Cannabis Indica

thcscience_admin
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 137: Line 137:
The definition of racism in the wikipedia article says "Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes." The sources cited do NOT include discrimination based on religious stereotypes to constitute racial discrimination ( Not in the Schefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society and not in the sources define variation of skin colour as a factor to be used as a basis for discrimination in the 'skin whitening creams radio programme') - thus this is definition is incorrect and needs to be amended. Acc to the Schefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society, the only major religion which can be considered to also denote an ethnic or racial group, is Sikhism. Reference : Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1982] UKHL 7 is a United Kingdom law case on racial discrimination. It held that Sikhs are to be considered an ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976. Apart from this isolated case, racism does include discrimination based on religious beliefs. This apart the term racism cannot be used to include discrimination on the basis of religion.[[User:Uypoi|Uypoi]] ([[User talk:Uypoi|talk]]) 10:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
The definition of racism in the wikipedia article says "Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes." The sources cited do NOT include discrimination based on religious stereotypes to constitute racial discrimination ( Not in the Schefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society and not in the sources define variation of skin colour as a factor to be used as a basis for discrimination in the 'skin whitening creams radio programme') - thus this is definition is incorrect and needs to be amended. Acc to the Schefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society, the only major religion which can be considered to also denote an ethnic or racial group, is Sikhism. Reference : Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1982] UKHL 7 is a United Kingdom law case on racial discrimination. It held that Sikhs are to be considered an ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976. Apart from this isolated case, racism does include discrimination based on religious beliefs. This apart the term racism cannot be used to include discrimination on the basis of religion.[[User:Uypoi|Uypoi]] ([[User talk:Uypoi|talk]]) 10:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
:Racism and religious discrimination are of course two different things - but that doesnt mean that they are not related or that some definitions of racism doesnt include religious discrimination. Discrimination against muslims is for example very commonly considered a form of racism and anti-judaic discrimination would of course be considered a form of anti-semitism which few people would consider not to be a form of racism. So, you cannot simply exclude religion from among the traits along which racial boundaries and racial discrimination are defined.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 14:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
:Racism and religious discrimination are of course two different things - but that doesnt mean that they are not related or that some definitions of racism doesnt include religious discrimination. Discrimination against muslims is for example very commonly considered a form of racism and anti-judaic discrimination would of course be considered a form of anti-semitism which few people would consider not to be a form of racism. So, you cannot simply exclude religion from among the traits along which racial boundaries and racial discrimination are defined.[[User:Maunus|·maunus]] · [[User talk:Maunus|snunɐɯ·]] 14:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
::While probably true, this point requires better sourcing. If our sources do not include the relation, then we can not include it ourselves. [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 15:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:06, 15 September 2015

Template:Vital article

Anti-White Racism Redirect

Why is it just a redirect and not its own page? I filled the page with a bunch of info (which took a day) and then I look back later and its all deleted. What is going on exactly?

Mistake on label

This phrase... "Students protesting against racial quotas in Brazil. The sign reads: "Want an opening (i.e. job opening)? Pass the entry exam!" is wrong.

"Quer uma vaga"... it is about a place, a seat. How many seats are available in University of Sao Paulo yearly? Almost 11000. Those places are disputed (there are more candidates than available seats) therefore attendees must to pass the entry exam to "get a place". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.244.97 (talk) 14:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Definition

Would it be possible to use the dictionary definition of racism, something concise and direct, rather than the hodge-podge of sociology-speak we have know? It should read: Racism IS, not blah blah blah centering on blah blah blah, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avocats (talk • contribs) 00:21, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a dictionary though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:23, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good demonstration of the problems of dictionary definitions, trying to simplify a complex social construction. I recall one that defined archaeology as the study of prehistory (which is nonsense). Doug Weller (talk) 11:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia entry should begin with something concise that summarizes the entry. It's not an effort to simplify a complex social construction. It's an effort to get the language coherent and readable. Sociology jibber-jabber does not convey information. Avocats (talk) 02:11, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Having a concise definition that mischaracterizes the topic is not an improvement.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Any definition should be confined to what most speakers mean and what most listeners understand when the speak or hear the word. If the topic is controversial or politically loaded, then it might be limited to what most educated speakers mean and understand. Otherwise we are describing something different than when we actually use the word and understand it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:301:7710:B570:A5BA:4968:DD76:B515 (talk) 01:34, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mischaracterizing a word with a concise definition is not an improvement. 217.114.83.129 (talk) 15:21, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I was going to mention this too. The dictionary definition is far too limited in its meaning and is certainly not an improvement. To say that racism is a feeling of racial superiority doesn't consider other reasons for racial prejudice, such as (for eg.) a feeling of inferiority of your own race in the light of some perceived threat and thus an outward projection of hatred towards the perceived 'superior' race. Also considerations of racism against your own race by another race could lead you to have negative prejudice towards the oppressing race. I will change the definition back. Ljgua124 (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Othering topic could be expanded to state that racism is just a form of othering. People can be stereotyped, regarded as inferior, or discriminated against based on any characteristic, such as sexual orientation, age, handicap, social class, urban or rural residence, or origin in part of the country. Race is only one example of othering. 2602:301:7710:B570:A5BA:4968:DD76:B515 (talk) 01:16, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Unconcious racism

My edit was reversed based on a perceived need for support for the notion that "unconcious racism" is a controversial theory. Yet the article already states: In sociology and psychology, some definitions include only consciously malignant forms of discrimination.[4][5]. Avocats (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...

May we add Leon Trotsky the Leader of the Communist Red Army etc. was the person who coined and invented the term, "racism", o, I don't know, for totally non-scientific purposes? Can Wikipedia at least pretend to try to be even-minded...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Trotsky authored "History of the Russian Revolution" (1930) where, on the first time on planet Earth, a page contained the then neologistic word, "racist"/"racism"-

Magnus Hirschfeld LATER wrote "Racism" in 1933 (trans. English approx. 1938) -

How is this not relevant data about the Trotskyite origins...? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 19:54, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not relevant since the word 'racialism' (with the same meaning) pre-dates Trotsky's birth by 8 years. [1] Though I note that you cite no source for your claim. Not that it matters much since this is an encyclopaedia and primarily concerns itself with topics, rather than with etymology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the attempt to make things slightly more balanced is foredoomed in all realistic harshness here. Wikipedia is not immune to the way its own society molds its lenses of perception, but I cannot alter things alone. I give up. You all "win" - good day. P.S. Please do not insult needlessly by introducing the ridiculous argument that the dead-letter etymology carries no undergirding of conceptual groundwork itself and is somehow magically, discretely separable from the other domains involved... Bye. - A Jewish Anti-Marxist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B34B:A940:F051:AB0F:3A76:DE48 (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The only ridiculous argument here seems to be that Trotsky introduced a word in 1930, when the Oxford English Dictionary apparently notes that it was used in 1903. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To my knowledge, Trotsky never wrote in English, so I wonder what Russian or Ukrainian word has been translated as "racism". Meclee (talk) 03:29, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was first used in 1903 in the book Proceedings of the twentieth annual meeting of the Lake Mohonk Conference of friends of the Indian which deals with equal rights and claims that Indians do not have the same rights as other races: http://radikal.net/filosofi/kapitalisme/proceeding.png

"Racism consists of ideologies and practices that seek to justify, or cause, the unequal distribution of privileges, rights or goods among different racial groups" is correct definition and writes about the same as this scientific definition which also is very good: http://understandingrace.org/resources/glossary.html#r — Preceding unsigned comment added by Filosofen (talk • contribs) 17:14, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OED citation 1907 in Etymology section

The History of English in a Social Context: A Contribution to Historical Sociolinguistics Front Cover Dieter Kastovsky, Arthur Mettinger

p267

available on google books.

is not, and should be cited

Not sure what you're asking, but there is not 1907 source in the OED so I removed it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 00:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Repugnant -- Isn't that, well, WP:NPOV ?

Some how I just can not! Stop! Myself! from stepping my foot in this. :) However there is a desire to remain encyclopedic in Wikipedia and one of the better ideals that embodies that desire is WP:NPOV -- Neutral point of view. The lead-in of the extant article suggests that racism is repugnant however the use of that adjective is something of a biased, non-universal point of view. Yes, it's repugnant to you, repugnant to me, repugnant to maybe two thirds of the planet's populace, but I believe that there is extant statistical research which shows that racism is not repugnant to something like a third of the planet's populace.

Somehow I don't see Britannica or Mirriam or Webster utilizing the word. I don't know, it's just that because of The Onion's recent article I thought I'd come take a look at the extant page and that word just kind of leapps out as not very professional or NPOV.

Please don't hurt me for suggesting maybe the word should be stricken. :) Damotclese (talk) 22:29, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I caught it and immediately reverted it, and you should do the same if you see something like that again. Simple vandalism like that should be reverted, especially when it's obviously WP:NPOV.
--OCCullens (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

POV Check

I'm seeing a lot of politicized writing in this article, which I expected as it can be considered a hotbutton issue. My main complaint:

It does not include the primary and almost universally accepted definition of racism.

--OCCullens (talk) 06:22, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which is, by what reliable source? ldvhl (talk) 07:34, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hatred or prejudice based on race, usually based on an innate belief in the superiority of one's own race: as defined by the Oxford English Dictionary and Merriam-Websiter.--OCCullens (talk) 07:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICT makes it pretty clear dictionaries are not preferred as sources. ldvhl (talk) 10:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DICT makes it clear that that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.--OCCullens (talk) 02:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, meant WP:DICTS ldvhl (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ClickHole article about this article

Pretty funny: [2], but hopefully it doesn't lead to lots of vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 07:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it won't, honestly. xkcd, for example, has inspired countless vandalism edits whenever it mentions Wikipedia pages in its comics. Booyahhayoob (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse, Seth MacFarlane shared it in his facebook [3]. --Xyzrt (talk) 00:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, great. Can we seriously get temp partial protection? Ogress smash! 00:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
it's on my watch list, so if it happens. Doug Weller (talk) 04:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maintaining this article

This article and White privilege are two of the most difficult pages to maintain on WP. Everyone has an opinion about race and racism. Please note that the article should NOT be about someone's opinion (see WP:NPOV). It is about a complex and specific subject that has been the topic of numerous academic studies and stories in popular publications. So, if you cannot cite at least one reputable source for a concept you want to add or change, please DO NOT make the addition of change. It's ALWAYS best to propose any substantive (as opposed to minor copy edits, or removal of vandalism or unsupported opinion) on this talk page BEFORE you make a change. We have many Wikipedians who are qualified experts on this topic; if you feel something in the article is questionable or needs further verification, DO feel free to tag it for attention (see WP:EX). Please note also that so-called "soft science" studies (e.g. social and behavioral sciences) are valid sources. Just because something is a subjective cognitive construct does not mean that it "doesn't exist" (said at the risk of sounding too phenomenological). Edit warring, folks making unsubstantiated claims and other folks trying to claim the topic is too subjective or non-existent are responsible for the current rambling nature of the article. I'd offer to do a re-org at some point but the edit wars that start over such actions make it too time-consuming for me right now.

As an aside, in reference to a discussion above, WP:NAD doesn't mean that dictionaries aren't valid sources for definition, it does mean that WP articles are NOT dictionary entries and should be encyclopedic, giving a more full explanation of a term or concept. Happy editing, everyone! Meclee (talk) 20:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racism is separate from Religious discrimination

The definition of racism in the wikipedia article says "Some definitions of racism also include discriminatory behaviors and beliefs based on cultural, national, ethnic, caste, or religious stereotypes." The sources cited do NOT include discrimination based on religious stereotypes to constitute racial discrimination ( Not in the Schefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society and not in the sources define variation of skin colour as a factor to be used as a basis for discrimination in the 'skin whitening creams radio programme') - thus this is definition is incorrect and needs to be amended. Acc to the Schefer. 2008 Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society, the only major religion which can be considered to also denote an ethnic or racial group, is Sikhism. Reference : Mandla v Dowell-Lee [1982] UKHL 7 is a United Kingdom law case on racial discrimination. It held that Sikhs are to be considered an ethnic group for the purposes of the Race Relations Act 1976. Apart from this isolated case, racism does include discrimination based on religious beliefs. This apart the term racism cannot be used to include discrimination on the basis of religion.Uypoi (talk) 10:38, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racism and religious discrimination are of course two different things - but that doesnt mean that they are not related or that some definitions of racism doesnt include religious discrimination. Discrimination against muslims is for example very commonly considered a form of racism and anti-judaic discrimination would of course be considered a form of anti-semitism which few people would consider not to be a form of racism. So, you cannot simply exclude religion from among the traits along which racial boundaries and racial discrimination are defined.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 14:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While probably true, this point requires better sourcing. If our sources do not include the relation, then we can not include it ourselves. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=681162299&diff=prev

Leave a Reply