Talk:Discrimination based on skin tone/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Missing Asia

I think there should be a section or paragraph that talks about colorism in Asia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverspark (talk • contribs) 15:32, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No mention of modern black colorism

Colorism is still very common in the black american community. It is considered standard for black men to choose light skinned women over dark skinned women. YVNP (talk) 06:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Changes regarding South Asia

A few changes were made in the Indian Subcontinent section, converting the section to encompass all of South Asia. Furthermore, certain misconstrued details were edited for accuracy, such as the depicted degree of colourism in South Asia. Colourism exists only in certain conservative or close-minded socio-religious circles, such as in film industries and marital advertisement, but is not as prevalent as it is made out to be. After all, South Asia is much more than just films and marriage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.10.229 (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Black Albino

Almost 90 percent of albinos living in the region were raised by single mothers, Mwaura said, because the fathers believed their wives were having affairs with white men.

"When I was born my father said his family tree doesn't have such children and left us," Mwaura said.

Some African communities believe that albinos are harbingers of disaster, while others mistakenly think albinos are mentally retarded and discourage their parents from taking them to school, saying it's a waste of money, he said.[1]

I think the case of Albino in Africa can be inserted under colorism. This will expand colorism to the part where it not only concerns ethnicity but also the color itself.

thank you

Msyaukat (talk) 06:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Skin color in relation to color

Can the color of skin which the subject of Colorism, be related to the color itslef?

I have an opinion that the imagery that uses black/dark in literature as something negative may lead to Colorism. I cannot manage to find a single article that can support my view.

If anyone of you have any say on this, you are most welcome to do so.

thank you

Msyaukat (talk) 06:31, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Extremely Poor Article

There are several long sections in this article that are well beneath Wikipedia standards (and indeed beneath most other reasonable standards). In particular, the section 'African-Americans in the United States' from the sixth paragraph onwards ("Along with the above example...") - full of poor syntax and POV terms, completely un-encyclopedic in tone and direction, with barely any citations, all in run-on paragraphs. "Malcolm X said blacks were taught "self-hate" and he was, and still is, right"? In an encyclopedic article? Oh really?

'Colorism in South Asia' needs some work as well - in particular, disentangling the opening jumble about Communist revisionist theories and their relation (or lack thereof) to British colonial ideologies. It's all thrown into a blender and extremely hard to follow. 79.176.200.10 (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a feeling that that Malcolm X paragraph may be a direct quote from the source given as a citation. I'm going to remove it for now. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:19, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

The color caste system exists everywhere!

Fair skin is valued more than darker and fairness is equated with beauty. In the US this is an outgrowth of the plantation politics where African women were raped by their masters', and the offspring were treated relatively favorably: They were often allowed to work in the house. Their fair skin was considered less offensive to white people than natural skin tones of the original Africans. He may have also felt compassion for his offspring. White women, of course, struggled to face brown children that looked like her husband. This contributed to a rift between Black and white women, both competing for crumbs within patriarchy. Nonetheless, the tragic mulatto image evolved, allegedly because they were rejected by both Blacks and whites. Legally, these people are Black. As their fair skin was preferred by whites, it is plausible that resistance built from Blacks, yet ultimately whites enforced a fierce color code that rendered these people Black.

In India, many speculate that a similar set of politics evolved during the colonial era, though some believe that the color caste has existed here since the Aryans invaded and conquered/colonized the sub-continent.However, this theory has been rejected by many historians and scholars. Hindu Gods from the south with dark skin are often portrayed as blue/Black God and fair skinned in the North. "Fair and Handsome" is the country's most widely sold skin cream and promises fairer skin, increased popularity and job opportunities in weeks, just like its female counterparts "Fair and Lovely." Matrimonial pages in all India dailies are all ridden with 'fair' listed along caste and professional pedigree as qualities brought or sought by potential brides and grooms. And lastly, it's a rough life for a brown skin Black man in northern Indian!

When Bollywood star Shilpa Shetty appeared on UK reality TV show in 2007, Big Brother, the abuses heralded at the wealthy, fair skin princess was dubbed as racist, which sparked a short but mighty media feast in India on the topic. Arguments started by accusing Brits of racism, but quickly reflected upon homegrown racism, which many consider to be the ORIGINAL racism, but undisputedly the most extensive and extant. --Diepiriye 04:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC) -Diepiriye S. Kuku-Siemons, MPH [2]

True. This is also comon in East Asia among Japanese and especially among Koreans. Dreammaker182 (talk) 02:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As a very pale redhead myself, does anyone else find it ironic that while in Japan, Korea and India women are using skin products to lighten their skin; white Americans and English women are obsessed with making theirs darker? Particularly here in the UK, the Oompa Loompa brigade are rife - each culture seems to want what it cannot have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.145.252.66 (talk) 19:05, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Du Bois

Is there any reason for the picture of W.E.B. Du Bois? There's no explanation and no mention of him in the article. As far as I can tell, it's there to give an example of a light-skinned black man, but without a reason given for the picture being there it's just a non-sequitur.--Teiladnam (talk) 11:53, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Relationship to "black enough" controversy

During the runup 2008 Presidential Election, there was a controversy among some as to whether Obama was "black enough" [3]. This seems like it might be a form of colorism, albeit in the opposite direction (Obama, having light skin, was percieved as "not black enough"). Worth mentioning in the article? It got quite a bit of publicity when American voters were first getting to know Obama. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Caucasian Americans

There is no information here about Colorism within the Caucasian American community. Rainbowofpeace (talk) 21:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

MAURITANIA Also in African Republic of Mauritania Afro-Caucasians (whites, usually Arabic) are the elite while Afro-Blacks are the underclass.--83.35.180.172 (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC) In fact, like in other African countries and the Americas, a great part of Afro-Blacks were brought to Mauritania as slaves.--83.35.180.172 (talk) 03:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Heightism (Sociology) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 05:45, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Height discrimination which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 10:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

need to scrap all content and start whole article anew

Can please who is in charge just please erase this whole article and strat with a NEW text altogether from the beginning ? It is OK to keep th etitle, but then in the first paragraph one has to CLARIFY that this type of discrimination has VARIOUS ASPECTS, and in which aspects is it different from Racism. ONE MUST CLEARLY DEFINE the WORDS one is using before moving in with the "who said what and when and why", etc. PLEASE THIS IS A VERY SENSITIVE ISSUE, A VERY IMPORTANT SUBJECT, so please wikipedia contributors, I KNOW you can do better than that.

Rudolph Aspirant aka Eugen Craciun

84.210.21.34 (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This sort of article doesn't really seem to fit the criterion for an encyclopedia article. Too obscure. Maybe true, but too obscure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.213.158.210 (talk) 21:01, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

#In the Arab world

One of these is wrong, maybe an Arabic-speaker should figure out which one? -> see diff here Badanedwa (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Colorism Article Contribution

As a member of an intensive Rice University course in Poverty, Gender and Human Development, I plan on contributing a substantial amount to the discrimination based on skin color Wikipedia page in an attempt to provide additional information on the issue of “Colorism.” Currently, the only mention of “Colorism” on Wikipedia is found in an article titled “Discrimination based on skin color.” This article is extremely scant, providing a brief background of Colorism, as well as sections on worldwide perspectives from Latin America, Asia, and Arab world and Africa. Further, the “Discrimination based on skin color” article focuses its content primarily on the United States, and is lacking substantive information on colorism in the other countries mentioned in the article. The lack of a worldwide perspective causes the article to be particularly biased, and does not provide a comprehensive view of the issue. To make the article more accessible, I propose changing the article title to “colorism” a neologism that is becoming more widely used. I want to expand the background, addressing concerns of other Wikipedia users such as Rudolph Aspirant, clarifying the various aspects of Colorism and how it varies from racism. I also want to expand the article to include referenced information for areas such as Asia and Africa. I will use sources such as Rondilla’s Is Lighter Better?: Skin-Tone Discrimination among Asian Americans and Glenn’s Shades of difference: why skin color matters as starting points for expanding these sections. In addition, I want to discuss the impact of colorism on the commercial industry, perceptions of beauty, the accumulation of wealth, and individual outcomes. Finally, I will correct many of the “weasel words” and other wording issues that prevent the article from having a more encyclopedic tone. I would appreciate any feedback, and look forward to contributing to the article. Cctomball (talk) 16:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions! The clarification between colorism and racism in the leading paragraph are very helpful, especially since many people have not heard about colorism before. I see that there are some links in the article that are unnecessary according to the MOS, such as for Europe. Links are not needed for places, usually, especially if the other article does not directly relate to the topic. I found the section on the Skin Color Paradox a little confusing, since I could not tell if this was an established term or more of an observation. Only one source was used, so perhaps this section could be clarified and expanded a little. I also noticed that the "Stereotypes" section discussed the media, so this information should be moved to the following section on the media. Besides that, I think you additions are very thoughtful and insightful. Nice Work! Khatchell (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Wow so Im not sure what parts you wrote exactly but I thought that the article was very informative, especially for people who might not be familiar with what colorism is and the racial divides that exist because of it. I think a few sections could be expanded like about Arab world and East Asia. Here, you could talk about the cultural implications that exists from being of a non-favored skin tone or any rifts between the two groups. Also, are less than fair skinned people ever portrayed in their media? I also think that it would be interesting to include more about this in South Africa, especially due to the history of the apartheid there. There is a little bit about it currently but I think more might be nice, for example what were some other advantages to being coloured? Even though apartheid is not currently going on, how are these racial divisions based on colorism still present? Overall great article though.Mpyles91 (talk) 13:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, your expansion is much appreciated. In the "History" subsection in African Americans, dates should be included, such as a time period of slavery and its abolition. Also, how long has "the bleaching syndrome" been occurring? The only date mentioned is 2008, but was it popular before the 21st century? In "Skin color paradox" and "Media and public perception," you mention 'studies' but not who did the study or when it was done. Elaboration on the statistics mentioned in the Media subsection on African American males would be beneficial to the article, also. Some of your grammar is off - shows, magazines, books, and movies should be italicized or underlined, not put in quotes. The Latin American section may need to be edited also, especially the last sentence. Overall, great expansion on the topic that is definitely beneficial to the Wikipedia community! Rachelpop- (talk) 02:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you all for your feedback!! I'll be sure to include all of your suggestions in my final entry. Khatchel, I'll correct the link error, and revise the Skin Color Paradox section to make it more clear. I'll also move the information on media stereotypes to the appropriate section. Mpyles91, I only revised the introduction and colorism in the united states section. I'll do my best to include the information about South Africa. I too also found colorism to be a very interesting topic in the South African context. Rachelpop-, I'll review my sources to include the dates and studies you suggested. I'll also correct the grammatical errors. Thanks again for your valuable feedback! Cctomball (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Jenks24 (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Discrimination based on skin color → Colorism – "Colorism" is the WP:COMMONNAME and is used repeatedly in the article, which suggests that many or most of the sources in this article are using the term. In addition to laziness having prevented an editor from removing the repeated use of "colorism" in the article post name-change, it could also be that the term is continually used in the article because it is quicker to type, and saying "Discrimination based on skin color" all the time just doesn't flow as nicely. I don't believe that "colorism" is that much of a neologism anymore. But even being a neologism, some neologisms are allowed on Wikipedia, per WP:NEO. The previous move request discussions about or related to this article and similar neologisms took place at Talk:Height discrimination, but they weren't as much about the merit of using the term colorism as an article title. 108.60.145.58 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Comment is it spelled the same way in British English, Canadian English, Australian English, South African English? Or is the a US term, and therefore WP:ENGVARious? 70.24.244.198 (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. Redirects from Colorism and Colourism do all that is required. The term has meanings in visual arts, literature, and music as well. See [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], in print sources. Those are the meanings that came to mind first for me, for one. Why make things difficult for the readers, with ill-understood jargon? Noetica^Tea? 06:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Colorism is ambiguous and tainted with POV issues. Andrewa (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
  • How can it be ambiguous? The term redirects to this article and there's no hatnote directing readers to a disambiguation page. What are the other candidate articles? Powers ^T 22:56, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The term is demonstrably ambiguous. I have demonstrated it. Only by a kind of newspeak founded on the ensemble of existing Wikipedia titles and redirects can it be considered unambiguous. Again, serve the obvious needs of readers before the recherché needs of strict Wikipedian propriety. Noetica^Tea? 23:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

You are mistaking specialized jargon for "newspeak". Powers ^T 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Disagree... specialised jargon is intended to clarify. When it's (mis)used (with intentions however noble) in such a way that clarity is not enhanced, it becomes newspeak and is better avoided. Andrewa (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:AT: Article titles should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous,... (my emphasis). It doesn't say unambiguous in terms of there being no other Wikipedia articles with similar names, although that does comes into some naming discussions when deciding to disambiguate but that isn't the issue here. Here we just want the title to be unambiguous in order to help readers to get to the article they want. Andrewa (talk) 23:55, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Considering you're quoting the "in a nutshell" summary of the page, it should hardly be surprising that the scope of the word is not carefully defined therein. If you read the rest of the policy, however, it's clear that "ambiguity" is normally referred to in the context of the domain of current article titles. Powers ^T 15:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

But the rest of the policy says exactly the same thing. WP:AT#Deciding on an article title but only as precise as necessary to identify the topic of the article unambiguously (my emphasis). No mention at this stage of whether or not there are other articles, that is a different issue and comes up later in the policy and elsewhere when discussing disambiguation, but that isn't the issue here (as I said before). There's no suggestion that we need to disambiguate, but we still need to identify the topic. That's the issue. Andrewa (talk) 16:37, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems that "colorism" does "identify the topic". I have never heard it claimed (except perhaps by Noetica and yourself) that a title identify an article so unambiguously that no one could possibly mistake the article's subject. We require precision, but only as much precision as necessary to unambiguously identify the subject within the encyclopedia. Powers ^T 21:23, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you seem to have misunderstood my point, so I will attempt to clarify. My view is that we need to identify the subject sufficiently that a mistake is unlikely, rather than completely impossible. I think this is the intention of WP:AT, and that the difference is important.

The links provided by Noetica provide evidence that the misinterpretation of colorism is not at all unlikely. That's what I think ambiguous normally means, and I see no reason to think that the relevant sections of WP:AT are using the word as specialised jargon. They make perfect sense as straightforward English, and make no attempt to define it as a technical term. Disambiguation is a technical term. Ambiguous is not. Andrewa (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Whereas I think it's clear WP:AT means "ambiguous" to apply to the scope of the encyclopedia's articles only. Just like we don't disambiguate a human name -- no matter how many humans use it -- unless we have articles on more than one, I see no reason to disambiguate "colorism" unless we have articles on more than one concept that can be called "colorism". Powers ^T 14:26, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and you suggested before that if I thought otherwise it must be that I hadn't read the policy. I invite others to read the policy too, and see whether this is clear. I can't get your reading from it, any more than I can see how you read my comments as you did above. At best, it might be said to be unclear, but even that is a stretch.

Nobody is saying that we need to disambiguate here. That is your straw man. I'm sorry if that is blunt, but I feel I must be even blunter.

I respect that you think that the policy should be that ambiguity is only relevant to any naming discussion when it occurs in the context of the domain of current article titles (your comment above), I think that you have often stated that opinion before, but it's not the current policy, and I see no chance of it being adopted. It is a solution looking for a problem to solve, and violates the principle that we optimise Wikipedia for readers rather than for editors. But I could be wrong and you're welcome to try. Suggest that a rewording of the WP:AT nutshell, perhaps to add something like (unambiguous) within the domain of current article titles, might be the first step. If the policy really does mean that already, as you claim, then the current nutshell is misleading. But I don't think it is.

Meantime, suggest you stop misquoting WP:AT. We have read it. Andrewa (talk) 15:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The definitive definition for "ambiguous" can be found in the lead of WP:D: "Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving the conflicts that arise when a single term is ambiguous—when it refers to more than one topic covered by Wikipedia articles." My emphasis. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The meaning of "ambiguous" is also clarified at WP:AT, under WP:PRECISION: "ambiguous (can refer to more than one topic covered in Wikipedia)". --Born2cycle (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose. "Colorism" is such a COMMONNAME that I've never heard it before; whereas "discrimination based on skin color" is transparent with no possibility of misunderstanding. —Tamfang (talk) 15:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose -- Colourism as I would spell it is a term that I have never heard before. This is perhaps because the term used in UK is "Racial discrimination", as a result of the title of a 1960s Act of Parliament. The present title is clear as to the nature of the subject; "colorism" is not. I suspect that this is the result of the nom as the inhabitant of one English speaking nation assuming that it is used in all of them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with those who say that "Colorism" is not that common... but even if it is, I don't think WP:COMMONNAME really applies. That provision is focused on choosing between two potential proper names for the subject of the article ("William Clinton" vs "Bill Clinton"). But "Discrimination based on skin color" is a descriptive title, not a proper name. Blueboar (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Blueboar. More specifically, for topics without commonly used names, we use descriptive titles, like the current title. Just because there is a neologism which could be used as a name doesn't mean we should prefer it over a reasonable descriptive title. In fact, we shouldn't use it, if it's not commonly used in reliable sources, and I see no evidence that colorism is so used.

  That said, Powers is absolutely correct that the ambiguousness of "colorism" is not an issue here, since this article's topic is clearly primary for "colorism" (both Colorism and Colourism redirect here). Whatever other uses of "colorism" there may be are not relevant here, since those uses are not covered in Wikipedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deleted ALL of The "Blue Vein Society" material

The only supporting reference was to a work of fiction. A net search reveals references that all lead back to that oen work of fiction. Does anyone think we need to go into why, absent any non-fictional material for reference or support, this material does not belong in a Wiki article?JTGILLICK (talk) 04:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

No mention of discrimination by white people?

Does anyone else find it odd that this article talks about discrimination based on skin colour by African Americans, Asians, Latin Americans, Arabs and Africans, but not by white Americans or Europeans? Seems to me we're missing something important there! If you came to this article without knowing anything about history, it would make you think that white people are the only group that don't discriminate based on skin colour. I bet I can guess what the majority ethnicity of Wikipedia is... Robofish (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't some of those examples involve white people? (i.e. white Latin Americans of European descent discriminating against darker skinned Latin Americans of Mestizo, African, and Native heritage or white Semitic Arabs discriminating against those of darker African descent). The European equivalent may be nordicism; the notion that blond "Nordic" types are superior to Alpine and Mediterranean peoples. 69.171.160.50 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:52, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Does this phrase actually exist?

Is "colorism" actually a word thats used in any substantial context (e.g. in the study of racial prejudice), or is it just a word that was made up by Americans with a black/white racial mentality and hasn't actually been taken up in any popular or academic context? Either way, shouldn't the history of the word be noted in the first paragraph, considering it's a term that would have most people frowning in confusion? 118.138.220.68 (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never even heard the world "colorism" used at all; from reading this article it seems the same as racism but with more political correctness attached. Geoking66_talk 09:54, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn´t there already a word for this; racism? Why another word for the same thing?? --Oddeivind (talk) 21:01, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I seem to see IRL that comes close to colorism as being different from racism is that even within a members one's own race, color still is belittled by colorists. Like a a white person discriminating another white for being tanner than him. I remember reading on the tanning article "In Europe, before the Industrial Revolution, pale skin was preferred and was a sign of high social status. The poorer classes worked outdoors and got darker skin from exposure to the sun, while the upper class stayed indoors and had light skin. Light skin became associated with wealth and high position." It's a form of hierarchy based on how tanned one is and if it is to be differentiated from racism, it must be seen as a progenitor to or a subset of it.

I see it both ways but has anyone ever suggested a merger yet with a different article? Samusfan80 (talk) 21:43, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

the overshadowing synonym

... colorism, although often overshadowed by racism, is the same as racism.

Er, wanna run that by me again? —Tamfang (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That edit was from an IP a week ago. Why didn't you revert back to its normal state but instead corrected capitalization and punctuation? Someone963852 (talk) 01:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

the lead refers to the lead

Discriminatrion based on skin color ... refers to a form of prejudice or discrimination ... based on the social meanings attached to skin color.

See WP:LEADSENTENCE. Tautology is not required or recommended. —Tamfang (talk) 00:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Singapore, etc

Issues with this section, as written, and why the entire bit was reverted:

• The essay, and especially the first two paragraphs, were original research.
• It states opinion as facts, which is not neutral - "these bigoted Singaporean Chinese end up only discriminating through one mean, which is skin color..."
• The cite for "...like "you fucking foreigner" is a Facebook video, which is not a reliable source.
• The cite for "causes for such behavior" section is not applied on point - first of all, the study (in both the article cited and the original version) is about the conclusion that Low IQ & Conservative Beliefs Linked to Prejudice. Leaving out the 'Conservative Beliefs' is to take the study out of context. Second, less importantly but germane, the study was NOT conducted in Asia, on Asians, and that needs to be highlighted in an article space is specifically about Singapore.
• Poorly educated fair-skinned Chinese Singaporeans, however well-dressed, as much as they are ignorant of everything... again, this opinion being asserted as fact.
• The final cite, legal code, is also original research.

- EBY (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Good revert. I concur.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Colorism Edit

Hi, I'm in the process of editing this page to include new sections on Discrimination based on color or Colorism in regards to the history of colorism, globalization of colorism through western media, and a more in depth look at the effects colorism has on Asian countries and Asian Americans. These are a few of the resources I've located that I am finding to be useful. If anyone else has suggestions or feedback, do let me know. I hope to have my new content posted in the coming weeks!

Annotated Bibliography

Banks, Taunya L. "Colorism: a Darker Shade of Pale." UCLA Law Review. 47.6 (2000). Print.

This article addresses the origin of colorism, studies done in regards to colorism, and the implications of colorism in our society. The author’s argument is to suggest that skin tone discrimination against dark skinned but not light-skinned blacks constitutes as a form of race-based discrimination, especially in terms of employment discrimination. The word “mulatto” dating back to the Reconstruction era was the first real word to address color bias within the white community. Whites tended to view mulattoes as more intelligent than blacks but not equal of Caucasians. Historians suggest that after the end of slavery light-skinned blacks had more economic advantage over dark-skinned blacks because they had accumulated more skills. Lighter skin tone suggests likeness and proximity to whites; have more access to resources that racial barriers deny to the subordinate race as a whole. The article discusses specific court cases involved with colorism and the different outcomes. The article also addresses the implications of colorism and how that leads to skin bleaching products, advertisements, commercials in black based magazines and programming. The author gives the idea that race is a fluid structure due to colorism. This source would be good to expound on the origins of colorism in the Wikipedia project, give support to the theory of colorism by providing examples of court cases that have taken place in the U.S., and address the implications and concerns that the affected racial group has towards the idea of light-skinned preference.

Bray, Marianne. “Skin Deep: Dying to be white.” CNN.com: World. http://edition.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/east/05/13/asia.whitening/. May 15, 2002.

The CNN article discusses the Asian trend of whitening skin and the dangers of the skin bleaching products Asian women are using in order to achieve the preferred pale skin color. The article addresses how Asian media features light skinned Asian models in magazines, on billboards, commercials, etc. Through the media Asian bleaching products are being promoted to young women along with the notion that lighter is better. The article also takes a look at the historic aspect of bleaching the skin in Asian countries like China and India. This article would serve to add to the Wikipedia page on colorism because it would give more insight to the Asian colorism epidemic and the dangers that Asian countries have encountered with the skin bleaching products.

Charles, Christopher A. D. "Skin Bleaching and the Prestige Complexion of Sexual Attraction." Sexuality & Culture. 15.4 (2011): 375-390. Print.

The article’s focus is on the sexual attraction and motivation for skin bleaching, specifically in Jamaica and how it was derived from the British who colonized there, but more importantly it addresses skin-lightening techniques and the global phenomenon of skin bleaching to become more sexually attractive. This article argues that a lighter skin color is superior and deemed sexier than dark skin. The article gives an overview of the history of colorism and the accepted definition of the term. The author then addresses the practice of skin bleaching and the reasons Jamaicans use skin bleaching products. The article goes on to describe the sexual attraction towards those with lighter skin and the reasons men prefer a lighter skinned sexual partners and/or wife. For example, there is a social importance of brown skin versus black skin; a positive sense of self is derived from a lighter complexion. The article would be a great addition to the Wikipedia ‘Colorism’ page because it gives a historical argument that the colonization had a great deal to do with the pursuit of lighter skin and also addresses a specific drive for lighter skin, which is to be sexually attractive to men and the reasons why lighter skin is more sexually appealing.

Harrison, Matthew S. “The Often Un-discussed “ism” in America’s Work Force.” The Jury Expert (2010) 22:1: 67-77. http://www.thejuryexpert.com/wp-content/uploads/HarrisonTJEJan2010.pdf.

This journal article addresses colorism in the workplace and the media related implications that are associated with it. The article discusses the specific Eurocentric physical traits that the media portrays influence employers to look for these traits in minorities when they are hiring. Such traits include: as eye shape, skin color, nose shape, etc. What the author argues is that this distorted representation is then translated into the workplace. The author gives specific examples of media texts in which dark skinned is at a disadvantage (i.e. O.J. Simpson Time cover) and when light skinned is seen as an advantage (i.e. Vanessa Williams). The article shows the implications of colorism and suggests specific research needs to understand the persistence of colorism. This would tie into the Wikipedia article about how globalization of media texts promoting light-skinned minorities influence structures of societies globally.

Harrison, Matthew S, and Thomas, Kecia M. "The Hidden Prejudice in Selection: a Research Investigation on Skin Color Bias." Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 39.1 (2009): 134-168. Print.

As the article’s title suggests, the author’s research is on the hidden colorism found in American societal structures and the effects, which are broken down into specific sections. The first section is a brief synopsis of the history of colorism dating back to slavery and how the historical context of colorism correlates to the work environment of present day America. The author then addresses the pilot study that was conducted where participants were judged on resumes and pictures and from there gender, age, and skin color were assessed to see if that was part of the reason for hire. In terms of skin color, findings show that those of lighter complexion had higher ratings than dark skinned applicants. The findings suggest that white employers assume that the light-skinned blacks have more in common with Whites than dark-skinned blacks, therefore are more desired for employment. The article would give support to the Wikipedia page by adding to the section of ‘Studies’ done to support the theory of colorism and the importance it has in the workforce.

Hunter, Margaret. “The Persistent Problem of Colorism: Skin Tone, Status, and Inequality.” Sociology Compass 1:1 (2007): 237-254.

Hunter’s journal article on the problem of colorism discusses how other White people view people who are lighter skinned versus those who are darker skinned and the advantages that those lighter skinned minorities receive in such areas as income, marriage, education, etc. More importantly the article addresses the reason for this widespread issue of colorism: globalization. The author argues that globalization of Western media images being dispersed to countries all over the world is the reason why colorism is not only persistent, but also a continues to grow. The author also insinuates that these globalized US media images helps to sustain the multi-million dollar skin-bleaching and cosmetic surgery industry. This article would add to the Wikipedia page because it would give reasons to why colorism is seen all over the world and would discuss reasons as to how colorism fuels the global market and makes profit, which is why it still persists.

Rondilla, Joanne L, and Spickard, Paul. Is Lighter Better?: Skin-tone Discrimination Among Asian Americans. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2007. Print.

This book addresses the Asian quest to be lighter and to look Caucasian, which is a different perspective than from Latinos and Blacks. The book is divided into five chapters, the first addressing colorism in Asian Americans, then discusses why lighter skin tones are considered “better” than darker skin tones in Asian cultures, and continues on to discuss why whiter means “flawless” and” pure” to Asians than dark pigmentation. The book also delves into another beauty treatment to achieve the whiter and more American appearance: plastic surgery, which unlike skin bleaching, is a more severe approach to becoming lighter. This book gives another cultural perspective to the issue of colorism and proves that colorism is a global issue, not solely associated with Blacks or Hispanics. It will give the Wikipedia article a well rounded examination of colorism and how it touches different cultures in drastically different ways.

Staples, Brent. “As Racism Wanes, Colorism Persists.” The Board: A Blog by Editorial Writers of the New York Times. http://theboard.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/as-racism-wanes-colorism-persists/?_r=0 August 2008.

This New York Times blog article discusses the origins of colorism and the ongoing persistence of colorism especially in regards to findings of how Whites viewed Senate candidates and business employees of color. In the political arena, what they found once again was that Whites largely chose White opponents over Black opponents, but more importantly that when a lighter skinned black candidate opposed the darker skinned candidate the point difference was a landslide in favor of the lighter skinned candidate. When asked to rate the candidates, the polls found that lighter-skinned candidates were seen as more intelligent, trustworthy, and had more experienced than their darker-skinned counterpart. The findings in the business realm were virtually the same but also expanded to Pacific Islanders, Asians, and Hispanics. This article shows that it’s not only in entertainment, marriage, and socially that colorism is present, but all the way up the chain into our political structures. This would be added to the Wikipedia article to show just how far reaching colorism is in the U.S.

Telzer, Eva, and Garcia H. Vazquez. "Skin Color and Self-Perceptions of Immigrant and U.S.-Born Latinas." Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 31.3 (2009): 357-374Print.

This article focuses on the effects of colorism on Latinas in terms of self perceptions, ethnic identity, socialization, and well being. The author suggest that colorism also affects Latinas and Latinos as it does Blacks; darker skinned Latinos are met with more discrimination than lighter skinned Latinas, which affects their psychological well-being. The article refers to racial socialization and how parents prepare their children, especially those with darker skin for the racial barriers they might meet. The author speaks of a current study that looks at immigrant born Latina college students and examines whether skin color is related to their self perceptions. Results showed that immigrants with darker skin had a more negative perception of themselves than lighter skinned immigrants. This article was an interesting addition to the Wikipedia project because it looks at a different race and suggests there are ways to combat the negative self perception through family which will benefit their well-being.

Verma, Harsh. "Skin `fairness'-Culturally Embedded Meaning and Branding Implications." Global Business Review. 12.2 (2011): 193-211. Print.

The article takes a look at the social meaning of “colorism” or “fairness of skin” from a sociological point of view. It discusses the culturally held meaning to be light skinned and the role skin color has in life and goals that one is able to achieve. The article also discusses how brands in the skin bleaching industry appropriate meaning beyond the product and tap into ideologies about fair skin and that as a result the industry continues to have a large global market profit. From research, the author arrives at the main ideologies that drive the idea that lighter is better which is that if you are fairer you feel more confident, attractive, admired, and envied. To be fair is considered ‘Godly.’ This article would be a great addition to the Wikipedia page on colorism because it will focus more on the ideologies behind colorism and how it affects one’s personal identity which is not seen in the current Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkala808 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Adding Sections to Discrimination Based on Skin Color

In the coming week I will be editing the current Wikipedia article on Discrimination Based on Skin Color, or "Colorism." Below are some of the new sections I will be adding. The first is a more descriptive look at colorism in Asian countries and the second is an entirely new section on the prevalence of colorism in Asian American communities. There will be other sections added in regards to media and globalization of products and images concerning colorism. If you have any suggestions or corrections, please feel free to comment. Stay tuned for the new updates to this article.

Colorism Prevalent in Asian Countries

In Asian cultures is both empowering and disempowering because it has strong influences on important life goals such as marital and job prospects, status, and income, (Verma, 195). In Asian cultures fairness is equated with feminine beauty, racial superiority, and power. As in America and other countries, Asian cultures ideologies of light-skin preference is derived from cultural construction and has universal appeal among all classes in Asia (Verma, 195). In Asia, as in America, colorism is taught to children in the form of fairy tales. Just like the Grimm fairty tales with the fair skinned white princess or maiden, Asian mythological protagonists are fair and depict virtue, purity, and good (Verma, 204). In India the color of skin is used as a marker for social class and India’s caste system. For Indians skin color is symbolic to marital, class position, and feminine gender identity (Verma, 203). In Hong Kong’s metropolis city “get white” messages are inescapable. Fair Asian models are covering billboards, magazine covers, counter spaces at the department stores, and are saturated in the media. In Hong Kong as in most of Asia, skin whitening has had a long history stemming back to Ancient China and Japan, (Bray,2002). To these cultures to be fair in an environment where the sun is harsh, meant that one was upper class and rich enough to stay indoors and leave the outdoor work to servants. (Bray, 2002). This obsession with whiteness has not faded but in fact due to globalization has become even more prevalent with Asia’s newfound hypercommercialism and consumer culture. In Hong Kong two thirds of men surveyed said they prefer fairer skinned women and almost half of Asians have admitted to use skin whiteners in attempts to achieve a lighter complexion, (Bray, 2002). However, these skin bleaching products have had negative consequences. There have been issues of mercury poisoning in consumers of certain bleaching products in Asia, as was seen in early 1900 Japan with the white face paint geisha’s would use. The poisoning would cause permanent skin discoloration as well as cause kidney and nerve damage in the brain, (Bray, 2002).

Colorism in Asian American Communities

Colorism while prevalent in Asian countries are also commonly seen in Asian Americans as well. In 2003 researchers at the University of California Santa Barbara conducted a survey of 99 Asian Americans on the issue of colorism in their communities (Rondilla, 45). The ethnicities ranged from Filipino, to Japanese, to Cambodian, Korean, and Chinese. The respondents answered a number of questions varying from skin color preference, eye shape, face shape, etc. Certain themes emerged from the survey that indicated that colorism is also a part of the Asian American communities. One theme that was consistent was that “beauty is light,” (Rondilla,48). The consensus was that light-skinned people were more beautiful than dark people. Another theme was to “not be romantically linked with or marry dark people.” Very similar to racism, these respondents reported that a member in their family had openly discouraged dating a dark-skinned Asian Americans. The reasons that were given ranged from dark-skinned Asians considered to be working class and poverty stricken, compared to light-skinned partners appearing pure, upper class, and successful. Similar to African American communities, Asian American women are more likely to be held to the lighter skin standard than Asian American men. This gender difference is due to the fact that the culture, family, and ideologies are strongly based in patriarchy where a woman submits to the man’s “ideal of beauty,” (Rondilla, 56). The quest for lighter skin in Asian American communities date back to ancient Asian traditions brought over by immigrants, however the onslaught of media saturated images of Western ideal beauty has also influenced Asian American women’s desires to attain a lighter skin complexion (Rondilla, 3). As in African American and Latino communities, various skin bleaching creams and treatments are offered in the Asian communities, advertisements of light, almost pale skin toned Asian models promote the bleaching products that one can use to obtain fairness (Verma, 194). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkala808 (talk • contribs) 07:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Added New Material

Hi Everyone,

I just added four new sections to the Wikipedia article on Colorism or Discrimination Based on Color. The four new sections added were:

The Globalization of Colorism, The Universal Practice of Skin Bleaching, Colorism in Asian American Communities, and Colorism in Asian Countries. The content synthesized a number of research articles and current material on this topic. Please do let me know if you have suggestions or can point to additional material to support this contribution. Thank you very much and hope these added sections bring a more thorough look at the issue of colorism.

Tkala808 (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)tkala808Tkala808 (talk) 03:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've renamed the sections to better fit with the article, reworded some of the content and fixed all the duplicate refs you added. When referring to the same ref multiple times you should give the first instance a name and then refer to the name in the subsquent uses, see WP:Ref#Repeated_citations. Tobus2 (talk) 12:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I just discovered that another article on the same topic exists on wikipedia. Both this article and Shadism seem to have a lot going for them, but I think this one has a better title and that information should be included in this article, if someone wants to undertake merging the articles. Bali88 (talk) 17:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit: although now that I look at it, there is a discussion on the other talk page and most are saying they are different concepts. Scratch that. Bali88 (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How is colorism not a problem in certain parts of Europe?

This article is stupid. Last time I checked, the people of East Asia are "whiter" than the brown skinned peoples of Southern Europe. You have a lot of Italians, Portuguese, Spanish, Greek, etc. who get offended whenever someone tries to point out their darker skin tones compared to the rest of Europe, making outrages arguments against this fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.115.113 (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Is it just me or is there something wrong with this section?

Pakistan

Dark—a word that brings a tingle to the spine, especially in those countries where the blight of colorism exists.[34] Just like other countries across the Asian Region, Pakistan has been also practicing colorism for many decades. The people are living in such a denial that they are not even ready to accept the fact that this discrimination does exist. But it is a fact that more preference is given to those who are light-skinned whereas the dark-skinned people are considered less pleasing. There's a huge market of Fairness/lightening products all over Pakistan.

Usernaemvidyagaem (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Africa: Liberia

There is no doubt that English Wikipedia is dominated by American editors some of whom try to push their own POV on Wikipedia articles. I see this everytime I read Wikipedia articles especially when they relate to African topics. When I see this nonsense (see below) with no reliable source to support their dubious claims I am in no doubt who wrote it and the agenda of the editor:

"In addition to rivalries among descendants of African Americans, the Americans held themselves above the native Africans in Liberia. Thus, descendants of Americans held and kept power out of proportion to their representation in the population of the entire country, so there was a larger issue than color at work." 2.30.8.77 (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Discrimination based on skin color

Cyberbot II has detected links on Discrimination based on skin color which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/hindustan-pencils-wake-up-and-remove-the-label-skin-please

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on Discrimination based on skin color

Cyberbot II has detected links on Discrimination based on skin color which have been added to the blacklist, either globally or locally. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed or are highly inappropriate for Wikipedia. The addition will be logged at one of these locations: local or global If you believe the specific link should be exempt from the blacklist, you may request that it is white-listed. Alternatively, you may request that the link is removed from or altered on the blacklist locally or globally. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. Please do not remove the tag until the issue is resolved. You may set the invisible parameter to "true" whilst requests to white-list are being processed. Should you require any help with this process, please ask at the help desk.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/hindustan-pencils-wake-up-and-remove-the-label-skin-please

  Triggered by \bchange\.org\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Discrimination based on skin color. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720014201/http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=161243 to http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.aspx?id=161243

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:56, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Additions to this page

I am a student at LSU in a women and gender studies class and I am looking to edit this page for my semester project. I was looking for any feedback available. I was looking to add how media affects colorism and the disparties in beauty products. Sbank16 (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Colorism in the Media[edit] In her book, The Psycho-Social Impact of Colorism Among African American Women: Crossing the Divide Lauren A. Faultz states that “the phenomenon of colorism is not exclusive to African American women, but the manifestations on this group are diverse, and the effects are unique. Previous research has shown that the experience of colorism is pervasive within the Black community and that most African American women have been, either culturally or personally, affected by intra-racial discrimination.” This is important because although we recognize that colorism affects different ethnic and racial groups of people, the affects on the Black community are different, especially in America due to the harsh history of slavery.

In her essay Harvard Professor, Jennifer Hochschild discusses how film-maker, advertisers, and modeling agencies all demonstrate the power of a fair complexion. This was demonstrated in a 2010 issue of Elle Magazine when it featured acrtress Gabby Sidibe. Her skin was lightened tremendously and the same happened to Former Miss World, Aishwarya Rai when she was featured in Elle magazine.

It has been seen on many television shows and movies where the narrative of the “strong” Black woman is usually darker complected and the lighter complected woman is more delicate and easy going. A notable example of this was in the television show Fresh Prince of Bel Air when they show changed actresses for the role of the mother. Even until this day, in pop culture they are referred to as the “dark-skinned aunt Viv” and the “light skinned aunt Viv”.

Although colorism is very prevalent in society, there are strides being made to make people more aware of this issue and to help those who are deeply affected by this issue feel more comfortable in their own skin. Make-up companies such as Lancome have a wide variety of shades to chose from for all women and men. In their ad campaigns they use award winning actress Lupita Nyong'o as their spokesperson and they do not alter her skin color. Lupita gave a powerful speech and her message to young girls who are affected by colorism was “And so I hope that my presence on your screens and in the magazines may lead you, young girl, on a similar journey. That you will feel the validation of your external beauty but also get to the deeper business of being beautiful inside. There is no shade to that beauty.”

[1][2][3][4]

Jump up ^ "Lupita Nyong’o Delivers Powerful Speech On Colorism, Self-Love [VIDEO]". News One. Retrieved 2016-04-21. Jump up ^ "The Skin Color Paradox and the American Racial Order". scholar.harvard.edu. Retrieved 2016-04-21. Jump up ^ "The Origin of Colorism and How It Persists Today". About.com News & Issues. Retrieved 2016-04-21. Jump up ^ "The relationship between skin complexion and social outcomes: how colorism affects the lives of African-American women". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbank16 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Assuming these written sources are reliable, you should probably use them to improve the contents of the article. Note however that skin color discrimination is not unique to the United States and does not only affect African Americans. If sources address other related social phenomenona, they should be covered as well. Dimadick (talk) 17:51, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Directionality Issue

I just wanted to note that colorism has no set directionality (Comm term...I know the word "directionality" does not actually exist) as stated on the article page. Especially in the African American community, colorism discriminates against both darker skinned and lighter skinned people. Through out different periods in Black history you can see the fluctuating of what's considered "beautiful" or "acceptable."

                                                                                      --R. McBride

Colorism in Indian Society

In India light skin is deemed more beautiful, in both men and women. Indian actors and actress almost always have milky white skin, or use lots of makeup to made to look lighter. Actress Bipasha Basu who has darker skin then most other Indian actress, has been made to look lighter through makeup and her pictures are airbrused for the same person. Indians have many skin colors, ranging from white to black and everything inbetween. This attitude has been engrained and many Indian's think its natural to think light skin is more beautiful then dark skin. The cause of this is probally related to European colonialism in the 18th, 19th and 20th century. There is also a possibility that the Indian caste system plays a part in this colorism.

i have added the above to the article, i think this should be apart of it, please add information to it if any of you have any.

I'm sure the word directionality exists. 477,000 by google! 178.39.122.125 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Adding to this Article

HI, I am considering editing this article as part of a class assignment. I'm interested in the way colorism plays out in South Asia, particularly in current times. If anyone has feedback about whether this would be a good topic or would be better as a subsection or separate article would be greatly appreciated. Also, I definitely have enough scholarly references to make the changes. I want to talk about how even if colorism predates colonialism (but arguably exacerbated by it) there is still real repercussions associated with skin color to this day. Trs6 (talk) 16:16, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely add it to the Asia subsection. Just make sure that it isn't 'original research' (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) and that the claims made are supported by reliable (e.g. academic) sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:20, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello! I am also apart of a group that is looking to edit this topic by adding China, Japan, and South Korea for our college class. We would love to contribute if that is alright! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nactrotter (talk • contribs) 14:30, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely! Just make sure that it isn't 'original research' (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research) and that the claims made are supported by reliable (e.g. academic) sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Discrimination based on skin color. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160307202800/http://www.mit.edu/~westj/articles/JeremyWest_RacialBiasPolice.pdf to http://www.mit.edu/~westj/articles/JeremyWest_RacialBiasPolice.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:48, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Europe section

The section on Europe is a discussion of racial profiling and not necessarily reflection of discrimination based on skin color as the section above notes that that while color discrimination may be a factor in racial discrimination the two are not mutually exclusive and should not be conflated. Oneappletwoideas (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Critique of Article

Overall, the authors of this article do a great job of crediting their sources after stating facts.There is a dispute on whether sections of the article are neutral, though I believe they are. The information and facts presented in the article come from neutral sources, which aids in its credibility and reliability.Briannahouston (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Discrimination based on skin color. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140503194339/https://www.russellsage.org/publications/diversity-paradox-0 to https://www.russellsage.org/publications/diversity-paradox-0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Redundant?

It seems like either this article or racism is redundant, so one should probably be merged with the other. It seems like racism as defined by google, would be a better target than this page, as it is a more concise and widely used title. Everymorning (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

There are issues with the article such as confusing colorism with racism. So I would select racism with very selective merging. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please merge this article with racial discrimination. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

This article does distinguish between colorism and racism in the lead, so I guess colorism should be a separate page from racial discrimination, which suggests that most of the content here should be on racial discrimination. But if so, this also suggests that Discrimination based on skin color could become a redirect to colorism and contain much less (but much more relevant) content that's just about colorism. Does this sound like a good idea? Everymorning (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Colourism and hair colour

The article treats "colourism" as identical to discrimination based on skin colour, but couldn't colourism include discrimination based on hair colour? I mean, there is gingerism for one thing. And then there may be discrimination against people with black hair in regions like northern Europe. Here in Germany, for example, a common pejorative term for a North African or Middle Eastern immigrant is "Schwarzkopf", literally "black head" (but without any reference to acne). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.188.203 (talk) 10:56, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

PS: There could even be discrimination based on eye colour. In the Middle East, blue-eyed people were formerly regarded untrustworthy and sly. (Though this has changed over time, and blue eyes are now usually considered very attractive.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.188.188.203 (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Great article and very insightful AshleeBurks (talk) 05:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)AshleeB.

Bias

We need to get rid of all bias towards campaigns such as "Dark is Divine". Its not good to promote discrimination in the hope of getting rid of another discrimination. These things need to be viewed with as little promotion or positive light as possible to let people make up their own mind.

Ugh the Pakistan and India sections gave me the impression of "white is evil" so I had to remove obvious bias (look above at the previous post by Usernaemvidyagaem).

Colorism in asia

The sections on skin colouring in Asia appear to reflect a description of asian aesthetics, as opposed to any colorist motivation.

In particular sentences such as

Ancient Asian cultures also associated light skin with feminine beauty. "Jade" white skin in Korea is known to have been the ideal as far back as the Gojoseon era.[9] Japan's Edo period saw the start of a trend of women whitening their faces with rice powder as a "moral duty".[9]

Directly contradict this.

The sentence preceding it:

The history of skin whitening in East Asia dates far back to ancient times. In the ancient dynastic eras, to be light in an environment in which the sun was harsh implied wealth and nobility because those individuals were able to remain indoors while servants had to labor outside.

Demonstrates a preference as a status symbol, but not a discrimination. In the same way you might say that regularly wearing a nice watch or jewelry is an aesthetic preference. It is unclear why this information. If it was to weaken or strengthen the argument, then wikipedia is not a forum. If it was to provide necessary context to the content of the article please clarify in the article text before presenting it.Ethanpet113 (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Let's just stick to what the sources state and with WP:Due weight. Editors can look on Google Books for information on this topic. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:13, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

These sentences don't contradict each other. They both say that having white skin is perceived as better than having darker skin. That means there is discrimination towards people with darker skin.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Google's definition of racism

Racism is about skin color according to google and the dictionary, glac that was fixed. Colorism seems to be just about racist towards colored people, can we make an antonym that is anti-white people in a racist.

And make a new word for the liberal version of racism that is based on power and race since RACEism is stfictly about race not ethnicity. It can be "Ethnicitism", it would have been better to just use this ethnicism in the first place rather than replace the current definition of racism with one a new definition that doesn't have anything to do with the old definition when Google still uses the old definition and people go to Google to find stuff in the dictionary. That way more black people can be in the governmdnt and show they matter without fighting goohle on the definition of racism. Axeblack (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

So, we're going to completely ignore the 'colorism' between the 'white' races, e.g, dark Spaniards, Italians, Greeks, Turks, etc. etc. And why no mention anywhere in this article about the Rwanda genocide that was specifically about skin tone. ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.221.202.103 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS

Snooganssnoogans, I've been meaning to state this: The article should not rely on study after study. That's not how Wikipedia articles should be built. We shouldn't be relying on primary source study after primary source study. Per WP:PSTS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic's notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources." This is especially true in this of, for example, medical material. See WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS.

Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, you're still adding study after study. I'm going to trim this article at some point. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 08:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

My plan is to trim and make the text more concise at some point (summarize multiple studies within the same sentence), but I'm putting it off until I find the time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 12:55, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Trimming is a good idea, yes. That's why I mentioned it. But, per WP:PSTS and WP:SCHOLARSHIP (and WP:MEDRS for medical/health material), we should be relying on tertiary and secondary sources to summarize the literature. We shouldn't summarize the literature ourselves. Wikipedia shouldn't go by an editor's word on what the literature states. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 07:20, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Focus of the article

Hi, Struthious Bandersnatch. Regarding this and this, I'm concerned about the material not focusing on colorism but rather on racism. Some other content in the article might also be like that. And, well, we already have an article specifically about racism. I know that there is overlap, but we should try to keep this article focused specifically on colorism. Otherwise, it will simply be the second Racism article.

Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 19:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure if they are neatly separable topics, but I understand what you're saying and I certainly see it as important to have an article (edit: or multiple articles) with colorism as its/their focus rather than racism. What kind of heuristics are you proposing? It does not seem to me that, to take your first example, the previous content on the “Browning of America” was colorism-specific but became about racism when the viewpoint of a 21st-century black scholar on the subject was added. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 20:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Caribbean section needed?

I perhaps first became aware of the issue decades ago when reading (in some UK newspaper, I think) that the ruling elites in the Caribbean tended to have relatively light brown skins and to be referred to locally as 'Brownings'. But we don't currently seem to have any section on that region. It also seems to be possibly relevant (subject of course to the availability of relevant Reliable Sources) to matters such as people like Thomas Sowell's interpretations of statistics supposedly showing that 'black' Caribbean immigrants to the US earn much more than US-born African Americans, which is sometimes used to claim that US racial discrimination must be exaggerated or a myth because discriminating Whites allegedly can't tell the difference between the US-born and the immigrants, an allegation which seems dubious if the immigrants have disproportionately lighter skin (as well as other differences such as different accents, educational levels, initial wealth, 'immigrant economic motivation', etc). I might eventually try adding such a Caribbean section myself, except that I'm probably not sufficiently interested to do the necessary research, etc, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO]. So perhaps somebody more interested and/or better informed might have a go? Tlhslobus (talk) 18:28, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Sun-tan section or subsection needed?

Subject of course to the availability of relevant Reliable Sources, I suspect a section or subsection on suntanning might be wanted, if only to show that the preference is not always for lighter skin. When I was growing up in Europe in the 1960s, Whites, especially White women, were actively encouraged to get a darker skin through acquiring a suntan. This may have been as a symbol of wealth or attractiveness or good fortune, implying that you were part of the jet set who could afford to take expensive holidays in sunny countries (or were attractive enough, or lucky enough, to have others take you on such holidays). Now that most people can afford such holidays we instead tend to hear about sunshine causing skin cancer (along with lots of money being made by corporations selling lotions that supposedly protect you from this). (Similarly to what I wrote in the previous section) I might eventually try adding such a suntan section myself, except that I'm probably not sufficiently interested to do the necessary research, etc, per WP:NOTCOMPULSORY and WP:BNO]. So perhaps somebody more interested and/or better informed might have a go? Tlhslobus (talk) 19:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Is discrimination based on skin colour the same as racism?

The first line of the article says something to the effect of "not to be confused with Racism", but the next line of the article says "Discrimination based on skin color, also known as racism...". This appears contradictory. I am NOT an expert in discrimination so I don't know which one is true (also this is my second time actually doing something on Wikipedia other than web surfing). Different sources I read say different things, can someone rectify this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.90.163.126 (talk) 22:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, this article sometimes covers the history of racism generally, without focusing on colorism. 67.193.78.205 (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Agreed. This article covers much of the same material as the racism article and it could be merged into that article to improve it. Washuchan73 (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Changes to article

The article for this topic, while solid in breadth, lacks depth; it is not complete without emphasizing societal ramifications. Since this type of information cannot be quantified, it may be difficult to source, but is a crucial component of analyzing racial trends and determining outcomes. It is also the ‘sector’ of racism that is outwardly visible and experienced by most. More information and sources can be found on my user page. SageSab (talk) 05:17, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Potential Revisions for "India" Section

The section regarding colorism in India is not well developed. Given that colorism is a looming societal issue in India, more history and background need to be provided regarding the development of this approach to society. The historical descriptions also abruptly move into modern-day occurrences; these modern-day issues are also not explored closely enough.

Additionally, the societal impacts of skin color need to be detailed to a greater extent. There are few connections made between the legal struggles faced and the societal struggles faced by those experiencing harsh colorism.

It would be productive to include the variation in treatment from state to state. The article currently only elaborates on the state of Maharashtra, which is not indicative of India as a whole. Each state in India varies in genetic makeup, cultural norms, and language, so it is unproductive to group these ideas together. SageSab (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Updates to "India" Section

Small details were added into the "India" section elaborating on the history of colorism and the caste system, and how these processes accelerated colorism's grip on the subcontinent. Feedback or criticism would be appreciated. SageSab (talk) 03:44, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Hello! I really like the information added about present colorism in India. It helps the reader understand that the issue is still very much prominent in present times. I think that in order to improve the credibility of the article, some references could be added, and some wording could be changed in order to make the article more neutral. Zen916 (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Asimon2.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Carlosmatutes, Authenticly25. Peer reviewers: Authenticly25.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Francenebethune.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 September 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ChinyereDenise. Peer reviewers: Bgd4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2018 and 14 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Bl.ss.ng.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hlaguerre, Jaljoe2018, Rforde2019. Peer reviewers: Esteebehar, Alisonsanti, Fstallone22.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 September 2019 and 2 January 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Barrieh1.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 January 2021 and 14 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Charlenecharles21.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SageSab.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cdmarte.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 October 2021 and 15 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Meru358.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Accusations of Murder in Zimmerman-Martin Controversy

Article claims that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Martin without any sources:

"...The movement began in the US in 2012, after George Zimmerman (Hispanic, Caucasian, and armed with a gun) employed the ‘stand your ground’ legal defense and was declared innocent despite committing the murder of killing Trayvon Martin (17 years old, unarmed, African American)."

Unless there's compelling evidence that George Zimmerman actually murdered Trayvon Martin (as opposed to killing him in self-defense), this is a matter of strongly-held convictions. Articles can affirm the actuality of racism and police brutality in the United States without entering the trenches of political partisanship. Are there any reliable sources that can support the murder charge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.253.105 (talk) 03:58, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Article doesn't mention role of white-supremacy, KKK, religion, Scramble for Africa

The entire article was written without regard for the role that white supremacists, the Scramble For Africa, religion, the KKK, etc play in racism, and skin color bias. Remember that the Catholic Church, Church of England and even Islam promoted the notion that darker people were inferior. Also, the Aryans that invaded the Indus Valley promoted dark skin as negative and created the Dalit caste (Untouchables). In some ways, the article is actually promoting the notion that darker people are inferior by not informing readers of why so many regions are racist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:9F03:1E45:E8D8:A015:AAAB:736A (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I want to pick up the claim that "Islam" promotes the notion that black people are inferior. This is only true in the traditionalist Islam: There is a hadith which states: "Allah’s Messenger said, “You should listen to and obey, your ruler even if he was an Ethiopian slave whose head looks like a raisin.” Narrated by Anas bin Malik. Bukhari 9:89:256; also Bukhari 1:11:662 and 1:11:664". While the Qur'an does not contain any derogatory terms against black people. The Qur'an also claims that the most noble human in the sight of God is the most righteous (see Qur'an 49:13). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Weisspuenktchen (talk • contribs) 18:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Government

The set of rules governing is called Government Government came from the Latin word Gubernare which means to govern. There are three types of government 1. Central Government 2. State Government 3. Local self Government Central Government is all the cases which are related to the country. State Government is all the cases which are related to the state. Local self Government is all the cases related to the district. There are three organs of government 1. Legislative 2. Executive 3. Judiciary 124.123.171.93 (talk) 11:21, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment

This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Rice University supported by the Wikipedia Ambassador Program during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from {{WAP assignment}} by PrimeBOT (talk) on 17:24, 2 January 2023 (UTC)