Talk:Multiculturalism

Active discussions

Polyculturalism should NOT redirect hereEdit

Polyculturalism is a fundamentally different concept to multiculturism. It should have its own article, or at least its own section. The two concepts are not compatible. 1.126.109.115 (talk) 10:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Multiculturalism, not history of immigrationEdit

The article seems to confuse multiculturalism with immigration or demographics and engages in listing unrelated data. Editing is necessary.

--EsperantoItaliano (talk) 05:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense about DenmarkEdit

The recently added section about Denmark seems very cherrypicked and WP:WEASEL to me. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I have removed the explicitly racist division of immigrants into "western" and "Non-western" as undue. And unclear. Simonm223 (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
No given WP:RS source say this is "racist". Western & non-Western has a clear definition by Statistics Denmark. Vestlige lande Vestlige lande omfatter EU, Andorra, Australien, Canada, Island, Liechtenstein, Monaco, New Zealand, Norge, San Marino, Schweiz, USA og Vatikanstaten. Ikke-vestlige lande omfatter alle øvrige lande.. Will restore per WP:PRESERVE because info comes from WP:RS. See this link under "Dokumentation". AadaamS (talk) 20:27, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Which source say this is "racist"? AadaamS (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I don't believe this information is WP:DUE - it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to include in an article the racist musings of a random Danish politician. Leave it out. Simonm223 (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
It is appropriate for enWP to include material sourced do WP:RS. No given WP:RS has claimed any of that report is racist. The Minister of Finance Kristian Jensen is not a "random politician". In fact public broadcaster Danmarks Radio has cited the report and DR.dk are WP:RS. AadaamS (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Being reported in a reliable source doesn't make an opinion WP:DUE and I'm arguing that this person's opinion about the impact of immigration by destination is not due inclusion in an article about multiculturalism; it's mainly there as a WP:COATRACK for racist talking points and as such is doubly WP:UNDUE. Simonm223 (talk) 20:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
The figures are reported as fact by DR.dk and they are WP:RS. Your accusation of "racism", if not backed up by WP:RS, are a null and void argument. It's not "this person", it's the Danish minister of finance. Why would you call a minister "a person"? Which source says this is "racist"? If experts have criticised the finance ministry report on this, then fine, but otherwise it serves no useful purpose to to keep repeating arguments that aren't backed up. It doesn't make them more right. It is better and more constructive to keep bringing new sources to the discussion. AadaamS (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Also see WP:IDONTLIKEIT - disliking Danish politicians is not a valid reason to delete WP:RS material. Also see WP:PRESERVE - accurate material belongs in the article while it is in progress. AadaamS (talk) 21:25, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Addressing points in turn:

  • racism - no WP:RS claim these figures are racist. Unless backed up by sources, it's an irrelevant argument. Don't repeat it if it can't be backed up by sources.
  • Objections on the grounds of unclear definition of Western/non-Western has been addressed by WP:RS sources.
  • Edit comments such as "dog-whistle" serve no constructive purpose and aren't a valid criticism.
  • A paragraph devoted to figures reported by the Danish Finance Ministry are due weight - because that's the highest levels of a democratially elected government. According to Transparency International, Denmark is one of the least corrupt countries on earth.
  • A paragraph in a page containing over 9000 words is not undue.
  • no WP:RS of equal authority which presents alternative figures or diffferent information has been presented by objecting editors.

Therefore the objections comes down to the personal opinions of an objecting editor, because those opnions not backed up by even one single expert source. The information I added to the article is backed by WP:RS sources and that's why it should be WP:PRESERVED. AadaamS (talk) 08:34, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

You have made absolutely no case that this information is WP:DUE in an article about multiculturalism rather than immigration. Furthermore you editwarred your supposed WP:PRESERVE complaint back in, over the 3RR brightline. Your argument is all just an excuse for this WP:COATRACK. Simonm223 (talk) 12:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
There are more sources out there and there will be more sources added to those in the future. The editor who brings WP:RS sources to a dispute usually prevails in the long run because consensus can't overrule expert sources. Any progress on finding sources for the claims of "racism" that you have levelled against the government of Denmark, the oldest operating newspaper in Denmark plus the Danish public broadcaster? AadaamS (talk) 20:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
You're missing the point. The issue is not the reliability of the sources but rather that the information is irrelevant to the topic of the page. All it really demonstrates is that the current government of Denmark has some awful views on immigration and says absolutely nothing about multiculturalism. Simonm223 (talk) 21:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course I will keep looking for more sources, thanks for the encouragement. Still waiting for a source saying the govt of Denmark is either "racist" or "awful". See above, Denmark is one of the least corrupt countries on the planet, there's even a source for that. AadaamS (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Windschuttle and Hanson's critiquesEdit

I'm not sure how their criticisms warrant attention. For one thing, the wording in that part is a little unclear. But, I also think that the logic in their arguments is fundamentally flawed; from what I gathered in that section, it seems to imply that they assumed the Spaniards and Aztecs coexisted for a long time, while ignoring the whole invasion and colonization portion. Additionally, this is not indicative of the failure of multiculturalism because it was never really implemented anyways.

While they do constitute as criticisms, they're not really thought provoking ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ourdearbenefactor (talkcontribs) 03:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Stuart Hall ('godfather of multiculturalism') should be mentioned in this articleEdit

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stuart_Hall_(cultural_theorist) : 'By the time of his death, he was widely known as the "godfather of multiculturalism': Don't you then think it would be suitable to add him to this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.52.218.129 (talk) 03:41, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of peer-reviewed researchEdit

An editor removed a 2020 study that found that ethnic diversity had a positive impact on wages, productivity and growth at the city-level. The editor claims that the study is inaccurately summarized, because the study cites the findings of other studies in the abstract as a juxtaposition to the findings of the study. The study in question finds that ethnic diversity had a positive impact on wages, productivity and growth at the city-level, but that there is no impact on large geographical areas. The study should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Return to "Multiculturalism" page.