Talk:Racialization

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: Laurenahn.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 07:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Importance

Racialization is obviously a more important topic than Racial formation theory which is just one theory. This article is terrible though. 81.187.223.119 (talk) 21:14, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Sociobabble This article is garbage. I will delete it in one week’s time unless someone persuades me not to. Grounds: I know nothing of the subject matter, but that is not a problem, because the article contains self-contradictory statements that must be false regardless of the meaning of the words used. So the article is invalid on purely logical grounds. Proof: 1. “Racialization thus signifies the extension of dehumanizing and racial meanings to a previously racially unclassified relationship” Wikipedia, Racialization

2. “Race is a classification system used to categorize humans” Wikipedia, Race (human classification)

Argument: “Dehumanizing and racial” is self-contradictory, because “racial” is a term that can be applied only to humans. Something can be either dehumanizing or racial, but not both. 

Conclusion: The definition that this article provides of it subject matter is self-contradictory and consequently illogical. Consequently no such subject matter can exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mumbo-jumbophobe (talk • contribs) 20:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Change title to "Racialization and Ethnicization"?

I'm a bit confused about how this is considered. Aren't they a part of the same process? Is there a significant distinction? NittyG (talk) 19:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

SSCI2831

I will be working to make this article stronger by adding solid examples on applications of racialization. I am also going to relate race and racialization with the concept of Islamophobia, studying the difference of antisemitism.

Criticalracetheorist1 (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

SSCI2831

This article needs work and can be improved by adding more examples on the applications of racialization. It would also be beneficial to expand on racial controversies while relating race with Isalmophobia. In addition, studying the differences of antisemitism would serve to strengthen the article as well.

Criticalracetheorist2 (talk) 19:36, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

POV

No criticism on the concept? No different opinions on the process, or the merits of the concept? No opposing views among academics or elsewhere? Also, the multiple sub-sections are pretty formulaic and text-book materials, for ideological schools of thought promoting particular views of the concept. (It seems that the material presently in the article was created primarily by students of some particular course on the subject, as part of a class assignment?) And apparently there was no 'racialization' before the 19th century? And it was all done by European imperialist-colonizers and nobody else, at all, ever? There is no previous case of 'racialization', or anything comparable to it, in all of human history? Ever? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.197.139.214 (talk) 09:43, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I see also that the beginning of the article doesn't really make a nuance between racialization and Orientalism. And yes, there have been criticism to the theory of racialization which should be included in this article. Check the French Wikipedia page and you'll see quite a bit.--Justyrofoam (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Etymology and word usage history

I have found very little to recommend this word or concept. Though it is in use, mostly in the jargon-laced babbling of race theorists, it is of questionable provenance. I do not recommend its deletion since apparently that subject has been considered, though it probably should be. I do recommend adding material on its history and use. What is here is atrocious, poorly written, badly explained, basically following its use in the articles in which I’ve seen it used. I can do it, but, first, I’m not sure I care that much about the psychomythological dopey lexicon of the racialist ideologues plaguing both academe and the politico sphere.

Second, restraining my obvious contempt for the subject might color the addition. Wiki is already rife with leftist bias that causes it to be held in low esteem by anyone with a modicum of sense, concern over polluting it might be a needless worry. Still it might be better if someone else tried to pursue the suggestion if he shares the view. Sych (talk) 03:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Racialization%2Cracialisation&year_start=1970&year_end=2022&corpus=en-GB&smoothing=3&case_insensitive=true — Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.216.164.142 (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

A possibility for persistent vandalism

Asking for one or two Administrator's monitoring, to ensure the article is not mismanaged. 2607:FEA8:E09D:C410:68F3:A723:3123:808B (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Do not remove deletion notices for articles whose deletion discussions have not concluded. Zanahary (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, nothing needs to be monitored. You may raise objections at the ongoing deletion discussion if you see fit to do so. ^Complex/_Rational 14:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

NPOV

Ok, big problems here.
The article does not make clear enough that racialization is a concept within sociology and a framework through racial issues are understood, as opposed to a consensus-reified racial mechanism. The article repeats way too many contentious views unattributed in wikivoice. Lots of undue weight given to singular analyses and views, particularly in the history section. Lots of weasel words like in "The racialization of labor is said to involve the segregation and appointment of workers based on perceived ethnic differences." Loads of original research like "The numbers are much more alarming for African Americans behind bars; nearly 1 in 15 African Americans are incarcerated and more narrowly 1 in 9 African American men are incarcerated.[23] These numbers point to an obvious discrimination towards blacks in the U.S. criminal justice system." The cited source is not about racialization. This is an editor's original research. Zanahary (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Also just did a source review in all sections but the gender one, and there are serious and pervasive problems of original research, editorializing, and completely failed verifications. Zanahary (talk) 01:25, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Domination and exclusion

I changed the lede to the definition used in the books of Carlos Hoyt and Omi & Winant. Their definitions of racialization don't mention malicious intent. IP user who reverted it, can you explain why you want to use your preferred definition? I don't have DelaRosa's book so I can't see what it says on page 200, but I don't think one glossary item is enough to redefine this term. HansVonStuttgart (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey HVG, I recommend you go ahead and restore the language based on literature. Zanahary (talk) 22:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what is expected. Do you want to know whether the oppressive aspect related to discrimination that the article explained was inherently malicious or not? I believe a simple Google check could get you the results. Part of it is common knowledge as well. I see the article is nuked beyond repair. I wish such enthusiasm would have been shown to find resources to better the article. Cause, it would have only taken the same time and effort.2607:FEA8:E09D:C410:3462:C7FF:FEF1:4933 (talk) 14:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Comment on Canvassing

I noticed canvassing by an editor for this edit, and I want to provide some additional context for a fair assessment. The reason given for the revert falls under WP:POINTY guideline. The revert was done without checking or reading the sources, without considering whether the other editor's contribution added meaningful information, whether there is a due weight, and without addressing a glaring practice of dishonesty and violation of WP policies. It was instead labeled as a "cleanup." The other statements made by the editor are aimed at making unchallenged disruptive changes in the future, and the editor's strong bias is evident throughout the page history since their overzealous article deletion attempt. The subsequent problematic defacing of the page and continuous disruptive activities strongly suggest that the editor intends to persistently impose their unhealthy bias to the point of rendering the page irrelevant. Kindly consider the complex nature of the problem. I believe what the editor does here does little more than worsen the associated project as a whole.161.216.164.142 (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2024 (UTC)