Talk:Identity politics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Identity politics, or visit the project page for more details on the projects.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Too much mumbo jumbo, particularly in the beginning. The average reader ought to be able to read the first sentence and immediately understand more or less where the article is going and approximately what the subject is. Currently, the first sentence, while correct. is too vague to give any information at all.

The sources for this article, Identity politics, are blatantly racist. This entire screed treats minorities as less than human." If the author lives in the EU...he should be reported immediately for hate crimes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willchris (talk • contribs) 08:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Contents 1 Freedom of Identity 2 Karada takes no position 3 removal of internal links 4 Final Product 5 Biased 6 A Nation? 7 White Nationalism - "Race" not Ethnic 8 Criticism from 'the Right' 9 new def. of identity politics based on my research. 10 Further effort to define identity politics 11 Rewrite rationale 12 Reinstate rewrite 13 Explaining criticism of identity politics: not a violation of NPOV 14 Is 'identity politics' a pejorative term? 15 Ideas are the gate to scholarly discourse 16 "Jewish identity" 17 Wikipedia as a source? 18 Section Forms of Identity Politics - does need reliable sources

[edit] Freedom of Identity

Has there every been any expression of Freedom of Identity in national / subnational / supranational cases? It seems to me a natural sort of freedom, but there's not much on it in Wikipedia. --PheonixSong 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Karada takes no position

Note: I take no position on who is, or is not, oppressed by or oppressing anyone else. My focus here is: numerous identity-based political groups and movements exist: what have they in common? -- Karada 23:23, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

What they all do have in common is only the desire to maintain and preserve their own separate group identities. What is actually "wrong" with that, as all such behavior actually only ensures "Bio-Diversity" over the long haul.

Kevin Alfred Strom, on the National Alliance's white separatist radio program American Dissident Voices, defined the difference between white separatism and supremacy this way:

"A supremacist—of whatever race—is distinct from a 'separatist.' A separatist may believe that his race is superior to other races in some or all characteristics, but this is not his essential belief. The separatist is defined by his wish for freedom and independence for his people. He wishes them to have their own society, to be led by their own kind, to have a government which looks out for their interests alone. The separatist does not wish to live in a multiracial society at all, so he naturally has no desire to rule over other races—since such rule necessitates the multiracial society the separatist wants to avoid at all costs." [1]

[edit] removal of internal links

Note: someone removed a number of examples of identity politics on the basis of their being "not examples of identity politics, but forms of bigotry". Yes, some forms of identity politics are based on bigotry (and may, indeed, consist entirely of bigotry and hatred in some cases): nevertheless, they are still forms of identity politics. -- Karada 13:44, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Those aren't actual examples of identity politics. No one recognizes them as such, not in any kind of formal or informal studies of the matter. Identity politics has to do with achieving equality due to discrimination based on certain types of identities. White supremacy does not seek equality in any way, shape or form nor does it deal with an oppressed group.

Furthermore, youre specifying specific sub-movements rather than general movements, that serves nothing other than to mislead. Notice how the majority of those are bigoted, even though statistically the non-bigoted groups clearly outnumber them by far. Even if you considered them to be part of identity politics, it's extremely POV to include them. It'd be like including a KKK political party along side the major political parties in a an article about political parties.

Lastly, religion and nationalism don't qualify for identity politics under any standard definition as they are both choices. Identity politics deals with things people are born into, not chosen beliefs. --Nathan J. Yoder 20:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Who considers themselves bigoted? I consider feminazis bigots, do they consider themselves such? Thats your opinion about who is bigoted. Racist parties are considered along w other parties BTW, look into Dixiecrat, for example. Religion and nation are often "born into", and your personal distinctions, arbitrary tho they are, should not be determining article content. See NPOV. Sam Spade 22:20, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Feminazis were never listed and you didn't address anything I actually said. You are strongly POV pushing here. Please don't vandalize the page unless you want to be reported to a wikipedia administrator, thank you. -Nathan J. Yoder 22:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh and religion and nationalism are not "born into." You can choose what nation you're a part of and what religion you're a part of. -Nathan J. Yoder 22:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That was your 4th revert, so i took the liberty of contacting an admin myself. Sam Spade 22:31, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reverted 3 times, not 4. I've made a total of 4 edits and my first one was a major rewrite, not a revert. I await the admin to come here and address this false report you filed against me. -Nathan J. Yoder 22:37, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, we discussed why I removed the report, if your still pissed about it feel free to take up a RfC or whatnot. Lets focus on the article here tho. Sam Spade 23:12, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Product

Let me guess. The end result looks like zig million primitive tribes (each proud to follow its very own corrupt warlord), and plays out like Ruanda '95? --Philopedia 7 July 2005 19:03 (UTC), quickly ducking under flame proof cover.

[edit] Biased

"Such groups are in some way socially or politically disenfranchised, marginalized or disadvantaged relative to the wider society of which they form part." This is a biased statement because that is an opinion. What it should say is "Identity politics tries to create quotas [meanwhile screwing over the average white guy] for such groups which liberals [mistakenly] think are in some way socially or politically disenfranchised, marginalized or disadvantaged relative to the wider society of which they form part."

[edit] A Nation?

Might it be more apt and helpful to describe groups like the Copts and the Ulster-Scots as national, ethnic, sub-cultural, communal or sectarian groups within their respective societies? Which is more precise and neutral? //Big Adamsky 19:57, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] White Nationalism - "Race" not Ethnic

White Nationalism is listed under "Ethnic Nationalisms," yet White Nationalism is a kind of "race" and not ethnic nationalism, yes? --Peer Gynt 01:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

In the US there's some controversy about the usage of terms ethnicity and race. See the CIA factbook's ethnic section. E.g. for Hungary it mentions Hungarians, Germans, Slovaks, Croatians, Gypses, Jews, for the US it mentions whites, blacks, hispanics, Asians. Is it maybe, beacause a lot of white and black people in the US don't know which ethic their ancestors were? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zslevi (talk • contribs) 11:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Criticism from 'the Right'

This slants a bit libertarian, no? I can concieve of right-wing objections to identity politics based on things like national unity. --Nydas 19:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Dont you mean Liberalism, libertarian != left wing. - UnlimitedAccess 04:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] new def. of identity politics based on my research.

Identity Politics is characterized by how an individual views political issues based on the environment they were raised in. A selection of events and activities one has taken part in over their life develops ones identity. Our opinions on political issues are affected by what has happened to us personally. It does not just pertain to minority groups. Every person is developed over time to see the world through their own eyes, giving every person their own distinct view on each issue. Identity politics also deals with nature vs. nurture, the political opinions we are born with and the opinions we gain by our surroundings.

If your research hasn't been published, it can't go on Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research.--Nydas^(Talk) 10:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further effort to define identity politics

I teach a course on the construction of national identity, and it seems to me that many nationalisms are forms of identity politics, not just black nationalism. The term "nationalism" to describe a political program was coined by Maurice Barrès around 1890 to describe the right-wing program of which he was a leader, and became common during the Dreyfus affair. Dreyfus was accused on being racially incapable of loyalty to France. One still hears the view that European nationalism is based on shared history and ancestry - or graves and altars - which are certainly not chosen by any individual. Indeed, the Right was understood to be nationalist in France and Germany. Until recently, there was really very little distinction made among race, ethnicity and nationality, even in the United States (where eligibility for naturalized citizenship was based on race until after WWII). So I think there are many nationalist groups that qualify for the definition of identity politics; Serbian nationalists spring to mind; but as I noted in my rewrite the term was coined recently and is used primarily to refer to recent political movements on behalf of the oppressed (actual or imaginary). It is not easy to be neutral in talking about politics, but I have tried to avoid lumping liberalism with either the left or the libertarian right, but have used the term expressly to designate the broad center of Western opinion, which derives the legitimacy of governments from the consent of the governed, and the form of the state upon the importance of individual rights. Sheldon Novick 21:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I am trying to eliminate the POV and original research material pointed out by Nydas, bit by bit, but am new to the Wikipedia world and am going slowly, trying to extricate my hopefully more neutral material and tie to published materials. Would be grateful for help and correction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sheldon Novick (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC).Sheldon Novick 15:56, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

It's a good idea to familiarise yourself with various Wikipedia policies and guidelines, especially Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. You might also wish to examine deletion and featured discussions, as these can give you a good idea of how the various rules work in practice.--Nydas^(Talk) 18:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite rationale

I have rewritten the article to eliminate the original research and POV material, which made up the bulk of it, keeping only the referenced passages and links to other entries. It seemed to me that the principal difficulty that previous authors and I were wrestling with was the problem of summarizing the content of such a large and diverse political phenomenon. To make the article manageable I have instead tried just to define and attribute the phrase, without commenting on all the separate groups and movements to which it has been attached. I think it might also make sense to categorize this article as "human rights."Sheldon Novick 23:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reinstate rewrite

The anonymous poster removed my version of a definition, which was based on the published sources is cited, and has reinstated his own, which is apparently based on "original research." The problem I have with his/her version is that it is plainly not correct in many instances, as it defines "identity politics" as a movement for self-determination. This is only rarely true in the case of, say, feminism - I think there may be as many men as women who would identify themselves as feminists - or GLBT groups. Those who use the term to describe their own activity use it in the sense that I define. The second problem I have with the earlier posting is that it consists largely of (unsourced) criticisms of these supposed movements for self-determination, which seems a bizarre way to explain or define a term. If the earlier version is reinstated, then the warnings about POV and unsourced materials should be reinstated. Sheldon Novick 15:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a rewrite, in which I tried to preserve as much of the earlier article as was sourced. The anonymous reversion seems unwarranted, and is not really supported. Please find some basis for the article, especially for the definition limiting "identity politics" to ethnic nationalisms, which seems to exclude most of the women's and GLBT movements. Sheldon Novick 16:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Explaining criticism of identity politics: not a violation of NPOV

Several older edits, which explain debates surrounding identity politics and criticism of identity politics from the perspective of opposing political viewpoints, have been removed on the grounds that it is not NPOV. I believe this is incorrect. Explaining conflicting views and debates surrounding a topic is not a violation of wikipedia's NPOV policy, so long as these debates are treated fairly. As the policy states: "The neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints . . . Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in." I have reverted back to an earlier version which describes opposing views to identity politics.Edelmand 12:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It is good to have opposing views, and to have the entry which is little more than a stub enlarged. But there are two problems with the manner in which criticism and discussion were summarized in the original posting, now partly restored. One problem is the characterization of criticisms as Right, Center and Radical Left, terms that are not defined and that in my own view or not coherent, at least in this context. Does the "Right" oppose patriotic, national-identity movements? Men's rights? Who are the "Radical Left" who supposedly criticize identity politics? The Communist Party USA has been a supporter of black civil rights and black liberation since the 1930s, when its organizers went South to develop a racial base there. These right/left labels aren't helpful, at least in this context. A second broad (and related) difficulty is that identity politics is a vague term for a tactic, born in the women's movement but since applied retroactively to all sorts of older and different efforts. Is there really much principled criticism (aside from the universal solidarity argument)of people joining together on the basis of their perceived similarities, or their perceived oppression, and working politically for human rights? Most criticism actually seems to be directed at particular tactics and claims, for instance the dispute whether there is a right to be free from governmental discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, whether homosexuality is an identity, whether the regulation of abortion procedures discriminates in unlawful fashion against women, etc. These are arguments that go to the underlying substantive claim of right or of discrimination, and should be discussed under the headings of human rights, etc. So by all means let's discuss criticisms of "identity politics," but please try not to erect stereotyped identities in the process.Sheldon Novick 16:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Is 'identity politics' a pejorative term?

I have heard it described as such, but this article makes no mention of that. Certainly, it seems that these days, the main groups using the phrase 'identity politics' are those opposed to feminism and gay rights movements, who use it critically to suggest that they aren't working to help all of society, but just one particular group. I think a 'criticism of the term' section would be a useful addition to this page, pointing out that 'identity politics' is rarely used by such groups to describe themselves. Terraxos (talk) 20:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is anecdotal, but when I was in college/grad school in the late 80s and mid-90s, the term was used widely in academia as a descriptive, neutral term, not at all pejoratively. It may have become so as the term became more familiar in the media. But back then, it was used simply as a catch-all term to describe the entire penumbra of political and academic ideas surrounding the historical struggle of various minorities to change stereotypical thinking. The emphasis was certainly on such things as using non-racist language, etc. As such, it is related to political correctness, but that term was seen as pejorative. Perhaps someone can verify with a source; there must have been thousands of papers written using the term. StrangeAttractor (talk) 06:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ideas are the gate to scholarly discourse

It is statistically impossible to study a subject without a certain degree of bias. The important thing to remember is that scholarly opinions, no matter how skewed they may seem to the equally biased reader, are the gateway to discourse and rebuttal. As there has been a clear effort on the part of the authors and contributors to this page, those who have conflicting opinions should do their own research, collect their own ideas, and create a page with their own interpretation of Identity Politics or possibly a countering theory. Pointing out a problem does not create a solution in any scholarly or life situation. Instead of putting effort into crying blasphemy bigotry, put effort into research and counter scholasticism, which is the essence of education and intellectual growth. Whether or not I believe with the content originally set forth in this page, I believe that the effort put forth to collect, analyze, and coherently present ideas and information should be respected and treated as such. Politics and Social Identity are not discrete fields in which there is a clear right and wrong answer, so why should we attempt to vilify a scholarly attempt to explain such ideas? We shouldn't. Those who tell us not to fight fire with fire are ambivalent to the truth of scholarly discourse and explanation, as the best way to devalue an opinionated article is to counter it with a well written, researched, and presented counter-piece. Get over yourselves and your high-minded snobbery and see this work for what it is and not what you may think it represents. Jsmith12345 (talk) 16:11, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Jewish identity"

Carol, can you explain what in the Jewish identity article is relevant to this article? Also, aside from googling up a couple of book titles, can you explain the relevance of American Jewish Identity Politics by Deborah Dash Moore and Cornerstones of Peace: Jewish Identity, Politics, and Democratic Theory by Marla Brettschneider? From what I can tell, they weren't used as sources in the Jewish identity article. Have you even read them? Jayjg ^(talk) 01:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems strange that you suddenly are popping up and reverting changes in several articles in last couple days which I doubt you came upon independently. But I'm sure you'll just claim you are being a good admin and not stalking or intimidating me.

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles..

Just because something isn't used in one article doesn't mean it can't be used in another. You said the Jewish Identity article was not about politics so I referenced a few things that clearly are. It would be helpful if all the identities listed had such a reference to make sure people weren't making it up. Carol Moore 02:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, you haven't answered my points. Have you read those books? How are they related to our article on Jewish identity? What in the Jewish identity article relates to this article? Googling up books titles isn't good enough. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• And you haven't answered my point about whether you are wikistalking me and I should complain about it.
• After all what you say is true of all the other entries in that section, i.e. they don't wiki link to a [___ Identity politics] article. If you deleted them all, your complaint might have some credibility and not look like wikistalking, which I think it clearly is. Carol Moore 02:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, you edit dozens of articles, I haven't been following you to them, as you know. And if your only argument is "yeah, you're right, I didn't read those sources, I just googled them up, and there's nothing in the Jewish identity article relevant to this, but the other items in that list are bad too", it's a particularly weak argument, and the solution is to delete the list, or fix the article, not abuse sources. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Sure, it's just a coincidence that you happened along to obscure secession/sectarianism articles of interest to me like this and List of irredentist claims or disputes‎. The one's I've "followed" you on to were because of relation to Jewish/Israel lobby or general wiki issues. And I don't believe I've ever reverted you on them.
• And I have never read that we have to read whole books on topics, whether we ref them or externally link to them or put them in bibliographies. As it happens, I read some reviews of the books that made it clear they were relevant, but figured since I wasn't quoting a sentence, a book was sufficient. Why don't I bring this to reliable sources and ask for their opinion?
• Nor have I read that every time you make a wiki link it has to 100% refer to everything in the article or you can't make it.
• Nor have I read that every time you make what looks like a pretty obvious wiki link you have to be able to write a dissertation justifying it. I personally don't care if "Jewish identity politics" includes the wiki link or not but figure someone else probably would just come along and put it in without thinking twice about it. And obviously it is relevant even if at this time there isn't a subheading on "Jewish Identity Politics" in the Jewish Identity article. I've asked if people think such a section is necessary (I don't want to write it myself). Obviously this sort of thing is why there was this decision: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles.

It is clear to me you are nitpicking and harassing me in places where you assume I will not get any support and you can get away with it.Carol Moore 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Carol, there's nothing in the Jewish identity article relevant to this article, and you haven't read the books in question - you just googled up the titles, and threw them in. Don't use as citations material you haven't read. And I'm not sure why you keep bringing up that RFAR, to which I was not a party, and which was not relevant to this article, but it does seem to describe the kind of disruptive behavior you've been indulging in for months now - perhaps that was your point. Jayjg ^(talk) 05:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please quote the WP policy that says you have to read every book you reference. (I can always put in the book reviews instead when I get a chance.) Also please quote the relevant wiki policy on making wiki links.

Constantly deleting people's relevant RS entries on questionable grounds (while defending your own like Cesarani) without citing real policies is much more disruptive than just trying to get sourced material into articles to make them more complete or NPOV. Carol Moore 15:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

You're now saying you don't have to read a source to cite it? Now I've heard everything. In any event, since you claim to have read "book reviews" on the subject, please review WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT:

Say where you found the material. It is improper to copy a citation from an intermediate source without making clear that you saw only that intermediate source.

Which "book reviews" are you using as sources? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Before editing this article again I wanted to:

• clear up wikilinks issue, which also impacts links here like: Afrocentrism...Pan-Arabism...Gender (LGBT, Gay community, Radical feminism), Disability-based identities (Disability rights, Autism rights, Deaf culture, Diabetes, Fat acceptance) Age-based identities: (Adultism, Jeunism).
• clear up issue of ref'ng a whole book after you've re'f online review of book
• write a short very RS'd section on "Jewish Identity politics" in Jewish Identity
• do a little research on this article to make it better since this issue and sectarianism of interest in my secession researches.

So don't rush me; just one project on my list. ;-) Carol Moore 16:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Wikipedia as a source?

Copied by unknown person from Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Wikipedia_as_a_source.3F

Sorry if this is not the appropriate place to post this question: I am unsure whether it should go here, on this page's discussion page (where I posted it yesterday) or where else. Since this page is active and the discussion page is not, I assume it is better placed here.

An article about a location (town/city/village) makes a claim about a person in terms of where they were born or where they have lived. This is questioned, and the reply comes back that since that person's name is linked to the wikipedia article about that person, and in that article the fact is referenced, there is no need to include the reference in the article about the town/city/village. I consider that one should routinely include a reference to the fact in the town/city/village article as well on a few grounds that can be summed up with the phrase "a wikipedia article cannot be used as a reference for a fact in another wikipedia article." Am I right? Now, is there any difference if the fact is not one about a person, but about something else? I consider there isn't. I think I may be correct here, but I'd like some comments in case I am not. Is there anything explicitly in any guidelines about this as I have seen an increasing number of similar issues crop up over the past few months. Thanks.  DDStretch  (talk) 11:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is clear that we should not actually cite another wikipedia article (ie: <ref>wikipeida article</ref>), but that is not what is occuring in this case. A wikilink is not considered to be a "reference" or "citation" to another wikipedia article. It is simply a navigational tool, a pointer to another article where further information can be found. From what you tell us, the information that person X lived in town Y is apparently cited to a reliable source. So we are not citing wikipedia for the information. The question then is simply: do we need to repeat the citation in every article where the information is repeated? Consensus is actually mixed about this.

The argument that, as long as a piece of factual information is cited in the main article on X, we do not need to repeat the citation in other articles when we repeat that information, is (to some degree) valid... but it may not be the best practice. It really depends on the information, and whether it is at all contentious. If it is contentious, then best practice would be to repeat the citation (if only to avoid constantly having to say... "but it is cited... see the main article"). In other words... the citation does not have to be repeated, but it probably should be.

As a final thought.... I have to ask whether an article on a town/city/village really needs to mention that person X was born or lived in the town? Unless this fact had an impact on the history of the town, I would think it would essentially be trivia. To give examples: The fact that Muhammad lived in Medina is important to the history of Medina (and Islam) ... but the fact that Martin Van Buren was born in Kinderhook, NY is not really important to the history of Kinderhook. The first should be mentiond in the article on Medina... the second probably does not need to be mentioned in the article on Kinderhook. Blueboar (talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I have conveyed them to the relevant people, but it is not yet guaranteed that they will adopt what you called best practice here. In terms of your last point, your views go against what appears to be given as part of various guidelines given in, for example, WP:USCITY#Notable natives and residents and WP:UKCITIES#Notable people, both of which have been used to structure articles that have achieved GA and FA status. Indeed, they are often referred to by GA and FA reviewers with the aim of getting articles to comply with them. So, I'm not sure that your criticism reflects a widespread opinion, and, I invite you to take the matter up on the relevant discussion pages for the guidelines and for the relevant GA and FA discussion pages if you feel it is an important point.  DDStretch  (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, you might note that this page is a WP:guideline and that WP:V, which is an WP:official policy page says, in part: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources.". -- Boracay Bill (talk) 23:22, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Wiki links are supposed to be navigational tools. They can not be sources per WP:V. And I was not saying it was a source, just a link. So you can't reject it as a source when it's not even supposed to be one, per either me or wikipedia.Carol Moore 21:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Who copied this section here and why didn't they sign? A small part seems relevant to the last section and could have been copied there and signed, but anonymous mass copying is annoying. Carol Moore 15:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Section Forms of Identity Politics - does need reliable sources

Per the Original research/unverified claims template I put in thre, it does seem that each listing should have some refernece to prove that political action does in fact exist, especially if there isn't much or any mention on the page itself. Especially: Afrocentrism...Pan-Arabism...Gender (LGBT, Gay community, Radical feminism), Disability-based identities (Disability rights, Autism rights, Deaf culture, Diabetes, Fat acceptance) Age-based identities: (Adultism, Jeunism). I myself question a couple at the end and might delete them soon if there is no reference or relevant info in the link. FYI Carol Moore 16:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

That section seems very undeveloped, and is one of those catch-all sections, very much like Trivia sections. IMO, "identity politics" as such is primarily a North American phenomenon that has spread to Europe. The historical struggle of ethnic minorities in other parts of the world does not necessarily use the same conceptual framework. In the West, identity politics grew out of the many different liberation movements in the 1950s/60s, and has a lot of conceptual ties to that era (including some neo-Marxist ideas, but these have become so buried in assumptions, they are hardly worth mentioning). In any case, the main conceptual framework is that prejudice against minorities/women can be addressed by changing the way people talk and think, and that the best way to do this is through enforced language policies. It can be seen as a reaction to and extension of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s -- legal rights were won for minorities and women, but cultural and institutional prejudice persisted; thus the next step is to change the culture itself by addressing expression and thought. The advocates of various identity politics may not frame it in these terms, but that's what all the different movements seem to have in common -- eradicating sexist and racist language and/or expression as a means of changing the underlying culture. I have no source for this, but perhaps someone does. These concepts are (historically) relatively new, although they are in a clear lineage from many Enlightenment concepts going back to the French Revolution. StrangeAttractor (talk) 06:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)