Talk:Racism

afrophobia vs. afrophilia

on the opposite end of the spectrum of anti-semitism is philo-semitism (a love of all things jewish.) similary white racism against asians (yellow peril) is contrasted with white love of all things asian (asia-philia). i am no scholar on the subject, but shouldn't there be discussion in this article, or a link to, the opposite of afrophobia? (clearly the other forms of white racism i've mentioned can be best understood by examining both sides of the coin, the black experience is no different). again, i am no position to write the article i'm advocating, but here are some sources for those more capable than i. http://books.google.com/books?q=afrophilia&btnG=Search+Books

I would like to see a "cultural" racism section, and also a "individual" racism section

I recently attended a Anti Racism training, and these are the terms they used. They call it the "racism iceberg" - the type of racism that we see in everyday life but this is caused at the root by instutional racism. Institutional racism leads to a culture that contains racist concepts, which leads to individual acts of racism as racism becomes acceptable. SkymanUU

Rcaism - An ever growing problem

I have seen more and more news articles showing the growing problem of racism. In an attempt to educate the world on the harms of racism I have started a forum. The forum is named Racism Awareness Forum and is open to all around the world to gather and give their stories and input into this subject. Please join and submit topics to try and bring this to the attention of the world.

There is also a chat room for the use of forum members. Lets educate the world on the harms of racism.

The website can be found at [1] .

Thanks Frank

Sociological

There is NO literature that covers Black race hatred toward White people. Why is that? This is particularly interesting when one considers that most interracial crime in America is committed by a Black person against a White person. (at about 100 to 1 btw) Should that be a secret? Is Wikipedia just to PC to relate the facts?

At the same time Black kids are being taught Grievance Entitlement thinking in the schools. That mode teaches kids White people are to blame for the troubles of Black people. This is not supported by the facts, but has been put into the curriculum by the Teachers' Union. This is not good and should be part of the article. If this article is anything but PC Propaganda then these issues should be covered. Robtmorris (talk) 21:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Find reliable sources backing up your points (and not just that there is a 100-1 ratio, but that it's attributed to racism), and we will probably be able to include it somewhere (although it may be more appropriate in Racism in the United States or whichever nation you are describing).Wikipedia is not censored, but we do require reliable sources, especially for controversial facts like you are offering. -kotra (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That creates a catch-22 because there is no literature about racism by Blacks. The lack of studies does not mean there is nothing to study. It only means no one is willing to do it. Instead one finds full denial "John Hope Franklin, chair of President Clinton’s race panel, angrily insists that racism is something suffered, not dished out, by blacks. Many black professors, writers, polemicists, and politicians repeat the same mantra. What might appear to be black racism, writes syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts, actually boils down not to racism but to acts of crime and rudeness from the perpetrators, and tough luck for the recipients." ( http://www.tabunka.org/newsletter/black_racism.html) Robtmorris (talk) 13:59, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Some statistics -(It appears my off the cuff ration was not correct, but ---)

Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

• Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

• Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa. For more check "Race, Crime and Justice in America, The Color of Crime New Century Foundation Oakton, VA 22124 Second, Expanded Edition"Robtmorris (talk) 14:09, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually there have been plenty of studies of this issue. I would suggest that, if you want to add content about it, you use academic sources rather than New Century Foundation. Here are a few books from mainstream publishers that you may want to look at for information. And please don't dismiss them as being from the "liberal elite" - they do address the issues that you raised and at least one of them is very clearly written from an anti-liberal point of view. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Robtmorris) You may see this as a catch-22, but it could be you're misunderstanding the purpose of Wikipedia. Our policy on Wikipedia is to just compile and summarize existing published information, not put forth unpublished ideas (see our policy against original research). Another policy of ours is verifiability, which states that our threshold is "verifiability, not truth". Basically, this means that if there are no reliable sources about a subject, we can't write about it... even if it's true. You've probably seen a lot of stuff in Wikipedia where no sources are cited, but we're trying to reduce uncited statements to just common knowledge facts ("the sky is blue"). For controversial subjects like racism, it's even more important to have reliable sources than most subjects.

A bit of a side note... I don't want to get in a debate about racism, but there's one other possible explanation for the statistics you give: there are a lot more white people than black people in the US. According to the 2006 census, 76% of Americans are white, so it makes sense that, statistically, whites would most often be the victims of crimes. Racism, along with other factors, could also be in play here, but I think the bulk of the difference can be explained by the demographic situation.

Anyway, if we want to attribute any of these statistics to racism, we'll have to cite a source that makes that connection. -kotra (talk) 20:35, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Racism Article is Extreme Anti-White Propaganda

How can anyone believe, for a second, that racism is predominantly white? Yet the vast majority of the text is an attack on white people.

It is hypocritical to discuss racism as being a "bad thing" while stereotyping whites!

I know quite a few white people that have been on the receiving end of physical violence from groups of blacks - in London and Tokyo. In my experience I've never thought that whites were more predisposed to racism than any other race. But THIS ARTICLE cites almost no balanced reports of racism initiated by non-whites.

Are Zimbabweans racist? What about Hutu/Tutsi Rwandan violence? How about Black/Mexican racism in the USA? What about Japanese racism towards all foreigners?

Seems to me the author(s) of this article are nothing but ni.. blacks with an axe to grind against white people with absolutely no valid reason. Wanna cry about slavery several generations STARTED BY AFRICANS??? If there weren't whites to buy the slaves I guess your grandpappy would just have been killed by other Africans. What about the Europeans forced to work in German labour camps during WWII?

GROW UP!!! STOP ATTACKING WHITES YOU RACIST BLACK SUPREMACISTS. YOU COWARDLY PATHETIC SUPREMACISTS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.44.140.87 (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

In response to this, some points are worth making.

Firstly, the intro to the article appears entirely objective. It does not take a view from any particular perspective.

The article itself contains references throughout to international history, and several mentions of the United Nations, which is not a black or white body, but international.

Similarly, the inter-African racism brought up in the above is of a different order to the European/Afican racism and one should bring different standards to bear in assessing it's significance, given that there is not room for everything to be included in the article. There are probably countless examples of racism which could be cited, from most regions on earth. However the "white European" history is particularly significant for several reasons including the history of global colonialism, which has no equivalent elsewhere, and the German state which led to the outbreak of World War II. These deserve prominence in an analysis of the subject. Also, the emergence of science in Europe led to Darwin and genetics which have a particularly pronounced one-sidedness in the perspectives they fostered, because science was something particular to privileged white men, and is a dominant force in European society.

(As for Europeans forced to work in German labour camps - I don't see the relevance to racism. Jews were incarcerated because of their race; Europeans were incarcerated for other reasons, eg political views. There were Germans in the camps too!)

Another issue is the existence of reliable sources. It would be valuable to have solid information on racism in South East Asia, South America, or within Africa for example - but sources will not be as easy to come by. However I would welcome some additional coverage provided it is encylopedic. 217.43.81.99 (talk) 07:45, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

""white European" history is particularly significant for several reasons including the history of global colonialism which has no equivalent elsewhere" This is not true. There were many international empires centuries before the European empires of 1492 onwards. To give just one example Genghis Khan's Mongol empire was the biggest continuous empire the world has ever seen. It stretched from Central Europe to the Sea of Japan and was built on extreme brutality. It's estimated that between 30 and 40 million people were killed to build that empire - all in the lifetime of one man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I looked at Person of color - to me this is a dictionary definition and connotation so intertwined with racism, I think it is better to redirect it to this page, with some sentences on the term in an etymology and history sections.

Support

1. . Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
2. . Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose

1. Person of color is much more than a dictionary definition; for example, the entire "Political significance" section would not be found in a dictionary. Too much content to merge into this already long article. -kotra (talk) 18:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
2. Oppose - racism has plenty to deal with. Do not add in "Person of color", which is both a term and a socially constructed fact; we make distinctions based on what we see; what we do with the distinctions is a different matter.--Parkwells (talk) 14:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
3. Oppose – per both kotra and Parkwells. The connection between person of color and racism is not strong enough to justify the merger. And the person of color article is significantly more than just a definition. -- Irn (talk) 16:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
4. Oppose - Although some might use "Person of colour" in a racist fashion the term is not exclusif to that realm, it would be innapropriate to limit such a broad term a narrow minded aspect of humanity.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
5. Oppose - this is a phenominally well-known term with groups adopting the phrase. This really should be expanded as a language article explaining the etymology, history usages and impacts. I don't think it should be merged anywhere. -- Banjeboi 18:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Moni3 has suggested an alternate merge place of [Political correctness]], though she has not voiced an opinion on whether a merge is needed as such. Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

• "person of color" isn't an "-ism". Why are we wanting to merge these? Apples and oranges. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 12:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

ism is but a suffix which makes nouns. Person of colour may or may not be a belief, but it's a label nonethless. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

A label is just that a label, it's what we do with them that makes them good or bad. I am many things, American, Canadian, English, French, Québécois, Michiganian, these are all labels. Warning, Warning! Personal opinion is to follow: It seems that we are in a time of over political correctness, when it offends people to even be asked if they are human.--Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Although I understand the thought, Wikipedia has aught to do with sundry notions of good or bad, it's about verifiability. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My point was not about Wikipdia, what wikipedia is or isn't or any of it's procedures , but that labels are only labels. Humans have been labeled in so many diferent ways, by so many different people, even by one-selves. Racism is not uniquely about labels, and labels are not the only aspect of racism. There are valid (good) reasons to use labels, but there is never any reason to be racist (bad). Racism is also not uniquely about "colour", it can be about heritage, language and many other distinctions betwen people. --Never give up! Never surrender! (talk) 20:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

The person of color article deals with a distinctly American euphemism central to the "separate but equal" doctrine. The article on racism is far too broad to deal with the term, racial segregation in the United States would be a more appropriate target to merge to. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:38, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think Person of color needs to be merged anywhere. We merge when articles cover the same content, an article is too short to merit its own article, or an article needs to be inside another article for context reasons. I don't see Person of color matching any of these. It's an idea that can't really be shunted into any one category (racism, political correctness, racial segregation [though racial segregation would be the closest], etc), and it stands just fine as its own article. Link from those other articles, maybe even add an introductory section to them with a {{main}} or {{see also}} link to it, but keep it as its own article. -kotra (talk) 19:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

As there seems to be no consensus for merging, I've removed the merge tag. Jafeluv (talk) 12:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Proceedural comment

When this closes please save to the POC article rather than the racism article. -- Banjeboi 18:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect assertion

In the definitions section, the following appears: "the US Government's Human Genome Program has announced that the most complete mapping of human DNA to date proves conclusively that "race" itself does not exist."

I found this quite surprising, so I consulted the reference given and found this: "DNA studies do not indicate that separate classifiable subspecies (races) exist within modern humans... no consistent patterns of genes across the human genome exist to distinguish one race from another."

These statements do not accord with the statement in the article and they appear to have been misunderstood. The source is saying that DNA studies don't show the existence of clear racial divisions - this is quite different from saying they prove conclusively that race does not exist.

As a deliberately absurd analogy to highlight the error, consider this: DNA studies do not show that different languages exist. This is perfectly true. It is false to say that as a consequence, DNA studies prove that languages do not exist. They do exist, but they exist in a manner which lies outside of the framework of this particular type of DNA analysis.

A correct paraphrasing of the research would be something like "[the research] indicates that there is no distinct genetic basis to racial types." 217.43.81.99 (talk) 07:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up; it's been changed to your suggested wording now. -kotra (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes we should it is a good idea because the two things do mean almost the same thing. By Bob Heffermen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.0.26 (talk) 07:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Anti-White Propaganda definition

"racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"

This is race theory. Not racism. Racism is about non-equal rights based on race and not race differences. The article define science as racism. This article is nothing but international socialist hate propaganda. Filosofen (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See [2],[3], etc. This is the definition of racism. Do you count mainstream dictionaries as part of "international socialist hate propaganda"? -kotra (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Reference 3 is nothing but anti-white socialist propaganda build on the idea that all humans are identical inside. It reject all science and mix facts with human rights. In real life nobody would say someone is a racist for saying European jews have higher iq than whites. But if one say whites got higher iq than black then it's suddently racism. This definition is only used for hate against whites and NEVER WHEN WHITES ARE NOT A TARGET.

Reference 2 writes: "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.". Note "and has the right to rule others" means unequal rights. But this definition say that the first example below of racism is not racism because it say "one's own race is superior" too and this is an obvious lie as racism does not require this statement.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_diversity Racism is the notion that one's race determines one's identity. It is the belief that one's convictions, values and character are determined not by the judgment of one's mind but by one's anatomy or "blood."

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC826955 Racism is an ideology which claims the human species can be divided into a number of discrete biological groupings that determine the behaviour and success of individuals within that group. This belief views "races" as natural and fixed subdivisions of humans, each with its distinct and variable cultural characteristics and capacity for developing civilizations. Thus, the biological factors can be used to explain the social and cultural variations of humans. This ideology also includes the belief that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones.

Correct definition which nobody can give one example of is not valid: Racism is an ideology where humans are divided into separate and exclusive biological entities called race which determine their will (metaphysic) and political rights (metapolitics)

Example of racism:

Determinism: Jews are born evil. Its in their genes

Politics: Jews should be gassed to death because their are too smart (high IQ - average 108) and we don't like superior races to our own white race (average IQ 100) as a superior race get too much power

Jews should not be allowed to do banking work (because their mind is born criminal)

White people should be killed because they get too much power. Only indians should rule the world as they are born with justice in their mind.

Negros should be allowed to use as slaves because they do not have same rights as white people because they are not born with a soul or are born evil

This is NOT racism but your communism definition make it racism:

Japanese are at average born with higher IQ than white people and are superior in this field.

Negroes are born with longer legs than Japanese and superiour in running fast

IQ references that show science support different IQ for different races. Science is not racism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IQ_and_Global_Inequality

http://www.csulb.edu/~kmacd/361IQParke.html

I've changed the definition to this which is close to correct:

Racism is the belief that race determine the behaviour and success of individuals within that group and includes the belief that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones (i.e. unequal rights)

Filosofen (talk) 21:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I reverted your changes back to the consensus version for a couple of reasons - first, the way you have written it is unclear and confusing; the previous way was much clearer. Second, because the mention of "unequal rights" could be seen as violating neutral point of view policy. Third, because "unequal rights" are not mentioned in the source that you cited.

Is there any general consensus about how the lede should read? Dawn Bard (talk) 19:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

dominate inferior ones means exactly the same as unequal rights to the benefit of one group. Not everybody understand "dominate". The previous was nonsense and wrong defined as proven here. Filosofen (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where it has been "proven" that the previous definition is wrong. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

It say science is racism and does not mention rights at all and everybody know racists want unequal rights. That is proof enough. My reference does not say such nonsense. "Racism is the belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities". This is science (links above proves it) not ideology as IQ is such a capacity and science is not an "ism". Racists holds that it's "behaviour" which is determined as my reference writes. "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" is science, not ideology. What is written now is not even close to something reasonable. Can you prove anything wrong in what I've written and that the old definition is more correct than the new I wrote with reference? Nobody here has even tried argue against this.Filosofen (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You are drawing conclusions not contained in your references. The consensus definition does not "say science is racism" - that's your conclusion. Your source does not state in an unqualified way that "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," it says that racist ideology assumes that "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race," which is completely different than simply stating it as fact. If you read farther down in your own citation, it says that "Research shows these assumptions to be wrong and largely based on the untenable position that nature (biology) is a single causal agent. Evidence showing that differences within groups are greater than differences between groups, and that social factors have an impact on behaviour argue strongly against racist beliefs." Consider checking out Wikipedia's policies on original research and neutrality. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"he consensus definition does not "say science is racism". It does implicit as explained above. "Your source does not state in an unqualified way that "racist ideology assumes that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" is not true. It's science that holds this. "Research shows these assumptions to be wrong" has no reference at all to any proof against the fact that different races have different IQ. Show me one single research article on entire internet with statistics holding this and I'll agree with you Filosofen (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

<---(undent) Again, you are coming to conclusions that are not present in the source. Wikipedia does not publish original research, including syntheses of published materials to advance a position. And again, "research shows these assumptions to be wrong" is from your source, so if you believe it is wrong, maybe you shouldn't edit this article based on it. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

My source is for definition of the word and nothing else so you're totally wrong. This source also holds that "1) biological differences are equal to cultural differences; 2) biological makeup determines the cultural achievements of a group; and 3) biological makeup limits the type of culture a group can develop." is wrong. This has nothing with definition to do but a theory about race differences which one may agree or disagree with.Filosofen (talk)

Dawn Bard is correct. The original, consensus-based wording is more accurate and intelligible, and your assertion that it was factually incorrect is contradicted by the sources present in this article and your own offered source. If you wish to advance a different definition of racism, we will need to find reliable sources that directly define it in such a way, or it is original research. -kotra (talk) 19:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What I wrote was: Racism is the belief that race determine the behaviour and success of individuals within that group and includes the belief that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones (i.e. unequal rights)[1]

My source write: (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC826955) Racism is an ideology which claims the human species can be divided into a number of discrete biological groupings that determine the behaviour and success of individuals within that group. This belief views "races" as natural and fixed subdivisions of humans, each with its distinct and variable cultural characteristics and capacity for developing civilizations. Thus, the biological factors can be used to explain the social and cultural variations of humans. This ideology also includes the belief that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones.

webster write: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism) 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 determine the behaviour and success" is not same as "determinant of human traits and capacities" as the last include IQ and the first does not.

"superior races can dominate inferior ones" is not same as "racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race" as the last include science but not rights and the first include rights and not science

"your assertion that it was factually incorrect is contradicted by the sources present in this article and your own offered source"

What is the contradiction? Filosofen (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You have no argument here, just an "more accurate and intelligible" because I say it is so type argument. "If you wish to advance a different definition of racism, we will need to find reliable sources that directly define it in such a way". What makes you think webster is more reliable? I've proven it's nonsense already as it implicite writes science is racism and it does not mention rights at all which everybody know racists include in their view with not a single exceptions in the entire history of humans.Filosofen (talk) 20:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Filosofen, you haven't "proven" that the consensus definition is "nonsense." Please read what we're telling you about original research - you have come to a conclusion that is not supported by the consensus source or by the source you added. And you're misrepresenting Kotra's argument - it's not because Kotra "says so", it's because your assertions are contradicted by the sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you think racism should include implicit science as IQ differences? This is nonsense because science is not an ideology (ism) and you have not argued against this but ignores my argument totally and not even commented it. Second you have not even commented the fact that racists think that different races should have different rights but this is not written in the definition of webster. Do you really deny this? I've never in my life read about someone denying this fact. All theories of racism writes about how racists want more rights than other races. Slavery is only one typical example. My source include this fact. Webster does not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_the_United_States follows from my definition but not from webster as it does not mention rights at all in any way. "superiority" does not imply unequal rights. A lot people and scientists (link above for reference and proof) think whites are superiour black people in IQ, but they don't want different rights for that reason. Seems you totally ignore my arguments for political reasons. Some people never accept proof no matter how good they are. Prove I'm wrong or do not reply to this at all. I'm not interested in repeating robot-answer "you haven't "proven"" when I actually has proven it by logical arguments (and reference that support me).Filosofen (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Prove you're wrong? This is from your cited source: "Racist ideology is based upon 3 false assumptions: 1) biological differences are equal to cultural differences; 2) biological makeup determines the cultural achievements of a group; and 3) biological makeup limits the type of culture a group can develop. Research shows these assumptions to be wrong and largely based on the untenable position that nature (biology) is a single causal agent. Evidence showing that differences within groups are greater than differences between groups, and that social factors have an impact on behaviour argue strongly against racist beliefs." The same source says nothing at all about rights. And I'm clearly not ignoring your arguments - look at how many times I've replied to you here - I'm pointing out that your arguments don't conform to Wikipedia policy and should not be included in the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Once again you ignore my arguments. My source was used for definition only and not race theories and you ignore this once again. Second, you write "The same source says nothing at all about rights" which totally ignore my argument that it in fact writes this implicit by writing that one race dominate another in the definition. It is logically impossible to dominate another race if everybody got equal rights. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominations writes "Domination is the condition of having control or power over people, animals or things". One cannot have control over other humans if they have equal rights. The only way to control other humans is that if they does not have the right to control themselves. If you don't understand something simple as this do no answer me. I don't discuss with someone who ignore basic logic like 1 + 1 = 2 Filosofen (talk) 21:13, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, first of all, you don't get to tell me not to reply - this talk page is for anyone interested in the Racism article. Secondly, you're misreading your own source. It doesn't say that some races should dominate others, it says, in defining racism, that racist ideology holds the belief that "that there is a natural hierarchical ordering of groups of people so that superior "races" can dominate inferior ones." It then goes on to state in no uncertain terms that the assumptions that support racist ideology are false. So you're ignoring my arguments and the source that you yourself cited. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"It doesn't say that some races should dominate others". This is a straw man argument as I in fact wrote "in the definition" which you have ignored. I don't say that this page holds the idea that one race should dominate another. You answer to be is nonsense. "the assumptions that support racist ideology are false." is not relevant for the definition of the word and not relevant for what I'm writing about here. This is not a discussion about if racism is based on facts or not but what the word means. It's obvious you try to escape from what the topic is about because you got no valid arguments Filosofen (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agreed with Kotra's original reply, so didn't post anything myself. We need to place the main emphasis on definitions found in mainstream sources. William Avery (talk) 20:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You give no argument for webster is more correct for definition of the word than my source thecanadianencyclopedia.com but I've proven that webster is wrong and totally nonsense which define science as racism Filosofen (talk) 20:23, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Your "proofs" do not exist; bald assertions of what you interpret your source to mean do not constitute "proof" but rather (as people keep pointing out to you) original research (and poorly reasoned at that). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:V - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." (my emphasis) William Avery (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

You ignore my proofs written here. You don't comment my arguments at all. Robot-answer "Your "proofs" do not exist" is btw. typical method from the anti-white hate group to avoid giving arguments. One can always write that no matter how good proofs are and just repeat it like a robot. Do you got one single example in the human history where public known racists want equal rights for all races? If not, then explain how webster definiton logically implicit include that racists want unequal rights. If you cant do this you know my proof is logically correct and you know you're wrong even if you robot-answer me with "you got no proof once again"Filosofen (talk) 20:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Implicitly tying another wikipedian to "anti-white hate groups" is really not cool - please have a look at Wikipedia's policies regarding keeping it civil and assuming good faith. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:48, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is a matter of acknowledged policy. "Proofs written here" is original research. Logical correctness doesn't enter into it. William Avery (talk) 20:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I attack his argument style, not person. His argument style is just repeating "you have no arguments/proofs" without comments the actual arguments/proofs". This style is always used by the anti-white groups to deny facts like unequal IQ between different races. But nobody ever comment the proofs. They just deny that they exists because they got no arguments. I've argued for the failure of the webster definiton for years and never got a single argument against my arguments but always the same robot-answer "you got no arguments/proofs" which is the standard answer to anybody who talk about race differences. Even the arguments on the links I've given above is always attacked with "They got no proof. End of discussion. Bye".Filosofen (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

We are not interested in debating whether your proof exists or not. We are only interested in whether your definition comes from a reliable source or not. You are not a reliable source, and neither am I. None of us are. Webster's Dictionary, even if it gives an incomplete definition, is a reliable source. You have not offered a reliable source for your changes, and the definition of racism is an extremely contentious issue, so we cannot implement your changes. You are wasting your time by trying to convince us something is true. Some of us probably agree with you already. But we need reliable sources to make your changes. -kotra (talk) 21:16, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Webster's Dictionary, even if it gives an incomplete definition, is a reliable source.". Prove it is reliable and not only the personal opinions of the very few humans who write this dictionary. In fact you can't. Webster is not a scientific source at all as there is no arguments for their definitions anyplace on they www page. You write it's reliable and my source is not because you personally agree with webster and not my dictionary. This is how anti-white groups spread lies. They pick the source who support them and everything else is "not reliable" no matter arguments and proofs Filosofen (talk) 21:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

As you are probably aware, Merriam-Webster is one of the most authoritative dictionaries of the English language (OED is another). Here we are asking for a simple definition of "racism", not a scientific analysis of it. M-W, as an authoritative dictionary, is a reliable source for this purpose. I never said your source was not reliable (although, as an encyclopedia, it may not be for this purpose), but it contradicts what you are trying to make it say, so we cannot use it for your proposed wording, regardless of its reliability.

Also, please understand that your comparisons of other editors' attempts to adhere to Wikipedia policy to the actions of "anti-white groups" are not helping your cause any. In all controversial areas, we try to adhere to the same exact policy. -kotra (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

When something is proven wrong, it's wrong no matter if it's the most used dictionary or not. If it writes 1+1=3 then it would be logical wrong holdning that it should be used as a reference, but that's exactly what you do in this case. You got no arguments at all and ignore what I write Filosofen (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not ignoring what you're writing, but... verifiability, not truth. -kotra (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been too polite to say it before, but your arguments are utter and arrant nonsense, which is why you continue to be unable to find any reliable sources for them. They use the meaningless assumption that different distributions between arbitrarily-defined populations mean something about the groupings used. It is racist to define people on the basis of averages of a class to which they happen to belong. "Whites" as a class has no intelligence: it's a demographic grouping. "Jews" as a group has no superiority or inferiority: it's a meaningless generality. Individual human beings are intelligent or unintelligent, fast or slow, tall or short, witty or stolid: "races" are not. Quit trying to cram people into pigeonholes; it's a disgrace to whatever group(s) you happen to belong to yourself. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's analyze this using rational arguments and not personal feelings as you obviously use as method when you write "I'm not ignoring what you're writing". Statement 1: "which is why you continue to be unable to find any reliable sources for them" ignore the fact that I gave one reliable source (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1SEC826955) which all of you without one single valid argument rejected and replaced with something that is proven to be wrong (webster anti-white propaganda definition which is only used to attack white people and never used in one single other case in entire history of humans). Statement 2: "It is racist to define people on the basis of averages of a class to which they happen to belong." ignores the fact that I've not argued for what you write here and therefore is a Straw Man (http://esgs.free.fr/uk/log53.htm). Nobody "define people on the basis of averages". Science only mean the average with IQ as example. With "European Jews have superior IQ" means they average IQ is higher than other races. "Individual human beings are intelligent or unintelligent". Oh really? Why don't you tell me that humans have two feet and not four while you start talking to me like one talk to people with IQ less than ones shoe number. Conclusion: You end your irrational nonsense here by 100% ignoring all of my arguments and therefore "your arguments are utter and arrant nonsense" is what is called a projection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection which writes: In psychology, psychological projection (or projection bias) is a defense mechanism where a person's personal attributes, unacceptable or unwanted thoughts, and/or emotions are ascribed onto another person or people. According to Wade, Tavris (2000) projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.Filosofen (talk) 05:40, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

For the record, "I'm not ignoring what you're writing" was mine, not Orange Mike's. As for the rest, Wikipedia is not a forum. Find sources of equal or greater reliability to Merriam-Webster (OED perhaps?) for the definition if you want to change it. -kotra (talk) 17:51, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Too much talk of non-racism/anti-racism in this article

There have clearly been some defenders of Greek and Moslem history in this article who have brought up examples of anti-racism from those cultures and in the case of moslems it seems the examples of racism towards blacks have largely been removed. I'm not sure there is room in this article for this - it is after all an article about racism not anti-racism. If we're going to go down that line then we might as well mention people like William Wilberforce who devoted his life to ending slavery or the 800 000 Britons who signed petitions to end slavery in one year in the 1800s or the hundreds of thousands of Britons who boycotted slave products, mainly sugar, as a protest. Maybe this all needs to be in an anti-racism article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 20.133.8.39 (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)