Talk:Racial hierarchy

message: Why was the neutrality debate removed from this page? From the article text, it does not look like it was resolved. The article contains text that is definitely controversial and biased and does not contain balanced references to back it up. Surely it should be removed or at least have the debate restored? Hatoulah (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality debate

message: seriously , this is the most non encyclopedian article I have read.
I don't even know what POV is pushed here for sure  , it seems as if it is a patchwork of copywriting from different authors .
it also has extreme OR issues, a collectivist slant(a race as a single entity rather than a cultural group of individuals , doing things in a personal manner as if it was a state) and is generally poorly written. I came here looking for nazi propuganda posters , I found racist\reverseracist analysis of us policy. a 100% rewrite while deleting all the gibberish is necessary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.49.28 (talk) 20:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy- paste? 

message: The bulk of the article seems to be discussing the use of racial hierarchies in the United States. But the US is a country where even believing in a form of racial hierarchy is enough to lead to ostricization. I expected to see information about countries and places in which formal racial hierarchies were developed, written about, and generally implemented (Nazi Germany, India, etc.). I'm not saying that we shouldn't keep the US stuff. But the relative emphasis is off to the point that the current article misleads the user. Adding information about racial hierarchy in several other societies would go a long way towards satisfying this problem.23.246.70.101 (talk) 05:31, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange article 

message: I have removed a lot of content from this article in the last two days, greatly decreasing its length. In my view it was non-neutral, had a lot of POV issues (as previously stated on the talk page) and stated as a matter of fact several controversial opinions.  I have re-written the lead with sources and begun a re-write on the U.S section, but do not intend to work on this article any further at the moment.  Clearly this is a big subject and to be really encyclopedic, huge expansion is necessary with other countries covered, especially countries in which formalised racial hierarchy was introduced, such as Nazi Germany and Apartheid era South Africa. I think removing the POV essay that was here and providing a neutral lead has gone some way to laying a foundation, but globalisation and expansion is necessary for this to be even a barely adequate article considering the size and importance of the subject.  
Of course, if you disagree with my changes to the article I would be happy to discuss this here. It's an important subject worthy of a good article.   JohnmgKing (talk) 08:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on changes made and  expansion needed 

message: See my comment above for context.
No time to edit so paste only
Current Liberian citizenship laws explicitly state being Negro or a Negro descedant as a prerequisite to citizenship.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberian_nationality_law
Do add it within Globalization Zezen (talk) 06:02, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberia: racial hierarchy in constitution 

message: Belief in the "superiority" of a particular race is not a prerequisite for support of a racial hierarchy, which is more akin to the rank structure of the military. A 5-star general may not necessarily believe he is better than a captain, nor does he wish to discriminate or support violence against said captain, nor refuse to socialise and have fun after work with the captain. However he wants the perks, greater deference, prosperity, salary etc that comes with the higher rank. Should we consider changing the lede? As it currently reads as if belief in a racial hierarchy can "only" occur is there's also a belief in racial superiority. 203.46.132.214 (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: No. --WikiLinuz (talk) 05:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consider amending the lede?