Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Fact or opinion?

The big problem of this article seems to be a confusion about the definition of racism. There is a popular / historical / dictionary definition and one used by social liberals and certain circles of social science. This difference / conflict must be mentioned in the article.

"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. "

The distinction between facts and opinions is not made. The sources mentioned and their statements are subjective in nature and indeterminable.

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."

Numerous commentators and politicians have called AA laws racist. AA laws have a very low popularity, and large parts of the population perceives discrimination against whites as strong as against non-whites . The opposition to the information presented in the article is therefore significant.

"We should then list all points of view, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated."

Please keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the editor's side. Bafabengabantu (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I've read this a few times and it's not clear to me what you're proposing. What points of the article are you specifically protesting and what changes would you like to see? Scoundr3l (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think that I expressed myself very clearly. The only point that is perhaps confusing are the text sections in quotation marks. These sections are from Wikipedia's guidelines on neutrality.

There are 3 major issues in this article:

1. There are several definitions / usages of the word racism, but the article only reflects a relatively unpopular definition.

2. The statements of the sources of this article (especially in the introduction) are not factual in nature, but are regrettably represented as such.

3. The article is one-sided, reflecting only one segment of social science, but there are a large numbers of contradictory groupings. Bafabengabantu (talk) 11:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

I guess where I'm confused is that this article doesn't seem to even define 'reverse racism', let alone racism. Are you talking about under the US>Civil Rights section? Which statements are you specifically referring to in regard to #2? And as for 3, are these your sources below? If so, we can find a way to incorporate them into the article, we just need specifics on what you're proposing. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Bafabengabantu appears to be suggesting that we give more weight to the popular definition of reverse racism. However, that's not what Neutral point of view is about. We summarize the significant views of published, reliable sources, giving greater weight to peer-reviewed and other scholarly sources on academic topics. What we don't do is try to balance the article according to the views of the general public. Knowledge is not a democracy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The definition of racism or reverse racism? What other definition are we talking about?Scoundr3l (talk) 22:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

You're right, I guess this is really about the "true" definition of racism, which makes this all even more off-topic and pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

My criticism refers to the overall tone of the article. In order to promote the comprehensibility of my criticism, I will give an example on the basis of the introduction:

Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is a concept that portrays affirmative action in the United States, and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, as a form of anti-white racism on the part of black people and government agencies; it is commonly associated with conservative opposition to such programs.

The fat words are problematic. Redressing , for example, is used here in a way that suggests that any inequality needs to be addressed. Without a subjective moral command, however, it can not be determined that ethnic inequalities must even be politicized. Otherwise this part is acceptable.

1 There is little to no empirical evidence to support the idea of reverse racism. Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States generally lack the power to damage the interests of white people, who remain the dominant group. 2 Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism.

1 The first statement is a factual statement, however, the sources given here do not permit any factual statements. 2 This definition is valid only for certain believers in the concept of "cosmic justice". The majority of the public-, statutory- and scientific bodies defines racism simply as hateful discrimination against certain races. The representatives of the "reverse discrimination theory" believe in this latter definition, it creates confusion when the different definitions are not made clear.

Allegations of reverse racism by opponents of affirmative-action policies began to emerge prominently in the 1970s. In the early 21st century, belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States, despite a lack of supporting evidence. While the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue, the concept of reverse racism has been used internationally to some extent wherever white supremacy has diminished, such as in post-apartheid South Africa. Allegations of reverse racism therefore form part of a racial backlash against gains by people of colour.

Here again we have the problem with definitions and factual statements. The statements would only be true if they were factual (thanks to their sources) and the definitions of the sources were in line with the popular definitions. Bafabengabantu (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Some of these concerns might just be an issue of nuance. For example, with your first issue... isn't Affirmative Action a real program and isn't the aim of that program to redress racial injustice? Whether or not you agree with AA, those seem to be statements of fact. The same could be said about your concern with the power/authority, although I agree it should be rephrased. It's a matter of fact that some scholars believe that power and authority are essential components of racism, although I don't think the current wording is an apt summary of their points in regard to reverse racism. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

The goal of AA laws can not be summed up like that. AA had many different supporters with probably many different motivations. Critics believe, for example, that one motivation behind AA laws is ethnic self-interest. It's a matter of fact that some scholars believe that power and authority are essential components of racism. In other words, it is fact that certain scholars have their own definition of racism. "There is little to no empirical evidence to support that whites suffer systemic discrimination" however, is not a factual statement. Bafabengabantu (talk) 23:35, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

This is not a forum for discussing one's personal views on the subject. The statements you question are supported by reliable sources. If you have other sources that present a different view, please provide them here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

This is unfortunately a non-argument. You just repeat the statement that your sources are sufficient. I have explained why this is not the case. To continue to communicate with me please use language that follows a logical way of arguing. Please also consider that according to Wikipedias guidelines the burden of proof is on the author's side.

My personal point of view does not matter in this discussion. I formulated detailed and on point criticism of the article. I even referred to specific Wikipedia guidelines. If you make allegations against my statements, please try to be precise. Bafabengabantu (talk) 09:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

To be more constructive, I suggest that the article is either shortened so that only verifiable statements are left or completely deleted or rewritten so that the non-factual nature of the sources is clear. Bafabengabantu (talk) 09:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"The burden of proof" is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source. Please read WP:SOURCES: Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable. The current sources meet this standard. If you have a problem with them, then you're welcome to open a discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard, where I'm sure others will say the same. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

"All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution."

You do not seem to understand the criticism I'm giving. I have no problem with the given sources, the problem are the factual statements made in article. These statements are not proven by the stated sources. The sources are derived from the social sciences. The social sciences do not make it possible to make factual statements in the form used by this article.

"Amy E. Ansell claims that allegations of reverse racism therefore form part of a racial backlash against gains by people of colour"

Is a factual statement.

"Allegations of reverse racism therefore form part of a racial backlash against gains by people of colour."

This is a speculative statement, intesions can not without doubt be known (mind reading is a pseudoscience). Bafabengabantu (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

In that case we would have to attribute every statement in any social science article, from anthropology to economics, to a specific scholar or group of scholars, which would make the articles unreadable. I think most readers understand that the social sciences don't establish fundamental truths as do math or physics (although some would say that even math is a social construct). There's no need to spell out all these caveats in every article; see Making necessary assumptions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:41, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. "

"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."

Opinions should not be presented as facts, according to Wikipedia's policy, even if they are voiced in a scholarly environment.

This article clearly states: Reverse racism is a concept invented by white supremacists to keep minorities down. The controversial nature of such statements should be self-evident. The small part of the social sciences which deals with "cosmic justice" is just that, a marginal group. The concepts that have been invented by this group have only limited acceptance, especially outside of the anglosphere. Undue weight is the keyword here. Bafabengabantu (talk) 11:49, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

The article does not say that "white supremacists" invented the concept. It says (separately) that it's used by conservatives and is part of a backlash wherever white supremacy has diminished. I have no idea what "cosmic justice" is supposed to mean, but the repetitive comments about it are off-topic here. As to the policy quoted above, please indicate where reliable, academic sources (not editorials, op-eds, blogs, or partisan websites) seriously contest the way the topic is currently presented. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

You complain that I repeat myself, but what could I do differently if you ignore / not understand the points I'm making? This article is written very clearly in a non-neutral tone. Opinions are presented as facts, many weasel words e.c.t., but you already know that. The claims that the author makes must also be proven by the author, you already know that, too.

My comments are not off-topic. I refer directly to the given sources and describe them as minority viewpoints. If you're not familiar with a term (cosmic justice), you may google it.

Although the burden of proof is not on my side I'm going to make some points here. Here is a small list of contradictory opinions that claim that AA is discriminatory. I would like to note that all these sources are nothing more than opinions, just like the sources of the author. It is irresponsible to present them as facts. Bafabengabantu (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Opinions about affirmative action being discriminatory belong in an article on "reverse racism" only if reliable, published sources explicitly connect them with the idea of reverse racism. Articles mainly summarize sources that are directly about the topic of that article, giving due weight to the most prominent views.

That said, we can dismiss your first three sources right off – the first is a senior thesis from a student at Liberty University. This in no way meets the standards for reliable sources. The second is from the Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human Sciences and has received a total of six citations, so I think we can discount that one. The third is a report by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Their whole purpose is to promote an ideological agenda, not publish factual research.

That leaves us with a 1986 Harvard Law Review essay by Morris B. Abram, written from his personal point of view and published under "Commentaries". It might be useful as a primary source if reliable, secondary sources have discussed it, but I don't see it as having the same weight as a book by an actual scholar in the field of sociology and ethnic studies.

Now I know you're going to say that all these "opinions" are just as valid as the "opinions" cited in the article, but that's just not how we evaluate sources. Peer-reviewed journals and books from respected academic publishers simply hold more weight. Go ask at WP:NPOV/N if you have doubts. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

"Articles mainly summarize sources that are directly about the topic of that article, giving due weight to the most prominent views."

The article unfortunately presents the subjective statements from certain circles with in the social sciences as facts. I will abbreviate this criticism as OpinonsNotFacts. The article does not represents the most prominent views, it only presents minority viewpoints which promote a particular point of view (Ethnic Studies is based on a series of moralistic assumptions). This point will be abbreviated as MinorityView in the future.

The sources given are in fact of the same value as the sources of the author. They describe the perspective of the representatives of the reverse racism theory, the article only gives voice to the critics. See WP:RSOPINION how to handle citing opinions correctly.

"Peer-reviewed journals and books from respected academic publishers simply hold more weight."

This is true when it comes to factual information, but not opinions (see WP:RSOPINION). Ethnic Studies are also not universally respected fields (MinorityView). Bafabengabantu (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The idea that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor is also an "opinion", not an empirical "fact". It just happens to be the opinion shared by the majority of scientists. These repetitive comments about "opinions" are unhelpful. Please either (A) suggest specific improvements to the article, or (B) provide sources that establish the relative weight of any majority/minority viewpoints, per WP:NPOV. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The difference between biology and the social sciences is that the former is based on empirically falsifiable theories and the later not. I have already suggested improvements. Please read my past comments more thoroughly, so I do not have to repeat myself. Bafabengabantu (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Sources

Globalize

Four weeks and degenerated into tit for tat. Not going anywhere. O3000 (talk)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Adding a new section to discuss issues of worldview. At the moment, the sources seem to be used at one point to make general statements about the subject and, at the other points, to specifically discuss only the US. As they're often the same sources, it probably isn't both. So what information can we draw that we know isn't specifically discussing the US? Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC) The sources (and the text) largely define the topic in terms of the U.S. There's no need for the {{globalize}} template. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC) I disagree. The sources make it clear that this term is not limited to the United States and therefore the article should make every effort to reflect the worldview of the subject, whenever possible. At its current state, the article does not seem to make any efforts to do so. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC) Here's what several sources say (emphasis added): "In the USA, some attention has focused on the idea of 'reverse racism'" (Dennis 2004); "Reverse racism is a concept commonly associated with conservative opposition to affirmative action and other color-conscious victories of the civil rights movement in the United States and anti-racist movements abroad ... The political impact has indeed been felt, most notably in the form of the 'angry white male' factor in US electoral politics ... debate about reverse racism often takes on a parochial US dominated cast" (Ansell 2013, pp 136–7); "Thus, for America to truly treat African Americans equally, blacks were entitled to certain privileges ... Such programs have proven to be successful, but nonetheless have undergone extreme criticism from conservative opponents who claim that such programs are 'reverse racism'" (McBride 2005, p. 8); "While there is no empirical basis for white people experiencing 'reverse racism', this view is held by a large number of Americans" (Spanierman & Cabrera 2014, p. 16). The Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society also focuses on the United States. These happen to be the best-quality sources I could find on the topic. If there are comparable sources that describe non-US perspectives, please provide them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC) I'm not sure you understand the point of the globalize tag, you should read the article. Are you of the opinion that this concept is uniquely American? Because the ability to CTRL+F references to the US in American sources about racism and politics isn't particularly impressive or redeeming. Scoundr3l (talk) 17:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC) It doesn't have to be "uniquely American" to be predominantly about the US. Due and undue weight means we should not give disproportionate emphasis to minor aspects of the topic. The US angle gets the most RS coverage, so it should be the focus of the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC) To repeat: If there are comparable sources that describe non-US perspectives, please provide them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC) We're not talking about the amount of coverage in the article, nor does Due Weight apply here. If you agree that this is not an article about "Reverse racism in the United States", then the article needs to present the subject from a global perspective. You're welcome to participate, but I don't understand why you're asking me to provide you sources when the issue is a lack of coverage. Scoundr3l (talk) 01:54, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Of course due weight applies. The article should reflect published sources. That doesn't mean every article about US-focused topics needs to have "United States" in the title. Should we rename Manifest destiny and War on drugs to Manifest destiny in the United States and War on drugs in the United States respectively? Please show that any "global perspective" on the topic exists beyond what's already in the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC) No need to get defensive. This is an article about a universal subject, so changing the title isn't necessary, just improving the content. Examples of the problem and ways to fix it have already been provided in a way that any good faith editor looking to improve the article might participate. You aren't obligated to participate, but searching for mentions of the US isn't what Due Weight means. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:26, 4 March 2019 (UTC) Since no significant disparity has been shown between the article and existing RS coverage, I've removed the {{globalize}} template. Vague complaints that the sources "probably" don't represent the whole topic as a "universal subject" need to be supported with published sources that actually establish the "worldview of the subject" as different to what's in the article. The existing sources don't do that, and the "lack of coverage" beyond the United States is exactly why the article focuses on the U.S. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC) The complains have been very specific, the sources indicated, and specific steps to correct it have been offered. Your refusal to participate in improvements to the article does not represent any form of consensus. This article has very slow participation but there is no time limit and no reason to disrupt the efforts of other editors. Scoundr3l (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC) You haven't provided any sources. Please do not add the template again without a specific, concrete proposal supported by reliable sources, as per WP:CLEANUPTAG. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Specific concerns are outlined at the top of this thread. They're still available to read, but I'll quote them for you. "the sources seem to be used at one point to make general statements about the subject and, at the other points, to specifically discuss only the US." "what information can we draw that we know isn't specifically discussing the US?" You've ignored these concerns in favor of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Specific concerns were also raised in 1, 2, 3, and 4. The tag has been re-added, please see Help:Maintenance_template_removal#Addressing_the_flagged_problem for instructions on when it's appropriate to remove it. Obviously, expecting someone to immediately fix the problems being raised defeats the purpose of clean up tags, as would expecting them to provide sources when a lack of sources is often the reason the article needs cleanup. 07:24, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Actually, in the absence of sources, these concerns themselves are simply IDONTLIKEIT. None of the above indicates a serious imbalance in the article. What information can we draw that we know isn't specifically discussing the US? I have no idea; why should we want to? These concerns seem to rest solely on the assumption that something is missing from the article without actually proving it. No one is asking for an immediate fix of anything, but no actionable suggestions have even been offered. The condition of discussing how to fix the "problem" has therefore not been met. I don't understand the statement a lack of sources is often the reason the article needs cleanup. In the absence of additional sources, how do we know there's anything wrong with the article? I would say this is a solution in search of a problem, except there's no solution to even discuss. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC) "I have no idea" is an apt summary of your contribution to the actionable suggestion you quoted. I appreciate your admission, but that isn't the same thing as there not being a problem. You never answered the previous question as to whether or not you believe this is a uniquely American concept, but based on your response (not to mention the content of this very article and sources) I'm going to assume you agree it's not. So the answer to "why should we want to" is because we're here to make good faith improvements to the encyclopedia. At the moment, the entire lead paragraph is about the US (6 of the 7 sentences mention it by name). That is not a worldview. That's not an apt representation of the subject. And that's not the best we can do. Feel free to sit this one out if you don't know how to help. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC) At the moment, the entire lead paragraph is about the US (6 of the 7 sentences mention it by name). That is not a worldview. That's not an apt representation of the subject. According to what published, reliable sources? Repeated assertions that there is a problem do not prove that such a problem exists. At the moment, this is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Once again, I don't think you understand cleanup tags. Since we're quoting fallacies, check out argument from ignorance and proving a negative. I'm under no further obligation to convince you there's a problem and your disagreement has been noted with all it's due weight. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Once again, I'm asking for published evidence that there are significant viewpoints missing from the article. That is not "proving a negative" or "argument from ignorance". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC) It really only needs two good-faith agreements to see the problem. First, that this article is about a concept that is not limited to the United States. Second, that this article (specifically the lede) spends excessive detail discussing about the topic as it pertains only to the United States. If you can agree to those, then you can see that the article needs to be improved to discuss the subject outside of the United States. There is no "published evidence" that this article needs improvement, but it isn't required by any rational metric of the cleanup tag. It's fine if you don't agree, but I've done all I can and I'm not expecting you to, at this point. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:54, 21 March 2019 (UTC) No, I don't agree that this article (specifically the lede) spends excessive detail discussing the United States. The article reflects the sources, which focus on the United States. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:01, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Published sources are required to support the contention that the US focus of the article is "excessive". Ipse dixit is not a valid rationale; articles themselves are not written based on users' personal beliefs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Your insistence that one needs sources to use cleanup tags is paradoxical and not based in anything that could be mistaken as policy. You've expressed your disagreement (and outright refusal to participate) but most editors see that as a place to begin discussion, not end. If you have nothing else to add, your disagreement has been noted. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC) There's no paradox; the policy is Wikipedia:Verifiability, which I provided a link to. Your insistence on tagging the article in the face of disagreement, however, is definitely not based in any policy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:33, 24 March 2019 (UTC) Regarding those specific diffs: [1] moves cited information out of the lead section because it was US-centric, citing WP:WORLDVIEW, which is an essay. When sources focus on the US, as they do with this topic, there's no problem focusing on the US in the article. WORLDVIEW doesn't suggest downgrading well-sourced information; instead, it suggests seeking out non-English sources to balance the article. No such sources have been presented. [2] objects to saying that opposition comes from US conservatives, which is a fair point for the lead, even though the cited source mainly focuses on debates in the US. [3] is mostly a grammatical change, but also removes the specific reference to affirmative action in the US, even though the cited source doesn't mention affirmative action in any other countries. [4] simply repeats "in the United States" unnecessarily; the first sentence already establishes the US focus. In short, I don't see any significant WP:POV problem with any of these examples. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Per H:MTR, You need to be sure that the issue has been resolved before removing the template. Based on what I've just explained, I'm satisfied that no issue/problem exists. Therefore I'm removing the template, again. Maintenance templates are not meant to be a badge of shame. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC) So you've said, but your approval over the problem isn't really required. Every fair effort has been made to present the problem and ways to improve it, but nobody is capable or obligated to make you understand or collaborate. The tag has been re-added (this time by an IP who is not me). Please do not remove it again because you think there isn't a problem. I heard you the first time and I'm no less convinced. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC) As an aside, and hopefully a show of good faith, I'd like to point out that I'm in the same position at the bank robbery article, which I frequently contribute to. It is tagged for worldview (twice in the last year) because vast majority of sources on the history of bank robbery discuss the American frontier and prohibition era. I've tried several times to improve it, but the sources are slim. That doesn't mean it should focus on the US, it means the article still needs improvement. The tag isn't a badge of shame, it's an invitation for other people to come help. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC) I heard you the first time and I'm no less convinced. Fortunately I don't need to convince you. You are the one saying there is a problem, so the burden is on you to prove it. The invitation for other people to come help is unnecessary and disruptive when there's no problem to fix. All that the tag does is deface the article. Kindly do not re-add it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Your repeated interference is nothing more than WP:ICANTHEARYOU. At this point, a 3rd party has tagged the article and you are still refusing to participate in improvements. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC) Improvements – such as? I'm still waiting for any improvements to be suggested. Vague handwaving doesn't cut it. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Nor does an insistence to keep repeating myself until you are satisfied. This is a space for reaching an agreement, not asking permission to edit. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC) Your suggestions so far consist of the vague statements the article should make every effort to reflect the worldview of the subject ... the article needs to present the subject from a global perspective ... changing the title isn't necessary, just improving the content ... the article needs to be improved to discuss the subject outside of the United States and the question what information can we draw that we know isn't specifically discussing the US? First of all, the article does discuss the subject outside of the US, both in the lead and the section § In South Africa. Beyond this, your comments are not actionable proposals, and say nothing about how to improve the article. You are asking others to do the work of correcting a problem that has not been proven to exist, and which you refuse to substantiate with reference to anything other than your own opinion. Specifically, there's no need to draw on any information that we know isn't specifically discussing the US when sources predominantly describe the topic in US terms. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC) WP:DROPTHESTICK Sangdeboeuf. 188.129.143.42 (talk) 22:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC) If you have anything to add to the discussion, by all means do so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC) Your objections have been debunked and dismissed repeatedly. Unless you have new points there's no need to validate your disruption. 188.129.143.42 (talk) 22:55, 24 March 2019 (UTC) You may well think they've been "debunked", but thinking it does not make it so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate of reverse discrimination?

This article seems to be discussing the same subject as Reverse discrimination but focused almost entirely on the subject of Affirmative Action. Per the lead, the two terms are synonymous, so it seems we may have a redundant article. IMO, the other article is much better written and most of the focus of this article could be covered under the article for AA controversy (i.e. Resistance to diversity efforts in organizations). Is there anything I'm missing in the scope of this article? Scoundr3l (talk) 22:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I think what's occurring is that reverse discrimination is often used as shorthand for reverse (racial) discrimination, i.e. "reverse racism". However, reverse discrimination also covers "disability, ethnicity, family status, gender identity, nationality, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation, or other factors" according to that article. There's also the argument that simple discrimination does not equate to racism, sexism, etc. I think there's a case to be made for merging this article into Reverse discrimination, but not out of redundancy alone. The topic of reverse racism has gotten plenty of stand-alone RS coverage. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC) (edited 19:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC))

Yeah, good call. As I think about it, although 'discrimination' is obviously the broader subject, 'reverse racism' is probably the more common subject of discussion in RS. Perhaps what's needed then is to contextualize this article as a subset of reverse discrimination. At the moment, this article seems a little overly narrow on the AA debate. Scoundr3l (talk) 16:16, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Ansell (2013) is the most in-depth source I could find on the topic, and she frames it largely as an affirmative-action-related issue. Any suggestions for other reliable sources would be appreciated. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Surely you don't believe that her discussing it in the context of AA means she links the concept specifically to AA? The source itself said it dates back to the Reconstruction. There's also the definition provided by Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society: "situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities". What is gained by using the narrower definition? Scoundr3l (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Page 135 isn't in the preview, but here's what it says: Reverse racism is a concept commonly associated with conservative opposition to affirmative action and other color-conscious victories of the civil rights movement... So yes, the concept is framed in terms of affirmative action. After mentioning Reconstruction, Ansell says that it was "not until the 1970s" that the discourse on reverse racism became prominent. Incidentally, that's when affirmative action was strongest in the U.S., before quotas were outlawed in UC Regents v. Bakke.

The Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society actually says the term was "coined to describe" such situations, not that such situations are reverse racism. Still, the question arises: what situations? I'm going by Ansell's definition here because it's more in-depth and comprehensive. Encyclopedia of Politics (2005) also describes the idea of reverse racism as a reaction against affirmative action. I'm not saying that's the only possible meaning, but that's what seems to have gotten the most in-depth coverage in quality sources. Per Due and undue weight, we should adhere to what sources choose to focus on. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

You've missed the point entirely. At the moment, this article does not define what reverse racism is. Per MOS:FIRST "If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition". At the moment, the first sentence says that "reverse racism is a concept that portrays ___ as anti-white racism". That tells us what the concept is used to portray, but that doesn't tell us what the concept is. Ansell saying that it is commonly associated with AA also doesn't tell us what it is, nor have I removed that, I've simply moved it to the second line because defining the concept comes before contextualizing how it's used or what it's associate with. If it didn't become prominent until the 70s, then it demonstrably exists outside of the context you're insisting upon, per the sources. So, again, what issue do you have with defining the term before we include how it's used? Scoundr3l (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Your edit to the lead sentence doesn't solve the problem; "a concept of reverse discrimination" doesn't say what the topic has to do with reverse discrimination; it just introduces another term that needs a definition.

Reverse racism ... is a concept that portrays affirmative action in the United States, and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, as a form of anti-white racism seems clear enough, if a bit wordy; it tells us what the concept of reverse racism does, namely, equate affirmative action with racism. That's supported by numerous sources. Concepts like this, that represent misguided views of reality such as "white genocide", are difficult to define concisely without appearing to endorse the views themselves. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Once again, sources tend to specifically equate the concept of "reverse racism" with opposition to Affirmative action in the United States. Per Due and undue weight, this should be reflected in the article, including the lead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:58, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was out of town for a few days. I never said my latest change solved the problem. Nor is that appropriate grounds for a revert (see nirvana fallacy). I notated what problem that was solving (one of the great many problems with this article, believe it or not). The diff that sovled the problem was reverted we're currently discussing it, so I have yet to restore it. You have still yet to provide me with a reason you don't want the term defined. A definition doesn't tell us what a concept is used to do, it tells us what the concept is. "Racism is a concept used to make blackface inappropriate" is not a definition, nor is your provided example. Not only do we have an apt definition provided by reliable sources, it's the same definition used by Ansell, even if she doesn't say it word-for-word. We're not here to build an article around just the source you like. If I had to wager a guess, you may feel that defining the term somehow validates the concept. I don't know what to tell you. This is an encyclopedia, we're here to provide information about things. Good things, bad things; things you agree with, things you don't agree with. The term means what it means whether you're saying it exists or saying it doesn't exist. It has a definition and we can discuss it with a neutral point of view. At this point, I don't see any value in discussing the changes further with you as I don't think you're adequately explaining your actions or engaging the issue, so I'm just going to invite a third party opinion. Thank you. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The main subject under discussion is whether to include a definition for the first sentence such as the one provided by Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society: "situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities". Some paraphrasing to the effect, followed by appropriate commentary regarding it's use to define Affirmative action. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but "is a concept of reverse discrimination" is a meaningless phrase without also defining "reverse discrimination" as well. I think Reverse racism is a concept is an adequate definition. The subsequent text elaborates the definition. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The statement "Reverse racism is a form of reverse discrimination" implies that such discrimination exists, which is not what the sources say, including Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2019 (UTC) [edited 03:51, 5 March 2019 (UTC)]

So when you say "Reverse racism doesn't exist" what exactly are you saying doesn't exist? Because it has a definition whether it exists or it doesn't, so that's what we need to add to the article. As for the distinction that "the term was 'coined to describe' such situations", that doesn't really change anything. All words are coined to describe things, that's what words are. Scoundr3l (talk) 02:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that, the sources are. The definition is given in the article, and works as far as I'm concerned. We aren't defining the words, but the topic as a whole. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Simply giving the literal meaning of the words "reverse racism" is misleading because it omits how those words are used. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:31, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

So you've said, but it isn't really about whether or not you like it, it's a collaboration. When I joined this article, there was a merge proposal and 3 unanswered concerns on the talk page from the past month alone. This isn't exactly a GA candidate. I agree with a lot of the complaints and I'm trying to help. Frankly, your reasoning sounds like an NPOV issue. Definitions are definitions. Providing them can't be misleading if you're here to provide information. On the other hand, willfully omitting the definition is definitely misleading and that seems to be your argument. Keep in mind, I never omitted the context, I just moved it to the second line. You've also contradicted yourself several times during your reverts, so I don't think we're getting anywhere. Will await the 3O. Thanks. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:35, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Definitions can be misleading if you pretend to define something while actually defining something else. The topic of this article is not "discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group", but rather the concept that such discrimination exists, used as a political strategy. That's what the sources for the most part describe. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:33, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

For comparison, would you accept the following introductory sentence for Bigfoot: "Bigfoot is a hairy, upright-walking, ape-like creature that dwells in the wilderness and leaves footprints"? Even if the rest of the article explains in detail how Bigfoot is purely legendary, that first sentence has still misled readers by describing it like a thing that exists in reality. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, believe it or not, I did and do understand your point and I'm still willing to collaborate if you are. I agreed to re-add 'concept' but saying that it's a concept and it also doesn't exist is almost contradictory. It demonstrably exists as a concept, but the sources aren't saying that "discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group" isn't a real concept, they are saying it's not happening. So if the article is about the concept, we should define what the concept means. Would it help if we add a contextual preposition such as "In sociology" or "In political discourse"? Scoundr3l (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with In political discourse, or better yet, "In American political discourse". The term is evidently a creation of political conservatives, not sociologists, so In sociology would be misleading. It's used far more frequently outside academic sociology. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

So how about "In political discourse, reverse racism is the concept of discrimination against the majority racial group"? Defines it within context and refers to it as a concept. I've no problem with adding American, but it's needlessly limiting for the scope of the article as both the sources and the text discuss it outside of America and there's no other articles for this subject. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:31, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be fine with adding "In political discourse" to the existing wording. Sources describe the idea of reverse racism specifically as being about anti-white racism, not just any "majority racial group". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

They absolutely do, though. As preciously quoted: "situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities". And we have no reason to suspect any of the sources disagree with that definition. There is a difference between a definition and a context, although it doesn't do any good if you're trying to make it mean what you want it to mean. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

That's only one of several sources cited in the article. The overall weight is given to the idea of anti-white racism specifically. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Is it your opinion that this definition is incorrect? Scoundr3l (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

My opinion about that has no bearing on anything. However, there is a reason to think that sources disagree, namely that they don't use that definition apart from the one you quoted, which mentions it in passing to illustrate how individual perceptions of racism may not meet the scholarly definition of racism.[5] The context is important. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:50, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Alternative title

Note: Discussion over the inclusion of 'reverse discrimination' as an WP:ALTTITLE on this article

Changing it from a wikilink to an alt title does not further clarify the term, it does the opposite. If you have a definition that distinguishes it from other articles, per Title policy, please contribute to the discussion. Otherwise, you're idly edit warring attempts to improve the article. Scoundr3l (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

We're not talking about changing the article title. Per WP:OTHERNAMES, significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. Several sources indicate that "reverse discrimination" is an alternative name for "reverse racism".

Whether a separate page on reverse discrimination exists is not the issue. That ambiguity can be handled with hatnotes or a disambiguation page if necessary.

The statement "Reverse racism is a form of reverse discrimination" implies that such discrimination exists, which is not what the sources say, including Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Bold text is reserved for the article's title (MOS:BOLDTITLE). Alternate names in bold are alternate titles for the article. In this case, 'reverse discrimination' is not an appropriate alternate title as this article is not about reverse discrimination. The fact that they are sometimes used interchangeably does not make them the same thing, per your own argument at the top of this thread. All significant titles that refer to a specific article should be made to redirect to that article, per policy. As there is an article on 'reverse discrimination' already, that title should redirect to that article. Aside from trying to preserve the status quo, why do you feel the alternate title is necessary when it clearly is against policy? Scoundr3l (talk) 17:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, "Reverse discrimination" is an alternate title. It is also the title of a different page. There is no redirect involved. Please indicate where policy says that a given title cannot refer to two or more topics (hint: it doesn't; see WP:Disambiguation). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:TITLE, line 2: "The title indicates what the article is about and distinguishes it from other articles". Line 4: "no two articles can have the same title". Spare me any alternative theories on how this simple policy should be interpreted and just give me one content-based reason why the content benefits from the alt title.(hint: your personal preference doesn't count) Scoundr3l (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content and the basis for the article's page name and URL. You are talking about the lead sentence, not the title, so this is completely pointless. There's no reason to remove legitimate alternative titles from the lead, especially when supported by multiple sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Boy, you're really painting yourself into a corner. Ok, you said it's not a title, it's just the first sentence. Well, the previously cited MOS:format of the first sentence has you covered "Only the first occurrence of the title and significant alternative titles (which should usually also redirect to the article) are placed in bold." It's in bold, so it's a title. Not surprisingly "reverse discrimination" doesn't redirect here because it's covered in a different article. I'll just assume you agree it's an alternate title, since you linked to that article. Under the WP:PRECISION section of that article it states "titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article", so unless you've got a second definition of "reverse discrimination" in your pocket, this is not a case of disambiguation, it's the same word used as the title for two articles. Finally, the sources are not referring to a folk band named 'reverse discrimination', they are using the same definition as that article (i.e. discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group.), so that is not within the scope of this article, per your own argument at the top of this thread. Would you care to provide a second definition which applies to this article and not the other? Scoundr3l (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Spare me your patronizing remarks. You're evidently confusing the actual title of the page (covered at WP:TITLE) with alternative titles mentioned in the text. An alternative title is not the actual title; that's what makes it an alternative. I've already explained what the definition is above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I wonder which policy covers ALTTITLE. Oh look, it's WP:TITLE (turns out alt titles are titles, that's why they're called titles). It also does not support your position. It's been quoted twice already, but what the heck, let's quote it again "All significant alternative titles, names, or forms of names that apply to a specific article should usually be made to redirect to that article. If they are ambiguous, it should be ensured that the article can at least be reached from a disambiguation page for the alternative term." There's no redirect to this article from 'reverse discrimination', disambiguation or otherwise, because that term is not within the scope of this article, per your own argument. Are there any content-based reasons you think the title belongs here? Because we can keep splitting hairs over which policy this is covered by and I'm sure we can keep finding quotes (not to mention common sense) why this is a problem: it's needlessly ambiguous. If they are the same thing, the articles should be merged. If they are not the same thing, we need to disambiguate what's meant by the reverse discrimination used for this article and the term used for the other article. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The terms are synonymous in this article, according to several sources.[6][7][8]. A page title can't simultaneously redirect to another page; that's not how redirects work. If you want to merge the two pages, then open a discussion and get consensus for the merge. Otherwise this is a waste of time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:47, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree that this is a waste of time, though I'm not sure we agree who's wasting it. Regardless of whether or not the articles should be merged, they are not. And because they are two separate articles, they can not have the same scope. The sources that mention 'reverse discrimination' are referring to the subject of another article, so our job is to disambiguate that, not obfuscate it. Please stop evading the discussion and explain your actions based on the current state of the articles and not some speculative future state. Scoundr3l (talk) 21:19, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

The sources I linked use "reverse discrimination" as a synonym for "reverse racism": the term reverse racism (or reverse discrimination) (Yee 2008, p. 1118); the term 'reverse racism', or 'reverse discrimination' (Cashmore 2004, p. 373); conservatives have charged that whites are the victims of new forms of discrimination – affirmative or reverse discrimination (see reverse racism) (Ansell 2013, p. 57). I don't know what you mean about "the same scope" in two different articles. Reverse discrimination covers a broader topic with different examples from around the world. Nonetheless, the terms are synonymous here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I agree with you there, it's used a synonym. However, nothing in WP policy requires synonyms be used as alt titles, especially when they are ambiguous with another article. As you said, Reverse Discrimination covers a different scope than this article, and it's what's meant when the sources say "reverse discrimination", ergo this article is not about that broader subject. This article is about a more narrow subject and the content needs to be focused on that subject specifically. There are plenty of sources which indicate Jupiter is equivalent to Zeus, but because they have two separate articles, the content focuses on distinguishing them, not needlessly conflating them. Scoundr3l (talk) 00:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

No, when the sources say "reverse discrimination", they mean "reverse racism", as I've already indicated. They are the same subject. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:52, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

You've actually indicated at least twice now that they are not the same topic. Seems like you're outvoted. Scoundr3l (talk) 07:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

What I stated was that the same term can refer to more than one topic. For the purposes of this article, both terms refer to the same topic; please refer to the meaning of "synonymous". Zeus and Jupiter are treated differently because that's how published sources treat them (and to keep articles to a reasonable size). If you can find a significant number of high-quality published sources that explicitly differentiate reverse racism/discrimination, then you might have a point. Till then it's simply a false equivalence. Honestly, I think you're treating the mere existence of separate Wikipedia articles as proof of separate topics. Anyone can create a Wikipedia page; instead we judge the scope of topics by what reliable, published sources say. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

If you think they are the same topic, open a discussion and try to get a consensus to merge them. Otherwise, we'll be upholding the previous consensus to keep them as separate articles about separate topics. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

That AfD was about whether to delete the article contents outright, and there were arguments both for merging and retaining as a separate article. The closer didn't mention the merge question at all. I don't see any such "consensus". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:09, 22 March 2019 (UTC) (edited 22:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC))

If you disagree with the results of that AfD, you can dispute them through the appropriate channels. See WP:CLOSEAFD. This is not the appropriate place to dispute the results, and your disagreement does not constitute a new consensus. There is also another ongoing merge discussion which I see you're participating in. Best of luck, but please do not disrupt this article to make a point. Scoundr3l (talk) 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the results; I'm saying they don't support your position. That the AfD was closed as "keep" says nothing about what the contents of the article should be, including any alternative titles. That's a matter of editorial judgement. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:42, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

It does contradict your opinion that they are the same thing, as does the current state of the merge proposal you voted for. "Merge" is a possible outcome of an AfD, but it was not the result. Unless you can sway consensus otherwise, it's the judgement of other editors that they should remain two separate articles, which means treating them as separate subjects and disambiguating them. So, again, and for the third time... what are your content-based reasons why the article benefits an alt title that is completely covered by the scope of another article? Scoundr3l (talk) 17:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

The reason is that published sources treat them as synonymous, as I've already stated twice. The AfD really has nothing to do with it. None of the three sources in question were discussed there. The hatnote I added to Reverse discrimination takes care of the disambiguation. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing synonymous with equivalent. Warm is a synonym of hot and discrimination is a synonym of racism, but we're not a dictionary, so we're not listing synonyms. We're here to describe subjects and 'reverse discrimination' is the subject of a different article. So what's the benefit of the alt title? Scoundr3l (talk) 18:36, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Warm is neither a synonym of hot nor is discrimination a synonym of racism. Once again, the fact that some other page has the same title as a legitimate alternative name for this topic is irrelevant. Sources use the terms reverse racism, reverse discrimination, anti-white racism, and anti-white discrimination, sometimes interchangeably, to refer to the same topic.[9][10][11] Therefore, it's a legitimate alternative title and should appear in bold per MOS:BOLDSYN. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

@Scoundr3l: I've reverted your edit that had the rationale "there is no link to this article from that term". You yourself added a link to this article right at the top of Reverse discrimination. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:38, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Legal cases, lead section

Reverse discrimination being "recorded to exist" in a "limited degree" by the courts seems to be a misrepresentation. First, the source is probably outdated, and is also unduly weighted by being placed in the lead section. Right on the first page, it says "few reverse discrimination cases occur ... The cases provide little evidence that reverse discrimination is widespread". This is in line with Ansell, who states, "only 2.2. percent of (EEOC) claims came from white males charging race discrimination, and a small minority of these were found to have merit. Similar findings have been published with respect to U.S. federal court decisions". I suggest moving the material to § Legal challenges and changing it to focus on the fact that these are a very small minority of cases, rather than it existing in a "limited degree". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the material for now; will work out an alternative wording shortly to place in the relevant section. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

References

Racial backlash?

"Allegations of reverse racism therefore form part of a racial backlash against gains by people of colour."

This statement is too broad and assumptive. It assumes that all allegations of reverse racism are "part of a backlash against gains by people of colour", which is an association fallacy. There may be many reasons for allegations of reverse racism, whether reasonable or not. For example: "Disappointment at college application rejection", or "Worry of racially-partial policymaking", etc.

The article will be more accurate and impartial with this statement removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfuu1234 (talk • contribs) 09:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we don't publish original research. Rather, we go by what published, reliable sources state. The text in question is based on such a source. Please provide a comparable source that suggests otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:57, 24 April 2019 (UTC)