Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Suggestion for rewording opening

The lede currently reads:

"Reverse racism is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, especially in the United States, are a form of anti-white racism."

I suggest changing this to something along the lines of:

"Reverse racism is the concept that policies, such as affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, are a form of racism. The term is especially used in the United States in regard to alleged anti-white racism. The concept is often associated with conservative social movements and the belief that social and economic gains by black people cause disadvantages for white people. It is sometimes conflated with the concept of reverse discrimination."

This wording uses the same sources, and deduces the term "racism" from the term "anti-white racism.", considering "anti-white" is not definitive, and the article is intended to reference racism in general. Understanding that all sources used refer (but not definitively) to alleged anti-white racism, the second sentence makes it clear that the concept is mostly used in the US with the descriptor, "anti-white."

I added the phrase "policies, such as..." as no source refers definitively to affirmative action / color-conscious programs. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with this, absent sourcing that indicates the term has any usage outside of the context of anti-white "racism". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Your logic therefore suggests "reverse racism = anti-white racism" is definitive. There are no sources present to support that.

"The term is especially used... anti-white racism" does not imply other significant forms of reverse racism, hence the word "especially." Therefore, while the article refers to "especially" anti-white racism, that does not necessitate the immediate description of usage outside the context of anti-white "racism", as anti-white "racism" is most significant. Zilch-nada (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's phrase it this way: what other uses of the phrase "reverse racism" are there, signficant or otherwise? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You have no sources to definitively suggest that "Reverse racism... concept... form of anti-white racism." No sources definitively imply this. The only sources implying this refer to the U.S. and South Africa.

The phrasing "Reverse racism... concept... form of anti-white racism." implies a definitive outlook with no basis, as this is slyly based on the U.S. and S. Africa. As I said previously, from the sources saying that reverse-racism = anti-white racism (in Country X and Y), this article, by your logic of saying it doesn't exist otherwise, may as well be titled; "Reverse racism in the United States and South Africa", or "Anti-white racism."

Again, no source definitively says "reverse racism = Anti-white racism", which is what the lede dishonestly and illogically interprets from country-based sources that describe the term in country X and Y. The lede is a logical error. Zilch-nada (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

As well as no sources present acknowledging reverse racism otherwise, there also are no sources to suggest that there are no other "uses of the phrase 'reverse racism'... significant or otherwise." Zilch-nada (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia policy that says we have to start every article with a disclaimer like "in Country X" when the available sources focus on Country X. Doing so would be silly and excessively pedantic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That is precisely my point; above, I said "by your logic of saying it doesn't exist otherwise, may as well be titled; "Reverse racism in the United States and South Africa", or "Anti-white racism."". We are aiming for a worldwide view, then emphasising where the term is used in academia and media - the US and S. Africa. It is a worldwide view to say "It is a term... especially used in the US", not worldwide to say "It is a form of anti-white racism, especially used in the US" or "a term used in the US."

It may be especially a form of anti-white racism, just as I used the word especially to describe the U.S.

As I suggested above, the logic in

"Reverse racism... concept... especially in the United States as anti-white racism."

makes a lot more sense. Zilch-nada (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to parse your proposed wording when you replace all the verbs with ellipses. The lede already states, 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. The article is about the concept of reverse racism, not just the term. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-white racism" is not a universal descriptor of reverse racism, or more specifically, affirmative action and color-conscious programs, as the article states presently.

I'll fill in ellipses:

"Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of racism, especially in the United States as anti-white racism. This logic is much more clear. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

We could also use a descriptor (provided by RS) for the simple term, "racism" which stands on its own.

It makes semantic sense that, whether or not anti-white racism exists, it is nominally a form of racism, and therefore the deduction of "anti-white."

As mentioned by other editors above, the more universal topic is majority or "advantaged" groups alleging to experience reverse-racism. Of course, in the US and South Africa, that is the case via RS, but we cannot yet interpret that as "majority/minority" conflict. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say that "anti-white racism" is a universal descriptor of affirmative action and color-conscious programs. It says this is a belief widely held in the U.S, Not the same thing.

... are a form of racism, especially in the United States as anti-white racism implies that there is a different form of racism called "reverse racism" outside the U.S. Which published, reliable sources support this implication? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article literally states the concept, as a perception from conservatives; that "affirmative action, and color conscious programs... are a form of anti-white racism." That definitively equates the concept - the idea of affirmative action, etc. - take the perceived form of reverse racism as solely anti-white racism. By referring exclusively to anti-white racism, instead of "especially", or, "used especially in the United States...", that is an overly simplistic, and dishonest summary.

WP:ONUS is on the current intepretations of the current sources. I am fine with using the current sources if interpreted fairly; they are not.

"... are a form of racism, especially in the United States as anti-white racism implies that there is a different form of racism called "reverse racism" outside the U.S."

I could equally say that there are no sources to suggest reverse-racism (or its relationship with affirmative action etc.) occurs only in the United States, or in the form of anti-white racism. To negate that, I write that the term is especially used in the United States; "Especially used in the US... with regard to alleged anti-white racism." This interpretation does not imply solely the US, nor does it necessarily call for significant mention of it outside of the US in different forms.

Affirmative action, etc., are interpreted to be a form of racism in the US; specifically anti-white racism, a sort of subcategory of racism. As this is a 'subcategory', (deducing "racism" from "anti-white racism"), we can specify, with the term "especially," the importance of this 'subcategory' with regard to the US and S. Africa. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

To say that something especially occurs in place X with no found evidence of the term used in place Y, the term "especially" does not call for its significant existence elsewhere.

The point is, if we don't know if it exists in place Y (we don't know as we haven't yet sources), to dispute the term "especially" for a definitive sense (i.e. definitively anti-white racism), that requires sourcing to suggest that it exists nowhere else. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not anti-white racism exists, it is nominally a form of racism, and therefore the deduction of "anti-white." ... Affirmative action, etc., are interpreted to be a form of racism in the US; specifically anti-white racism, a sort of subcategory of racism – putting "racism" before "anti-white racism" would fail to give due weight. The cited sources specifically focus on perceived anti-white racism/discrimination. All this talk of "deduction" and "subcategories" is original research.

The article literally states the concept ... as solely anti-white racism – no it doesn't. Saying "reverse racism is X" is not the same as saying "reverse racism is not Y". This is the appeal to ignorance again.

There are no sources to suggest reverse-racism ... occurs only in the United States, or in the form of anti-white racism. To negate that, I write that the term is especially used in the United States – once again, this article is about the concept of reverse racism, not just a term used in the United States. The lead section already states, While the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue, the concept of reverse racism has been used internationally to some extent.

To say that something especially occurs in place X ... does not call for its significant existence elsewhere – define "significant".

To dispute the term "especially" for a definitive sense ... that requires sourcing to suggest that it exists nowhere else – nowhere does the article state or imply that the concept of reverse racism "exists nowhere else" outside the US or SA; see above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC) edited 23:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't "anti-white racism" semantically a form of "racism"? Whether or not it exists, people arguing in favour of this existence of "reverse racism" are doing so because they believe affirmative action etc. is a form of racism, specifically describing it as "anti-white" racism". The article's first paragraph summarizes the sentiments of such people through reliable sources; is it really original research (as opposed to interpretation of sources, and basic semantics) to suggest the proponents of the term describe policies as racist, given that they believe "anti-white racism" is a form of it? If a source used the term "purple car", wouldn't it be just to refer to them describing a "car"?

Saying that "reverse-racism is anti-white racism" in a definitive manner is exlcusionary of the term used differently in other contexts. This wording is an appeal to ignorance, being definitive without source.

The concept is a concept which is especiialy used in the United States. The current article's wording is "often", (in refernce to it being associated with conservative movements.) But you cannot deny that it is especially used in the US.

"To say that something especially occurs in place X ... does not call for its significant existence elsewhere – define "significant"." I mean "significant" as in worthy of mention. I don't know if reverse-racism (being seen as) as anti-white racism is elsewhere; I don't know if it doesn't exist at all. But I think it is fair to say it doesn't significantly exist elsewhere; the absence of sources mentioning it elsewhere clearly suggest it isn't worthy of mention elsewhere, but that does not mean it does not exist elsewhere. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But it is evidence of it not being mentioned (hence, "absence of evidence" is similar to "absence of mention" of it elsewhere).

"nowhere does the article state or imply that the concept of reverse racism "exists nowhere else" outside the US or SA". I didn't say that. The article suggests that reverse racism exists as only anti-white racism and in no other contexts ("where" referring to instances of the term use, not geography.) Zilch-nada (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't [Spider-Man] semantically a form of [man]? Whether or not [Spider-Man] exists, people arguing in favour of this existence of [Spider-Man] are doing so because they believe [Spider-Man] is a [man] ... is it really original research (as opposed to interpretation of sources, and basic semantics) to suggest the proponents of the term describe [Spider-Man] as [a man], given that they believe [Spider-Man] is a [man]? Yes. These "semantic" arguments are a silly distraction.

If a source used the term "purple car", wouldn't it be just to refer to them describing a "car"? A better example would be "low-rider". It may be semantically valid to refer to a low-rider as a "rider", i.e. something that rides, but it would be reductive and incomplete. Same with "reverse racism", which is an epithet specifically used to denigrate affirmative action, not a generic type of racism.

This wording is an appeal to ignorance, being definitive without source – plenty of sources have already been supplied. If they're not definitive enough for you, take it to WP:RS/N.

The concept is a concept which is [especially] used in the United States – source?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But it is evidence of it not being mentioned – exactly. When published, reliable sources mention it, then we can too. Until then, we don't.

The article suggests that reverse racism exists as only anti-white racism and in no other contexts – no it does not. This is your appeal to ignorance again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Calling "Spider-Man" a type of man isn't reductive or incomplete; it is a descriptor. But I do agree that that context is from original research (we cannot deduce this from a trademark or proper noun.)

Calling "Low-rider" a type of "rider" isn't reductive or incomplete; it is a desciptor - likewise to be used if sources describe it as a type of "rider."

Calling "anti-white racism" a form of "racism" isn't reductive or incomplete; it is a descriptor. My interpretation was, that those who alleged the term to affirmative action, etc., were doing so because they were describing a type of racism. But anyway, seeing there is disagreement on this deduction, please see my suggested edits.

The article does suggest that no other forms exist when it says "affirmative action... a form of anti-white racism"; isn't descibring something as a "form" of, very definitive? If it is a form of "anti-white" racism, it cannot be a form of anything else. It is "most often" / "especially" / "often" (although I think it's more than often - open to conversation on this wording) used in this manner, not definitively.

"Plenty of sources have been supplied"; I have been over how I feel they are misinterpreted. Just because "plenty" of them have been supplied describing chiefly - especially the U.S., does not mean that the term is defined by its definition in the U.S. Please check my suggested edit below where I have not deducted "anti-white", but focused on where that description is given - "most often" / "often" / "especially" in ''the United States. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If it is a form of "anti-white" racism, it cannot be a form of anything else – says who? Lots of things can be a form of more than one thing. Swimming is a form of locomotion, a form of exercise, and a type of competitive sport. This argument is just silly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Saying that "reverse-racism is anti-white racism" in a definitive manner is [exclusionary] of the term used differently in other contexts – once again, absent sources that mention "reverse racism" in any other context(s), this argument is pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed wording above:

Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of racism, especially in the United States as anti-white racism.

The addition of "especially in the United States" is vague and awkwardly phrased. "Especially" what? Especially referred to? Especially a concept? Especially a form of racism? The phrase "as anti-white racism" seems to imply that there is a phenomenon of anti-white racism and that reverse racism somehow pertains to it. This is completely backwards according to the sources, which describe "anti-white racism" as a perceived phenomenon which has been labeled "reverse racism" by some. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I completely agree with you here. I would say that the concept of reverse-racism in the US. is particularly aligned with alleged "anti-white racism." Zilch-nada (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Emphasis on the term "alleged", or term like "perceived" as you suggest.

Zilch-nada (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ansell doesn't Sources don't say anything about reverse racism being conflated with reverse discrimination. She Yee (2008) mentions "reverse discrimination" as a synonym of "reverse racism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) edited 20:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I think there are only two minor changes to this lede I think are necessary. Considering we have disagreement on deducing "anti-white racism" as "racism" (in the minds of proponents of the concept), we must refer to the term "anti-white racism". But I don't - as we have conversed for days about - believe the article should definitively link "reverse racism" to "anti-white racism". My two minor suggested edits (This is not exhaustive - I am looking for conversation surrounding this wording below):

Original: "Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is a concept often associated with conservative social movements in the United States, which holds that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism."

Suggested: "Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is a concept most often associated with conservative social movements in the United States, where it holds that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism."

This definition refers more explicitly to the US., where sources do explicitly refer to it as alleged "anti-white racism." Zilch-nada (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You should probably check the talk page archives before devoting more of your time to this. We've already been over this quite recently with Gumbear, and a solid consensus emerged to keep the current wording: Talk:Reverse racism/Archive_6#Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022. I've read what you've written above and haven't seen anything new. We're not required to retread the same ground every time someone comes along making the same old arguments. See e.g. WP:SATISFY for further advice. Generalrelative (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Which sources say reverse racism is most often associated with conservative social movements in the United States? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll scrap that. (Just as I think we should scrap defining "reverse racism" in relation to "anti-white racism"; no source outside U.S.) What about keeping the undeniable term, "where", to this defintion:

Suggested: "Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is a concept often associated with conservative social movements in the United States, where it holds that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism."

"It" refers to "concept"; "it" is defined in this way in the United States. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This unduly limits the lead sentence. "Reverse racism" has been invoked in other countries besides the U.S. – not only South Africa as described in the article but also the UK; see Song (2014). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

And Australia; see Nelson et al. (2018). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

POV issues

This article is deeply biased is favor of fringe scholarship and does not represent the full breadth of published thought on this subject 2601:405:4A80:B950:386F:67E:A01F:7359 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

^{[ citation needed ]} Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

the sources given deeply misrepresent the subject 2601:405:4A80:B950:D972:B44F:E405:159E (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Without specifics about both claims this is useless. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

so basically you are going to ignore the extreme pov pushing of this article2601:405:4A80:B950:D189:CD3A:9675:39D4 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to show there's an [[WP:UNDUE]] representation of certain sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I 100% agree. The examples of bias here are too extensive to list (though I take a stab at it on just a few in the conversation above), and many of the cited sources have an obvious bias when doing even a cursory look at their background. It's almost worth throwing out the entire page and starting anew. Gumbear (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll add my name to those who don’t think dictionaries are good sources for this article. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to describe a topic without a generally accepted definition of what the topic is. The "definition" here is an out-of-context cite from sources with demonstrated biases. Dictionaries generally don't have such baggage. Agree to disagree. Gumbear (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any issues presented and agree that dictionaries aren't good sources for this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries define words, not topics, and the definition given here is based on several high-quality scholarly sources. The assertion that such sources are biased but dictionaries are not draws on no evidence whatsoever. Your complaints have been heard and rejected already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

And they get them wrong at times, probably because dictionaries today often reflect common usage. Eg I've seen archaeology as defined as study of the past through material culture, which is incomplete as archaeology also studies the present through material culture. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

To respond to you and Sangdeboeuf, consider racism. It uses several encyclopedias and dictionaries (i.e. objective sources) to define the topic. It also uses broad definitions rather than a narrow straw-man definition from a biased source(s) that advances an ideology. Whether it's a dictionary or encyclopedia is besides the point--the definition should be objective. The current definition would not encompass current SCOTUS cases dealing with reverse racism--which may be the point but is an obvious hole. And don't turn your back on dictionaries just because you disagree with some passages in some dictionaries. Gumbear (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries usually follow usage and encyclopaedias don't even have a policy of showing opposing views as we do. Neither is objective. You are striving for a goal which is almost if not virtually impossible for many subjects. There is no objective definition of racism for instance. That's why we have several with the first one being that it is a belief - are beliefs objectivre? Doug Weller talk 11:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You're deflecting. Tell me how the current definition (cobbled from several passages from overtly biased "experts") is more objective than any of the definitions from the several reputable dictionaries I suggested. Objectivity is the goal. And tell me how we could use a definition that would exclude a seminal SCOTUS case on reverse racism. Gumbear (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The so-called objective sources cited in the Racism article include Ansell (2013), Dennis (2004), and Garner (2009), which this article also cites prominently. How exactly are these objective in one case but biased source(s) that advances [sic] an ideology in the other? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion isn't about using ideologically biased sources in an article. It's about using ideologically biased sources to define the article. Gumbear (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gumbear you don’t like our policies and guidelines, try to change them. But don’t look for objectivity fir social issues. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What policies and guidelines are you referring to? Gumbear (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I am still not certain what view is being characterised as fringe scholarship at the start. There seems to be 3 choices - dictionaries (which do have alternate views to some extent expressed as as alternate definitions, but have a long lag), scholarship (which may be ideological), or newspapers/popular books etc. Maybe the solution is to add more of the latter, espeically if the polling that it exists is so high (but maybe not).

Maybe the POV issues vary by country - if South Africa has a seperate section what about expanding the one for the US to remove more from the lede? Personally, I find the term reverse racism confusing as it doesn't mean the reverse of racism. Are there different terms used elsewhere ??

The 11 levels of replies makes this a bit hard to read with Vector 2022. Would the editors involved mind re-arranging the discourse slightly? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The view that is fringe is the idea that "reverse racism"--that is to say, the systematic oppression of historically over-privileged groups like white people--actually exists in the real world. The US already has a separate section--in fact, it makes up the bulk of the article at the moment. Deep indent levels are inevitable in Wikipedia discussions; if you find them hard to read in Vector 2022, you might want to check your preferences menu; in the Appearances tab under the Skin Preferences section, make sure that "Enable limited width mode" is unchecked, to give you more width on the page, or switch to another skin entirely.

Also, just throwing this out there: this thread is about two months old, so it's a bit stale to be replying to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank-you for explaining and the comment about skin preferences - I have now changed to Minerva and it is AWESOME. (Vector 2022 was showing the deepest indent level as two words wide, so I was using edit mode instead!! Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying newspapers and especially popular books are never ideological? I know there's a long history of anti-intellectualism in American politics, but Wikipedia does in fact rely on mainstream scholarship, whatever horror stories the media tells about "woke" college professors or any other such nonsense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I commented becuase there seems to be an ongoing impasse (template since 2019 and lots of reverts) and the article didn't answer what I wanted to know (although some were mentioned on the reverts!). What is the difference between reverse racism and Reverse_discrimination? Is it just part of the White_backlash or White privilege? Does it mainly exist only in anglophone/ex-colonial nations? (I found some stuff on France ([1]). I also think racism article's definition of racism should be included, so the definition can be countered.

@Sangdeboeuf My suggestion of newspapers etc was not a plea for anti-intellectualism (and I am not American but I did find the article overly US-centric), but should a topic oft discussed in the popular sphere [2]

depend totally on academia? "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics."

@Sangdeboeuf "Are you saying newspapers and especially popular books are never ideological?" Of course they are, and so are scholarly works and even unpopular books sometimes. But it would be nice to have some slightly different perspectives [3] [4] , and some quotes (I am not talking about the tabloids) and some poll discussion [5][6] Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

But it would be nice to have some slightly different perspectives – this is a common objection whenever academic consensus disagrees with a popular myth. When high-quality sources, scholarly or otherwise, present a generally unified view at odds with opinion polls, we go with the high-quality sources. For more info please refer to WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. We certainly don't interpret primary sources such as polls ourselves; see WP:PSTS. As for including the definition listed in the Racism article, it depends on which definition, and from which source. This article doesn't need to counter anything that isn't already discussed in the relevant sources. For general questions about the topic that the article doesn't answer, the place to go is WP:REFDESK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The part of the WP:RS guideline you referenced is more relevant to avoiding news sources than using non-scholarly sources specifically. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because a topic is oft discussed in the popular sphere doesn't mean we need to document everything said in the press; Wikipedia is explicitly not a news aggregator. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, Wikipedia articles should be a summary of accepted knowledge about their subject, which is why we filter out low-quality sources along with breaking news and passing mentions of a topic. Many articles, like this one, are US-centric because the most reliable sources tend to focus on the United States. That said, we can always use high-quality sources that focus on other countries. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf

Let's start off the things I think we agree with.

1. We agree that the accepted consensus by reliable sources is that the claims of reverse racism are not well founded, and have been misused in politics by populists.
2. We agree that if suitable non US centric references can be found that we should add them.

We disagree that

# the quality and need for the references I suggested. The references support the consensus, are of high quality ( NYT, Scientific America, The Guardian, The Times, Al Jazeera, and the Conversation), and do not fall victim to recentism. The poll is discussed on a secondary source (The Conversation), and so is not original research.

1. the need to reflect the consensus case by discussing in the article what racism is, why "reverse racism" isn't racism, and how it differs from reverse discrimination. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I have changed the lede to link the mention of reverse discrimination to the reverse discrimination article, (which I hope is non controversial)I think it would be best to clarify that this has the same meaningas anti white racism based on the discussion about categorisation below. The two major groups of good faith edits that have been reverted seem to be confusion about Reverse discrimination and the use of any non scholastic work or dictionary.

@Sangdeboeuf Bump. Have I summarised what we agree on correctly? Are you happy with the article status quo, or do you see areas where the article coul be improved? Or is it just that "Many articles, like this one, are US-centric because the most reliable sources tend to focus on the United States. That said, we can always use high-quality sources that focus on other countries."

Although you pointed me to the help desk, Wikipedia is after all written for all audiences. As I mentioned previously, the current status quo is confusing for a non US person or even for a general reader for the reasons I mention. (Some other poitnts, is it black peoples that are the target or is it orhte racial groups/ethnicities? And when the lede mentions black, does it only refer to just African American? Why discuss the US so much in the lede?

As an example of why US focus in the lede is bad, when the lede mention conservative groups it really refers to modern US conservative groups. Some of the left wing European groups have been very xenophobic in thier actions and policies [7]https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2021.666717/full] for reverse racism type reasons, And it's not just conservatives (I assume in the US that is the same as Repubkicab) as 40 per cent of Democratic voters believe in it [8] and I have a vague memoroy tat the the Democrats used to be against it in the 60s,

Similarly the Overview, is an overview of the US, not of other countries Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You're operating under a couple of misconceptions. First of all: the reason the reverse racism article focuses so much on the US is that "reverse racism", as a concept, doesn't exist--it is only relevant/notable in places where people are using the term "reverse racism" to refer to something else (that does not actually resemble anything like "reverse racism"). Thus, the article talks mainly about the US because the US is mainly where the term is used; there is no wider scope to the term, outside of the handful of other countries where the term has also been used in a similar way.

So, your link to the Frontiers in Sociology is not relevant to this article, because it's not discussing the actual term reverse racism, and there is no wider truth underlying that term that the Wikipedia article can discuss (apart from stating that there is none, which the article already does). That said, if you do have high-quality sources that actually discuss the *term* reverse racism in other countries, then yes, we can use those and might be able to incorporate them into the article.

Also, racism =/= xenophobia. I'd point you to the (sourced) line in the article: ...disparities in power and authority are seen by scholars as an essential component of racism; in this view, isolated examples of favoring disadvantaged people do not constitute racism. It's not just prejudice or dislike based on race, it's systemic discrimination and oppression, and that simply hasn't been shown to exist in the reverse. So saying that "some left-wing people are prejudiced/xenophobic too", while obviously, trivially true, is not relevant to this article, because we're talking about systems of power and oppression, not individuals.

Also, yes, prior to the '60s, the Democratic Party in the US was the party of Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc.; that is to say, racism. That's no longer true or relevant to the Republican/Democratic Parties of today, because there was a conscious effort by the Republican Party that started in the '60s to take over the role of "the party of racism". Read Southern strategy for more information. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review

In the History section, you could definitely elaborate more on the history of reverse racism. Historically, there has been preconceptions by many white supremacists and supporters of slavery that the advancement of black people directly undermined the superiority of white people. There is a very long history regarding anti-white racism that dates back to the beginning of slavery that could be delved further into. Furthermore, in the Public Attitudes section, you could incorporate information regarding the fact that many white people associate black people protesting racial injustices with being anti-white. You could also elaborate more on how racism towards black people is deeply rooted in the concept of reverse racism. All in all, you did a great job of explaining the concept! Butterflies&rainbows (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide sources WP:RS along with proposed text to add to the article. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

30 March 2023

Thread retitled from "Bad faith sources".

Some of the sources seem to be arguing in bad faith In specific, I understand that "reverse racism" refers to belifs that specific grovernment programs (such as afirmative action) and/or social movements are racist for privileging certain racial groups over others Yet many sources (namely 4 to 10) frame it as a belif that white people are sistemicaly disadvantaged in general This seems a bit disonest Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on what? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear I was refering to my personal experience with the topic

In my experience the term is mostly used in the way defined in the opening, that color-concious legislation is racist for disadvantaging certain ethnic groups over others, but none of the sources atempting to debunk it seem to even ackowlege that definition Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:V; users' personal experience is largely irrelevant, let alone in accusing published sources of bad faith. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to make this a WP:FORUM, but what is the effect of privileging certain racial groups over others supposed to be if not making some racial groups [systemically] disadvantaged in general? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You can simultaneously understand that the goal is to help disadvantaged groups but that the result is a sistematic disadvantage for groups not benefitted

While obviously there is no widespread racism against white people in the US, they (along with Asians) are directly disadvantaged by afirmative action, for example, as it makes it harder for them to enter college than it would be otherwise

While adressing the claims of widespread racism against whites in the US is important, the article shouldn't imply that's the only kind of belif under the unbrella of "reverse racism" when several other, more reasonanle, views also fall under it. Such as the view that color-concious legislation is racist for directly disadvantaging certain ethnic groups over others

The article ackowleges this view in the opening, but none of the sources seem to even mention it when atempting to debunk reverse racism Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ansell (2013) specifically mentions this on p. 46. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Update to the "Legal challenges" section

Any issues updating this section to reflect SFFA v. Harvard/UNC? Something that just focuses on the ruling and doesn't editorialize? I don't want to make edits just for them to get deleted, but this section needs an update. Gumbear (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm wary of WP:SYNTH here. The issue in SFFA v. Harvard was discrimination against Asian Americans, not anti-white (i.e. "reverse") racism. A better article to update would be Affirmative action in the United States. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Asians were the plaintiffs that suffered reverse discrimination in SFFA, but the ruling against racial discrimination in college admissions clearly applied to all races--including whites. No one seriously disputes that. The cases cited to here are no longer good law. Gumbear (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a courtroom; whether the cases mentioned (not "cited") are good law is moot. What independent, published sources say the SFFA plaintiffs suffered reverse discrimination? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be a neutral source of information. The lede equates reverse racism/discrimination to affirmative action, which you seem to concede this case directly impacts. Here's Reuters' synopsis: https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-supreme-court-strikes-down-university-race-conscious-admissions-policies-2023-06-29/. It also directly impacted the cases cited in the "Legal challenges" section which, by itself, deserves mention. If you want people to take this page seriously, it needs to include relevant information and updates in an impartial manner--even if it cuts against certain narratives. Gumbear (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The lede does not say that reverse racism is affirmative action, or even the belief that affirmative action is bad--it says specifically that reverse racism is the belief that affirmative action is a form of anti-white racism. I don't see anything in the article you linked that talks about reverse racism. It does, very briefly, mention discrimination against white people in the context of UNC's policies, though notably not Harvard's, which is what the article is mainly about, but not anti-white racism. (Incidentally, here is my periodic reminder that reverse discrimination also exists as an article, separate from this one.) I should hope it's obvious that a court can rule something unconstitutional, but that doesn't mean that they ruled that it's "anti-white racist". As always, you are welcome to propose specific changes to the text of either the lede or the Legal challenges section, and certainly it's possible that such changes could be made, but you'll need sources that tie this case to specifically the reverse racism belief, not just to affirmative action, since the two are not synonymous. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

The lede says "Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism." I agree AA is only one form of Reverse Racism, but the editors on here insist on the current definition. That definition clearly synonymously links Reverse Racism to Reverse Discrimination and Affirmative Action, and SFFA is VERY relevant to those issues.

On a more basic issue, how do you justify discussing Bakke and Bollinger in this article but not discuss the case that overrules them? Gumbear (talk) 16:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

First, the sentence you quote does not say that affirmative action is a form of reverse racism, but rather that one use of the term is to express the "concept" (that is, the idea or belief or viewpoint) that it is. That should be obvious, since the people who believe that affirmative action is a form of reverse racism are the opponents, not supporters, of affirmative action.

Second, the Bakke and Bollinger cases involved different arguments and focused on somewhat different issues (for example, not anti-Asian discrimination), and the coverage by reliable sources, which is what Wikipedia is guided by, was also different. So bringing other cases into this discussion is Whataboutism. NightHeron (talk) 17:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

To add to what NightHeron rightly says, let me just reiterate that the lede also says that reverse racism is not real. It is a belief that some people hold about affirmative action, but that belief is based on no observable evidence. Affirmative action is not a form of reverse racism; there is no such thing, outside of the unsubstantiated beliefs of affirmative action's opponents. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Look--I'm just trying to help this page out. It cites to 2 cases that were recently overruled. A serious page would acknowledge that they were no longer good law. I don't care if you believe in reverse racism, or gravity for that matter--just an acknowledgement on a public page that SCOTUS recently ruled on something that critically affects the subject. Even this professor acknowledged the connection to "reverse racism"--even if she disagrees with the plaintiffs. https://www.american.edu/cas/news/the-upcoming-supreme-court-ruling-on-affirmative-action-why-it-matters.cfm

But, do what you guys will do. Gumbear (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

In that source, professor Sara Clarke Kaplan shares her opinion that opponents of race-conscious admissions have used accusations of "reverse racism" (with scare quotes) as just one of several tactics. This is mentioned once, in the middle of a much much longer interview, and the term is not expanded-upon or otherwise contextualized. Kaplan is likely a topic expert for several relevant areas, but per this interview she specifically says she is not a legal scholar. The entire point of the interview is to provide context, not to bolster the use of buzzwords. This is not a useful source for this particular article. Grayfell (talk) 01:42, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in her opinion--only the fact that a professor that subscribes to the ideology permeating on this page acknowledges the connections between SFFA and "reverse racism." Hard to deny SFFA doesn't affect the substance of this page but, unsurprisingly, there are no lack of deniers here. Gumbear (talk) 13:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Once again, the cases are not cited to, they are mentioned as being challenges to affirmative action. That has not changed at all. The citations are to independent, reliable sources dealing specifically with the concept of reverse racism. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger are not even that central to the topic itself, only being mentioned briefly in a couple places. One says that SCOTUS ruled in Bakke that racial quotas for minority students were discriminatory toward white people. That part of the ruling was never overturned. In short, if SFFA v. Harvard critically affects the subject then it should be easy to find a reliable source that directly says so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Are you looking at the right opinion? A basic search finds 94 references to Grutter--with significant discussion. And that's not counting "Id" references. For Bakke, it was 74 references--again, with significant discussion. In fact, the first question presented was literally:

"Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions?"

It's too soon for law review articles, but it is easy to find sources confirming it critically affected them both. Justice Thomas' concurrence: "The Court’s opinion rightly makes clear that Grutter is, for all intents and purposes, overruled."

Sotomayor's dissent: "Overruling decades of precedent, today’s newly constituted Court singles out the limited use of race in holistic college admissions. It strikes at the heart of Bakke, Grutter, and Fisher by holding that racial diversity is an “inescapably imponderable” objective that cannot justify race-conscious affirmative action...even though respondents’ objectives simply “mirror the ‘compelling interest’ this Court has approved” many times in the past."

Also here: https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10893

CRS notes SFFA didn't explicitly overrule Bakke and Bollinger, but it "leaves in doubt how much room exists under equal protection principles for any form of race-based admissions program." There are MANY reliable, easy-to-find references to confirm this. Perhaps more difficult would be reliable references that say SFFA DOESN'T significantly affect Bakke or Grutter. I'll let you find those.

What's your next reason SFFA doesn't belong here? I'm sure you'll conjure something up. Gumbear (talk) 12:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with reverse racism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

RfD notice(s)

"Anti-white racism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anti-white racism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Anti-white racism until a consensus is reached. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

"Anti white racism" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Anti white racism has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Anti white racism until a consensus is reached. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:25, 7 August 2023 (UTC)