Talk:Symbolic racism

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: BBoltiansky.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AMcCormick123.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:59, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous objection, Nov 2012

This article is practically a poster-child for a Wikipedia NPOV dispute. I come to this page, hoping to learn about this concept of symbolic racism, and I am immediately broadsided by a stream of propaganda masquerading as an encyclopedic definition. As a a scientist and a big fan of Wikipedia and just causes such as that of racial equality, it perturbs me greatly that with 13 scientific citations and three years of editing prior to my looking at this page, there was not even a Criticism or Controversy section questioning the legitimacy of this idea, let alone the inaccurate and biased definition that has been fielded. Rather than edit this article significantly myself (aside from the criticism section I have added, I am going to select a few passages that I think demonstrate this problem, and ask that the editors of this page police themselves better and clean up this article.

I. First, please consider the following statement: "Symbolic racism (modern-symbolic racism, symbolic prejudice) is a coherent belief system which reflects an underlying unidimensional prejudice toward Blacks."

Bam. Sentence #1, and already I have massive problems with this article. The first sentence of a Wikipedia article should more or less define the term. Saying something is a "coherent belief system which... reflects underlying... prejudice" really tells us very little about it. A definition I found on Yahoo Answers is, correct or no, at least a bit more clear as to what we are talking about:

"The theory of symbolic racism proposes that, in response to public abhorrence of overt racism, prejudice has gone underground, finding its expression in more subtle forms. According to the symbolic racism model, bigots of the current era will cloak their racist sentiments under the guise of statements or actions supposedly in defence of noble and important values." (from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006021011336)

The above two sentences really should be the first sentences of the Wikipedia article, and I am editing the article to reflect this, with the addition of a paraphrase from elsewhere in this Wiki article: "...which may sometimes manifest through socialization and therefore transpire without elements of conscious awareness"

II. Going back to the previous 1st sentence, in addition to not giving us any clue more than we already had as to what Symbolic Racism is, it (1) does not point out that the concept of scientific racism is a (fairly recently) established scientific theory, as opposed to an ancient concept that one would look for in a dictionary and whose meaning should be basically the same to all and (2) claims, basically that it can only refer to "prejudice towards blacks." Now, please understand that I know basically nothing about Symbolic Racism, but I am curious as to why the editor thinks that is a scientific concept floating around out there that unambiguously refers only to blacks? Is this because racism is a human phenomena of which blacks are always the victims? Is it because only racism against blacks can be suppressed and pushed under the surface? Or is it because the author him/herself is blatantly racist? Or merely "symbolically" racist? If racism is not colored black, then why exactly does it take on a black color when you apply the adjective "symbolically" to it? Is the adjective form of "symbolic somehow painted black? Out of curiosity what color is the root word "symbol" so I can apply that color to any statement I make regarding the word? Now, it is easy enough to grant that this word is most often used to refer to whites being "symbolically racist" against blacks, but we are defining concepts here, so let's try to leave colors out of it where possible. If it is absolutely necessary to insert colors into the first sentence, let us at least say "...and it generally [or "most often"] refers to racism of white people in the United States of America against people of African-American descent."

III. The next specific sentence that I really take issue with in this article is:

"However, these beliefs operate to maintain the racial status quo in a manner described by Social Dominance Theory."

Wait-- "these beliefs" DO?Bold text No. Maybe "these beliefs may..." or perhaps "some studies have claimed that..." But not just "These beliefs [do] operate... This kind of twisting is exactly why the Wikipedia NPOV guidelines exist. Specifically, please witness: "Impartial tone WP:IMPARTIAL Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view." http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view

IV. The next sentence that contradicts Wikipedia's NPOV policy is the very next written sentence: "Some prejudiced people do not view symbolic racism as prejudice since it is not linked directly to race but indirectly through social and political issues"

That may indeed be a true statement. It is not, however, encyclopedic. The fact that some prejudiced people may "not view symbolic racism as prejudice since it is not linked directly to race but indirectly through social and political issues" does not tell us anything about how unprejudiced people view things. The particular placement of this sentence is a red herring logical fallacy. That is, leads the reader to the idea that only prejudiced people believe the above, and they only believe it because of the above provided reason. This also represents a well-guarded ad hominem attack on those who are unprejudiced but happen to share this view for some other reason (e.g. 'I read the Wikipedia article on Symbolic Racism and it was horribly biased so I decided the whole concept was bunk...' OR... 'I studied the methods of the various peddlers of the Symbolic Racism theory for 30 years and found their methods and assumptions to be sorely lacking, and then decided the whole thing was bunk').

V. My next serious issue is somewhat related to point II, [section (2)]. I have two separate objections the "five characterizing themes [that define symbolic racism]." (1) The first is that while, yes, Sears and Henry (2005) do refer specifically to Blacks, the concept of Symbolic racism does not. This conflicts with the following entry from http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:BALANCE#Due_and_undue_weight "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;"

Please note, editors, that a scientific article is not a reference text. Because one a group writes a paper referring to the effect of the concept of Symbolic Racism on feelings of whites towards blacks does not mean that the introductory section of the encyclopedia article needs to have "black written all over it." The placement of this reference, and of these "clauses of symbolic racism" is inappropriate in terms of WP:Ballance.

(2) The second issue I have with the "five characterizing themes [that define symbolic racism]" is specifically directed at point 4: "Black people seek special favors rather than working to get ahead." I am not able to personally access the entirety of the reference in question at this time and I do not know whether it is an inaccurate paraphrase or what have you. I will say, however, that if it is part of a scientific work, it has clearly not been sufficiently prefaced in this Wikipedia article. As it written, it is not a bias, or a symptom of symbolic racism, or of any other phenomena aside from perhaps those related to human nature. It is a fact. Black people, as with people of any color or creed, do sometimes "seek special favors rather than working to get ahead." I am not saying it is a positive fact, but it is definitely a well-substantiated fact, and not particularly remarkable in terms of a part of a scientific theory. The use of this clause under the "characterizing themes" again seems a red herring, an attempt to tar all people who hold a certain viewpoint (though in this case, again, it is not a viewpoint, it is a fact, and therefore very widely held indeed) with the same brush, and to invalidate any argument they may have to the concept. This contradicts WP:SRUCTURE... "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure, such as a back-and-forth dialogue between proponents and opponents.[1] It may also create an apparent hierarchy of fact where details in the main passage appear "true" and "undisputed", whereas other, segregated material is deemed "controversial", and therefore more likely to be false. Try to achieve a more neutral text by folding debates into the narrative, rather than isolating them into sections that ignore or fight against each other."

VI. The statement "Symbolic racism is a form of modern racism..." is inherently biased. "The Proponents of/Students of/ subscribers to/ Symbolic racism hold that it is a form of modern racism" would be a more balanced statement, but it is not a very eloquent or precise way of sharing the information. It is not enough to simply state that Symbolic Racism is racism, we need to know what Symbolic Racism is and why it might fall under the heading of racism, and for that matter why it might not. The remainder of the paragraph is similarly unbalanced, especially given the context in which the discussion has been placed in the material which I have objected to in I-V above.

VII. The sentence "While equal rights are fought for vehemently, symbolic racism is still prominent today in the United States and possibly acts as a mask for old-fashioned racism sentiments" is either (a) expressing a non-neutral POV or (b) completely redundant. I would argue both (a) and (b). Firstly, although Symbolic Racism is a well accepted idea, it is not one with legitimate scientific criticisms. "Fighting for equal rights" and "symbolic racism" are only indirectly related unless you accept the narrowest, most dogmatic idea of symbolic racism, where it is simply 'a way to be an evil racist without getting caught.' Secondly, the whole concept of Symbolic Racism is that it is a mask of racism, and if we assume that it is a legitimate classification, the only real question is the degree to which the person who is symbolically racist is aware of it. Re-stating a point that has already been clearly made (the fact that it "possibly acts as mask...") can serve only to enforce a non-neutral POV. In any case case this has been made under the heading of "History," but is not a particularly historical statement.

VII. I have little or no objection to the "Evidence" and "Examples" sections of this article. I question, however, why the sections are not combined and by extension why they are not given a more prominent place in the structure of the article. Please see WP:STRUCTURE.

Notes about reverts

All information given here was taken straight from multiple psychology of prejudice textbooks or published journal articles. If you would like to argue that this information is "propaganda masquerading as an encyclopedic definition" please consider talking to the writers/editors of the cited textbooks and articles.

I. "The theory of symbolic racism proposes that, in response to public abhorrence of overt racism, prejudice has gone underground, finding its expression in more subtle forms. According to the symbolic racism model, bigots of the current era will cloak their racist sentiments under the guise of statements or actions supposedly in defence of noble and important values."

Yahoo Answers is a completely unacceptable reference for an encyclopedia. This definition is informal and not entirely accurate. The language used is not concise and is difficult to read.

II. Symbolic racism by definition applies almost solely to white discrimination again African-Americans. "please understand that I know basically nothing about Symbolic Racism" leads me to believe that massive overhauls of the previous revision of the article might not be the best idea.

III. Please see the citation.

IV. Please see the citation.

V. See (II). Symbolic racism is almost exclusively defined in terms of white prejudice toward African-Americans. This is paraphrased from a textbook and again, if you would like to argue this point, I would contact its authors/editors.

VI. Modern racism has a very specific definition in prejudice psychology. It encompasses less overt forms of racism (symbolic racism included) which have become more prevelant in the modern era.

Please consider reading up on the subject as well as NPOV guidelines. The edits made were quite misleading.

RachulAdmas (talk) 21:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Moved Created/Section

Please note that due to the above reasoning I have taken a first step forward in cleaning up this article by creating a new section titled "White Symbolic Racism in America" and have moved the material therein out of the introductory section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.92.75 (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Original objector apparently seeks to substitute own POV for article.

I came to this article to find out what Symbolic Racism is. I am not the author of this article, nor claim to be any authority on the concept. I was concerned to read that the neutrality is indispute, which is why I looked at the talk page.

The anonymous objector claims that the article "is practically a poster-child for a Wikipedia NPOV dispute". However, this is not adequately established since it is quite possible that the deficiencies in the article may be due to lack of adequate sourcing and citation from therein, rather than POVness. FWIW, I think the article to be inadequately sourced.

Indeed, it seems to me that anonymous objector's arguments are very confused on this point and indeed themselves often veer into POVness toward the concept, with anonymous objector confusing the adequacy of a concept itself, with an article objectively describing that (possibly inadequate) concept. It seems to me that anonymous objector often confuses the two and simply wants to substitute his or her own POV of what he or she conceives that the concept *should* be for what the concept actually *is* or may be. Let us examine itemized objections following the numbering in the complaint.

I. Anonymous objector believes that a description of Symbolic Racism given on Yahoo Answers is "more clear" than that given in the original article. However, absent a reliable source for the definition (and Yahoo Answers is not a reliable source), we can't tell if the problem is a lack of clarity in the concept itself, or a lack of clarity in the article's description of the concept. It seems to me that original sentence is a perfectly adequate, succinct and precise *description* of *a* concept. The problem is that we can't tell if it an adequate description of *the* concept. Further, it seems to me that Anonymous Objector seeks to include some explanation of concept along with description of it, whereas that is the job, not of the first sentence, but of the first paragraph. Anonymous Objector has changed the specificity of original description, which referred exclusively to "prejudice against Blacks", to generalized race prejudice. Without adequate sourcing, it is impossible to tell whether that is an accurate description of the concept: only citation of, or reference to such source will establish if the concept is descriptive only of a particular kind of racial prejudice or racial prejudice in general. The first sentence as it now stands is in fact extremely unclear, except perhaps in Anonymous Objector's mind, because it talks about 'dehumanizing' a group (what does that mean?) and talks about racism "in a classical sense" (meaning what, specifically?). Apart from being undefined and unreferenced and hence unclear and inadequate, it is not clear that these phrases correctly express the concept, as opposed to Anonymous Objector's subjective interpretation of it. This comes back to poor sourcing. What is needed here is solid reference to a definition from an adequate source. It is not solved by simply substituting a longer and vaguer definition, which itself demands further explication.

II. This is a precise example of confusion by Anonymous Objector of own POV with the definition of the concept. It may well be that the concept of Symbolic Racism is open to the objections raised. However, the original sentence may well be an accurate description of an inadequate concept, in which case it should stand. This comes back to the question of sourcing raised under my I above.

III. Again, Anonymous Objector confuses adequacy of a concept with the description of it: it may well be a correct description of what, *according to the concept of Symbolic Racism*, "these beliefs" do. It may well be the case that these beliefs do not *actually* operate in the manner claimed by the concept. But that would be a problem *with the concept itself*, not the *description of the concept*. Anonymous Objector wishes to substitute his own judgement of a description, without any sourcing whatsoever. The point at issue is whether or not Symbolic Racism is actually defined in such a sweeping and generalized manner, not whether Anonymous Objector disagrees with such sweeping generalization. Indeed it is clear from Anonymous Objector's use of the word "perhaps" that he or she simply does not *know* but is simply applying purely *subjective* judgement.

IV. Yet again, Anonymous Objector confuses his or her *own judgement* for an objective description of the features and characteristics of Symbolic Racism. It may well be that "Some prejudiced people" do not operate in the manner asserted by the sentence, yet the sentence may be a completely objective and adequate statement of how "Some prejudiced people" behave *according to the theory of Symbolic Racism*. Yet again, this can only be resolved by reference to adequate sources, not one individual's subjective judgement.

V. Once again, because of lack of sourcing, it is not clear whether Anonymous Objector is simply counterposing his or her own understanding of Symbolic Racism to that given in the article and naturally prefers his or her own, or is actually referring to some generally accepted definition of Symbolic Racism. The only way to resolve this is adequate citation of sources.

VI. See above.

VII. See above.

The only way I see of rewriting the article to fully address the areas raised by Anonymous Objector and provide quotes or other facts appropriate to resolve them, which are well sourced.

I have to say that I am disappointed that Anonymous Objector went in and modified article without waiting for response from others. Mrwhoohoo (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Comprehensive Expansion of Article

As a part of a class assignment for Intro to Poverty, Justice, and Human Capabilities (PJHC) at Rice, I will be editing this article on symbolic racism. I plan to expand the article to include a more in depth explanation of the concept, evidence supporting it, the measures used to obtain that evidence, how it manifests itself in social and political life, its impact on current racial disparities, criticisms and controversies surrounding the concept, and how to combat it. All information posted will be sourced directly from scholarly journals which should address any previous concerns with adequate sourcing. Does anyone have any feedback or recommendations on specific content that I have not mentioned that should be added?

Brodgers15 (talk) 01:01, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Focus solely on "Blacks"

The article specifically (and solely) focuses on subtle, symbolic racism embedded in our social framework aimed at what it terms "Blacks". Is it possible for symbolic racism to be aimed at other groups as well? It seems to me that many ethnic groups could easily be targeted by symbolic racism. If that is indeed the case, the article needs to be rewritten to encompass this broader meaning.--Ðrdak (T) 23:28, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Updated Perspective

This article has been extensively updated, so a updated critique is appropriate. First, with regard to the aforementioned NPOV criticism, the article throughly incorporates scholar perspectives and overtly gives credit to them. For example, when it states that beliefs underlying traditional values have become racialized, it cites scholars Whitley and Kite in an article titled "The psychology of prejudice and discrimination." Furthermore, a new subsection "Criticisms and Controversies" adds the dimension of critical views.

The article also addresses the criticism that the article focuses on Blacks, with the subsection "Other Minorities".

The only suggestion I have is that those editing this consider adding a subsection addressing the experience of living as a minority in a society with growing modern or symbolic racism.

jeanygina (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Peer Review

I really like the idea behind your topic. I think the only thing that this article needs is a little bit more neutrality to it and perhaps some information on other minorities as stated above. I thought your writing was fine as well as your formatting. Also I think an image or two would just add a bit more to the article. --Cchantre12 (talk) 01:17, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

TA Comments

Hi Brodgers15! You've done a great job adding scholarly references and updating an article on an extremely important topic. My main suggestion for the article would be to create a clear definition section that explains what symbolic racism does and doesn't include and what distinguishes it from aversive racism and ambivalent prejudice. You have a lot of that information in your introduction, but technically the introduction should summarize the information presented in the rest of the article without presenting much unique information.

Besides that, I would just suggest you double-check for typos and grammar issues. Good luck with the article! Let me know if you have any questions! Nadhika99 (talk) 01:54, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm also trying to find out how this is different from modern racism, if at all. A section on what distinguishes this from other racisms is definitely needed. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:32, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys, thank you for that feedback. I added information clarifying the difference between the different concepts in the "Terminology" section. Let me know if it makes more sense now. Also, my last citation in that section is flawed, but I'm not sure how to fix it, so could someone help me with that? Brodgers15 (talk) 02:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Symbolic racism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121119015626/http://www.issr.ucla.edu:80/sears/pubs/A144.pdf to http://www.issr.ucla.edu/sears/pubs/A144.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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} 14:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Applying Logic/Critical Thinking

3 paragraphs in, & we're already treated to someone's opinion desperately attempting to pass off as fact:

"Symbolic racism is perhaps the most prevalent racial attitude today.[8]"

Let's extrapolate that premise of "Racists! Racists everywhere! And just because they're not out burning crosses doesn't mean racism is unpopular, it just means they're *hiding* it better!" to literally anything other than race, & you'll instantly see how ridiculous this very line of thinking is.

"Oh, you don't see the crocodiles in your city? Well that's because they're *hiding* under your very nose!"

Or

"Aliens! Disguised as humans! They walk among us, I tell you!"

I've spent a lot of time studying these [Social Justice] topics anthropologically, & before that, I spent many years in the conservative churches of the Midwest, & the resemblance in dogma & structure between the two is striking (I highly recommend the essay "The Spiritual Shape of Political Ideas"). Just as certain sects of Christianity insist they see "Satanism" or "Idolatry" everywhere (and build whole schools of doctrine around it), so too does the "church" of SocJus w/ "racism", "sexism" "insert-word-here-phobia", etc.

A rational person will instantly recognize these witch-hunts as paranoid conspiracy theories penned by busybodies w/ too much time on their hands, nothing more.

P.S.

I also take issue w/ the "Scientific method" (ha!) of "measurement" used to achieve results. Rating someone's agreement or disagreement w/ a series of statements is subjective to what values the survey-makers assigned to said statements in their subjective opinions, and we can all see from the statements that these "researchers" are anything but neutral & nonpartisan. Since many people (myself included) would disagree w/ the "researchers" on their definition of "racism" & their assignment of "racist values" to various statements, we have an impasse at a fundamental level, and thus do not accept the validity of their research based on deeply flawed "science".

For those on the Left side of things that are blanching at this right now, imagine if a far-right pollster asked you to rate a statement like "Waves of degenerates are undermining the moral fabric of this country & need to be dealt with", & if you replied "disagree", checked the "hates America" column next to your name.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CitationKneaded (talk • contribs) 09:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC) 

All these months later and this still isn't addressed? What an awful, biased article. 68.227.35.147 (talk) 09:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Objections remain

The neutrality problems with this article can be summarized by critically reflecting on one of the first sentences: "Some prejudiced people do not view symbolic racism as prejudice since it is not linked directly to race but indirectly through social and political issues." It would be quite accurate and neutral if not for the second word. To state up front that it is prejudiced to disagree with a statement is by definition not neutral. Worse, it is circular, non-falsifiable logic to claim that disagreement is prejudicial in response to a statement having to do with prejudice.

I checked the source and it does not appear to support "prejudiced". I've removed it. EvergreenFir (talk) 06:35, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Unacceptable conclusions for an encyclopedic entry in opening paragraph

"Symbolic racism is a form of modern racism, as it is more subtle and indirect than more overt forms of racism,[5] such as those characterized in Jim Crow laws. As symbolic racism develops through socialization and its processes occur without conscious awareness,[6] an individual with symbolic racist beliefs may genuinely oppose racism and believe they are not racist.[7] Symbolic racism is perhaps the most prevalent racial attitude today.[8]"

At best, it's a theory of racism. Saying something is subtle is another way of saying nuanced. Calling it indirect is non-sequitur; it's aimed directly at the group being treated as a race. The second sentence is purely ideologically dogmatic value-loaded orthodoxy. They may believe claims codified by symbolic racism and not be racist; there is no contradiction. Groups beliefs may be provided by group dynamics disseminated from hierarchy or by peer-to-peer consensus building, or exist as a function of aggregated individual opinions. Descriptions of racial prejudice that impute racism to recognition of shared beliefs or characteristics without connection to perceived racial conference on the part of the subject onto the object(s) may meet some academic definitions, but I don't believe those are prevalent enough to be treated as the norm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:30A:2CF4:4FE0:9CDF:936:A8AE:465 (talk) 23:29, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

"Symbolic Racism is perhaps the most prevalent racial attitude today" does not seem to reflect the cited source (Race and Politics: The Theory of Symbolic Racism). Perhaps I missed something in the cited work - if so, we should include what was actually measured to support this claim.

Saying "is perhaps" is too vague for people to interpret a likelihood of Symbolic Racism being the most prevalent racial attitude, as claimed by the source. If you have to say "perhaps", which I would interpret as a hedge, it is likely that the source is not definitive enough to simply make the statement without explicitly drawing attention to the speculative nature of the claim. Instead it should say something like "Some scholars claim that X". If for example the claim was "Symbolic Racism has been claimed to be the most prevalent racial attitude in the United States, as measured by racial resentment surveys (citation) demonstrating that X% of the population has internalized symbolic racism". Something along those lines would be much more clear.

Also, it is not clear whether "racial attitudes" include a broad "stance on race" as opposed to only attitudes that scholars have argued are unjust, unfair, discriminatory, etc. Tcass64 (talk) 19:18, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

National Specificity

Because not all English speakers live in official English language countries, and certainly beyond the US borders, I believe the wording in the lead should reflect that this is information based on data collected in the USA about the specific conditions of racism in the USA. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2013 Fall term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)