Talk:Reverse racism

Anti-white racism
Apart from this being written and titled exclusively from an American or– more generally– a Western perspective; reverse racism infers that racism is a characteristic of white people; that it originates from white people; that it's mainly white people who are racist; thus the 'reverse' has connotations that the racism against White people is different from racism. I suggest changing the article name to match and similarly reflect the 'anti-black' article. 90.247.86.238 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)


 * We don't have the power to change language. We only document. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And the NAACP both disapproved of the Black Power movement. In fact, he was quoted saying, the black power movement "connotates black supremacy and an anti-white feeling that does not or should not prevail." Also 2603:9008:1107:2755:E162:BD98:940B:CA9D (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to see how that relates to this article. If anything, reverse racism is an anti-black/asian/etc racist concept. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * A pithy comment, but one that fails to recognize that the definition of racism used by proponents of critical race theory has been changed to exclude certain types of bigotry. FWIW, I am not a conservative, and I'm sure that my comment will be dismissed out of hand, but I find the article to be full of subtle bias. 173.23.247.233 (talk) 15:05, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually, it implies that racism is a characteristic of white people, but other than this rather pedantic point I agree with you.
 * A search for "Anti-white racism" redirects to the "reverse racism" article, the suggestion being that "racism" is a quality unique to white people, hence "reverse racism" is "white people getting what they deserve" from other ethnicities.
 * Firstly, there's no such thing as "reverse" racism...there's just "racism", plain and simple.
 * Secondly, "anti-white racism" is a very real phenomenon (if you trust "lived experience" as the basis of CRT, you can trust my lived experience on this point), and deserves an article of its own, not a redirect to an article attempting to justify "affirmative action". 86.14.43.73 (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is explicitly based on the lived experience of its users, as explained in the very first sentence of Verifiability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

"Systemic discrimination" vs. "reverse racism"
@Sangdeboeuf None of them say "systemic discrimination". All of them say "reverse racism". Literally all of the five sources. You are inferring "systemic discrimination" from different terms, whereas "reverse racism" is literally the central impetus of each cited phrase. Zilch-nada (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Not sure what "reverse racism" is supposed to be other than "systemic discrimination" against white people specifically. In any case I've changed "discrimination" to "disadvantage" to more closely follow the cited sources, e.g. : ; : . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, it's not true that none of the five sources mention systemic discrimination. states on p. 137,  —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * "of each cited phrase" Zilch-nada (talk) 09:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The point of the five quotes in the footnote is to support the statement that there is little to no empirical evidence that white Americans as a group are disadvantaged. Once again, it's unclear what "reverse racism" is supposed to mean in this context other than systemic discrimination against whites. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed, for the record. Zilch-nada, this is a pedantic objection. Generalrelative (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

White & Black
The text "White" & "Black" in this article should be capitalized, as these words refer to their respective racial group. MOS:RACECAPS AppGoo0011 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, and that's not what MOS:RACECAPS says: Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 15:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I would favor a change to capitalized Black and White. Since so much of the RS coverage of this topic is focused on the US, and since US style guides predominantly recommend capitalization, I think following suit would be helpful to readers. Since this topic covers not just Black and White racial groups—also including Indian, Hispanic, etc.—capitalization is recommended by the part of RACECAPS that says . Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The changes made included one or more changes to quotes where capitalization did not exist in the quoted material. Also, cites to Wikipedia articles where caps weren't used. Plus the term "whiteness" which I haven't seen capped before. Clearly a mass find/replace won't work. As there are so many uses of the words in this article, and either is acceptable; seems the status quo makes more sense. As Writ said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course I object to changes to quotes, reference titles, etc. Wikipedia article titles could definitely be changed. I agree mass find/replace is not the way to go. I think the status quo is a little bit broke, and I'd like to fix it. Would you say you're neutral on which style we use, or are there reasons (besides bias toward status quo, which I share) that you would prefer lowercase? Our experiences with the word "Whiteness" also differ; there are quite a few recent reliable sources that capitalize "Whiteness" available at Google Scholar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking around, there are articles that capitalize and those that don't. Like there are articles using British spelling and those that use American spelling. What's important is that there is consistency within an article. American blacks are quite likely to have mixed DNA starting with the rape of African slaves by white slave traders and owners. Then again, West Africans invaded what is now Spain and Italy in the 7th and 8th centuries mixing peoples. And race mixing is becoming and will continue to become more common making the terms less and less meaningful -- except when pointing out racism. This article is a bit unusual in that it is titled "Reverse racism", which is itself a racist term. So it's not really that much about race. My personal preference is no caps to avoid emphasizing a term of difference that over time is losing whatever meaning it may have once had. We are pretty much mutts nowadays. Racists want to keep alive a concept of difference. (I'll stop now before I get into Neanderthals moving from Africa to Europe 600,000 years ago.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't buy OP's rationale for capitalizing "Black" & "White" here, but I'm not really buying this rationale for opposing it either. It's not up to us to decide whether a particular typographic style is valid in an abstract or philosophical sense; that seems too much like editorializing. Instead we should follow reputable style guides. Since many US style guides now favor capitalizing "Black" & "White", I'm in favor of this change for article per MOS:TIES. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Looking through the the article sources, looks like they generally use non-caps outside of titles. The NYTimes has two cites, both of which use non-caps. I think same with quotes. Same with Vox, The Atlantic, WaPo, and The Baltimore Sun. All non-caps. Didn't look at the books. Too much work. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Those aren't style guides though. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The papers use style guides. I believe NYT has its own guide. And, these are the sources for this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If the sources pre-date the switch to "Black" & "White", naturally they will use a different style. For what it's worth, the NYT now says "our policy will now capitalize 'Black' but not 'white. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and other sources capitalize both. AppGoo0011 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Interesting article covering this on the CJR. "At CJR, we capitalize 'Black,' but not 'white,' when referring to racial groups." which is the way I've done this here for years. It also discusses other styles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The trend appears to be capitalize Black only:
 * The AP guide: “AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses. This decision follows our move last month to capitalize Black in such uses. We consulted with a wide group of people internally and externally around the globe and considered a variety of commentary in making these decisions.”
 * WSJ guide: “Why is Black uppercase and white lowercase?”
 * NYTimes: “Then there are those troubled that our policy will now capitalize ‘Black’ but not ‘white.’ Over all, the view was that there was a growing agreement in the country to capitalize and that The Times should not be a holdout.” O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that this is a trend (within the past four years). Since the MOS is not so hot on mixed capitalization of ethnoracial color labels, I'd prefer to just capitalize them all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm. So Sangdeboeuf points out MOS:TIES says we should use US style guides and you're saying we should follow MOS, which is now the "holdout" not following style guides. If we're not going to follow the trend of US style guides, and we don't want mixed cases; status quo is the easiest rather than changing many instances in multiple articles. Or, we can take the discussion to MOS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think US style is firmly to only capitalize "Black", just that there's a trend of some sources doing so. I wouldn't describe the MOS as a holdout, and it is aligned pretty well with global style guides. I agree that the status quo is easier, I just don't think it's the optimal choice for this article. It's trivially true that I am seeking change at multiple articles, but it's just two, and the amount of work involved is minimal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * MOSTIES says we should use the style of the country related to the article This article is heavily weighted toward the US where this is a hot issue even going to the USSC, which is why I looked at the US journalism style guides as opposed to global. I got the list from here I didn't bother with The BuzzFeed Style Guide, although it also agrees. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * The big two American style guides are AP and Chicago, and we tend to follow Chicago, since we're more of an academic publication than a journalistic one. Chicago is a bit "between editions" on this, but their online guidance says to prefer capital Black and that similar terms, including White, "may also be capitalized when used in this sense". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, CMOS say capitalize Black and you "may" capitalize white. Whereas the AP and the journalism guides say don't capitalize white. As the WSJ states: "The adjective white doesn’t define a cohesive ethno-cultural group in the way Black does, and therefore will remain lowercase in the Journal." O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, we have a MOS that recommends consistent capitalization, one major American style guide that permits it, one that recommends mixed use, and then many individual American organization style guides that differ on their recommendation for "White" but generally recommend "Black". We are not particularly influenced by individual org guidelines, but they're informative of trends. I could cite some that recommend capitalizing both (like the NIH), but I think it's fair to say that there's a mix in American usage between all-caps or just capital "Black". One of those options is currently endorsed by the MOS. I think we should switch to that one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * As you say, within the past four years has changed. When did MOS last look at this? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * More recently than that. Definitely within the past three years. I can dig up some discussions for you soon. I do think we're ripe for a US-specific discussion, which I recall being recommended by one of the last closes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

It makes good sense to capitalize Black and not white when referring to people. The situations are not symmetrical, and it's a type of false balance to think that they are. Black is a designation similar to Hispanic and Native American in the US and First Nation in Canada, all of which have to be capitalized. Black people form civic, religious, and other groups based in part on shared heritage, and it's not an attack on anybody when they do that. White people, in contrast, have no legitimate reason to form groups based on their racial identification. The POV that advocates forming such groups is called white nationalism, aka racism. Note that Black pride is a positive concept, whereas white pride is just another euphemism for racism. NightHeron (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree with that at all, I just don't find "Black/white" to be worth fighting for here. If we have enough consensus here for it, add me to that please. If not, I hope you might agree that "Black/White" is preferable to "black/white". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Capitalizing both is clearly the most correct and unbiased way to proceed. AppGoo0011 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Whites are actively demonized for forming racially exclusive groups, Blacks are not. AppGoo0011 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * You might want to strike that edit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I've seen: That's it for now. There's more to the story, but I have to step away for a while. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * 1) RfC ending December 2020 – This was the big one, and the close has roughly determined the guideline ever since
 * 2) Discussion in early 2021 workshopped language to implement the RfC close
 * 3) April 2021 diff of workshopped language added to MOS:CAPS; the language said that the RfC "concluded firmly against mixing styles as "Black but white"
 * 4) April 2021 and May 2021 edits to CAPS change that "concluded firmly" and similar language to emphasize the lack of consensus on mixing styles
 * 5) Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_33 confirms the lack of consensus on mixing styles. (This was a subheading of the discussion in #2)
 * 6) A flurry of edits in November 2021 (which includes me) results in the removal of the line "there is no consensus against what is sometimes perceived as inconsistency in the same article"
 * 7) A series of edits in January 2022 restores similar language: "There is no consensus either for or against using mixed case (Black and white)".


 * I hesitated to add the quote from Emerson as it sounds insulting and I don't mean it that way as I also understand the need for consistency: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...." The words I omitted are yet more insulting. The point is that accuracy is more important than seeming consistency of capitalization. Black and white have different kinds of meaning in this article.
 * The word Black in the US (the focus of this article) refers to a people that have endured centuries of difficulties at the hands of non-Blacks who came and come from a variety of backgrounds. Whites are not really a racial group as per our own article: White (often still referred to as Caucasian) is a racialized classification of people generally used for those of mostly European ancestry. It is also a skin color specifier, although the definition can vary depending on context, nationality, ethnicity, point of view, appearance, etc. I realize WP is not RS, but it is based on RS. Black does have a definition. White, in the context of this article, consist of aggrieved bigots of many backgrounds. The only reason we use the word white here is their self-identification, not an actual ethnic grouping. I apologize for rambling. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I get your point, and I don't mind a little Emerson. You had earlier expressed a preference for lowercase, and it seems like you're now advocating for mixed case. I'm fine with that, and I think Sangdeboeuf and NightHeron are as well. Writ Keeper has supported lowercase, though it's not clear if that's just because it's the status quo. AppGoo seems to just support all caps. Maybe we have enough rough consensus for a change soon to mixed case? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with mixed-case (uppercase "B" for "black" & lowercase "w" for "white") as well, as this seems to be the style preferred by most US style guides. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Mixed makes no sense. They're both racial groups. Having a mix implies bias. AppGoo0011 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with mixed-case. There's a reason style guides are moving in that direction. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Just confirming that I support having a mixed-case policy. NightHeron (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Definitely fine with mixed-case. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 20:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

22 April 2024
alone. By implying that "reverse racism" is a valid concept, it suggests that racism only flows in one direction—against minority or marginalized groups. This perpetuates the false notion that only certain races can be victims of racism, while others are immune or exempt from it. Such thinking ignores the reality that racism can manifest in various forms and affect individuals of any racial or ethnic background. Furthermore, the term "reverse racism" undermines efforts to address systemic inequality and discrimination experienced by minority communities. It trivializes their experiences by equating them with the hypothetical notion of racism against majority groups, which lacks the historical and institutional power dynamics that perpetuate racism against marginalized communities. In essence, the notion of "reverse racism" not only fails to accurately capture the complexities of racism but also serves to uphold and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes and structures. It is essential to recognize and confront racism in all its forms, rather than perpetuating divisive and harmful narratives that further marginalize already disadvantaged groups. 2603:3011:29D:6100:2CC4:E7C1:F353:84BD (talk) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you have provided no sources and this is not a forum for your personal opinions. WP:NOTFORUM WP:OR O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
 * You say this like the sources provided by the article itself are valid or high-quality in the first place. They're not. Funny how you should condescend to the above commenter about how wikipedia "is not a forum for your personal opinions." As if the fact that white people can experience racism is a "personal opinion," or that you aren't POV pushing your own racist personal opinion that white can't experience racism by writing such a reply. What irony. The truth is, this article needs to be either deleted or seriously reworked. It fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and verifibility. That's not an opinion. That's a fact. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 11:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Please do not make things up. I said nothing of the sort and suggesting that I am a racist will get you nowhere you want to go. You have provided nothing to back up your claim that this article needs to be either deleted or seriously reworked. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Nothing was fabricated or suggested as you say. Implying the fact that white people can experience racism is a dubious "personal opinion" is, in fact, a racist opinion.
 * Don't care much if you're a racist or not (don't think you are, just misinformed), I care about the quality of the information on this page.
 * Why would my previous comment "back up [my] claim that this article needs to be either deleted or seriously reworked"? The purpose of that reply was to criticize your racist comment and state my position, not to lay out the abundance of evidence for why this is a low-quality article.
 * (Not that I have my work cut out for me; this article is rife with embarrassing sources and self-contradictory in the opening sentence.) It'll take some time, but don't you worry, I'll gather all relevant info for the case I want to make - pretty sure that will get me where I want to go, thanks. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 13:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, I said or even suggested no such thing. Indeed, I said nothing about race at all. Stop making things up and stop the personal attacks. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

No mention of interpersonal racism?
For some reason this article fails to mention interpersonal racism against white peoples.

Instead, it heavily relies on Institutional sort of racism, citing that white Americans are not disadvantaged and so on.

Someone who might stumble upon this article will likely walk away with an understanding that the only kind of white racism that can exist is an institutional one, and henceforth in the current society no kind of reverse racism (against white people) exists. Feels wrong to have only one perspective represented.

I suggest amending the first 3 paragraphs to also include references and give examples of interpersonal racism. CorrectingCorrector (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Interpersonal "racism" is mentioned in the first paragraph of : The concept of reverse racism has also been used in relation to various expressions of hostility, prejudice or discrimination toward white people by members of minority groups. The fact is that reliable sources tend to focus on institutional aspects such as the effects of affirmative action. Feel free to present any mainstream, published scholarship that focuses on interpersonal "reverse racism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Why not incorporate that “The concept of reverse racism has also been used in relation to various expressions of hostility, prejudice or discrimination toward white people by members of minority groups.” into one of the first three paragraphs?
 * I like the way that the Racism Against Asians is structured. It mentions the racist policies as well as (implied to be) interpersonal discrimination/mistreatment. Failure to mention interpersonal racism against white people in one of the first 3 paragraphs seems wrong, those 3 are heavily making an impression that only institutional kind of racism against white people can exist.
 * What exactly are you asking as far as a citation for interpersonal racism goes? You can be racist against any race on a personal level, not sure what kind of published literature would you want on that? CorrectingCorrector (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of the term "reverse racism" used in this context. Racism against whites on an interpersonal level is just "racism", not "reverse racism". Do you have reliable sources? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * If you are asking for a change to article contents, you have to be able to support that change with a reference to a published, reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish the opinions or observations of its users. The sentence I quoted is not in the lead section because it is based on only one source out of many. Wikipedia articles must represent the views of reliable sources proportionately, without giving undue weight to any particular viewpoint or aspect of the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)