Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 2

AEI blog and other data
Starting discussion regarding recent edits by an editor to add a commentary/blog post.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * This addresses all the new additions that were deleted the subheadings "Admissions" and "Employment", including the AEI blog data on medical school admissions.
 * Reverse racism has been defined as the discriminatory effect of affirmative action policies on whites and Asians. See, e.g., https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/myth-of-reverse-racism/535689/; https://www.usnews.com/news/the-report/articles/2017-02-03/are-asians-the-new-face-of-affirmative-action.  https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/10/a-federal-investigation-into-reverse-discrimination-at-harvard/542220
 * The AEI blog post is just one of many (see prior citations) that show that whites and Asians must achieve highest test scores to gain admissions to college and graduate school. These sources include fact-checked mainstream journalistic sources.
 * See, e.g., Affirmative Action Battle Has a New Focus: Asian-Americans; Asian-Americans Are Indeed Getting Screwed by Harvard (But Not How They Think)
 * There is no reason why quantifying the degree of reverse racism is not appropriate for a wikipedia article on the topic. This article currently reads as an POV argument (mainly from sociology academic publications) that reverse racism doesn't even exist and includes no data or examples evidencing a contrary point of view when in fact many examples exist.  The article needs to be more balanced and one easy improvement is to cite sources that provide data purporting to show the discrminatory effects of affirmative action.
 * Secondly the subheading "Employment" is a sensible subtopic for the nature of reverse racism, because affirmative action policies affect employment opportunities. In my new section, I started by referring to an article describing well-known Supreme Court case on the topic (as well as hyperlinking to the wiki article on the case) and this was deleted as well.  The deletion is not justified whatsoever.
 * My proposal is to permit admissions data sources to be cited in the Admissions subsection and to permit the creation of an Employment subsection to cite to relevant factual material (the first of which is the Supreme Court case on the topic).
 * As per customary wikipedia policies, sources may include news articles.
 * — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codebook44 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I reformatted a NY Times link and an Observer.com link in Codebook44's above post so the links work. EdJohnston (talk) 18:10, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The NYT piece doesn't mention reverse racism or racism. Neither does the Observer piece but it also is an opinion piece. Please see WP:NOR.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 18:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The information I would propose in the Observer piece is the reference to a study on admissions data by race, which is cited. We don't need to use any of the opinion part of the piece.  But we can find the actual study or others like it.  There are lots and lots of studies that will show the same thing (more stringent admissions requirements based on race). This is not that surprising given the goals of affirmative action admissions policies, but it would be more informative to quantify the effect on whites and Asians.  For instance, here is a study that quantifies it succinctly and I propose to summarize:  https://www.princeton.edu/~tje/files/files/webAdmission%20Preferences%20Espenshade%20Chung%20Walling%20Dec%202004.pdf.  It includes a nice pithy conclusion:  "Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600-point scale, but recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, Hispanic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points."   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codebook44 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to find a reliable sources would refer to this practice, if true, as Reverse Racism. Otherwise it is original research.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 03:12, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The very first sentence of the article says that reverse racism is used to refer to the effects of affirmative action policies. "Affirmative action" is then mentioned 8 more times, mostly in the context of disputing claims that affirmative action policies constitute reverse racism.  We don't need to connect any more dots between the topic of reverse racism and the effects of affirmative action--they are already discussed at length in the article. In other words, the article is about a notable policy question regarding whether affirmative action is reverse racism.  Accordingly, I propose to show data and information quantifying the magnitude of the "reverse racism" effect of affirmative action.  This is wholly appropriate for a comprehensive article about reverse racism.   In any event, here is an article expressly couching the debate over affirmative action's effects on whites and asians as a question of "reverse racism" (the article concludes it is not, but the arguments of both sides of the debate are actually included in this article but are mostly missing from this wiki page):  https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/myth-of-reverse-racism/535689/ Codebook44 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You need to only use sources which explicitly refer to affirmative action as Reverse Racism. Just because an article talks about affirmative action doesn't mean that they're calling it Reverse Racism even if it could be used to support the argument that it exists. Please see WP:SYNTH.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:17, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The source cited expressly calls affirmative action reverse racism. "The usage of “reverse racism” and “reverse discrimination” arose in direct response to affirmative and race-based policies in the 1970s."  https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/myth-of-reverse-racism/535689/  Here is another one that describes claims that affirmative action constitutes reverse racism:  https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2009/08/10/discriminating-tastes  That is the actual subject of this wiki article through and through.  If you deny that, should we not delete all references in this article to affirmative action?  Why does the article include descriptions of legal cases on affirmative action?   I consider this aspect of the discussion above settled--I can write it up and you can take a look if you believe that I'm inappropriately synthesizing sources or taking liberties with the definition of the concept of reverse racism.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codebook44 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I was referring to the NYT and Observer sources you provided...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This article currently reads as an POV argument (mainly from sociology academic publications) that reverse racism doesn't even exist and includes no data or examples evidencing a contrary point of view – NPOV doesn't mean providing a contrary point of view. It means representing, proportionally, the views of reliable, published sources. Scholarly monographs are among the most reliable. If these sources mainly say that reverse racism doesn't exist or is a false concept, then that's what we say too. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can use a few sources that deny the existence of the concept that is the subject of the article to then conclude that any evidence to the contrary should be stricken from the article. For instance, while those sources may say it does not exist, the U.S. DOJ is investigating "possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions" against whites and Asians.  See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html  Since this is an example of reverse racism, it should be included in the article on the subject notwithstanding some viewpoints that it doesn't exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codebook44 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ...to then conclude that any evidence to the contrary should be stricken from the article... I never suggested any such thing. I said that we give greater weight to scholarly sources. Since this is an example of reverse racism... According to whom? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing to unilaterally change the description of the scholarly consensus as set forth in the article. I'll leave that for someone else.  All I want to do is ADD more context and information about studies that quantify the effects of affirmative action policies.  I'm saying that the article should include more information about the public debate on this issue, including information that may contravene the scholarly consensus.  In other words, the article shouldn't just say "reverse racism doesn't exist, period" and then end.  Other relevant information should be included to give a comprehensive picture.  This is why I propose to include information and data showing the magnitude of the "reverse racism" effect of affirmative action, which will show how different racial groups are treated differently.  Including additional applicable information only illuminates the topic.  As to the question of whether affirmative action constitutes reverse racism, that is the very topic of the article.  There's no further need to connect reverse racism and affirmative action.  But I can if we need to be pedantic about it.  Codebook44 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources used for this article state that reverse racism is a concept used by opponents of affirmative-action policies and other color-conscious programs. Nowhere do they state that it is synonymous with the effects of affirmative action. We don't need to connect any more dots between the topic of reverse racism and the effects of affirmative action – Wikipedia doesn't "connect" any "dots" at all. That's for reliable, published sources to do, and we merely summarize their conclusions. See WP:OR. [S]tudies that quantify the effects of affirmative action policies – unless these studies explicitly connect affirmative action with "reverse racism", then including them here would be improper synthesis. They may be appropriate for our article about affirmative action itself, though. I propose to include information and data showing the magnitude of the "reverse racism" effect – first you need to cite reliable, published sources showing that there is such a thing as a "reverse racism" effect, and explaining why the academic sources already cited are wrong about the (non)existence of reverse racism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are not seeinging this objectively. As you acknowledge, reverse racism is a concept used to describe the effects of affirmative action programs. What effects?  By whom?  These are questions that I will address by describing the claimed effects (i.e., admissions discrimination) as sourced from reliable sources.   This is entirely appropriate for a wiki entry on the subject.  Reliable sources that describe matter of public debate.  Sorry but this is appropriate information on this topic.  Why are you attempting to censor a full elucidation of a topic of public concern?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codebook44 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing for me to add. If you have any remarks that don't come in the form of a personal attack, I'll be happy to address them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, I was referring to the NYT and Observer sources you provided...  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 04:43, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * This article currently reads as an POV argument (mainly from sociology academic publications) that reverse racism doesn't even exist and includes no data or examples evidencing a contrary point of view – NPOV doesn't mean providing a contrary point of view. It means representing, proportionally, the views of reliable, published sources. Scholarly monographs are among the most reliable. If these sources mainly say that reverse racism doesn't exist or is a false concept, then that's what we say too. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think you can use a few sources that deny the existence of the concept that is the subject of the article to then conclude that any evidence to the contrary should be stricken from the article. For instance, while those sources may say it does not exist, the U.S. DOJ is investigating "possible litigation related to intentional race-based discrimination in college and university admissions" against whites and Asians.  See https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/us/politics/trump-affirmative-action-universities.html  Since this is an example of reverse racism, it should be included in the article on the subject notwithstanding some viewpoints that it doesn't exist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codebook44 (talk • contribs) 19:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
 * ...to then conclude that any evidence to the contrary should be stricken from the article... I never suggested any such thing. I said that we give greater weight to scholarly sources. Since this is an example of reverse racism... According to whom? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing to unilaterally change the description of the scholarly consensus as set forth in the article. I'll leave that for someone else.  All I want to do is ADD more context and information about studies that quantify the effects of affirmative action policies.  I'm saying that the article should include more information about the public debate on this issue, including information that may contravene the scholarly consensus.  In other words, the article shouldn't just say "reverse racism doesn't exist, period" and then end.  Other relevant information should be included to give a comprehensive picture.  This is why I propose to include information and data showing the magnitude of the "reverse racism" effect of affirmative action, which will show how different racial groups are treated differently.  Including additional applicable information only illuminates the topic.  As to the question of whether affirmative action constitutes reverse racism, that is the very topic of the article.  There's no further need to connect reverse racism and affirmative action.  But I can if we need to be pedantic about it.  Codebook44 (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The sources used for this article state that reverse racism is a concept used by opponents of affirmative-action policies and other color-conscious programs. Nowhere do they state that it is synonymous with the effects of affirmative action. We don't need to connect any more dots between the topic of reverse racism and the effects of affirmative action – Wikipedia doesn't "connect" any "dots" at all. That's for reliable, published sources to do, and we merely summarize their conclusions. See WP:OR. [S]tudies that quantify the effects of affirmative action policies – unless these studies explicitly connect affirmative action with "reverse racism", then including them here would be improper synthesis. They may be appropriate for our article about affirmative action itself, though. I propose to include information and data showing the magnitude of the "reverse racism" effect – first you need to cite reliable, published sources showing that there is such a thing as a "reverse racism" effect, and explaining why the academic sources already cited are wrong about the (non)existence of reverse racism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are not seeinging this objectively. As you acknowledge, reverse racism is a concept used to describe the effects of affirmative action programs. What effects?  By whom?  These are questions that I will address by describing the claimed effects (i.e., admissions discrimination) as sourced from reliable sources.   This is entirely appropriate for a wiki entry on the subject.  Reliable sources that describe matter of public debate.  Sorry but this is appropriate information on this topic.  Why are you attempting to censor a full elucidation of a topic of public concern?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codebook44 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing for me to add. If you have any remarks that don't come in the form of a personal attack, I'll be happy to address them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry you are not seeinging this objectively. As you acknowledge, reverse racism is a concept used to describe the effects of affirmative action programs. What effects?  By whom?  These are questions that I will address by describing the claimed effects (i.e., admissions discrimination) as sourced from reliable sources.   This is entirely appropriate for a wiki entry on the subject.  Reliable sources that describe matter of public debate.  Sorry but this is appropriate information on this topic.  Why are you attempting to censor a full elucidation of a topic of public concern?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codebook44 (talk • contribs) 21:09, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * There's nothing for me to add. If you have any remarks that don't come in the form of a personal attack, I'll be happy to address them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Is reverse racism a species of the genus reverse discrimination?
There's already a request to merger this article with reverse discrimination. So far, this has not been done. Is it correct that reverse racism is to be seen as species of the genus reverse discrimination? Regorsash (talk) 01:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It also doesn't make any sense, by the way, that reverse discrimination is in bold in the intro, since there is already a seperate article on this subject (reverse discrimination).
 * Regorsash (talk) 01:14, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed the article to note in the lead that this phrase is also used in South Africa (based on content already in this article) and removed reverse discrimination from the lede because there is already an article on that subject but Volunteer Marek reverted me. I asked for an explanation but he has refused to provide one. here's the diff. FloridaArmy (talk) 01:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Reading beyond the first paragraph (always recommended), one will see that the final paragraph of the lead section states, "the concept has been used internationally to some extent wherever white supremacy has been diminished, such as in post-apartheid South Africa". So, South Africa is already mentioned. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Trying unbold discrimination: I will reword as discrimination with gender or religion; otherwise "reverse x" might all seem same target. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This ref removed
I was concerned about this edit []. I do not have that source.... is anyone able to check on it? TantraYum (talk) 00:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've restored it. Most of the source material can be viewed on Google Books. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:31, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Racism against whites= "reverse racism"
http://prntscr.com/g4zjua First of all, I think reverse racism is a bullshit concept in general. But wikipedia says "Reverse racism is a term used to describe acts of discrimination and prejudice perpetrated by racial minorities or historically oppressed ethnic groups against individuals belonging to the racial majority or historically dominant ethnic groups.[1] In other words, it is reverse discrimination based on racial criteria." So, that redirect shown by the screenshot seems to imply white people are a minority everywhere. Even more outrageous, the idea that white people cannot face genuine racism. Alex of Canada (talk) 12:18, 7 August 2017 (UTC)Alex of Canada
 * I would generally agree with you but are there not the rare cases where the oppressed group has risen up and acted in just as cruel of manner (or worse) as the oppressed? Would not the whole sale displacement of Whites in Rwanda for example, be that rare case of ‘reverse racism’?  Anyway to your point and for your consideration, may I offer:  https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/08/myth-of-reverse-racism/535689/  C. W. Gilmore (talk) 14:29, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another more personal angle would be to say, would you let your kid marry a person of this race or that one? Now if you are from a group that was once restricted on interracial marriage and you object to allowing your child to do so, would you not be committing the act of 'reverse racism'?  Or for that matter, if you are excluded from an area because of your race, but them turn around and do the same to others, does that not make you as racists?  One has to note of course that both societal/legal forms of racism which the state may engage in and the personal or subgroup within a society that engage in racism.  Just more questions, than answers.C. W. Gilmore (talk) 16:41, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
 * There's literally an entire category here in Wikipedia devoted to racially motivated crimes against white people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Racially_motivated_violence_against_white_people Kiazore (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * There's literally an entire category here in Wikipedia devoted to racially motivated crimes against white people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Racially_motivated_violence_against_white_people Kiazore (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Neutrality (8 March 2018)
I see this a lot on Wikepedia, but I don't think some people really understand the idea of "presenting both points of view". What this means is NOT writing "some people believe/claim X", and then going on to describe why they are actually wrong, and Y is true. Neutrality means saying "some people believe X, and this is why. On the other hand, there are others who disagree with them, and claim Y is true, for these reasons". You don't say "some people believe reverse racism is a thing. However, these people are just ignoring the power advantage that white people have over black people, so clearly they are wrong and just using the term to further white supremacy as usual". This is not "neutrality". Pretend for a moment that there are those out there who don't ACCEPT that whites "hold all the cultural power" and are using it to systematically oppress black people. This may be completely true, but writing the entire article from the viewpoint that it is fact is not "neutral". What the other guy thinks is just as legitimate as what you think. Just because you have a textbook that SAYS it's fact doesn't mean there aren't other textbooks that say it ISN'T. In both cases, they are claims made by various people/books, not established facts. I won't say what my opinion is on the subject, because I will likely be yelled at for using Wikipedia as a forum. I will say that I'd feel a lot better if it specified that (some people) claim that reverse racism as a SYSTEMIC THING is impossible. I don't see how anyone can deny that a colored person looking at a white person they don't know and judging them on the basis of the fact that they are white is anything but racism. To some people this is exactly what "reverse racism" means. If you hate me just because I'm white, the fact that white hold disproportionate power as a group is irrelevant, it's still racism. Even if you argue that it's understandable given the context, that doesn't make it NOT racism. But I will surely get in trouble at this rate. 70.109.132.119 (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:NPOV and specifically WP:WEIGHT. We give primacy and more weight to predominant views.  In the case of scholarly concepts such as racism,  weight is given to scholars over non scholarly writings.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * But this article isn't merely giving "primacy" and "more weight" to scholars. If that were the case, then there would be mention of opposing viewpoints, seeing as how there are also scholars who believe otherwise. Shouldn't these scholars also be given "primacy" and "more weight"? Or is it just some scholars that receive the honor of wikipedia being their sock-puppet? In any case, this article doesn't exactly iterate a scholarly consensus as it's base; indeed it comes across as being very matter-of-fact, giving the impression that this isn't a bit controversial while demonstrating the same type of authoritativeness usually seen on articles dealing with scientific fact. For these reasons, this doesn't appear to be a case of simply giving more weight to views in which there is a universal consensus, but rather, it appears this is a case of taking a subject that is insanely controversial and just completely parroting the views of one side. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:8DC7:3700:15F7:7469:D37C:570C (talk) 16:38, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If there are reliable secondary or tertiary sources demonstrating that such views are significant, feel free to add them. However, neutrality does not mean inclusion of all opposing "scholarly" viewpoints. See WP:WEIGHT, WP:FALSEBALANCE, and especially WP:FRINGE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Empirical studies
It reads in the top of the article: "Empirical studies have found little evidence that such institutional anti-white racism exists."

Referring to this book: Ansell, Amy Elizabeth (2013). Race and Ethnicity: The Key Concepts. Routledge. pp. 135–6. ISBN 978-0-415-33794-6.

Which serves as primary literature, being sourced for most key claims of the article.

Regarding the claim above. Full quote from the book (Page 137): "Despite such seeming impasse, the question at the heart of much of the debate is a legitimate one; that is, how does affirmative action and other race-conscious social policy affect white males? Not much sober empirical study has been applied to the subject, but the studies that do exist find little evidence that reverse racism in fact exists. For example, a study of complaints of reverse racism brought before the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found that, between 1987 1994, only 2.2 percent of claims came from white males charging race discrimination, and a small minority of these found to have merit. Similar findings have been published by with respect to US federal court decisions."

1. The book states that few empirical studies exist, that is not reflected in the statement in the article. It sounds like there is an empirical consensus.

2. The only empirical study given by the author states that few complaints have come forth from white men (!sic men not white people as a whole) and few of those(no number given) are successful in court. The author comes to the conclusion that reverse racism has little impact on white males and and therefore it might not exist. Which is a faulty argument, since complaints about a problem do not necessarily reflect severity of a problem and the claim that these complaints fail in court only means that reverse racism might not be illegal, not that it does not exist. The legality of the matter is irrelevant.

All in all the statement should be removed, backed up by more better sources[], or rephrased to make it clear that it is just an opinion by the author of the book. Someone who can edit it, please add the appropriate templates (better sources, more sources) to the statement in the article. 62.153.21.135 (talk) 08:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * "Empirical studies have found little evidence" is not an "opinion". It is a summary of the facts relayed in the book, which is an academic secondary source by a reputable author and publisher, not "primary literature". The fact that an editor finds her argument "faulty" is irrelevant; Wikipedia is based on reliable, published sources, not the beliefs of anonymous editors. The lead section (where the disputed statement resides) serves as a concise overview of the article. The part about the lack of actual empirical study is explained further down, in the article body: "While there has been little empirical study on the subject of reverse racism, the few existing studies have found little evidence that white males, in particular, are victimized by affirmative-action programs" (it helps to actually read the article before complaining about its contents). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:26, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The relevant part of the lead is factually wrong and misquoted from the book. Saying something else further down the article does not make it less factually wrong and misquoted. The book quote only talks about white males, not white people in general.
 * And I have pointed out that the source is questionable regarding the statement in the article. Not that the source is questionable in general (though that very much might be true). The only valid thing you can quote from that passage in the book is that the author thinks that there a very few empirical studies that show no evidence for reverse racism against white males. The author gives not a single example of such an empirical study though. The only example the author gives shows something else. That is not my belief or opinion. 62.153.21.135 (talk) 14:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * There is no misquoting. Ansell states (as you yourself quoted) that "the studies that do exist find little evidence that reverse racism in fact exists". Ansell is a perfectly reliable source to talk about the empirical basis, or lack thereof, for claims of "reverse racism". That's just my opinion. You're welcome to start a discussion about the source at WP:RS/N. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:32, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You are omitting the part that specifies that the author is talking about white males. I do not want to accuse you of quote mining, so I hope you just misread the book quote.
 * Ansell might as a researcher in the field be a reliable source to talk about this issue, but the quote from the book does not on its own serve as a proper source for the statement as it is made in the article. The statement as it is made in the article is quite strong and requires proper sources, not an off-hand comment in a relevant book. Maybe Ansell has other points in their book that are all well sourced, but this particular point is not. And Ansell says so themselves. So either the statement in the article should be changed to reflect the actual meaning and intention of Ansell's quote or it should be backed up by additional sources that support the statement. Of course alternatively, if it is not actually based on anything concrete, it could just be removed. 62.153.21.135 (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have submitted an edit request, maybe that will speed things up and prevent this discussion from becoming unnecessarily long. 62.153.21.135 (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * ...but this particular point is not. And Ansell says so themselves. The source says no such thing that I can see. The part about white males is used only as an example of the lack of empirical evidence: "For example, a study of complaints of reverse racism brought before the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission..." You can't draw any conclusions from that about what other evidence the author may or may not have in mind. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not much sober empirical study has been applied to the subject, but the studies that do exist find... is the quote of the author. The author adds this qualifier on the matter so the reader knows that there are not many valid empirical studies to choose from. Omitting this in the article is misleading the reader. Like I said, the statement in the article makes it sound like there is a solid empirical basis for the claim that reverse racism does not exist. Another problem is that the reader does not know at this point in the article that we are talking about the academic definition of racism. That is introduced later in the article. This conflict of definitions is a big point of contention, as the article points out as well. 62.153.17.218 (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I would like to propose another compromise. Putting the statement into proper context at the end of the paragraph makes it more clear that we are talking about the academic definition of racism and the empirical studies are relating to that definition. I still think the author put great emphasis on the lack of valid empirical studies and it is important to mention that they were talking about white males in particular, but I am willing to give up on those points if it means we will at least get this much more clarity. Alternatively removing the statement like user Arnoutf suggested would be acceptable as well.

Current version: "Little empirical evidence exists to support the idea of reverse racism. Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States generally lack the power to damage the interests of whites, who remain the dominant group. Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism."

Compromise: "Scholars argue that racial and ethnic minorities in the United States generally lack the power to damage the interests of whites, who remain the dominant group. Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism. Empirical studies conducted along those lines find little evidence that such institutional anti-white racism exists."

62.153.18.210 (talk) 19:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Since you are talking about the lead here, the text must be short. So the compromise is just too long to accept for that section (not even looking at the contents). Arnoutf (talk) 19:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The statement in question only adds 2 words more, compared to original version by Sangdeboeuf while adding clarity. You can omit the "scholars argue" at the beginning if you want. I disagree with your complaint. 62.153.18.210 (talk) 19:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Here, I made it shorter: "Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States generally lack the power to damage the interests of whites, who remain the dominant group. Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism. Empirical studies conducted along those lines find little evidence that such institutional anti-white racism exists."

62.153.18.210 (talk) 19:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The phrase "conducted along those lines" is more improper synthesis and makes little sense in any case. Overall, the proposed wording is an example of burying the lede. None of the academic sources I've seen take claims of "reverse racism" at face value, including those cited here. The lack of empirical evidence for anti-white racism, as opposed to anti-black racism, is important to make clear up front. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:21, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Racist stance present in article
Looking at the archived comment, I'm appalled. The only reason the admin gave for not allowing alternate viewpoints, is that "white people have an article already." This is obviously politically motivated, and has no place in Wikipedia. 75.177.11.11 (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018
Change "Empirical studies have found little evidence that such institutional anti-white racism exists."

To "Only few empirical studies exist that research the existence and the impact of reverse racism against white men, but the studies that do exist find little evidence that it does in fact exist in the sociological academic definition of the word racism."

This reflects more accurately the meaning and intention of the quote in the book. See the Empirical studies section of this comment section for the full quote from the book and further discussion. 62.153.21.135 (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose: the proposed text is semantically garbled and muddies the actual issue. "[I]n the sociological academic definition" is simple WP:SYNTH, not to mention unnecessary waffling. The article is already about reverse racism "in the sociological academic definition". The existing text is clear and represents the source accurately. See, above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you support the edit request if the sociological academic part was omitted? 62.153.21.135 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No, for reasons given above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. &#8209;&#8209; El Hef  ( Meep? ) 20:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not know one needs a consensus to make a justified edit. I have proposed a compromise, but it was dismissed. What would be next step for reaching a consensus? 62.153.21.230 (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Semi protection is in place to avoid edit warring around controversial edits; and for controversial edits consensus is always needed. From the comments it is clear that both your original idea and compromise are controversial. The next step would be to gain support for the need to change, and come up with a generally accepted version of the new text. Arnoutf (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Is there a way to bring in the opinions of other users? The sentence in the article is misrepresenting the given source. I have explained the need for change several times, but to no avail. 62.153.17.218 (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I checked up on this. Page 137 of the book by Ansell is cited twice. The second citation (in the main article civil rights opening of last pare: While there has been little empirical study on the subject of reverse racism, the few existing studies have found little evidence that white males, in particular, are victimized by affirmative-action programs.) seem to (just) sufficiently covered by the text. The first citation in the lead ("Empirical studies have found little evidence that such institutional anti-white racism exists") cannot be sourced to page 137 alone as no institution is mentioned on that page, so the anonymous editor does have a point there. If you would bring in page 136 however (but there Ansell cites Glazer (so we would probably have to use Glazer for this argument), the case can be made that reverse racism is defined (at least by Glazer) to hold institutional components and Ansell bases part of here storyline into page 137 on those assumptions. In other words, I think the contents maybe justified by the larger book of Ansell, but the claim is not backed by the specific reference (Ansell p137). This needs to be fixed.

On the other hand, I do think that both text suggestions by the anonymous editor go even further away from the text of Ansell (while the editor cites her work). So these texts do not appear to be the solution either.

My suggestion would be to either delete the line (Empirical studies have found little evidence that such institutional anti-white racism exists) from the lead, or to rephrase to something like (Empirical studies have found little evidence that widespread anti-white racism exists) - this would remove the reference to institutions and align with the low percentage of awarded claims (2.2%) on the topic as cited by Ansell p137. Arnoutf (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I think the institutional claim is clear if one includes the context from page 136 - 138. The author is clearly talking about the academic definition of racism which implies institutional power. The author argues reverse racism might not exist, because there is no institutional oppression against white males. The example of awarded court cases does not make sense outside of that context, so removing the "institutional" part of the statement has the opposite effect. It removes the statement further from the source. I am okay with removing the statement all together. So please do that instead.


 * As a side note: the 2.2% refers to the number of court cases filed by white males, not the number of successful cases, which would be even lower. 62.153.18.210 (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ansell directly states that there is "little evidence that reverse racism in fact exists". How much clearer do you need the statement to be? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has resolved the biggest point of contention by adding additional sources. As my original demand was more/better sources for such a strong claim, I see no more direct problems with it. From a style perspective I would still prefer to see the explanation of what is meant exactly with racism (requiring institutional power) before this statement is made in the article, but it appears Sangdeboeuf is unwilling to compromise and I get no support from user Arnoutf in the matter. Unless someone else wants to chime in, I see the matter as closed. 62.153.18.210 (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note that you are more than welcome to search for reliable sources yourself next time you see a statement that needs sourcing. As for institutional power as a component of racism, that is explained in the lead sentence, where the topic is defined in relation to "affirmative action [and] similar color-conscious programs". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Those programs can be seen as racist by the colloquial definition of racism which sees all forms of discrimination based on race and ethnicity as bigoted in principle, even if there is no measurable institutional impact. As the article points out as well further down, this is a function of the color-blind ideal. Given that this article is aimed at the general population and not academics, it is worth pointing out what you are talking about. Right above the statement are even examples given of non-institutional forms of racism being sometimes under the umbrella of reverse racism: various expressions of hostility or indifference toward white people. And given that the article is locked and I had to argue thousands of words just to get you to agree that the statement needed more sources, I would beg to differ about that as well. 62.153.18.210 (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Those programs can be seen as racist – Wikipedia is not here to pander to such popular delusions. Where peer-reviewed and other scholarly sources are available, those are the ones we predominantly use, and they do not tend to equate affirmative action with racism. And the fact that I was easily able to find reliable, published sources to support the text should not be taken to imply that I ever agreed that "the statement needed more sources". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The article is about this very topic of people disagreeing with what is racist and what is not. Wikipedia does not exist to act as a final judge on controversies, it exists to represent the controversies accurately. But you appear to be more interested in having your world view validated by wikipedia than the quality of the article given your edit history and arguments so far. It is somewhat depressing that a few activist editors can hold entire topics hostage. 62.153.19.249 (talk) 06:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The "colloquial definition" does not determine the content of an article; Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Articles must reflect the weight given to various claims by reliable, independent sources. When a preponderance of such sources describe a claim as phony, as with Moon landing conspiracy theories or the 9/11 Truth movement, then that's what we say too. If you have ideas for improving this article based on such reliable, published sources, then by all means suggest them. That doesn't mean they will find consensus. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Second Paragraph Clear Bias
The second paragraph in the introduction is clearly an opinion that doesn't meet Wikipedia's Neutral point of view. In similar articles we place such arguments in subcategories labeled 'Criticisms' which would be far more appropriate. This is clearly a contentious topic so the claim "there is no/little evidence of reverse racism" should also be amended. There certainly ARE studies and resources which indicate that white Americans experience ongoing discrimination based on their race by institutions. This paragraph is implying that one opinion is false when clearly that is not a consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.187.136.45 (talk) 08:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Prejudice plus power
Much of the assertions made in this page operate under the assumption that the definition of racism is "prejudice plus institutional power."

This definition is a stipulative definition that didn't come about until Patricia Bidol coined it in a book in 1970, and didn't gain the kind of traction we see today until recently. Even 10 years ago, when I was taking sociology classes, they still defined racism by it's older and more commonly used definition of "prejudice based on race." Whether one definition is more valid than the other is a moot point.

The whole argument claiming that reverse racism is real depends entirely on the older definition of racism. Likewise, the stance that this page takes, that reverse racism is not real, depends entirely on the newer definition of racism.

Therefore, I suggest this article be rewritten with a neutral point of view. A good start to make would be to present both sides of the argument, and include both definitions of racism. Scottiekaz. 8.29.2018 Scottiekaz (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottiekaz (talk • contribs) 02:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * A neutral point of view doesn't mean we present "both sides" equally. Please read Neutral point of view. Also, articles must be based on published, reliable sources. See Verifiability and No original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I believe an article over a topic like this is difficult to write in the traditional sense of 'neutral'. The idea of reverse racism itself is already biased. Is there any way to maybe bring more examples into the article other than the separate section over South Africa?Isabellasiragusa (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because the sources are published does not make them reliable. The 'Garner, Steve' source literally states that reverse racism should not be discounted. Secondly, when a source says that something doesn't exist, and it can be easily proven that it does, it means it's wrong and shouldn't be used, even if it is published in a journal.,.
 * The fact is that 'Reverse Racism' (which is really just racism against white people) DOES exist. I don't like to be blunt like this but trying to say that it does not exist is a flat out lie, and if you actually believe this then you are lying to yourself. Any race can have prejudice against them.
 * Also, before you start saying that reverse racism somehow has a different definition, I will remind you that Racism against whites redirects here and has a separate definition, while Racism against Japanese somehow has a different definition. Racism is racism and Wikipedia cannot change that. Gamebuster (Talk)║Contributions) 22:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Just because someone personally disagrees with sources does not make them unreliable. Whether anyone likes it or not, Wikipedia is based on published sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When challenging existing sources, please provide equally reliable sources that unambiguously support the notion that "reverse racism" exists (blog posts and Wikipedia pages do not constitute "proof"). Garner, for his part, states that the idea of reverse racism is pertinent because many people seem to believe it, not that it is a valid concept itself; in fact, he calls it a "fantasy". This article does not say that reverse racism does not exist; it says that little evidence exists for reverse racism, which is a statement supported by multiple published sources. Whether any of us believes this or not is irrelevant, as is what any of us thinks the proper "definition" of racism is. If there are published sources for the idea of racism against whites as a separate phenomenon, then feel free to create an article about it, but be prepared to defend your edits. Suggestions that we instead base articles on users' personal beliefs about what constitutes "flat-out lying" should be proposed in the appropriate forum, but I doubt they will find much support. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How you define something is important and significant when doing research in the social sciences, so it is in fact rather important here to cover how the studies involved are defining their terminology. It's also a subject that I honestly don't expect to see much quality research getting done that does not use a biased operational definition. It is rather concerning, since in my experience prejudice against White people often spills into being effectively Colorism with the prejudice being against paler individuals. Werhdnt (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikpedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not Wiki editors' personal experiences or beliefs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * How you define something is important and significant when doing research in the social sciences, so it is in fact rather important here to cover how the studies involved are defining their terminology. It's also a subject that I honestly don't expect to see much quality research getting done that does not use a biased operational definition. It is rather concerning, since in my experience prejudice against White people often spills into being effectively Colorism with the prejudice being against paler individuals. Werhdnt (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Wikpedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not Wiki editors' personal experiences or beliefs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018
The article shouldn't be called 'Reverse Racism' as the definition of racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." Racism; in of itself, is not 'Whites v. Blacks', calling racism towards whites from blacks is racist in of itself. Thanks for your consideration 50.200.118.243 (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Definitions
First, the article explains how the term has two definitions, then presents three sources mentioning only one of those definitions and then stating that "there is little to no empirical evidence to support the idea," ignoring the second definition, which is easily sourcable as having evidence for it. The problems continue, with the article presenting an almost entirely US-centric viewpoint again using only the first definition. This article seems it's missing half of its content. LilySophie (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Not real?
The Article claims that there is no Reverse racism as if it has been conclusively proven! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:4303:5556:D179:DEC5:D7F8:43DE (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That phrasing is confusing, I agree. The article needs to do a better job first defining the concept of 'reverse racism' before engaging in the AA debate. Obviously, the concept of reverse racism exists, but I believe what the sources are actually saying is that AA has not lead to a reality of reverse racism. That isn't clear in its current phrasing. Scoundr3l (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Definition of racism
Racism has nothing to do with power; yet this entire article is published on a shaky, none universal definition that power is required and cites a Netflix show of all things as justification.This entire thing is clearly painted by bias of the editors, particularly the egregious and ludicrous statement "There is no evidence white people face racism". Totally unacceptable to allow social politics to stop this site being neutral. At the very least balance the article, present this pop definition alongside the definition that has been around for centuries, and do not have "racism towards white people" direct here. Racism is a lot more than "white v black" and shame on the editors for pushing this through a strictly western view and pop sociologist slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.98.229 (talk • contribs)


 * Please note that Wikipedia coverage of controversial viewpoints does not count as an endorsement of that viewpoint; where significant controversy exists, Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy mandates that there should be balanced, proportionate coverage of different viewpoints, based on information from citable reliable sources. (For an example of this in action, see flat-Earth theory.) If you believe that this article is biased, you are welcome to edit the article to improve it. If, after reading this, you'd still like to have this article removed, please see WP:AFD for how to propose it for deletion. -- The Anome (talk) 13:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * 95.149, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We summarize descriptions of a topic in reliable, independent sources; we don't simply list definitions. If you wish to create a separate article on the topic of "racism towards white people", and can substantiate it with published, reliable sources, then you are encouraged to do so. Also, where do we cite any Netflix show as justification? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:43, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree with both users above. This is an article which displays one-sidedness and asserts opinions as facts. Most crucially, it portrays the very definition of racism as the power+prejudice dynamic which is only accepted by a handful of American scholars, rather than the more inclusive, more widley accepted definition of the prejudice. On this basis, it entirely dismisses racism experienced by the individual if they belong to what is perceived as the 'power' group. But, as above, it's also up to other contributors to source opinions to the contrary, and to actively balance the article using reliable sources. I'm not sure there's a legitimate justification for a 'racism towards white people' page, because racism towards white people falls under the definitions explained in the central 'racism' page. I suppose there's an argument for a separate place to list examples and debates, but I have a feeling this will once again be utterly US-centric and biased one way or the other. This page does need work, however. 80.42.131.34 (talk) 01:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)