Talk:Racial bias on Knowledge

4262:

against Indigenous people on Knowledge is not solely an American issue or even an English language issue. As long as we are remembering things let's remember that some of the tactics that have been employed in recent discussions about Indigenous people are based a very old, very tired racist agenda to marginalize Indigenous people and others. While none of the editors involved may hold specific racist views against Indigenous people, I would hope none do, they support positions which are inherently racist towards and detrimental to Indigenous people and communities. Before anyone says that isn't Knowledge's problem, I dare say it is everyone's problem, including Knowledge. Else just acknowledge the racial bias and declare you have no intention of allowing those sources to be considered reliable and Indigenous voices aren't welcome and let that be that because that's the message you are sending when an Indigenous person comes here and sees that they are basically treated the same as a rock or plant and when they speak up about it the logic used against them is that they are just seeking favoritism over "colonial" and "religious" people. We all know who has been the favored ones out of that grouping in recent past. --

1243:

noticeboards, they are ganged upon by the White Wiki Clique in order to diminish their concerns and ridicule them. I have watched countless of great Black and African editors hounded from the project by the White Wiki clique - most of whom are from North America. Even new Black or African editors interested in the project and pushed aside and driven off the project. Asking for a biased and dubious statistics in order to play down the issue is just silly. Many great editors who have been working on African and Black projects which I'm interested in have left the project because of what they had to endure thanks to the white Eurocentrics POV here. This has been my biggest headache here, because we have lost several great editors knowledgeable about the subjects I'm interested in.

2376:. Many statements in these articles are dubious to be truths valid to all Knowledge versions. There are reasons to believe that many English-language sources in these articles seem to conflate their understand of English Knowledge with Knowledge as a whole. As such academics that show no evidence of having read or substantially studied Wikipedias other than the English language version are appropiating the discourse as to which the malaises of Knowledge are. Usually this means projecting American concerns about African-Americans, Western gender theory and categories, "First Nations" in the Anglophone countries etc. 2473:, the article discusses bias in Knowledge. Outside sources link this to the relative number of editors and the lack of representative participation from underrepresented groups. Moving the article (and related ones) only serve to make the articles harder to find, which makes addressing the issues more challenging rather than less. We support representation that matches the community we serve. The articles are helpful and appropriate - if bias exists in any part of the Knowledge, it exists in Knowledge. Being overly specific serves no useful purpose. 2332:: As I mentioned in an earlier discussion, looking at the French and Spanish Wikipedias, I was unable to find any sources on racial or gender bias in those encyclopedias. I have no idea about the Arabic, Chinese, Malayalam, or Swahili ones. It's realistic to work on finding more sources on underrepresentation on English Knowledge of different races and parts of the world, so as to improve global coverage. But I'm not optimistic about finding sources that criticize race or gender bias on non-English language Wikipedias. Does anyone know of 573: 552: 809: 788: 3351:

or from racial bias that exists in the source base that editors use. For example, a minor event in US politics or popular culture might get more coverage than a major event or cultural phenomenon in Africa, in part because there are far more US editors than African editors, and in part because mainstream sources tend to give a lot more coverage to the US than to Africa. That's certainly a form of racial bias, but that doesn't mean that Knowledge editors are guilty of racism.

997: 2690: 2637:(for the last one). Lack of scope on other Wikipedias for racial and gender bias. I think the move should be deserved for the first two to not hurt the projects. For the last one (Criticism of Knowledge), it should be split into Criticism of the English Knowledge and Criticism of Knowledge (other Wikipedias that are not English), because there is more coverage of criticism to the other Wikipedias. About ideological bias, also 190: 670: 3256:: This article discusses aspects of Knowledge that are better reflected by the term "racial bias" than "racism". For example, this article discusses the fact that less African, Asian, and South American editors are on Knowledge, Knowledge citing English-language sources, and there being less published scholarship on certain areas than others. That is better reflected by the term "racial bias" than "racism". -- 914: 893: 298: 1054: 819: 277: 2817:. The gender bias article also mentions other language versions, and there has been research comparing gender gaps on different language versions that should probably be added to the article. These articles do seem to be a bit English-centric (as many of our articles are), but the solution to that is editing the articles to counter this systemic bias, not artificially narrowing their scope. — 484: 463: 246: 3570:, "Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to inherited attributes and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.". That's not primarily what this article is about. Using the term "racism" in the title of this article would be less accurate and potentially misleading or confusing to readers 217: 387: 366: 2966:

clearly and correctly presents what's in the sources. Source is cited in a confusing way, and in any case is not about racial bias on Knowledge. Rather, it concerns the approach to history on Knowledge. At one point it discusses how a few editors with a pro-Southern POV on the American Civil War attempted to change the article

2561:, out of the 200 sources I see just one source concerning a privacy issue with German Knowledge and one source about an alleged libel case involving French Knowledge (references 49 and 133). I didn't find any references in the racial bias or gender bias articles that deal with non-English language Wikipedias. 4293:

I didn't agree with Keeler on a lot of what he said, especially the motives behind CV losing the mop and even her off-wiki harassment. That was tragic as is. I don't think it had anything to do specific to her work on Native American topics. But I also recognize she upset some people with her staunch

4261:

I'm not sure the point of this statement. No one has ever said that Indigenous or Native is equal to American but this article was written by an American scholar about Indigenous people in America or Native American's and the racial bias that is built into the foundation of the encyclopedia. The bias

4164:

It's not a great nor scholarly article. As far as I know the author never interviewed any of the Wikipedians he maligns in his paper, and as indicated by this lack of communication he seems wrong on almost everything he wrote. His attempt to meld out-of-context quotes, assumed motives, and criticisms

4087:

This article is in dire need of help from an admin. It seems to have been been largely edited by and written by individuals that have racially motivated agendas - made clear by the talk page, and the frequent misuse of terms such as “mongoloid”, “caucasoid”, etc which don’t belong on a wikipedia page

3350:

is an inflammatory term because in common usage it implies intent. Some of the forms of racial bias covered in the article result from policies and practices that were instituted for reasons unconnected with race; from underrepresentation of certain races, ethnicities, or nationalities among editors;

1596:

I removed the templates. The first one (from 5 years ago) complained of poor global coverage. The comments cited in the article relate to English Knowledge, and not exclusively to US editors. Of course, there's room for improvement in this area, but the template didn't seem to be serving any purpose.

4067:

The first few sentences seem to present the criticisms as fact and the article (at least at a brief glance) doesn't seem to present any differing perspectives (if they have been presented). Is there any kind of debate around this subject that would warrant inclusion for the sake of balance and could

3782:

Is there a BIPOC version of Women in Red? Women in Red is reducing systemic bias against women. I looked around for a similar group and didn't find one but maybe I missed it...I would like to join forces on creating and expanding articles for Black, Indigenous and People of Color. It's important for

2988:

I think I know what's going on: The top of the article has a tag "This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment." This is way not the first time I encounter "drive-by edits" by students on assignment. Students are taught to write essays, which actually

2590:

Good point. BTW, French Knowledge seems to have zero coverage of racial or gender bias on Knowledge (either English WP or French WP); at least, there's nothing in the article Critiques de Wikipédia or the article Préjugé and no relevant links from those articles. Some would argue that the failure to

1242:

Absolute BS. Black people have been hounded from this project for years. Ganging up on certain Black editors, stalking, canvassing and leaving nasty comments about them on certain talk pages in an effort to discredit them are just some of the strategies used. When they raise concerns in the relevant

3144:

thanks for your addition to the article. I find the second quote from Liriano to be a good encapsulation of a potential positive response to bias, and am thinking it might fit well in the Responses section near the mention of Schomburg Center's edit-a-thon. That said, I feel that most of the racial

2970:

to remove content concerning slavery and racism, and how other editors prevented those changes because they were unsourced or poorly sourced. The third sentence misrepresents reference , which is not about racial bias, but rather sexist bias on Knowledge and the challenges of editing about women in

2965:

The problems with the first paragraph of the main body go beyond the garbled last sentence. The entire paragraph was added in a single edit by an inexperienced editor last 2 July with an edit summary stating that the paragraph is a "literature review". As far as I can tell, nothing in the paragraph

2023:

Per the failed RM below I take it that moving to "X on English Knowledge" is ruled out. In any case, I see the issue here as a content one, not a naming one: we need to add content about biases in other-language Wikipedias, whatever article structure and titles we have. Foreign language sources are

1904:

To have an article called "Racial bias on Knowledge" focused primarily on "Racial bias on English Knowledge" would we deceptive and in fact reflective of another bias Knowledge has, being Anglocentric. As such I suggest to either rename the article to have the title fit the content ("Racial bias on

3365:

Why do English language sources frequently talk about 'racism on Knowledge' and not 'racial bias on Knowledge'? As far as I understand racism and racial bias mean the same thing. Academics use the term 'systemic racism' and not 'systemic racial bias' for issues like you are describing. As far as I

4107:

Can we really consider it a bias or inequality that less black people than white people edit Knowledge? I mean, most people from developed countries with internet access are white. This page also solely addresses the projects on Knowledge made for black people and the ratio of white and non-white

3870:

I agree that the term "BIPOC" is an Americanism; as is POC. In most parts of the world the thought to lump black and indigenous people together in such a term would be unlikely to figure, whereas the constituent term "POC" seems to refer to the entirety of the non-white population ("non-white" is

2575:

My understanding is that many of these sources are themselves biased as they conflate English Knowledge with the whole of Knowledge. No distinction is made, and the specific malaisses of English Knowledge are projected, without any hesitation, to the whole project. One may invert the question and

1461:

It is hard to add any content to expand this article because there is a loop. Knowledge is White dominant, African editors are pushed out. When they add ref reflecting either evidence of racism on wikipedia it is not a R.S. So we have a loop going. How do you write an article on Knowledge about a

2696:

In earlier edit, I closed the discussion in favour of. I was asked by some experienced editors to relist the discussion. I closed the discussion with an understanding: "most of the support commentors felt the articles are primarily about the English wikipedia, and very little about wikiepdias of

2235:. Moving them also creates the problem that we could end up with a plethora of these pages to maintain and keep track of whenever a small wiki gets criticised in another language. Better would be to make the coverage on the pages include more non-English sources, which are certainly plentiful. - 2714:

for reopening the discussion.) For all three of these articles, the focus is not intended to be on one particular language version, but the Knowledge project in general. They can be expanded to cover other languages if the sources are available, but this proposed change just adds an unnecessary

2259:

Keeping the articles with the titles they have now would mean they would most likely need to be tagged as non-Global for their Anglocentric views and undue representations of examples. One option is to split articles into shorter "all-Knowledge" articles (current names) and some longer articles

1356:

This page represents an (imperfect) equality of outcome approach, where the representation of each group in wikipedia articles should be proportional to their share in the society. That is, the problem - as stated - is that percentage of wikipedia content devoted to black people (in general) is

1326:

worldview). And you'll never change that worldview because you'll always view contrary data as biased so there will never be any way for you to change your mind. As long as they are statistics (objective info) and have some kind of peer review or fail safe, you should be open to accepting it.

1325:

But ...178, surely you must agree that data is still needed? Or at least useful? You can't just make claims based on personal experience. You risk putting yourself in a situation where you never believe any data because most data was collected by x and x is biased against y (according to your

1205:

It appears that some people have not understood the difference between an under-representation caused by different proportion of interested individuals from a racial group and under-representation caused by hostility toward a racial group. I hope all kinds of people jump in and edit Knowledge

1303:

This is absolutely the case here, unfortunately. There are racist Eurocentric editors on here. Not just from the U.S., I have had some very poor experiences with British editors here as well. Most everyone I know who was passionate about creating articles here is either blocked or no longer

2953:

I agree. That sentence is incomprehensible as written, and it's loaded with 4 references, two of which I could get access to. does not mention Knowledge at all. does briefly, but it does not actually discuss racial bias on Knowledge. Rather, uses the difference between the talk-page on

1966:

That title would definitely be better, but the template would needed to be kept, because the article has an overt focus on "White people" and African-Americans, and the racial spectrum editing or not editing English Knowledge is abviously wider than the binary perspective in the article.

2799:

per Bradv. If research comes out on these issues within Spanish Knowledge or Simplified Chinese Knowledge or the like it should be included here. On the off chance these articles get very large as a result, we can consider breaking out English-only research, but we aren't there yet.

3664:, "racial and gender bias" appears in the description, and both "racism" and "bias" appear in the transcript. So I'm not convinced from these examples that this article should be moved, but if you have other examples published in reliable sources I'm willing to look at those as well. 3689:, headlines are not reliable, because they "are written to grab readers' attention quickly and briefly; they may be overstated or lack context, and sometimes contain exaggerations or sensationalized claims with the intention of attracting readers to an otherwise reliable article." — 2576:

ask, what would people think about an article about the whole of Knowledge written overwhelmingly relying on French sources citing France-related examples, and talking about French-Algerian bias issues in the lead, and over again in the examples further down in the article.

3288:

Neo-nazis and white supremacists editing articles to align with their beliefs is racism while Knowledge reflecting the lack of scholarship or English-languages sources in certain areas is racial bias. This article covers both, and therefore should remain at racial bias.

1575:

and add it there rather comparing yourself to others who have been the subject of descrimanation. Tryimg to undermine the struggles of those who have been discrimnated rather than targetting those who are discriminating comes of as jealousy, foolishness and disingenous.

1927:

Yes, it would be great to find RS that discuss under-representation of people of the Global South and people of color in Europe, both among editors and among subjects of biographical articles. I notified WikiProject Africa and WikiProject Latin America about this RfC.

1880:

truly global, I don't see the point of just keeping a template there (that's been there for 5 years) that serves no useful purpose. I would not be opposed to changing the title to "Racial bias on English Knowledge" (in which case we should also change the titles of

1462:

problem with Knowledge which is being accused of Racism? It creates a paradox. Esp when WIki policy on so-called RS marginalizes non-White publications, and content from independent sources. And all of this is moderated by the very people being accused of racism.--

1905:

English Knowledge") or make a big effort. The other issue that makes this article non-Global is that its examples empjasis racial issues that are typical of the United States and not necessarily worldwide (mention of Black history, African-Americans, Neo-Nazis).

3853:

It's true that in many countries people of color are the majority, and therefore, is an unneccesary term. The term BIPOC is often used in conversations about racialization. My apologies as this post should be on the talk page of Women in Red and WP:TEAHOUSE.

1115:

I'm inclined to say that it's better they dedicate their efforts to writing POV articles about the BNP on an "encyclopedia" that no one but far-right loons read, rather than spending it trying to introduce that same POV into the Knowledge article on the BNP.

1058: 1304:

participate, due to hounding and the behavior depicted above. There should be a form of arbitration, but I am afraid the tendency will always be to protect the white racist contributors since that is what I have seen happen here from the beginning.

2922:

Something is fishy in the copula "because", because I do not see logical cause-and-effect between the two joined phases. Does anybpdy ave an access to the references cited to see what they actually say in this respect? Not to say there is a bit of

2993:. Since there is nobody to defend their contribution, I agree with the idea to delete the piece: it is not worth our time to make sense of something that as no sense. If the cited sources do say something on racial bias in wp, and if they are not 3145:

bias content in the Basis section is well-covered in the article already. If you re-read the article, do you feel there's content in your addition that isn't addressed? The info on gender bias is off-topic here, and more appropriately covered at

3048:. If the controversy continues, then, the "policing" itself likely will get more attention. I'd prefer that someone who understands history simply have a look at it and comment on the talk page, or simply restore and improve the version here. 1740:: I've requested a Third Opinion on how to handle a situation where, despite an article's title, its actual coverage relates only to English Knowledge rather than to Knowledge generally. Through a template, retitling, nothing, or something else? 3660:, the word "racism" is only in the title, not in the article itself, which uses the word "bias". (From what I know of the publishing industry, article titles are often chosen by editors, not by writers, for what it's worth.) For the second, the 1182:

I am missing here statistical data on the (presumed) racial bias in WP: what is the percentage of "racial" articles, who are the contributors by race (Black, Yellow, White, otherwise), why we edit or do not edit, also grouped by race, etc.

2931:(judging from titles) support the piece "their prevalence at the time in academic journals" - which is a weird phrasing, too: prevalence of microaggressions in sci journals? Really? If so, I would like to read about this in Knowledge. 688: 2557:) most likely apply to other language Wikipedias, not just the English one, do our sources say that? Do those articles specifically cover any other language Wikipedias? How many of the sources treat any of the other Wikipedias? In 4150:, I just saw this note, and agree that the article would be improved by including Native American and First Nations perspective. In addition to Keeler, it seems there would also be additional scholarly writings about this matter. 1500:

Not at all sure how people can be certain about racism claims since most editors are anonymous. If some editors are truly being hostile, report them. We want Knowledge to be open and welcoming. That is our aspiration, at least.

2918:"The concerns on the talk page focused on neutrality because biases white people experience were not discussed and the disbelief of the existence of microaggressions, despite their prevalence at the time in academic journals" 3429:

Racism and racial bias are not interchangeable terms, but racism is a subset of racial bias. So to the extent there is racism on Knowledge, that can be included within this article. There is no need for a separate article.

1689:, where all of the content mainly relates to the English Knowledge), and I'm not sure if this is actually avoidable. You may want to request additional comments from other editors to discuss the second tag more thoroughly. 153: 3019:

The article should make more of a point about the way that US-specific POVs, including colonial racist history imposed on articles without much explanation, affect not only English but translated articles. For instanceP:

4232:

If there is substance to the claim that this bias exists, of course it should be included. I'm not knowledgeable about the full extent of perceived or real racial bias on Knowledge, and will leave its analysis to others.

4131:, and I would like to incorporate some of it into this article, which currently seems exclusively focused on Black-white interactions. Where would the best place to insert non-Black-white interactions into this article? 3053:

I have no particular agenda about this article other than that it actually link to the articles about the events, all the relevant events, and that it not omit huge chunks of history to serve a POV. It may be an eampl

1438:

Agree too. Even if it was legitimate to claim inequality of wikipedia articles = discrimination, they haven't even included any data which shows that such under representation has taken place. Horrible article, this is.

2491:

the move of criticism of Knowledge as many, if not all, of the criticisms listed there also apply to other language wikipedias. Perhaps "criticism of English Knowledge" should be split off, but I don't support a move.

2231:. I'll also note that very closely associated articles to these three aim for coverage of other Wikis and even have various sections about events on other wikis; see for example the discussion of Croatian Knowledge at 1889:

to Gender bias on English Knowledge, and so on); nor would I be opposed to doing nothing (except removing the template), since the first sentence of the lead makes it clear that the article is about English Knowledge.

1680:

Hi! This article indeed contains no original research whatsoever, so I removed the relevant tag. As for Dentren's comment on the other one - seems like this is the case for every other article in this category (e.g.,

1840:: how to handle a situation where, despite an article's title, its actual coverage relates only to English Knowledge rather than to Knowledge generally. Through a template, retitling, nothing, or something else? 2897:

They've been blocking and later bullying me for years for fixing anti-black, anti-African articles. There should be a class-action lawsuit against Knowledge. I have many screenshots of the bullying and racism.

3834:

is never used. (I suspect that would be true of most of the world's nations.) Nor, therefore, is BIPOC. This is a global encyclopaedia. Writers should never assume all readers live in the same culture they do.

227: 2356:

I wonder if there's any data about the proportion of editors of French Knowledge from francophone Africa or about how many BLPs it has of African immigrants in France. Is there an RS that discusses this?

2743:

and limiting of scope. Visitors to the English Knowledge would expect these articles are about the English Knowledge unless otherwise informed. If there is ambiguity, handle it in the article text. --

2899: 1517:

Actually, I agree with the IP. Pete, their are various ways of determining that e.g. editor's interest, location, editing habits, etc. Anonymity doesn't mean anything hence why we have an essay on

1289:

You see if I come and say this is also my experience on Wiki then I am the Race pusher, and marginalize. It is all in our head. We all have a chip on our shoulder which White editors brush aside.--

534: 445: 3034:

is inaccurate for omitting a large chunk of history, probably deliberately to reflect a US POV in which slavery is denied as a factor in both the Revolution and Civil War. The version he removed

4330: 2697:

other languages; and in one case a split was suggested." I have also relisted the discussion, if any other admin wants to close the discussion, kindly feel free to do so. Regards, —usernamekiran

1612:"The comments cited in the article relate to English Knowledge", nope the article is about Knowledge not just English Knowledge. The use of US-souces and US-based opinions is disproportionate. 1392:

we describe the policies, content percentages and editor percentages (perhaps laying out the corresponding global population percentages), and let readers make their own minds on what and why

4372: 435: 1521:. There is no point reporting other editors to others who share the same racist and Eurocentric POV. We can delude ourselves all the day by saying Wiki is inclusive etc., but it is not. 2393:

for now, unless a large amount of information pertaining to other language editions of Knowledge (e.g. Danish Knowledge, Egyptian Arabic Knowledge or Scots Knowledge) can be included.

1385:

Finally the "analysis" section does only the part that depends on the problem statement to be correct -- no analysis is made on whether the problem is real, who is affected and how.

4377: 1479:

Here is a proper source, but guess what it fails Wiki Whites criteria. So all of this African opinions are marginalized as the opinions of crazy disgruntled editors . Keep it up.

2206:. Doesn't seem accurate. The gender bias article talks about more than the English Knowledge. And I don't see any reason to assume it would be outside the scope of the other two. 1395:

we try to show what is the problem in "problematic" view of WP for certain groups (my take is that is it does not go along equality of outcome). IOW why people think WP is racist.

147: 757: 4367: 3076:

This is not the right place to raise this issue, since the episode you describe is internal to Knowledge, has not been covered in RS, and so can't be put into the article

936: 4402: 4357: 4176:. For Knowledge purposes, is there a reputable source which quotes Keller's paper and affirms its accuracy and journalistic responsibility to report truthfully? Thanks. 2840:

I had missed this the first time around but saw it today with the requested move at Criticism; I'm glad it was reopened. King of Hearts captures my thinking well. Best,

1800:

seem to be suggesting this article should with its current content either continue with the non-Global template or be renamed to reflect its focus on English Knowledge.

1634:? I checked a couple of other languages. I could find no article in French or Spanish Knowledge about racial bias on Knowledge. Spanish Knowledge does have a subsection 719: 623: 613: 348: 338: 3040:

This appears to be a racist policing of the article. The article does not, but probably should, make mention of the historical controversy about the centrality of the

4334: 2291:

The English Knowledge has been criticized for having a systemic racial bias in its coverage, due to an under-representation of non-white people within its editor base.

1844:

that English-centered nature of such articles may be inevitable due to Knowledge being a language-divided project, where different divisions may be covered unequally.

44: 1876:

besides the English one, something that editors of those Wikipedias are probably better able to determine than we are. Given that we're not likely to be able to make

4387: 4043:- Thank you for pointing me to the WP:TEAHOUSE. I will definately post to the WiR talk page. I am finally understanding talk pages more. There's so much to learn! 3946:

Yes, and this is all happening under a user who is requesting guidance. Perhaps they would be better served elsewhere but that discussion is not even taking place.

524: 4407: 4362: 3196: 2124: 706: 411: 394: 371: 4329:

Just about to donate, but now wont. Excuses for racial biases on wikipedia NOT acceptable in the 21st century. There is always someone, somewhere EXCUSING SHIT.

3656:

I took a look at your two linked examples of the word "racism" used in preference to "racial bias" when discussing the situation on Knowledge. In the first, the

733: 702: 4392: 3537:

Please explain how the sources I linked are examples of laziness, sloppiness, clickbait, and an attempt to push a narrative or agenda. You have not done so.

4427: 3224:– 'Racism' is the most commonly used word to describe racial bias. I do not know of many articles about racism that use 'racial bias' instead of 'racism'. 965: 744: 589: 314: 3037:

had good references including Smithsonian, US archives, Smithsonian, and linked articles with high quality comprehensive references that yours now omits.

4417: 4397: 4352: 975: 875: 865: 79: 1066: 500: 4382: 3871:

hence a clearer and perhaps more global term to use). Regarding the first point of both terms being Americanisms, to give another example, the word

1597:

Neither did the other one (from 3 months ago), claiming "possible OR". The article is heavily sourced, and I don't see where the "possible OR" is.

4432: 4015: 580: 557: 305: 282: 4207: 1311: 85: 4089: 2781: 2432: 2293:" Furthermore, self-criticism as well as racial and gender bias may represent entirely different cultural concepts to users and editors of 841: 491: 468: 407: 3181:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

2108:

Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a

4422: 4412: 3755: 2320: 1556: 1408: 2903: 168: 3624:

Again, where are you getting this information? It contradicts most reputable sources I can find. Including the sources I have linked.

3303:

No, racial bias is not a separate topic from racism. They mean the same thing. You still have not provided proof 'racial bias' is the

3061: 1706:: I didn't read your last three comments, but it appears you understand my logic. For the record, 'The English Knowledge' comes from 135: 3700: 2967: 2828: 1486: 1463: 1290: 695: 4129:"Knowledge’s Indian problem: settler colonial erasure of native American knowledge and history on the world’s largest encyclopedia" 3875:

has a particular ethnic meaning in South Africa, but to use it in relation to populations in other countries wouldn't make sense.

3714:

this article describes the bias in coverage rather than its coverage of racism or acts or racism in general or acts on Knowledge.

1002:

This article has previously been nominated to be moved. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination.

2786: 1275:

Want to create an article about that "White Wiki Clique"? This is a serious question. I would be interested to know who's in it.

1036: 1018: 3737:"Bias" is an objective, demonstrable fact. "Sexism" is an imputed motive for that fact that cannot be objectively demonstrated. 1761:

Since there are three editors involved, and I'm plainly on your side, I've decided to start RfC instead. I hope you don't mind.

2281:

per nomination. A quick perusal of the above three self-reflexive entries reveals them to be virtually entirely concerned with

940: 930: 921: 898: 832: 793: 403: 203: 99: 30: 2974:

I think the whole paragraph needs to be either removed or completely rewritten. The simplest solution would be to delete it.

2668: 1057:

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available

199: 104: 20: 3918:. It does matter, however, that Knowledge articles that aren't nation-specific avoid using (largely) nation-specific terms. 3610:

No, it's unnecessary. Actual racism on Knowledge can be included within this article, as racism is a subset of racial bias.

1206:

responsibly, but the lack of diversity among the editors is not automatically an evidence of animosity by existing editors.

3523:

Laziness, sloppiness, clickbait, to push a narrative or agenda. There are all sorts of potential reasons one can think of.

198:

may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include

3773:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3501:

Why do reliable, English language sources frequently talk about 'Racism on Knowledge' and not 'Racial Bias on Knowledge'?

3154: 2886:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2232: 1581: 1526: 1248: 1149: 129: 74: 3839:

wasn't Wikilinked in the OP's question. I really shouldn't have to look it up for myself. But thank you for explaining.

2531: 2508: 1429: 713: 682: 257: 4165:

of character into a preconceived narrative didn't go well, which should be obvious to anyone who fact-checks the work.

1638:

but no separate article, and the subsection just treats criticism of English Knowledge, using English language sources.

3205: 2075: 1398:

you redefine the problem to actual intersectional oppression of WP editors, trying to push it even farther to the left

65: 3996:

where experienced editors kindly assist newer editors who need help. This talk page is focused on the content of the

2759: 1571:"Where is China?" China is in Asia. Stop comparing yourself to Black people. If you feel there is something missing, 125: 3462:

That is not how 'racism' is used in the media or in academia. I do not know where you are getting this information.

2170: 2024:

the way to do this. We can look to other language editions' coverage of their own Wikipedias as a starting point. —

4113: 2758:. One day, there might appear a single news article discussing racial bias on French Knowledge. Where would it go? 2676: 2458: 3080:. This talk-page is for improving that article, not for other things. You should first try to resolve this at the 3172: 2099: 2049:

as Knowledge is multlingual. Issues that affect Knowledge per se (e.g. reliability) should remain "Knowledge and

1315: 1130:

The systemic racial bias that does exist among Knowledge's editors is clearly pointed at White, Western peoples.

223: 175: 4199: 4093: 4030: 4005: 3997: 3951: 3902: 3821: 3629: 3593: 3542: 3506: 3467: 3412: 3371: 3312: 3279: 3243: 3215: 3150: 3146: 3077: 2776: 2554: 2550: 2427: 2286: 2155: 2144: 1886: 1877: 1686: 1577: 1522: 1244: 1145: 1121: 399: 24: 1560: 4203: 4169: 4073: 3965: 3937: 3923: 3880: 3759: 3742: 3723: 3115:

If wikipedia cared about combating racism, then the first thing to do would be to not ban combating racism.

2698: 2558: 2546: 2316: 2193: 2079: 1518: 1425: 1412: 1105: 109: 4048: 3992:, I am not sure if there is a BIPOC Women in Red but you may be better served asking your question in the 3897:

and this is the talk page for discussion of the article, not your personal thoughts on the acronym BIPOC.

3859: 3788: 3201: 3065: 3028: 3002: 2936: 2642: 2228: 2211: 2166: 2133: 1882: 1849: 1782:: No problem. I just went and canceled my Third Opinion request. I of course have no objection to an RfC. 1766: 1717: 1694: 1682: 1642: 1630:

So it's obvious from the start that the article is about English Knowledge. Should we retitle the article

1094: 3307:. Almost every mention of 'racial bias' uses the word racism instead. Including in the sources I linked. 2989:

encourage to draw their own conclusions, and that is right. However this contradicts Knowledge's idea of

1635: 1357:

smaller than the percentage of black people in some unspecified society (wiki users? world as a whole?).

398:, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Knowledge. Please participate by editing 4109: 3694: 3182: 2822: 2478: 2452: 2109: 2014: 1864:

I don't doubt that there's racial bias in the Russian, French, etc. Wikipedias, since RS amply document

1506: 1490: 1467: 1444: 1331: 1294: 1211: 263: 4247:

This is an important topic, but please remember that indigenous or native doesn't just mean American.

572: 551: 141: 4238: 4223: 4181: 4155: 4128: 3686: 3615: 3575: 3528: 3435: 3356: 3304: 3271: 3225: 3106: 3057: 2979: 2596: 2566: 2362: 2345: 2244: 2181: 1994: 1933: 1895: 1787: 1745: 1657: 1602: 1552: 1482: 1404: 1307: 1263: 1135: 1131: 4088:

which by policy should maintain a neutral point of view, and certainly not racially motivated ones.

245: 216: 4307: 4275: 4136: 4040: 4026: 4001: 3947: 3911: 3898: 3817: 3669: 3651: 3625: 3589: 3585: 3538: 3502: 3463: 3408: 3404: 3367: 3308: 3275: 3239: 3185:

after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

3120: 2962:

to make a point about the difference between the way those two concepts are discussed by academics.

2845: 2771: 2770:

reliable sources. But it is absolutely appropriate to include the content in a general article. --

2747: 2415: 2302: 2112:

after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1117: 1098: 1032: 161: 55: 840:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

588:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

499:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

313:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

4294:

support and the way she protected those articles. I will always applaud her work in this area. --

4069: 4022: 3993: 3961: 3933: 3919: 3876: 3738: 3716: 3492: 3326: 3294: 3261: 3139: 2805: 2711: 2658: 2310: 1668: 1101: 1074: 70: 3274:? Please expand. Evidence seems to suggest 'racism' is used much more often than 'racial bias'. 4021:

That is a good place to ask as well but I am sure that editors would be willing to help at the

4044: 3987: 3855: 3784: 3563: 2998: 2994: 2959: 2948: 2932: 2858: 2740: 2621: 2583: 2398: 2383: 2306: 2298: 2282: 2267: 2224: 2207: 2129: 1974: 1957: 1912: 1853: 1845: 1807: 1777: 1762: 1735: 1713: 1690: 1619: 808: 787: 195: 51: 4252: 4215: 3844: 3803: 3690: 3451: 3394: 3149:. There too, I recommend ensuring your efforts are not duplicated existing content. Thanks, 2866: 2818: 2526: 2503: 2474: 2294: 2030: 2010: 1869: 1865: 1652:

My point in removing the 5-year-old template was that it wasn't serving any useful purpose.

1502: 1440: 1327: 1280: 1222: 1207: 1163: 310: 3932:...though this article doesn't seem to use at least one of the terms in contention anyway. 4234: 4219: 4191: 4177: 4151: 3894: 3611: 3571: 3524: 3431: 3352: 3102: 2975: 2955: 2924: 2726: 2689: 2616:. These articles should be scoped and titled to cover all language versions of Knowledge. 2592: 2562: 2358: 2341: 2236: 2177: 2071: 1990: 1929: 1891: 1837: 1797: 1783: 1756: 1741: 1675: 1653: 1598: 1230: 1195: 1378:

why it is bad to have the certain groups of people underrepresented in wikipedia articles

3566:. "Racism" and "racial bias" are not interchangeable terms. According to our article on 1626:

Concerning the template, what's the solution? The first sentence of the article starts:

4295: 4263: 4211: 4147: 4132: 3680: 3665: 3116: 2841: 2744: 1572: 824: 726: 669: 496: 4025:

and it's good to let newer editors know they can ask questions there if they need to.

3097:

Please also be aware that accusing another editor of racism is a serious violation of

2927:: only the first footnote may be related to the whole phrase, while the remaning ones 4346: 3488: 3322: 3290: 3257: 3098: 3089: 2990: 2862: 2801: 2763: 2648: 1989:

I added a little about Latinos and about geographical bias against the Global South.

1158:

But certainly not ALL white, western peoples, not even those from the United States.

1070: 4338: 4314: 4282: 4256: 4242: 4227: 4185: 4159: 4140: 4117: 4097: 4077: 4052: 4034: 4009: 3969: 3955: 3941: 3927: 3906: 3884: 3863: 3848: 3825: 3807: 3792: 3763: 3746: 3729: 3704: 3673: 3633: 3619: 3597: 3579: 3546: 3532: 3510: 3496: 3471: 3455: 3439: 3416: 3398: 3375: 3360: 3330: 3316: 3298: 3283: 3265: 3247: 3209: 3158: 3124: 3110: 3069: 3006: 2983: 2940: 2907: 2873: 2849: 2832: 2809: 2791: 2750: 2731: 2701: 2682: 2625: 2600: 2585: 2570: 2537: 2514: 2482: 2465: 2438: 2402: 2385: 2366: 2349: 2324: 2269: 2250: 2215: 2196: 2137: 2084: 2037: 2018: 1998: 1976: 1961: 1937: 1914: 1899: 1809: 1791: 1770: 1749: 1721: 1698: 1661: 1621: 1606: 1585: 1564: 1530: 1510: 1494: 1471: 1448: 1433: 1416: 1335: 1319: 1298: 1284: 1234: 1215: 1199: 1167: 1153: 1139: 1125: 1109: 1078: 3270:

I don't see why 'racism' would not apply to that as well. How is 'racial bias' the

3085: 3045: 2617: 2577: 2394: 2377: 2261: 1968: 1953: 1906: 1801: 1728: 1613: 1187: 585: 3657: 3588:

article? If it is a different topic entirely then it should have its own article.

3231: 189: 3092:

if you feel that the main issue is a disagreement over what sources are reliable.

4248: 4166: 3915: 3840: 3799: 3447: 3390: 3081: 3041: 3024: 2521: 2498: 2025: 1276: 1159: 1053: 913: 892: 2715:

disambiguator. We're not going to write separate articles for each language. –

1424:

agree. this article is cited in deletion discussions for no reason very often.

3661: 3236: 2716: 2058: 1226: 1191: 818: 814: 3754:

The new title is more conscience, but the opposers listed problems with it.

1090: 926: 837: 297: 276: 3872: 3366:

can tell, Knowledge is leading the charge in describing racism this way.

3446:

No, Racism is NOT a subset of racial bias. They are independent things.

1872:, etc. But the question is whether there's RS that document racial bias 748: 3889:

I don't see the relevancy of both comments in relation to asking what

2227:, these articles do attempt to cover other language Wikis, especially 1645:

similarly treats only English Knowledge. Should that also be retitled

751:

to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}}

483: 462: 3567: 3816:

for whatever reason, it means Black and Indigenous People of Color.

2176:– These articles treat English Knowledge, not Knowledge in general. 2009:

Support. Changing titles to specify English Knowledge makes sense.

4202:

could be improved by including an Indigenous perspective, meaning

3890: 3813: 2997:(which is actually not the case), then just write from scratch, 1828:

RfC on Knowledge vs. English Knowledge in the article's content

1367:

why other (non-black) groups of people are not represented here

386: 365: 3830:

Sorry. I live in a country where, believe it or not, the term

2519:

These really should be discussed individually not as a group.

991: 239: 211: 184: 15: 3487:, I think the proposed title is a bit too harsh and narrow.-- 3237:

Addressing Racism and Sexism in Knowledge: A Panel Discussion

1381:

why the problem is one-sided, no opposing views are presented

1370:

how exactly (if at all) is the "underrepresentation" measured

925:, a collaborative effort to improve Knowledge's encyclopedic 3812:

Assuming you're asking that in good faith and can't access

2766:

because there isn't significant coverage of the subject in

1360:

Then, the problem statement leaves out exact definitions:

4194:, let's forget about Keeler for the moment. Do you think 3914:

My apologies, I only commented to express agreement with

2857:

This type of move, I believe, would be inconsistent with

3389:

post above. These two terms do not mean the same thing.

3232:

Meet the Editors Fighting Racism and Sexism on Knowledge

1401:

nothing changes, we are left with this misleading stub

3407:

since apparently this article does not encompass that?

3220: 3049: 3035: 3032: 2591:

cover those issues itself indicates a problem of bias.

2160: 2149: 1708: 1014: 658: 653: 648: 643: 160: 4127:

Kyle Keeler just published a great scholary article,

4068:

any part of this article be editorialising? Regards,

1048:

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

929:. If you would like to participate, please visit the 4014:

Actually the best place to ask this would be on the

836:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 758:

Category:Internet culture articles needing attention

584:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 495:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 309:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 3403:Do you think there should be a separate article on 1952:

would work. What is the main argument against it?--

1144:I concur, and most of them from the United States. 4218:? If so, would you be interested in helping out? 720:Category:Internet culture articles needing images 4373:Mid-importance Countering systemic bias articles 3385:: Spekkios has explained this well in the first 1628:The English Knowledge has been criticized for... 1022: 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1834:Talk:Racial_bias_on_Wikipedia#Removed_templates 1190:third-party articles that have studied these? 420:Knowledge:WikiProject Countering systemic bias 4378:WikiProject Countering systemic bias articles 2260:focusing on the issues of English Knowledge. 1796:It would be good to have a thrid opinion. As 423:Template:WikiProject Countering systemic bias 174: 8: 3783:BIPOC to see themselves represented online. 2340:of those encyclopedias that discusses this? 1549:not everything is black or white WIKIPEDIA 689:View all requested internet culture articles 1364:what proportion is the defining factor here 745:Category:Internet self-classification codes 3171:The following is a closed discussion of a 3055: 2098:The following is a closed discussion of a 1550: 1480: 1402: 1305: 1262: 1259: 1252: 1221:I agree with this common-sense argument, 887: 782: 677:Here are some tasks awaiting attention: 631: 546: 457: 360: 271: 222:This article was previously nominated for 4368:B-Class Countering systemic bias articles 3321:I disagree for reasons I stated above. -- 2223:: It's a very interesting point, but per 1067:Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment 4403:Mid-importance Internet culture articles 4358:Low-importance African diaspora articles 395:the Countering systemic bias WikiProject 2900:2603:7000:9F00:D200:C11B:7A17:F2BE:EBFB 1636:Critica a Knowledge#Prejuicios raciales 1065:Above undated message substituted from 943:, even on topics relating to Knowledge. 889: 784: 548: 459: 362: 273: 243: 4388:Low-importance Discrimination articles 4331:2A02:C7C:7A89:3E00:9CF0:94B1:F51A:A6A5 4016:talk page for the Women in Red project 1885:to Criticism of English Knowledge, of 1833: 1627: 1388:I can see it going forward four ways: 1266:comment added 20:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC) 1085:Metapedia & British National Party 598:Knowledge:WikiProject Internet culture 323:Knowledge:WikiProject African diaspora 4408:WikiProject Internet culture articles 4363:WikiProject African diaspora articles 4063:Judgement made in first few sentences 1948:Changing the title of the article to 601:Template:WikiProject Internet culture 326:Template:WikiProject African diaspora 7: 3190:The result of the move request was: 2865:arising with such specific wording. 2117:The result of the move request was: 919:This article is within the scope of 830:This article is within the scope of 578:This article is within the scope of 509:Knowledge:WikiProject Discrimination 489:This article is within the scope of 303:This article is within the scope of 4393:WikiProject Discrimination articles 1225:. Still, do we have hard RS data ? 635:WikiProject Internet culture To-do: 512:Template:WikiProject Discrimination 262:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 4428:High-importance Knowledge articles 402:, and help us improve articles to 14: 4418:Low-importance sociology articles 4398:B-Class Internet culture articles 4353:B-Class African diaspora articles 3584:Do you support the creation of a 2968:Origins of the American Civil War 2882:The discussion above is closed. 426:Countering systemic bias articles 3769:The discussion above is closed. 2688: 2285:. In fact, the lead sentence of 2161:Gender bias on English Knowledge 2150:Racial bias on English Knowledge 1950:Racial bias on English Knowledge 1632:Racial bias on English Knowledge 1052: 1019:Racial bias on English Knowledge 995: 912: 891: 817: 807: 786: 668: 571: 550: 482: 461: 385: 364: 296: 275: 244: 215: 188: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 4383:B-Class Discrimination articles 3164:Requested move 21 February 2022 2760:Racial bias on French Knowledge 1374:Then, it is not stated at all: 970:This article has been rated as 950:Knowledge:WikiProject Knowledge 870:This article has been rated as 850:Knowledge:WikiProject Sociology 618:This article has been rated as 529:This article has been rated as 440:This article has been rated as 343:This article has been rated as 4433:WikiProject Knowledge articles 4339:17:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC) 4170:covered this well in a recent 3197:closed by non-admin page mover 3084:talk-page, if necessary using 2171:Criticism of English Knowledge 2125:closed by non-admin page mover 1647:Criticism of English Knowledge 1495:12:42, 24 September 2018 (UTC) 1472:08:16, 24 September 2018 (UTC) 1299:08:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC) 953:Template:WikiProject Knowledge 853:Template:WikiProject Sociology 1: 4118:12:42, 13 December 2023 (UTC) 4018:. 17:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3778:BIPOC version of Women in Red 3764:14:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC) 3747:18:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3730:11:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3705:16:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3674:03:01, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3634:02:36, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3620:02:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3598:01:19, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3580:01:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3547:01:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3533:01:17, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3511:01:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3497:01:08, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3472:01:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3456:01:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3440:01:15, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3417:01:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3399:00:53, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3376:00:54, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3361:00:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3331:00:32, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3317:00:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3299:00:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3284:00:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3266:00:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC) 3248:23:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC) 3210:23:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC) 2861:. I also can see a potential 2545:- Although the criticisms in 2233:Ideological bias on Knowledge 1531:21:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC) 1511:19:14, 12 February 2019 (UTC) 1235:17:54, 5 September 2017 (UTC) 1216:17:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC) 844:and see a list of open tasks. 592:and see a list of open tasks. 503:and see a list of open tasks. 392:This article is supported by 317:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 3125:06:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC) 3101:, and should never be done. 2893:Still happening on Knowledge 2446:, except that it should be " 2410:, except that it should be " 1586:03:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC) 1140:23:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC) 1079:02:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC) 581:WikiProject Internet culture 306:WikiProject African diaspora 4083:Racism throughout this page 3015:racist policing of articles 2289:starts with the sentence, " 2184:) 20:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 2091:Requested move 12 June 2020 2043:Support explicitly titling 1641:Note also that the article 1565:04:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC) 1200:10:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC) 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 4449: 4423:B-Class Knowledge articles 4413:B-Class sociology articles 4078:05:11, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 4035:18:32, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 4010:05:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3970:05:43, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3956:05:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3942:05:38, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3928:05:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3907:05:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3893:means. Knowledge is not a 3885:05:18, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3849:01:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3826:01:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3808:01:19, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3793:00:13, 27 March 2022 (UTC) 3007:04:14, 28 April 2021 (UTC) 2984:01:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC) 2941:21:16, 27 April 2021 (UTC) 2908:21:27, 21 March 2021 (UTC) 1457:RS Why article is so light 976:project's importance scale 876:project's importance scale 624:project's importance scale 492:WikiProject Discrimination 349:project's importance scale 196:All Knowledge contributors 4315:13:43, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 4283:12:50, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 4257:00:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC) 4243:23:35, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 4228:23:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 4186:23:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 4160:22:13, 29 July 2024 (UTC) 4098:10:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC) 3159:03:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC) 3111:14:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC) 3070:13:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC) 2874:16:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC) 2859:disambiguation guidelines 2850:00:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC) 2833:00:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC) 2810:21:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC) 2792:21:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC) 2751:19:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC) 2732:19:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC) 2702:18:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC) 2683:07:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC) 2626:14:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC) 2601:11:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC) 2586:10:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC) 2571:00:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC) 2538:23:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC) 2515:23:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC) 2483:16:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC) 2466:11:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC) 2439:02:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC) 2403:13:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC) 2386:12:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC) 2367:11:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC) 2350:11:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC) 2325:07:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC) 2270:09:52, 13 June 2020 (UTC) 2251:22:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 2216:21:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 2197:18:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC) 2138:22:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC) 2019:08:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC) 1999:18:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 1977:15:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 1962:12:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 1938:11:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 1915:08:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 1900:21:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 1854:16:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 1810:08:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC) 1792:16:49, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 1771:16:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 1750:16:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 1722:15:10, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 1699:14:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 1662:14:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 1622:13:16, 11 June 2020 (UTC) 1417:09:23, 6 March 2019 (UTC) 969: 907: 869: 802: 630: 617: 604:Internet culture articles 566: 528: 477: 439: 380: 342: 329:African diaspora articles 291: 270: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 4200:Racial bias on Knowledge 4141:14:33, 26 May 2024 (UTC) 4108:people on the platform. 4053:20:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC) 3998:racial bias on Knowledge 3864:20:37, 18 May 2022 (UTC) 3771:Please do not modify it. 3216:Racial bias on Knowledge 3178:Please do not modify it. 3147:Gender bias on Knowledge 3078:Racial bias on Knowledge 2884:Please do not modify it. 2555:Gender bias on Knowledge 2551:Racial bias on Knowledge 2287:Racial bias on Knowledge 2156:Gender bias on Knowledge 2145:Racial bias on Knowledge 2105:Please do not modify it. 2085:00:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC) 2038:00:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC) 1887:Gender bias on Knowledge 1878:Racial bias on Knowledge 1687:Gender bias on Knowledge 1607:22:08, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1449:14:16, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1434:01:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC) 1336:16:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC) 1320:12:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC) 1285:01:00, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 1168:00:58, 27 May 2018 (UTC) 1154:21:04, 26 May 2018 (UTC) 1126:07:23, 20 May 2015 (UTC) 1110:22:52, 19 May 2015 (UTC) 1015:Racial bias on Knowledge 417:Countering systemic bias 410:standards, or visit the 372:Countering systemic bias 25:Racial bias on Knowledge 2559:Criticisms of Knowledge 2547:Criticisms of Knowledge 1827: 1519:Knowledge:Systemic bias 1352:Purpose of this article 1031:, 21 February 2022, to 515:Discrimination articles 3662:panel discussion video 3029:User:materialscientist 2643:Criticism of Knowledge 2229:Criticism of Knowledge 2167:Criticism of Knowledge 1883:Criticism of Knowledge 1683:Criticism of Knowledge 1643:Criticism of Knowledge 1095:British National Party 732:All stubs are located 252:This article is rated 75:avoid personal attacks 3088:and possibly also at 2958:and the talk-page on 2641:, same reason as why 2414:English Knowledge". – 1013:, 12 June 2020, from 941:neutral point of view 937:avoid self-references 922:WikiProject Knowledge 833:WikiProject Sociology 701:Pick an article from 204:neutral point of view 100:Neutral point of view 4325:Funding of wikipedia 2057:of Knowledge"/etc. ― 200:conflict of interest 105:No original research 4123:Native perspectives 3586:Racism on Knowledge 3405:Racism on Knowledge 3221:Racism on Knowledge 3151:Firefangledfeathers 3044:in US history, e g 2913:Suspicious sentence 2450:English Knowledge" 2303:Malayalam Knowledge 1874:in other Wikipedias 1671:× previous comment) 1578:Senegambianamestudy 1523:Senegambianamestudy 1245:Senegambianamestudy 1146:Senegambianamestudy 1033:Racism on Knowledge 935:Please remember to 3086:dispute resolution 1426:Clone commando sev 1089:Some ties between 1059:on the course page 956:Knowledge articles 927:coverage of itself 856:sociology articles 258:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3202:TheBirdsShedTears 3200: 3072: 3060:comment added by 2960:Stereotype threat 2645:should be split. 2323: 2307:Swahili Knowledge 2299:Chinese Knowledge 2283:English Knowledge 2199: 2128: 1672: 1592:Removed templates 1567: 1555:comment added by 1497: 1485:comment added by 1419: 1407:comment added by 1322: 1310:comment added by 1267: 1260: 1254: 1045: 1044: 990: 989: 986: 985: 982: 981: 886: 885: 882: 881: 781: 780: 777: 776: 773: 772: 769: 768: 747:(!?); Try to get 545: 544: 541: 540: 456: 455: 452: 451: 414:for more details. 359: 358: 355: 354: 238: 237: 210: 209: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 4440: 4312: 4305: 4300: 4280: 4273: 4268: 4216:Native Hawaiians 4110:SouthParkFan2006 3991: 3832:people of colour 3726: 3719: 3684: 3655: 3223: 3194: 3180: 3143: 2952: 2871: 2863:notability issue 2729: 2724: 2710:(with thanks to 2692: 2679: 2671: 2661: 2651: 2536: 2513: 2464: 2454:7&6=thirteen 2435: 2430: 2315: 2295:Arabic Knowledge 2292: 2241: 2185: 2163: 2152: 2122: 2107: 2083: 2066: 2033: 1870:Racism in France 1866:Racism in Russia 1781: 1760: 1739: 1732: 1711: 1679: 1666: 1081: 1056: 999: 998: 992: 958: 957: 954: 951: 948: 916: 909: 908: 903: 895: 888: 858: 857: 854: 851: 848: 827: 822: 821: 811: 804: 803: 798: 790: 783: 683:Article requests 672: 665: 664: 632: 606: 605: 602: 599: 596: 595:Internet culture 586:internet culture 575: 568: 567: 562: 558:Internet culture 554: 547: 535:importance scale 517: 516: 513: 510: 507: 486: 479: 478: 473: 465: 458: 446:importance scale 428: 427: 424: 421: 418: 412:wikiproject page 389: 382: 381: 376: 368: 361: 331: 330: 327: 324: 321: 320:African diaspora 311:African diaspora 300: 293: 292: 287: 283:African diaspora 279: 272: 255: 249: 248: 240: 226:. The result of 219: 212: 192: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 4448: 4447: 4443: 4442: 4441: 4439: 4438: 4437: 4343: 4342: 4327: 4308: 4301: 4296: 4276: 4269: 4264: 4212:Native Alaskans 4208:Native American 4125: 4105: 4085: 4065: 3985: 3798:What is BIPOC? 3780: 3775: 3774: 3724: 3717: 3678: 3649: 3228:applies here. 3219: 3176: 3166: 3137: 3135: 3023:The version of 3017: 2995:primary sources 2956:Microaggression 2946: 2915: 2895: 2890: 2867: 2727: 2717: 2677: 2669: 2659: 2649: 2520: 2497: 2496:on the others. 2487:I specifically 2451: 2433: 2428: 2290: 2237: 2192:—usernamekiran 2159: 2148: 2103: 2093: 2069: 2060: 2031: 1861: 1836:. On behalf of 1830: 1775: 1754: 1733: 1726: 1707: 1673: 1594: 1547: 1459: 1354: 1312:145.131.149.178 1180: 1087: 1064: 1050: 996: 972:High-importance 955: 952: 949: 946: 945: 939:and maintain a 902:High‑importance 901: 855: 852: 849: 846: 845: 823: 816: 796: 765: 663: 603: 600: 597: 594: 593: 560: 514: 511: 508: 505: 504: 471: 425: 422: 419: 416: 415: 374: 328: 325: 322: 319: 318: 285: 256:on Knowledge's 253: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 4446: 4444: 4436: 4435: 4430: 4425: 4420: 4415: 4410: 4405: 4400: 4395: 4390: 4385: 4380: 4375: 4370: 4365: 4360: 4355: 4345: 4344: 4326: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4291: 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4286: 4285: 4124: 4121: 4104: 4101: 4090:175.36.199.109 4084: 4081: 4064: 4061: 4060: 4059: 4058: 4057: 4056: 4055: 4041:Desertambition 4037: 4027:Desertambition 4002:Desertambition 3982: 3981: 3980: 3979: 3978: 3977: 3976: 3975: 3974: 3973: 3972: 3948:Desertambition 3930: 3912:Desertambition 3909: 3899:Desertambition 3868: 3867: 3866: 3818:Desertambition 3779: 3776: 3768: 3767: 3766: 3749: 3732: 3709: 3708: 3707: 3652:Desertambition 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3626:Desertambition 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3590:Desertambition 3556: 3555: 3554: 3553: 3552: 3551: 3550: 3549: 3539:Desertambition 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3503:Desertambition 3481: 3480: 3479: 3478: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3474: 3464:Desertambition 3460: 3459: 3458: 3422: 3421: 3420: 3419: 3409:Desertambition 3380: 3379: 3378: 3368:Desertambition 3341: 3340: 3339: 3338: 3337: 3336: 3335: 3334: 3333: 3309:Desertambition 3276:Desertambition 3240:Desertambition 3213: 3188: 3187: 3173:requested move 3167: 3165: 3162: 3134: 3131: 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3094: 3093: 3016: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 2972: 2963: 2920: 2919: 2914: 2911: 2894: 2891: 2889: 2888: 2878: 2877: 2876: 2852: 2835: 2812: 2794: 2753: 2734: 2686: 2685: 2631:Strong support 2628: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2485: 2468: 2441: 2405: 2388: 2370: 2369: 2353: 2352: 2327: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2272: 2254: 2253: 2218: 2174: 2173: 2164: 2153: 2141: 2115: 2114: 2100:requested move 2094: 2092: 2089: 2088: 2087: 2040: 2021: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1982: 1981: 1980: 1979: 1945: 1944: 1943: 1942: 1941: 1940: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1860: 1857: 1829: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1701: 1650: 1639: 1593: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1546: 1543: 1542: 1541: 1540: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1458: 1455: 1454: 1453: 1452: 1451: 1421: 1420: 1399: 1396: 1393: 1383: 1382: 1379: 1372: 1371: 1368: 1365: 1353: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1347: 1346: 1345: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1258: 1257: 1256: 1255: 1219: 1218: 1186:Are there any 1179: 1176: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1156: 1118:Cordless Larry 1097:and Knowledge 1086: 1083: 1049: 1046: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1040: 1026: 1000: 988: 987: 984: 983: 980: 979: 968: 962: 961: 959: 917: 905: 904: 896: 884: 883: 880: 879: 872:Low-importance 868: 862: 861: 859: 842:the discussion 829: 828: 825:Society portal 812: 800: 799: 797:Low‑importance 791: 779: 778: 775: 774: 771: 770: 767: 766: 764: 763: 762: 761: 752: 736: 722: 709: 691: 676: 674: 673: 662: 661: 656: 651: 646: 640: 637: 636: 628: 627: 620:Mid-importance 616: 610: 609: 607: 590:the discussion 576: 564: 563: 561:Mid‑importance 555: 543: 542: 539: 538: 531:Low-importance 527: 521: 520: 518: 506:Discrimination 501:the discussion 497:Discrimination 487: 475: 474: 472:Low‑importance 469:Discrimination 466: 454: 453: 450: 449: 442:Mid-importance 438: 432: 431: 429: 390: 378: 377: 375:Mid‑importance 369: 357: 356: 353: 352: 345:Low-importance 341: 335: 334: 332: 315:the discussion 301: 289: 288: 286:Low‑importance 280: 268: 267: 261: 250: 236: 235: 228:the discussion 220: 208: 207: 193: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4445: 4434: 4431: 4429: 4426: 4424: 4421: 4419: 4416: 4414: 4411: 4409: 4406: 4404: 4401: 4399: 4396: 4394: 4391: 4389: 4386: 4384: 4381: 4379: 4376: 4374: 4371: 4369: 4366: 4364: 4361: 4359: 4356: 4354: 4351: 4350: 4348: 4341: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4324: 4316: 4313: 4311: 4306: 4304: 4299: 4292: 4284: 4281: 4279: 4274: 4272: 4267: 4260: 4259: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4246: 4245: 4244: 4240: 4236: 4231: 4230: 4229: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4213: 4209: 4205: 4204:First Nations 4201: 4197: 4193: 4189: 4188: 4187: 4183: 4179: 4175: 4173: 4168: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4157: 4153: 4149: 4145: 4144: 4143: 4142: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4122: 4120: 4119: 4115: 4111: 4102: 4100: 4099: 4095: 4091: 4082: 4080: 4079: 4075: 4071: 4070:thorpewilliam 4062: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4042: 4038: 4036: 4032: 4028: 4024: 4020: 4019: 4017: 4013: 4012: 4011: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3989: 3983: 3971: 3967: 3963: 3962:thorpewilliam 3960:Point taken. 3959: 3958: 3957: 3953: 3949: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3934:thorpewilliam 3931: 3929: 3925: 3921: 3920:thorpewilliam 3917: 3913: 3910: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3887: 3886: 3882: 3878: 3877:thorpewilliam 3874: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3852: 3851: 3850: 3846: 3842: 3838: 3833: 3829: 3828: 3827: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3811: 3810: 3809: 3805: 3801: 3797: 3796: 3795: 3794: 3790: 3786: 3777: 3772: 3765: 3761: 3757: 3756:209.201.121.4 3753: 3750: 3748: 3744: 3740: 3739:Laurel Lodged 3736: 3733: 3731: 3727: 3721: 3720: 3718:Crouch, Swale 3713: 3710: 3706: 3702: 3699: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3687:WP:RSHEADLINE 3682: 3677: 3676: 3675: 3671: 3667: 3663: 3659: 3658:WIRED article 3653: 3648: 3645: 3644: 3635: 3631: 3627: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3617: 3613: 3609: 3608: 3607: 3606: 3605: 3604: 3599: 3595: 3591: 3587: 3583: 3582: 3581: 3577: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3561: 3558: 3557: 3548: 3544: 3540: 3536: 3535: 3534: 3530: 3526: 3522: 3521: 3520: 3519: 3518: 3517: 3512: 3508: 3504: 3500: 3499: 3498: 3494: 3490: 3486: 3483: 3482: 3473: 3469: 3465: 3461: 3457: 3453: 3449: 3445: 3444: 3443: 3442: 3441: 3437: 3433: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3424: 3423: 3418: 3414: 3410: 3406: 3402: 3401: 3400: 3396: 3392: 3388: 3384: 3381: 3377: 3373: 3369: 3364: 3363: 3362: 3358: 3354: 3349: 3345: 3342: 3332: 3328: 3324: 3320: 3319: 3318: 3314: 3310: 3306: 3305:WP:COMMONNAME 3302: 3301: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3281: 3277: 3273: 3272:WP:COMMONNAME 3269: 3268: 3267: 3263: 3259: 3255: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3238: 3234: 3233: 3229: 3227: 3226:WP:COMMONNAME 3222: 3217: 3212: 3211: 3207: 3203: 3198: 3193: 3186: 3184: 3179: 3174: 3169: 3168: 3163: 3161: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3148: 3141: 3140:BlackAmerican 3133:Basis section 3132: 3126: 3122: 3118: 3114: 3113: 3112: 3108: 3104: 3100: 3096: 3095: 3091: 3087: 3083: 3079: 3075: 3074: 3073: 3071: 3067: 3063: 3059: 3051: 3050: 3047: 3043: 3038: 3036: 3033: 3030: 3026: 3021: 3014: 3008: 3004: 3000: 2996: 2992: 2987: 2986: 2985: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2969: 2964: 2961: 2957: 2950: 2945: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2938: 2934: 2930: 2926: 2917: 2916: 2912: 2910: 2909: 2905: 2901: 2892: 2887: 2885: 2880: 2879: 2875: 2872: 2870: 2869:Donna Spencer 2864: 2860: 2856: 2853: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2839: 2836: 2834: 2830: 2827: 2824: 2820: 2816: 2813: 2811: 2807: 2803: 2798: 2795: 2793: 2790: 2789: 2785: 2784: 2780: 2779: 2775: 2774: 2769: 2765: 2761: 2757: 2754: 2752: 2749: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2735: 2733: 2730: 2725: 2723: 2722: 2713: 2712:usernamekiran 2709: 2706: 2705: 2704: 2703: 2700: 2695: 2691: 2684: 2681: 2680: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2664: 2663: 2662: 2654: 2653: 2652: 2644: 2640: 2636: 2633:(first two), 2632: 2629: 2627: 2623: 2619: 2615: 2612: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2589: 2588: 2587: 2584: 2581: 2580: 2574: 2573: 2572: 2568: 2564: 2560: 2556: 2552: 2549:(and also in 2548: 2544: 2541: 2540: 2539: 2535: 2534: 2530: 2529: 2525: 2524: 2518: 2517: 2516: 2512: 2511: 2507: 2506: 2502: 2501: 2495: 2490: 2486: 2484: 2480: 2476: 2472: 2469: 2467: 2462: 2461: 2456: 2455: 2449: 2445: 2442: 2440: 2436: 2431: 2425: 2424: 2421: 2418: 2413: 2409: 2406: 2404: 2400: 2396: 2392: 2389: 2387: 2384: 2381: 2380: 2375: 2372: 2371: 2368: 2364: 2360: 2355: 2354: 2351: 2347: 2343: 2339: 2335: 2331: 2328: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2313: 2312:Roman Spinner 2308: 2304: 2300: 2296: 2288: 2284: 2280: 2277: 2276: 2271: 2268: 2265: 2264: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2252: 2248: 2247: 2242: 2240: 2234: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2219: 2217: 2213: 2209: 2205: 2202: 2201: 2200: 2198: 2195: 2191: 2190: 2183: 2179: 2172: 2168: 2165: 2162: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2146: 2143: 2142: 2140: 2139: 2135: 2131: 2126: 2120: 2113: 2111: 2106: 2101: 2096: 2095: 2090: 2086: 2081: 2077: 2073: 2068: 2064: 2056: 2052: 2048: 2046: 2041: 2039: 2035: 2034: 2027: 2022: 2020: 2016: 2012: 2008: 2007: 2000: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1985: 1984: 1983: 1978: 1975: 1972: 1971: 1965: 1964: 1963: 1959: 1955: 1951: 1947: 1946: 1939: 1935: 1931: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1916: 1913: 1910: 1909: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1888: 1884: 1879: 1875: 1871: 1867: 1863: 1862: 1858: 1856: 1855: 1851: 1847: 1843: 1839: 1835: 1811: 1808: 1805: 1804: 1799: 1795: 1794: 1793: 1789: 1785: 1779: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1764: 1758: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1747: 1743: 1737: 1730: 1725: 1724: 1723: 1719: 1715: 1710: 1705: 1702: 1700: 1696: 1692: 1688: 1684: 1677: 1670: 1669:edit conflict 1665: 1664: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1648: 1644: 1640: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1625: 1624: 1623: 1620: 1617: 1616: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1604: 1600: 1591: 1587: 1583: 1579: 1574: 1570: 1569: 1568: 1566: 1562: 1558: 1557:71.223.238.22 1554: 1544: 1532: 1528: 1524: 1520: 1516: 1515: 1514: 1513: 1512: 1508: 1504: 1499: 1498: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1484: 1478: 1477: 1476: 1475: 1474: 1473: 1469: 1465: 1456: 1450: 1446: 1442: 1437: 1436: 1435: 1431: 1427: 1423: 1422: 1418: 1414: 1410: 1409:31.11.143.125 1406: 1400: 1397: 1394: 1391: 1390: 1389: 1386: 1380: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1369: 1366: 1363: 1362: 1361: 1358: 1351: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1324: 1323: 1321: 1317: 1313: 1309: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1282: 1278: 1274: 1273: 1272: 1271: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1265: 1250: 1246: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1232: 1228: 1224: 1217: 1213: 1209: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1201: 1197: 1193: 1189: 1184: 1177: 1169: 1165: 1161: 1157: 1155: 1151: 1147: 1143: 1142: 1141: 1137: 1133: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1123: 1119: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1107: 1103: 1102:Middayexpress 1099: 1096: 1092: 1084: 1082: 1080: 1076: 1072: 1068: 1062: 1060: 1055: 1047: 1038: 1034: 1030: 1027: 1024: 1020: 1016: 1012: 1009: 1008: 1007: 1006: 1005:Discussions: 1001: 994: 993: 977: 973: 967: 964: 963: 960: 944: 942: 938: 932: 928: 924: 923: 918: 915: 911: 910: 906: 900: 897: 894: 890: 877: 873: 867: 864: 863: 860: 843: 839: 835: 834: 826: 820: 815: 813: 810: 806: 805: 801: 795: 792: 789: 785: 760: 759: 754: 753: 750: 746: 743: 741: 737: 735: 731: 729: 728: 723: 721: 718: 716: 715: 710: 708: 704: 700: 698: 697: 692: 690: 687: 685: 684: 679: 678: 675: 671: 667: 666: 660: 657: 655: 652: 650: 647: 645: 642: 641: 639: 638: 634: 633: 629: 625: 621: 615: 612: 611: 608: 591: 587: 583: 582: 577: 574: 570: 569: 565: 559: 556: 553: 549: 536: 532: 526: 523: 522: 519: 502: 498: 494: 493: 488: 485: 481: 480: 476: 470: 467: 464: 460: 447: 443: 437: 434: 433: 430: 413: 409: 405: 401: 397: 396: 391: 388: 384: 383: 379: 373: 370: 367: 363: 350: 346: 340: 337: 336: 333: 316: 312: 308: 307: 302: 299: 295: 294: 290: 284: 281: 278: 274: 269: 265: 259: 251: 247: 242: 241: 233: 229: 225: 221: 218: 214: 213: 205: 201: 197: 194: 191: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 4328: 4309: 4302: 4297: 4277: 4270: 4265: 4210:, including 4195: 4171: 4126: 4106: 4086: 4066: 4045:TheTypingKat 3988:TheTypingKat 3856:TheTypingKat 3836: 3831: 3785:TheTypingKat 3781: 3770: 3751: 3734: 3715: 3711: 3697: 3685:Indeed, per 3646: 3559: 3484: 3386: 3382: 3347: 3343: 3253: 3235: 3230: 3214: 3191: 3189: 3177: 3170: 3136: 3062:99.192.40.68 3056:— Preceding 3052: 3046:1619 project 3039: 3031:restored at 3022: 3018: 2999:Lembit Staan 2949:Lembit Staan 2933:Lembit Staan 2928: 2921: 2896: 2883: 2881: 2868: 2854: 2837: 2825: 2814: 2796: 2787: 2782: 2777: 2772: 2767: 2755: 2736: 2720: 2718: 2707: 2693: 2687: 2675: 2667: 2666: 2657: 2656: 2647: 2646: 2638: 2634: 2630: 2613: 2578: 2542: 2532: 2527: 2522: 2509: 2504: 2499: 2493: 2488: 2470: 2459: 2453: 2447: 2443: 2422: 2419: 2416: 2411: 2407: 2390: 2378: 2373: 2337: 2333: 2329: 2311: 2278: 2262: 2245: 2238: 2225:Nohomersryan 2220: 2208:Nohomersryan 2203: 2188: 2187: 2175: 2130:Mdaniels5757 2118: 2116: 2104: 2097: 2062: 2054: 2050: 2044: 2042: 2029: 1969: 1949: 1907: 1873: 1846:Juliette Han 1841: 1831: 1802: 1778:Juliette Han 1763:Juliette Han 1736:Juliette Han 1714:Juliette Han 1703: 1691:Juliette Han 1646: 1631: 1614: 1595: 1551:— Preceding 1548: 1545:WHERES CHINA 1481:— Preceding 1460: 1403:— Preceding 1387: 1384: 1373: 1359: 1355: 1306:— Preceding 1261: 1220: 1185: 1181: 1178:Partial info 1088: 1063: 1051: 1028: 1010: 1004: 1003: 971: 934: 931:project page 920: 871: 831: 755: 739: 738: 725: 724: 712: 711: 694: 693: 681: 680: 619: 579: 530: 490: 441: 393: 344: 304: 264:WikiProjects 231: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 4198:article on 4023:WP:TEAHOUSE 3994:WP:TEAHOUSE 3691:Mx. Granger 3183:move review 3082:slave codes 3042:slave codes 3025:slave codes 2762:would fail 2475:Cypherquest 2110:move review 2011:Gleeanon409 1503:Pete unseth 1487:169.0.4.160 1464:169.0.4.160 1441:Nate Hooper 1328:Nate Hooper 1291:169.0.4.160 1223:Pete unseth 1208:Pete unseth 400:the article 232:Speedy keep 148:free images 31:not a forum 4347:Categories 4235:Randy Kryn 4220:Netherzone 4192:Randy Kryn 4178:Randy Kryn 4152:Netherzone 3612:Rreagan007 3572:Rreagan007 3564:WP:PRECISE 3525:Rreagan007 3432:Rreagan007 3353:NightHeron 3192:not moved. 3103:NightHeron 2976:NightHeron 2741:WP:NATURAL 2593:NightHeron 2563:NightHeron 2359:NightHeron 2342:NightHeron 2239:Astrophobe 2189:Relisting. 2178:NightHeron 1991:NightHeron 1930:NightHeron 1892:NightHeron 1859:Discussion 1838:NightHeron 1798:NightHeron 1784:NightHeron 1757:NightHeron 1742:NightHeron 1676:NightHeron 1654:NightHeron 1599:NightHeron 1253:—Preceding 1132:EyePhoenix 1037:discussion 1023:discussion 4148:Yuchitown 4133:Yuchitown 4000:article. 3681:Funcrunch 3666:Funcrunch 3117:Josslined 2842:Barkeep49 2773:King of ♥ 2745:Netoholic 2336:entry in 2321:contribs) 2119:not moved 2047:Knowledge 1709:this edit 1091:Metapedia 1029:Not moved 1011:Not moved 947:Knowledge 899:Knowledge 847:Sociology 838:sociology 794:Sociology 756:See also 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 4172:Signpost 3895:WP:FORUM 3873:Coloured 3701:contribs 3489:Ortizesp 3323:Spekkios 3291:Spekkios 3258:Spekkios 3058:unsigned 2971:history. 2929:possibly 2925:WP:SYNTH 2829:contribs 2802:SnowFire 2768:multiple 2694:Comment: 2059:Justin ( 1553:unsigned 1483:unsigned 1405:unsigned 1308:unsigned 1071:PrimeBOT 224:deletion 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 3752:Neutral 3647:Comment 2819:Granger 2739:as not 2618:Andrewa 2579:Dentren 2543:Comment 2494:Neutral 2444:Support 2417:Laundry 2408:Support 2395:Zakawer 2391:Support 2379:Dentren 2374:Support 2330:Comment 2279:Support 2263:Dentren 2045:English 1970:Dentren 1954:ReyHahn 1908:Dentren 1803:Dentren 1729:Dentren 1615:Dentren 1573:be bold 1264:undated 974:on the 874:on the 749:YouTube 649:history 622:on the 533:on the 444:on the 347:on the 254:B-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 4249:HiLo48 4167:Tamzin 3916:HiLo48 3841:HiLo48 3800:HiLo48 3735:Oppose 3712:Oppose 3568:racism 3560:Oppose 3485:Oppose 3448:HiLo48 3391:HiLo48 3387:Oppose 3383:Oppose 3348:Racism 3344:Oppose 3254:Oppose 3099:WP:NPA 3090:WP:RSN 2991:WP:NOR 2855:Oppose 2838:Oppose 2815:Oppose 2797:Oppose 2764:WP:GNG 2756:Oppose 2737:Oppose 2708:Oppose 2699:(talk) 2678:Email! 2614:Oppose 2489:oppose 2471:Oppose 2221:Oppose 2204:Oppose 2194:(talk) 2026:Bilorv 1277:HiLo48 1160:HiLo48 1093:, the 1035:, see 1021:, see 696:Expand 260:scale. 126:Google 4174:essay 4103:Bias? 3891:BIPOC 3837:BIPOC 3814:BIPOC 3027:that 2639:Split 2635:Split 2420:Pizza 2317:(talk 1227:Zezen 1192:Zezen 1188:WP:RS 740:Other 727:Stubs 714:Photo 659:purge 654:watch 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 4335:talk 4310:Wolf 4303:Rose 4278:Wolf 4271:Rose 4253:talk 4239:talk 4224:talk 4214:and 4196:this 4182:talk 4156:talk 4137:talk 4114:talk 4094:talk 4074:talk 4049:talk 4031:talk 4006:talk 3984:Hey 3966:talk 3952:talk 3938:talk 3924:talk 3903:talk 3881:talk 3860:talk 3845:talk 3822:talk 3804:talk 3789:talk 3760:talk 3743:talk 3725:talk 3695:talk 3670:talk 3630:talk 3616:talk 3594:talk 3576:talk 3562:per 3543:talk 3529:talk 3507:talk 3493:talk 3468:talk 3452:talk 3436:talk 3413:talk 3395:talk 3372:talk 3357:talk 3327:talk 3313:talk 3295:talk 3280:talk 3262:talk 3244:talk 3206:talk 3155:talk 3121:talk 3107:talk 3066:talk 3003:talk 2980:talk 2937:talk 2904:talk 2846:talk 2823:talk 2806:talk 2719:brad 2622:talk 2597:talk 2567:talk 2553:and 2528:uidh 2505:uidh 2479:talk 2399:talk 2363:talk 2346:talk 2246:talk 2212:talk 2182:talk 2134:talk 2032:talk 2015:talk 1995:talk 1958:talk 1934:talk 1896:talk 1850:talk 1842:Note 1832:See 1788:talk 1767:talk 1746:talk 1718:talk 1695:talk 1658:talk 1603:talk 1582:talk 1561:talk 1527:talk 1507:talk 1491:talk 1468:talk 1445:talk 1430:talk 1413:talk 1332:talk 1316:talk 1295:talk 1281:talk 1249:talk 1231:talk 1212:talk 1196:talk 1164:talk 1150:talk 1136:talk 1122:talk 1106:talk 1075:talk 966:High 734:here 707:here 703:here 644:edit 406:and 404:good 230:was 202:and 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3728:) 2670:thx 2650:SMB 2448:the 2412:the 2338:any 2334:any 2309:. — 2305:or 2055:Foo 2053:"/" 2051:foo 1704:UPD 1685:or 1251:) 1069:by 1017:to 866:Low 705:or 614:Mid 525:Low 436:Mid 408:1.0 339:Low 176:TWL 4349:: 4337:) 4255:) 4241:) 4226:) 4206:, 4184:) 4158:) 4139:) 4116:) 4096:) 4076:) 4051:) 4033:) 4008:) 3968:) 3954:) 3940:) 3926:) 3905:) 3883:) 3862:) 3847:) 3824:) 3806:) 3791:) 3762:) 3745:) 3703:) 3672:) 3632:) 3618:) 3596:) 3578:) 3545:) 3531:) 3509:) 3495:) 3470:) 3454:) 3438:) 3415:) 3397:) 3374:) 3359:) 3346:: 3329:) 3315:) 3297:) 3289:-- 3282:) 3264:) 3246:) 3218:→ 3208:) 3175:. 3157:) 3123:) 3109:) 3068:) 3005:) 2982:) 2939:) 2906:) 2848:) 2831:) 2808:) 2728:🍁 2660:99 2624:) 2599:) 2582:| 2569:) 2481:) 2437:) 2434:c̄ 2423:03 2401:) 2382:| 2365:) 2348:) 2319:• 2301:, 2297:, 2266:| 2249:) 2214:) 2169:→ 2158:→ 2147:→ 2136:) 2121:. 2102:. 2065:vf 2061:ko 2036:) 2017:) 1997:) 1973:| 1960:) 1936:) 1911:| 1898:) 1868:, 1852:) 1806:| 1790:) 1769:) 1748:) 1720:) 1712:. 1697:) 1660:) 1618:| 1605:) 1584:) 1563:) 1529:) 1509:) 1493:) 1470:) 1447:) 1432:) 1415:) 1334:) 1318:) 1297:) 1283:) 1233:) 1214:) 1198:) 1166:) 1152:) 1138:) 1124:) 1108:) 1100:. 1077:) 1061:. 933:. 156:) 54:; 4333:( 4298:A 4266:A 4251:( 4237:( 4222:( 4190:@ 4180:( 4154:( 4146:@ 4135:( 4112:( 4092:( 4072:( 4047:( 4039:@ 4029:( 4004:( 3990:: 3986:@ 3964:( 3950:( 3936:( 3922:( 3901:( 3879:( 3858:( 3843:( 3820:( 3802:( 3787:( 3758:( 3741:( 3722:( 3698:· 3693:( 3683:: 3679:@ 3668:( 3654:: 3650:@ 3628:( 3614:( 3592:( 3574:( 3541:( 3527:( 3505:( 3491:( 3466:( 3450:( 3434:( 3411:( 3393:( 3370:( 3355:( 3325:( 3311:( 3293:( 3278:( 3260:( 3242:( 3204:( 3199:) 3195:( 3153:( 3142:: 3138:@ 3119:( 3105:( 3064:( 3001:( 2978:( 2951:: 2947:@ 2935:( 2902:( 2844:( 2826:· 2821:( 2804:( 2788:♠ 2783:♣ 2778:♦ 2748:@ 2721:v 2665: 2655: 2620:( 2595:( 2565:( 2533:e 2523:b 2510:e 2500:b 2477:( 2463:) 2460:☎ 2457:( 2429:d 2426:( 2397:( 2361:( 2344:( 2243:( 2210:( 2186:— 2180:( 2132:( 2127:) 2123:( 2082:☯ 2080:M 2078:☺ 2076:C 2074:☮ 2072:T 2070:❤ 2067:) 2063:a 2028:( 2013:( 1993:( 1956:( 1932:( 1894:( 1848:( 1786:( 1780:: 1776:@ 1765:( 1759:: 1755:@ 1744:( 1738:: 1734:@ 1731:: 1727:@ 1716:( 1693:( 1678:: 1674:@ 1667:( 1656:( 1649:? 1601:( 1580:( 1559:( 1525:( 1505:( 1489:( 1466:( 1443:( 1428:( 1411:( 1330:( 1314:( 1293:( 1279:( 1247:( 1229:( 1210:( 1194:( 1162:( 1148:( 1134:( 1120:( 1104:( 1073:( 1039:. 1025:. 978:. 878:. 742:: 730:: 717:: 699:: 686:: 626:. 537:. 448:. 351:. 266:: 234:. 206:. 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

Talk:Racial bias on - Knowledge

Index