Talk:Racism by country: Difference between revisions

---

Okay, so I think it was a good idea to move this into its own page. But can someone please finally review my contributions to the India part and answer the questions I asked in the racism talk page?

Please help. I also will try, but i might need to do a bit of offline research. Also, Can someone check if the pic on this [1] page comes under fair use? I believe it's an iconic image; when the incident took place, it was all over the papers. And besides, this article needs pix IMO.

—24.205.170.205 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)== Canada Section == It seems like the Canada section is nothing more than a personal rant without citations. French Canadians and especially aboriginals are actually subjected to special privileges in Canada. I'm deleting half of that section, and if anyone wants to back up the statements they can revert. --68.149.181.145 20:40, 31 July 2006 (UTC) Honestley, this article makes Canada look (historically and in modern times) less tolerant than Germany and South Africa. Needs reworking. --68.149.181.145 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hmm, I'm torn. I agree it reads pretty funnily. Are Indians the subject of racist treatment in Canada? Yes. Is the Indian Act racist against Indians? No, that's absurd. Are Quebeqois the subject of racist treatment in Canada? Sure, but no more or less than Anglos. I'll look at the section, give it some thought. WilyD 14:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Mexico, Saudi Arabia

I believe these nations should be re-examined for their historical and present state in regards to racism. It is known that those of pre-dominantly European descent make up the upper echelons of Brazilian and Mexican society. Amerindians and Blacks are considered to be at the bottom of the social caste in Mexico and both continue to face discrimination to the point where it is questionable whether they are considered full fledged members of society. In the case of Saudi Arabia I have been told by several Filipinos who worked there that much discrimination is evident towards East(Chinese, etc) and most particularly Southeast Asians. User:Brian 1:20 24.205.170.205 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)—Dec 08 200624.205.170.205 09:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Rwanda

Shouldn't the Rwandan genocide be mentioned here? --68.149.181.145 20:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

This page does imply that racism is generally a white practice, when in reality racism is probably far more widespread in LEDC's, the only reason it doesnt flare up is that they dont have to deal with millions of immigrants

Switzerland-Racism

I find "Up to the release of this report, many people assumed Switzerland to be free of racism." insulting to my knowledge and have deleted it. I have been to Switzerland, and being a black, was persistently treated differently in every corner of Switzerland . When I talked to many immigrants from Sri Lanka in Glarus, they told me that they were subjected to extremely derogatory treatment by a large proportion of the populace who thought that they had come to Switzerland only for financial incentives. Many other black people(including my French friend who is black) share this feeling of alienation and racism in Switzerland. When I was walking with a Senegalese friend in Zurich, I found the attitude of people was not very different from what you find in a neo-nazi haven. That's why I am deleting this sentence ,as for all I know ,it could be written by a Swiss with a very high view of his/her country.

Northern Ireland-Racism

Wondering why this includes a short section explaining the Irish Troubles? If it is an attempt to link the Protestant/Catholic tensions with broader racial tensions (for example, now that the paramilitaries are no longer targeting the "other" community, they have directed their hatred at ethnic minorities instead) then this should be explicitly mentioned. On the other hand, if it is just that the author thinks that the religious tensions are the same as racism, then perhaps the same tensions should be mentioned in the section on racism in Scotland? SteveM 18:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Scotland was moved to the United Kingdom section, because Scotland and the UK are the same nation, but equally autonomous like the countries of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (is it necessary to move that to the UK section or kept separarely in case it's related to past sectarian or nationalist issues of Ireland before its' independence in 1921?) I never considered the conflict on religious/sectarian groups (Protestants vs. Catholics) under "racism" since the two quarreling groups are "white" and have Anglo-Celtic (British) ethnic origins. The issue belongs in the category of global conflicts related to major political and ethno-national differences fueled by centuries of discriminatory actions: by the Protestant (Scotch-Irish) majority against the Irish Catholic minority (called Northern Ireland part of the "country" of Eire Ireland), and prejudices onto each other (riots, battles, brawls, protests and strikes) nearly brought on civil war for Ireland and the UK. 63.3.14.1 07:02, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Halaqah

Halaqah, could you please review WP:NOR and WP:V before editing again? You inserted a section that had 3 requests for citation, and the only cited citation was from "JewishTribalReview", a bizzare antisemitic site that hardly qualifies as a reliable source. We don't use KKK or Stormfront sites to write about African-Americans, please don't use antisemitic sites as sources for information about Jews of Israel. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

It is clear you are a strange editor

You have again removed the Israel section because it has in but there is no sources on Malay and yet you have re entered it. how many rules are you contradicting? Which rule is it, citation needed or citation not needed? Everything is antisemitic by your def, this section was leagally added to racism i have simple reinserted it. The site is not antisemitic because you dont like it. --HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:07, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

As I said on your Talk: page, feel free to remove that section as well, as it's nonsense. I only slapped citation templates on it to try to accomodate you. Also, please review WP:CIV, and review, re-review, and re-review WP:NOR and WP:V. Then please review them again. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

strange only refers to the two rule policy--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no racism in Israel

this is the section in dispute which i am not allowed to add for fear of anothe 3RR. Thus either there is no racism in Israel worth mentioning or there is a serious bias on wikipedia to be critical of Israel. Israel has been accused of practicing open discrimination to Palestinian people, some argue that there status in no more than second class citizens, they have no rights to vote within the Jewish system and are denied the freedom of movement and settlement afforded to Israeli citizens. Desmond Tutu is a staunch critic of this system and makes parallels to South Africa. and has likened Israel's treatment of Palestinians to the treatment of Black South Africans under apartheid. Tutu used the analogy on a Christmas visit to Jerusalem on 25 December 1989, when he said in a Haaretz article that he is a "black South African, and if I were to change the names, a description of what is happening in Gaza and the West Bank could describe events in South Africa." He made similar comments in 2002, speaking of "the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about". There has also been some debate about the treatment of African Jews primarly the Beta Israel who occupy the bottom social economic positions. Critics are claiming racism is behind what they say is the Israeli government's establishment of a 400-person monthly quota on immigration from Ethiopia — even for those who qualify under the Law of Return. Ethiopian Jewry activists complain that the quota and what they cite as a lack of humanitarian aid from American Jewish philanthropies are doubly offensive because of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's recent calls for a mass immigration of Jews from Argentina, France, Australia and South Africa.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Which of those sources refers to "racism"? Also, why on earth would you link to and use "jewishtribalreview.org" as a source, a non-reliable antisemitic site? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

i actually dont know that it was antisemitic if it is, i have no idea who they are, but my immediate thinking is they are Jewish from the name--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 16:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should not link anti-semitic sites. But neither should we whitewash the rabid racism in Israeli society. When an arab footballer scored a the crucial against Ireland in the world cup, Israeli talk shows were full of callers who said that it would have been better to loose the game than have the crucial goal scored by a "terrorist". And there are plenty non-antisemitic references to document racism in Israel and the struggle against it. A quick google gave me International Anti-Racism Day – Showing Zero Tolerance to Racism in Israel [2] Israel is accused of racism over its war-loss payouts [3] for starters. Abu ali 17:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Also have a look at Anti-Arabism#Anti-Arabism_in_Israel and Poll: 68% of Jews would refuse to live in same building as an Arab Abu ali 12:06, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Can we now begin to have a real discussion on this topic with the above sources, also the entire settlement issue needs to be added. and treatment of African Jews.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 18:04, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what is needed are reliable, encyclopedic sources discussing this issue, not whatever agenda you are promoting. You've decided you need to accuse Israel of something (actually, many things) regardless of whether or not there are reliable sources to support your claims. Well, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

please control your accusations because there is no soap box, only a legal plea for balance on this site. I have equal issue with racism in India and Sudan, this is not indispute, the difference is when racism was added to India there was not a campaign to block it, there was no impossible standard set for inclusion of Uganda or Germany or wherever, this is the issue. the work is on [racism] and it will be copied here. My agenda is for truth and balance i dont have any sensitive to race or geography esp when it borders on racism ("to deny racism is racism" end quote).--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 21:26, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No honest person remotely familiar with Israeli society would deny that racism exists there. Take the treatment of the families of foreign workers or Jews from Arab countries for starters. (Kav L'oved and HaKaset Hademocratit Hamizrahit will provide you with all the references you could want). The conspicious absence of Israel from the list says a great deal about the supposed neutality of wikipedia. Abu ali 22:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The absence of Israel from the list says more about the inability of anti-Israel POV-pushers to follow policy and write properly than anything else. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:43, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Ahh U r correct my friend, you are so correct. But the net is closing on that, because I am anti-racism and that is my strength i am speaking against oppression, If Israel tommorow became a bearer of winged doves i would change on a dime. But as long as the world oppresses people based upon skin color or religion or class. But u have set a standard which you are unwilling to appply to your editing skills, see South Africas lead "an example of blatent racism" this is a POV, the only reason it isnt deleted is because we all agree 100%, same with Hitler, its not writen with any talent, but we agree so it stays. if i had ill itent or was a racist i could delete that as a colored POV. So dont boast about your net yet.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 00:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, in your opinion is anyone who thinks that racism does exist in Israel an "anti-Israel POV-pusher"? And are those who those who battle night and day to remove all criticism of Israel defenders of NPOV? And do WP Arabs have sole responsibity for adding infomation about racism in Israel? Or do all editors have a responsibility to ensure that WP is objective and evenhanded? Please be so kind as to explain... Abu ali 09:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Abu ali, my opinion is that people who generally edit Wikipedia, or even just articles relating to Israel, solely for the purpose of vilifying Israel, using unreliable sources or none at all, are "anti-Israel POV-pushers". It is also my opinion that when someone inserts a POV paragraph with built-in requests for citation, it is extremely disruptive. What do you think? Does it make sense for someone to put together a few sentences stating his own pov, put {{fact}} tags at the end of each sentence, and actually insert it into an article? Jayjg ^(talk) 18:46, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg, I do not know who the people you refer to are. And I certainly hope you are not refering to me! But I think the advice given about not biting the newcomer is good advice. What about my other two questions? Abu ali 22:27, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

No one says this about Hong Kong or Barbados or St Lucia or Sweden. we cannot look at a blue sky and say it is red. if editors esp admins showed balance then they would find people like me less aggressive in pushing inclusion. I am happy to see Jayjg has added Israel into the racism section, i am very happy, because balance and truth cannot be one way. Is it right any rubbish can be posted about Africans and Muslims yet some topics have an untouchable status? I have no ill intent but as long as I have been alive I have seen stones and tanks, denial will not end that crisis.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

China, South Korea and other countries

From what I know of race and discrimination as it applies to China and South Korea, I don't believe Mexico, Brazil, or Saudi Arabia are any less guilty of societal racism than the former.–3:03 8 Jan 200724.205.170.205 11:04, 8 January 2007 (UTC)user: Brian

• Probably not. What's your point? WilyD 15:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The most descriptive and accurate, yet not well supported or valid section is on racism in Chile (neither could make a statement on whether Chile has a mestizo/racially mixed majority like Brazil and Mexico, or had a "white" European majority like Argentina). Obviously, the historic racial and class division in Latin America and other non-western countries are omnipresent. The status and evident maltreatment of migrant workers of East Indian, South Asian, African and Middle Eastern origin, now the majority of people in the Persian Gulf countries is a serious controversial issue that can damage the positive reputation of the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar and Kuwait as advanced, innovative and soon-to-be developed societies. I wonder racism and ethnic/tribal hatred is a problem in India, Pakistan, Iran, and Saudi Arabia, as well the ongoing ancient Hindu "caste" system (i.e. In India, the 150-200 million very poor marginalized "untouchables" are considered too lowly or "unclean" to higher and every other "castes"), and the lack of modern women's rights in these countries, whether for political, religious and sociocultural (custom, morality, etiquette and gender roles) brought international condemnation and protest. I know sexism and classism aren't exactly "racism" and are different topics, but to openly and legally discriminate or segregate whole groups of people is the same thing like to be racist or politically oppressive, because the person looks different from everyone (women are half the human race!) or from a different background, is unacceptable in western and democratic countries. + 63.3.14.1 11:53, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

In East Asian(China, South Korea, Japan) nations as well as the Middle East(Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait), Southeast Asian(Filipinos, Indonesians, Thais, etc.) immigrants make up the bulk of foreign laborers and discrimination towards them by members of the host nation is especially evident. In Hong Kong and the Middle East, Filipina maids and those in other domestic jobs suffer much abuse by their employers and in South Korea the working rights of migrant laborers from Southeast Asian nations are frequently violated. Also, an acquaintance of mine revealed she was unable to travel to the Middle East because certain nations in the region refused to give visas to "single Asian women". This acquaintance of mine is from China and she was never barred from visiting other Muslim nations like Malaysia and Indonesia. If the former is true then there can be no dispute that racism exists in Arab nations. [User: John, 19:32 2 February 2007

Start Rfc to clean-up

I suggest that any content without a refernce be removed as OR, that is the best way to start to clean up this mess. How can content on top of content be on this page and no one care where it comes from. As a test i can add any madness about some country and it is still here? the article is a violation of wiki policy.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 23:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleting content is vandalism

Please do not delete content , to provoke an edit war. The Israel content is valid and it is sourced and there are no debates our grounds for its removal. The content has been written by admin jaygig and has been agreed. You are vandalising this page if you continue to delete this content. Please stop what you are doing as it violates wiki policy. Content with sources valid source is allowed use the talk page but this issue in the talk pages you refer to has cleared this issue.--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 02:09, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The content I removed was authored by you, and protested by Jayjg on this very Talk page. Inserting material that is improperly sourced merely to present a case is improper no matter who it is done against. Tewfik^Talk 02:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

You are vandalizing this page because you are deleting content which has sources, you have not proved according to wiki policy why it is invalid you have just deleted it. But as will happen it will keep being replaced because it is legal content. Further i have not authored anything, the content was constructed by jayjig as a compremise. the content has in valid refernces and even if i did add it, it is valid and well sourced. what you are doing is vandalism by the def i have seen on wikipedia. you are also starting and editing war and are probably violating the 3rr. the discussion is right above for all to see and i didnt see the admin deleting the content, for it was him who reworded it and added it to racism, hence my comments of joy that he finally showed balance, please stop your POV edits which protect racism --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 03:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The history shows Jayjg removing the passage. Edits like "It is suggested that this racism is endemic and established in Israeli Jewish society." are textbook WP:NPOV violations (and of course not sourced by RS). Tewfik^Talk 03:48, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

So what you are saying is the entire content says only that? Why did you delete the entire thing. This was an section reedited by jayjig and i know you are confused because what you dont know is he finally revoiced it. I never edited it, i never created it. my content was on D tutu.(which i will bring up again) PLease replace the content where it doesnt violate anything, like the end of it. and i will personaly expand it according to those rules. It is very aggressive when you delete and entire country which is known globally for racism. That is like chopping South Africa, how many books are written about the conflict? and you delete this country from this section and leave in Trinidad and the Caribbean? what kind of editing is that? Please actually read what you have deleted b4 letting your political views cloud your editing. compare what jayjig deleted to what you deleted, DO they look the same???? r the sources the same? I literally copied his edit from racism and put it here, why do you think i was saying "i am happy to see Jaygig re edit, look above and see the discussion"--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 04:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

"I am happy to see Jayjg has added Israel into the racism section, i am very happy, because balance and truth cannot be one way. Is it right any rubbish can be posted about Africans and Muslims yet some topics have an untouchable status? I have no ill intent but as long as I have been alive I have seen stones and tanks, denial will not end that crisis.--HalaTruth(ሀላካሕ) 15:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC) " why did i write this on the 2nd of jan?--HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 04:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

hidding racism is racism

Israel and Israelis have regularly been accused of racism toward Arabs, especially in the Arab press, but also elsewhere. It is suggested that this racism is endemic and established in Israeli Jewish society.[4][5][6]. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Halaqah (talk • contribs) 03:20, 8 February 2007 (UTC). look at these reasons "improperly spurced content" for deleting Israel, take a look at chile, and the rest of this article. valid sources are labelled by the pov editor as improperly. this content was re edited by an admin. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 03:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

If there are problems with the Israel racism section, then all editors, (Israelis and Zionists included) are welcome to improve it. But deleting the entire section is a violation of WP:NPOV and when done by Zionists editors is a violation of WP:COI. Wikipedia is not (supposed to be) a Zionist propoganda tract. Abu ali 10:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

This is what vandalism is

Revert vandalism Reverting articles to prevent vandalism is considered a genuine use of the revert function, but gaming the system to circumvent the three-revert rule is disruptive and considered to be vandalism. --HalaTruth(ሐላቃህ) 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)