text:
Talk:Sequel

Stand-Alone Sequel
"When a work is set in the same universe, yet has very little if any narrative connection to its predecessor, and can stand on its own without a thorough understanding of the series, the work can be referred to as a standalone sequel."

Then what is a sequel with no connection at all to the original series? Halloween 3 for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1E02:C0F7:38E8:FDB8:55F1:1785 (talk) 23:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 * Very late response, but I'd call that an anthology entry. Halloween 3 is perhaps a unique case, in that it was intended to convert an existing series into an anthology, but then the concept was abandoned and the franchise returned to the original narrative.  --DavidK93 (talk) 23:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

"Midquel" needs a better citation
As has been discussed further down on this page, the term "midquel" seems to be a neologism invented here on Wikipedia. There is now a cite in this article for the definition of a midquel: Margarete Rubik; Elke Mettinger-Schartmann (2007). A Breath of Fresh Eyre: Intertextual and Intermedial Reworkings of Jane Eyre. However, in the text of that book (conveniently searchable on Google Books, the part where it defines "midquel" cites Wikipedia as its source!

So we still need a different term to prove that midquel is not a bit of original research. --101.98.144.68 (talk) 08:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk from 2003
Moved from inline comments:

 * Did the movie industry invent the word or was it used in publishing first? (04:08, 13 Jul 2003 . . User:Lee M)

 * The OED and other dictionaries date it to 1972 when used in the Britannica Book of the Year for 1972/73; someone can look there for the first credited use... (19:08, 12 Dec 2003 . . User:66.167.49.35)

- IMSoP 22:28, 16 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Video Games?
Can the word sequel only apply to films and books? Can't computer and video games have sequels? Vanky 19:55, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Hmm, yes, I'd say any "work of fiction" can have a sequel really, which in my book would include video games. I've added a fudge to that effect to the introductory paragraph, but a more thorough rewording would probably be sensible. - IMSoP 20:33, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * RPG video games follow story-lines and plots just like any other book/movie/play/ect. So why not? - 07:29, 07 Oct 2010

the first sequel?
when was the first true sequel written? By "true" I mean a work of fiction which follows on from a previous work, not one that was split up into multiple "parts" merely for practical reasons (such as Shakespeare's Henry VI parts 1, 2 and 3; or the Lord of the Rings trilogy). www.etymonline.com dates sequel meaning "story that follows and continues another" to 1513. Does anyone know what work of fiction this might refer to?

Given that the play was (supposedly) written to accommodate Queen Elizabeth who wanted to see Shakespeare's fictional creation Falstaff "in Love", one could make an argument for The Merry Wives of Windsor, although that's aroun 1600. Tomsalinsky 22:19, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * wouldn't that technically be more like a spinoff rather than a sequel? ;) --Krsont 20:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the Odyssey a sequel to the Iliad? Exodus a sequel to Genesis? EamonnPKeane 17:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oedipus Rex by Sophocles was part of a trilogy. 14 August 2007 (ALB)

The Iliad was a sequel to the (sadly lost) Cypria. EamonnPKeane 23:53, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

First numbered sequel
Godfather Part II and not Quatermass 2? Tomsalinsky 22:16, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I am also a person who spent an hour of research on this topic just now and want this fact recognized. Meanwhile I will simultaneously debate with myself on whether this counts, as it does not take the full title of its predecessor, and also it would seem that there are even older titles.  I think Alladin II is a sequel to Alladin and the Wonderful Lamp (Indian spellings or something?  I'm simply citing the IMDb).  There are possibly even older ones.  Furthermore, it appears to be mostly an evolution to things using "No. 2".  While some stuff is hard to sort through, particularly pre-planned sequels, possibly in production before the release of the original, I can say fairly safely that while French Connection II is probably the earliest example with modern mainstream recognition, there are earlier examples.  Like Hyeong 2 from 1971.  Or Breast Orgy 2 in 1972. Eclipsed Moon 15:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Threequel
What is the term "threequel" that re-directs here supposed to mean?? Georgia guy 02:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I've just added in a modified version of that article in the prequel section which hopefully answers your question. Turnstep 16:43, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't class Bourne Ultimatum as a threequel but a trilogy. All three films tell one story and the books they are based on was a trilogy as well. Nightjim 16:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

GoF to replace PoA?
I'm biased, because Prisoner of Azkaban is my favorite film in the Harry Potter series. But I gather that it's widely believed, and rightly so, that Goblet of Fire is more generally regarded as the greatest Potter film yet. Anybody mind if I edit this? - Caleb Osment 07:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

distant sequels
I think the Terminator sequels are distant sequels. Parodoxicaly, they are also prequels because of the time travel apsect of the movie.whicky1978 02:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Indiana Jones
I've changed a sentance in the second last paragraph at the end of the "Titling of sequels" section, it originally said that Raiders of the Lost Ark had sequels, but that's not true, Temple of Doom was in fact a prequel. All I did was change the wording from "to better align it with its sequels." to "to better align it with its prequel and sequel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by It's me It's me (talk • contribs)

Quasi-sequel, midquel, interquel
I have merged quasi-sequel (now a redirect) as per suggestion. I also added redirect articles for midquel and interquel. All of these redirects point to sequel, but could be changed to redirect to Sequel. mwazzap 08:49, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe that interquel and midquel are actually the same thing (after one work, but before another). The Lion King 1 1/2 is actually the events of the original film from Timon and Pumbaa's point of view. That isn't the same.

 * Interquel and midquel are not the same thing. An interquel takes place between two previously completed works, and a midquel takes place during a previously completed work.

 * For example, the video game Metroid Prime was released after Metroid and Metroid II, but it takes place between them and is therefore an interquel.

 * On the other hand, in the video game Jak II, there's a two-year gap between the moments when the character of Jak is taken prisoner and when the character of Daxter rescues him. A later game titled Daxter takes place during this two-year gap, and is therefore a midquel.

 * I've never seen The Lion King 1½, but if it's simply a retelling of the events of The Lion King from another point of view, it's not an interquel or midquel or even a sidequel, but a parallel. This is similar to the novel Ender's Shadow, which retells the events of Ender's Game from another perspective. DT29 05:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Harry Potter
HP was actually planned with 8 books, but Rowling made the decision to just make 7 instead.

Reply to unsigned comment: No, Hagrid says in book 1 that Hogwarts education lasts 7 years. EamonnPKeane 23:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

"Midquel"
I'm not exactly sure, but I believe the word "midquel" was invented on Wikipedia, or at least made up one day by a bored person. Whereas "interquel" at least has an entry on some Webster's editions, "midquel" seems to only exist as a result of Wikipedia, and just barely at that. Axem Titanium 22:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

 * I agree, a lot of this seems made up 141.151.79.241 03:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What would you call this?
The upcoming Paul of Dune by Kevin J. Anderson and Brian Herbert will reportedly feature a section detailing the childhood of Paul Muad'Dib Atreides (therefore another prequel to Dune) and a section describing his Fremen Jihad (a sequel to Dune and prequel to Dune Messiah). The original Dune will, as a result, be sandwiched between the two sections of the new book. Anyone have a term for this one?

I'd like to suggest amphiquel..."a -quel on both sides". --SandChigger 03:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Pirates of the Caribbean
In the article it's stated that PotC is an example of a pre-planned franchise for the purpose of franchise titles, but this is not technically the case. Pirates was developed without any sequels planned, and it was only after the success of the first film that they decided to expand it into a franchise. Perhaps another franchise should be used as an example. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Test0zero (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

'Triquel'?
Though I'm familiar with the concept, I've never heard this word used before, and it seems very much like a neologism to me. Can someone provide reliable sources to show that this word is, in fact, really in use to describe second sequels? If not, I'd suggest replacing it with 'threequel' (which is also a neologism, but a considerably more common one) or just 'second sequel'. Terraxos (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I've never heard the term "Triquel", but "Threequel" is a very common (albeit relatively new) term. Hell, the People's Choice Awards even uses "threequel" in the name of one of their awards. Also, a Google search brings up about 8K hits for "Triquel" and almost 29K for "Threequel".  TJ   Spyke   06:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Does this belong here at all?
It seems to be more appropriate, in its current form, for a series of definitions in an "urban dictionary", rather than an encyclopedia. Sinneed (talk) 03:53, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel the same way. This seems more appropriate content for Wiktionary or some other site. This article feels like an unfortunate endorsement of jargon that writers should be trying to avoid if they are serious about writing encyclopedia quality articles that are understandable and accessible without requiring knowledge of the English language most native speakers don't even have. Move to Wiktionary? -- Horkana (talk) 00:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up
I would love to delete the "Midquel" section (and a few others) but there's a note pointing out that an article with that name exists and redirects here. ("Midquel" redirects to this section; do not change this title without changing the redirect point as well) I suggest someone nominate that article for speedy deletion.

Additionally, I'd add a cleanup tag or two but don't know the format. --70.128.121.235 (talk) 07:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Every Section Using Unofficial Names Such as Midquel Should be Re-Worked
I'm sorry, Midquel is not a word. Any section that is not a real word (e.g. does not have an official entry in a dictionary or at least is a well known and accepted colloquialism) has no place in an encyclopedic article.

Midquel and Sidequel are the ones that stand out. Interquel and Threequel do in fact have entries with Websters so they can stay. 'Midquels' as the article puts it are already covered in concept with Interquels and Parallels. Sidquels are just called Side Stories. Other languages do have official worlds for this (i.e. Japanese uses Gaiden), but I do not think English does. Sidequel isn't a word.

I'd also go as far to say that the section Distant should be converted to a sub section of Sequel or Companion Piece. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.190.34.219 (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

list Midnight Sun as parallel?
Should that Twilight book that hasn't been written yet, Midnight Sun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midnight_Sun_(novel)) be added under "parallel"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Web wonder (talk • contribs) 12:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

No. Excessive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.180.70 (talk) 16:21, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

excessive examples of interquel
We don't need so many examples of what an interquel is.. how about fixing it so that it's just like two or three examples.. star wars, metroid and godfather maybe.. by the time you get to street fighter it's just like, "I GET IT".. y'know? besides that, street fighter is a poor example because it's so idiotically numbered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.243.180.70 (talk) 16:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing, not even a mention of music albums
There are plenty of albums that are sequels. There should be as many albums mentioned in this article as there are films and games. I can't be certain, since I'm not into reading novels much, but there must be a lot of books that have sequels too. Pasta of Muppets (talk) 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 * Books, yes, but albums don't usually have plots and chronology, so the connection is a lot harder to describe and lot more open to PoV issues. -- Thnidu (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

 * Album sequels, like Only Built 4 Cuban Linx... Pt. II, actually do exist. They may not have a cohesive "story" to connect with its predecessor, but they often follow common themes and topics. Enter Movie (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Definition; ambiguity
The article uses two conflicting sense of "sequel", one broader and one narrower. (Underlining added.) (followed by a slew of other terms).
 * 1) The first sentence says
 * A sequel is a work in literature, film, or other media that chronologically portrays events following those of a previous work.
 * 1) But when we get to the first level-2 section, Chronologies, we read
 * There are a number of ways that subsequent works can be related to the chronology of the original.
 * Sequel
 * The most common approach is for the events of the second work to directly follow the events of the first, either picking up dangling plot threads or introducing a new conflict to drive the events of a second story. [This is the definition given in the opening as the only meaning.]
 * Prequel
 * A sequel that portrays events which precede those of the original work is called a "prequel." [Note the use of "sequel" here, contradicting the opening def.]

Wiktionary provides both these senses, plus a deprecated third:
 * A narrative that is written after another narrative set in the same universe, [this is sense #1],
 * especially a narrative that is chronologically set after its predecessors, [sense #2]
 * or (perhaps improper usage) any narrative that has a preceding narrative of its own. [not used in this article]

I've borrowed from that wording to modify the opening sentence, with a link to Fictional universe.

--Thnidu (talk) 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Requel
Why not add a heading for requels -- remakes/reboots that act as sequels. For eg, The Incredible Hulk was a requel to Hulk and Terminator Salvation which was supposed to be a reboot later became a sequel. There are many more examples. Why not give a few and write a heading??? Someone please reply as soon as possible.

Jinjanjaa (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2011 (IST)

Change "parallel" to "paraquel"
In the section on "Parallel" it says "citation needed", which I take to mean that there isn't really a consensus that this word is confirmed as the correct term for works of fiction that are chronologically concurrent but involve different, though related, circumstances from the original story. I would like to change this entry to be "paraquel" instead. Whereas I haven't really found "parallel" used much (especially since it's hard to make a Google search that disambiguates from the usual meanings of "parallel"), I've found various references to "paraquel": http://thestorytellersscroll.blogspot.jp/2011/03/what-is-paraquel.html http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=paraquel http://jimhenry.conlang.org/review/paraquel.htm Also, I edited out part that described an example referring to a "Back To The Future" movie and took out the word "parallel". Parallel means "two things that run side by side but never touch". This seems inappropriate for describing characters and events that intertwine to some degree (even if one side only observes the other, they change their actions based on their observations.) I hope these edits are acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebisumartin (talk • contribs) 15:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * None of those sources for "paraquel" are WP:RS. Anybody can edit Urban Dictioanary. The first cite is a blog, as is the third: http://jimhenry.conlang.org/review/paraquel.htm, and that says he coined it. So it was made up by "Jim Henry" in 2008. Not really a great pedigree. Parallel is a real word and the meaning is obvious. So I have reverted that. It doesn't have to be a mathematically perfect analogy to use the word. Barsoomian (talk) 19:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes the examples linked to can be "edited by anybody" (just like this site), but at least they are examples. Whereas "parallel" remains completely unsupported. I think marginal support for a term should beat no support for a term, shouldn't it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebisudave (talk • contribs) 02:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 * The word "parallel" is a real word. Here for example part of the Oxford English Dictionary definition in the sense used here.
 * "parallel 2b. Concurrent or contemporary; existing in the same period of time. 1859 C. Darwin Origin of Species x. 325   This great fact of the parallel succession of the forms of life throughout the world, is explicable on the theory of natural selection. 1878   W. Stubbs Constit. Hist. III. xviii. 131   The parallel lines of war and negotiation run on for three years more."
 * There are 110,000 hits for "parallel novel". There are zero for "paraquel novel". Barsoomian (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I don't mean to be argumentative about this and belabour the point. However, after some thought, I realized that making a heading for "Parallel" is being just as prescriptivist as my suggestion for "paraquel". The reason being that "sequel" and "prequel" are nouns. In this instance of usage, "parallel" is an adjective. People say "that is a parallel story". "Parallel" modifies "story", it does not stand in for it. I do not doubt you that there are more instances of people saying "a parallel novel", but that is representative of the adjectival usage, not evidence that "parallel" stands on its own as a noun in this context.
 * It should also be noted that your search is flawed in that not only did you use the word parallel as an adjective, you restrained yourself to novels. Looking up the term "paraquel" on its own reveals more than zero results, such as this movie review, which uses "paraquel" as a matter of course, not simply as a proposal for the word.
 * No one says "that is a parallel" the same way they say "that is a prequel" or "that is a "sequel". To describe the adjective "parallel" in the same level of category as "prequel" or "sequel" or even "interquel" is being prescriptivist. Whereas the argument being made against "paraquel" is that Wikipedia is supposed to be descriptivist.
 * Therefor, it seems to me the most objective solution which is representative of the reality of the situation is to simply state that fact: that there is a slight lexical gap, that the common usage is to *describe* stories as "parallel" (as opposed to *naming* them "parallel"), and that people have proposed ways of closing the lexical gap. I see that someone edited the entry to say "It's hard to know what to call it", but that's not right either. We know what to call it - we call it a parallel story. We just don't have an agreed upon one-word for it.
 * I have been bold enough to propose an edit that takes these considerations into account, and I hope this will be accepted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ebisumartin (talk • contribs) 03:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Please learn how to sign your name with ~ 2) Parallel is also a noun, and regardless, the whole article is about "stories", we don't need to state it in every heading. 3) None of the other wacky words has any reliable source, and any currency outside a few blogs. Enshrining them in Wikipedia will give them an appearance of authority; WP is just supposed to record accepted knowledge, not help to promulgate new words. And what do you think you were doing by removing the quote from Card where he explains the use of "parallel", which was the whole point of the citation? -- your first post here was about the "citation needed" which is why I went to the trouble to document it.
 * And see this book cover "Ender's Shadow: A parallel novel to Ender's Game" on the cover. Barsoomian (talk) 04:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

 * Splendid, an example in the wild of parallel as an adjective. —Tamfang (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Should "Remake" be listed?
The article has a section for Reboot all ready, should Remake be listed as well, perhaps as a subsection to the "Reboot" section?

I admit that I'm a little unclear as to the difference between the two, but there does appear to be one. Furthermore, if one is listed, I think that the other has just as much merit. 97.124.72.24 (talk) 05:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

^ reboot is a re imagining like the new spider man films, whereas a remake is a new version of and old movie like willy wonka or evil dead — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.250.32 (talk) 08:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Appropriate WikiProjects
I'm looking to add templates to rate this article as 'C' class (due to lack of supporting materials) at least 'mid' importance for the following WikiProjects (based on the article lead):

 * WikiProject Literature,
 * WikiProject Film,
 * WikiProject Theatre,
 * WikiProject Television,
 * WikiProject Music,
 * WikiProject Video Games,

but was looking for comment or consensus before I did so (since it is quite an extensive list, and there are no current templates and no discussion). This would be wrapped in WikiProjectBanners — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 13:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Fanfiction
Should there be some discussion of fanfiction on this page? Possibly under the heading "Unofficial sequels"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.117.103 (talk) 00:23, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I have added unofficial sequels which should be a section, with about a dozen notable examples dated spread across history in chronological order which should be appropriate and sufficient. Darrelljon (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

im bothered about stand-alones
so Toy Story 4 will be released in a standalone format...and most of the films ive watched that are standalones have low ratings

is every standalone sequels have low ratings?if no,give examples.if yes,why?

John kaiser (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Severe lack of citations in Chronologies section
"Midquel", "Sidequel", "paraquel", "macroquel", and "pseudosequel" all seem like complete neologisms, intended to replace the word "spinoff". While I understand these words are intended to further clarify the timing of spinoffs, they seem incredibly superfluous. The examples seem to rely heavily on direct-to-dvd cartoons. It honestly looks like some child invented a word during a Scrabble game and edited this article in order to win. These entries have been contested several times throughout this talk page. None of the above listed words have any entries in any valid lexicon currently in use by speakers of the English language. I move, once and for all, that these entries be deleted outright. 73.150.219.101 (talk) 02:37, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that some discussions on these labels go back to 2007 on this talk page. Since nobody's provided any reliable sources for these, I think you should be bold, remove the content, and see what happens. I suspect that you're right about them being neologisms. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I brought this up in the talk section, because deleting all of it looks like vandalism. If there are no credible objections in the next 24 hours, I'll remove it. 73.150.219.101 (talk) 03:41, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * A good choice. It's always nice to see anonymous IP users engaging in discussions, so thank you for that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Reboot and soft reboot
This is regarding this edit and this discussion on another talk page. It appears the reboot section includes some weaker sources used to explain a term which doesn't necessarily have a consistent definition. This introduces a contradiction in the article, since it says that some reboots restart continuity and some retcon it, while the "soft" paragraph says that reboots always restart unless they are "soft". I would rephrase this section to be less awkward, but the sources aren't really sufficient for any further detail. It also says a reboot "is similar to a remake", but that's really unhelpful. How, exactly, is it different from a remake? Are these really new terms, or just buzzwords for existing concepts?

Broad comments like these are implying things that are not supported by solid sources. These sources are pretty fluffy journalism which, if they are usable at all, do not agree with each other on where these boundaries lie, and the examples listed do not really clarify this. This would especially be a problem to someone who isn't already familiar with the Star Wars and Jurassic Park franchises. We cannot impose a movie viewing prerequisite on our definition of the term. If Inverse (website) is reliable in general, that article is not particularly good for this purpose. It's an opinion-piece about two specific films being contrasted in a pop-culture sense with a lot of vague, unsupportable opinions as a framework. As discussed at the other talk page, weak sources are not sufficient to present the term as something more substantial than it is, so better sources should be used before expanding this section any further. Grayfell (talk) 05:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The term "soft reboot" should not be used in an encyclopedia. It is a trendy marketing buzzword that has unfortunately developed a fanbase on WP. I started a discussion on this at Talk:Once Upon a Time (season 7). - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

 * Even if someone considers these terms to be encyclopedic... this is an encyclopedia article about sequels. The reboot/remake/etc sections define these terms as being not sequels.  Therefore, these sections do not belong in this article.  I have added these terms to See Also, and will remove the sections from the article. 107.77.204.111 (talk) 03:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

 * Sorry, I wasn't aware until now that my edit was questioned. I stand by what I said about this -- if the only RS defining the term (and Den of Geek, Screen Rant, etc. aren't exactly Pulitzer prize material) keep contradicting each other, then there can't really be a definition for Wikipedia's purposes. Maybe "soft reboot" has become big enough of a term to warrant a mention, but in that case we should qualify it as in, say, "Such films are sometimes being marketed under the term 'soft reboot, and I think this would still attract more edit warring than it's worth.  Daß    Wölf  00:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Examples and lists
I have added examples of sequels to very well known works of lasting impact. Examples should be included to better illustrate the topic without the article being saturated with references to particular sequels. Dozens of sequels in a long list would be better suited to another article or category. Especially where the list was merely listing any sort of sequel unsorted by medium, date etc. Darrelljon (talk) 11:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Direct sequels most common?
In the article says "The most common approach is for the events of the second work to directly follow the events of the first one". I am not sure if these is true - many sequels don't follow directly from the last work: talking only about cinema, look to 007, Mission Impossible, Indiana Jones, Terminator, Rambo, Rocky, Jumanji, Batman, Superman, etc., etc. These talk about being the "most common" seems a bit of recentism - in the 21th century have been indeed many direct sequels (Lord of the Rings, Divergent, Hunger Games, perhaps Harry Potter), but I think that this is a recent devolopment. And, talking about other mediuns, the non-direct sequels seems even more common - look, for example, for the detective story genre in literature, where is very common the same author to write sequels (books in the same universe with the same hero) almost his entire life, but with independent stories.--MiguelMadeira (talk) 00:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

"Side-story" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Side-story. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 4 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 10:35, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: CALIFORNIA DREAMING, THE GOLDEN STATE'S RHETORICAL APPEALS
— Assignment last updated by Phrynefisher (talk) 00:53, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

Star Wars IV isn't a sequel
"Star Wars: Episode IV - The New Hope (1977), ..etc.. are examples of "fourth installment" sequels"

I disagree with this - Star Wars (A New Hope) is no more a sequel to Episode 3 than it is a prequel to Empire Strikes Back. It's the original film, it can't properly be called a sequel or a prequel IMO. 2A00:23C5:D1BB:DC01:14D0:4379:2259:9A68 (talk) 13:20, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Removed, clearly an incorrect statement that mistakenly used chronological order instead of release order. —El Millo (talk) 15:53, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Back to the Future III a prequel?
The only rationale I can think of for this is that the main character travels the farthest back in time in the third film... but i think the important thing is the chronology for said main character and the narrative flow of the story. It's an unusual case because of the time travel, but I really don't think this could be considered a prequel. 1.127.106.16 (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Sequel


text:
Talk:Racism/Archive 3

Archive 3 | Archive →

Revisit this page?
Maybe we should revisit this page--right now there are three or four competing articles on the page. None of them is particularly good or bad. We seem to be stuck on the issue of defining "racism" (which is not at all surprising, of course!).

What we need is some gracious, clear-thinking, unbiased soul to combine all of the content of these articles into one master article, one that does full justice to the conceptual and political difficulties surrounding the task of definition "racism." Where could we find such a person, I wonder? :-)

--Larry Sanger

Sounds like a worthy chalenge. I poked my head in here once, but I wanted to wait until things settled down a bit before I did anything--maybe now's a good time. And I certainly have some perspective on the issue, having grown up in Mississippi with a liberal family, and being called "nigger lover" more times than I can count. On the other hand, I've been busy lately updating and reorganizing the policy pages and such. And I still have the Poker pages to complete and reorganize. Damn, having a job really gets in the way of getting work done. :-) BTW, could you pop over a take a look at Reductionism?  Someone put up a really bad stub, so I replaced it with a better stub, but it's still a stub.  -- Lee Daniel Crocker

Reverse racism vs. racism directed by a minority against a majority in power
So, clearly some dittoheads have been in here peppering this article with bits about "reverse racism", which is defined as discrimination by the minority against the majority. I have no problem with them including this discussion in here (though I find the whole idea absurd), but this is just plain wrong. Discrimination by the minority against the majority is what was practiced in apartheid regimes. Affirmative action is NOT discrimination by the minority against the majority... if anything it's a self-imposed limitation by the majority, since we hardly have a dictatorship of the minority here. Does a dittohead want to clean this up, so I don't have to? Graft 20:26 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

 * I don't know if I am a dittohead, but I will defer to yout omake the appropriate changes. I think you have a fair point, but there are two things you need to be clear about

 * 1) there is a difference (at least, in US usage) between personal racism (attitudes and actions by individuals) and structural racism. When people in the US talk about "reverse racism" I think they are often talking about personal attitudes and not institutional policies.  In these cases, one could define "reverse racism" as "racist attitudes held by members of a minority group towards members of a majority group."

 * 2) as for structural racism, you are quite right to distinguish between the situation in the US and Apartheid. You are quite right that affirmative action is by no means a form of minority rule.  You are right that it can be characterized as something self-imposed by the majority.  Nevertheless it is wrong to characterize it as a "limitation."  Laws against discrimination are a form of self-imposed limitation by the majority on the majority.  But affirmative action was instituted precisely because self-imposed limitation was not enough -- some sort of positive action on the part of the majority towards members of minority groups was (deemed) necessary. Slrubenstein

Opinions, majority opinions, and facts
the last edit removed this: (The word "race" is incorrectly used in this entry to refer to ethnic background. The human race is, in fact, a single race.) because it is supposed to be an opinion. True, but is is a very well-established opinion, that most researchers now believe. In Belgium Law for example, there is a request to add a law forbidding discrimination based on [i]alleged[/i] race. In any case, this should not have been removed. I'll try to rewrite it from NPOV. roan

 * I was the one who removed it. I certainly wouldn't mind if there was a sentence or two somewhere mentioning this, and pointing the reader to race, which I believe discusses this very question in great detail.  The way it was, it took one opinion of how the word "race" should be used (the biological sense) and claimed that the entire article was wrong because it wasn't being used in that sense.  I suppose the user thought that, since biological human races don't exist, neither does racism.  The idea is certainly relevant, but adding a disclaimer to the top of the article implying that race, and therefore racism, does not exist seemed silly to me. Tokerboy 17:55 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

 * The problem, clearly, is that NPOV is coming desperately into play in shaping this article. I think that someone should start the article over from scratch from the mind point of a basic stub like "Racism is the term that applies to discrimination of individuals based on their percieved ethnicity." I think all civilized individuals can agree that that statement is factual, and hopefully someone can take it from there. -EasterBradford-

I agree anybody would probably agree with that, but the first paragraph is already more informative. The second paragraph already says:
 * There is much critique on the simple "racism is discrimination based on :race" definition. Many researchers state that there is only one human race :left, the homo sapiens sapiens. Racism is therefore discrimination :based on alleged race; the racists themselves usually do believe in the :existence of different races.

This would seem to discuss that issue as much as it needs to here (since race is almost entirely on this subject). I'm not sure what you think is actually missing from the article as it stands, or what is not NPOV. Your addition (EasterBradford) seems to take this paragraph and introduce it as fact instead of one possible opinion. Tokerboy 18:12 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

Practical problem with the "only one race" position
I think Easter Bradford and TokerBoy both raise good points. Saying that all of humanity is "really one" and denying that the division or classification of humanity into groups called races is valid -- are just ways of sidestepping or dismissing the issue. That is, it's a tactic used to support a certain POV.

We should not, of course, support any particular POV. Rather, we should identify each of the major points of view and describe them.

Thus, there are people who:
 * deny that there are races (human race is a single race)
 * claim that race is purely biological
 * insist that race includes ethnicity
 * ...or is the same as ethnicity

The Wikipedia should neither endorse nor oppose any of these views, but just describe them. (Same applies to the race article.)

I read a really good article (unfortunately, it's at what looks like a pro-white, anti-black website!) that delineates many of the differents slants on racism, such as "intitutional", etc. Despite its bias, it's actually pretty well-written and could help supply an outline and some basic definitions.

...unless we all think it's such a tainted source as to be unusable on principle; but what principle would that be, anyway? --Ed Poor

I hadn't realized Roan already NPOVed the originally offending statement above and added it (that's the second paragraph i quoted)--sorry for bringing up an issue that was already solved (IMHO). I'm fine with the way the article reads now (I think what you're talking about, Ed, is discussed in detail at race and should only be summarized here--no reason to duplicate in this case), except for the following section which I just removed. The problem is the oversimplification of a complex question used to address what is, in fact, a very simple question. I don't really see what this adds to what is already there. Tokerboy 18:32 Nov 26, 2002 (UTC)

Racism and power
Racism in society cannot be seen correctly without asking the important question: who is in power? For example, during Hitler's reign, the structural and ideological Anti-Semitism led to the murdering of millions of jews. This could happen because the people in power supported and stimulated this form of racism. On the other hand, there probably was racism from the jews directed to the Germans as well. The jews were at the time all but powerless and could not take according structural action: they could not in turn murder millions of Germans, even if they would have wanted to. This situation is similar to e.g. the historical South African apartheid and racial segregation in the USA; a good - but controversial- example today is the Zionist Israelian government.

 * Calling the Jews Nazis is viewed by Jewish groups as an act of anti-Semitism. Claiming that the policies of the current Israeli government, or of Zionists in general, is similar to the mass murder and genocide of the Nazi regieme should be out of bounds. This is especially apparent since Arabs in Israel have civil rights and participate as elected officials in the Israeli government, while Jews have few or no civil rights in Areab nations, and are generally forbidden from participating in any Arab government. JeMa 17:53, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

I had no more time left yesterday to post on the talk page, sorry. I'm glad most of my additions/changes have been well-received.

Power is a very important issue when trying to learn about racism. Racism is not always an individual saying stupid things about some group. Structural racism can only happen when the people that are in power use that power against a certain group. This is usually a case of looking for someone to blame. For example, the economic climate of Europe (I live in Belgium btw) is much worse than several years ago, and as a result most political parties have started to blame immigrants and refugees. They also implement severe discriminating action against these groups, which may be described as blaming the victim.

But you're right, the section is poorly written. I am planning to try to improve it, hopefully helped by other people here. Is is not better to let it reside there, for everyone to see and improve? roan

and one more thing:

 * Racism has been defined in many different ways, most having to do with prejudice and discrimination based on race.

There are other definitions. One example is:
 * "Racism refers to pejorative beliefs and/or harmful actions that are directed towards a person on the basis of that person’s race because of the belief that racial characteristics have some sort of effect on the individual's character or abilities."

the given definition is an example of a definition of racism that corresponds to racism = discrimination based on race ?? roan

racism didnt even exist until after 1865 when all of the slaves were freed.

Rewriting...
The opening was wordy and full on at best debatable assertions. I have rewritten the opening to make it brief and to indicate the main issues in any discussion of racism. I realize that there is need for a lot of development (e.g. personal versus structural racism, "reverse" racism, the relationsionsip between racism and other forms of discrimination, etc.) but I think these are best left for the body of the article. Slrubenstein

 * However, there are groups of people who believe that other group(s) of people are behaving in racist manner towards them. There are also groups of people who believe that they are behaving in a racist manner towards other groups of people.

This sentence could really use some work. I'm not even certain what precisely is being said here. I guess you could say that 'there are some people who don't like other people, and there are people who don't like people who don't like other people.' What about those bastards who 'don't like people who, you know, like people'. Perhaps we could replace the above with a discussion of which groups believe that racism exists, which don't, etc.. However, isn't this all in the Reverse Racism section? Couldn't we delete this line altogether? --Axon

What? No mention of Gobineau? Kind of sad. Danny

- I removed:

 * Of course, one's beliefs on race does not make them a racist. It is based on how that person acts. For example, a caucasian could be at odds with negroes but, so long as he does not act on these beliefs, he cannot be called a racist. If he openly discriminated against negroes however, then he would be classified as a racist.

For reasons that are, perhaps, obvious. (hint: NPOV). Tuf-Kat 03:27, Sep 4, 2003 (UTC)

 * I am in agreement with you. Racists beliefs are right termed "racist", even if a racist person (for whatever reason) does not act on her or his beliefs. A claim to the contrary smacks of apologetics for, or a justification of, racism. JeMa 17:53, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

See the history and talk pages of 2002 Gujarat violence for User:LibertarianAnarchist's point of view on NPOV. IMHO, just because some racist organisations have been elected to political office (even in the world's biggest democracy) does not mean that Wikipedia should be afraid of documenting them. Boud 15:38, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

To JeMa: I don't understand your edits with regard to duplicating the paragraph I edited. My edit did keep the material which you have put "back" in. The article now has the same information twice. It's true I abbreviated that paragraph, since it semmed somewhat redundant and unclear ("supposed economy of action"???) and NPOV'ed it (saying "controversial" instead of "pseudoscience"), but I did maintain that content. -- VV 23:54, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I have restored some of this material, but only in an edited form. I am trying to avoid duplication and wordiness, but want to keep a paragraph on the basic idea behind racism. JeMa 17:53, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

Plea that commentators sign their postings and avoid dropping lugs
I had been following this page, yet looking at it today it seems to have changed for the worse without my being aware of it. In trying to figure out what has happened, I've looked over the above communications. A fair amount of what is written here is hard to follow because the comments are either not signed or not signed and not dated.

I see gratuitous lugs being dropped on people -- terms like "dittohead" -- which I very much object to anyone using in what is trying to be a forum of responsible adults.Patrick0Moran 04:35, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * Isn't "dittohead" a friendly name for Rush Limbaugh fans? (I am being serious.) JeMa 17:53, Nov 13, 2003 (UTC)

 * I think it may be a term that Rush Limbaugh uses to name people. Whether it is friendly (and/)or contemptuous may not be obvious on the face of it. To me it implies somebody who automatically reproduces any ideologically motivated statement that comes from his/her annointed source of authority. I wouldn't want to be called a Winston Churchill dittohead. Much less would I like to be called a Rush Limbaugh dittohead. Patrick0Moran 22:51, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Critique of use of the word "race"
The first paragraph of the article ends with: The term racialism is sometimes favored as a less negative term by those who hold certain beliefs about race that they believe to be scientifically justified.

Two problems: The way this sentence is currently worded, it assumes the validity of the concept of race, when in fact that term is problematical because of the way most people interpret it.

There is no clear indication of what believers in "racialism" believe -- other than that they believe their beliefs are scientifically justified. It's also unclear whether these believers are even a reasonably coherent group, or whether for some users of the terms it indicates a belief that, e.g., people with a recent African heritage are more likely, statistically, to have sickle-cell anemia and therefore need to be screened for that disease, and for others it is just a cosmetic improvement on "racism." Patrick0Moran 17:08, 15 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I don't think it makes that assumption. It says that people hold beliefs about race.  It could be that those beliefs are wrong.  To take a more dramatic example, in God, there are phrases such as "The New Testament's statements regarding the nature of God", but these should not be taken to imply God actually exists.  Adding in "alleged" or whatever a hundred times obfuscates more than clarifies.  In this case, excess verbiage could be taken to imply the invalidity of the concept of race.  (Anyway, race means something.)  As to the second point, it's true "racialism" is under-defined, but nailing down a specific definition is tricky, and it may be better to leave it as an alternative term to racism which has the noted caveat.  However, if you have an improvement you should note it. -- VV 06:02, 16 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Patrick, it seems to be a scientific fact that races exist. You are correct that a problem does exist, because of the many ways people interpret and misinterpret this word. Yet we probably already have a workable solution. The article addresses this issue. It admit that many scientists agree that "races" exist, and then states what races are not. Then it describes what scientists believe races actually are. If someone then uses the word "race" inappropriately, that is their fault and not ours.

The current issue of scientific American has a new survey article on this issue, and it is in agreement with our article:

 * Over the past few years, scientists have collected data about the genetic constitution of populations around the world in an effort to probe the link between ancestry and patterns of disease. These data are now providing answers to several highly emotional and contentious questions: Can genetic information be used to distinguish human groups having a common heritage and to assign individuals to particular ones? Do such groups correspond well to predefined descriptions now widely used to specify race? And, more practically, does dividing people by familiar racial definitions or by genetic similarities say anything useful about how members of those groups experience disease or respond to drug treatment

 * In general, we would answer the first question yes, the second no, and offer a qualified yes to the third. Our answers rest on several generalizations about race and genetics. Some groups do differ genetically from others, but how groups are divided depends on which genes are examined; simplistically put, you might fit into one group based on your skin-color genes but another based on a different characteristic. Many studies have demonstrated that roughly 90 percent of human genetic variation occurs within a population living on a given continent, whereas about 10 percent of the variation distinguishes continental populations. In other words, individuals from different populations are, on average, just slightly more different from one another than are individuals from the same population. Human populations are very similar, but they often can be distinguished.
 * Do Races Exist? in Scientific America, December 2003, By Michael J. Bamshad and Steve E. Olson

To whoever wrote the above, I do not see how you can say that "it seems to be a scientific fact that races exist," when the article you quote answers the question "Do such groups correspond well to predefined descriptions now widely used to specify race?" with a "no."

 * I think you have misread the article; it doesn't say what you think it does. The article does say that races exist. All the article says is that "descriptions now widely used to specify race" are wrong. I agree, and this article says that as well. This article then goes on to show how scientists use the word "race". It is used today in a way that is different from the way that the average person understands the word, but it is still used as a valid concept. JeMa 15:18, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

No one questions that different populations are characterized by distinct frequencies of inherited traits (i.e., genes). And, as the quote above makes clear, this knowledge may be relevant to the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. This is not at all the same thing as saying that "races" exist. Scientists continue to be divided over what to call these different groups; some use the word "race" and of this group many define it rather differently from popular notions of race; most use the word "population" instead.

I am not exactly sure what you mean when you write, "If someone then uses the word "race" inappropriately, that is their fault and not ours." I agree that if someone mischaracterizes how scientists use the word race it is a sign of their ignorance. But one of the purposes of an encyclopedia is to educate, so it is indeed our responsibility to explain how different people use the word race and why.

 * Right. So are we not in agreement? This article, as far as I can see, does educate and explain. It does explain that scientists do not use the old definition of "race" that people used to use, and why scientists reject this old definition. Then this article then tries to state how scientists currently do use the word. JeMa 15:18, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

But if you mean that it is too bad if some people use the word "race" in an unscientific way, that is their problem and not ours, I disagree even more -- because scientists simply do not have a monopoly on the word "race." Words can have different meanings and be used differently by different people in different contexts. Medical doctors use words like "present" and "express" and even "signs" differently from non-physicians. This doesn't make MDs or other people "wrong," it just means that two groups of people use the same word differently. Those who choose to write an encyclopedia article on a word are obliged to recognize this. Slrubenstein

 * I am in complete agreement. JeMa 15:18, Nov 18, 2003 (UTC)

I agree with SLrubenstein. Moreover, I think the word "race" is used inappropriately in the sentence:

 * The term racialism is sometimes favored as a less negative term by those who hold certain beliefs about race that they believe to be scientifically justified.

It is inappropriate because you cannot be said to have a belief about Martians unless you can be said to believe that Martians exist. You can believe that they don't exist, but you can't hold a belief about their benign or evil natures, or whatever, unless you first believe that they exist. It doesn't make sense to say, "Santa Claus is a nice guy, but he doesn't exist."

People who come into a discussion with major preconceptions are unlikely to put those assumptions aside in the course of reading half a dozen sentences -- particularly if one of those sentences at least seems to give credence to their original beliefs. Patrick0Moran 00:36, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)

 * I still do not agree with JeMa. The article does not explain how scientists use the word "race," it explains what a "population" is, which is quite different from race. Slrubenstein

 * Now that I re-read the article, I see what you mean. We do need to clearly describe how 20th century scientists use this word. We should more explicitly refer the reader to the article on race, so that we do not needlessly repeat the entire discussion here. We can also summarize that discussion here, for ease of reading. So I do want to reiterate that I am in basic agreement with you. JeMa 15:38, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

JeMa 15:38, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

Once again, please sign postings
On most talk pages I have little difficulty determining who is talking to whom. On this talk page the lines and layers of discourse seem to me to get very muddy at times. If A writes three paragraphs and signs them at the end, then B comments on paragraph one (perhaps without indenting), C comments on B's comment and also on paragraphy two.... Things can get rather hard to follow. Maybe we all need to treat ourselves as characters in a play:

Max: That won't work, of course.
 * Jon: Of course it will.
 * Tim: Will what?

Max: Scarlet.

Somebody wrote above: "Patrick, it seems to be a scientific fact that races exist." Trying to follow the indentations and signings, it looked to me as though those words might have come from SLR, but I rather doubt that is true. Patrick0Moran 17:17, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I wrote those words. Of course, I was trying to use the word "race" in the modern sense of this word, not in the 19th century understanding of this word. I am using this word in the same way that it is used in the recent article in Scientific American.

P0M: It is, perhaps, a "scientific fact" that something exists, but whether that "something" is what other people mean by "race" is surely a matter of doubt -- particularly in view of the fact that there are at least thirty-eleven divergent views of what "race" means to start with. Patrick0Moran 18:18, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * I agree; for many subjects (not just this one) we need very clear definitions. We do need to clearly describe how 20th century scientists use this word. We should more explicitly refer the reader to the article on race, so that we do not needlessly repeat the entire discussion here. We can also summarize that discussion here, for ease of reading. So I do want to reiterate that I am in basic agreement with you. JeMa 15:43, Dec 9, 2003 (UTC)

P0M: It becomes particularly tricky when one almost has to use a word or concept that is the subject of scrutiny to discuss what one is scrutinizing. Some people say that any [race] (put in brackets to show we are inquiring how that concept is grounded) is a construct, or, in other words, it is what people in the Vienna Circle would call a "useful fiction." Then we say something like, "People are identified as members of the white race depending, in practice, primarily on their skin color, although albinos whose genetic heritage..." When we make that statement, even though it occurs in a discussion of what "race" really means, we create in ourselves and in readers the expection that there is something "out there" that corresponds to our useful fiction.

 * And indeed, many people believe that there is something out there. Its no fiction. The black race, for thousands of years, was genetically distinct from the white race, which was genetically distinct from the aboriginees of Australia. This does not mean that all three were separate species. This does not mean that all three had more genetic differences than commonalities; this does not mean that 19th century racist assumptions were correct. The problem is that people are reading way too mcuh into this word; that's an emotional issue based on our reactions to the last 200 years of race relations, but this is not a scientific issue. JeMa 16:50, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * P0M:If a Martian were to grab some individuals from Australia before the arrival of explorers and colonialists, and some individuals from Iceland at the same time, the Martian would see that they were of the same species, but he would also see that they had major differences, most of which would be due to adaptations to their different environments and environments encounter along the migratory paths that brought them to those two areas. Given an individual plucked at random from one place or the other, it would be no trick to tell which set of humans s/he belonged to. So, in that sense, there really is "something out there." If the Martian tried the same thing with a group from  Norway and one group from China at around the same time, there would likewise be no problem in deciding where a random "sample" should be grouped -- unless that individual were plucked from somewhere close to the midpoint of clinal variation between the two original sample points. What to do? This individual does not fit with one group better than the other. Let's make that a third race. Then we give the Martian a sample from a clinal midpoint between Novosibirsk (or wherever we just grabbed the last sample) and Shanghai, and we find that the Martian has the same problem. So we define.... and define... and finally we are back to individuals, or maybe to identical twins.

 * I agree with all of this, but this does not mean that Icelanders and Chinese are the same race. Rather, it means that there is usually not a fine line between races. As we physically move from one geographical location to another, we find a continuum. This doesn't mean that races don't exist; it just means that in some cases we need to discuss continuums. Sometimes races stay very distinct for many milennia; consider pre-Viking people in North America versus those in Europe, and people in Australia versus those in South America. Please understand that I am not disputing any of your points. I just don't think they are a contradiction to what I am saying. JeMa

 * A point that might appear somewhere: It looks like, that in the USA, different races may cease to exist within the next 200 years if current inter-marrying trends continue. China, by contrast, will stay about the same as it today, unless a hundred million black, white and Hispanic people immigrate to China. We will be seeing some interesting examples of change. JeMa 17:44, Dec 10, 2003 (UTC)

 * P0M:I saw something recently that quantified the "purity" of inheritance of supposedly white people, black people, etc., in the U.S. I was suprised at how often the "white" is really "light gray". (If memory serves it was somewhere around 30%.) On the other hand, if we end up uniformly "tan", then there probably be still be a high enough concentration of some genes to make useful predictions about the probability of certain diseases, etc.

 * P0M: The individuals are real. The differences are real. The similar individuals (generally speaking) are grouped close together. But where we draw the lines between them is a matter of convention based on preferences.

P0M: If you have five easily determined characteristics that you use to determine that a person belongs to, e.g., the category of white humans, and you know that John Brown had white skin but was not an albino, had a tall, beaky nose, had thin lips, had no epicanthic eye folds, and had no natural "arch supports" built into the bottoms of his feet, then you know for a surety exactly those facts (within the limits of your own and/or your community's capacity to observe, measure, and judge) and nothing more. If you conclude from the fact that John Brown is a white human that he will not be lactose intolerant, then you will be making a judgment based on statistics. You won't know for sure that he can digest lactose until you test that belief, nor will you know that he does not suffer from sickle-cell anemia until you check him out. On the other hand, if you are rushing famine aid to a million white humans you can be pretty sure that you can send freeze-dried milk without overwhelming your emergency medical services with cases of diarrhea and dehydration.

P0M: All of that is just to say that the "white human" whose is lactose tolerant is something like the .97 adult male children who appear in some families. You don't have a certifiably "lactose tolerant white human" unless you test for lactose tolerance as part of the process of deciding who goes on the list of "white people" and who goes on some other list. So, with that understanding, I question whether people will understand "race exists" unless a great deal of supporting context is immediately present.

P0M: Anyway, to go back to the sentence I questioned a while back: The term racialism is sometimes favored as a less negative term by those who hold certain beliefs about race that they believe to be scientifically justified Changing "about" to "pertaining to" seems to me to make it clear enough that there is not some solid and immutable thing called "race" out there about which people can have one belief or another.

Removals
Are these valid removals: ? The person (145.253.32.3)'s edit summary was: "removed nonsense: XIX century was." (That's the entire sentence.) --Menchi (Talk)ü| â 13:38, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P0M: The person who did that edit removed Poles from the list of nationalities that transgressed against the Jews, leaving Germans and Austrians. Did something significant happen in the 19th Century that would have a bearing on this question? Historians, what is your judgment?

P0M:I don't have time to fix it just now, but the same paragraph uses "lead" where it should have "led." Patrick0Moran 18:11, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P0M: Menchi, since you noticed it would you like to revert the changes. I had another look and the person known only by his ISP number has changed Germany to Imperial Germany -- as though Germany under Hitler had no racist taint. The change would seem to represent a definite POV regarding things in that part of the world, and nothing has appeared on this talk page to justify or explain the change. I haven't been following the racism very closely and might wipe intermediate changes out if I do it right now. If you don't have time I'll take care of it after I get grades in.

 * I agree with you. The change from Germany to Imperial Germany is POV. JeMa

Preamble: pejorative usage
The preamble currently states that the word racism "is almost always used pejoratively". This phrasing seems to have been introduced in early November and survived until Slrubinstein's change on 10 Dec 2003 UTC. Slr indicated he only made the change in order to make the prose more straightforward, but for the record, here is some corroborating evidence for the validity of the claim: This dictionary indicates which words are pejorative (by using the mark "DISAPPROVING"). Peak 07:34, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)
 * The Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary

I removed this sentence because I do not understand what it means and I do not think it adds anything. I made some other changes that I don't think cut any content, and are intended only to make the prose tighter.
 * Sometimes the term is used in a weaker sense to describe the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, or that individuals should be treated differently based on their ascribed race.

I have a few problems with the above sentence: (1) the use of the passive voice (2) the use of a comparative wors "weaker" without any comparison (weaker than what? (3) weak in what sense? I understamnd that this view exists, but people who identify it as racist are not calling it a weak form of racism, they are saying it is bad; people who hold to this belief but do not believe it is wrong do not consider themselves racists.  It's too much to cover this debate in the introduction; perhaps it should be brought up in the body of the article in a clearer way. Slrubenstein

 * Dear SRL: Once again, you are removing material on relatively trivial grounds rather than fixing it. You could have asked, or you could simply have removed the bit about 'weaker' since it caused you such confusion. (Since we are offering a second meaning here, "weaker" is obviously relative to the first meaning; the word is used in the ordinary sense in logic: entailment.) I will add it again without the 'weaker'; please do not remove it a third time. Peak 18:33, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Dear Peak, I believe you are placing too much detail in the introductory paragraph. The result is overwrought prose.  I do not consider this trivial.  By the way, I have not deleted the material on the KKK because I believe it is important and relatively well-written -- BUT I do not believe it belongs in the introduction.  Specifics should be in the body.  Can yo find a more appropriate place to put this? Slrubenstein
 * Since there seems to be a body of opinion that something should be said about "racialism" in the preamble, this paragraph at least makes interesting reading. However, in the interests of brevity, I would be inclined to omit the last sentence (the one beginning "People not in these groups...") as it is a bit preachy and may be difficult to substantiate.Peak

I have removed this sentence to talk in order to make it easier for you to put it back into the article:
 * Sometimes the term is used to describe the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, or that individuals should be treated differently based on their ascribed race.

The reason I removed it is because it simply does not belong in the first paragraph. Peak: it is a valid poiont, a good point, an important point and I am not trying to diminish your work. I simply believe it is too nuanced for the first paragraph. Indeed, I think this sentence should be expanded into a full paragraph -- but it belongs in the body of the article, not in the first paragraph. The first paragraph provides a simple introduction to the article; the article is the place to explore the different forms of racism and debates over what constitutes racism. Tour sentence (above) is perfectly appropriate -- but for the body, not the introduction, Slrubenstein

 * Dear SLR: As Einstein said: "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." There is a big difference between saying that "Foo means X" and "Foo generally means X or Y." The article on Analytic proposition, for example, gives three closely related meanings in the very first sentence to avoid giving the wrong impression that the phrase has just one meaning.

 * If one must eliminate X or Y, and if Y is the more general meaning, then it would be better to start with "Foo means Y" and then later give the more specialized meaning. In this particular case, the more specialized meaning is the one that involves negativism. However, I am not recommending that the preamble should only say "Racism means Y" or "The most general meaning of racism is Y" because it may well be that most people do believe that "Racism means X" is the primary meaning. (Do they?) I am simply recommending we respect the idea that "simplicity is an exact medium between too little and too much." Peak 21:48, 11 Dec 2003 (UTC)

So we are in agreement: right now, the introduction says racism may refer to x, y, or z (beliefs, practices, or institutions). Now, what constitutes a racist belief, practice, or institution is a matter of debate. Some people would argue that affirmative action is a racist practice. SOme would argue that the very belief that races are real is a racist belief. I think all of these things should be covered in the article. Just not in the first paragraph. Slrubenstein
 * Dear SLR: The point which your written explanation implies you have missed is that the first definition is greatly narrowed by the qualification about "negative discrimination". If a single definition is to be given in the preamble, it should not be one of the narrowest definitions that can be given. In the present situation, however, there is no need to give a single, broad definition: it would be far better to give both definitions so people can readily see at the outset both the similarity and the difference between the two. Peak 03:40, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

P0M:The first sentence contains a logical defect. It says:
 * Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that negatively discriminate against people based on their race.

P0M:If someone beats a very dark-skinned individual from Sri Lanka to death in the belief that he is a black man from Africa (I'm not sure what name the violent hater of people with black skins would attach to that racial group.), then that act would not fall under the given definition of racism because the crime was not "based on [his] race" but on the race that the assailant falsely perceived him to be.
 * This is a good point, POM. I see two eay sollutions: simply cut the word "their," or add the word "perceived."  If either of these appeal toyou I'm happy to let you pick; otherwise perhaps you could suggest other possibilities. Slrubenstein

P0M: It was o.k. until you changed it. I will put it back the way it was and, as JDG said, "see what happens." "...based on race" won't work because it could mean "based on the race of the racist." Or..... actually, "perceived race" ought to cover things correctly. Good suggestion.

Para Two. NPOV and Logic questions"
P0M: This paragraph has a POV problem: It says: "Some groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Christian Identity have engaged in a public relations campaign to improve their image." My cynical nature wants to cry out: "Of course that is true!" However, I see no evidence adduced regarding whether either group would claim that they have waged a campaign to curry favor with the man on the street. Nor do I see any evidence adduced to show that they would admit to doing anything to improve their image. It is possible that they would assert that any public pronouncements that they may have made in regard to race, racialism, and the differences between them are intended only to express their highest aspirations to seek truth, justice, etc.

P0M: There is something to bring into question if the characterization of their public stance is correctly reported in the following words:

 * Some groups such as the Ku Klux Klan and Christian Identity ... use the term racialism instead of racism, and they term themselves racialists instead of racists. They hold that racism is active hatred of people of another race, while racialism is the love of one's own race.

P0M: One rhetorical device used here is "setting up a straw man to attack." The position attributed to them gives "racism" a definition that reduces its scope to only the most extreme of attitudes ordinarily covered by that term, and then assert (without being able to prove it), that they do not fit the definition of racists because they do not behave in the very extreme way "defined" as racist.

P0M: The second part of the argument attributed to them implies that one may treat oneself and one's own group better than one treats one or more other groups at least as long as the treatment of other groups does not descend to the level of "active hatred." What that might mean in actual practice, assuming the racialists can even be proven to hold this position, is a question for objective inquiry. The range of treatment of other groups could range from treating them almost as well as one's own group gets treated, to treating (at least some) other groups with total disdain, neglect, animosity, etc. -- in other words, anything nasty that falls short of the standard of "active hatred."

P0M: I don't mean to whitewash these groups, but I do think that it is important to give even groups or individuals that one finds odious a "fair trial." If a major newspaper made a statement like this one, its editor would be well advised to have the traditional "three sources" and/or evidence that would stand up in a libel trial.

Peak: Most of the detail currently in the second paragraph of the preamble is far too specific for a preamble. The original point, I believe, was simply to mention that the meanings of "racism" and "racialism" intersect. (If there is no intersection of meaning, then I cannot see any reason to mention "racialism" in the preamble at all.) One possibility would to give "racialism" a separate page. However, I would suggest rewriting the preamble along the following lines:

Back to paragraph 1
Racism has several distinct meanings in contemporary usage, but most of them are close to at least one of the following:
 * 1) discrimination or prejudice based on race;
 * 2) the belief that one race is superior to others;
 * 3) a set of beliefs that justify adverse discrimination against individuals based on their ascribed race;
 * 4) a set of beliefs that justify the differential treatment of individuals based on their ascribed race;
 * 5) the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities.

The word is usually used pejoratively, but some people believe that racism is legitimate and identify themselves as "racists"; others who oppose adverse discrimination but subscribe to some of the other beliefs mentioned above prefer the term "racialist".

(By the way, P0M's point about the relevance of perceived race is excellent but the proposal to replace "race" with "perceived race" was suboptimal. "Ascribed" addresses the issue, without incurring the problems of adding the adjective "perceived", and without incurring the wordiness of a phrase such as "perceived or ascribed race".) Peak 07:12, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Hm, an interesting proposal. I tend to agree there was too much detail, but it's been pared down pretty well now.  Do you agree?  The idea is to give a quick description of racism and racialism (which redirects here and won't need its own page at least till someone can really flesh it out) and their usages, and it looks very cogent doing that.  I too see perceived as not great, but ascribed seems to me less natural and not really an improvement.  One problem with your list is that it doesn't really connect the meanings, making them seem independent, but different language might fix that.  Also, I think your proposed list could use adjustment, but that's not an objection to the idea.  So, personally I don't think this change is needed, but try it out if you feel otherwise. -- VV 07:22, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * Peak Thanks VerilyVerily for your comments. I agree that removing the specific examples in the second paragraph resolves the main problem there. My main concern with the first paragraph is that it is wrong, as I have explained elsewhere. I too was thinking about what connects the various meanings and came up with: "Racism is a term used to describe beliefs and practices that, in the eyes of the beholder, attach excessive importance to race; racism therefore has a wide range of meanings, including:...." What do you think of this approach?  My main goal, however, is simply to add something that explains that the term is also used to describe the belief that race is the primary determinant of human capacities, or that individuals should be treated differently based on their ascribed race.
 * Peak As for "perceived" vs "ascribed", I'm afraid that the latter happens to be an appropriate choice here, whereas "perceived" alone is inappropriate. "Ascribed" means attributed, and leaves open whether attribution is by perception, inference, hearsay, genetic analysis, or whatever.  If you prefer "attributed" that would be fine too. Perhaps there are others, and perhaps something which includes "perceived" would work too, but why not keep it as simple as possible? Peak 22:40, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments: although Peak is correct that race is technically ascribed, in the opening paragraph "perceived" is the appropriate term -- this has to do with POM's concern:
 * If someone beats a very dark-skinned individual from Sri Lanka to death in the belief that he is a black man from Africa ... then that act would not fall under the given definition of racism because the crime was not "based on [his] race" but on the race that the assailant falsely perceived him to be.

In other words -- let's for the sake of argument assume that "race" is real (whether for social or biological reasons) a racist may hate someone not because of what the other person's race is (which would be ascribed), but because of what the racist perceives or believes the person's race to be. "Ascribed" in this case does not address the issue, POM's valuable point was precisely the possibility of a difference between one's ascribed race and one's perceived race.

 * Dear SLR: You are making things far more complicated than necessary. If one uses the word "ascribed", it leaves open who does the ascribing. It could be the perceiver. Using the word "perceived" alone is far too specific. For example, suppose person X is told by person Y that person Z is of race R. X then kills R because of this information.  X never "perceived" Z at all. Perhaps Y got the information from a genetic test, so Y never perceived Z either.Peak 19:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * It is also false to define racism in terms of attaching "excessive importance" to race. Slrubenstein

 * Please note that I did not propose that racism be *defined* as such. What I proposed was merely descriptive: "Racism is a term used ..." If I say a dog is an animal, I am not defining 'dog' to be equivalent to 'animal'. Once again,

you seem to be getting yourself tangled up in knots of your own creation.Peak 19:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * P0M: My New World Dictionary of the American Language differentiates among four words as follows:

 * ascribe, assignment of something to someone (ascribe a motive to Ms. X)
 * attribute, assignment of a quality, etc., that may reasonably be regarded as applying (attribute error to Mr. X's carelessness)
 * impute, assignment of something negative or accusatory (impute evil to Mrs. X)
 * assign, placement of something in a particular category because of some quality attributed to it (assign a poem to the Ming dynasty)
 * credit to imply belief in the possession by somebody of some quality (credited Mr. X with some intelligence)
 * attach, connect something with something else as being considered appropriate to it (attached great importance to the discovery of Pluto)

 * P0M: If a Democrat ascribes a motivation to a Republican Congressman (or vice-versa), one may reasonably question whether the observation is objective. At least the way I use "ascribe", it would fit a statement made by a politician such as: "Representative Drath Vrader's patent disregard for the safety of his constituents left the elders of his community with feelings of astonishment and alarm." (The disregard for safety is mentioned as though it were a known fact to be used to explain the feelings of constituents, when in fact the supposed negligence is the main burder of the communication, and the reaction of the community is of no great importance.) "The press attributed the above statement to the speaker's long-time enmity toward Rep. Vrader." "Rep. Vrader imputed pure malice to the source of the accusations, noting that his accuser was entirely anonymous." "The elders of the community attached no great importance to the affair since Mr. Vrader had already decided not to seek a fifteenth term."

 * P0M: To "ascribe" the motive of revenge to someone merely means that somebody asserts that motive as though it were a matter of fact. Mr X can ascribe a guilty conscience to Ms. Y even if person X knows that it was he himself who commited the crime. If the sentence in the article were changed to: "Racism refers to beliefs, practices, and institutions that negatively discriminate against people based on their ascribed race," then wouldn't that incorrectly include cases where some injustice was done and merely rationalized to racists as being due to the race of the injured party? But what we are really trying to describe, I think, are cases where person X genuinely believes that person Y is of some race and behaves in a way consistent with that belief. How about something like the following? "Racism is said to be practiced when one group of people acts upon their belief that another group of people belongs to a certain race and therefore does something that negatively affects the interests of that second group." It's a little problematical because doesn't deals specifically with the case of the individual racist or of the individual target of racism, but the alternative would be frightfully complex.
 * Dear P0M: Sorry, but your proposal has at least two fatal flaws. Firstly, as you say, it gives the impression that individual beliefs don't matter; and secondly it gives the impression that beliefs cannot be called racist unless they lead to action.

 * By the way, I think it's probably rather pointless trying to get group consensus on a single "definition" of a word that clearly has several meanings. The dictionaries all agree that racism has several meanings. Why can't we just say so here? I agree with VerilyVerily that an umbrella description would be nice, but that can always be added later on. The alternative would be to say something like: "This article is about racism in the sense of beliefs or practices regarding ...." Peak 19:40, 15 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * P0M: I think that should work. I couldn't think of any way of patching the original sentence satisfactorily.

Racism is wrong!!
Any1who makes a racist attack, comment, or assult should recieve a hefty fine and a couple or yeadrs in jail.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Racism/Archive 3


text:
Hydrostatic test

A hydrostatic test is a way in which pressure vessels such as pipelines, plumbing, gas cylinders, boilers and fuel tanks can be tested for strength and leaks. The test involves filling the vessel or pipe system with a liquid, usually water, which may be dyed to aid in visual leak detection, and pressurization of the vessel to the specified test pressure. Pressure tightness can be tested by shutting off the supply valve and observing whether there is a pressure loss. The location of a leak can be visually identified more easily if the water contains a colorant. Strength is usually tested by measuring permanent deformation of the container.

Hydrostatic testing is the most common method employed for testing pipes and pressure vessels. Using this test helps maintain safety standards and durability of a vessel over time. Newly manufactured pieces are initially qualified using the hydrostatic test. They are then revalidated at regular intervals according to the relevant standard. In some cases where a hydrostatic test is not practicable a pneumatic pressure test may be an acceptable alternative.

Testing of pressure vessels for transport and storage of gases is very important because such containers can explode if they fail under pressure.

Testing procedures
Hydrostatic tests are conducted under the constraints of either the industry's or the customer's specifications, or may be required by law. The vessel is filled with a nearly incompressible liquid – usually water or oil – pressurised to test pressure, and examined for leaks or permanent changes in shape. Red or fluorescent dyes may be added to the water to make leaks easier to see. The test pressure is always considerably higher than the operating pressure to give a factor of safety. This factor of safety is typically 166.66%, 143% or 150% of the designed working pressure, depending on the regulations that apply. For example, if a cylinder was rated to DOT-2015 PSI (approximately 139 bar), it would be tested at around 3360 PSI (approximately 232 bar).

Water is commonly used because it is cheap and easily available, and is usually harmless to the system to be tested. Hydraulic fluids and oils may be specified where contamination with water could cause problems. These fluids are nearly incompressible, therefore requiring relatively little work to develop a high pressure, and is therefore also only able to release a small amount of energy in case of a failure - only a small volume will escape under high pressure if the container fails. If high pressure gas were used, then the gas would expand to V=(nRT)/p with its compressed volume resulting in an explosion, with the attendant risk of damage or injury.

Small pressure vessels are normally tested using a water jacket test. The vessel is visually examined for defects and then placed in a container filled with water, and in which the change in volume of the vessel can be measured, usually by monitoring the water level in a calibrated tube. The vessel is then pressurised for a specified period, usually 30 or more seconds, and if specified, the expansion will be measured by reading off the amount of liquid that has been forced into the measuring tube by the volume increase of the pressurised vessel. The vessel is then depressurised, and the permanent volume increase due to plastic deformation while under pressure  is measured by comparing the final volume in the measuring tube with the volume before pressurisation.

A leak will give a similar result to permanent set, but will be detectable by holding the volume in the pressurised vessel by closing the inlet valve for a period before depressurising, as the pressure will drop steadily during this period if there is a leak. In most cases a permanent set that exceeds the specified maximum will indicate failure. A leak may also be a failure criterion, but it may be that the leak is due to poor sealing of the test equipment. If the vessel fails, it will normally go through a condemning process marking the cylinder as unsafe.

The information needed to specify the test is stamped onto the cylinder. This includes the design standard, serial number, manufacturer, and manufacture date. After testing, the vessel or its nameplate will usually be stamp marked with the date of the successful test, and the test facility's identification mark.

A simpler test, that is also considered a hydrostatic test but can be performed by anyone who has a garden hose, is to pressurise the vessel by filling it with water and to physically examine the outside for leaks. This type of test is suitable for containers such as boat fuel tanks, which are not pressure vessels but must work under the hydrostatic pressure of the contents. A hydrostatic test head is usually specified as a height above the tank top. The tank is pressurised by filling water to the specified height through a temporary standpipe if necessary. It may be necessary to seal vents and other outlets during the test.

Examples
Portable fire extinguishers are safety tools that are required in most public buildings. Fire extinguishers are also recommended in homes. Over time the conditions in which they are housed, and the manner in which they are handled affect the structural integrity of the extinguisher. A structurally weakened fire extinguisher can malfunction or even burst when it is needed the most. To maintain the quality and safety of this product, hydrostatic testing is utilized. All critical components of the fire extinguisher should be tested to ensure proper function.

Pipeline testing
Hydrotesting of pipes, pipelines and vessels is performed to expose defective materials that have missed prior detection, ensure that any remaining defects are insignificant enough to allow operation at design pressures, expose possible leaks and serve as a final validation of the integrity of the constructed system. ASME B31.3 requires this testing to ensure tightness and strength.

Buried high pressure oil and gas pipelines are tested for strength by pressurising them to at least 125% of their maximum allowable working pressure (MAWP) at any point along their length. Since many long distance transmission pipelines are designed to have a steel hoop stress of 80% of specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) at Maximum allowable operating pressure MAOP, this means that the steel is stressed to SMYS and above during the testing, and test sections must be selected to ensure that excessive plastic deformation does not occur.

For piping built to ASME B31.3, if the design temperature is greater than the test temperature, then the test pressure must be adjusted for the related allowable stress at the design temperature. This is done by multiplying 1.5 MAWP by the ratio of the allowable stress at the test temperature to allowable stress at the design temperature per ASME B31.3 Section 345.4.2 Equation 24. Test pressures need not exceed a value that would produce a stress higher than yield stress at test temperature. ASME B31.3 section 345.4.2 (c)

Other codes require a more onerous approach. BS PD 8010-2 requires testing to 150% of the design pressure – which should not be less than the MAOP plus surge and other incidental effects that will occur during normal operation.

Leak testing is performed by balancing changes in the measured pressure in the test section against the theoretical pressure changes calculated from changes in the measured temperature of the test section.

Australian standard AS2885.5 "Pipelines – Gas and liquid petroleum: Part 5: Field pressure testing" gives an excellent explanation of the factors involved.

In the aerospace industry, depending on the airline, company or customer, certain codes will need to be followed. For example, Bell Helicopter has a certain specification that will have to be followed for any parts that will be used in their helicopters.

Testing frequency
Most countries have legislation or pressure vessel codes which requires vessels to be regularly tested, for example every two years (with a visual inspection annually) for high pressure gas cylinders and every five or ten years for lower pressure ones such as used in fire extinguishers. Gas cylinders which fail are normally destroyed as part of the testing protocol to avoid the dangers inherent in them being subsequently used.

These common US standard gas cylinders have the following requirements:

 * DOT-3AL gas cylinders must be tested every 5 years and have an unlimited life.
 * DOT-3HT gas cylinders must be tested every 3 years and have a 24-year life.
 * DOT-3AA gas cylinders must be tested every 5 years and have an unlimited life. (Unless stamped with a star (*) in which case the cylinder meets certain specifications and can have a 10-year hydrostatic test life).

Typically organizations such as DOT PHMSA, ISO, ASTM and ASME specify the guidelines for the different types of pressure vessels.

Safety
Hydraulic testing is a hazardous process and should be performed with caution by competent personnel. Adhering to prescribed procedures defined in relevant technical standards appropriate to the specific application and jurisdiction will usually reduce these risks to an acceptable level.
 * A leak of high pressure liquid can cut or penetrate the skin and inject itself into body tissues. This can cause serious direct injury to the operator, and if the fluid is toxic or contaminated there will be additional adverse effects.
 * A pressurised hose that is not securely attached or which fails under pressure may whip around spraying water or oil and could hit someone and cause injuries. A can be used to restrain such hoses.
 * Enclosing the components to be tested, hazard signage, use of appropriate personal protective equipment and providing barriers to access for non-essential personnel are common precautions.

Equipment:
 * Pressure gauges
 * Water supply
 * Pumps and hoses for water filling
 * High pressure pump and hoses for pressurising
 * Means of measuring volumetric expansion when applicable

title: Hydrostatic test