Talk:Racialism/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Unprotected

Two weeks is long enough. First edit war I see and it goes back in the can. --Golbez 22:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks much, I tried hard to take your suggestions into account. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 23:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Anthropology,

User:Bcrowell was good enough as to advise us to expand on the scientific aspect of the article, specifically regarding anthropological history. I think he's right. He specifically suggested :

"Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, ... in comparison with the opposing points of view expressed in Steven Pinker's books and Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture."

¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:25, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV marker

I've added an NPOV marker to the article. When I came across this page earlier tonight, it was in an extremely POV state, clearly pushing the POV of white supremacist organizations that white "racialism" is simply the white analog of the black civil rights struggle. For instance, the external links section listed the NAACP, followed immediately by David Duke's NAAWP; this is extremely misleading, since the NAACP does not describe itself as "racialist." Likewise, the article had a lead image of Marcus Garvey, despite that fact that black separatists and black nationalists do not refer to themselves as "racialist," and reject the analogy, implied by the term, between white supremacist movements and black civil rights movements. I've made some edits to try to make the article a little less ridiculously POV, but it needs much more work. I would also like to see some verifiable sources for the article's assertions that the term is used in academia; I'm going to delete those claims and see if someone comes forward with some evidence. I suspect that "racialism" is only used in academia by people who are explicitly discussing the ideology of white supremacist movements.--Bcrowell 04:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

For the most part, I liked FeloniousMonk's edit of 07:05, 19 August 2005. Using the Hitler photo in the lead is a good idea, and the discussion of Nazi Germany and Rwanda makes sense after being inserted into the lead, rather than in its old context where it didn't make sense (which was why I'd deleted it). I've reinserted some of the text about the fact that in the U.S. today, the term is mostly used by white supremacists; I think this text is very important in order to keep the article from being a POV soapbox for white supremacists.--Bcrowell 14:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted this quote:

"While Mandela, like the others, is clearly not racist, he also must be counted as racialist, because his struggle against apartheid was predicated on the race-based solidarity of those who were enslaved, based on race, under the system of apartheid: you cannot fight racism without introducing race as a predicate of your action. So Malcolm and Mandela, both, have to be counted racialist." (Grisso, Africans Unbound Magazine[1])

I see several problems with it. First of all, it doesn't connect in any intelligible way to the surrounding text. Also, it misleadingly implies that Malcolm X and Nelson Mandela are widely seen as racialist. Malcolm X was in fact known for trying to bring Elijah Muhammad's racist version of Islam into the mainstream of Islam, and Mandela is the president of a multi-racial republic, and has spent his whole life trying to overcome racialism. The link is thoughtful and complex, and the use of this quote, taken out of context, is misleading. Finally, if the point is to try to show that some people view Nelson Mandela and Malcolm X as racialist, then it should be established that Grisso is notable or influential, which I suspect he's not.--Bcrowell 14:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Sam Spade reinserted the quote without responding to this argument on the talk page. I've deleted it again.--Bcrowell 18:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the Reggie White quote again. No attempt had been made to relate it to the rest of the article. I see it as simply an attempt to promote racialism as a POV, and to legitimize racialism by attributing it to someone who, I suspect, would reject the label. The problems with this quote, in other words, are very much like the problems with the Grisso quote: POV, not connected to the article, and portrays people as racialists who aren't.--Bcrowell 17:55, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I've deleted the "Human rights and racism" section again. It had read like this:

(1) A century ago, virtually every nation on the planet officially employed racial policies; today none formally do. Two unpopular examples of racist regimes were Nazi Germany and Apartheid South Africa.

(2) Some feel the genocide carried out by Hutu extremists in Rwanda against Tutsis and moderate Hutus, which resulted in the murder of 900,000 people between April and June 1994 was a result of racialism. Others feel that racialism necessarilly leads to social stratification.

(3) While many nations are today accused of promoting policies which resemble racialism, the idea is so unpopular that not a single nation claims these policy choices accentuating racial differences as based on 'race.'

(4) Prior to the 20th century, nearly all nations had strict laws promoting racial distinctions. This became increasingly unpopular, especially after the 1960s, and no nation today admits to having an official racial stratification or racialist hierarchy. However, there are wide arrays of race-based policies in place in nations today, but since the word racialism has negative connotations, the term used for these policies is racial rather than racialist. These include affirmative action, racial quotas and reverse discrimination. These policies are said to attempt to correct inequalities and are sometimes referred to as "positive discrimination".

I gave detailed justifications for deleting all this stuff in my earlier edit summaries. To recap:

(1) The first sentence is untrue. The second sentence reads as a POV attempt to suggest that racialism is often popular.

(2) "Some feel that..." and "Others feel that..." are unverifiable and meaningless. This paragraph doesn't make sense in this context.

(3) This sentence is not true. Plenty of countries, including the U.S., have legal codes that are not race-blind.

(4) The first sentence is not true. The second sentence is an attempt to project the U.S. experience onto the global scale. The third sentence is a POV attempt to equate affirmative action to racism or racialism.

I feel that the article is too chaotic for me to exert much enegry on it for awhile. I guess I was too optomistic about the unproitection. I have an idea, however. I think I'll take a break from the article for a month or so, let new editors freely edit, and then I'll come back and see what I can do. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 18:48, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Lovecraft

GURPS Cthulhupunk is a roleplaying game from the 90's. Lovecraft died in the 30's. The author of Cthulhupunk, in a side note, describes what racism and racialism are. The gamebook describing Cthulhu mythos, references to Lovecraft are mandatory and this note about racialism is written in order to better respect Lovecraft's Cthulhu's universe. From memory, text starts with something like

“Lovecraft was a racist, not a bigot. In our time, this is hard to make a difference, but it was not always like that”. Here, racist actually refers to racialism, as it is made clear in the rest of the text.

I'm not a native English speaker, so if you have a hard time understanding what I'm talking about, please reply. Reply to David Latapie 01:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

A sidenote from a roleplaying game rulebook is not authoritative enough to merit reference in an encyclopedia article on a topic unrelated to the game itself. A citation from a biography of H.P. Lovecraft would be better, but then again Lovecraft's views on race are not particularly noteworthy beyond his fan base, and don't really merit inclusion in this article. --Kevin Myers | (complaint dept.) 18:29, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

"Race" and "Ethnic groups"

Lapaz recently changed the instances of "race" to "ethnic groups". Now whether or not one believes the term "race" has any scientific usage (there is a vigorous debate about this still), using it to describe "racialist" thinking is entirely adequate. Racialists do not believe in differences in ethnic groups, they believe in differences between races. If one wants to say that race is a contested concept, that's fine, but a separate issue. --Fastfission 02:43, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

What does "racialism" means?

I just quickly read the peers' review... I must tell you that i'm quite surprised by the definition of racialism given in the current entry. In my humble opinion, but of course i may be wrong, "racialism" is the exact synonym of what is being written at "scientific racism". This POV is based in particular in Pierre-André Taguieff's works, which I understand hasn't probably crossed the Atlantic yet... However, could someone look up a definition in a good English dictionnary? If you want i'll look up Taguieff's precise ref... If some other serious scholars use the same definition as Taguieff, I would suggest merging both articles, under this "racialism" name, which is more... scientifical! Lapaz

Interesting... The French Wiki states: "Je deplace cette phrase ici, car je ne trouve le mot racialisme ni dans le Larousse, ni dans le dictionnaire de l'academie francaise. Si le mot existe, je remetrai les ligne en place. Aoineko Le racialisme est relatif à la conviction qu'à une personne de l'existence de races. Le terme est utilisé dans les sciences humaines et en particulier par Pierre-André Taguieff. ("... i can't find the word "racialism" neither in the Larousse, nor in the dictionnary of the Académie Française. If the word exists... - The term is used in human sciences and in particular by PA Taguieff"). It also says (i have no idea if it's correct): "in English the word is even less used, and is more or less a synonym of racism". In any cases, the distinction between racism and racialism as in the current English entry is quite debatable... Lapaz

racialism wasn't limited to germany in europe

wouldn't it be better to say that in that in the 19th and early 20th century racialism was popular all over europe, north america and australasia. As a british citizen i feel it would be rude to leave out our own history of bigotry; after all Mosely was a very populer figure in the 30's.

Removed white supremacist groups...

That is completely a POV violation. It does not belong in the article. For racism would I add a section saying that Racism is used by liberal groups such as the ACLU, Anti Defamation League, Southern poverty law center etc? Its trying to smear the credibility of the word. If you add it back I am adding the nonsense about the ACLU using the world racist to the racism article. They are both ridiculous to add and dont belong on either article.

JJstroker 05:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Something to take into account is that white supremacist groups are ignored in mainstream discussions, meaning it's probably POV to give them a position of emphasis in an article like this. (NPOV doesn't mean giving fringe viewpoints equal time with mainstream viewpoints.)--Nectar 06:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I may be mistaken about the removal of this section relating to a comment on another talk page. However, whatever the history, documenting the usage of the term "racialist" among white supremecists gorups is important (though minority) aspect of its usage. The term "racialist" is indeed quite distinct in meaning from "racist", in sociological and political science circles. Not 100% unconnected, of course, but certainly non-identical. Playing off the sociological usage, white supremicists have vocally and deliberately appropriated the word in order to say "We're racialist not racist". Not to say I believe them, but there is a strong subcurrent of this usage. That said, the best place for this paragraph is in a subsection underneath the "identitarian" section. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

While that's probably a good description of things, the groups and their argument that they're merely being ethnocentric[2] don't have notability themselves, which I think means this usage doesn't meet the notability requirements of an encyclopedia unless it's been written about in notable published sources. There seems to be a tendency on WP for minority or fringe views to be given undue prominence, and this was one of the problems noted in Nature's comparison[3] of WP and Britannica.--Nectar 23:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

A few citations discussing the use of the term "racialist" by white separatists, by sources other than the separatists themselves: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]

Some of those are a bit too bloggish, I admit, but it's a quick search. The Village Voice source is a regular printed magazine of noteriety. And Political Research Associates is a minor, but notable think tank, with a real magazine called "Public Eye". The Journal of Criminal Justice and Popular Culture seems to be a real and legitimate academic journal. I have no attachment to any particular one of these sources, but the fact the usage is so easy to find suggests it's notable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The notability criteria I apply personally is to ask whether a topic would be notable enough to survive (deletion by) AfD if an entire article were written about it. A related criteria for cases such as this -- where we want to see whether the intersection of two topics should be included in an article about one of them -- is to ask whether the information is reciprocally found in the other article or would be appropriate in the other article. Is language use by white identity groups an encyclopedic topic? Should the related articles include information about this topic? As per Nectar's suggestion, finding a published author who mentions their use of this language in this fashion would be sufficent to answer resolve the question. --Rikurzhen 00:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I like Rikurzhen's way of stating notability judgments. To my mind, the paragraph in question survives these tests: (1) An article on White seperatist use of the term "racialism" is one I would vote "keep" on. Well, maybe not quite if it were just a single paragraph; but that's not an issue of verifiability or notability, just a merge issue (which is effectively what we have, a merge). (2) Something close to the same content would be perfectly at home in an article like Aryan Nations, assuming they do use the term and such is verifiable. Followup: the article White separatism currently does mention the use of the term "racialist" as a self-description.

Nectraflowed's observation on the relative weight of topics on WP not accuarately matching their importance in the world as a whole is quite true. But it's nothing special to political topics or groups. In my mind, a minor character in some science fiction novel doesn't merit its own 5000 word article... especially when you might see real life scientists, politicians, novelists, etc. who have much shorter articles than do these fictional characters (or no articles at all). But that's how it goes: volunteers write about what they want to write about. If someone writes at length about a fictional scientist (in a NPOV manner), we cannot force them to spend equal time writing about a real-life scientists instead. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 03:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Its clearly POV. Would I go to the racist web page and say - Used by groups the NAACP, ACLU- That is ridiculous. This is leading the reader down a certain path to a certain conclusion which is clearly violating NPOV policy. It is nonsense to add this to either page. The goal is to define the word and not who uses it regardless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.205.182 (talk • contribs)

PS- If white supremacist groups say that they are racialist and are in fact racist, it will show. You dont need to tell the reader that they are racist let them draw their own conclusions. Everyone one wikipedia tries to shove viewpoints down other peoples throats. The use of the word by white groups is completely irrelevant and does not belong to the article. If you keep adding it I vow that I will go to the racist defintion and add that the word is used by the NAACP, ACLU, Civil rights groups etc. They are both nonsense and dont belong to either article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.205.182 (talk • contribs)

This sounds like a threat to violate WP:POINT, which would only result in an IP block. The inclusion of material in any article must not be to "get even" for some other content in a different article. That said, if you can document a usage for the term "racist" by the NAACP, ACLU, or whomever that is verifiable and distinct from usages outside those groups, by all means add that to the Racism article. Actually, looking now, the NAACP is in fact mentioned in that article, in an appropriate manner. No one on WP would claim that the word "racialist" is used only by white supremacist groups; just that their usage as self-description is both verifiable and notable, and is conceptually distinct from uses by more mainstream sociologists and media. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

agreed--Nectar 23:35, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This anonymous editor who has taken out the comments on white supremacist use of the term "racialist" has also edited a number article on communists or leftists to add the spurious and unevidenced claim that they were Jewish, with few other edits outside these. FWIW, I've noticed a pattern on WP of anonymous addresses adding the claim that various people are Jewish without any evidence or background information, just an adjective added to the lead, and sometimes a category slapped on the article. I'm pretty sure this is intended as a negative characterization of these biographies in most cases. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 22:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not trying to "get even". Its just the standard should be applied to all articles and I am only trying to show what a joke it is to add such nonsense to an article. Secondly it is factual adding people who were Jewish. It even says it on their page I just categorized them as Jewish Americans. That is not against the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.205.182 (talk • contribs)

This anon editor is not telling the truth. For example, s/he changed the characterization of former CPUSA chairman Gus Hall's family background from the accurate "Finnish" to the false characterization "Jewish". It only started "saying it on his page" when 71.131.205.182 invented the claim. Obviously, only to an anti-semite is there anything wrong with being Jewish, but as it happens, Gus Hall was not. Exactly the same thing in several other biographical articles. Being mistaken about one particular person in a random way is kinda neither here nor there... but being mistaken about a whole bunch, always by adding the non-verifiable claim that they are/were Jewish is... well, peculiar. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 04:04, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Biased

This article is, IMO, biased because it discusses racialism on the part of white supremasists, but not on the part of black separatist groups like the Black Panthers. Black people are equally guilty of using racialism as a tactic to excite political activity or other sentiment. Does this make sense? pygmypony

Yes, because racialism is an idea largely invented and only purported by white supremacists. Black power groups are forced to emphasize "race" because it is the only way for them to unite and topple their white oppressors; meanwhile, white supremacists emphasize race because of a desire for "racial purity". -- WGee 15:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

In this context the Rastafari and other organisations for black nationalism advocate that racialism facilitates "racial pride" and cultural rebirth.

Says who? The editor who inserted the statement? This is original research and will be removed. -- WGee 15:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Black nationalism is frequently described as "racialist", with connotations ranging from disapproving to neutral to approving. It's not uncontroversial, but it's not original research either. A simple google search for "black panthers" racialism turns up among the first few results several journal articles discussing the matter. --Delirium 14:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Delirium. WGee- I think you admitted that black people and groups can exhibit racialism. "Black power groups are forced to emphasize 'race'" if they do it for a specific reason, find some research and bring it to light, but don't deny that they do it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pygmypony (talk • contribs) 02:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

More generally, it should be born in mind that being a racist (let alone racialist) is not something specifically white, but seems to be a comparatively common human position. This includes many Chinese, Japanese, Indians, and, indeed, "African-Americans".88.77.145.65 (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Factual basis

This article could be improved by listing some agreed-upon examples of measurable differences between races in modern world.

• Supposed black-white IQ gap in USA
• as a concrete example of this gap, average GRE scores of white / black / asian students ( IQs are highly correlated with GRE scores )
• Racial composition of NBA ( only around 20% of players are white )
• Olympic medal statistics ( do you know that the last time a non-black male athlete won an Olympic medal for 100 m sprint was in 1980? )
• etc. --Itinerant1 07:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it's pretty silly to confuse race with color. If it was possible to give a proper definition of race, it sure wouldn't be as dull as a color criteria. Color is deceiving in genetics.

Also with the agreed idiot-proof facts, you can add :

• Why there's no Senegal Bobsleigh team ?
• Why there's no women in NBA ?
• Why there's no black baroque music composer ?

All of these statistics have nothing to do with the concept of Racialism, Racialism is an emphasis on race or racial considerations. These events and ideas, such as the IQ test, the NBA, the Olympics, or Baroque music; do not stipulate racialism; it is coincidental that the statistics are the way they are. It could be viewed as racialism of the general population to associate NBA with people of African American heritage, but there is no racialism of the NBA because the NBA hires on the criteria of performance ability. Also, citing the general population would be difficult. But the fact is that these events and ideas do not advocate racialism in themselves, but the general population does.

Btw, race and color I agree are different. Race identifies the area that a person's heritage comes from, thus identifing the limited gene pool (isolated populations caused by natural geography) that suggests the possible inheritable traits for them. Color is just a feature of that limited gene pool. It is a fallacy then to suggest that color indicates race which indicates ability. Though genetics does influence ability; and race does influence genetics to a certain extent, color is only a subset of genetics thus can't be used to identify someone's latent ability. Xlegiofalco 19:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Malaysia

List of racial discriminations in Malaysia, practiced by government as well as government agencies. This list is an open secret. Best verified by government itself because it got the statistics.

This list is not in the order of importance, that means the first one on the list is not the most important and the last one on the list does not mean least important.

This list is a common knowledge to a lot of Malaysians, especially those non-malays (Chinese, Ibans, Kadazans, Orang Asli, Tamils, etc) who were being racially discriminated.

Figures in this list are estimates only and please take it as a guide only. Government of Malaysia has the most correct figures. Is government of Malaysia too ashamed to publish their racist acts by publishing racial statistics?

This list cover a period of about 50 years since independence (1957).

List of racial discriminations (Malaysia):

(1) Out of all the 5 major banks, only one bank is multi-racial, the rest are controlled by malays

(2) 99% of Petronas directors are malays

(3) 3% of Petronas employees are Chinese

(4) 99% of 2000 Petronas gasoline stations are owned by malays

(5) 100% all contractors working under Petronas projects must be bumis status

(6) 0% of non-malay staffs is legally required in malay companies. But there must be 30% malay staffs in Chinese companies

(7) 5% of all new intake for government army, nurses, polices, is non-malays

(8) 2% is the present Chinese staff in Royal Malaysian Air Force (RMAF), drop from 40% in 1960

(9) 2% is the percentage of non-malay government servants in Putrajaya. But malays make up 98%

(10) 7% is the percentage of Chinese government servants in the whole government (in 2004), drop from 30% in 1960

(11) 95% of government contracts are given to malays

(12) 100% all business licensees are controlled by malay government e.g. Approved Permits, Taxi Permits, etc

(13) 80% of the Chinese rice millers in Kedah had to be sold to malay controlled Bernas in 1980s. Otherwise, life is make difficult for Chinese rice millers

(14) 100 big companies set up, managed and owned by Chinese Malaysians were taken over by government, and later managed by malays since 1970s e.g. MISC, UMBC, UTC, etc

(15) At least 10 Chinese owned bus companies (throughout Malaysia, throughout 40 years) had to be sold to MARA or other malay transport companies due to rejection by malay authority to Chinese application for bus routes and rejection for their application for new buses

(16) 2 Chinese taxi drivers were barred from driving in Johor Larkin bus station. There are about 30 taxi drivers and 3 are Chinese in October 2004. Spoiling taxi club properties was the reason given

(17) 0 non-malays are allowed to get shop lots in the new Muar bus station (November 2004)

(18) 8000 billion ringgit is the total amount the government channeled to malay pockets through ASB, ASN, MARA, privatisation of government agencies, Tabung Haji etc, through NEP over 34 years period

(19) 48 Chinese primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000

(20) 144 Indian primary schools closed down since 1968 - 2000

(21) 2637 malay primary schools built since 1968 - 2000

(22) 2.5% is government budget for Chinese primary schools. Indian schools got only 1%, malay schools got 96.5%

(23) While a Chinese parent with RM1000 salary (monthly) cannot get school-text-book-loan, a malay parent with RM2000 salary is eligible

(24) 10 all public universities vice chancellors are malays

(25) 5% - the government universities lecturers of non-malay origins had been reduced from about 70% in 1965 to only 5% in 2004

(26) Only 5% is given to non-malays for government scholarships over 40 years

(27) 0 Chinese or Indians were sent to Japan and Korea under "Look East Policy"

(28) 128 STPM Chinese top students could not get into the course that they aspired e.g. Medicine (in 2004)

(29) 10% place for non-bumi students for MARA science schools beginning from year 2003, but only 7% are filled. Before that it was 100% malays

(30) 50 cases whereby Chinese and Indian Malaysians, are beaten up in the National Service program in 2003

(31) 25% is Malaysian Chinese population in 2004, drop from 45% in 1957

(32) 7% is the present Malaysian Indians population (2004), a drop from 12% in 1957

(33) 2 million Chinese Malaysians had emigrated to overseas since 40 years ago

(34) 0.5 million Indian Malaysians had emigrated to overseas

(35) 3 million Indonesians had migrated into Malaysia and became Malaysian citizens with bumis status

(36) 600000 are the Chinese and Indian Malaysians with red IC and were rejected repeatedly when applying for citizenship for 40 years. Perhaps 60% of them had already passed away due to old age. This shows racism of how easily Indonesians got their citizenship compare with the Chinese and Indians

(37) 5% - 15% discount for a malay to buy a house, regardless whether the malay is poor or rich

(38) 2% is what Chinese new villages get compare with 98% of what malay villages got for rural development budget

(39) 50 road names (at least) had been changed from Chinese names to other names

(40) 1 Dewan Gan Boon Leong (in Malacca) was altered to other name (e.g. Dewan Serbaguna or sort) when it was being officially used for a few days. Government try to shun Chinese names. This racism happened in around year 2000 or sort

(41) 0 churches/temples were built for each housing estate. But every housing estate got at least one mosque/surau built

(42) 3000 mosques/surau were built in all housing estates throughout Malaysia since 1970. No churches, no temples are required to be built in housing estates

(43) 1 Catholic church in Shah Alam took 20 years to apply to be constructed. But told by malay authority that it must look like a factory and not look like a church. Still not yet approved in 2004

(44) 1 publishing of Bible in Iban language banned (in 2002)

(45) 0 of the government TV stations (RTM1, RTM2, TV3) are directors of non-malay origins

(46) 30 government produced TV dramas and films always showed that the bad guys had Chinese face, and the good guys had malay face. You can check it out since 1970s. Recent years, this tendency becomes less

(47) 10 times, at least, malays (especially Umno) had threatened to massacre the Chinese Malaysians using May 13 since 1969

(48) 20 constituencies won by DAP would not get funds from the government to develop. Or these Chinese majority constituencies would be the last to be developed

(49) 100 constituencies (parliaments and states) had been racistly re-delineated so Chinese voters were diluted that Chinese candidates, particularly DAP candidates lost in election since 1970s

(50) Only 3 out of 12 human rights items are ratified by Malaysia government since 1960

(51) 0 - elimination of all forms of racial discrimination (UN Human Rights) is not ratified by Malaysia government since 1960s

(52) 20 reported cases whereby malay ambulance attendances treated Chinese patients inhumanely, and malay government hospital staffs purposely delay attending to Chinese patients in 2003. Unreported cases may be 200

(53) 50 cases each year whereby Chinese, especially Chinese youths being beaten up by malay youths in public places. We may check at police reports provided the police took the report, otherwise there will be no record

(54) 20 cases every year whereby Chinese drivers who accidentally knocked down malays were seriously assaulted or killed by malays

(55) 12% is what ASB/ASN got per annum while banks fixed deposit is only about 3.5% per annum

There are hundreds more racial discriminations in Malaysia to add to this list of "colossal" racism. It is hope that the victims of racism will write in to expose racism.

Malaysia government should publish statistics showing how much malays had benefited from the "special rights" of malays and at the same time tell the statistics of how much other minority races are being discriminated.

Hence, the responsibility lies in the Malaysia government itself to publish unadulterated statistics of racial discrimination.

If the Malaysia government hides the statistics above, then there must be some evil doings, immoral doings, shameful doings and sinful doings, like the Nazi, going on onto the non-malays of Malaysia.

Civilized nation, unlike evil Nazi, must publish statistics to show its treatment on its minority races. This is what Malaysia must publish.

We are asking for the publication of the statistics showing how "implementation of special rights of malays" had inflicted colossal racial discrimination onto non-malays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.53.185.198 (talk) 16:38, July 11, 2007

Please remember that Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a place to debate issues. This issue would better be mentioned in the articles on affirmative action, Malaysia, Malays. --zenohockey 03:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Appiah mugshot

it is extremely silly and un-WP:ENC to present authors' portraits next to quotes. Don't do that please. --dab (𒁳) 17:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not know, but in English, a "mugshot" is typically used to describe a police photograph, and the Appiah photograph is far from that. Regarding your opinion, which you are the only one voicing, it's not particularly important to me so I won't revert, but linking to one of the most over-used terms of "unencyclopedic" did little to add any weight to your opinion. --David Shankbone 17:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I would not have to use "unencyclopedic" so much if more people could grasp the concept. Sadly, it's an uphill battle. Patronizing comments are not particularly helpful. I am aware of the various semantic connotations of "mugshot". It is derived from OED's "mug n. 3", A face, esp. an unattractive one., whence "mug shot" orig. U.S. a photograph of a person's face, esp. in police or other official records (cf. sense 1c). Since we are not discussing police records, you may conclude I was using the term in the sense of "a photograph of a person's face". What does this have to do with anything? The point I was making is that it is silly to clutter articles with images of people who happen to be quoted somewhere in the article body. If the person quoted is at all notable, there will be a wikilink to their biography article, where a portrait photograph will be perfectly on topic. dab (𒁳) 16:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Racialization

Went to see if there was a Wikipedia article on racialization and was redirected to Racialism. Why? This article doesn't mention any of the scholarship on racialization, a major contemporary theory of the development and implementation of racial categories that would seem to warrant its own article. If it doesn't warrant its own article, I'm not sure this is the right place for the term to redirect.Soulful scholar (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

This is it, and it is as much as it deserves. I too came to find out what "racialism" is. Apparently it's just the negation of the negation of race as an effective phenomenon. The negation of the dismissal of race as merely epiphenomenal, a social construct and nothing more. Except this stuff never comes clean just like that and around that core there's the typical set of bad actors and malefactors real and imagined. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

This article could be much improved with more sources.

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues sporadically since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human genetics to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 05:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The source list has been updated some more since I last posted here, and will gain some more sources this year, so I encourage editors to use the sources to fix the problem with the article mentioned in the tag that went up today. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Error in sentence?

Is not this phrase in the article an error?

"has been demonstrated by a rigorous and comprehensive scientific process"/

It does not seem to fit with the sentence to which it is appended.

--Skb8721 (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Terminology

Cut from article:

• In the modern English language, "racism" is a broad category encompassing many separate claims or impulses, such as chauvinism, identity politics, institutional racism, etc., and it is often used as a pejorative epithet that many would want to avoid for various reasons. When the term "racialism" is used, this is more commonly people describing themselves, or attempting a more value-neutral terminology which is assumed to be more appropriate for (scientifically) objective communication or analysis. Self-described racialists often wish to avoid many of the popular associations of "racism" that are considered pejorative, or involve extremism or illegal activities, such as: hatred, xenophobia, (malignant or forced) exploitation, separatism, racial supremacy, mass murder (for the purpose of genocide), genocide denial, vigilantism (hate crimes, terrorism), etc.

Great attempt, but completely unsourced. --Uncle Ed (talk) 13:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Racism = Racialism ?

Encyclopædia Britannica, Oxford Dictionary, and Merriam-Webster Dictionary all define "racism" and "racialism" as the same. These are one of the most cited and trusted sources available. Do we really need a separate article for racialism? FonsScientiae (talk) 00:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Other than scientific racists self-identifying and such, I've never seen the term used in modern discourse. So, no. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that those sources are "most trusted", we don't rely on dictionaries and the EB has been shown to be of comparable reliability to wikipedia (I think the racism article is ok since it is written by Audrey Smedley who is an expert). However, I think that whenever racialism is used it is used in opposition to racism, as a kind of belief in race without being an evil racist kind of thing. So while objectively I think the two concepts are quite similar and overlapping, they have different usage. I think we can find sources that show that difference in usage.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:43, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

I made some searches on the net and found at least one source that defines racialism as different from from racism [13]. Even this source says that the common usage for racialism is as the synonym of racism, and the majority of other reliable sources define so. Wikipedia:COMMONNAME states that "common name is determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources" and in this case this is the synonym of racism. Imo at least a disambiguation page would be necessary for the term. FonsScientiae (talk) 15:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here[14] C. Loring Brace makes a difference between Racialism as the belief in biologically defined races and racism as behavior motivated by that belief.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:23, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Here's another similar distinction being made (The Ordinary Concept of Race. Michael O. Hardimon The Journal of Philosophy , Vol. 100, No. 9 (Sep., 2003), pp. 437-455.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 16:35, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Different sources define racialism differently. I propose that we make a disambiguation page. FonsScientiae (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Racialism ≠ racism. The Harry Potter books are racialist and anti-racist at the same time. Racialist because of their view that genetics determine who's a wizard and who isn't (a Muggle) and nothing a person does could change that. Anti-racist because they take the line that the wizards who discriminate against Muggles are evil. --85.65.95.79 (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

What?

Words are, by definition, definite, so how can there be two meanings? I see an agenda here.

65.214.33.188 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, like this is the only word in English with multiple definitions. How daft can you be? 50.193.171.69 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Isn't this really what is known as racial essentialism? That the Negroid, Caucasoid, Sinoid, etc. genotypes are unique and distinct unto themselves. Nuttyskin (talk) 15:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Belief in only one acceptable word definition can also be an agenda. Reflecting diversity of understanding is desirable in many ways. Shoefly (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Worldview issues

What are these 2013 world view issues? If none then tag has to go.--Inayity (talk) 17:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations list useful for updating this article and related articles

You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of Anthropology and Human Biology Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human genetics and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library system at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to other academic libraries in the same large metropolitan area) and have been researching these issues from time to time since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Vandalization?

The purpose of the term racialism was for real, non naacp scientists who publish their results directly in the media, to refer to empirically measured differences between races (like the frequency of dark skin, sun burn and thus skin cancer, or average IQ scores), which like any categorization that has any correlation with any factor - has great utility, to have a name for such categorization without being compared to people running around with bedsheets on their head.

So who replaced the real page with this logically inconsistent NAACP propagandized bs? Censorship of science and truth is not the path to anything, including social justice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.149.219 (talk) 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits back and forth to lead paragraph

I see that there are several registered and several I.P. watchers of this article who have been going back and forth in editing the statement of what the article is about at the very beginning of the article. One thing I note is a continually effort to quote-mine sources that by Wikipedia's reckoning are primary sources for the most part. It seems to me that if this article's topic is an important, notable topic, it must be treated in reliable secondary sources and those are the sources to use for further article edits. I'll keep digging for sources that specifically mention "racialism" as topic, and I invite anyone else who knows of any to suggest those here. There are other related articles on Wikipedia that may have a place for some of the factual statements that have been put into article text here recently, as long as those statements are properly sourced to reliable, secondary sources that actually relate to the topic of those articles. Best wishes to all of you for a happy new year. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:58, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting to say the least. I started watching this article recently, mostly as a mnemonic device so I wouldn't forget the word before I looked it up. After reading your comment I did look it up. It would appear that no two dictionaries have the same definition. The word itself appears to be one of those neologisms used as a shibboleth by various and sundry people. It would not look to be well defined enough to ever produce a consensus and I suspect that in the end it will fail the notability test. I'm going to stop watching it at this point, since it is merely an embellishment like "annoted" to mean "noted" or "orientated" to mean "oriented". Trilobitealive (talk) 03:04, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• The inclusion of the word "scientific" was certainly supported only by three primary sources that were cherrypicked to support one viewpoint (a minority one) about the biological status of race. The same amount of sources could easily have been cited for the opposite viewpoint as well. The best solution to avoid that kind of back and forth is to not include any evaluation of the potential scientific status of the race concept in the definition.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:24, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Racialism as national policy section

This 1 August 2013 edit added a section which was to evolve into this one. The section had a different name and different content.

This 23 October 2014 edit changed the name of this section to its present one, leaving the content unchanged.

By this 23 October 2014 edit, the content had evolved a bit and a citation of a YouTube video as a supporting source had appeared. The edit added a second paragraph, citing a different YouTube video in support.

By this 28 December 2014 edit, the citations of YouTube videos as supporting sources had disappeared and an {{unreferenced section}} tag had appeared. The edit removed the initial paragraph (by then somwewhat evolved from the content with which the section had begun), leaving the section containing just the content which had been added earlier as a second paragraph.

This 2 February 2015 edit removed mention of "affirmative action", and caught my eye.

I don't now anything about the topic. Could some regular editors of the article please take a look at this? It looks to me as if this section ought to be either supported or removed. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 07:22, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

POV

I have tagged the article with the {{POV}} tag until the article is made compliant with Wikipedia;'s content policies. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I was concerned that it appears POV, too. Do you have any specific issues about it which you believe reveals its POV nature? If you have any suggestions, perhaps I or (more likely) another editor could clean it up. ―Nøkkenbuer (talk

Unless a proper rationale for the tag is offered , and what written above is certainly NOT ONE, the tag will be removed per WP:TAGGING. and the reason is simple. If there is a real problem, then you should have no issues quickly letting us know the specifics, if that cannot be done, then the tag is useless.--Inayity (talk) 07:44, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

I am. There is no deadline, and I will provide detail critique of the article. Please do not remove the tag until the dispute is resolved - Cwobeel (talk) 14:40, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

There is no dispute, and please do not try to use WP:NORUSH I am familar with that. If the issue is clear then you should clearly have discussed it. When you have a DETAILED critique of the article please then read add the tag. Remember there is no rush. Tagging with a hidden rationale is not accepted!.WP:DETAG is the policy I am operating under. No valid argument presented then no need for tag. B/c no one can fix a problem which is in someone elses head. --Inayity (talk) 23:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Tags are designed to attract discussion. The article as currently stands suffers from massive POV issues, and original research.

• At least one scholar has noted that which scholar and who is saying that at least one scholar?
• Legislative or judicial measures expressly benefitting a particular ethnicity as opposed to all ethnic minorities or all ethnicities have generally been repealed, for, as described above, such a measure would be inherently racialist. Unsourced OR

I will clean up the article and remove the tags. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:24, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done, and tags removed. The article needs work, but at least now is compliant with our core content policies, and within the constraints expressed by the discretionary sanctions as defined in the header of this page. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia fails when we have to deal with this personality

Look at this edit edit. How is it I bring a 100% argument which has not be refuted and he/she STILL comes and reverts me? What does that tell you about this editor. They say we should not discuss the editor. But when it starts to be a problem to the quality of article(s) plural, where mis-stating policy as seen above with regard to WP:TAGGING and the obvious WP:NORUSH is blatant, then we might have to show why this article looks the way it does after their fun on it. So the rules mean nothing? Reverting even when wrong? Making policy bend to your agenda? look at the article now.--Inayity (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We now have article sections that start like Grisso wrote in the magazine Africans Unbound that: BIG QUOTE. Block Quotes. WOW. Good work. Two sections are like this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inayity (talk • contribs) 06:32, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense definition

The human species is divided into races - no-one with any sense would deny this. Racialism is the belief that there are unalterable differences between races and that some racial groups are superior to others. 131.111.200.74 (talk) 19:56, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

No that would be racism. Racialism is the belief that races exist. That belief can be right or wrong as determined by the scientific method. AlwaysUnite (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

What To Do With Terms Like 'Sacatra'?

As repugnant as they are, they exist and the sacatra page also exists and needs work. For one thing, it's an orphan. It doesn't appear to be one caste in a national caste system because this word was used in various countries. It's not well-defined inasmuch as there are several definitions, I believe. I'm not sure it's a good idea to create a list of names that have been made for various (presumed) racial categories. What could be done? SewerCat (talk) 17:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "racialism synonymous with racism"

I can't find the source for this. I see a "See also: racism" but nowhere on the actual dictionary definition (either in printed edition or online) does it say racialism is synonymous with racism.

This needs to be rectified to reflect the page better. Solntsa90 (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is stupid, "see also" is the way that Merriam Webster gives synonyms. And it literally gives the same definition of racism and racialism. You are wasting our time with this kind of lame POV pushing strategies. Step up your game.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 22:31, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

How do you do know it's the way Merriam Webster, to put in your words, "gives synonyms"? In a dictionary, if it was a synonym, naturally, I'd expect to see the word "synonym". Solntsa90 (talk) 23:01, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It is not the worlds job to live up to your expectations. Now go do something productive.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 23:26, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

"it literally gives the same definition of racism and racialism" I don't think the texts in question support that claim at all:

a theory that race determines human traits and capacities

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

"Theory" is never properly used as a synonym for "belief". To be a determinant is not the same as to be a primary determinant. The superiority aspect is presented as coequal with primary determinacy. Far from being literally the same the definitions are not merely different but substantially so. Lewis Goudy (talk) 02:40, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Du Bois

"That racism required advancing the argument that one race is superior to other races of human beings." This premise, apparently being attributed, needs to be rendered as a sentence. Lewis Goudy (talk) 02:18, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Racism is claiming that one race is superior to another. Racialism is claiming that races are different.

Surely, the last is often used as an euphemism for the first.

--EsperantoItaliano (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Nonracialists oppose the notion of race; nonracists just racism but not necessarily race

nonracialist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:411E:B300:2477:FA4:4608:5E3A (talk) 23:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Why are you linking to an archived version of Wiktionary? Regardless, there are at least two problems with this right off the bat, and many more under the surface:

• Wikt:non-racial isn't the same as "Wikt:nonracialist".
• Wiktionary isn't a reliable source for Wikipedia anyway, per WP:UGC and WP:CIRC.

If reliable sources specifically explain this, please present them here for discussion. Grayfell (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

David Reich article

Regardless of how much weight we decide to give Reich's view here, he does not argue that any of these findings justify racialism. No one thinks that a genetic predisposition toward cardiovascular disease should form the basis of a human taxonomy. Nblund ^talk 21:12, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:SOCK, WP:DFTT
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The quote from Reich is a further elaboration on the relation between the use of race and existing, biologically distinct human populations. Racialism is merely the support of the validity of race in human taxonomy. Synonymous terms like lineage, genetic ancestry, population, subspecies, etc are often used in its place. This is supported by a large number of geneticists and other biologists. Reich clarifies how the level of difference meant by race exists, even if the classifier itself can be problematic due to its social context. Reich's quote is thus pertinent in discussion of using race as a biological category (i.e. racialism). This article could very well be subsumed into the article on race, where Reich's quote is also cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:664:E4A6:BF9E:B2C:F736:CA48 (talk) 21:23, 28 October 2019 (UTC) The notion of racialism is that human populations can be neatly grouped in to discrete and biologically meaningful racial categories. That isn't what Reich is advancing. He says that there are differences in genetic ancestry that correlated with racial categories, but that race is still socially constructed. This is a bit like saying that any support for a correlation between head size and intelligence is evidence that phrenology is a legitimate field. It isn't. Nblund talk 21:37, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Reich is saying specifically that the major biological differences between populations often correspond with racial categories. If you read his work, he clearly states how humans can be grouped into distinct biological categories, with different traits, based on differences in genetic ancestry. He says specifically that the use of race, despite being a social construct, also correlates with actual biological constructs. In any case, the quote I entered from him is still pertinent to the article by further elaborating on the difference between biological populations and race, and thus its validity as a valid taxon. It is currently highly debated whether race is valid to be used synonymously with demonstrated populations, clines, ecotypes, lineages, subspecies, structure, etc. It really is somewhat pedantic, given race is colloquially used for similar levels of genetic difference in other mammals as synonym for such genetically different populations. In any case, you have not shown why it is not valid to include here. Discrete categories do exist, but racialism never meant they had to be fully discrete. Reich's quote is meant to show such categories can correspond with racial categories. It is not meant to support or reject racialism, only to expand on the debate of the usefulness of racial categories with regards to more accepted biological categories like population, genetic ancestry or lineage. Such differences are at the level of subspecies, race, ecotype, population, lineage, deme, etc. depending on the resolution (Seen in K-means, k=2 vs. k=10). The quote should remain because it is useful for explaining the genetic basis for racial categories, as well as their deficiencies. Melanesians have up to 15% Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA, while most sub-Saharan Africans have 0% (none have any Denisovan in particular); trust me, racial or subspecies level differences or categories exist. 2605:8D80:664:E4A6:BF9E:B2C:F736:CA48 (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC) As you said: "It is not meant to support or reject racialism", so it doesn't belong here, and it is inappropriate to use it as a basis for downplaying the consensus among geneticists regarding racialism (see WP:SYNTH) Nblund talk 00:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Agreed. The IP is interpreting it, classical original research. Doug Weller talk 14:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Well, there is already original research in that paragraph claiming there is a "consensus" about racialism. The sources cited for that statement say nothing of the sort. There is no consensus about the use of the term 'race' as a classifier among population geneticists, anthropologists or evolutionary biologists (for a better discussion of this, read some of the works by Michel Tibayrenc [15]). In any case, none of this is a valid argument against using the references or quotation from Reich. It is a further explanation from another perspective, and from one of the most important voices on the issue today, with Reich being possibly the foremost expert currently on genomics and ancient DNA. These references make no more specific reference of 'racialism' than do the sources already in that paragraph; so, if your view is that Reich's quote or source is not valid to be included, then neither are those in that current paragraph. The point of that entire editorial by Reich, and the corresponding section in Reich's book, is exactly that there is a genetic basis for biological constructs which happen to correlate with or approximate those of race, despite race being largely a 'social construct'. He devotes several sentences denouncing and chastising social constructionism or denial of major differences between biologically-constructed populations which colloquially have been called 'races', claiming that such a position is 'absurd' and 'unscientific'. 142.118.184.153 (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC) I think Reich's quote, or a paraphrase of it, can and should be included since it provides a well supported view of the relation between colloquial race and the established major differences between valid biological categories of human beings. It is thus as pertinent to that paragraph as any of those sources already found there, and I would say more so. 142.118.184.153 (talk) This talk page isn't the place for this motte-and-bailey defense of racialism. Reliable, independent sources I have seen strongly emphasize that Reich's comments were either misleading, or irresponsible because they misrepresented both the scientific issue, and its acceptance among academics. Nobody is denying that there are genetic variations, and nobody is denying that some of these correlate with location of ancestry. Tying genetic differences to the social construct of "race" creates far more problems, both scientific and social, than it solves. Grayfell (talk) 22:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC) This is not meant to be a defence of racialism at all, let alone a "motte and bailey" one. The evidence speaks for itself in any case. What "reliable, independent" sources are you talking about? The partisan and ideological ones which all criticized him, and were rejected by Reich and other academics? Reich is one the foremost experts in ancient DNA and genomics, and many of those who criticized him do not even have close to his expertise or knowledge. Reich's views are as valid and reliable as theirs, and they did not "misrepresent" anything. Reich's expert authority, and those who defend him (e.g. Spencer Wells, Razib Khan, Josef Lazaridis, and tons of others) is greater than the critics you mention. What "acceptance" of the issue are you even talking about here? The genetic variations are major, and they all correlate with structure and biological populations based on geographic ancestry. Race can be both socially constructed and biologically constructed. The levels of variation seen in humans is the same as that seen in the differences between populations, subspecies, "races", etc. in many other mammals, such as wolves or chimpanzees. The use of race as a valid classifier in humans (and in some cases other species) is still at debate, not "accepted", mainly due to its social stigma in the case of humans. What is not debated is that significant structure at the levels of subspecies, ecotype, population, landrace, lineage, genetic ancestry, deme (biology), etc. is found between human groups. 142.118.184.153 (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Reich's supposed position cannot be taken in a vacuum anymore than "race" can be taken in a vacuum. From context, it is not clear that Reich is saying what you seem to think he is saying. Even his own defenders agree he was misinterpreted, so why would we use this quote without any of that context? Emphasizing these quotes in isolation is cherry-picking. Reich comments have been specifically identified as sloppy (etc.) for this exact reason. We're not going to cram-in someone's most controversial and most hotly disputed comments because one IP adress thinks they are interesting. Grayfell (talk) 23:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC) What "vacuum? What are you talking about? Your view of Reich's "context" is irrelevant to the inclusion of him as source, or his statements. Reich was the one that was misinterpreted, but that does not mean he anywhere denied what he said was accurate. He rejected and chastised his much less qualified critics. He clearly has stated he stands by nearly all his statements, because that is what the evidence shows. I entered the quote verbatim, and did not provide any other context, so I'm not sure what you are insinuating. Reich is the expert here, not you, and the top people in the field have all defended him and his statements. He has rejected the criticisms from unqualified commenters several times: [16] [17] [18] 142.118.184.153 (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC) So he has issued a few statements on this, and the one you link which mentions "race" does so to emphasize that no human population is “pure” or unmixed, etc. This tell us that Reich knows people have misinterpreted his comments. So Reich apparently agrees that this quote should not be stripped of context, because he has gone-back and provided more context, several times. Describing his critics as "less qualified" is irrelevant, because readers and editors are also "less qualified". We cannot assume that they will interpret this correctly, because sources do not agree on what the correct interpretation is, and sources specifically describe this quote as more confusing than helpful. Grayfell (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2019 (UTC) This is not simply a 'few statements'. He wrote a whole book on it. Reich made the statements, and has stood by them. His critics being less qualified is relevant, since you tried to use them as an unacceptable reason not to include his own expert opinions. He rejected and responded to those critics completely. The fact that some people misunderstand or misinterpreted his statements does not mean they are not valid or cannot be entered here. You are also trying to pretend here that you know Reich's intentions with his statements. That is unacceptable, and you cannot assume to know a source's intent - this goes against WP. The content has to speak for itself. Reich stands by these statements, so they are perfectly valid, and it is completely irrelevant who may misinterpret them or how you interpret them. That is not Reich's responsibility, nor grounds for exclusion in a Wikipedia article, since Reich defends fully why and how he stated what he did. 142.118.184.153 (talk) 23:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC) I would point out here that the book by David Reich says that most human groups are not truly "pure", not "all". He mentions cases where there are pure groups (in being unmixed for tens of millennia), like Papuans, some Australian Aborigines or Andamanese people (Sentinelese people for instance have been likely fully isolated and unmixed for at least 25,000 years, and remain today as an uncontacted people). There is mention in the book about how human groups have been highly or completely isolated for very long periods, tens of millennia or longer, and certain periods of admixture with specific groups at specific times. He defends the biological taxonomy or level of difference that "race" generally alludes to in common parlance. 142.127.171.128 (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead unsourced

The lead has this with a citation request against it: "In 1903, W. E. B. Du Bois said that racialism is the philosophical position that races existed, and that collective differences existed among such categories, the races."

Du Bois published "The Souls of Black Folk" in 1903 but I cannot find anything like this quote in there. Indeed I cannot find any quote like the above from Du Bois that does not source Wikipedia. We are essentially putting wrong information out there. I am going to make a bold edit and change this to something that does summarise Du Bois' view of Racialism with a source. Yet it will inevitably subtly shift what we say in the lead. I am not committed to my edit, and will be happy for someone to change it if they can find something better, but any summary of Du Bois' view must be sourced to somewhere. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2020 (UTC)