Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 1

Examples
Sunili Govinnage wrote an article for theguardian titled "In 2014, I'll only read books by writers of colour. Here's why" detailing why she will only read books written by non-white people in 2014. Is this a good example of reverse racism that can be included in this page as an example of reverse racism in the media? Basis: The article is about how a person will only be reading books based on the color of the author's skin (race) with a specific intent on excluding the race for whom she perceives to be the dominate race for publishing books. "I will only read novels written by authors who are not from western-European backgrounds. I will not be reading anything written by white authors." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 101.171.85.79 (talk) 09:21, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Certainly not! This is just a writer saying she is going to take a drastic step to add diversity to her reading. And the fact that you can write (however ungrammatically) "the race for whom she perceives to be the dominate race for publishing books" shows how little you know about the U.K. publishing industry. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

It is, however, reverse discrimination: and there is a noted Far Left bias towards publishing mostly poets, in particular, who have a minority identity or pretend to one at the expense of more gifted poets, since the bias takes precedence over talent, in publishing houses throughout the entire UK. Contentiously, there is no legal safeguard against reverse discrimination in the domain of UK publishing and Arts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.5.165.97 (talk) 20:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Previous unsigned comment by 86.5.165.97 provides zero evidence for the statement. — Gerntrash (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent edits
The citation you gave of http://books.google.com/books?id=zKW2uiZusEMC&pg=PA36#v=onepage&q&f=false does not support your statement. The author does not use the term victim blaming or say anything about "minimizing culpability of individual black perpetrators because their racism lacks the institutional "ability and power" that white racism has historically had." The author is reporting on the beliefs and interpretations of two White parents of Black children. This cannot be used as a general statement by the author. Moreover, p. 43, which you put in your reference, specifically rejects the notion of reverse racism. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:35, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

July 2011
This was formerly a redirect to Reverse discrimination, but I've turned it into a stub. The redirect struck me as inappropriate, partly because it is highly POV to describe reverse discrimination as 'reverse racism', but also because it's somewhat misleading. 'Reverse discrimination' refers to formal, institutional processes; but 'reverse racism', in my experience, is much more widely used, and can refer to any kind of racism, formal or otherwise, against a majority racial group and in favour of a minority. I don't think we actually have an article on that specific concept, so there's nowhere better to redirect it to; hence the creation of a new article instead. Robofish (talk) 20:13, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Why are white suicide rates are greater than black suicide rates?

http://students.com.miami.edu/netreporting/?page_id=1285

Whites are raised in a protected environment, and don't develop coping skills as a result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.60.98.183 (talk) 20:09, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

^^ Wow so 'white' privilege is actually reverse racism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACanadianToker (talk • contribs) 04:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * To be honest, the most dubious part of the whole thing may be the "reverse" part - either you discriminate on the grounds of race or you don't. The first is racist, the second not ... and any Alice-in-Wonderland nonsense about racism being a function of a person's race is best left in the addled minds of the oxygen thieves that come up with it. 146.90.229.36 (talk) 00:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

10 February 2015

 * @EvergreenFir is entirely correct. It is not for some editors who think the phenomenon of "reverse racism" is untrue or unpalatable or unworthy of mention to determine what gets included unconditionally on Wikipedia. Quis separabit?  00:50, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

POV to add "real or alleged" (??)
EvergreenFir , I don't understand [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Reverse_racism&curid=6250226&diff=646371774&oldid=646323588 this edit. Which of the following assertions is POV, and why? I don't think the addition belongs in the lead sentence, at least not as the edit would have worded it -- and perhaps not at all, but I don't understand why you see it as POV. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill)
 * Reverse racism is a term for discrimination against a dominant (or formerly dominant) racial or other group representative of the majority in a particular society takes place, for a variety of reasons, often as an attempt at redressing past wrongs.
 * Reverse racism is a term for alleged discrimination against a dominant (or formerly dominant) racial or other group representative of the majority in a particular society takes place, for a variety of reasons, often as an attempt at redressing past wrongs.


 * The edit summary of the editor who added it was the POV part. But it rather ... questionable language. The article includes criticisms, right? Then we should have something about how some sources don't think it's a real thing, but not in the lead and not with "real or alleged".  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:55, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence
"Reverse racism is a condition in which discrimination, sometimes officially sanctioned, against a dominant (or formerly dominant) racial or other group representative of the majority in a particular society takes place, for a variety of reasons, often as an attempt at redressing past wrongs."

The above sentence needs editing for clarity. Gerntrash (talk) 20:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Why? It seems pretty clear. Besides, it is an opening sentence, so as the reader continues to read the article there shouldn't be much difficulty understanding the concept. Yours, Quis separabit?  21:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * From WP:LEAD:
 * If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should give a concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. ...
 * Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.
 * How about something like: "Reverse racism is a condition in which discrimination takes place against a dominant or formerly dominant racial group in a particular society. It happens for a variety of reasons, often as an attempt at redressing past wrongs. Sometimes it is officially sanctioned. Sometimes it takes place against groups which are not strictly defined as racial groups." This lame attempt on my part at de-complication can no doubt be improved. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * It evidently does need a more concise definition, as per the guidelines. The above example by Wtmitchell points out at least two elements which do not belong in an opening paragraph, let alone the first sentence:

1) That some cases are officially sanctioned. 2) That it may 'often... (be) an attempt at redressing past wrongs.'
 * In the case of the latter, not only is the subjective and unsourced use of 'often' as a qualifier inappropriate, but the entire point is in itself irrelevant for a general description and inadequate for the leading sentence.
 * We do not endorse (nor condemn, for that matter), in an objectively descriptive and informative wiki, the items we define; as such there is no place in the first sentence for preemptively presenting potential, hypothetical justifications or motives for why 'reverse racism' 'might' occur. This seems biased and apologetic. I've taken the initiative of removing this section and the opening already seems cleaner, and certainly more objective for it.
 * update: as the moderators find this to be a point of contention, I have instead assigned a citation request to the dubious claim. My case remains as I presented however and I would urge a more proficient wiki user to address the issue and resolve the matter such that the apparently superfluous section is either justified or definitively removed User:guest — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.95.66.44 (talk) 02:51, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Localized Racism as Reverse Racism
One issue I have noticed is that the article only deals with cases of minorities wanting to break up white establishment without regard to merit. However, there are plenty of situations where minorities have already gotten control of an institution and then participate in blatant racism against whites. While this may simply be called racism, with regard to overall society it would be reverse racism. The term is also useful to overcome the initial confusion that minorities might have about a white person talking about racism.

Also this form of reverse racism defeats any claims about the strength of establishment since locally it is actually the minority within the establishment, and since racism is experienced on an individual basis it meets anyone's definition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.25.75 (talk) 12:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

‎BRD - In Pop Culture: Dear White People
added a section titled "In Pop Culture: Dear White People" to the page version here. reverted it as WP:SYNTH, an assessment I agree with. Per WP:BRD, I'm opening this discussion to talk about the WP:BOLD addition of the section.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 23:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of what you linked says "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." and what you and the other guy reverted was simply stating what was in other stuff he found. I also went and looked up on edit warring, and the page didn't say whether the user edit warring is or whether it was the guy who reverted him because they are both trying to | "repeatedly restores his or her preferred version". Also by keeping MahnoorLodhi's added info off the site, it looks like | you drove him away from using the site. On top of that, you sided with a user that has | a long history of deleting things he shouldn't be. POC2016 (talk) 19:52, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I sided with RMS based on this one case, independent of any editing trends. You clearly disagree with the removal. I'm concerned about trying to tie together an interview with the director of the film (not directly related to the film?), the film itself, and a piece on HuffPo which cites the film. I'm not opposed to the idea of the film being included, but imho the entry needs work if it is to be.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 20:24, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Proposal To Delete
The term, "reverse racism" is nonsensical, and basically just implies a lack of racism, but it doesn't actually mean that. It simply means... Exactly the same as racism. There is literally no reason for this term to exist, and it is noteworthy is absolutely no way whatsoever.68.42.32.128 (talk) 22:44, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * You fall to support your claims whatsoever. Enough sources to pass gng.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 02:53, 28 June 2016 (UTC)


 * @68.42.32.128 -- you can AFD the article if you want; it will survive. I Don't Like It!! is not a valid rationale. Quis separabit?  16:39, 14 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Reverse racism" is the same as normal racism and is defined by the same characteristics. It is an unneccesary article. Another problem is that it's used by different ideologs to justify racism because they think it is revenge. The words "reverse" and then "racism" can actually be viewed as a form of racism, because of the thoughts behind the words indicates that some groups are more racist than others, evil/inferior, and some other races are not as racist, or nice/superior. Racism is a personal characteristic and not a racial. 37.253.210.196 (talk) 12:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


 * yes - reverse racism is racism 13:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)13:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)78.42.255.27 (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * These are still I Don't Like It!! arguments; which are not acceptable. Arnoutf (talk) 20:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
 * why are you trying to justify racism? (because that is what this is) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.43.216.190 (talk) 15:55, 26 October 2016 (UTC)  sorry i got triggerd - but the concept of reverse racism is extremly problematic .yourfriendlyantiracismactivist17:38, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Obverse Racism
Since the obverse form of racism is discrimination based on race, wouldn't any reverse racism actually be a solution to racism? The entire article ccalls out instances of anti-discrimination as discrimination, violating NPoV. 78.144.186.91 (talk) 15:04, 17 September 2016 (UTC)
 * no so called reverse racism is not anti-discrimination - it´is simply racism (usually against white people) - the term reverse racism is just used to justify this kind of racism - yet it is nothing else than the discrimination based on concepts of race (which is the definition of racism) so there is no such a thing as reverse racism there just is racism and nothing else .yourfriendlyantiracistactivist15:54, 26 October 2016 (UTC)78.43.216.190 (talk)
 * If someone wants to create an article called Obverse racism go for it. We'll see how it goes. Quis separabit?  03:09, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Noxubee County, New Black Panthers
I don't know if a reliable source explicitly frames​ the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case or Noxubee County Democratic Executive Committee as reverse racism, but to me, holding up these two cases as supposed examples of reverse racism looks like improper synthesis and certainly undue weight, considering that several academic sources say that any incidents of discrimination against whites in America are vastly outweighed by the systemic, institutional discrimination practiced against minorities. Any discussion of examples should take this into account. I'd suggest removing the text and placing links to these topics under "See also". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

I've removed this material, absent sources that discuss these events in relation to the article topic. Since the Noxubee County incident involved alleged discrimination against a white minority, it would seem to be an example of simple racism, not "reverse racism". I've added links to "See also". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:50, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

NPSAS results
I've removed the following material, which seems to lend undue weight to the source, FinAid.org, which is not an academic or otherwise peer-reviewed publication:

A 2011 report challenged the widespread misconception that through affirmative action, minority students receive an unfair percentage of scholarships in the United States. The report was published using results from the National Postsecondary Student Aid Study (NPSAS), a branch of NCES, from the data analysis system for 2003–04 and 2007–08. The NPSAS is a significantly large-scale survey of how undergraduate and graduate students paid for college in the United States. An example of its scale; The 2007-08 survey included a nationally representative stratified sample of more than 80,000 undergraduate and 11,000 graduate and professional students.

Overall the report found that in 2007–08 only 5.5 percent of undergraduate students received private sector scholarships. White students were 40 percent more likely to win private scholarships than minority students. While white students represented less than 62 percent of the student population they received more than 76 percent of all institutional merit-based scholarships and grant funding. White students made up 61.8 per cent of the undergraduate student population and represented 69.3 percent of private scholarship recipients. Whereas minority students represented 30.5 percent of scholarship recipients and 38.0 percent of the undergraduate student population.

Based on the 2007–08 results, the report concluded that for minority students to get an equal footing in private scholarships, annual private scholarship awards for African-American students would have to increase by $83 million and for Latino students increase by $197 million. "Equalizing just the probability of receiving a private scholarship without changing the average scholarship amount per recipient would require increasing total private scholarship funding by $138 million for African-American students and $179 million for Latino students."

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

NNPOV
Badly NNPOV; multiple issues. treats a hotly disputed concept in sociology, & society as a whole, as "received truth" with only one ideologically-correct perspective, & weak coverage & "dismissal" of opposing/contesting views. Lx 121 (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've removed the POV template; please suggest improvements to the article rather than simply expressing disagreement with its contents. Template messages are supposed to lead to an effort to fix specific problems; no such action has been suggested here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:36, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * HI! ^__^
 * you DO NOT remove "neutrality disputed" tags plaved by other users, WITHOUT discussing it on the article's talkpage, & getting consensus, first.
 * especially when you are the editor who keeps adding nnpov material.
 * & your claim that i have "not identified the problem" is wp:bullshit. the article is one-sided, uses biased language, & ignores or dismisses conflicting opinions.  in short, it is crappy.
 * & you are the editor who has been most active, recently, in nnpov-ing the material.
 * if you remove my tag again, OR get somebody else top do so, you will be reported (along with whatever user you get to support your action).
 * between your presistent adding of nnpov-content, your removal of "dissenting" material, & your violation of WP & rules, in removing pov-tags, you might get a topic ban. after we do arbcom, etc.
 * if you want to argue the article content, we can do that here.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sangdeboeuf&diff=prev&oldid=815765812
 * if you want to keep gaming to "disappear" content & tags that conflict with your POV on the subject, then we can start the user-complaints, rfc, arbcom, etc. process right now.
 * respectfully,
 * Lx 121 (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing for me to add. Threats, personal attacks, and heated complaints about article contents do not belong on this talk page. If there are specific actions that will improve the article, feel free to suggest them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * i have made no "threats or personal attacks" on you. i literally could not care less about you "as a person".  the only thing i care about here, is that the article is pov, that your edits to it are largely pov, AND that you are blatantly violating WP rules for NNPOV disputes.  you have broken "agf", & completely ignored reasonable warnings. there is now an "ani" complaunt about your actions. go "justify" yourself there.
 * as to the issues with nnpov in this article, i believe i have outlined the basic problems sufficiently to be understood by a reasonable, neutral & objective person. i shall add more later; but you might start with one-sidedness, non-neutral language, & inadequate presentation of oposing views on the subject. those problem exist throughout the whole article.
 * your "rationalisations" for persistently REMOVING the POV-tag are invalid, & 'violate WP & community practices.
 * Lx 121 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could focus on the claimed issue? That is, explain exactly what text in the article is a POV problem, and why? The generic complaint in the OP could be made on a thousand pages where it may or may not have merit. The only way to tell is to identify text and sources. The stuff above about caring and attacks and what have you are irrelevant and make it hard to see any argument. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * hello; i see sang-whatever has got a "friend". i also see that you are very carefully having "no opinion" on the wp-violation by the other user, in removing the nnpov tag. ok, since you asked, i shall c&p the article text with annotations. cheers Lx 121 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * respectfully,
 * Lx 121 (talk) 23:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There's nothing for me to add. Threats, personal attacks, and heated complaints about article contents do not belong on this talk page. If there are specific actions that will improve the article, feel free to suggest them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * i have made no "threats or personal attacks" on you. i literally could not care less about you "as a person".  the only thing i care about here, is that the article is pov, that your edits to it are largely pov, AND that you are blatantly violating WP rules for NNPOV disputes.  you have broken "agf", & completely ignored reasonable warnings. there is now an "ani" complaunt about your actions. go "justify" yourself there.
 * as to the issues with nnpov in this article, i believe i have outlined the basic problems sufficiently to be understood by a reasonable, neutral & objective person. i shall add more later; but you might start with one-sidedness, non-neutral language, & inadequate presentation of oposing views on the subject. those problem exist throughout the whole article.
 * your "rationalisations" for persistently REMOVING the POV-tag are invalid, & 'violate WP & community practices.
 * Lx 121 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could focus on the claimed issue? That is, explain exactly what text in the article is a POV problem, and why? The generic complaint in the OP could be made on a thousand pages where it may or may not have merit. The only way to tell is to identify text and sources. The stuff above about caring and attacks and what have you are irrelevant and make it hard to see any argument. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * hello; i see sang-whatever has got a "friend". i also see that you are very carefully having "no opinion" on the wp-violation by the other user, in removing the nnpov tag. ok, since you asked, i shall c&p the article text with annotations. cheers Lx 121 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * your "rationalisations" for persistently REMOVING the POV-tag are invalid, & 'violate WP & community practices.
 * Lx 121 (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Any chance you could focus on the claimed issue? That is, explain exactly what text in the article is a POV problem, and why? The generic complaint in the OP could be made on a thousand pages where it may or may not have merit. The only way to tell is to identify text and sources. The stuff above about caring and attacks and what have you are irrelevant and make it hard to see any argument. Johnuniq (talk) 00:32, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * hello; i see sang-whatever has got a "friend". i also see that you are very carefully having "no opinion" on the wp-violation by the other user, in removing the nnpov tag. ok, since you asked, i shall c&p the article text with annotations. cheers Lx 121 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * hello; i see sang-whatever has got a "friend". i also see that you are very carefully having "no opinion" on the wp-violation by the other user, in removing the nnpov tag. ok, since you asked, i shall c&p the article text with annotations. cheers Lx 121 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * hello; i see sang-whatever has got a "friend". i also see that you are very carefully having "no opinion" on the wp-violation by the other user, in removing the nnpov tag. ok, since you asked, i shall c&p the article text with annotations. cheers Lx 121 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

adding "or perceived" hovers on the edge of pov-wording; simply saying "claims of" would be better; & the preceding wording is, at least obtuse.

2nd useage (prejudice) should be placed FIRST; this is the primary definition of "racism". putting "oppression" ahead of "prejudice" ALREADY plays into a one-sided "ideological" rendering of the narrative (& the definition of 'racism')

"opinion", not relevant to the lede section; inadequately "proved" to be stated as a blind fact. implies that ALL (or the majority of) criticism of the concept is by neoconservatives.

MORE POV "opinion"; "explaining how the whole idea is wrong". should not be in the lede, should not be used at all without CITING EXAMPLES. needs to be proved, to be presented as fact; much less "absolute & undisputed" fact. should also include discussion of success & failures, & effects of cited policies

whole paragraph is POV "opinion"; & argumentative. & again, does not belong in the LEDE section of a wikipedia article. if we are going to cite this person's opinions, it needs to be in the main article, & it needs to be framed with contextual info abt the author & book. AND this is still one person's (i.e.: the author) POV on the subject. again, does not belong in the lede section.

above is 1-sided POV; the wording certainly is. also weasel-worded & inadequately cited to be stated as "fact"

above is DEEPLY 1-sided POV; & inadequately backed up by refs to be presented as "fact", rather than opinion. also does not belong in lede section.

moderately POV & not well cited

phrasing is moderately POV

POV & inadequately demonstrated to be presented as "uncritical "facts"

POV weasel wording & inadequately cited

& more POV & weasel wording

NOTE that the user REMOVED the "controversy" section ENTIRELY & replaced it with this:

POV & BADLY one-sided

POV & ideological/one-sided

POV & one-sided

POV -opinion

AND note that NO DISSENTING VIEWS ARE INCLUDED IN THIS SECTION

POV - one-sided

POV one-sided

POV one-sided & & ridiculously "subjective" & anecdotal to be presented as serious research

AND AGAIN note that there are NO DISSENTING OPINIONS IN THIS SECTION

presents a "fragmentary" & HIGHLY-selective & ENTIRELY 1-sided view of an ongoing, contentious legal issue. there are favourable decisions (& or elements of decisions supporting) on BOTH SIDES on the question. ALSO is ENTIRELY USA-centric. another type of "POV".

"widespread misconception" is both 1-sided POV & weasel-wording

"one report", & INADEQUATELY described; by whom? what methodology? what "raw data"? how credible? what about dispute/dissenting opinions about this ONE report? i.e.: POV, inadequately explained, & NO rebuttal/dissent opinions or analysis (what kind of "peer review" exactly, is it, that involves NO dissenting views?)

fudges a little POV-ish with phrasing on how the numbers are reported, & repeats the same information twice, w/o reason for doing so

POV 1-sided opinion on the results, presented as "fact", WITH NO DISSENTING VIEWS. & still inadequate explanation of "by whom?"

& note that there is NO material presenting opposing views on the matters discussed in this section

"by whom?"

nnpov wording

needs more "whom?" about the students

"by whom?"

ok, this needs MUCH more explanation(!)

"claims" (instead of "complaints", or etc.) is moderately pov-ish here

section should be expanded instead of "minimised"; & more needed abt the trade union & the politician in question

inadequately explained

inadequately described/weasel worded; "whom?"

inadequately explained, vague/weasel-worded & need the "whom?"

& note that the whole above section about issues in south africa is inadequately covered; whether by lack of effort, or deliberate "minimisation" & "de-contenting", the result is the same. DOES NOT present a complete & balanced "npov" of the subject-matter

that's the whole "present" text of the article; but the refs & "further reading" are pretty heavily one-sided & "POV" too. little or no "dissenting views" materials are presented.

Lx 121 (talk) 00:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

we GOOD now? i'm putting the tag back up, & i DO NOT expect to get cited for "3r" in this situation. it was IMPROPERLY REMOVED in the first place. Lx 121 (talk) 01:50, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Aside from the problems with relying on primary research papers, the preceding comments confuse the meaning of NPOV. Please note that NPOV does not mean representing "both sides" equally; instead, we should treat opposing opinions with due weight, preferring more scholarly sources where available, such as textbooks and academic journals. Dismissing these kinds of sources as "one-sided" and "ideological" does not explain why they are unreliable, or help identify more reliable sources for the article. If there are additional secondary and tertiary sources that provide a balanced overview, feel free to suggest them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Wording, lead section
I restored the description of reverse racism as "the perceived denial of rights and privileges to members of dominant groups". This is supported by the sources. For instance, the Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society (SAGE, 2008, p. 1118): "Racism, on the individual level, is sometimes difficult to confirm because its existence may be based on one's perception of an interaction or situation. For instance, the term reverse racism (or reverse discrimination) has been coined to describe situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions [...]" And The Social Science Encyclopedia (Routledge, 2004, p. ?): "The idea that minorities in the USA now have sufficient power to injure the interests of the majority group is not consistent with the facts. In all areas of living (political, economic, educational, etc.) whites continue to have a huge monopoly. When one looks closely at the data provided by those who claim that reverse racism is alive and real, one generally sees anecdotal evidence in which much of the information used is obtained third or fourth hand [...]" These authors and more are describing the concept of reverse racism as a perception at odds with empirical reality, held (or claimed to be held) by certain people. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:52, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That portion of the lead which you modified cites in support. That source appears to contradict your change (in the right-hand column here, near the highlighted text) and, apparently, contradicts the sources you quote above. Please see WP:DUE re supporting sources with differing viewpoints. I've reverted your change, but feel free to add properly sourced content.Wtmitchell  (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Please take another look – the Yee source is the first source I quoted above ("Racism, on the individual level, is sometimes difficult to confirm because its existence may be based on one's perception [...]"). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Ying Yee source is talking about ALL individually experience racism as opposed to group racism codified in protocols. I think we all agree that reverse racism is not codified but in most Western countries neither is "classical" racism. So the use of "perception" in the source would be equally accurate to add the word perception in the general racism article and is not specific to reversed racism. Therefore, I think the source is overinterpreted by putting parts from different lines together in a single definition. Arnoutf (talk) 10:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe anyone is saying that the (mis-)perception of racism is unique to the concept of "reverse racism". However, Yee is using the concept of "reverse racism" as an example of an individual perception that may not match reality. I acknowledge that the wording here may not be entirely clear; suggestions for improvement are welcome. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Why the use of misperception. As I interpret Yee they seem to say that individual perception of racism is often hard to confirm objectively; and makes it almost impossible to distinguish perception from misperception. This makes it often hard to define whether something is racism per se (also see the rather heated racism discussions around police violence in the US or Zwarte Piet in the Netherlands where perceived racism is central).
 * My personal suggestion would be to remove the word perception from the lede and create a section in the article itself. In that section we can take more space to discuss the problem with the definition and even add something about critics who challenge the existence of reverse racism altogether. Arnoutf (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not really engaged here as I don't have much of an editorial point of view on this topic. My point is essentially tied to WP:NPOV and, as far as this talk page discussion is concerned, WP:NOTFORUM. Nitpickiness between sources does not belong in the lead; perhaps there ought to be a subsection about differences of opinion between academics in the U.S, as you suggest. Personally, I think that this is getting too far down into the weeds for this article. Perhaps this should be covered in the Racism in the United States article, per WP:SS. Offhand, that seems to me to be a good idea; as I see it, attitudes in the U.S. re racism are pretty different from attitudes elsewhere in the world. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 12:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see any question of nitpickiness, or disagreement between sources, here. All the academic sources cited seem to agree that "reverse racism" is perceived by some to exist, but is at odds with sociological data, or at least is not a significant factor affecting the status of white people. The topic's relevance primarily to the U.S. is mentioned in the article as well. As for discussing criticism of the concept in the article, that's certainly valid as long as it is given due weight according to its prominence among published, reliable sources. It's not necessarily a good idea to segregate such views into a separate section, since this creates an unbalanced structure. And any significant controversies should be summarized in the lead section as well. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree such material should be summarised in the lead section. But it needs to be a clearly findable topic in the main body text to be able to be summarised (as we cannot create a summary of nothing). Such a section could provide much more context and nuance than the lead. Arnoutf (talk) 16:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Jackie Robinson
An editor has removed:

"In 1962, retired baseball player Jackie Robinson said it was reverse racism to vote for a Black candidate "simply because he belongs to your race." Robinson was a Republican and supported a Republican candidate over a Black candidate." FloridaArmy (talk) 15:47, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Free clue. Try explaining what your actual complaint is rather than linking to something someone did and expecting everyone to read your mind. This has been explained to you before. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

POV
The purpose of the article seems to be to argue that reverse racism doesn't exist. Although this is one position one could take, the article should not present this position as factual. Regorsash (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NPOV says we must neutrality reflect sources. The preponderance of sources say it's not real...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 02:19, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources are based on the idea that racism equals prejudice plus power. This idea is certainly not the only way of looking at racism, nor the standard way among scholars. A neutral article would not cherry-pick sources in this manner.
 * Regorsash (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If that's the way sources treat it, then that's the way we treat it. You're welcome to find other, reliable, sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:26, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * This article mentions the standard definitions of racism, plus some of the main criticisms of the idea that racism equals power plus prejudice. It's full of references to reliable sources.
 * The whole intro of the current article is POV and should be re-written for this article to be NPOV.
 * Regorsash (talk) 02:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * User generated content is not a reliable source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's full of references to reliable sources. Regorsash (talk) 02:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Burden is on you to provide them. Pov tag should be removed for now since no clear evidence provided is lack of npov.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * and are correct. I've removed the POV template pending actionable suggestions based on reliable, published sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I did. Rewrite the POV-intro of the article based on (the sources mentioned in) the provided link.
 * But anyway, it's clear that some people want this article to be POV. So be it, I have better things to do than arguing on the internet. Good luck with your POV-article which no neutral reader will take seriously.
 * Regorsash (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That article has 33 sources. Instead of asking people to go and look through them all, why don't you pick out 2 or 3 which meet Wikipedia's standards of reliability and explain how you'd like to present them within the article? --ChiveFungi (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Before making that effort I would hope we could first agree that the current version is clearly POV. The POV is so strong in this article that I doubt that a person who isn't aware of the 'racism equals power plus prejudice'-idea can even understand the intro.Regorsash (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't pander to ignorant readers by misrepresenting scholarly consensus to suit their assumptions. This article is based on multiple reliable, published sources. If there are additional ones that provide a balanced overview, feel free to suggest them. Otherwise, this is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:27, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Re rewriting the lead section, it seems to me that its entire present content belongs in the In the United States section. Can the article and its lead section be globalized beyond the U.S. and South Africa? Can it be extended beyond black/white racism?

Getting back on point and quoting from just one of the sources cited in the provided link, with emphasis added:

"In the United States at present, only whites can be racist, since whites dominate and control the institutions that create and enforce American culture norms and values. This is not to say that blacks or other Third World peoples could nevert be racists, that they do not have the capacity to hate or to develop anti-white norms and standards. To say so would be dehumanizing and racist. The point is that in the United States at this time, blacks and other Third World peoples do not have to the power to enforce any prejudices they may have, so they cannot, by definition, be racist. Racism equals prejudice plus power."

That was speaking in the context of U.S. society in 1973. It was written almost half a century ago, and expressed the viewpoint of just one source (see WP:DUE). Have changes in U.S. society over that half century impacted this? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:58, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Try reading the sources cited in our article. I assume that the argument here is that the RationalWiki article is saying this is a minority or fringe viewpoint, and so should we. That would just be importing another site's improper synthesis and making it our own. User-generated content is not a reliable source for judging scholarly consensus. To claim that the "prejudice plus power" argument is outdated ignores the more recent scholarly sources that support this view, several of which we cite. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

List with anti-white violence
There's a category on Wikipedia with somewhere around twenty examples of anti-white violence/murders in the USA (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Racially_motivated_violence_against_European_Americans), none of which are even mentioned in this article about reverse racism, which apparently in the USA-context means the same as anti-white racism. I know, this doesn't meet the "racism = prejudice + power"-definition, but shouldn't the article at least mention these crimes and other (more common) definitions of (reverse) racism? Regorsash (talk) 23:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We base articles on reliable, published sources, not original analyses by Wiki editors. Please provide sources that directly mention any of these incidents in the context of racism or reverse racism. Otherwise this is indiscriminate trivia or at the very least improper synthesis. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Why is this article part of the United States portal?
Is it because this article is supposed to be specfically about reverse racism in the USA? Or does reverse racism only exist in the USA? Or something else...? Regorsash (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can I delete this article from the USA-portal, since there seems to be no reason why this article is part of it? Regorsash (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The topic is concerned mainly with the United States and, in particular, African Americans. This is explained in the article, citing the following: "In the USA, some attention has focused on the idea of 'reverse racism'. Racism in any form, practised by any group, should be challenged and contested, but the idea that minorities in the USA now have sufficient power to injure the interests of the majority group is not consistent with the facts. In terms of actual content, some of the beliefs and theories held by ethnic minorities, particularly African Americans and African Caribbeans, resemble a photographic negative of white racism... Although debate about reverse racism often takes on a parochial US dominated cast..."


 * —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * One could also just Google it, in which case one would immediately come upon the following: "The proponents of colorblindness put forward that race-conscious affirmative-action programs are forms of 'reverse racism', which is an important impediment to improving race relations in the United States. However, most White people, if they are really being honest with themselves, can see that there are advantages to being White in the United States. Despite the current rhetoric about affirmative action and 'reverse racism'... The key categories of racial meaning identified at the core of the new racism of the new right in the United States are colorblindness, equality, individualism, the 'American way of life', and 'reverse racism'."


 * ...among thousands more results (no need to thank me). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Why does "anti white racism" re-direct to this article?
I'm guessing this is due to Wikipedia having mostly American contributors, but outside the USA the term "reverse racism" is not really used. Racism against whites is called "anti-white racism". The French Wikipedia for example has an article on anti-white racism: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racisme_antiblanc It would be better to seperate the two, imho. Regorsash (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:39, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * See Articles for deletion/Anti white racism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Can anti white racism be added in the intro (in bold, just like reverse racism, since anti white racism re-directs to here?
 * Regorsash (talk) 01:11, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * If reliable sources use it that way, yes. But I haven't seen any. What sources use reverse racism and anti-white racism synonymously? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Amy Ansell uses the term "anti-white" twice in Race and Ethnicity: The Key Concepts ( Routledge, 2013), saying that reverse racism (and/or color consciousness) is an "alleged new form" of anti-white racism. She doesn't really use the terms synonymously. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

POV: prejudice + power
It's almost a laughable POV to claim that all scholars believe in the idea that racism = prejudice + power.

Is this article supposed to be part of an encyclopedia or propaganda?

Regorsash (talk) 16:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Since it's apparently obligatory to explicitly write how the article could be made less POV:
 * by not falsely writing that all scholars agree with the idea that racism = prejudice + power;
 * by specifically mentioning the scholars that agree with this idea;
 * by mentioning other views on what racism is as well.

Regorsash (talk) 16:03, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * These points have all been addressed in the above section and/or relevant edit summaries. But to clarify, WP:NPOV does not mean representing "both sides". It means representing, proportionally, material published in reliable sources. Unless some new reliable, third-party, published sources are identified, there is nothing to debate here, and no actionable proposal. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * There is, though. The provided sources are cherry-picked to support one view on racism. That's more or less the definition of POV. As long as this is not resolved, the POV-symbol should not be removed.
 * Regorsash (talk) 20:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Re the initial item in the list above, I don't see where the article writes "all scholars agree with the idea that racism = prejudice + power". The lead section does assert that scholars argue that disparities in the exercise of power and authority constitute an essential component of racism. Regarding that:
 * No supporting source is cited for that lead section assertion, and I don't see clarification and support for it in the article body. See MOS:LEADCITE. I did mention one possible supporting source for that viewpoint here above.
 * Perhaps that should say "some scholars argue" (with "some" indicating, e.g., scholars cited in support of that lead section assertion and relevant clarifications in the article body).
 * Saying "some scholars argue ..." begs the question "What scholars argue differentially?", which goes to the point of the other two items in your list above. Please feel free to suggest cite-supported balancng assertions about scholars who argue different viewpoints, per WP:DUE. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * How exactly is an academic encyclopedia cherry picked? A tertiary source like that is exactly what we should be looking for to assess general academic views. It honestly seems that just doesn't like that general view.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't understand what you are asking here. You are the one making assertions above about cherry-picked sources. "Cherry-picked" is a synonym for "Selected" which implies that other items available for selection were passed over, because they did not meet selection criteria.
 * WP:DUE says, "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." When a viewpoint is described in an article assertion, selected sources which support that viewpoint would be cited in support. When a differing viewpoint is described in an article asertion, selected sources which support that differing viewpoint would be cited in support.
 * Are you trying to engage in discussion in order to improve the article here, or just WP:trolling? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * As for support for the phrase "scholars argue", see the very first citation, Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Volume 1 (SAGE, 2008, p. 1118): "However, scholars argue that a critical component of racism is the broad exercise of authority and power."
 * As for support for the phrase "scholars argue", see the very first citation, Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society, Volume 1 (SAGE, 2008, p. 1118): "However, scholars argue that a critical component of racism is the broad exercise of authority and power."


 * —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC) (edited 01:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC))
 * Wtmitchell, the accusation of trolling is wildly off-base. I don't see a problem with the content, it's well sourced and no one has presented an actual RS that says otherwise. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * You are apparently responding to a comment by (diff) with accusations of trolling. First, you appear to have the wrong editor, and second, talk pages are for discussing content, not contributors. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I placed and indented my question about trolling above wrongly. It was intended to be directed to Regorsash, not to EvergreenFir. Apologies to all -- including, specifically, to Regorsash. On re-reading, perception on my part that Regorsash was not serious in his comments here does seem to have been off-base. My comments here don't appear to be contributing to bringing this discussion to a close, so I'm going to bow out of it for now. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Was just about to clarify I wad directing my comment to OP, not Wtmitchell.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Other reliable sources
There's a request for other reliable sources on this topic. Two questions about this: Regorsash (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * 1) What exactly is the topic of this article? It sounds like a weird question, but with the current intro it's really unclear. Is it correct that the topic is anti white racism (which re-directs to this article)? If so, then I will provide the requested sources soon.
 * 2) Are non-English (academic) sources allowed here as well?

Side note: neutral headings
The heading POV: not all scholars think that racism = prejudice + power is a true example of begging the question, since the article does not state, "all scholars argue/claim/think/whatever". Further, headings should be neutrally worded per the talk page guidelines: "Keep headings neutral: A heading should indicate what the topic is, but not communicate a specific view about it [...] Don't be critical in headings: This includes being critical about details of the article." The above heading is simply argumentive. I suggest changing it to POV: prejudice + power or something similar. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2018 (UTC) (✅ pending a rationale for the original heading that directly addresses the talk page guidelines, 08:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC))
 * The article says "scholars argue", which evidently is equivalent to saying "all scholars argue". Why otherwise did you revert the edit that turned it into "some scholars argue"?
 * Regorsash (talk) 01:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * What does that have to do with the talk page guidelines? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality (6 March 2018)
This page is not neutral. Instead of just giving history and opinions/views from both side, it is drawing conclusions favoring the promotion of Leftist ideology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IndigoSouljazz (talk • contribs) 02:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Your comment contains no actionable proposal. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to include notable examples
Unless there is an objection, I will begin to compile information from mainstream media news sources documenting notable claims of reverse racism, including legal cases and decisions. I will only include descriptions of highly notably cases such as the private legal complaint as well as the DOJ investigation against Harvard University for illegal discrimination against Asian Americans, which was the subject of dozens of high profile news stories. These will necessarily be news stories describing contemporary events, rather than academic analyses, so mainstream journalistic sources will be prioritized.Codebook44 (talk) 16:52, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not the news. Who is making the determination that such cases are "notable", exactly? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If more than one major media sources is covering an issue--for example the DOJ investigation of Harvard for reverse discrimination by race against Asian Americans--I think it is proper to include. It can be a case by case determination but there is no justification for an a priori "ban" on including examples of the article's topic.  So I would propose to make the article include a subsection of "examples" along the lines of thiswikipedia article on Police Brutality:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality#Examples  Codebook44 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If more than one major media sources is covering an issue--for example the DOJ investigation of Harvard for reverse discrimination by race against Asian Americans--I think it is proper to include. It can be a case by case determination but there is no justification for an a priori "ban" on including examples of the article's topic.  So I would propose to make the article include a subsection of "examples" along the lines of thiswikipedia article on Police Brutality:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_brutality#Examples  Codebook44 (talk) 18:59, 16 March 2018 (UTC)