Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 4

September 2019
This has got to be the most tonally skewed article on Wikipedia. The lead section reads as an opinion piece by a Buzzfeed writer. The term “Reverse racism” rarely even has anything to do with affirmative action, when used, it literally just refers to anti-white vitriol or vilification (or just getting made fun of/mocked on the basis of being white by people). Framing “Reverse-racism” as just “white people get mad when black people receive support” is very obviously biased and cringeworthy.--FollowTheSigns (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Cool, so you are claiming that sources are incorrect. You have WP:RS to back up your claim, right?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 17:34, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Reverse racism is getting made fun of ... on the basis of being white? White Men Can't Jump, anyone? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:21, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Is there an editor who isn’t whom I could discuss this with? :/ --FollowTheSigns (talk) 14:04, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Not much to discuss. Just present sources?  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 14:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
 * This isn't Reddit or 4chan, so nobody's impressed by your word salad. Either you have sources to discuss, or you have nothing. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Cooley et al.
https://psycnet.apa.org/doiLanding?doi=10.1037%2Fxge0000605 Byulwwe (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * This paper seems to examine a different topic (classism): "both studies revealed that while social liberals were overall more sympathetic to poor people than social conservatives, reading about White privilege decreased their sympathy for a poor White (vs. Black) person". If anywhere, this might belong at White privilege, but note that any such research paper is a primary source (and this one doesn't appear to say anything about anyone's "anti-poor-white attitude"). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Attack on Reginald Denny
I added a link to the article Attack on Reginald Denny in the “See also” section. This is an obvious and indisputable example of reverse racism. This man was dragged from his truck by four black men and beaten nearly to death simply because he is white. The attack on Reginald Denny is obviously quite relevant to this article, and yet the link has now been removed by another editor who says that it isn’t relevant to the topic. This article so far is merely propaganda for people who do not believe that reverse racism exists. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia article not an op Ed piece. The Wikipedia article about the attack on Reginald Denny describes the attack as follows: “The attack on Reginald Denny was a racially motivated hate crime in the 1992 Los Angeles riots in which Reginald Denny, a white construction truck driver, was beaten nearly to death by a group of black men who came to be known as the "L.A. Four".”  What race would Reginald Denny be? Oh, yes. He is white. So a white man can be the victim of a racially motivated hate crime at the hands of black men, and yet reverse racism doesn’t exist? Wikipedia is contradicting itself. (Actual footage of the racially motivated hate crime perpetrated against Reginald Denny which according to the Wikipedia editors of the article on Reverse racism doesn’t exist: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3V5UNUbM7k )  Copy Editor (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The contention that "This article is biased and/or opinionated and/or propaganda" has been done to death already; see numerous threads in the talk archives. Wikipedia content is based on published sources, and I don't see any sources cited at the Reginald Denny article connecting the incident to "reverse racism". Nor does any "racially motivated" attack prove anything about the existence or non-existence of reverse racism; that would be original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is hardly “original research” to point out that the Wikipedia article about the attack on Reginald Denny describes the attack as a “racially motivated hate crime.” That is a fact. Reginald Denny is a white man who was beaten nearly to death by four black men SIMPLY BECAUSE HE WAS WHITE; this is fact. This is an extremely famous case that has generated many reputable articles which could be cited in this Wikipedia article about reverse racism. So far, editors haven’t allowed its inclusion; which is bizarre (and evidence of their personal political bias). For some reason (as this video points out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nbnGUUdQTU) when referring to racism experienced by whites, you are supposed to refer to it as “racial bias” but not “reverse racism.” Semantics. Academia. Radical Left. Enjoy your fantasy world and your self-contracting encyclopedia. (Saying this has been “beaten to death” is merely a condensing way of saying it HASN’T BEEN ADDRESSED. Both sides of this debate should be allowed in this article.  Editors here are only allowing the viewpoint they share.) Copy Editor (talk) 04:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be original research to imply that a "racially motivated hate crime" has anything to do with "reverse racism" unless a published source explicitly makes that connection. The same applies to Black Hebrew Israelites discussed below. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Wrong. There are countless sources that refer to both cases as being racist. But the definition of reverse racism that this article uses is simply wrong. In essence what editors like you have done is create an extremely narrow framework that will not allow any examples that don’t support your own view.  I never said that portions of the page Attack on Reginald Denny  should be copied and inserted into this page.  I have simply mentioned that the page about Reginald Denny describes the attack as a racially motivated hate crime.  I am not committing so-called original research by simply accurately describing the contents of an article on Wikipedia. Here’s one aspect of the argument regarding “reverse racism” that could be included in this article:  some people believe reverse racism doesn’t exist BECAUSE IT IS IN FACT INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM RACISM. In other words reverse racism is just racism, and there are countless reputable sources that refer to both circumstances (Denny,  Black Hebrew Israelites) as being racist.Copy Editor (talk) 02:08, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It makes no difference what "some people believe". If you think the cited sources are wrong, then present alternative sources. The "See also" section is for related topics. Which published sources describe the attack on Denny as related to "reverse racism"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * there are likely many articles out there to back up the perspective held by many people that reverse racism is really just racism…. I am not suggesting that viewpoints that oppose my own should be removed from the article. I am simply suggesting that all viewpoints on this matter deserve to be included in this article.  That is the very definition of neutrality.  For the last time:  The Reginald Denny article is related,  which is why I included it.  People who have edited this page are using an incorrect definition of the term reverse racism.  Copy Editor (talk) 04:50, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * [T]here are likely many articles out there to back up the perspective held by many people that reverse racism is really just racism… Then present some or drop the issue. "Likely" is not sufficient.I am simply suggesting that all viewpoints on this matter deserve to be included in this article. That is the very definition of neutrality. No, that is the definition of false balance. Wikipedia has a policy on its neutral point of view that specifically states we give weight to viewpoints according to their prominence in reliable sources. Lacking those, there's really nothing to discuss.For the last time: The Reginald Denny article is related, which is why I included it. For what I really hope is the last time, you need to show proof of this via published sources. Repeating a claim without any evidence is not going to get you what you want, I'm afraid.People who have edited this page are using an incorrect definition of the term reverse racism. Source? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oxford dictionary: “reverse racism noun: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism on the basis of race directed against a member of a dominant or privileged racial group.” The concept of reverse racism goes far beyond the affirmative action debate.  Oxford is a good place to start. Copy Editor (talk) 01:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A dictionary defines how words are commonly used; Wikipedia describes concepts. Dictionary entries are not the kind of in-depth coverage needed for an encyclopedia article, and don't outweigh the multiple published, scholarly sources cited. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:39, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

A dictionary offers the CORRECT definition of a given word. The definition offered by Oxford is the correct definition of reverse racism. The academic articles you mention are written by academia — which only recognizes one aspect of the “reverse racism” argument, namely THE ARGUMENT THAT MOST CONCERNS THEM. “Affirmative action” (which is only one part of the reverse racism debate) concerns whether students who are not white are given preferential treatment in deciding college admission, and so naturally that is going to be the main focus of most academic articles on this topic. But it is not the only aspect of the reverse racism debate. I offered Oxford dictionary’s definition of reverse racism merely as a starting point. But the definition that Oxford dictionary offers IS the correct definition of reverse racism. I will trust Oxford dictionary over any Wikipedia editor any day. You are reminding me of this video where we are encouraged to “go a little deeper” than the dictionary definition of the word racism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eTWZ80z9EE “Go a little deeper” is just another way of saying “redefine.” What you all have done on this article is redefine the term “reverse racism” to only pertain to institutional admissions or hiring practices, which is an incorrect definition. I am merely suggesting you all use the correct definition. You know, the one Oxford offers. Copy Editor (talk) 04:49, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:SOURCES: "If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources". Those are the ones we use. One user's personal opinion about which sources are "correct" or not is irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Black Hebrew Israelites
According to the anti-defamation league, the Black Hebrew Israelites are anti-Semitic and racist. . The New York Times says the same. Should this be mentioned in this article about reverse racism ? Or should we perhaps tell the loved ones of the people who were murdered by the Black Hebrew Israelites that, you know, reverse racism doesn’t exist because black people cannot be racist. I suppose the New York Times —- the most important and reputable newspaper in the world —-  isn’t notable enough to be cited on a Wikipedia article. Even the Southern Poverty Law Center refers to them as a hate group and “black supremacist.”  But I understand that this apparently cannot be included in this article because Wikipedia editors do not believe that black people can be racist. — Copy Editor (talk) 12:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read this article and its sources. The case you mention is not related to the concept of reverse racism. It is actual racism. And please stop with the snarky edits. We are all volunteers and that simply isn't useful. O3000 (talk) 12:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please don’t denigrate my contributions by referring to them as “snarky.” I am referring to a situation where people have been murdered simply because of their color and religion.  These cases are indeed cases of reverse racism.  Editors like you are not allowing these cases to be included in this article because you do not agree.  Just come out and admit your perspective on the situation.  You and editors like you do not accept that reverse racism exists and so you do not want these cases to be included in this article.  I leave you with your “concepts” while I accept the reality of reverse racism:  innocent people murdered  by black people  simply for being white.   —- Copy Editor (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please WP:AGF. Your comments here are snarky and accusatory. Again, please read the definition of "reverse racism" in the article. The incident you refer to is an example of racism, not reverse racism. O3000 (talk) 12:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You are the one who is not assuming good faith by using a derogatory term (“snarky”) to belittle my contributions.  You are also not assuming good faith by assuming that I haven’t read the article.  I have indeed read the article which is how I know that the definition of “reverse racism” that this article uses is wrong.  The definition the article uses is wrong, and only one perspective is given (the ridiculous perspective that this topic doesn’t even exist).  To more accurately reflect the content of this article, the article itself should be retitled Reverse racism doesn’t exist.  That is actually the article that has been written here. Copy Editor (talk) 14:00, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * if you can identify specific problems with the sources used to define "reverse racism", then please do so. Simply saying the definition we provide (again, based on published sources) is "wrong" is not helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
 * There are countless sources that give a different definition of reverse racism. I think that if the main editors of this page were interested in providing other perspectives,  said definitions would have been included long ago. I can see from this talk page that this is a long and hotly contested debate about this article.  The main contribution I had to this article was the inclusion of the Attack on Reginald Denny, which has been removed.  My humble opinion at this point is that this article is simply a mess and perhaps beyond repair.  I don’t have the energy to fight this uphill battle any future. Thank you. Copy Editor (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please focus on article contents, not other contributors. If there are published sources giving "other perspectives", please present them, keeping due weight in mind. Otherwise, this discussion seems pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is indeed pointless because you and other editors like you simply keep repeating yourselves and have made it clear that you will not allow other perspectives in this article.  Which is why I have said I’m done with this.  So at least we can agree on something:  this is futile.  Enjoy your joke of an article  that no one outside of Leftist academia will take serious. Copy Editor (talk) 04:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Kay bye. If you think of anything relevant to contribute, feel free to come back anytime. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:43, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Please kindly refrain from personal attacks and insults. I indeed had something to contribute to this article: 1. The correct definition of “reverse racism” (Oxford: “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism on the basis of race directed against a member of a dominant or privileged racial group.”), 2. Examples of reverse racism: Attack on Reginald Denny, attacks perpetrated by Black Hebrew Israelites.  If Wikipedia editors such as yourself are ever able to accept the true definition of this term,  and to allow examples of it,  let me know and I will return. Thank you. Copy Editor (talk) 05:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If a published, reliable source uses these incidents as examples of reverse racism, feel free to present it here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:44, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutrality disputed
Since this article is protected, it is necessary to make note here that its text is written throughout in a biased way, as if one position it presents is wrong, and the other right. Particularly in light of this particular article's subject matter, it is necessary that it be rephrased in a neutral way, and additional citations representing the legitimacy of the respective points of view be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.128.159.35 (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * This is far, far too vague to be useful. The article currently has 42 numbered citations and 8 further reading entries. You will need to propose specific changes or identify specific issues with these sources. Proposals should be based on reliable sources. It is up to sources to decide which positions are "right" and which are "wrong". To assume that there are only two positions, and that both positions must be treated exactly the same regardless of context, is a form of false balance. Grayfell (talk) 03:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's a sad day for Wikipedia indeed when editors can heedlessly create narratives in which one side is wrong and the other right. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:48, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Reverse racism article is inaccurate
Instead of giving an objective definition and history of reverse racism, the article forms a weaponised narrative against opponents of affirmative action policies. This is unhelpful, lacking in both usefulness and objectivity. Reverse racism simply refers to racism directed against groups traditionally regarded as perpetrators of racism. That definition is omitted. Instead, the article talks about the group membership (conservative) and motives (how known?) of people whose discourse includes reference to reverse racism, in effect censoring its discussion along political correctness lines. It is possible to be progressive, liberal, left-wing, anti-racist and pro-minority whilst still objecting to reverse racism as a reactive type of discrimination that fosters and entrenches both types of racism. For example, I am a Bernie Sanders supporter, but I am sufficiently nuanced in my opinions to discern the inherently discriminatory and inflammatory likelihood of many actual and proposed affirmative action programmes. Their effect, and the effect of 'reverse racism' generally, is inherently divisive, discriminatory and essentially 'racist'.Cambel99 (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC) C. Newman Cambel99 (talk) 07:20, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Please provide published, reliable sources to support any changes you wish to be made. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

"Anti-white" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Anti-white. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Reverse Racism - No evidence - Outside America.
I think this article is bias in its layout, there is a vast amount of evidence of Reverse Racism around the globe, especially in Europe.

We have Asian (Arab) terrorists targeting and killing Europeans. Over 20,000 white girls between 7 years old up to 20 have been targeted and raped by Asian men in Europe, this not including adults. We have gangland videos, quite a large number of Black and Asian teens slandering white peoples and attacking white peoples in public. We have in my nation an Education fund to educate and train African and Asian peoples. We have an asylum fund to home refugees and migrants from ethnic nations which excluded white refugees during the Russian conflict, so there is such a thing as black privilege also (gaining special treatment) based on skin colour when all skin colours should be treated the same no matter what.

I could go on and its a shame I cannot post videos or photos.

There is a vast amount of evidence proving reverse racism on a global scale, and it should be added here. 2A00:23C8:8580:1C00:39EB:D68B:9D56:BDD0 (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)curiousJoe


 * Wikipedia does not publish original research. Whether any of these things constitute "reverse racism" (assuming they even exist) depends on whether published, reliable sources directly say so. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

1960s usage?
I removed this from the article. Hosea Williams's statement seems unduly weighted coming from a primary source, neither source is a major newspaper with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, and the first sentence (in bold) seems to be original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:26, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Concept or belief?
The article should describe it as a belief, and not a concept. There is little evidence that reverse racism exists. SarahMinuit (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Except the belief itself doesn't go by the name reverse racism. It's a concept that a significant number of people (mistakenly) believe in, but I'm not sure how best to impartially convey that in the opening sentence. Open to other suggestions. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

How can you justify your assertion that people "mistakenly" believe in "Reverse Racism"? Clearly, the phenomenon exists (If by "Reverse Racism" you mean "black on white racism"...personally, I prefer to describe this simply as "racism"), and the fact that a "significant" number of people believe that it exists tends to imply that they have personal experience of it. I suggest that there is no need to "convey the idea that reverse racism is a myth", because it isn't. I think a quick read-through of some of Wikipedia's articles on "Black Supremacy" should be enough to be convincing. Colonel Muriel Clean (talk) 11:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * "A significant number of people" also believe in Bigfoot and the flat Earth. When something is a mistaken belief, we say so, going by what published sources say, not personal experience. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Change title or broaden category
Reverse racism is solely defined as a black vs white issue. If the page on racism includes examples of racism against all races, the page on reverse racism should state that

Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is the belief that social and economic gains by one racial group cause disadvantages for a different racial group.

And the go on to specific examples. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:b06b:e81:902d:8b8:1d05:15a4 (talk) 04:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The published sources used in the article clearly discuss the topic in the context of American black–white relations. Going beyond the meaning of the sources would be original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * First, there are sources that mention reserve discrimitaion in the context of races other than white. E.g. mentions Asians and whites     https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/08/the-whitening-of-asian-americans/563336/ and two others about Mexicans  https://www.xperthr.com/news/employers-should-be-careful-not-to-engage-in-reverse-discrimination/9311/    https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-12-op-2400-story.html
 * This alone is enough to expand the article. For a concrete suggestion, I recommend writing "Reverse racism has also been used in the context of a belief in discrimination against other races". Please add.
 * Second, there should be a primacy of logic over sources. If something is illogical, even if it is used illogically by several sources, it still should not make it to Wiki. If racism covers any race, reverse racism should cover race. Indeed, it a believe that logic holds that we use to articulate the idea that sources matter. Just make sure we're on the same page. I am not taking about truth here. I am talking about internal coherence and logic. I know wiki is not about the pursuit of truth.


 * To remain uninvolved, I will restrict myself to the notion of due weight, while avoiding any original research. Emphasis on high-quality sources. El_C 18:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I just gave you two other examples, now including Mexicans. Please expand the definition. Here is another source where RR is interpreted in the context of a Mexican feeling accused by whites of taking their positions. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/16/mexican-americans-immigration-el-paso-shooting-minority-racism-column/2010038001/  here is another example from a book   https://books.google.com/books?id=a9JOUVldFp4C&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=%22reverse+discrimination%22+mexican&source=bl&ots=RxTcoGdOz7&sig=ACfU3U0kLLL4ECsbwC_6j3kiJ8U3ViwA0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjC79Gb-fzpAhW9RTABHQw8Dho4ChDoATACegQICxAB#v=onepage&q=%22reverse%20discrimination%22%20mexican&f=false  here is a scientific article where in the first page this issue is interpreted as whites feeling threatened by blacks and other minorities.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/3480090?seq=1    I can keep doing this all day.


 * Please fix and expand the definition !


 * Just to make your life easier, here is a list of the six sources that I pointed so far (1) https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2018/08/the-whitening-of-asian-americans/563336/ (2) https://www.xperthr.com/news/employers-should-be-careful-not-to-engage-in-reverse-discrimination/9311/  (3)   https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1991-05-12-op-2400-story.html   (4)    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/08/16/mexican-americans-immigration-el-paso-shooting-minority-racism-column/2010038001/   (5)     https://books.google.com/books?id=a9JOUVldFp4C&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=%22reverse+discrimination%22+mexican&source=bl&ots=RxTcoGdOz7&sig=ACfU3U0kLLL4ECsbwC_6j3kiJ8U3ViwA0g&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjC79Gb-fzpAhW9RTABHQw8Dho4ChDoATACegQICxAB#v=onepage&q=%22reverse%20discrimination%22%20mexican&f=false  (6)   https://www.jstor.org/stable/3480090?seq=1


 * Sorry, I'd rather not make any further edits to the article myself at this time. Partially because it isn't clear to me what specific changes you want to make (like change x to y). El_C 19:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't mind doing the editing my self. But the article is protected, so I cannot edit. I already told you the specific text to add. I will repeat it here. Idea 1: change the intro to be more general Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is the belief that social and economic gains by one racial group cause disadvantages for a different racial group. Idea 2: Keep the intro as it is but add ``Reverse racism has also been interpreted in contexts other than an issue between black vs white people''. For either idea 1 or idea 2, you can then add the sources I gave you at the end.
 * That definition is too broad. Under that definition, banning blacks from lunch counters was reverse racism. It wasn't. O3000 (talk) 16:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup Flags Regarding Quotation
I added these because the article is very close if not right at blatantly copying from its sources. There are whole paragraphs that are direct quotes and quotation marks are nowhere to be found. You can't have an author talking without introducing them or citing them. Also the quoted material is highly cherry-picked to fit a left-leaning view. Read some of the sources' context and you will see, especially in the United States section. Katabatic03 talk 12:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The quoted material was chosen to reflect the meaning of the sources. Please list some examples that indicate otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I reread WP:CLEANUPTAG and realized this may be a heavily monitored article and talkpage comes before tagging, so my apologies there, and I thanked your revision. Anyways, what you're saying is very vague and because of that always true. I am saying that the material is not quoted properly, not that it doesn't reflect the sources. Katabatic03 talk 12:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You said the quoted material is highly cherry-picked to fit a left-leaning view. Please give examples of where you see such cherry-picking or other improper use of quotations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Normally I would, but almost all of the article is cherry-picked information. I'm not taking the bait, sorry. Katabatic03  talk 12:41, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Talk pages are for discussing how to improve the article in concrete terms, not for vague complaints or criticism. Once again, please indicate specifically how you think the article can improved. If you can't do that, I see no justification for tagging the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're right. This article's overarching problem is its lack of neutrality. Also I am under no obligation to meet your level of specificity, and I do believe I was already specific enough. And I am only trying to start a discussion, not carry it along. Katabatic03  talk 13:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * You're simply repeating yourself. You've made your opinion clear that you see a lack of neutrality. Well, I can state an opinion too: the article is well-referenced, neutral, and respects its sources. If you disagree, it's on you to communicate what you think should be changed. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Why are you so adversarial? I don't get it. Katabatic03  talk 22:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * If you have nothing further to add relating to the contents of the article, then this discussion seems like a waste of time. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Belief vs actually happening
There seems to be a discussion about whether RR actually happens or not.

In a government website, under a section called Reverse Discrimination, it lists several examples of where this actually happened

https://www.eeoc.gov/significant-eeoc-racecolor-casescovering-private-and-federal-sectors#reverse

I recommend adding this reference to the page as proof that it does happen. More importantly, from the examples listed in this link, it seems like the government considers "reverse discrimination" not just when a program that benefits race X leads to hurting of race Y, but when in general a black person discriminates against a white person.

I this also propose adding to the introduction that "the term has also been interpreted as the simply the discrimination of a white person by a black person, regardless of any programs" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:b022:10ec:8514:cbbf:1611:52a (talk) 18:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)


 * The EEOC website doesn't claim that reverse racism/discrimination "actually happened". Instead, it lists several cases where white people alleged experiencing racism/discrimination, which the EEOC was either a party to or had a hand in adjudicating. We would need an independent source commenting on any of these cases to make any interpretive/evaluative claims. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe there was a ruling on these cases. So it is not alleged as you allege. Please fix.
 * As I said, we need independent sources. The EEOC is not independent regarding its own rulings. And all but one of the cases were settled out of court, so there was no official ruling. I already to the EEOC page under "External links". Interested readers can go to the website to learn more. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, we need independent sources. The EEOC is not independent regarding its own rulings. And all but one of the cases were settled out of court, so there was no official ruling. I already to the EEOC page under "External links". Interested readers can go to the website to learn more. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Definitional consistency
I'm not sure how to resolve this tension, but the article links to a page that gives a different definition than the one implied. The concern is with these two sentences, the first found in this article in the "Overview" section:

"Such disparities in the exercise of power and authority are seen by scholars as an essential component of racism; in this view, individual beliefs and examples of favoring disadvantaged people do not constitute racism.[1][2][5]"

When one goes to the article on racism itself, the framing definition of racism is this:

"Racism is the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance and can be divided based on the superiority of one race over another.[1][2][3][4] It may also mean prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against other people because they are of a different race or ethnicity.[2][3]"

This is a case where we have clashing definitions of a key term. The first use entails prejudice + power, whereas the second only entails prejudice.

My inclination is to think that this could be repaired simply by adding the word "many" before scholars in the first sentence, or something of this kind. It's not the case that all scholars agree that the term "racism" should be used only to apply to the prejudices of the powerful (or else that other wikipedia article would likely have a much different character). So it looks to me as it if this change resolves the problem of inconsistency, while also bringing the first statement closer to a plausible description of the academic literature.71.238.125.211 (talk) 23:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The first source cited, Yee (2008), clearly states, "scholars argue that a critical component of racism is the broad exercise of authority and power..." So the existing text is faithful to the sources. Whether another Wikipedia article happens to agree doesn't really matter; Wikpedia pages are not reliable sources. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think Yee is overstating the scholarly consensus, and that this consensus is better reflected in the introduction to the page on racism.  But I take the point.  There are, however, lots of scholarly arguments that the kind of definition Yee deploys isn't ultimately supportable.  See e.g. “Only White People can be Racist”: What does Power have to with Prejudice?" Pooja Sawrikar and Ilan Katz", Cosmopolitan Civil Societies Journal, Vol.2, No.1, 2010.  Link here https://epress.lib.uts.edu.au/journals/index.php/mcs/article/view/1075.  More broadly, even in power is necessary for prejudice to meet the criteria of "racism", there's sufficient microstratification in the world to create all kinds of eddies and counterswirls.  See e.g. Randall Collins, "Situational Stratification: A Micro-Macro Theory of Inequality," Sociological Theory, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Mar., 2000)  Link here https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/223280.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Ae3c5adffab975a4666c847146012cf6d.  I think in general "most" captures the literature more effectively, if not the specific sources cited.  That said, I'm not particularly skilled at posting sources in the correct form, so I'd have trouble linking these in the correct format for an unlocked page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.174.126 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm sure "lots of scholarly arguments" could also be found stating the opposite. Ultimately it's up to published academic sources, not us, to determine any scholarly consensus. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * We agree on the standard, yes. But I don't think that the Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic Studies counts more heavily as a published academic source than does the one to which I linked.  They both have credibility in light of peer review, and both are written by scholars describing what they judge to be the appropriate connotation of the terms involved.  It seems to me that Yee is being given an unusual amount of weight here.  I'm not sure I understand the specific standard of scholarly consensus that you're using in this instance.71.238.125.211 (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * An academic encyclopedia is a tertiary source; it evaluates the arguments of primary and secondary sources (like the one you linked). When otherwise reliable sources disagree, we look to higher-level sources to evaluate the relative weight of the various arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * That makes sense in terms of weighting. The tertiary source policy isn't one I've been familiar with.  I suggested above that "many" would be the right wording, but this heavier weight suggests that perhaps the proper language is "most" scholars take this position.71.238.125.211 (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Checking in on this again. It looks like adding "most" would best capture the state of the scholarship, given the greater weight principle for handbooks and similar sources.  Is there any reason not to add that?  Perhaps there are further wikipedia principles of choice I'm not aware of, but "most" looks like the best description of the academic literature from our exchange here.71.238.125.211 (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The sources don't say "most", so that would be original research. One could argue that the phrase "seen by scholars", based on Yee (2008), is weaselish, but "seen by most scholars" would be no better in that regard. Where do any of the sources say "most"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure it's worth coming back to this, but if there's a disagreement among scholars, it seems that the best language is likely to be "many" rather than most. The article I cited above by Sawrikar and Katz notes that many scholars have held positions like that of Yee (e.g. pg. 85), and then goes on to object to that definition on these grounds: "A definition of racism that gives disproportionate weight to power over prejudice is based on a logical flaw. It begins with the equation ‘Racism = Prejudice + Power’, but uses the historic and current inequity in social power in favour of whites to replace power with this nominal racial group; that is, ‘Power = whites’. In this way, it falsely deduces from these two premises that ‘Racism = Prejudice + whites’, or in the words of Lewis (1995), that ‘only white people can be racist’."  They object to this definition of racism on several grounds, one of which is that it conceptually induces reverse racism: "The statement or belief that ‘only White people can be racist’ (Lewis 1995) is itself a negative or prejudicial stereotype. While this statement or belief does not assert that every white person is racist, it does assert that only white people have the capacity to be racist because only white people have power. This is prejudicial, because it reflects a negative generalisation about a racial group."  (Though they don't directly mention reverse racism in this quoted text, the section header right before the quotation uses the term.)  Note that they're not arguing here that reverse racism exists in practice; they're objecting to definitions like that given by Yee that make it difficult to conceptualize.  On the principle that Handbooks and so on count for more, I suggested "most" earlier, but this is perhaps not the best balance.  Nonetheless, the sentence I called attention to earlier looks like something that needs to be revised in one way or the other. I don't see this sort of synthesis of the literature as original research; we don't have a way to characterize literatures at all if statements about the distribution of positions are prohibited.2601:1C0:C701:3760:E94F:3982:D1F0:5E10 (talk) 04:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

RfC about inclusion of a section about the issue in Zimbabwe
Should the content in the Zimbabwe section (permanent link), or a modified version based on the sources provided in Talk:Reverse_racism, be included in the article? MS   会話  11:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support based on the lengthy discussion I had in Talk:Reverse_racism. MS    会話  11:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Support inclusion of content that discusses the ways the term "reverse racism" is used in a Zimbabwean context (per global POV), but Oppose text that describes "reverse racism" as if it were an accurate depiction of a real social phenomenon, anywhere - which it is not, according to the best RS. Newimpartial (talk) 14:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Procedural close as a malformed request. "Should X or a modified version of X be included" is far too vague; there are a million different ways to modify the proposed text, some of which may be worth including, and others not. The discussion above is barely 5 days old; now we're already at an RfC? I think the nominator should slow down and listen to what other users are saying in the discussion. If they want to present additional sources, that would also be helpful. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The RfC is clear, as the title reads: "inclusion of a (dedicated) section about the issue in Zimbabwe", to which you have repeatedly objected. My preferred content is the one I mentioned (permanent link), under Zimbabwe subsection. You could suggest any modifications here. Nearly 20 Sources have already been provided in that section and 20 other in the talk page (and already deemed to have "added clutter to the talk page" by you and termed "a lengthy conversation" by another user). Please note that RfCs are a way to attract more attention to a discussion about making changes to pages. MS    会話  18:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if there were any sources that actually described reverse racism qua reverse racism, instead of using the term in passing to refer to something else, that would be helpful. Those are the kind of sources I mean. As for attracting more attention, it looks like you're just trying to WP:FORUMSHOP because you didn't like the feedback you received. Once again, I suggest you slow down and make an effort to understand other users' concerns. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. The newer cites seem to use the term reverse racism metaphorically. That doesn’t even qualify for a “See also” mention. I also agree that the RfC should be procedurally closed as a false dichotomy. O3000 (talk) 00:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sangdeboeuf, It seems that you are seriously mistaken about some very basic WP policies. What I said about drawing attention is an exact quote extracted from WP:RfC. Actually the second sentence in that page. O3000, You are constantly changing your arguments; I previously answered you in detail in Talk:Reverse_racism. Both of you are free to make any claims, but I see continuing this argument with you a mere waste of time. I said and did whatever necessary for the benefit of the encyclopedia. MS    会話  04:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
 * See WP:RFCBEFORE: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others". There has not even been a week of discussion on this very sensitive topic. You did not even try to justify the sources used in your proposed addition, instead citing "common sense". Hence this RfC is premature and should be closed promptly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Premature/Oppose as written - In addition to the vagueness issues raised above, most of this is WP:SYNTH, since few of the cited sources in the permanent link discussion "reverse racism". If some sources directly discuss "reverse racism" in Zimbabwe or elsewhere, a neutral and proportionate summary of just those sources could be considered. Grayfell (talk) 21:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly willing to accept that some sources I have used in the link do not blatantly mention that something called "reverse racism" is happening in Zimbabwe by using this exact phrase. However, I reject any synthesis of material in favor of any new conclusion, since the land reform in Zimbabwe since the 1980s is regarded as the root of the reverse racism, as mentioned by the several sources I have provided in Talk:Reverse_racism. The issue is that the material I added obviously needs some refinement but is neither out of the scope of this article, nor a trivial use of the term, nor fit for a Wiktionary entry, nor suitable to be combined with the South Africa section (Because of the notability of the issue in Zimbabwe, as reflected in many sources, and the very fact that Zimbabwe is not South Africa), as suggested by Sangdeboeuf. MS    会話  12:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * RFCs are intended to invite new perspectives from outside editors. Therefore, they should work as a stand-alone summary of the issue. Responding to comments from a lengthy previous discussion will only cause confusions and drive-away editors. This approach is far more likely to derail the process and lead to 'no consensus' than it is to change anyone's mind. For the record, I stand by my assessment that the proposed content is synth. Summarize what sources actually say, not what you believe they imply. Grayfell (talk) 20:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that the content provided in the link does not appropriately include several important pieces of information (and relevant sources; e.g. those pointed out in the talk page) and therefore requires some serious refinement. I still think that the content is not synth, but simply not well-sourced. I apologize for your time wasted here, but promise to put my mind and improve this article in near future. This includes both adding content regarding the issue in Zimbabwe and also improving the crystal clear non-neutrality of the US section. For now, I withdraw the RfC. Thanks, especially and . Always open to logical arguments,  MS    会話  16:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)