Racism, On Wikipedia Options

[Wikifan]

Makes sense, kind of fits with the wacky Wikipedian view of the world. Rwanda is mentioned only as a link.

Niger takes a hit for deporting 150,000 Arabs in 2006. I never heard that before.

soviet union deported 200,000 muslims.

This post has been edited by Wikifan: Thu 1st March 2012, 9:11pm

[Alexkrsz]

RUSSIA , TURKEY, and JAPAN

not exactly lightweights in the racism department

(or am I just too mired in the early 20th century)

or

ARGENTINA and BRAZIL

well ok Brazil has a pic of some protester with a clown nose about quotas or something, nevermind a few hundred years of African slavery

this is just my synthesis, but most of the whole "anti-racist" far-left philosophy has less to with about opposing racism and more to do with a deep seated hatred for america.

Conflating the culture, people, government and policies of the United States is a popular right-wing straw man to attack people who strongly oppose the country's policies.
If you opposed the Soviet Union, you did not hate the culture or people, but its government and their actions.

russia was for quite awhile the polar opposite of the US in almost every fashion. that's why many of the old left were gushing supporters of the regime or sympathizers of the various proxies inserted by the soviet union throughout the world.

Both USA/UK and the Soviet Union tried to extend their influence as much as possible in the Third world. Who crushed independent nationalism throughout the world and installed right wing dictatorships?
The Soviet threat in the Western hemisphere was non-existent. The allegations of a "Soviet/Cuban connection" in Nicaragua for example weren't entirely false. When the US imposed arms/weapons embargoes and the Contras attacked Nicaragua, the people there had to defend themselves and had to rely on communist regimes (and France) for arms. Then the US could justify the destruction of a whole country as they did everywhere with the same/similar pretext.

most muslim countries are painted as victims of the united states and its allies, so they get a pass.


the real puzzler is south africa vs. australia. south africa was hit with international sanctions, but australia was the original apartheid state and south africa's apartheid government was inspired by australia.

In the 80s most countries had imposed sanctions on South Africa, but Reagan was strongly supportive of the Apartheid regime and did not impose any sanctions. When the US finally did, it quickly collapsed.
You are very clueless about the Middle East. A good start would be to learn about European/American involvement over the centuries.

turkey gets a pass because it successfully positions itself as a bulwark of the united states and israel, even though the US has 3,000 troops in turkey and what - 50 nuclear silos?

notice how noam chomsky - the holy cult leader of new left philosophy - has a raging boner for turkey yet totally opposes israel's existence? turkey's colonization of cyprus, turkey's invasion of iraq, turkey's war with the kurds, etc...doesn't matter.

Turkey got and still gets a free pass for being a military outpost of Europe/America, just like Saudi-Arabia, Israel or Egypt to maintain control of the region.
To quote our cult leader:
"In the 1990s, it was the Kurdish population of Turkey that suffered the most brutal repression. Tens of thousands were killed, thousands of towns and villages were destroyed, millions driven from the lands and homes, with hideous barbarity and torture. The Clinton administration gave crucial support throughout, providing Turkey lavishly with means of destruction. In the single year 1997, Clinton sent more arms to Turkey than the US sent to this major ally during the entire Cold War period combined up to the onset of the counterinsurgency operations. Turkey became the leading recipient of US arms, apart from Israel-Egypt, a separate category. Clinton provided 80% of Turkish arms, doing his utmost to ensure that Turkish violence would succeed. Virtual media silence made a significant contribution to these efforts." Source

Where the heck do your "facts" come from? Think before you post, even Wikipedia isn't that bad for relevant factoids to sound smarter in discussions.

(sorry for off topic, have not been involved in Wikipedia for some time, but felt like responding to this crap)

This post has been edited by Alexkrsz: Thu 1st March 2012, 10:24pm

[Emperor]

Is this some kind of defense of Noam Chomsky or something?

[radek]

Does anyone remember the 2008 article "Wikipedia on Race" by Nicholas Stix? That is the best item-by-item critique of Wikipedia I've ever seen: http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/07/index.html

Someone should go through all the articles it mentions and see how much got addressed. I just did a quick sampling and it looks like less than half.

Which of the issues in that article do WRers think are the most substantial?

Nah, it's an article in a racist piece of trash magazine which is using real but irrelevant Wikipedia failures as an excuse to present a laundry list of standard racist complaints and canards.

Are you seriously promoting this junk or were you just unaware of the connection here/are not a very discerning reader?

[Selina]

The Jeffrey Latham who who has been screaming against me on Facebook is known as Blu Aardvark on the neo-nazi site Stormfront (and was the same on Wikipedia too until getting banned - no doubt returned, and I wouldn't be surprised if was involved in creating the racial-totally-not-racist "separatism" articles):
google.com/search?q=site:stormfront.org "Blu Aardvark"

Whether or not a person agrees with the media stereotype, one cannot deny that the media stereotype is precisely how most Americans view the Klan. The robes might make a statement of pride in one's own race, but it's a statement that none will hear except for those who are already aware, because of the negative stigma attached to those robes.

Why do Racists have low IQ's?
First, allow me to clarify that this is *not* my viewpoint. Rather, it is the title of an article by a group of PSU students who are quite obviously biased in their views and reporting.

http://www.clubs.psu.edu/up/sayar/riqs.htm

I'm just curious as to people's thoughts related to this excellent "research"

Re: This election is proof that racism is losing it's grip in the US
Barack Hussein Obama produced a birth certificate, yes, but evidence indicates that he has not produced a valid one

I am disgusted by the pack of lies that are sold with it. The Jews were hated because of what they had done to the Germans, not because of some twisted belief in racial superiority

But please, to those offering proof that the Holocaust happened, and that six million Jews were pwned by the Germans, try to avoid falling onto the same tired arguments.

Re: U.K. Teachers drop the Holocaust to avoid offending Muslims
Hmm. So maybe it's not because of the fear of offending Muslims, but rather because they fear being asked questions they can't answer in relation to the alleged atrocities.

Or maybe it's because the Jews know they can't possibly extort money from the Muslims, and thus, won't waste valuable time in doing so when they can be brainwashing more gullible peoples.

There are white men and women who are [apparently] unconnected to the Zionist cause, who have nonetheless done great damage to our nation. Zionism is indeed a significant concern

I was a Wikipedia editor, and ended up butting heads with several of the Jewish editors there over, and the accusations of antisemitism started flying. I've since learned that this is an entirely programed response, to be expected. But it really troubled me when I first encountered it.

I know that in the American system, at least, if a student shows any degree of independent expression and thought, they are branded as having some form of "mental disorder" or another, medicated, and sent back to school in a drug-induced stupor

This post has been edited by Selina: Thu 1st March 2012, 11:14pm

[Wikifan]

Is this some kind of defense of Noam Chomsky or something?

nah, just typical far-left reactionary noise. funny thing how something so wicked as racism becomes a partisan issue.

This post has been edited by Wikifan: Fri 2nd March 2012, 12:00am

[Somey]

nah, just typical far-left reactionary noise. funny thing how something so wicked as racism becomes a partisan issue.

Gee, the way I read it, you were caught pulling statements about Noam Chomsky's treatment of Turkey directly out of your ass. If that's "typical far-left reactionary noise," then let's have more of it!

[jsalsman]

Does anyone remember the 2008 article "Wikipedia on Race" by Nicholas Stix? That is the best item-by-item critique of Wikipedia I've ever seen: http://www.amren.com/ar/2008/07/index.html

Someone should go through all the articles it mentions and see how much got addressed. I just did a quick sampling and it looks like less than half.

Which of the issues in that article do WRers think are the most substantial?

Nah, it's an article in a racist piece of trash magazine which is using real but irrelevant Wikipedia failures as an excuse to present a laundry list of standard racist complaints and canards.

Are you seriously promoting this junk or were you just unaware of the connection here/are not a very discerning reader?

I am not seriously promoting it. It is very useful for this illustration of inherent subjectivity. I wanted to see how WR would characterize it -- whether hatred of Wikipedia would trump the racism. Both seem to have about the same intellectual validity to me.

So are the "real but irrelevant Wikipedia failures" -- to exclude the racist POVs in this case -- irrelevant because you agree with them, or because they serve a greater moral purpose here?

And the bigger question is, are Wikipedia failures only relevant when you oppose their results? If so, then are they substantial failures at all or just manifestations of difference of opinion?

[iii]

So are the "real but irrelevant Wikipedia failures" -- to exclude the racist POVs in this case -- irrelevant because you agree with them, or because they serve a greater moral purpose here?

And the bigger question is, are Wikipedia failures only relevant when you oppose their results? If so, then are they substantial failures at all or just manifestations of difference of opinion?

Wikipedia's failures are primarily systemic. Encyclopedic content is secondary to the actual purpose of that website. Any ostensible reference work that is set-up will be subject to someone disputing the content, but the question is whether the Wikipedia model in terms of governance, community, accountability, and organization is one that merits praise, pity, or scorn. What you'll find here are people who, for various reasons, come down on the side of scorn. Sometimes it's because of underlying frustration with content, but that critique plays second fiddle to the major "reviewing" that goes on here, in my opinion.

[thekohser]

The Jeffrey Latham who who has been screaming against me

Selina, have you noticed how many situations you seem to describe as people "screaming" at / about / against you?

What do you think the common thread is there, I ask calmly and quietly?

[Emperor]

The Jeffrey Latham who who has been screaming against me

Selina, have you noticed how many situations you seem to describe as people "screaming" at / about / against you?

What do you think the common thread is there, I ask calmly and quietly?

Please connect your answer somehow to the Wikipedia article called "Racism" or simply ignore the question or answer it somewhere else.

And Greg, come on. Enough already.

[thekohser]

And Greg, come on. Enough already.

Okay, how's this...

A possible explanation for how racism is documented and manifested on Wikipedia lies here. That's Wikimania 2006. How many non-white, non-Asian attendees do you spot? I see two in a room of about 106 race-identifiable people. That's 1.89%.

Boom. We're back on topic.

[Emperor]

Okay, how's this...

A possible explanation for how racism is documented and manifested on Wikipedia lies here. That's Wikimania 2006. How many non-white, non-Asian attendees do you spot? I see two in a room of about 106 race-identifiable people. That's 1.89%.

Boom. We're back on topic.

Might have something to do with it.

[radek]

So are the "real but irrelevant Wikipedia failures" -- to exclude the racist POVs in this case -- irrelevant because you agree with them, or because they serve a greater moral purpose here?

You didn't read the answer correctly, hence your question is ill posed. "real but irrelevant" - that word "irrelevant" in there means that exclusion of racist POVs is NOT - more precisely, would NOT be - one of Wikipedia's failures. There are other failures, not connected to this issue, but this ain't one of them (assuming that this really does happen - I've seen way to much racist pov pushing slide through on Wikipedia to believe that though).

[Selina]

The common thread is I upset slimeballs with egos bigger than their brains who don't realise just how much I destroy the life of people that deserve it.

I've been trying to be nice to you, you continue taking it as weakness and that can stop and go on the list with the rest of people that need to be taken down a peg - I'm really sick of two-faced people.

This post has been edited by Selina: Fri 2nd March 2012, 7:37pm

[The Joy]

The common thread is I upset slimeballs with egos bigger than their brains who don't realise just how much I destroy the life of people that deserve it.

I've been trying to be nice to you, you continue taking it as weakness and that can stop and go on the list with the rest of people that need to be taken down a peg - I'm really sick of two-faced people.

Well, you were kidnapped by Two-Face in Arkham City. That may explain it.

[Selina]

youtu.be/Z6MRdL89CzQ#t=1m50s

This post has been edited by Selina: Fri 2nd March 2012, 8:55pm

[Wikifan]

nah, just typical far-left reactionary noise. funny thing how something so wicked as racism becomes a partisan issue.

Gee, the way I read it, you were caught pulling statements about Noam Chomsky's treatment of Turkey directly out of your ass. If that's "typical far-left reactionary noise," then let's have more of it!

not to derail the thread, but since you asked:

Germany is one of the European countries which has had a “rightwing backlash against Muslim immigrants” and, “It is the background reason why Turkey is unlikely to be accepted into the EU, even if it meets all the human rights standards,” said Chomsky in Today's Zaman.

The newspaper reported that Turkey tried to join the EU in 2005, but the process has been slow amid arguments in Europe that Turkey cannot join the EU because of "cultural differences."

Chomsky added that there are worse human rights violators among European countries and pointed to Britain which participated in the war in Iraq.

"Has Turkey done anything like that? On the contrary, it refused to participate in the invasion. That’s a much higher level of observance of human rights and even international law...I always felt Europe was more racist,

The MIT professor visited İstanbul on Friday to participate in an international conference on the freedom of expression, and said he had seen great improvements in Turkey's approach to human rights, especially in its treatment toward the Kurds.

On Brazil and Turkey:

very repressive society has its own barriers to freedom and justice. But what has been achieved in Brazil is impressive, just as the struggle for human and civil rights in Turkey is truly inspiring. In many respects I know of nothing like it elsewhere. Every place on earth can be truly exceptional in its own ways.

source 1

source 2



This post has been edited by Wikifan: Fri 2nd March 2012, 8:28pm

[Emperor]

Modern usage often equates “racism” and “racial discrimination” and defines the latter term only as applying to pernicious practices. Differential treatment of racial groups that is intended to ameliorate past discrimination, rather than to harm, goes by other names (e.g., affirmative action); the characterization of this practice as "racism", "racial discrimination" or "reverse discrimination" is normally only done by its opponents, and typically implies a belief in the harmful nature of the practice with respect to the groups not receiving assistance.

Opponents of affirmative action assert that it is harmful to all people. Individuals should be judged not by the color of their skin, etc.

Where is this point of view represented?

[jsalsman]

A possible explanation for how racism is documented and manifested on Wikipedia lies here. That's Wikimania 2006. How many non-white, non-Asian attendees do you spot? I see two in a room of about 106 race-identifiable people. That's 1.89%.

African American wikipedians seem to stay around longer than most editors, at least those who self-identify by userbox (which include some likely GNAA, by the way.)