Template talk:Racism topics

	This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Discrimination This template is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles

This template was considered for deletion on 10 September 2013. The result of the discussion was "keep".

This is a pretty US Centric template. I'd suggest titling it as a US Template or expanding it to have more of a world view.CJ 12:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I started some reorganizing of the existing topics.

• I moved the history section to the top
• split out the Racism articles section to be Acts of racism and Racial violence
• renamed races and cultures to Racism against groups
• added anti-racist groups and movements
• pulled articles that were covered by broader topics and duplicate articles
• changed types of racism to racist ideologies

I think a lot of that pulls down the US Centric weight I was seeing but it still seems to be mostly about racism against Blacks and Jews.CJ 12:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. As for the U.S centric thing, the template should be globelized. Any suggestions?--sefringle^Talk 02:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A couple. For Asia, issues between Gaijin and ethnic Japanese. Also, historical issues between White Australians and Aborigines. In Africa, you've got the "reverse racism" issues in the now Black run governments with white minority populations (see Zimbabwe). CJ 03:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Are there articles for this? If there are, we can add them. If not, I don't know what we can do here right now.--Sefringle^Talk 03:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this template good enough for now to place in the articles?--Sefringle^Talk 03:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no objections, I am going to start placing the template in the articles--Sefringle^Talk 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery isn't necessarily racism. It was with Africans in the Americas and in the Middle East, but it's existed since the dawn of man without being based on race. CJ 00:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it might be better to move it to the "acts of racism" or "history or racism" section. Throughout history there were periods where slavvery was racism. I suppose the other option is to replace it with the atlantic slave trade and arab slave trade links.--Sefringle^Talk 01:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if there were sub articles for slavery like chattel slavery and race-based slavery. I suppose moving it to acts is fine.

I'd suggest splitting this, as it's organised strangely at the moment. You have Klu Klux Klan and Grey Wolves which are specific groups, then Neo-Nazism, Nazism and Aryanism (redirects to Aryan race) which aren't groups at all. Unless you're planning to have a huge template you might be better off leaving groups off altogether, as just off the top of my head there are some/all of these that need adding:

• The many groups listed on {{UK far right}}, the groups in Category:Neo-Nazi organizations and its sub-cat.

It might be better off just sticking to ideologies? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 10:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need at least one group to summarize each distinct ideology. For example, there are hundreds of neo-Nazi groups, but most (with a few exceptions) follow basically the same creed, so Neo-Nazis only need be listed once. The KKK, which has many similarities to the neos, is still fairly distinct and deserves separate mention. Similarly, the Grey Wolves, though they parallel these organizations, have no direct connection to them and . Ideologies I would put separately, and would probably only put the larger and more distinct ideological movements.The Myotis 19:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty confusing. Is there a distinction between the two sections, and, if so, can one be renamed? --Eliyak T·C 10:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok someone added these to the template. The first to as racist ideologies and the last as a racist group. At best they appear to be ethnic nationalist movements but not outright racist groups. Even this site that is obviously against this position doesn't call them out as racist. Anti-American yes. But not racist.[1] If someone has some clearer documentation of a specific racist agenda please bring it up. CJ 09:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Mexica Movement article already states that they are anti-White and different from Mecha. La Raza is also obviously racist; see bronze race (or cosmic race) and Brown Berets. Chicanismo or Chicano nationalism for Aztlán is just as Americentric in focus as White nationalism vs Black nationalism. These rabble-rousers see themselves as another race of their own and that other people don't belong in the Americas. There is no need to do a double take on this. Racism is racism, so I will revert your "politically correct" revert. Regiment 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide a link to the page that states this? Racism is not racism. There are verying degrees of racism. Ethnic nationalism in itself is not racism either, unless the goal is specificly racist. (as in white nationalism) Not all nationalism is the same. Yahel Guhan 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the articles already describing the motives of Mexica Movement. It clearly describes the racist outlook and agenda of its participants. Whether one thinks they are in the right or not, is inconsequential to the mere fact of racism being blatantly present. Regiment 22:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those articles assert the racist nature of the groups you are trying to insert, Regiment. La Raza isn't even an ideology, so why are you trying to put it in the "Racist ideologies" section? You can't add things to the template because they are "obviously" or "blatantly" racist to you. If the articles don't cite reliable sources that indicate that the organizations or ideologies are racist, including them here is original research. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a case of extremist political partisanry. You editors here are ideologically aligned with that movement and are whitewashing their "Brown" racial supremacist declaration to expel all European people from the Americas. You all really offend me. You think that your bias is neutral and that you are virtuous for holding violent thoughts against me for being a different colour. You are the True Believers in your cause to take down "The Man". It is plainly obvious from your user profile pages and user edit contributions, that you have activist agendas and are using Wikipedia to spread and defend your irrational and hateful beliefs based on superficial, shallow distinctions such as appearance. Regiment 16:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think for a few minutes, Regiment. If we were extremist ideologues, why would Black supremacy and the Nation of Islam be in the template? As I explained above, the three Wikipedia articles you'd like to add to this template don't say that they are considered racist. Without reliable sources that say that these are racist groups or ideologies, including them in this template would represent prohibited original research. I hope that reading the two policies I just linked to (WP:RS and WP:OR) will help you understand why your opinion that they are "blatantly" or "obviously" racist isn't sufficient reason to include them in this template. After you've familiarized yourself with the relevant policies, please let's discuss any further questions you have. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 04:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By your argument, because the Nazis and KKK don't view, brand or propagandize themselves as racist or supremacist and because they have a significant amount of non-affiliated well-wishers or supporters, who both use sophisticated euphemisms to clothe their hate, then they are not in fact, racist or supremacist and must be delisted from Wikipedia. After all, their critics' opinions on their attitudes don't matter. There is no reason to exclude Brown pride movements from the general category that White and Black pride movements fall into, on Wikipedia. To do that, to take your argument as correct, is to be patently unfair to NPOV, which is supposed to be "non-negotiable", per Jimbo Wales.

Euphemisms for racism don't count? So then, if an ideology is by definition, racist (e.g. race conscious groups in the Los Angeles protests, wishing and agitating for the expulsion of another race from two continents), but somebody has taken great pains to ignore this great pink elephant in the room, by softening blatantly supremacist objectives, through "moderating" language, then it is not as bigoted? That is illogical and obviously falsely naive, to let some get off the hook, where others are scrutinized. Several groups have identified Mexica and Mecha, as well as numerous other Mexican related supremacist groups as racist (e.g. Lou Dobbs, what? He's not legit? His wife is even "Brown" herself!), but they are "not taken seriously" because of prejudice on the part of editors like yourself. How come it is acceptable to label White conservatives as racist, or accept the opinions of activist groups which deem them so, but not the complaints made about the Mexican Brown supremacists? Why are you enforcing a double standard and having others get involved to block me for 3RR, when I have no agenda but impartiality to discrimination? All racial groups have their "villains", so to speak--the Brown people included. No PR campaign will save their face, even Wiki-activist editors who do their damnedest to whitewash these articles.

I believe your kindness in this issue is contrived, because you want it to go away and no scrutiny be applied to these racially supremacist people. You should reconsider; some of them think Blacks are no different from Whites in their illegality of presence in the "American continent" and that Jews are worthless to them or others. Maybe when you see that more than Whites are the target, you could logically accept that you aren't naive, but selfish in thinking that if only Whites are not the victims, but deserve the abuse anyways, then you should allow or promote this way of thinking to continue. After all, you only care for yourself and those like you. Most of your edits tackle your own identity politics, but you could care less about the needs and pains of others different than yourself, unless they also be non-White. How insultingly shallow, that your racist self-centeredness has resulted in this edit war and dishonestly putting me under a microscope, for merely doing the right thing. Regiment 09:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All you were asked to do was provide some documentation from a verifiable source such as the Southern Poverty Law Center or some other reliable source. You personal opinion is not a reliable source. What Lou Dobbs thinks is not a reliable source. And quite frankly if "everybody" thinks these are examples of racism then it shouldn't be difficult to find a reliable source. You also need to keep in mind WP:CIVILITY. That's all I'm going to say on that.CJ 10:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See? I knew you would pick and choose who is a reliable source. You hate Lou Dobbs, simply because of his stance. If it was Keith Olberman or Jon Stewart, or the Daily Kos, you'd gobble it up like there was no tomorrow. I'm through dealing with your obnoxious and vile bias for racism and supremacism against one race and the glorification of others. Your bias prevents tolerance and neutrality being exercised at Wikipedia. Good riddance. Regiment 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since all you do is revert, when the Mexica Movement already states that the Brown people want to banish White people from the Americas...this is guaranteed proof that you don't even want proof. It's in your face and you refuse to even pay attention, because it bothers you. Are you Brown? Regiment 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is my last response to you on this. You've been reported at WP:ANI for your disruptive edits and making personal attacks. You have still refused to provide sources. The one article you have cited is a quote from WorldNetDaily. That is not a reliable source because it is an opinion site with a long history of bias. CJ 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morris Dees is also a fraud. So, I don't care to consider the SLPC a valid, legit source. You are a bigot and one-sided to the end. You don't care for truth, which takes different sides to portray. BTW, I have only read WND articles about five times. Who cares? I don't care for David Horowitz and he has written for them. It doesn't mean I will pick sides, like you are doing. You are so unprofessional about this by picking sides. Regiment 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell Chicano nationalism has no place on this template. futurebird 03:28, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conventional racists consider Jews to be a race of their own. The "Jewish race" is a frequent topic of their mantra. Whoever removed this racist group must have a problem with Brown racists being listed, because they are omitted from this category, while the White vs Black dichotomy takes up the majority of the category. I guess the Browns are just the victim of both Whites and Blacks, so they can't be racists. How NPOV, that they are victims of racism and not culprits in any sense or form. Now now, your cybersquatting privileges give you right to WP:OWN this article? Good for you; you have isolated White and Black hate for the "Jewish race" from Brown hate for the "Jewish race". Double standards don't impress anybody, fuhrer. Censor away! Savignac 04:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of corse antisemitism needs to be included; prejudice against jews can be against ethnic jews, who may not be followers of judaism. Yahel Guhan 04:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why did the activist remove their inclusion? He's acting like a dictator on who are the true racists and who aren't, based upon his personal preference. Savignac 04:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have misunderstood the dispute. The Nation of Aztlán article needs sources that specificly say they are "racist" for inclusion. Can you show me a source that says it is a "racist group" or hate group? Secondly, that article needs rewriting. Yahel Guhan 05:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How convenient. Browns can't be racist, neither can antisemitism--even though the Nation of Islam, Nazi and Aryan groups are included for this very reason. Prove that this group isn't antisemitic! The ADL believes they are antisemitic and antisemitism is included in the umbrella term "racism". Thanks for the point! Savignac 05:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite; antisemitism is a form of racism, but we have our own template for antisemitism. There are too many racist groups to include them all in this article. Only the major ones belong, and this group seems rather minor in importance. Yahel Guhan 05:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I live in the Southwestern USA. It is a big issue here, even if not in New York or the East Coast. Go to LA and see how far you'll get with that naivete. I assume you haven't been accosted during the illegal alien riots and marches of 2006 (2006 United States immigration reform protests, Great American Boycott)? Is this because you believe all colored people are united in their unassailable hate for the White man and the Black brothers who play turncoat on their own kind? Rodney King forever...? Wrong! There were Black brothers there defending their right to be in "America", this one continent concept that the Brown racists think belongs to them and all others must be expelled, because they are not Brown and are the true illegal aliens, in their racist, supremacist opinions. Savignac 05:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your information, I have been to Los Angelas, and I have heard of the immigration protests. Still, I have never heard of the Nation of Aztlán until you tried to add it here. If it really is that notable, I'd think people would be able to say more than 8 sentences about the group. Just compare this article to the major racist groups shown on the template; the articles are a lot bigger than this one. Yahel Guhan 05:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are apparently, a bunch of "Brown pride" articles being excluded from the race debate, maybe because the Browns are the union of different races, so you think racism revolves around purist racism and they just don't have the pedigree to be racist? Savignac 05:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You'd best come up with better arguements than "Brown pride;" it will get you nowhere, and won't lead to conesnsus. You'd be better off trying to answer our objections; otherwise you will not get it included. Yahel Guhan 05:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor added the British National Party to the template as a racist group. I deleted it, pending further discussion.

The way I read its article, the BNP was a racist organization in the past and it may or may not be a racist organization today. Examples:

British National Party#Racial policies:

At its founding, the BNP was explicitly racist. In October 1990, the BNP was described by the European Parliament's committee on racism and xenophobia as an "openly Nazi party... whose leadership have serious criminal convictions". ...

When Nick Griffin became Chairman in 1999, however, the party began to change its stance with regard to racial issues. Griffin claims to have repudiated racism, instead espousing what he calls "ethno-nationalism". ...

The BNP publicly disavows any interest in white supremacy. ...

Race is still important to the BNP’s understanding of nation and identity. ...

British National Party#Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial:

The BNP, its former leaders and present leader, Nick Griffin, have promoted anti-Semitism and holocaust denial in the past. ...

The BNP claims that it has now "cast off the leg-iron ... of anti-Semitism" and states that the party has Jewish members, and one of its councillors, Pat Richardson (Epping Forest), is herself Jewish. ...

The party's website states that racially British or European Jews may join the party.

Anyway, I wanted to get other editors' opinions concerning whether the BNP should be in the template. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Porajmos should have to be added to the history section. --83.36.162.127 (talk) 20:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Items to include ... a few are there ...

Races

Master race and martial Race

Supremacism

White supremacy and black Supremacy

Nationalism

White nationalism and black nationalism

Separatism

White separatism and black separatism

Pride and racial power

White pride and black pride; white Power and black Power

J. D. Redding 13:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed Social Darwinism from the list of racist ideology. First, evolution is not the survival of the strongest or the fittest, but the survival of the most well adapted to the environment. Social Darwinism is taking evolution and applying it to social situation. The article takes Nazism and says that it has it core beliefs in Social Darwinism, however this couldn't be further from the truth. If this was true, then we need to accept that "Aryans" or "Germans" were best suited/adapted to the region of Europe, both physically, mentally, and so on. If they were, then as evolution states, they would be the prominent organism (or in this case, race) in the region. Again, this was not so. It's quite a stretch to relate Social Darwinism, which is essentially Social Evolution, and racism. Please ask me questions on my talk page. Thank you, Agorist (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a question of whether evolution is racist, but whether Social Darwinism is an ideology associated with racism. Please take a look at Social Darwinism#Criticisms and controversies, which seems to argue for its inclusion here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Europe

• Aktion Kinder des Holocaust (Switzerland)
• Anti-Fascist Action (United Kingdom)
• Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (United Kingdom)
• Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (Belgium)
• Institute of Race Relations (United Kingdom)
• National Assembly Against Racism (United Kingdom)
• Newham Monitoring Project (United Kingdom)
• Residents Against Racism (Ireland)
• The Night Watch (United Kingdom)
• UNITED for Intercultural Action (European-wide Anti-racist Network)

North America

• By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) (United States)
• Anti-Racist Action (North America)
• Catalyst Project: a center for political education and movement building (United States)
• Copwatch (United States)
• Human Rights First (United States)
• One People's Project (United States)
• Roots of Resistance (Canada)
• Southern Poverty Law Center (United States)
• The People's Institute for Survival and Beyond http://www.pisab.org/ (United States)
• Antifa
• FightDemBack! (Australia and New Zealand)
• Red and Anarchist Skinheads
• Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice
• World Conference against Racism (United Nations)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racism#Anti-racist_organizations

More entries may be added to the template. Kasaalan (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there the image of the "Coloreds" sign in this template box? I've never seen an image in a template box on Wikipedia before, and it both makes the layout awkward and is not particularly relevant to many of the sub-topics this template covers. Walkersam (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have several reliable sources that describe islamophobia as a form of racism.^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]}

Even if you had a ton of it and we would choose to ignore for a second the vast scholarship which regards Islam as a religion as opposed to a race, this template rests on the definition in the main article. This means you have to go first to the article Islam and make your case there where it is unambiguously defined as a religion, not a race. Put differently: We don't redefine the subject here, before it has not gained consensus on Talk:Islam and the main article has been rewritten accordingly. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 14:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong and you know it. We can't just ignore what all the reliable sources say just because you don't like it. If it had to be a "race" in scientific meaning there would be no racism (except on dog shows). The templates lists Anglophobia (England is a nation, not a race), Anti-Arabism (Arabs are an ethnic group, not a race), Anti-Armenianism (Armenian is a ntionality, not a race), Anti-British sentiment (Great Britain is a country, not a race), anti-Chinese sentiment (China is a country, not a race), Anti-Filipino sentiment (Philippines is a country, not a race), Anti-German sentiment (Germany is a country, not a race), Anti-Iranian sentiment (Iran is a country, not a race), Anti-Irish sentiment (Ireland is a country, not a race), Anti-Italianism (Italy is a country, not a race), Anti-Japanese sentiment (Japan is a country, not a race), Anti-Korean sentiment (Korea is a country, not a race), Anti-Mexican sentiment (Mexico is a country, not a race), Anti-Pakistan sentiment (Pakistan is a country, not a race), Anti-Polish (Poland is a country, not a race), Antisemitism (Judaism is a religion, not a race), Anti-Slavism (Slavic is an ethnic group, not a race), Anti-Turkism (Turkey is a country, not a race), Anti-Ukrainian sentiment (Ukraine is a country, not a race), Antiziganism (Romani is an ethnic group, not a race), Francophobia (France is a country, not a race), Hispanophobia (Spain is a country, not a race), Indophobia (India is a country, not a race), Lusophobia (Portugal is a country, not a race), Russophobia (Russia is a country, not a race). Did I miss any? // Liftarn (talk)

Everything you listed are nations or ethnic groups. Muslims are neither; they are adherents of a religion that belong to many different ethnic groups. That's the main disctinction. Incidentally, anti-Christian sentiment isn't listed either. --Pudeo' 01:19, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

None of them is a race in the scientific meaning so according to some people they are not racism. Also Judaism is a religion just as Islam, but there is also an ethnic component to it just like with Muslims (see cultural Muslim and Muslims (nationality)). Christianity don't have that ethnic component. // Liftarn (talk)

• Exclude for the time being. The editing/neutrality dispute at Islamophobia should first be resolved, so that a consensus can be reached as to the extent of the mention of racism there. StAnselm (talk) 23:25, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion seem to have died down with no change of consensus so we should be able to include it here. // Liftarn (talk)

There is no consensus to include. There never has been -- only your declaration of a consensus. The lead sentence of Islamophobia has the word or before racism. Thus, the editors there allow racism only as a possibility and it is not qualified when, who, by whom, or why this possibility exists. I see no consensus for this recent inclusion. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion is supported both by very reliable sources (as you know) as well as several editors. Some have opposed it and while it does appear that the use of the talk page have started up again so far no real arguments have been presented by those opposing it. But we'll wait and see. // Liftarn (talk)

See WP:NPOVN#Branding individuals as bigots via Templates. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently closed an RfC mentioning this template. The RfC was archived, so I thought it best to notify interested editors here. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that in the "Racism against groups" section, there are some articles that do not deal with race or ethnicity, such as Anti-Americanism and Anti-Australian sentiment. The term xenophobia would be more accurate. Should this be changed? Sega31098 (talk) 02:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The link to the black supremacy page has been removed from this template by another user. Please chime in here. Thanks. Terrorist96 (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I putted in black supremacy and somebody taken it out. Black supremacy is the same as white supremacy. somebody needs to put it back. racism is racism. thanks Tomwalker89 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you think black supremacy is the same as white supremacy. On Wikipedia, we depend on what reliable sources say, not what editors think. Please provide reliable sources that describe black supremacy as racist. As I recommended in my edit summary, please review the relevant discussion at Talk:Black supremacy and its archives. Thank you. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 13:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]