Talk:Racism by country/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Issues on Iran

Okay, if there's a second argument (there've been some hints, but I'm not sure what's concrete). Anyways, if we're going to have to go up the dispute resolution ladder, it's nice to have a very well defined dispute. WilyD 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC) If you can think of any other issue where there's a disagreement, please put in a new subheading, if it fits under one of the existing ones, please expand it. WilyD 17:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Discrimination based on ethnicity isn't Racism

Okay so I'm trying to clear up what the objections are to the above section. Some arguments have been made (I think) suggesting that discriminations against ethnicities isn't racism, because it's not based on race. I present here a simple dictionary definition of race: race2 /reɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[reys] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1. a group of persons related by common descent or heredity. 2. a population so related. 3. Anthropology. a. any of the traditional divisions of humankind, the commonest being the Caucasian, Mongoloid, and Negro, characterized by supposedly distinctive and universal physical characteristics: no longer in technical use. b. an arbitrary classification of modern humans, sometimes, esp. formerly, based on any or a combination of various physical characteristics, as skin color, facial form, or eye shape, and now frequently based on such genetic markers as blood groups. c. a human population partially isolated reproductively from other populations, whose members share a greater degree of physical and genetic similarity with one another than with other humans. 4. a group of tribes or peoples forming an ethnic stock: the Slavic race.

5. any people united by common history, language, cultural traits, etc.: the Dutch race.

Which comes from here: [1] in the second set

The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, see [2], which Iran is a signatory to (and which forms the basis for most of the section) says In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. , here again we see racial discrimination includes discrimination based on ethnicity. Of course, race is a very poorly defined concept, so it's unsurprising we could all be going by different ideas of what constitutes race.

Surely the definitions of terms like race and racism used in Wikipedia articles ought to be cognisant of, and linked to, the WP articles about those terms - the discussion page of a subsidiary article (i.e. one that assumes an understanding of the main terms) is not a good place for a debate about the definition of those very terms? Eyedubya 10:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

In real life "race" is a very nebulous concept, and (racism at least) is very unstable for that exact reason. You can go there and argue it if you like, but we're not bound here to be wrong just because another article is. Wily D 13:24, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Other Countries aren't covered as well

Well, this is certainly true. There's nothing on Andorra or Luxemburg. I want to write a comparable entry to the proposed Iran one for every country who's not mentioned yet, but obviously I can't before the article is unlocked. But the United States is brought up specifically a few times - I'll point out that the US has one of the longest sections on this page, and there are already 19 articles and five subcategories in Category:History of racism in the United States. I don't think we can reasonably complain that's there's an undue emphasis on Iran vis-a-vis America. Of course, all editors are still free to expand and improve most (or all?) of the articles in those categories.

See my comments re: singapore, which should get it's own section INMHO 124.254.121.189 (talk) 07:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Australia

Australia should be included in this article. I think the White Australia Policy and Pauline Hanson issues should be highlighted in addition to the refugee and immigration HIV policies. I would be more than happy to do this. I have peer reviewed sources. Shakespeareandwine 00:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. Shall we unblock the page? Tazmaniacs 02:47, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Australia should be included. See White Australia policy and Blackbirding. BTW, saying that Pauline Hanson is a racist would violate WP:BLP, but quoting someone notable as saying that would be OK. Cheers, CWC 02:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that a start has been made on Australia, its time you added your expertise. Eyedubya 10:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The white australia policy is over 9 years old and therfore shouldn't be included. <\sarcasm> but seriously, how is a policy base on HIV status racist? or do you think that only africans have HIV? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.137.248 (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Singapore has a pro-chinese immigration policy in place today, and also has anti-HIV measures, I suggest we include these in an article on Singapore (see comments later down the page) 124.254.121.189 (talk) 07:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Protection

It is not appropriate to block the page because there is an edit-war going on on Iran. The rest of the page needs work, and this should not be blocked because some users have a disagreement on Iran. Tazmaniacs 02:46, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation rejected, let's try again

Okay, rather than sum up the objections to my proposed paragraph myself, I'm going to ask that someone who opposes it do so. Just do it in bullet points below, 1 - 2 sentences each, so we can start a discussion. Since the lack of discussion here was one of the motivations for rejecting the request for mediation, I'd like to restart it - either to a) solve the remaining problems, or b) generate an active discussion so we can request another form of mediation or something. Wily D 13:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

What has been said has been said. Everyone knows each other's opinions and the argument here has been exhausted. That's why everyone was waiting patiently for mediation. Now mediation has collapsed because admins refused to take note of it. What is the point in wasting time going over the same arguments? This is ridiculous.--الأهواز | Hamid | Ahwaz 13:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

There are many entries without any sources, and there are sections that have terrible problems of undue weight. I will be removing the former and pairing down the latter in the next few days. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 11:15, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

BRAZIL

There is a one-liner about Brazil that looks more like 'affirmative action' than 'racism' - and thus should go into an article about 'Affirmative action by country'. Eyedubya 10:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Bias in US section

It seems that there are a lot of statements in the US section that claim that Caucasian Americans are victims more often. However, the FBI says that 67.9% or racial crimes are committed against African Americans. [3]

But that's neither here nor there. It probably isn't constructive to include anything at all about who is more victimized, at least in a summery like this. Regardless of people's opinions, it just causes resentment. Thoughts? 151.204.193.7 04:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with this user and am not comfortable with the Reverse Racism portion. The facts seem tainted and a real bias is present. I would recommend its removal unless someone is willing to back up all the facts and remove the bias. Efeinberg (talk) 09:12, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

agree JJJamal (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Also reading over the section following the Reverse Racism portion, I found many repeats. I am very unhappy with the construction of these articles. I also agree with a post further down on the page, that we should merge Racism in the United States with this article. So rather than try to maintain 2 articles, we have just one, in a seperate page with simply a link on this page. Lastly, there is NO mention on this page of racism against Arab-Americans. Please respond with ideas or support so we can move forward. Thanks.

Efeinberg (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WHAT ABOUT MEXICO?

I think this article should also include a section about racism in Mexico, since it is very present today. Probably not like in the USA with the KKK and Neo-Nazis, but there is. For expample, about 40% of Mexico's population is white (phenotypicaly, not pure) but those are the Mexicans with better oportunities in life than dark skined Mexicans and Indigenous Mexicans. I tell you this from experience because when I was going to go and get registered to my current high school, there was some Mexicans also there from chiapas, I live in northern Mexico where we white Mexicans are a majority, these people looked very dark skinned, they were before me in fron of the line right ahead of me, and the secretary told them that she couldn't register the boy because there was no more space, so she told him and his family they had to go to another school (this was in a public school). Finally I was the last in line, and since i heard what she said I was about to leave when she told me "hold on" we might have space for you, and I am not confirming this was racism, but how weird that just because I white she did not deny me into school. Events similar to what happened to me happen every day all across the country, and being called an "indio" a term used to reffer to dark skinned Mexicans, is a major insult here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.142.65.77 (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

US section too long?

There's already an extensive article that covers racism in the US, so what's the point of citing it in detail here also? Isn't it supposed to be brief on a page like this?

One problem with the current state is that it portrays the notion that racism is more prevalent in USA than elsehwhere, something which is far from the truth.

I advise we should merge the given information into the Racism in the United States article, and give a brief explanation of it here. Anyone agree? Cobine 18:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Split

Way too long This page is 146 kb, some five times longer than the suggested article length. For entries that can have enough content (e.g. Racism in the United States), they should be split into their own article, otherwise into regional articles (e.g. Racism in East Asia, or Racism in the Middle East.) -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 22:20, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. See main page for links. Now someone go do cleanup :p -mattbuck (Talk) 23:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

why is south africa not listed alphabetically like all the other countries?

Barryvz (talk) 02:00, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"Aryan Invasion" nonsense

I deleted the India part of this edit[4] as unencyclopedic per WP:FRINGE for the following reason: The edit makes the pseudohistorical claim that "light-skinned" "Aryans" invaded India and established the caste system. Such a narrative was coined by the British Empire in India during colonial times as a racial fantasy of the British to attempt a justification of their rule over the subcontinent. The references cited in the edit to "back up" such outdated and offensive ideas were carefully Synthesized based on partisan sources like Eric Margolis (who is known to make false and venomous accusations against Indians) and unreliable sources. The wikipedia articles Aryanism#British Raj and Indo-Aryan migration contain a vast plethora of scholarly material that dispute (and ultimately debunk) the notion of an "Aryan Invasion and caste establishment". The caste system existed in the region long prior to the Indo-Aryan migrations, and the Central Asians who migrated (not invaded) the subcontinent did so peacefully over the course of generations, and were integrated into the caste system over time.Ghanadar galpa (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

CHILE

THe article about chile is very exagerated, i think there's a lot more racial problems in europe rather than south america. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.23.73 (talk) 05:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

The article specifically focused on racism in Chile was deleted last year, despite the article had constant modifications and re-editing to made the article smaller and more accurate. I'm completely aware the information in the view history pages was more true in the 1970's and 1980s than in the 2000s. The article included a subsection on Hispanophobia or Anti-Spanish sentiment, but the article specified the disfavor of mestizos and Amerindians by the "white" elite when it comes to the entertainment industry. Chile is a country which self-identifies easily with its indigenous ancestral past, whom racially merged with Spanish colonialism and European immigration, and the result is a sociocultural identity dilemma on how Chileans viewed themselves in racial terms they aren't typically accustomed to like the US, Europe and other former colonies of European countries. + Mike D 26 (talk) 07:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Racism_by_country&action=historysubmit&diff=109841130&oldid=109833098#Chile - Racism in Chile, subsection on this article's earliest editions (2006-07?) on the view history page, preserved on record. 71.102.26.168 (talk) 10:13, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Racism against Jews be removed in Article

I think all the nonsense about racism against Jews should be removed from this article!Jews are not a race to begin with!They are a religious group!A Jew can be of any race!Shouldn`t discrimination and prejudice against Jews be in the Anti-semitism articles and in the Relgious Persecution section and the Judaism section?I`m not going to edit this article for now,but someone,please remove parts of the article dealing with discrimination against Jews from the article!It shouldn`t be in this article to start with because Jews are not a race!

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.72.187 (talk) 20:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

umm, the term jews has multiple meanings. what you listed was one defenition of a jew. their's also the jewish ethnicity too. also a jew can refer to descendants of Jacob. so hatred towards jews is racial, and religous .--Crossovershipper (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Racism against Christians should also be removed in Article

First of all, Christianity is not a race, it's only a religion. So, any discrimination against Christians should be identified as religious discrimination instead, and therefore, it's irrelevant to this article and should be removed.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.187.143.148 (talk) 09:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

stupidity + viagra

This whole article is stupid. I vote delete this rubbish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.137.248 (talk) 15:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Singapore?

Any thoughts on creating a section on racism in Singapore? I thought that sections on discrimination against malays, indians, imported domestic labour, housing policy, immigration policy etc might all be worthy sub-sections of the section on Singapore 124.254.121.189 (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Very good suggestion, Singapore represents a wonderful opportunity to look at racism in both society and at a governmental level. 130.56.32.2 (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

RfC

BAn RfC: Which descriptor, if any, can be added in front of Southern Poverty Law Center when referenced in other articles? has been posted at the Southern Poverty Law Center talk page. Your participation is welcomed. – MrX 17:12, 22 September 2012 (UTC)