- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. The sources that have been provided have not been adequately rebutted, and nobody has demonstrated sufficient problems with the article to require deleting it and starting it over. For any lesser degree of problematic content, WP:NOTCLEANUP applies. Vanamonde ( Talk) 02:46, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
Sexual racism
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Sexual racism ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a 2016 group effort societal essay, and fundamentally and fatally WP:NOR. There are no broad secondary source sources for the topic. It is a term, a WP:NEOLOGISM that does not yet have traction at Wiktionary.
If an article can be written under this title, WP:TNT applies. It has taken the wrong path from the first edit, compiling information from disparate sources.
It does not belong in mainspace as an article. It could be moved to draftspace, on the understanding that it will not be returned, but instead to have sources removed for addition to other articles. SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:53, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment The topic of the article seems like it is notable, not sure about the name tho.
★Trekker (
talk)
00:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- The title is tied to the scope. There is no source that is simply about the scope as defined. It can't be re-scoped, it is too old and way too far down the path of collecting overly narrow and primary sources. If you think it can be fixed by re-titling, see Talk:Sexual racism#Requested move 12 August 2020, but see all the other talk page posts too. The best explanation for the failure is Wikipedia:NEOLOGISM. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. - hako9 ( talk) 00:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. - hako9 ( talk) 00:46, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - hako9 ( talk) 00:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment This topic is, I expect, related to
racial fetishism.
pburka (
talk)
01:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Also note that there appears to be quite a bit of scholarly discussion of this topic, e.g.
"Is Sexual Racism Really Racism?" (Callander et al. 2015),
"Sexual Racism: A Legacy of Slavery" (1994),
"EXECUTING US SOLDIERS IN ENGLAND, WORLD WAR II: Command Influence and Sexual Racism" (Lilly & Thomson, 1997,
"Sexual Racism: Intimacy as a Matter of Justice" (Bedi, 2015). These are just from the first page of Google Scholar hits.
pburka (
talk)
16:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- These are all
WP:Primary studies that don't count towards GNG. And they also well illustrate that this is a neologism with no coherent scope. The first and fourth sources are about people's choices of partners (with the fourth explicitly coining the term independently), the second is about societal views of interracial relationships, and the third is about racism in military capital punishment out of fear of cross-sex cross-racial socializing.
Crossroads
-talk-
19:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
These are all WP:Primary studies that don't count towards GNG
- please link to the guideline that says, for non-medical topics, a peer reviewed journal article on a subject doesn't count towards GNG. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:19, 31 August 2020 (UTC)- From
WP:GNG:
"Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability.
Crossroads -talk- 20:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)- You misunderstood what is primary and what is secondary. Primary are stuff like research notes, witness testimonies, interviews, etc. Research published on the basis of such works is secondary. And summarizing such secondary sources in an encyclopedia is tetriary. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
07:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, it is not the case that every published paper is a secondary source, with their "research notes" being primary sources. Research papers are primary sources for the outcome of their research, and secondary sources are review articles or books reviewing the literature. Per
WP:PSTS:
a scientific paper documenting a new experiment conducted by the author is a primary source on the outcome of that experiment.
And:a review article that analyzes research papers in a field is a secondary source for the research.
It also states that sources can be both primary and secondary sources, depending on the content within the source, while saying in a footnote,research articles tend to be more useful as primary sources and review articles as secondary sources.
Something like this is a primary source for its author's philosophizing, and this is a primary source reporting the results of a social science experiment. This source's nature regarding the term is unclear; it could be an independent coining. I suppose this has some secondary aspects, but in any case, it is really about interracial marriage and does not demonsrate that this is a separate topic. Crossroads -talk- 20:42, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- No, it is not the case that every published paper is a secondary source, with their "research notes" being primary sources. Research papers are primary sources for the outcome of their research, and secondary sources are review articles or books reviewing the literature. Per
WP:PSTS:
- You misunderstood what is primary and what is secondary. Primary are stuff like research notes, witness testimonies, interviews, etc. Research published on the basis of such works is secondary. And summarizing such secondary sources in an encyclopedia is tetriary. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
07:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- From
WP:GNG:
- These are all
WP:Primary studies that don't count towards GNG. And they also well illustrate that this is a neologism with no coherent scope. The first and fourth sources are about people's choices of partners (with the fourth explicitly coining the term independently), the second is about societal views of interracial relationships, and the third is about racism in military capital punishment out of fear of cross-sex cross-racial socializing.
Crossroads
-talk-
19:28, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Also note that there appears to be quite a bit of scholarly discussion of this topic, e.g.
"Is Sexual Racism Really Racism?" (Callander et al. 2015),
"Sexual Racism: A Legacy of Slavery" (1994),
"EXECUTING US SOLDIERS IN ENGLAND, WORLD WAR II: Command Influence and Sexual Racism" (Lilly & Thomson, 1997,
"Sexual Racism: Intimacy as a Matter of Justice" (Bedi, 2015). These are just from the first page of Google Scholar hits.
pburka (
talk)
16:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. I checked and found no WP:Secondary sources about this supposed topic like WP:GNG requires. And even if it were a valid topic, WP:TNT definitely applies here. This article is rotted through and through by WP:Synthesis. Crossroads -talk- 05:29, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. Agree with nominator and User: Crossroads. Knox490 ( talk) 06:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Delete: The article is focussed on the North American experience of racism and married the racism issue to sexual partner choices. There is some reference to this issue in online dating worldwide and so WP:TNT definitely applies. Blow it up. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 12:04, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. pburka ( talk) 18:20, 31 August 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Scholar/Books clearly show that this is a notable term. And the article seems written well enough I don't see why
WP:TNT is invoked. If it contains OR, please cite specific examples. A cursory overview suggests that while there may be small parts of the articles that are undercited, or even ORish, most of it seems to be summarizing scholarly works. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
07:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
-
User:Piotrus, yes, it attempts to summarize scholarly works, but it does it WP:SYNTH style, and none of the scholarly works are broad coverage of the topic. Can you address the
WP:NEOLOGISM question? "Sexual racism" is a neologism, and not well defined, and not consistently defined. I read this article as taking the neologism, and then summarizing the work of every article that uses the term. In that sense, sources are being used as primary sources for the term, and worse, many of them do not even use the term, but are creatively woven into the body to support tangential points. No where is there a straightforward definition tied to a reliable source. An attempt to do this is made with the first source, but that source is clearly describing a neologism: "Discrimination between potential sexual or romantic partners on the basis of perceived racial identity has been referred to as “sexual racism.”" It goes on with "Today, “sexual racism” is popularly employed in media and research settings as shorthand for racial discrimination between sexual or romantic partners. There is contention, however, about whether this is an appropriate label ...", which clearly establishes that this is not an established term. Yes, there is something to this, but it is not for Wikipedia to lead the way in synthesizing what it is. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
07:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- In my experience, this is a common problem in social sciences - many works use a term without defining it well, or they use different definitions. Wikipedia articles have to combine such sources; and yes, there is a fine line between OR and proper synthesis here. As this article is cited, and not essay-ish, I think it meets our policies. And yes, there are some sentences in the article that can be discussed, revised and perhaps even removed, but again I don't see what merits a TNT approach here. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
09:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree, I understand, on the a common problem with the social sciences, "topics" are fluid, what is said about the topic depends on the speaker, and the underlying message can be almost unrelated. Disagree that the essay is not "essay-ish", it most certainly is. It is student essay-ish. It meanders without logical structure. However, that is not really the problem so much as it devoting so much more space to tangential matters than to the central concept. Much more critical is that this article gets no mention from the parent article racism, and sexual doesn't lead to an article that mentions it either. What merits the TNT is that the foundation of the article is unsound. The presentation is rich in sources, but there is no foundation. If someone could find one or two good foundational sources, WP:GNG-meeting sources, they could re-write the article, possibly re-use some of the current sources, but it would need to be a fundamental rewrite. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- In my experience, this is a common problem in social sciences - many works use a term without defining it well, or they use different definitions. Wikipedia articles have to combine such sources; and yes, there is a fine line between OR and proper synthesis here. As this article is cited, and not essay-ish, I think it meets our policies. And yes, there are some sentences in the article that can be discussed, revised and perhaps even removed, but again I don't see what merits a TNT approach here. --
Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here
09:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
-
User:Piotrus, yes, it attempts to summarize scholarly works, but it does it WP:SYNTH style, and none of the scholarly works are broad coverage of the topic. Can you address the
WP:NEOLOGISM question? "Sexual racism" is a neologism, and not well defined, and not consistently defined. I read this article as taking the neologism, and then summarizing the work of every article that uses the term. In that sense, sources are being used as primary sources for the term, and worse, many of them do not even use the term, but are creatively woven into the body to support tangential points. No where is there a straightforward definition tied to a reliable source. An attempt to do this is made with the first source, but that source is clearly describing a neologism: "Discrimination between potential sexual or romantic partners on the basis of perceived racial identity has been referred to as “sexual racism.”" It goes on with "Today, “sexual racism” is popularly employed in media and research settings as shorthand for racial discrimination between sexual or romantic partners. There is contention, however, about whether this is an appropriate label ...", which clearly establishes that this is not an established term. Yes, there is something to this, but it is not for Wikipedia to lead the way in synthesizing what it is. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
07:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Strong keep: Articles about concepts are often much harder to write than articles about persons, places or other more concrete things. Especially since concepts in the humanities are often quite subjective. The article is a little flimsy at places which calls for fixing, not for the article to be destroyed! I find over a 1,000 articles on Google Scholar for the term "sexual racism" so I don't buy that it would be a neologism. It's a real scholarly subject.
ImTheIP (
talk)
22:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Can you provide a source that defines or describes it, not in scare quotes? — SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete. We need sources specifically about the topic. Not sources about other things cobbled together to create this topic. A decent article about the topic can perhaps be created in the future, but this one is not it. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 07:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Having looked at it, it seems to posit multiple definitions depending on the specific context. I don't see any foundation that is backed by peer reviewed research. It would suggest not having an article is a better approach at least until the subject is better defined. It would be nice to have some kind of definition in the first paragraph after the lede, to set stage and backed by a couple of solid sources that define it explicitly, but it is not there. It needs to be much more rigorous as well, for an academic topic and not one that is US centric, nor one that devotes more than half the article to LGBT. scope_creep Talk 16:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. This article is (as is unfortunately the case with many social science articles) far from perfect and could use extensive reworking. But it has a number of scholarly sources to draw from, only some of which have
WP:SYNTH issues, so per
WP:PRESERVE I don't think
WP:TNT applies. Speaking as a sociologist, I've seen this term around enough that I don't buy
WP:NEOLOGISM as a rationale. I share
*Treker's concerns about the title—"sexual racism" is a loaded phrase that does not have universal or even widespread acceptance. But we have no article on racial sexual preferences other than this except for
racial fetishism, which is a separate enough topic that I don't think they should be merged, so this is the page to develop.
WP:Deletion is not cleanup. {{u|
Sdkb}}
talk
23:40, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- I agree very strongly with this, this is a notable topic, its just a sub-part article as of now with an even worse title. I do believe that there is content worth salvaging nonetheless. ★Trekker ( talk) 23:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
- Keep per Sdkb and possibly rename to "Racial sexual preference," as some people seem to have a visceral reaction to the word "racism." pburka ( talk) 00:00, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.