negative effects'. It seems like a case of overloaded terminology - people assert that racism the phenomenon (vastly) exceeds its actual commonly used definition. We might be better of sticking with the common definition first, and then introduce the overloaded definition, the one which regards inconsequential thoughts and attitudes. Good morning, -Stevertigo (t | c) 21:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really accept that way of phrasing the issue, or the notion that the "non-discriminatory" kinds of racism are "overloading the concept" (or the idea that they have no negative effects - I think all behavior that is based on or reinforces stereotypes have negative effects). I also think it is very common to consider both positive and negative stereotyping without discrimination as racism in academia and in society. I think the better approach is to identify which milieu's use which types of definitions (by finding suitable tertiary sources) and then make it clear in the lead that there are multiple ways of understanding the phenomena connected with different ideological groupings.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

OK Im reading several source texts now. Something general? 'Racism is a pantheon of negative and discriminatory attitudes and behaviours based on a concept of race.'-Stevertigo (t | c) 23:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I apologize for being dismissive of your suggestions - it is partly because I am also not sure my self about how to solve the problem of having a definition that does justice to the complexity of the topic. I think something like what here is sufficiently vague (I'd drop the word "pantheon").·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I don't mean to oversimplify things, and Im appreciating all your hard work thus far. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Note, something that comes to mind here is something I read in The End of Racism, by Dinesh D'Souza. He describes the most virulent kinds of anti-black racism in the US as a product of slavery, not a predetermining factor. Racism came out of slavery, as a way to justify slavery, not the other way around. Might be relevant. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * D'Souza doesn't really represent the mainstream of Racism scholarship or social science in general. There is quite a solid consensus that there was racism before US slavery and that the atlantic slavetrade was made possible exactly through an ideology that can only be described as racist. How else would we explain why De Las Casas and Sepulveda have been discussing whether Blacks and Indians were humans? I think most people agree that the specific US brand of racism is largely a result of slavery - but what caused slavery was also a racist ideology - albeit of another kind. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think D'Souza was claiming there was no racism before slavery. Rather he pointed to the fact that there were black sharecroppers living equally alongside whites, owning land and working on it, up until a certain point when slavery brought about 'the need to' maintain race-based segregation. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The basics:
 * ''Racism is a prejudicial discrimination against people based on their race. In more general terms, racism encompasses all negative beliefs and attitudes which are based in or related to the concept of race. Many race-based beliefs which may be both positive and negative are referred to as "stereotypes." Racism in its subtle forms is regarded as an attitude which is rather common among people everywhere -for example in xenophobia. In its most insidious forms, racism manifests as developed ideologies in which racial concepts are the central theme, where one's own race is typically regarded as superior, and other races are regarded as inferior.

Im having some trouble with it too, as you can see, but maybe some things are working here. -Stevertigo (t | c) 01:53, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah- here you are back to the much too narrow definition that we had earlier, which started the entire issue here, and which doesn't include racial slurs, racist beliefs etc. You have to make it "Racism is prejudices or practices of discrimination against people based on ideas about race or on racial stereotypes" to capture the entire scope - belief or practices - not and.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * When we say beliefs and attitudes/practices, its in general terms: topic x covers a and b, which means that it could be either or both. Its generalizing language that gets more specific as things develop. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:17, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * How are "racial slurs, racist beliefs etc." excluded in my version above? -Stevertigo (t | c) 22:34, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Using a slur is not necessarily discrimination.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah but there are slurs which are meant to be discriminating, and slurs which are not. Some slurs qualify. -Stevertigo (t | c) 03:47, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think they all qualify.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You just said "using a slur is not necessarily discrimination" to which I partly agreed. Now you say they "all qualify" which I would take to mean they all qualify as discrimination or otherwise racism. What do you mean? -Stevertigo (t | c) 05:30, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think all racial slurs qualify as racism even if they are not necessarily "discriminatory". So this is the reason that I don't think that racial discimination can stand alone as a definition. How about this definition: "racism is a belief, practice or ideology that draw on racial stereotypes or prejudices" ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:36, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That has the merit of being concise. -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:00, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could add "draw on or promote..."?·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now you're getting fancy. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So where are we at with this? Got any new insights? -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm too busy, so no. :( What I wanted to do was to check out Schaefer's Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnicity and see how it is defined there.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its 520 dollars. Got an ISBN number, maybe find it on worldcat?-Stevertigo (t | c) 19:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC) PS: Its ok I found the ISBN. -Stevertigo (t | c) 19:33, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence definition
The opening sentence in the current version of the article does not match the sources provided. HuskyHuskie (talk) 16:45, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've now made the definition and the sources match, I believe. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Bollocks
"Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination". Bollocks. Racism starts with the premise that there are "human racial groups". This article should be rewritten from scratch, by people who actually understand the subject. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "This article should be rewritten from scratch, by people who actually understand the subject." Bollocks. This article should be written based on what reliable sources say about racism. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 02:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It takes people who understand the subject to identify reliable sources and understand what they say about racism.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do we actually have RS for an assertion that "Racism is the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justify discrimination"? Is this the definition advocated by the majority of sources on the subject? Or is it just a convenient bit of 'compromise' waffle with no source at all? AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * We have them now. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:04, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Except they don't support that definition. They say the opposite in fact.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Merriam-Webster: "1. a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. 2. racial prejudice or discrimination"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:12, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Princeton Word-net:"1: (n) racism (the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races)2: (n) racism, racialism, racial discrimination (discriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race)"
 * And these aren't even very good sources. We don't use dictionaries, but scholarship, to define complex encyclopedic topics.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Princeton University would seem to be a scholarly source for defining a common term for a complex topic. They do not "say the opposite":


 * "the belief that inherent different traits in human racial groups justifies discrimination" vs "belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race ... racial prejudice or discrimination"
 * "the prejudiced belief that the members other races are inherently inferior to the members of a particular race." vs. "prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races" (Yes, one is written in reverse of the other: "other races ... inferior" vs. "one race ... superior".) - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 03:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources you cite seem to be suggesting that 'belief' is at the core of racism - and that the belief in 'race' is its foundation. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The two dictionary sources say that Racism is a belief in essential supeiority/inferiority of racial groups and/or practices of discrimination. It does not link the second as a necessary condition but as a secondary definition. This means that it is possible to be a racist without discriminating, but merely by believing that certain groups are superior to others and that it is possible to be a racist just by discriminating against a group whether or not that discrimination is based on a belief of inherent racial superiority. The definition is therefore much much broader than the fake definition currently broad and it is misrepresentation to say that these sources support that definition. They clearly and unequivocally do not.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 11:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are two different definitions in each of the two dictionaries with none being described as the only correct one or as "necessary". More generally, there are numerous definitions in the scholarly literature. Here is a literature review: Taking one example the author of the review favors: "racism as any behavior or pattern of behavior that tends to systematically deny access to opportunities or privileges to members of one racial group while perpetuating access to opportunities or privileges (preferential treatment) to members of another racial group". Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for supporting my point. The article did describe the second as a necessary part of a unified definition so that ideology and practice had to align. They don't - racism is either practice or ideology as both dictionaries show. Also thanks for the source which isn't exactly a high quality source (a non-peer reviewed conference paper by an educatoion scientis) but which nonetheless shows that the previous definition was untenable. I have now changed the definition to align with the sources.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:19, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If you do not like the review then there are the scholarly sources the review cites. Scholarly sources are preferable to dictionaries. Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * yes, thats what I've been saying. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:13, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Maunus has inserted an OR research definition which is not what the source states: "Racism is the belief that different racial groups are essentially characterized by inherent abilities or characteristics and that some races therefore are naturally superior to others". The sources states, for the first definition: "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race". Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:18, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to tweak the wording. I am quite convinced that this wording is less OR and better supported by the source than the previous one. It is basically a paraphrase of the source as anyone with a mnimum of wits should be able to see.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Obviously there is large difference between "race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities" and "racial groups are essentially characterized by inherent abilities". The first does not mention biology and argues for that race is the most important factor unlike your definition. Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:34, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Mine also doesn't mention biology. "Essential" is basically a synonym for "inherent" and doesn't require biological essentialism. Also my definition writes together the two definitions give - and the princeton one doesn't mention that race should be "the primary determinant", but simply that some groups are seen as "intrinsically" (another synonym) "superior"·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "Inherent abilities" will obviously be interpreted as genetics which is not what the given source states. OR research by synthesizing several definitions into a new is not allowed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes it is that is the way we write an encyclopedia while avoiding copyright infringements.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, dictionaries often aim to describe how a word is used by the general public which is not necessarily the correct scientific one. Therefore, scholarly sources are preferable such as the literature review given above or the sources it cites. Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. However as first requirement the definition has to be in line with the sources used to support it. It is now. Now we can look at the scholarly sources. You were not exactly enthusiastic to take a look at the book sources I presented earlier - I am happy to see that that has changed now.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Your OR definition does not state what the source states as stated above. Previously you presented thick books without any quotations. I have presented an example of a scholarly definition above. Academica Orientalis (talk) 12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * .....·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there an argument here? Do you object to replacing the dictionary definition with scholarly ones? We should also state that there is no scholarly consensus on a definition. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The latest version, "the belief that different racial groups are characterized by intrinsic characteristics or abilities and that some races are therefore naturally superior to others", still argues for "intrinsic" factors which is not what is stated in the source. In addition you have inserted more OR for the other definition which is not in the given source "practices that discriminate against members of particular racial groups for example by perpetuating unequal access to resources between groups." Furthermore, since there is no consensus regarding definitions we should not start the article by claiming that there is. Academica Orientalis (talk) 13:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you for real? The princeton source uses the word intrinsical which was why I changed essential to intrinsic. The addition about perpetuating unequal acces to reseources comes from the conference paper thast you your self produced... This is simple disruption Miradre and anyone who reads this discussion will be able to recognize it as such. I encourage you to change your editing style as of now or the next AE enforcement request will be about you.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The first definition is sourced to Merriam-Webster and not Princeton. Please correct that. You added the conference paper as a source after I pointed out that the previous source did not support your statement. It is good that you added a source in response to my request but do not attack me for requesting a source as per WP:V. That you have continually changed your test and added sources in response to my criticisms shows that it has been constructive and improved the article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it shows something about your editing behavior which mainly consists in placing high demands on other editors in confrontational language while refusing to cooperate yourself whether by reading sources presented by others, by making suggestions for improvement or by simply repeating red herring arguments ad nauseam.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You have again changed the text in response to my criticisms showing that it has been constructive. The one using incivility has been you but I appreciate that you have retracted it after being prompted to do so. I of course read your sources but this does not help when you use the wrong source as above for a statement. As noted above I have made several suggestions for improvements including the literature review you yourself then added to the article. Academica Orientalis (talk) 14:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I have been incivil, that's unfortunately how I tend to respond when filibustering and disruption has me at my wits end. That's why I take frequent wikibreaks and dewatchlist articles where I know I am likely to run into the likes fo you. If I didn't firmly believe that you are strategically gaming the system and deliberately trying to goad me into a frenzy I would apologize for my language. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

thank you andy the grump for having your head for more than decoration... i totally agree with you racism is the believe in human races! and it actually started in the very end of the 15th century 1495 with spains invasion of america! racism is the war propaganda of modern colonialism racism didnt exist in ancient times people didnt even had a word for race back then! they migth have discriminated against foreigners like teh greeks but the greeks werent racists back then... they enslaved everyone who wasnt greek given the oportunity same goes for the romans but it didnt have a racist basis! we cant have racists write and edit an article abotu racism if you still belive in teh existence of races you are not fit to write or edit on this project

also xenophobioa is in itself a weasle word it implys that racism originates from fear of something alien this isnt the case (the wrong premisses is that people who look like ofreigners or have a different skincolor are any less familiar to you than a stranger of your skincolor wich of course is utter bollocks, and it implys that racism originates from fear wich is alo utter bollocks teh nazis werent teh ones who were afriad, it was teh jews and sinti/roma who were afraid)

definition shoudl be something liek this" racism is the beliieve that there are races amongst modern humans"

Mnlk (talk) 21:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mnlk: Your unsourced POV does not contribute to this discussion. Article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve their associated articles. Opinions about the topic are not useful in that regard. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:41, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

More bollocks
Further evidence of the peculiar slant of this article can be seen in the 'Categories' section below: "B-Class Genetics articles, Low-importance Genetics articles, WikiProject Genetics articles... B-Class Evolutionary biology articles, Low-importance Evolutionary biology articles, WikiProject Evolutionary biology articles, B-Class Human Genetic History articles, Low-importance Human Genetic History articles". The ludicrous assertion that 'racism' is connected with 'genetics' belongs in the dustbin of history. Unadulterated drivel... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand what the categories are for. Editors interested in Genetics may be interested in this article because of historical claims that genetics supports various racist beliefs. Adding this article to Genetics categories does not have anything to do with whether or not genetics supports racism any more than similar category placements show that Germany supports Hitler. They are related topics because there have been assertions that genetics supports various racist beliefs. Creationism is in Rational Skepticism, Philosophy and Socialism. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There "have been claims" about all sorts of things - but that doesn't explain why we have to include an article which isn't about genetics in eight different 'genetics' categories. As for using the argument that 'Creationism' is linked in 'Socialism', I don't have the vaguest idea how that is supposed to illustrate anything other than the bizarre way categories get tagged on to articles. Personally, I'd think a link to wallpaper was more justified than one to creationism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

i have to agree with andy the grump here this article is utter bollocks racism isnt in any way supported by anything in reality let alone genetics the difference between groups is smaller than the difference inside the groups. therefore the only way genetics should even be mentioned is taht it tottally disproved and discredited the existence of anything even resembling human races Mnlk (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Mnlk: Your unsourced POV does not contribute to this discussion. Article talk pages are for discussing ways to improve their associated articles. Opinions about the topic are not useful in that regard. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 01:42, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * My current read is Race and Manifest Destiny by Reginald Horsman and the first part of the book, setting up the historical background for American racism, dwells a lot on the use of science and pseudo-science and the like to explain where the belief that the Anglo-Saxons were chosen by God . .  . etc.  And although the actual science of these arguments has long since been disproven, the attitudes that they helped nurture live on as racism.  I'm with Summer here, genetics is an important topic here.  Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The categories below simply describe which wikiprojects have taken an interest in this article, it doesn't say anything about the categorizaiotn of the topic of the article. Any wikiproject can tag any article if they believe it is within their scope and its nobody elses business. This article could be tagged for "top importance engineering articles" for that matter. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:33, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Racism vs. Racial Discrimination
Well, I just learned something interesting, namely, that racial discrimination does not exist as a separate article from this one. Personally, I believe that racism, which most definitions point out consists of a set of beliefs, is distinct from 'racial discrimination, which I take to be actions predicated upon racist beliefs. But I can also see the other side of the coin, which is that the latter cannot exist without the former, so why separate them?

Okay, well, it's not what I would do--I really would rather split them into two articles--but I can respect their being only the one article. But at the same time, I know I am not alone in my viewpoint on this. Can I ask one small favor? I know those on the other side of the issue will likely consider it redundant, but if these two topics which many of us see as distinct need to be in a single article, can we at least move the article to Racism and racial discrimination? Yes, yes, many of you think there's no point in that. But there is a point, namely, that many of us see Racism as the title and do not expect the history of discriminatory practices (segregation, slavery, etc.) to be included. But with a new title, that would be clearer to us. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:55, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If we can find literature that describes Racial discrimination as distinct from Racism then we can have two articles if not then no. It all comes down to the reliable sources - which nobody (myself included) have had the time to review in depth yet. Btw. You can chip into the rather lengthy discussion above about the definition where we touch on this issue as well.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:26, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the idea. At the core of this idea of a difference between racism and racial discrimination is the idea of an overt versus covert phenomenon. We have a source which says plainly that racism can be overt or covert. Hence the idea that actions which are racial are somehow separate from ideas or ideologies that are racial doesn't seem to make sense as far as editing this article goes. In a certain way its a good example of where a clear definition can be of help: There is an idea of overt action in much of what we can call covert racism, and there is an impetus of covert racism in every overtly racist action. The overt and the covert are intertwined. Regards, -Stevertigo (t | c) 02:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a convenient paradigm for some, Stevertigo, but I disagree, for reasons I will explain momentarily. But I think the most important thing is that we need to avoid OR, and it may very well be (indeed, it currently appears to be the case) that the authoritative sources agree with you, and if that is borne out, then I will have to agree with User:Maunus that we need to go with our best sources, so this difference of opinion will likely prove moot.


 * Nonetheless, let me say that I will not be surprised to find strong sources in support of my position. May I advance a simple analogy?  Benjamin, Joshua, and Esther all hate David, and their hatred is suspected by David.  Benjamin and Esther do nothing more than loathe David.  But Joshua actually takes action based on his hatred, and kills David.  Would society equate Benjamin and Esther's loathing with Joshua's actions?  Actually, I have known a few people who would, but they lie outside the mainstream; most people of my acquaintance recognize that thoughts, beliefs, and emotions lie in a very different realm than actions.


 * I'm sure there are many people of a racist mindset who have nonetheless hired and promoted people that they disliked (if only for their own self-preservation in our more enlightened times) . Such people may be as contemptible as the racist who actually refuses to hire those who belong to a group that he dislikes, and they may be morally equivalent.  But I believe that they can and should be categorized very differently. Just my thoughts. HuskyHuskie (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Race"-ism"
Racism means discrimination - thats essentially what the "-ism" in racism means. The other possiblity is that the "-ism" represents some kind of doctrine, but that doesn't seem to be necessary for the common definition. Any additional nuance in the definition such as other "behaviors" 'informed by racial stereotypes' can be placed second to this basic general definition as a way of amending the basic definition. Just because there is nuance doesn't mean we start with an introduction to the nuance. We can add the nuance second. -Stevertigo (t | c) 04:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Steve - the sources says you're wrong. And no we don't start with a wrong definition and then correct it afterwards.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:59, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Racism
Might I suggest that, at an individual level, a person is being racist if they encounter another and draw conclusions about that person on the basis of their (perceived) race rather than on their personality?

I also think it is worth noting that religion and other cultural factors are often of more significance than race itself.

Peter Balfour109.157.37.27 (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Additions and changes to articles must be supported by reliable sources. - Sum mer PhD  (talk) 17:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 June 2012
In politics, racism is commonly located on the far right and far left due to the far right and left's common association with nativism, racism, and xenophobia. In history, racism has been a major part of the political and ideological underpinning of genocides such as the holocaust, slavery, Jim Crow and the Segregation era, voting rights, land ownership, but also in colonial contexts such as the rubber booms in South America and the Congo, and in the European conquest of the Americas and colonization of Africa, Asia and Australia. It was also a driving force behind the transatlantic slave trade such as the USA

Juggernautz (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This seems to be original research and a bit of soapboxing. Ryan Vesey Review me!  13:26, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Opening sentence does not follow WP:MOS
In the current version of the article, the opening sentence violates our Manual of Style, specifically the guideline
 * If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence

However, the same guideline states,
 * If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition

and that's the problem here. A "concise" definition of racism is a tough thing to come up with. That this is so is for two reasons: first, it is a complex subject, and second, opinions on it vary tremendously.

It is exactly this great variance of opinion that, in my opinion, makes it impossible to simply start the article with "Racism is . . . " as the MOS directs us to do, because then the reader is falsely led to believe that he will now be told the precise, concise definition of racism. And that's just not so. It seems to me that this is one of those times for which WP:IAR exists; if we are to serve our readers best, we need to not adhere to the letter of the guideline on the opening sentence, in this case, which is why I have knowingly violated WP:MOS.

One other thing: I think the definition that I have placed here, emphasizing that racism has two parts, works well (though I anticipate less than universal acclaim). I found about a half dozen definitions online, and all of them included these two elements, although, obviously, they were worded somewhat differently. I hope that reactions to what I have done will not be knee-jerk in nature, but rather, will instead lean towards discussion of the matter on this page. HuskyHuskie (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with the notion that the article, being on a contested and complex topic should not necessarily have a simple "racism is" type definition. Apart from that I don't agree with your interpretation and use of dictionary sources for a definition. We should follow the usage of better and more scholarly sources, not simple diftionary usage. Also most definitions of racism allow for discriminatory practices that are not openly motivated by a racist belief to be classified as racism (e.g. institutional racism). I've reverted your change - I hope not in a kneejerk fashion but in recognition of the fact that the topic is under current discussion on the talkpage (two threads up) and consensus thus far has been against a solution like the one you propose. Please chip into the discussion above.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:34, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Don't worry; you clearly are a thoughtful editor, and I respect your input. I didn't really expect my changes to last, I guess, I just wanted to dip my toe in the water for a temperature check.  Your response has shown me that the water is warm enough to get in, but I don't have the time just now.  Perhaps next weekend.  Not trying to put it off, but this is a topic that will be contentious for quite some time, and editors like yourself surely recognize that patience is the most important quality needed in those who will clean this up.  Thanks for your comments, both here, and in the section below. HuskyHuskie (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea of going with a first sentence that does NOT attempt a concise definition. This talk page is full of disputes about the definition of racism (and in my reading of some scholarly literature, the scholars also continue to have disputes over definition). In an attempt not to be misleading the first sentence might contain language that suggests that the definition is in dispute. This would mean bringing something like what is currently in the second paragraph to the very beginning of the lede ("The definition of racism is controversial..".).

Additionally, the entire entry might benefit from first seeking some form of consensus over the Definition section. Then, the structure of the rest of the entry might take shape around the Definition section. At the beginning of the Definition section I would also add some meta discussion (ideally based on prior research) of the disputes over the definition of racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.231.12.67 (talk) 05:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Is attacking somone on the basis of their religious beliefs racism?
A colleague and I have a disagreement over what constitutes racism. We are both of a different race, have a different skin colour and have different religious beliefs. We both work in England. We get on very well with each other - she is one of nicest people I have ever met.

However, if hypothetically I was being nasty towards her just because of our different religious beliefs, would that be racism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.247.185 (talk) 15:32, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but this is a talk page for discussing improvements to our Racism article: it isn't a forum for general discussions regarding racism in general. I suggest you ask your question at Reference desk/Humanities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:36, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is true, that regligious persecution is racism, then it should be mentioned in the article. So I don't see how this is not without relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.42.15 (talk) 12:30, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe discrimination and racism based on religion is a complex issue. E.g. Racial antisemitism is by definition based on the idea that Jews are a racial group, and that Jews have their 'bloodline' and traits which are different and/or inferior from that of other races. According to this view, even a Christian or a Muslim can be considered Jew if among his/her descent were people of the religion of Judaism. It seems absurd to me that religion of the ancestors of a person can determine his race, but as I see this ideology, it is pure racism against the religion and culture of Jews. FonsScientiae (talk) 08:28, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Lack of examples in lead
Some examples would really help clarifying the meaning of racism. Is racism based on physical characteristics and phenotype (e.g. racism against black people, racism against albinos) or can it be based on any grouping of humans based on nationality, religion, language etc. (Aryan race, racism against Japanese, Armenian genocide, Slavic race, islamophobia, racial antisemitism) or both? FonsScientiae (talk) 08:46, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that since there is no good agreed upon definition of what Racism is an example will merely beg the question.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 12:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Another definition of race
I found another good definition of racism: Racism is "any set of beliefs that organic, genetically transmitted differences (whether real or imagined) between human groups are intrinsically associated with the presence or the absence of certain socially relevant abilities or characteristics, hence that such differences are a legitimate basis of invidious distinctions between groups socially defined as races" (here) Do you think we should integrate this into the article or we have good enough definitions in the article? FonsScientiae (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Racism and Racialism are not the same
This article seems to treat racism as a synonym for racialism. I am particularly concerned with the last section on Anti-racism where one sentence refers to anti-racist movements and the next sentence uses the term anti-racial as a synonym. Neither the African American Civil Rights movement or the South African anti-apartheid movements were anti-racial movements, but both were anti-racist movements.

There was a time when these terms were synonymous, but since WEB Du Bois and others racism has the connotation of bigotry that does not necessarily apply to racialism. The article begins with a definition of racism that opens the door to treating these now distinct terms as identical, but what you really have is a definition of CLASSICAL RACIALISM. Consider Paul C. Taylor's work, Race, a Philosophical Introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2004. Taylor distinguishes Early Modern Racialism from Classical Racialism and from Late Modern Racialism (see pages 38-48 and 73-80). Late modern racialism is the here and now. Some people speak of critical race theory, I prefer critical racialism. The point is the article needs to come up to date. We are in an age that is critical of the assumptions of classical racialism, chiefly because of the bigotry it promotes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.216.140 (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree they are not the same thing not sure who added it in because it was not like that when I first read this article a year ago. --Inayity (talk) 16:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There's a lot of questionable and/or unsourced/WP:OR stuff in this article that someone should boldly delete. I'm controlling self for now... But one of these days on too much coffee... :-) CarolMooreDC 14:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

RfC
An RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

2 Hitler references that should be removed
In Academic variants, it says in the 1st paragraph: "Fewer than 30 years before Nazi Germany instigated World War II, the Austrian, Otto Weininger, claimed: “A genius has perhaps scarcely ever appeared amongst the negroes, and the standard of their morality is almost universally so low that it is beginning to be acknowledged in America that their emancipation was an act of imprudence” (Sex and Character, New York: G.P. Putnam, 1906, p. 302)." What time WW2 occurred has no relevance to this statement, as far as I can see. It should be removed.

Also, I quote: "Madison Grant provided statistics for the Immigration Act of 1924, which severely restricted immigration of Jews, Slavs, and southern Europeans at a time when millions of people across Europe were seeking to escape from Hitler." Er, Hitler was not elected until 1933, and did not start conquering Slavic states until '39. The escape from Hitler part should be changed (e.g. to "southern Europeans, who were subsequently unable to escape Nazi Germany.") or removed. Additionally, I see 0 mentions of Jews in The Passing of the Great Race. 110.32.129.249 (talk) 12:21, 6 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I came over here to talk about this same section, not aware that it was under discussion. The current version of some of this reads:
 * "Madison Grant provided statistics for the Immigration Act of 1924, which severely restricted immigration of Jews, Slavs, and southern Europeans, who were subsequently unable to escape Nazi Germany.[72]"
 * I am curious as to what foot note 72 has to say on this subject, since it it the source of record. Also I feel a sort of unhappy with the relationship between the first and second clauses of the sentence. but don't want to change it is this is what the source says. SInce this has already been changed it seems unlikely to me that the reference says this.  Lots of folks did escape the Nazis to the USA and other places.  Lots of others did not try.  I am inclined to remove the " who were subsequently unable to escape Nazi Germany." part, but wish to discuss it here first.  Or it could be expanded to something such as " who were subsequently unable to escape Nazi Germany by immigrating to the United States in greater numbers than the laws allowed" .Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyright
The Encyclopedia Britannica terms of use says the following: "You may display, reproduce, print or download content on the Services only for your personal, non-commercial use. If you are a teacher, scholar or student, you may copy reasonable portions of the content for lesson plans, interactive whiteboards, reports, dissertations, presentations, school newspapers and for similar nonprofit educational purposes to the extent permitted by applicable law." Wikipedia is non-commercial and may fall below the category "similar nonprofit educational purposes". Should not we be able to use content from them? 1 64.189.101.99 (talk) 02:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No. See Copyrights. Material is submitted to Wikipedia under a license which permits commercial reuse (provided it is properly attributed). AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone add something to the top. You can solve your copyright argument and still have a complete article. This is still an encyclopedia. So add something until you can solve the dispute.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 02:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a very confused conversation on a very complex topic. We should start with "what is the specific question regarding the content of this article?" North8000 (talk) 03:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could just rephrase the text using synonyms and variations in the structure of the sentences. English is not my mother tongue, so I do not trust myself to do it without distorting the contentual correctness of the statement. But I imagine that it should not be too difficult for a native speaker. --RJFF (talk) 10:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not worth the trouble to try to keep the existing text. Lets just write something else. It can even summarize what is is there now. North8000 (talk) 11:19, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I took a stab at it. North8000 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

hi could we get rid of the sardinian flag? it is more damaging to the people of sardinia than helping people understand what racism is, also that is the old version of the sardinian flag where the moors were blindfolded, in the current version the moors are not blinfolded — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sardonicgrin (talk • contribs) 19:19, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

92.232.146.99 (talk) 19:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)'''hi could we get rid of the sardinian flag? it is more damaging to the people of sardinia than helping people understand what racism is, also that is the old version of the sardinian flag where the moors were blindfolded, in the current version the moors are not blinfolded.'''

sardinian flag
hi could we get rid of the sardinian flag? it is more damaging to the people of sardinia than helping people understand what racism is, also that is the old version of the sardinian flag where the moors were blindfolded, in the current version the moors are not blinfolded — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.146.99 (talk) 19:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Issue with Tags, should be per section
having read some sections of this article i do not see how those tags apply to much of the article. they should be placed in the violating sections so better examination can be done. Certainly OR is not a problem for much of the article. These general tags do not actually help. If you had a perfect article and one section contains or, should an article as extensive as this bear an Or tag? I do not think so. It doesnt help make the article better. Put section tags. --Inayity (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Defining Racism
"Racism, also called racialism, is generally defined as actions, practices, or beliefs that reflect the racial worldview: the ideology that humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called "races". This ideology entails the belief that members of a race share a set of characteristic traits, abilities, or qualities, that traits of personality, intellect, morality, and other cultural behavioral characteristics are inherited, [and that this inheritance means that races can be ranked as innately superior or inferior to others]."

The assumption that a race possesses a set of traits does not mean you can also assume the race's superiority independent of the different traits. If one race were morally superior and the other intellectually superior, for example, one could not be ranked over the other as "innately superior", because it is a comparison of apples and oranges. To presume an innately superior race is an example of "racial superiority" or "racial supremacy" rather than "racism" in general.

The last portion of the defining sentence should either be altered to 'ranked as innately superior or inferior to others in those characteristics' or removed entirely so that one belief, the identification of characteristics, is not tied to the second belief, that races can be ranked superior independent of those characteristics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enonesohc (talk • contribs) 20:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Assuming that a 'race' is superior to another in any trait or aspect is considered racism. Many definitions even consider the belief, that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, racism. FonsScientiae (talk) 12:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So according to your definition, it would be racism if I said that East Asians have black hair, slanted eyes and on average short stature? Or that blacks have prognathism, different skull shape and on average tall stature? Your definition is an obvious nonsense. --Prabanton (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And I most sertenly agree. 110.32.129.249 (talk) 11:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Very good point. This all arises because - in fact - racism hasn't been very well defined, and definitions have been changed and made up to suit political ends. I never thought the idea that different groups of people have different DNA (and therefore different hair/skin colour) was what we mean by "racist". I thought it referred to the hateful acts and speech directed at a person on the grounds of such a perceived difference.


 * There are workable definitions like this, but it wasn't enough for some people. When British MP Diane Abbott made certain remarks about white people and Scandinavan mothers, her supporters rushed to redefine racism in a way that would mean she literally couldn't be guilty of it. Racism now only existed within an (unspecified) power dynamic. As white people were considered (by someone) to have greater "power" (what sort of power) than black people, a black member of parliament could not be accused of racism - presumably whatever they said. Seems pretty silly to me.


 * And I understand that at one US university put in place "Orientation materials" for people training students not to be racist. A racist was defined there as "one both privileged and socialized on the basis of race by a white supremacist system".


 * So that's about 4 definitions we've got without trying. The one in the article, my intuitive understanding, and 2 meandering definitions made up to suit someone's politics. Does anyone else think we've got a problem here?--31.54.145.22 (talk) 10:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

My impression has always been that racialism and racism are two separate things, or more properly that racism is a subset of racialism; racialism being defined as the belief that distinct races exist, and that they should be treated as cohesive units with immutable traits spread through all members, rather than simply collections of genetically similar individuals, racism being a subset of racialism in which some of the races are considered inferior to others and discriminated against. It is possible, common even, for an anti-racist to still be quite racialist. That is someone who is truly anti-racialist would be "color blind" and refuse to see someone as a member of a race rather than an individual who is not defined by race, because to an anti-racialist race is an issue which only exists in people's minds. Many anti-racists don't think this way however. 64.24.209.204 (talk) 01:45, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Racial classification and notions of superiority are very separate ideas. This definition equates "race" and "racism" as if they were the same thing. "...views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races AND that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior." The use of "race" is common in Forensic science for example, yet promotes no such notions of "superiority". Looking through the extensive edit history, there are quite a number of sources and definitions that were far less problematic. I am questioning what is at play that's causing this definition to be upheld for such a long time. I concur with the previous observation that certain political groups have co-opted the term in order to excuse themselves from the equation. To the extent that these writings qualify as "reliable" sources I am not so sure. It appears that these political sources are now what's dominating the popular narrative - not science, testability or truth. I would hope that this problem be a source of more stringent debate. EyePhoenix (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

I believe almost all of the above discussion is logical but much too complicated and too expansive. May I offer a gross simplification of the above and ask for your comments; - Anyone who believes that there are different races is a racist, since that implies you believe there are also differences between races. By this definition, which is fundamentally no different that the first sentence of the Wikipedia article and most dictionary definitions, I suspect most of us are racists. I trust I am as I believe, as a general rule, that "white men can't jump". Therefore, my simplified definition and those of the dictionaries are not useful if we are all, with some few exceptions, racists. I prefer, then, to consider two simple alternatives; - you are a first degree racist if you believe that there are different races with different typical or average attributes. - you are a second degree racist if you judge that individual members of a race share the typical or average attributes, probably leading to discrimination of some type. Obviously, my "first degree' and "second degree' terms are much too crude but I hope you get the idea. My skin is thick so fire away. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustbowl (talk • contribs) 00:36, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

As no-one has commented on my views, let me supplement them by accepting that many people are not racists by my definition above because they believe there is only one race - the human race. And perhaps my first and second degree terms could be replaced, respectively, with "racist" and "racist discriminator". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustbowl (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 7 November 2012
This sentence is an unfair political opinion, NOT a fact at all. Please remove it. "In politics, racism is commonly located on the far right due to the far right’s common association with nativism, racism, and xenophobia.[8]" Most of the people on the far right would disagree with this statement. I, myself, find it offensive.

98.95.147.61 (talk) 20:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)


 * It IS pretty offensive.  Sort of like the same process as racism applied to one's place in the political spectrum, which can be unrelated to racial views.  North8000 (talk) 00:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it does have a citation associated with it, but it's a print one, so hard to check quickly. HiLo48 (talk) 06:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * . The print source (from what I can tell from a look around, and looking at my local public library's preview), is citing a statistic for this. That makes it a fact. Wikipedia is not censored just because someone doesn't like the statement. gwickwire &#124; Leave a message 23:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * My biggest concern is the wording, not whether there is a statistic behind it. That's like saying that since in the USA the violent crime rate is is higher among blacks someone can put in "violent crime is commonly practiced by blacks" which would be terrible and wording that is not in that statistic. North8000 (talk) 01:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I will make this edit on the violent crime page right now.96.251.89.15 (talk) 03:07, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the initial poster that the language is concerning, but not just limited to that section. As it reads today, the current definition of racism would have us believe that there's no difference between the attempt to organize the different Peoples of the world into a system of understanding and the idea that some groups are more superior than others. I realize the subject is a controversial one but there doesn't need to be this level of disagreement - we are talking about the meaning of a word in the English language. It currently reads "...views, practices and actions reflecting the belief that humanity is divided into distinct biological groups called races AND that members of a certain race share certain attributes which make that group as a whole less desirable, more desirable, inferior or superior." It places two completely separate ideas into one sentence. The idea mirrors political movements that attempt to blame the "invention" of racism on a particular "race". Yet somehow this is still passing, for many weeks now, as the best (or most "reliable") source for a definition? It seems concerning, when there are much more reliable sources available than the one being used. If editors are unable to effectively challenge this type of political bias in editing, perhaps Wikipedia would benefit from reviewing the ways that some articles get hijacked for political purposes.EyePhoenix (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that several things are problematic about the material and one thing is useful about it:
 * Problematic: It's a vague sentence in the lead. The lead is supposed to summarize what is covered in detail in the article.
 * Problematic: The reference is very vague (no page number etc.). This is particularly important when the references is large on off-line.
 * Problematic: The source (by it's title) looks highly biased and thus less reliable.
 * Problematic: I question and highly doubt that the wording is from the source. It looks badly worded from the start, and also overgeneralizes about the "far right"
 * Useful: It is plausible and informative that racism is a theme amongst certain far right groups, as is nativism and xenophobia.

The real answer is for someone to created better material with stronger sourcing in this area and put it into the body of the article. Until that happens, I think that this sentence needs to be dialed back and put into the body of the article, if not deleted. I plan to do the former unless someone wants to do the latter. North8000 (talk) 12:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is posted twice. Mainly because this issue has been brought up twice. It is grossly biased, based on a "statistic" stated somewhere. Historically this statistic is flawed based on the fallacy of Induction. I don't know the book being referenced, but there is no evidence I've found through history linking the political right "commonly" with racism. The Republican party was established after the fall of the whig-abolitionist in 1840. This was called the "abolitionist" party as a sort of joke by the Democratic party because all the abolitionist party talked about was the emancipation of slaves and equality for all mankind. This party's platform was for the equality of man and civil rights as we understand it. It was founded on that principle and throughout history you can see in the party foundation that it is firmly anti-racist and the Democratic party is firmly in the camp of keeping it. So much so that the Democratic controlled government (Executive and Congressional) voted that all bills regarding anti-slavery be automatically tabled. For close to 50 years the Democratic party bucked anti-racism/anti-slavery movements by platform or by voting record. Starting roughly 50 years later, the Democratic partry started integrating civil rights into its party platform but it was easily a century before Democrats stopped voting down/repealing any civil rights issue. All this information is based on information found in the Library of Congress. So whomever this book is and whatever "fact" he is citing is clearly contradictory to history. Not only that it sounds like a biased "fact." I do not advocate that there were NO racists on the right, but the vast majority of white supremists and general xenophobes (as was referenced in this article) were on the LEFT with the Democratic party from the beginning. The vast majority of what we would deem as "Racists" were actually on the left. History proves that guy wrong based on the logical fallacy of Induction. "There are some racists on the "far right" doesn't mean that it's "commonly found" there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phoenixdirk (talk • contribs) 17:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)