The tag inherently implies that there is an issue regarding race. There are two reasons why it is in our best interest to have the word "issue" removed:

  1. Issue implies that there is a problem or a concern. The question may not necessarily include a problem that needs to be rectified but merely has race or ethnicity as a factor.
  2. The term "ethnicity" is more precise than "race" and the tag should reflect that. For example, there is an English ethnicity, a Scottish ethnicity, a French ethnicity, etc. Race implies much more larger differences: white race, African race, etc. Questions using this tag may use the term interchangeably so it's best to be precise about it.
  • I don't think we've yet seen a question use the tag that doesn't have a problem or concern. I'd be interested in seeing examples (if/when they're asked) of exceptions to that trend. – HDE 226868 Sep 18 '17 at 19:59
  • 3
    @HDE226868 The way I see it, if it's not a "concern", you wouldn't have a need to tag it anyways. If you're tagging it "race", clearly something about the question concerns race, or there's no reason to tag it. Just seeing "race" itself as a tag isn't quite as clear though IMO. – JMac Sep 18 '17 at 21:27

Your point is well taken but it would be a common-sense approach to have all those tags: 'racial-issues'; 'race' for when it's relevant but not an issue; and 'ethnicity' when the question involves not race but ethnicity. OP asking the question can thus choose the most appropriate tag and users can already create new tags by asking the Q through the desktop page version of this site.

There is nothing wrong with having more specific tags for precise tagging by subject, IMHO. I should also request edit-minded users not to change OP's tag unless OP has clearly misapplied an existing tag or a new tag. Or at least please discuss with OP first!

You must log in to answer this question.