Wikipedia:Peer review/Racialism/archive2

Racialism

This article has had alot of disagreement, but I'd like to think it has resulted in a rather fine article. I'd be interested in any assistance or advice on making this a featured article. There was an old peer review back in 2004, which is archived below. Cheers, ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 00:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Peer review/Racialism/archive1

IMO, the long quote from Reggie White is out of place, and lends a POV character to the article. I think his statements like "White people were blessed with the gift of structure and organization" and "Hispanics are gifted in family structure" are completely contradicted by the scientific evidence, which these days is starting to paint a pretty clear picture of what things (not very many of them) are actually correlated with "race" and what things aren't. Although the article starts by saying NPOVishly that "Racialism is a term used to describe the belief in the existence and importance of racial categories, in themselves often disputed," the Reggie White quote clearly expresses a POV that such categories exist and are important. I was also disappointed that the scientific discussion in the lead was never followed up on. You might want to read Gould's The Mismeasure of Man, and then think about it in comparison with the opposing points of view expressed in Steven Pinker's books and Matt Ridley's Nature Via Nurture. The article could also use a discussion of the history of anthropological thought on this issue.--Bcrowell 01:08, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Good points. While I'd very much like to keep the reggie white quote for alot of reasons (I'm from wisconsin and I think he's great, so maybe I'm just biased ;), I completely agree w what you've said. Very sharp observations, esp. on the lack of follow-up on the anthropology. Thank you very much. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 01:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Another thing that concerns me about this article is that although almost all the examples it uses are black people (Marcus Garvey, Bob Marley, Anthony Appiah, W. E. B. DuBois, Reggie White, Nelson Mandela), almost none of those people would intentionally describe themselves as "racialist." In 100% of the cases where I've seen a person or a movement that wanted to be called "racialist," it was right-wing white racists in the U.S. (White Aryan Resistance, Stormfront, nationalist.org, etc.). Although I'm sure it wasn't your intention to come across this way, the article really does come across as though it's trying to legitimize those organizations' racist POV. This is a longstanding strategy of organizations like David Duke's National Association for the Advancement of White People: to promote a violent white-supremacist agenda under the guise of simply doing for white people the same thing that black organizations have been doing for black people.--Bcrowell 03:34, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Thats a POV that I am familiar with, and agree with the inclusion of, but recent edits (and a long history of reversion) have attempted to enforce the conception that the term is nothing else. It has a historical usage distinct from "racism", which is where the article should focus. ¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸¸,ø¤º°`°º¤ø,¸ 17:21, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• If you want to make it a featured article, you'll have to do something about the images. Image:Hitler-car.jpg has a dubious fair-use claim -- most photographs from Nazi Germany are still copyrighted. Image:DuboisWEB.jpg has no source or copyright information. --Carnildo 05:20, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• I haven't heard this term being used in the American press or seen it in the literature. The article itself is fairly short, and it's very odd to find a list of sources that are nearly as long as the article. That leaves me wondering how useful are those sources? Or can this article be greatly expanded based on said sources? — RJH 14:53, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• "Organisations such as NAAWP insist on these distinctions, and vehemently oppose state sponsored racism." - come on.. at least "claim to vehemently oppose". Serious NPOV issues, even without the notice. Mozzerati 21:59, August 22, 2005 (UTC)