Template talk:Racism topics

message: This is a pretty US Centric template. I'd suggest titling it as a US Template or expanding it to have more of a world view.CJ 12:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work. As for the U.S centric thing, the template should be globelized. Any suggestions?--sefringleTalk 02:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple. For Asia, issues between Gaijin and ethnic Japanese. Also, historical issues between White Australians and Aborigines. In Africa, you've got the "reverse racism" issues in the now Black run governments with white minority populations (see Zimbabwe). CJ 03:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok. Are there articles for this? If there are, we can add them. If not, I don't know what we can do here right now.--SefringleTalk 03:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: noppppp

message: Is this template good enough for now to place in the articles?--SefringleTalk 03:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there are no objections, I am going to start placing the template in the articles--SefringleTalk 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: OK, should I start placing this template in articles

message: I'd suggest splitting this, as it's organised strangely at the moment. You have Klu Klux Klan and  Grey Wolves which are specific groups, then Neo-Nazism, Nazism and Aryanism (redirects to Aryan race) which aren't groups at all. Unless you're planning to have a huge template you might be better off leaving groups off altogether, as just off the top of my head there are some/all of these that need adding:
*The many groups listed on , the groups in :Category:Neo-Nazi organizations and its sub-cat.
It might be better off just sticking to ideologies? One Night In Hackney303 10:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you need at least one group to summarize each distinct ideology. For example, there are hundreds of neo-Nazi groups, but most (with a few exceptions) follow basically the same creed, so Neo-Nazis only need be listed once. The KKK, which has many similarities to the neos, is still fairly distinct and deserves separate mention. Similarly, the Grey Wolves, though they parallel these organizations, have no direct connection to them and . Ideologies I would put separately, and would probably only put the larger and more distinct ideological movements.The Myotis 19:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Racist groups

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

message: Ok someone added these to the template. The first to as racist ideologies and the last as a racist group. At best they appear to be ethnic nationalist movements but not outright racist groups. Even this site that is obviously against this position doesn't call them out as racist. Anti-American yes. But not racist. If someone has some clearer documentation of a specific racist agenda please bring it up. CJ 09:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mexica Movement article already states that they are anti-White and different from Mecha.  La Raza is also obviously racist; see bronze race (or cosmic race) and Brown Berets.  Chicanismo or Chicano nationalism for Aztlán is just as Americentric in focus as White nationalism vs Black nationalism.  These rabble-rousers see themselves as another race of their own and that other people don't belong in the Americas.  There is no need to do a double take on this.  Racism is racism, so I will revert your "politically correct" revert.  Regiment 22:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you provide a link to the page that states this? Racism is not racism. There are verying degrees of racism. Ethnic nationalism in itself is not racism either, unless the goal is specificly racist. (as in white nationalism) Not all nationalism is the same. Yahel Guhan 22:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Read the articles already describing the motives of Mexica Movement.  It clearly describes the racist outlook and agenda of its participants.  Whether one thinks they are in the right or not, is inconsequential to the mere fact of racism being blatantly present.  Regiment 22:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those articles assert the racist nature of the groups you are trying to insert, Regiment. La Raza isn't even an ideology, so why are you trying to put it in the "Racist ideologies" section? You can't add things to the template because they are "obviously" or "blatantly" racist to you. If the articles don't cite reliable sources that indicate that the organizations or ideologies are racist, including them here is original research. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:55, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

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

text: All you were asked to do was provide some documentation from a verifiable source such as the Southern Poverty Law Center or some other reliable source. You personal opinion is not a reliable source. What Lou Dobbs thinks is not a reliable source. And quite frankly if "everybody" thinks these are examples of racism then it shouldn't be difficult to find a reliable source. You also need to keep in mind WP:CIVILITY. That's all I'm going to say on that.CJ 10:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See?  I knew you would pick and choose who is a reliable source.  You hate Lou Dobbs, simply because of his stance.  If it was Keith Olberman or Jon Stewart, or the Daily Kos, you'd gobble it up like there was no tomorrow.  I'm through dealing with your obnoxious and vile bias for racism and supremacism against one race and the glorification of others.  Your bias prevents tolerance and neutrality being exercised at Wikipedia.  Good riddance.  Regiment 16:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since all you do is revert, when the Mexica Movement already states that the Brown people want to banish White people from the Americas...this is guaranteed proof that you don't even want proof.  It's in your face and you refuse to even pay attention, because it bothers you.  Are you Brown?  Regiment 17:05, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is my last response to you on this. You've been reported at WP:ANI for your disruptive edits and making personal attacks. You have still refused to provide sources. The one article you have cited is a quote from WorldNetDaily. That is not a reliable source because it is an opinion site with a long history of bias. CJ 17:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Morris Dees is also a fraud.  So, I don't care to consider the SLPC a valid, legit source.  You are a bigot and one-sided to the end.  You don't care for truth, which takes different sides to portray.  BTW, I have only read WND articles about five times.  Who cares?  I don't care for David Horowitz and he has written for them.  It doesn't mean I will pick sides, like you are doing.  You are so unprofessional about this by picking sides.  Regiment 17:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[La Raza]], [[Chicano nationalism]], [[Mexica Movement]] 

message: Conventional racists consider Jews to be a race of their own.  The "Jewish race" is a frequent topic of their mantra.  Whoever removed this racist group must have a problem with Brown racists being listed, because they are omitted from this category, while the White vs Black dichotomy takes up the majority of the category.  I guess the Browns are just the victim of both Whites and Blacks, so they can't be racists.  How NPOV, that they are victims of racism and not culprits in any sense or form.  Now now, your cybersquatting privileges give you right to WP:OWN this article?  Good for you; you have isolated White and Black hate for the "Jewish race" from Brown hate for the "Jewish race".  Double standards don't impress anybody, fuhrer.  Censor away!  Savignac 04:58, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of corse antisemitism needs to be included; prejudice against jews can be against ethnic jews, who may not be followers of judaism. Yahel Guhan 04:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: Another editor added the British National Party to the template as a racist group. I deleted it, pending further discussion.
The way I read its article, the BNP was a racist organization in the past and it may or may not be a racist organization today. Examples:
British National Party#Racial policies:
:At its founding, the BNP was explicitly racist. In October 1990, the BNP was described by the European Parliament's committee on racism and xenophobia as an "openly Nazi party... whose leadership have serious criminal convictions". ...
:When Nick Griffin became Chairman in 1999, however, the party began to change its stance with regard to racial issues. Griffin claims to have repudiated racism, instead espousing what he calls "ethno-nationalism". ...
:The BNP publicly disavows any interest in white supremacy. ...
:Race is still important to the BNP’s understanding of nation and identity. ...
British National Party#Anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial:
:The BNP, its former leaders and present leader, Nick Griffin, have promoted anti-Semitism and holocaust denial in the past. ...
:The BNP claims that it has now "cast off the leg-iron ... of anti-Semitism" and states that the party has Jewish members, and one of its councillors, Pat Richardson (Epping Forest), is herself Jewish. ...
:The party's website states that racially British or European Jews may join the party.
Anyway, I wanted to get other editors' opinions concerning whether the BNP should be in the template. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 01:29, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[British National Party]] 

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

message: Items to include ... a few are there ...
;Races : Master race and martial Race
;Supremacism : White supremacy and black Supremacy
;Nationalism : White nationalism and black nationalism
;Separatism : White separatism and black separatism
;Pride and racial power : White pride and black pride; white Power and black Power
J. D. Redding 13:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Items to include 

message: I have removed Social Darwinism from the list of racist ideology. First, evolution is not the survival of the strongest or the fittest, but the survival of the most well adapted to the environment. Social Darwinism is taking evolution and applying it to social situation. The article takes Nazism and says that it has it core beliefs in Social Darwinism, however this couldn't be further from the truth. If this was true, then we need to accept that "Aryans" or "Germans" were best suited/adapted to the region of Europe, both physically, mentally, and so on. If they were, then as evolution states, they would be the prominent organism (or in this case, race) in the region. Again, this was not so.
It's quite a stretch to relate Social Darwinism, which is essentially Social Evolution, and racism. Please ask me questions on my talk page. Thank you, Agorist (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a question of whether evolution is racist, but whether Social Darwinism is an ideology associated with racism. Please take a look at Social Darwinism#Criticisms and controversies, which seems to argue for its inclusion here. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Darwinism as a racist ideology 

message: Europe
*Aktion Kinder des Holocaust (Switzerland)
*Anti-Fascist Action (United Kingdom)
*Campaign Against Racism and Fascism (United Kingdom)
*Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism (Belgium)
*Institute of Race Relations (United Kingdom)
*National Assembly Against Racism (United Kingdom)
*Newham Monitoring Project (United Kingdom)
*Residents Against Racism (Ireland)
*The Night Watch  (United Kingdom)
*UNITED for Intercultural Action (European-wide Anti-racist Network)
North America
*By Any Means Necessary (BAMN) (United States)
*Anti-Racist Action (North America)
*Catalyst Project: a center for political education and movement building (United States)
*Copwatch (United States)
*Human Rights First (United States)
*One People's Project (United States)
*Roots of Resistance (Canada)
*Southern Poverty Law Center (United States)
*The People's Institute for Survival and Beyond http://www.pisab.org/ (United States)
*Antifa
*FightDemBack! (Australia and New Zealand)
*Red and Anarchist Skinheads
*Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice
*World Conference against Racism (United Nations)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racism#Anti-racist_organizations
More entries may be added to the template. Kasaalan (talk) 10:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anti-racist organizations

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

message: See WP:NPOVN#Branding individuals as bigots via Templates. Dougweller (talk) 19:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at NPOVN affecting this template 

message: I've recently closed an RfC mentioning this template. The RfC was archived, so I thought it best to notify interested editors here. Thanks, I, JethroBT drop me a line 19:08, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent close of [[Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC:"Should organisations be included in templates such as Islamophobia, Racism and anti-Semitism"]] 

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

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

message: I putted in black supremacy and somebody taken it out.  Black supremacy is the same as white supremacy. somebody needs to put it back. racism is racism. thanks Tomwalker89 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad you think black supremacy is the same as white supremacy. On Wikipedia, we depend on what reliable sources say, not what editors think. Please provide reliable sources that describe black supremacy as racist. As I recommended in my edit summary, please review the relevant discussion at Talk:Black supremacy and its archives. Thank you. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 13:25, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:   Black supremacy