Discrimination Template‑class | |||||||
|
US Centric
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)
I started some reorganizing of the existing topics.
- I moved the history section to the top
- split out the Racism articles section to be Acts of racism and Racial violence
- renamed races and cultures to Racism against groups
- added anti-racist groups and movements
- pulled articles that were covered by broader topics and duplicate articles
- changed types of racism to racist ideologies
I think a lot of that pulls down the US Centric weight I was seeing but it still seems to be mostly about racism against Blacks and Jews.CJ 12:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
- Good work. As for the U.S centric thing, the template should be globelized. Any suggestions?--sefringleTalk 02:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
OK, should I start placing this template in articles
Is this template good enough for now to place in the articles?--SefringleTalk 03:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
- Since there are no objections, I am going to start placing the template in the articles--SefringleTalk 23:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Slavery isn't necessarily racism. It was with Africans in the Americas and in the Middle East, but it's existed since the dawn of man without being based on race. CJ 00:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- In that case, it might be better to move it to the "acts of racism" or "history or racism" section. Throughout history there were periods where slavvery was racism. I suppose the other option is to replace it with the atlantic slave trade and arab slave trade links.--SefringleTalk 01:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- It would be nice if there were sub articles for slavery like chattel slavery and race-based slavery. I suppose moving it to acts is fine.
Racist groups
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 {{UK far right}}, 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)
- 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)
Racist/Racial Ideologies
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)
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.[1] If someone has some clearer documentation of a specific racist agenda please bring it up. CJ 09:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)