Talk:Racism/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): LillySLopez, Kaitleenwong, Erikpineda, Hugofabian97. Peer reviewers: Hugofabian97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Darksol503.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Color-blindness

Red flags in the blurring of the distinction of color-blindness at the individual and societal level, as well as a decided POV (color-blind bad), are present. I'll be following the references, but in the meantime if anyone has something applicable to expand the section and refute its one-sided approach, please feel free! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.139.85.146 (talk) 13:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Any sources for ethnicity used as a boogeyman to enforce deals?

There is a rarely discussed concept in society, where fear of the "other" (african/asian/mongol), is used as an impetus chaser/driver to strangely deform/enforce deals via "off the books", implied, & "word of mouth" adjuncts to that deal. Does anyone have some sources about this to add to any relevant section of the article? See Taboo; unspoken rule; Zwarte Piet; "Deal with the Devil"; "Blood oath"; Deadline; Penalty (Mormonism); cuckold; white slavery (Cariye); Fear of a Black Planet; Behind the green door; Mongol horde (Orda; Band society); silk Road transmission of art; Steppe Route. Text mdnp (talk) 19:41, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

BLM

Should BLM get a mention in Anti-Racism? It fits the category and is a very current issue that I think will make it easier for readers to understand. Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 07:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

 Done for the section of this article. @Mrytzkalmyr: You might want to add something yourself to the article Anti-racism, which is not edit protected. --Rsk6400 (talk) 08:20, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks! Mrytzkalmyr (talk) 15:35, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

racism is wrong you shouldn't be racist 162.246.6.155 (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:57, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 21 November 2020

In the section "Social and Behavioural Sciences", after the currently existing sentence: "Thus, racist thoughts and actions can arise from stereotypes and fears of which we are not aware.":

I would like to request you to kindly add this sentence:

For example, scientists and activists have warned that the use of the stereotype "Nigerian Prince" for referring to advance-fee scammers is racist, i.e. "reducing Nigeria to a nation of scammers and fraudulent princes, as some people still do online, is a stereotype that needs to be called out".

Here is the reference: https://doi.org/10.1080/02533952.2020.1813943 that should be cited at the end of the new sentence. WikiFairness (talk) 17:34, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

References

 Done P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:49, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 15 December 2020

The effect of racism from past historical periods on our lives and daily experiences today

Due to the history of European colonialism, imperialism, and environmental destruction, it is more important than ever to explore how racism shapes many, many domains of our everyday lives. Racism in this case is defined primarily in terms of the dimensions of white supremacy. For instance, oppressed minority groups who are critical of their own race or who are critical of other oppressed minority races may be experiencing the harmful effects of internalized racial subordination or internalized whitewashing. On the other hand, white people who seek to distinguish themselves as somehow superior to or better than oppressed minority races are actively weilding their white privilege as a source of pride. In this instance of racial minorities criticizing and looking down upon other racial minorities while praising and admiring whites, and in the other instance of whites criticizing, demeaning, and claiming superiority over racial minorities for any reason, we see the two primary manifestations of white supremacy in our society today. Whether we are conscious of it or not, we experience, participate in, or confront the legacy of racism in our families, friendships, everyday relationships, home lives, leisure activities, workplaces, employment opportunities, housing opportunities, health outcomes, wealth ownership, earnings and income, insurance marketplaces, life expectancy outcomes, disparate access to medical care and healthcare, experiences with pollution and environmental degradation, encounters with the criminal justice system, enjoyment of outdoor recreation, experiences in public education, infrastructure and transportation systems, movies, television shows, history, and politics; but we only realize the pervasiveness of racism in all of these domains of public and private life if we allow ourselves to fully explore how individuals of different races would experience these significant aspects of the human discussion from an intersectional perspective. Critical race theory offers such an intersectional theoretical framework. 173.70.232.128 (talk) 00:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source. Acroterion (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Etymology, definition and usage

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The second paragraph states that most anthropologists, scientists, and biologists reject a taxonomy of races. There are newer sources for that to add, and it is only partially true.

It is partially true, because from the data we can see, studies referring to Eastern Europeans and Asians have shown the opposite. So the results should include that they are according to "Western" scientists.

As for the second sentence, "As of 2005, human genome research indicates that race is not a meaningful genetic classification of humans.", do we use this kind of data for other animals in determining if they are subspecies? It seems the distinction of "race," is close to "subspecies," and if we use similar classifications for subspecies based on phenotypes (or if we go the route of Lewontin and use the fixation index), either way, humans would be different subspecies. Humans are more heterozygous than other subspecies, and even than some other species that are polytypic.. The divergence of racial groups in time also surpasses various subspecies such as some birds and lizards (time being the primary reason why dog breeds are not considered subspecies (their variance due to their phenotypical plasticity and artificial selection)). Weagesdf (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

We're not in the business of establishing WP:LOCALCONSENSUS about what "race" means here. Instead, we abide by the longstanding consensus established at Talk:Race (human categorization). But to address the basic error in your premise (in the interest of perhaps saving us all some time), all extant human population groups belong to the same subspecies Homo sapiens sapiens. Indeed, we are especially closely related for an animal subspecies. I hope that clears things up, but if not, the appropriate place to discuss this would be Talk:Race (human categorization). Generalrelative (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I will go to that page. My statements were questioning the premise that we are the same subspecies, given that we have more variance in a number of spheres than other polytypic mammals. The first part still applies to this wiki, I believe, though.Weagesdf (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, but be aware that the fact that we all belong to the same subspecies is 100% supported by the scientific consensus. The only debate is over whether Homo sapiens can be divided into subspecies at all, since typically we only talk about "subspecies" when there is more than one. So it matters whether extinct members of Homo like Neanderthals count as subspecies of Homo sapiens or separate species. See e.g. [1] for a basic explanation. Best, Generalrelative (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, there is never 100% scientific consensus, and I am not sure whether the global supermajority would agree. As you can see from the very first link I posted, and the following two after that on the question of whether scientists believe race to be biological (more or less), a significant number believe that race is biological. And again, if we were to use the same criteria that we do for the taxonomy o fother mammals, we could easily separate humans into subspecies. I suppose it is more political than anything—a pushback from the prejudice of the older race realists (when the belief in biological race does not necessitate prejudice). But I suppose that goes beyond the scope of this wiki.Weagesdf (talk) 19:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You state: if we were to use the same criteria that we do for the taxonomy o fother mammals, we could easily separate humans into subspecies. This is false. But I am not going to debate it with you further. Best wishes, Generalrelative (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Even using the common species classification criteria in biology this makes no sense. —PaleoNeonate – 19:49, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmetoyer, Ijwilliams.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Prejudice plus power into Racism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to not merge. Treetoes023 (talk) 03:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

---

This new definition of racism is an ideological device to push a political persepctive. It should not be merged with the dictionary definition of racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.119.238.170 (talk) 03:54, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

The article is a stub and has more weight on the criticism than relaying the intended use of the definition in academia. It feels a little unnecessary. Compared to other articles on the topic, this one is wanting.Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 19:22, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• Call me neutral. I think the topic is notable and that there's likely more to add. I agree their are POV problems with the status quo. I am personally unlikely to do major work to improve it, so I won't oppose the merge. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
• One of the more serious issue this article has already is confusing 'United States discourse about racism' with the stated topic of the article itself, which is something much broader. Filling it with more of the same, based on sources that do little to demonstrate significance beyond US academia (and a narrow section of it at that) seems unwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:18, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  You are not wrong. Though there is nothing about the terminology that would disbar it from being a part of the wider discourse, it does see far more use in the United States than it does anywhere else, and as long as that holds true, would you be more open, then, to merging it with Racism in the United States? Or, perhaps, in Discrimination? Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 21:13, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  It definitely doesn't belong in the 'Discrimination' article, for the same reasons I gave earlier. As for the 'Racism in the United States' one, maybe. Provided it can be shown that there is any sort of real discussion of this particular 'stipulative definition' in more generalist coverage of that topic. The existing 'Prejudice plus power' article claims that the definition is 'often used by anti-racism activists', but fails to provide sources to back that up, and I can't help feeling that the article was constructed to promote the 'definition', rather than to describe something with widespread recognition. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

  I think the page lacks proper dialog on the subject. However, it does provide three activists at the least in the lead, so it is not a wild claim or anything. The article as it is now, however, is rather problematic for the reasons I've described. It is deserving of mention in a race-related topic, but not as its own article. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 01:24, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

• I'm also neutral, leaning on oppose. I think prejudice plus power and its criticism are definitely notable subjects, but I personally don't think power structures should have anything to do with racism. If somebody has a draft that merges the two subjects in a neutral manner (i.e., not making prejudice plus power, a fringe theory, the main subject of this page like it currently is on the reverse racism page), then maybe I’ll support the merge. Maybe make the draft place prejudice plus power in a section here and its criticism a subsection in that section, or expand the existing prejudice plus power page. Unnamed anon (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is only one model of racism, and so it should be its own article. And the Racism article is large enough as it is. 00:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Libcub (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Not to be confused with Rashism"

I suggest removing this phrase because there is no citation supporting that somebody is confusing these terms (and as far as I see - nobody does). Moreover, the term "Rashism" is highly politically controversial right now and should not be included in well-established articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.169.95 (talk) 08:53, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree totally - even as someone following the Ukraine-Russia conflict closely, I'd never heard the term 'rashism', and it is frankly ridiculous to suggest that anyone who actually aware of it would come to a page entitled 'Racism' to look for information. I've removed the note. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Origin of racism? 1450 Portugal

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oIZDtqWX6Fk Can use a video as a source, but the Portugal person that I don't know how to spell is mentioned along with the Portugal King in 1450s. The speaker mentions the name of the researcher also. It's at time mark 9m20s. Thanks, Marasama (talk) 02:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I think the person is Gomes Eanes de Zurara, thanks Marasama (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Segregation Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 August 2022

The definition of racism in the introduction is limited mostly to chauvinism with regard to "races", which is indeed one crucial characteristic of racism. Some racists, however, extend the concept to the point that groups of different geographical origin must be segregated, especially to prevent mixing of the "races". The definition should absolutely mention this and cite the terminology for these sub-concepts. My proposal for reformulation:

It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, chauvinism, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity. Some racists, however, extend the concept to the point that groups of different geographical origin must be segregated, especially in order to prevent mixing of the "races" (miscegenation).

(Any other wording making the same point is also okay. I am a non-native speaker of English and not fully aware of stylistic subtleties.) --HV (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC) HV (talk) 10:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Thanks HV. This may be a perfectly appropriate edit but there are a few reasons it probably hasn't been implemented yet. First, it takes a degree of effort to see exactly what change is proposed because the WP:EDITXY format hasn't been fully utilized (the previous text is missing). This means editors have to "hunt down" exactly what's changing which takes more time and effort. Second, without seeing the exact changes being proposed this reads like a controversial edit which should always reach consensus here on the talk page before anyone implements it. Lastly, it's difficult to tell if the new information you're proposing (i.e. some racists extend...) requires new citations or is already supported by existing ones. To be clear - I'm not necessarily opposed to, or rejecting this proposal; it's just really difficult to evaluate right now.

I recommend cleaning it up by adding the old text at a minimum and ideally adding new citations or referencing existing ones for the additional information you've proposed (i.e. the extension of the concept of racism you mention). You've done a good job explaining what's missing so if this is controversial I expect it will generate some discussion here and if not, this may get implemented much faster. --N8_wilson 🔔 14:48, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out to me. Since I am not familiar with editing in the English Wikipedia I would like to ask you or anybody else for assistance in finishing my request by simply acting in my place. I understand that the rules and procedures here are quite different from the German WP where I usually contribute (e.g. we do not have WP:EDITXY). --HV (talk) 19:54, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I should clarify that nothing I wrote above was meant as a rebuke of you or your request HV; you didn't "break a rule". I just hoped to provide thoughts as to why this might not get completed quickly. Here on English WP, it's encouraged to ignore all the rules when they stand in the way of progress. In that spirit, lets re-open this request for now so other editors can see this needs attention. I'm neither an authority on edit requests, nor an expert in this particular topic so if another editor can quickly determine everything's good here I don't want to hold it up. Thanks for your 5,000+ main-space edits in de.WP! --N8_wilson 🔔 20:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I totally got your point. :) I just wanted to explain my hesitation in taking further actions on my own as resulting from a combination of language barrier and ignorance of specific WP:en-rules. If other users feel ready enough to complete this matter, it would actually be a great relief to me. --HV (talk) 11:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

"Blackwashing" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Blackwashing and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 14#Blackwashing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 February 2023

In the Racism as a modern phenomenon section, a sentence should be added about Martin Luthers racism against the Jews influencing later Nazi racism. Rote1234 (talk) 01:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:23, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Weird sentence

Although antisemitism has a long history, related to Christianity and native Egyptian or Greek religions[140] (anti-Judaism), racism itself is sometimes described as a modern phenomenon. I come from "scientific racism" Wikiedia page to investigate this further. I have noticed some weird tendencies on Wikipedia to frame christianity racist. Christianity has been used to serve many different ends, indeed. But it should be dealt with professionally. The sentence could instead begin like this "Although etnocentrism has a long history, ...". Why is christianity highlighted? Why is antisemitism equated to racism? And which are those native Egyptian or Greek religions? Well, there is no point of the linking phrase "although ..." in this paragraph, and it has has no relevance to "Racism as a modern phenomenon". Short it down — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.225.188.129 (talk) 14:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

On both Wikipedia pages I have been met with a wall of silence. I'm losing faith in Wikipedia 130.225.188.130 (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

It's probably because your question is really unclear and you've got a weird comment thrown in, Why is antisemitism equated to racism? that's easy to read as a red flag. VQuakr (talk) 21:43, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Antisemitism is an element of the set of racist ideologues, behaviors, etc. (racism) among many, many other elements. It's a prime example of undue weight and can almost be read as racism is the set of only that element, antisemitism, which, if anything, is a red flag. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 20:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah that's not what the article says. VQuakr (talk) 23:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Yep, because you inserted "itself" - very subtle, indeed. Nonetheless, it's still undue weight and misleading. 213.237.82.85 (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The whole section has developped over time into a mess. In 2016, part of our section read, "This discourse, which first appeared in Great Britain, was then carried on in France by people such as Boulainvilliers, Nicolas Fréret, and then, during the 1789 French Revolution, Sieyès, and afterward Augustin Thierry and Cournot. Boulainvilliers, which created the matrix of such racist discourse in medieval France, conceived the "race" as something closer to the sense of "nation", that is, in his times, the "people"."[2]. "This discourse" was a reference to Foucault's "discourse of race struggle". Now we have "This European analysis" and nobody knows what the demonstrative pronoun refers to. The mention of anti-Judaism seems to be WP:SYNTH. I'll try a bit of repair work. Rsk6400 (talk) 07:28, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Page Lede

I am genuinely curious about the topic and definition of racism (stating this because I see and understand this page is controversial). The lede of this page cites very few sources, the first coming at the bottom of the second paragraph. Other wikipedia pages cite sources after most sentences in the General section. I think this should be reviewed and sources cited, especially considering the finality of statements made in the first two paragraphs. There are multiple vague sources: "in contemporary social science," "often used in a sense," "often used to describe." For those trying to learn about the definition of racism and how/if it has evolved over time, this lede is insufficient. Nebo294 (talk) 03:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

According to MOS:LEAD, the lead section should summarize the article, meaning it doesn't need any references as long as an educated reader can see that it's a correct summary. Rsk6400 (talk) 04:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Objectionable lede

In this comment from May 2020, it was explained that the change made in this January 2020 edit created an objectionable lede.

As I see it, the objectionable aspect of the lede is that racism is presented as something that at least had a seemingly rational basis. But the objection is not that issue, it is that this is the lede. This should be the thrust of what we mean when we speak about racism today, and my impression is when we use the word racism, we're generally referring to the practice of discrimination against certain groups based on their race.

Notwithstanding the subsequent addition of text in the edit request of 5 August 2022, the lede is still objectionable. The only real justification presented for leaving the lede as it that was given was "we go by what reliable sources say about a topic.". But I'm pretty sure there are numerous reliable sources that say something different, perhaps more akin to what this was prior to the January 2020 edit. Here are a few examples:

• Cambridge English Dictionary
• Cornell University
• Franklin and Marshall College
• NPR

Actually, though, some of the pre-existing lede sentences strike me as pretty much okay, such as the lede sentence in the edit of 5 December 2016.

Additionally, I'm not sure we're exactly bound (e.g. in the lede) to have a source with a verbatim definition. Is it really a violation of WP:SYNTH to pull information from multiple sources in the description provided in the lede (not that I really want to get sidetracked by such "deep-thought" questions)?

Please speak up if you feel the current lede is problematic (or for that matter, speak up in support of the current lede). IMO/FWIW, the progress of this article (at least in respect of the lede) seems to have been generally downhill over the last several years, and arguably provides some fairly decent support for the theory of Wikipedia actually being in a general state of decline. Fabrickator (talk) 09:44, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

The lede paragraph on the American Psychological Association page Racism, bias, and discrimination seems pretty close to providing a WP:RS for the 5 December 2016 lede. Fabrickator (talk) 09:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll put forth a specific proposal, to revert to use the initial paragraph as shown in the edit of 5 December 2016, to wit:

Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity. Racism can be present in social actions, practices, or political systems (e.g., apartheid) that support the expression of prejudice or aversion in discriminatory practices. The ideology undRacism is erlying racist practices often includes the idea that humans can be subdivided into distinct groups that are different in their social behavior and innate capacities and that can be ranked as inferior or superior. Racist ideology can become manifest in many aspects of social life. Associated social actions may include nativism, xenophobia, otherness, segregation, hierarchical ranking, supremacism, and related social phenomena.

If you have suggestions or objections, please speak up now. Fabrickator (talk) 09:45, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Racism is discrimination and prejudice AGAINST people, not towards them. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Race AND Ethnicity

First sentence states "Racism is discrimination and prejudice towards people based on their race or ethnicity" with a link on "race or ethnicity" going to the "Race" page. But what about "Ethnicity"? There is a page for it too. And as far as I know there ain't the same thing. 79.153.44.152 (talk) 09:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

•  Done GMG^talk 10:38, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

"A modern concept"

Is this consensus? It doesn't seem clear that racial discrimination didn't exist before the Modern Period. Take antisemitism, for instance, which has existed since antiquity. Because if "racism" doesn't encompass racial discrimination before the modern period, this article must reflect that, in mentioning discrimination of ethnicities throughout history. It seems absurd - the idea that racism is a "modern" concept. Zilch-nada (talk) 10:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

At the very least it is WP:IMPLICIT consensus. And, speaking as a historian, I can assure you that the understanding of racism as a modern concept is indeed quite widespread. Of course, whether it is modern or ancient depends on how you define it. But the "modern concept" definition is the one with the most mainstream acceptance, at least among academics. Generalrelative (talk) 21:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's a really good explainer on the historicity of the concept of race: "Is ‘race’ modern?", which addresses your example of antisemitism. Though I will note that what the author refers to as "late medieval" is a time frame which most historians refer to as the "early modern" (which is usually defined as anything after the Fall of Constantinople in 1453). The distinction is of course entirely conventional. Generalrelative (talk) 21:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

And here's a solid WP:TERTIARY discussion on the matter, from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Generalrelative (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Again, this seems awkward as antisemitism is described as a form of racism. The SEP's wording does back up the idea of race as a modern phenomenon, but not racism itself; "However, there is less agreement regarding whether racism... may have existed in the ancient Greek and Roman worlds", regardless of whether race was then a concept. It is clear that there is no unanimity with regard to racism; a different topic to race. I am reverting your revert as I don't think it's controversial to acknowledge the lack of consensus with regards to the origins of racism. Again, my edits are only because I dispute the idea that there is a consensus. Racism is sometimes described as a modern concept; I think that that is reasonable wording. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's sometimes hard to untangle the logic of this kind of culturally contentious topic. But the key point about ancient antisemitism (or rather, more precisely, anti-Jewish bias) is that it didn't map at all onto modern notions of race. For the Romans, there was

1. a generalized bias toward what they saw as the more "decadent" cultures to their East (Greeks, Persians, and Syrians –– of whom Judeans or "Jews" were often described as a subset), and
2. in the wake of the Jewish Wars, a kind of panicked hostility akin to anti-Muslim hysteria in the U.S. after the 9/11 attacks.

Crucially, there are zero ancient sources that claim that a the baby of Jewish parents who was adopted and raised as a Roman by Roman parents would be anything other than Roman. But regardless, the longstanding language remains until a new consensus emerges, even if it seems awkward and/or absurd to you. Generalrelative (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of how I feel about the idea of racism not being modern, my edits were, as I have said above, there because I don't see consensus among scholars about the age of racism. I don't see how "sometimes" is a controversial term to use. Zilch-nada (talk) 00:26, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

See my comment immediately below. Generalrelative (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

If you're looking for a source that explicitly states that there is indeed a consensus that racism is indeed "modern", see e.g. "When Did Racism Begin?" in the Chronicle of Higher Education. The author notes that this consensus has recently been challenged, but it has not yet been overturned. And the author makes what I think is a very compelling case, based on the ideas and insights of Quentin Skinner, that it really shouldn't be. I hope that's helpful! Generalrelative (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think it's wrong to describe that consensus as still-standing, merely "challenged" but not "overturned". (Perhaps if consensus is challenged by mainstream scholarship, it is in fact overturned, as consensus implies a general agreement) The article writes

"The recent scholarship on medieval “racism” resolutely rejects, and seeks to overturn, a prior consensus, broadly dating from the 1990s, that the concept of race is both modern and Western."

Does "the recent scholarship" seem like merely a challenge such that there is still consensus? But the idea of "recent scholarship" implies quite a strong challenge, and that there is no longer unanimity in the 1990s-era-thought that racism is "Modern and Western."

Then again, I do not have access to the full article. Where does it say or imply that the consensus "has not yet been overturned"? Zilch-nada (talk) 01:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

She never says it in such simple terms, but throughout the piece makes it clear that these are challengers to the scholarly mainstream. I wish I could cut-and-paste the whole article for you, since I really like it (thanks by the way for inspiring me to seek it out! –– I may even assign it for a class this semester). But unfortunately that would run afoul of copyright n stuff. Generalrelative (talk) 01:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

By definition, the concept of racism cannot really precede the concept of race - before that point, any form of discrimination, prejudice or generalized fear and hatred of the other was just that, without further nuance. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:47, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

One note here: while the lede has been relatively consistent, the body of the article has used some variation of the sentence "racism itself is sometimes described as a modern phenomenon" (now in the Racism#Racism as a modern phenomenon section) since 2016. However, I note that it originally read "frequently", and that the editor who changed it from "frequently" to "sometimes" at the time is now banned from enwiki for anti-semitic POV pushing, among other things. My gut instinct is that the choice of the word "sometimes" in the body was a deliberate POV choice by said edity, so I don't think it should be automatically kept, despite its tenure, but either way, the lead and the body of the article should be reconciled. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I am open to the use of the term "frequently" as the opinion is widespread but not unanimous. "Sometimes" doesn't suit "widespread", but "frequently" obviously does. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Changing both the lede and the body to "frequently" seems reasonable to me, but I'd like to hear GR's opinion first. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

That seems like a very reasonable compromise. I'm happy to hop along. The best thing would, I believe, be to expand on the point by unpacking what is laid out in the Chronicle article, which really is *very* good scholarship. But I probably won't have time for that myself in the near future, and in any case it wouldn't affect the basic question we're discussing here. Generalrelative (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2023

Change "beliefs, actions, movements, and policies" in section "Anti-racism" to "scholarship, beliefs, actions, movements, and policies" Coolcooper01 (talk) 18:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

 Partly done: I'm happy to link Political movement as suggested as well as policies to Public policy as it seems like that was probably the article you were looking for, as well as adding scholarship to the list. Why, though, should 'scholarship' link to Jena Declaration specifically? Surely it is not the only instance of scholarship in the area, no? Tollens (talk) 08:04, 18 November 2023 (UTC)