Talk:Racism in the United Kingdom

	United Kingdom portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Discrimination High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DiscriminationWikipedia:WikiProject DiscriminationTemplate:WikiProject DiscriminationDiscrimination articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of ethnic slurs#Paki|Paki]] Anchor List of ethnic slurs#Paki links to a specific web page: Paki (slur). The anchor (#Paki) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Wales

Why is there no section on Wales - when the intro to the article clearly states three incidents of racially-related riots linked to welsh places. If Wales is counted under England then this article itself, seems to me, to be promoting a racist agends. Cilmyn —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.89.27.1 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC) Insulting to all concerned if there is an English section and a Scottish one!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.182.154 (talk) 21:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cornwall

Peter Tatchell's recent comments concerning the Cornish should be added. Maybe a section on Cornwall is called for, the Cornish are a large minority group in the uk, and still receive a lot of discrimination both from government and public. Bodrugan (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the comments from Tatchell as he does mention the issues of Cornish people being a national minority and it does seem relevant to the article. – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:31, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Was a Cornish section/comments ever added? RongoToa (talk) 10:42, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

race riots are uncommon

Define "uncommon" riots in general are uncommon. I think this is understating the amount of riots. Does any1 agree with me? if not, prove me wrong. I deleted that bit No autoaim (talk) 18:47, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delted bit about the empire

1st section had no sources so i deleted it. i thought of rewriting the 1st section(because the 2nd section cant stand on its own) but i just deleted both —Preceding unsigned comment added by No autoaim (talk • contribs) 17:52, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Many of the articles were selected semi-automatically from a list of indefinitely semi-protected articles.
Please confirm that the protection level appears to be still warranted, and consider unprotecting instead, before applying pending changes protection to the article.

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:38, 16 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Image

Can someone please explain to me how the image on this article is racist? I think I may be missing something. -- Jack?! 03:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I removed it for now as I thought it over and I still struggle to see how it depicts racism. Please feel free to re-add it if I have made a grave mistake. -- Jack?! 06:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The image now is of a Republican parade, arguably racist in itself. The information in the Scotland section on Pakistanis voting SNP is irrelevant, and unsourced. And I would also take issue with the insinuation that people married to English partners are not 'Scots'. Hachimanchu (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article?

This whole article is not encyclopedic and is politically motivated and not neutral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericg33 (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see how this could be "politically motivated" – please explain? – Zumoarirodoka ^(talk) 14:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Racism has declined?

N "However, racism has declined from past levels and the United Kingdom is considered to be a multicultural society."

Racism is ubiquitous and complex taking many forms. It is therefore not scientifically quantifiable to enable you to assert a level and subsequently monitor fluctuations as your statement "racism has declined" suggests. Whilst I would agree with the second half of this sentence it should ideally be a separate sentence. Otherwise, it implies either that a multicultural society means a "less racist" society or that as a result of "less racism" the society has become more multicultural, both of which are false assumptions.--ChessMaster2011 (talk) 08:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral

“

Although various anti-discrimination legislation does exist. According to some sources, most employers in the UK remain institutionally racist including public bodies such as the police [5] and particularly the legal profession.[6] It is also nearly impossible for persons subject to such institutional racism (who are normally economically disadvantaged) to seek legal redress, as in the UK public funding (legal aid) is not available at employment tribunals.[7] The situation with the implementation of Human Rights law is similar. The Terrorism Acts, which came into law in 2000 and 2006, have caused a marked increase in racial profiling and have also been the basis to justify existent trends in discrimination against persons of Muslim origin (or resembling such) by the British police.

”

I'm not sure about the neutrality of this paragraph. Firstly, reference 5 doesn't say that public bodies are institutionally racist, but that racism still exists within them (the report that claims the police are institutionally racist is now 12 years old. The report in reference 6 is not without bias (having not been compiled by a neutral crossparty body but compiled by a group of the Society of Black Lawyers, the Society of Asian Lawyers, the Association of Muslim Lawyers and the Black Solicitors Network). Also, the third sentence seems to mix two concepts; legal aid is not available at employment tribunals, end of. It has no relation to racism at all. The final sentence is without source. If nobody objects, I will remove this content in a few days. Kavanagh21 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The item about children saying 'yuck' to non-native food

I would argue that associating ethnicities with something as mundane as preferences in food is more racist than children simply not liking it. But then again we have WP: NOR. When you see an Indian person, do you instantly think of curries? That, to me, is more racist than expressing a dislike for a particular type of cuisine. Associating Indian people with curry (for example), rather than treating them as individuals who may have all sorts of interests, is more racist than a child not liking a particular type of food, which is not racist at all (if anything, reducing people to being associated with a style of food is racist). Essentially it reduces an ethnicity to their cuisine, which is not treating them as people who may have many interests. I hope many on the left can realise this.--It's a Cow! (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 17:13, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Modern racism

Ahh... What about racism towards America? Firstly, don't tell me that insulting someone's nationality is not racist. It clearly is, just like insulting the way someone speaks. I see so much hate from the UK towards America from TV shows, online and in real-life interactions. Type into Google 'Why do British people hate Americans' and you will see so many examples of British people hating on the United States.

This for example shows so many examples of British people insulting the United States and American's as a nationality. "Because they are uneducated idiots", referring to every single American as an uneducated idiot, so if I say British JWULTRABLIZZARDpeople are uneducated idiots, would that be racist? I think so. There are so many examples but so many of them contain profanity that I do not wish to spread, you want examples, look it up. Even on the official http://www.bbcamerica.com/mind-the-gap/2012/05/15/10-things-americans-do-that-drive-brits-nuts/ page they made a list of reasons why they dislike America, 'they' being the editors also refer to every American by stating "their... They..." at the start of each point. I am not American. I have travelled all over the globe, I have even been to the middle east and I have to say that the UK is right up there with Iraq with hate for America in my opinion, maybe they don't burn the flag or commit terrorist acts but they sure as hell have a problem. No wonder why it is so low on the Human Development Index. If nobody puts the point across about the UK being racist towards Americans then I don't see the point of this page and I think you are blinded by ignorance. There used to be a time where blacks were treated as slaved around the globe, what you may have been taught in school, if you are older is that racism has only a few forms, and insulting Americans is not racist but let me remind you that insulting someone's nationality is indeed racism. I have a JD... I know what I am talking about. I am sick to my stomach that America is allied with the UK, America does not deserve such horrible people as allies, yes I know, I am too being racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.3.209 (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2013 (UTC) -Oh yes, because of course, we're racist here in Britain compared to America, despite the fact that we in Britain have never had racial segregation, laws prohibiting black and white people from marrying, or even slavery in Britain itself, quite unlike the so-called 'land of the free', the U.S.A. (though of course, we had slavery in the colonies). Oh, not to mention we abolished slavery and the slave trade throughout the colonies a good 40 to 30 years before America did. And yes, you are being racist.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 01:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery flourished in English and later British colonies for over 270 years. It lasted in the U.S.A. for less than 90 years. Oh, not having slavery in Britain is hardly a bragging point. Al Cook USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.49.72 (talk) 14:21, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slavery was never legal in Britain. In the colonies, yes; but never in Britain itself. We abolished the trade in slaves in 1803 and abolished it altogether in the 1830s. Ships of the Royal Navy attacked ships of other nations trading in slaves and set free slaves if the ships were captured. We never ever had any laws in Britain itself (or in any colonies) that stopped anyone from marrying whoever they wanted, because of their race. As for the acts of terrorism, we had the July 2005 Attacks in London, as well as the Glasgow airport bombings and the recent murder of a British soldier by Islamic extremists. As for flag burning, no-one in Britain would give a monkeys if anyone burned the British flag: we do not have the same 'sacred' approach to our flag as America has.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Serfdom is slavery by another name and was perfectly legal in England. The British outlawed the slave trade in "1807" as did the USA in 1808. Ships of the US Navy also went on anti-slave patrols and freed slaves from captured ships. What's up with the terrorism and flag burning remarks? OK, The British executed Indian rebels by cannon. They actually strapped them to the mouths of cannons and blew them to pieces. WTF Was that racism, terrorism or both? A little friendly advice - Never say never. Al Cook USA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.32.37.193 (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what you'd have to say about the cultural level Anglophobia plaguing the internet for the last four years, specifically cultivated and pushed by Americans.

Probably nothing with even half the gusto with which you claim victimhood, but provide no real evidence for. Talking about horrible allies we deserve better from...

Don't worry honest Americans, we know many of you disapprove of this behaviour, even if it doesn't seem like it sometimes. 31.94.38.86 (talk) 07:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JWULTRABLIZZARD, don't waste your time with these people. OP, you're being completely arrogant. I agree that there is racism from Brits to Americans, although not to the extent you have described. There is also much racism towards the Germans, French, Republican Irish, Indians, Pakistanis, Chinese and more. As someone who attends one of the most diverse schools in England, I know it all. Americans are not special, the American kids get no more hate than any other minority at my School. If anything students from the Anglo-sphere get the least shit, as they fit in the most. Regards, Rob (talk) 20:51, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you'll are facing the repacuation now Hkgfyjnugfg (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links

>> UK racist murder scandal claims top policeman(Lihaas (talk) 18:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Cleanup needed

I've come across this page, and it seems to have been torn in different directions by different users over the years and became a hotch-potch of their opinions. Racism in the United States shows the different stereotypes and discrimination against each group. I added Britain's most notorious racist murders to the "see also", and I think they merit being in the main text more than a lot of things here. '''tAD''' (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello, fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Racism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080307093957/http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures/dmag-briefing-2005-38.pdf to http://www.london.gov.uk/gla/publications/factsandfigures/dmag-briefing-2005-38.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello, fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Racism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello, fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Racism in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:52, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regions missing

In the section on racism by region, two of the major regions have been omitted: England and Wales. Is there any particular reason for this? Perhaps racism hasn't been particularly notable in England and/or Wales? --90.255.134.137 (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Section about racism against Polish immigrants is needed

Since over 10 years we've heard about numerous violent incidents of hate against Polish people in the UK, including ethnicity-based murders. This requires a big section. 31.182.200.250 (talk) 12:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semi Protection

Should we make this page be semi-protected, since 'Racism in the United States' is semi-protected as well, and could be easily vandalised SterlingTea (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Post Brexit escalation in racist violence.

This is missing a section of the escalation of racist and sectarian violence post brexit.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-48692863

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-referendum-final-say-referendum-violence-leavers-a9145941.html

83.100.188.53 (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Italophobia in the UK

Despite a section in the Wikipedia article about anti italianism mentioning the United Kingdom and its internment of Italians during World War II, it isn't mentioned in this article. Could that be added in as a section? 108.208.70.47 (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Italophobia in the United Kingdom is described in another article. Jarble (talk) 02:29, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Several issues

Several issues in this article, I will create subheadings:

Series box in lede

A series box should not be in the lede. This needs to be moved further down and a descriptive image, symbolic for the article subject, put in its stead.

Mass Child Rape

Under the distasteful above heading I removed about 5k characters of content discussing a 2017 report by now defunct think tank Quilliam, see difference. The results of that report are sufficiently controversial not to merit a lengthy discussion here in my opinion. There could at most be a short paragraph linking discussion at Quilliam article. As it was, it was way too bloated, including a link to a Youtube interview with a survivor of said gangs (which is, in my opinion, not a reliable source here).

-- Jabbi (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your edit and your comment about child grooming and rape. I don't think something being 'distasteful' is a good enough reason to cleanse the article of it, moreover timidity in recording the known facts, even when there is corroboration from reliable sources such as this, points to the same conundrum the police claimed for not pursuing an investigation of child grooming gangs for fear of being accused of racism. According to the source for ethnic representation in the Quilliam article you shared, the fact that the simple majority of offenders are white results from the fact that the majority of Britons are white. It doesn't necessarily mean whites are disproportionately implicated in grooming gangs. The encyclopedia should neither conceal nor unduly highlight statistics supported by reliable sources, even those that are disadvantageous to a particular demographic. The majority of members of that demographic surely don't want to have the wool pulled over their eyes about offenders in their midst either, and have said as much. It is not the task of an encyclopedia to do anything other than to create factual historical record without bias. To that extent, I agree the YouTube video cited in the excised section is not the most reliable source, because even assuming good will, the channel appears to be largely an amateur enterprise, and the interviewee may or may not be an isolated case. I therefore recommend the section you removed be revised, pruned if need be, and the verifiable WP:NPOV sections restored. Chrisdevelop (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit reversion reason?

@Nythar: Why did you revert this edit and this edit and this edit? Chrisdevelop (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Chrisdevelop: This is block evasion by a long-term abuser known as the Bad copyediting IP. For more information see User:Nythar/User tracking#Bad copyediting IP. I normally revert their edits on sight, and, as can be seen in the diffs you provided, they have this annoying habit of adding excessive numbers of "see also" links, and other wikilinks in general. Their block evasion is a major factor behind my reverts, and their copyediting, more often than not, negatively affects articles. Regards, Nythar (💬-🍀) 03:40, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What a mess

This article is a contradictory mess, it is unbelievable that an article on such an important topic should be so terrible. The lead claiming that racism was "uncommon" in the 19th century is laughable, and sourced to an opinion piece in the New Statesman. The details of anti-Black racism treat it as if it were a historical phenomenon, whereas he section on "anti-white racism" is simply a list of modern violent attacks on white people in which the attackers expressed racial animosity.

This needs a complete rewrite and resourcing using scholarly sources rather than opinion pieces and news articles. Good statistics actually exist on racial prejudice in the UK and a hell of a lot has been written on its origins and modern expression.

Any person who casually reads this article's lead and stops there will leave wikipedia knowing less than they knew when they started reading. If they continue reading till the end they will gain a total misunderstanding of racism and race in the UK.

Not sure who to ask for help here... Boynamedsue (talk) 08:06, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. The opening sentence is really confusing. (Compare the opening of Racism in the United States.) The lead seems like a random collection of unconnected things. The history section starts too late. The section on racism against white people is kind of ridiculous. BobFromBrockley (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The interesting thing is that at some point someone rated this "B", so maybe there are better versions in the past? Agree on the white people bit, I would want everything there based on scholarly sources, if it is to survive.

Maybe a potential structure would be History, starting with the emergence of race and racism from the early modern slave trade, passing through imperial expansion and into scientific racism, then migration related racism (Irish/Jewish/Chinese/P.O.C seamen) War-related (internment etc?) and then non-white post-war immigration, Powell/NF, and resurgent racism from late nineties. Next section Racism in Modern Britain, with maybe an overview and completely redone ethnicity by ethnicity sections (all of them including a historical sketch and state of play today), or do we need to be more radical here and restructure on another basis? Then expand institutional racism. A section on anti-racism, or would that be integrated in history? Then a section on legislation? It's a lot of work...Boynamedsue (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That structure looks right. Eventually the history might start earlier (Crusades, expulsion of Jews), but the early modern slave trade and the colonial history that unfolded from that is the most important to include. I’m not sure about the modern period. BobFromBrockley (talk) 23:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would definitely include detailed coverage of Medieval antisemitism in the section on Jewish people. In the general history section think we could maybe do a brief explainer that there is recorded interethnic prejudice/violence from Roman times and mention the expulsion of the Jews, anti-Flemish riots, maybe other stuff, but that scholarship differentiates inter-ethnic conflict/prejudice from racism as it developed in the modern period. I think that is the way texts on racism tend to frame it, will have a look.Boynamedsue (talk) 23:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobfrombrockley Pray tell how exactly are the crusades - a Christian European response to 400 years of unchecked Muslim conquests - relevant to racism in the UK, a state that did not even exist at the time? And slavery, as an institution, was remote and only tenuously connected economically to the vast majority of Britons during the periods it was active. The UK did not have masses of plantations, sharecroppers and a great migration. What it did have was mass enclosure and land confiscations of its native poor. 2A00:23C4:3E44:2C01:E804:64CD:9336:F335 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a good point that the UK didn't exist before 1707, and I was thinking of England/Britain. Our article Antisemitism in the United Kingdom starts with the reign of Stephen, King of England, during the Crusader period, and all of the historical literature identifies the Crusades as a key moment in the growth of antisemitism across Europe and in England, which is why we need to start work with the historical literature. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:14, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]