Talk:Reverse racism

White & Black

The text "White" & "Black" in this article should be capitalized, as these words refer to their respective racial group.

MOS:RACECAPS

AppGoo0011 (talk) 15:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree, and that's not what MOS:RACECAPS says: Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white). If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I would favor a change to capitalized Black and White. Since so much of the RS coverage of this topic is focused on the US, and since US style guides predominantly recommend capitalization, I think following suit would be helpful to readers. Since this topic covers not just Black and White racial groups—also including Indian, Hispanic, etc.—capitalization is recommended by the part of RACECAPS that says "The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The changes made included one or more changes to quotes where capitalization did not exist in the quoted material. Also, cites to Wikipedia articles where caps weren't used. Plus the term "whiteness" which I haven't seen capped before. Clearly a mass find/replace won't work. As there are so many uses of the words in this article, and either is acceptable; seems the status quo makes more sense. As Writ said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Of course I object to changes to quotes, reference titles, etc. Wikipedia article titles could definitely be changed. I agree mass find/replace is not the way to go. I think the status quo is a little bit broke, and I'd like to fix it. Would you say you're neutral on which style we use, or are there reasons (besides bias toward status quo, which I share) that you would prefer lowercase? Our experiences with the word "Whiteness" also differ; there are quite a few recent reliable sources that capitalize "Whiteness" available at Google Scholar. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking around, there are articles that capitalize and those that don't. Like there are articles using British spelling and those that use American spelling. What's important is that there is consistency within an article. American blacks are quite likely to have mixed DNA starting with the rape of African slaves by white slave traders and owners. Then again, West Africans invaded what is now Spain and Italy in the 7th and 8th centuries mixing peoples. And race mixing is becoming and will continue to become more common making the terms less and less meaningful -- except when pointing out racism. This article is a bit unusual in that it is titled "Reverse racism", which is itself a racist term. So it's not really that much about race. My personal preference is no caps to avoid emphasizing a term of difference that over time is losing whatever meaning it may have once had. We are pretty much mutts nowadays. Racists want to keep alive a concept of difference. (I'll stop now before I get into Neanderthals moving from Africa to Europe 600,000 years ago.) O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't buy OP's rationale for capitalizing "Black" & "White" here, but I'm not really buying this rationale for opposing it either. It's not up to us to decide whether a particular typographic style is valid in an abstract or philosophical sense; that seems too much like editorializing. Instead we should follow reputable style guides. Since many US style guides now favor capitalizing "Black" & "White", I'm in favor of this change for this article per MOS:TIES. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking through the the article sources, looks like they generally use non-caps outside of titles. The NYTimes has two cites, both of which use non-caps.[1][2] I think same with quotes. Same with Vox, The Atlantic, WaPo, and The Baltimore Sun. All non-caps. Didn't look at the books. Too much work. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Those aren't style guides though. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The papers use style guides. I believe NYT has its own guide. And, these are the sources for this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

If the sources pre-date the switch to "Black" & "White", naturally they will use a different style. For what it's worth, the NYT now says "our policy will now capitalize 'Black' but not 'white.'" —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, and other sources capitalize both. AppGoo0011 (talk) 02:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

So what is the community policy for capitalizations? Aldengro (talk) 08:20, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

There isn't a policy, but a rough consensus seems to exist here for mixed case ("Black", "white"). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

What about reviewing it and capitalizing both or neither of them? Aldengro (talk) 09:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Interesting article covering this on the CJR. "At CJR, we capitalize 'Black,' but not 'white,' when referring to racial groups."[3] which is the way I've done this here for years. It also discusses other styles. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

The trend appears to be capitalize Black only:

• The AP guide: “AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses. This decision follows our move last month to capitalize Black in such uses. We consulted with a wide group of people internally and externally around the globe and considered a variety of commentary in making these decisions.”[4]
• WSJ guide: “Why is Black uppercase and white lowercase?”[5]
• NYTimes: “Then there are those troubled that our policy will now capitalize ‘Black’ but not ‘white.’ Over all, the view was that there was a growing agreement in the country to capitalize and that The Times should not be a holdout.”[6] O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that this is a trend (within the past four years). Since the MOS is not so hot on mixed capitalization of ethnoracial color labels, I'd prefer to just capitalize them all. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm. So Sangdeboeuf points out MOS:TIES says we should use US style guides and you're saying we should follow MOS, which is now the "holdout" not following style guides. If we're not going to follow the trend of US style guides, and we don't want mixed cases; status quo is the easiest rather than changing many instances in multiple articles. Or, we can take the discussion to MOS. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think US style is firmly to only capitalize "Black", just that there's a trend of some sources doing so. I wouldn't describe the MOS as a holdout, and it is aligned pretty well with global style guides. I agree that the status quo is easier, I just don't think it's the optimal choice for this article. It's trivially true that I am seeking change at multiple articles, but it's just two, and the amount of work involved is minimal. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

MOSTIES says we should use the style of the country related to the article This article is heavily weighted toward the US where this is a hot issue even going to the USSC, which is why I looked at the US journalism style guides as opposed to global. I got the list from here I didn't bother with The BuzzFeed Style Guide, although it also agrees. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

The big two American style guides are AP and Chicago, and we tend to follow Chicago, since we're more of an academic publication than a journalistic one. Chicago is a bit "between editions" on this, but their online guidance says to prefer capital Black and that similar terms, including White, "may also be capitalized when used in this sense". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes, CMOS say capitalize Black and you "may" capitalize white. Whereas the AP and the journalism guides say don't capitalize white. As the WSJ states: "The adjective white doesn’t define a cohesive ethno-cultural group in the way Black does, and therefore will remain lowercase in the Journal." O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, we have a MOS that recommends consistent capitalization, one major American style guide that permits it, one that recommends mixed use, and then many individual American organization style guides that differ on their recommendation for "White" but generally recommend "Black". We are not particularly influenced by individual org guidelines, but they're informative of trends. I could cite some that recommend capitalizing both (like the NIH), but I think it's fair to say that there's a mix in American usage between all-caps or just capital "Black". One of those options is currently endorsed by the MOS. I think we should switch to that one. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As you say, within the past four years has changed. When did MOS last look at this? O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

More recently than that. Definitely within the past three years. I can dig up some discussions for you soon. I do think we're ripe for a US-specific discussion, which I recall being recommended by one of the last closes. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

For the record I agree on capitalizing White if Black will be also capitalized. Aldengro (talk) 09:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

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

I don't disagree with that at all, I just don't find "Black/white" to be worth fighting for here. If we have enough consensus here for it, add me to that please. If not, I hope you might agree that "Black/White" is preferable to "black/white". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Indeed. Capitalizing both is clearly the most correct and unbiased way to proceed. AppGoo0011 (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Whites are actively demonized for forming racially exclusive groups, Blacks are not. AppGoo0011 (talk) 23:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

You might want to strike that edit. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

No, he shouldn´t strike that. From the previous comments on only Whites not having legitimate reasons to form groups on racial identity and on only Whites (again) not being capitalized as people in Wikipedia articles when every other racial group is capitalized could suggest or be interpreted by users and readers as animosity, hostility, defamation, persecution and attempts of oppression towards Whites. Aldengro (talk) 08:58, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

White is a designation similar to Hispanic, Black and other groups you mentioned as well. I also agree with capitalizing both to be the most correct and unbiased way to proceed. Aldengro (talk) 08:39, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

White people forming groups based partly on shared heritage is not an attack on anybody either. White people as any other people in the world have legitimate reasons to form groups based on their racial identification. Their reasons might be different than the ones Blacks have but different doesn´t mean illegitimate. Aldengro (talk) 08:47, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Here's what I've seen:

1. RfC ending December 2020 – This was the big one, and the close has roughly determined the guideline ever since
2. Discussion in early 2021 workshopped language to implement the RfC close
3. April 2021 diff of workshopped language added to MOS:CAPS; the language said that the RfC "concluded firmly against mixing styles as "Black but white"
4. April 2021 and May 2021 edits to CAPS change that "concluded firmly" and similar language to emphasize the lack of consensus on mixing styles
5. Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_33#RFC:_representation_of_consensus_in_current_guideline An RfC ending in June 2021 confirms the lack of consensus on mixing styles. (This was a subheading of the discussion in #2)
6. A flurry of edits in November 2021 (which includes me) results in the removal of the line "there is no consensus against what is sometimes perceived as inconsistency in the same article"
7. A series of edits in January 2022 restores similar language: "There is no consensus either for or against using mixed case (Black and white)".

That's it for now. There's more to the story, but I have to step away for a while. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I hesitated to add the quote from Emerson as it sounds insulting and I don't mean it that way as I also understand the need for consistency: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...." The words I omitted are yet more insulting. The point is that accuracy is more important than seeming consistency of capitalization. Black and white have different kinds of meaning in this article.

The word Black in the US (the focus of this article) refers to a people that have endured centuries of difficulties at the hands of non-Blacks who came and come from a variety of backgrounds. Whites are not really a racial group as per our own article: White (often still referred to as Caucasian) is a racialized classification of people generally used for those of mostly European ancestry. It is also a skin color specifier, although the definition can vary depending on context, nationality, ethnicity, point of view, appearance, etc.[7] I realize WP is not RS, but it is based on RS. Black does have a definition. White, in the context of this article, consist of aggrieved bigots of many backgrounds. The only reason we use the word white here is their self-identification, not an actual ethnic grouping. I apologize for rambling. O3000, Ret. (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I get your point, and I don't mind a little Emerson. You had earlier expressed a preference for lowercase, and it seems like you're now advocating for mixed case. I'm fine with that, and I think Sangdeboeuf and NightHeron are as well. Writ Keeper has supported lowercase, though it's not clear if that's just because it's the status quo. AppGoo seems to just support all caps. Maybe we have enough rough consensus for a change soon to mixed case? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with mixed-case (uppercase "B" for "black" & lowercase "w" for "white") as well, as this seems to be the style preferred by most US style guides. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Mixed makes no sense. They're both racial groups. Having a mix implies bias. AppGoo0011 (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm fine with mixed-case. There's a reason style guides are moving in that direction. O3000, Ret. (talk) 19:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Just confirming that I support having a mixed-case policy. NightHeron (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Definitely fine with mixed-case. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Done. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify, is it Wikipedia consensus that white people "have no legitimate reason to form groups based on their racial identification"? And this is the justification for mixed-case? Stonkaments (talk) 23:16, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

Seems there is that consensus from a group of users editing this article. I don´t support that policy for the record. I see It is a violation of the Neutral Point of View. Aldengro (talk) 09:11, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

AppGoo was indefinitely blocked for racist posts. Doug Weller talk 09:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I did not see the posts. I did read that an user posted that Blacks have legitimate reasons to form groups on racial identity and Whites do not. I suggest we have to be more careful with those kind of comments because they can suggest Anti-White Racism. Aldengro (talk) 09:49, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Whites created all white schools because they were racist. Blacks created Black schools because they were not allowed into white schools. Big difference. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Not an argument, that is an anecdotal incident within a part of the United States. Whites also experienced slavery from Romans and Middle-Easterners. All races have comitted slavery, genocide and many other horrible crimes but all of them have also had their positive contributions. All people had made morally questionable actions throughout history and still all people including Whites have their legitimate reasons and the right and freedom to form groups on what they define is their shared identity. These kind of comments might suggest Anti-White-Racism from editors and affect our Neutral Point of View Policy apart from being interpreted by other users and readers as openly racist, bigotted, intolerant of White people. Aldengro (talk) 11:28, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

This article is not about all horrible crimes or morally questionable actions. The article is about the current use of the term "reverse racism". As for the justification for mixed-case, that was discussed at length, is where style guides have been moving. and is consensus. O3000, Ret. (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Good. But you said there was a ´big difference´ as a justification. I was explaining there isn´t. So maybe you want to strike your previous comment. You also called White people racist because they built all-White schools, people used to built segregated schools for a wide variety of reasons, including racism but it was not the only one. If you ignore this, you should read more. If you do not ignore this, you have to be more responsible with your comments about Whites. All groups of people, including Whites need to be address responsibly with tolerance and consideration. Aldengro (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I understand and respect that it is consensus of this group of editors that only Whites need get that treatment. However, consensus are not set in stone. They can be challenged. Aldengro (talk) 12:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

One contribution of White people for example is the Internet that we are all using to exchange information. By Hedy Lamarr, a White woman that was also of Austrian origin and Jewish of religion. And if we are going to get more educated on the issue. Well, we have the telephone, telegraph, glasses, basketball as other inventions of Whites. You also mentioned the Black experience as a ´big difference´ from the White one. But you did not mentioned that it was Blacks in Africa selling other Blacks to Arabs, Europeans and many Asian tribes into slavery. So the difference does not seem to be as ´big´ as you stated. Aldengro (talk) 11:44, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

24 August 2024

Thread retitled from "Logical Fallacies".

Appeal to Authority

The article frequently cites scholars and sociologists to bolster its claims regarding reverse racism. However, this reliance on authority figures can be problematic if their arguments are not critically examined. By presenting these authorities as definitive sources of truth, the article risks creating an illusion of consensus without engaging with the complexities of the topic. It is essential to scrutinize the qualifications of these authorities, the context of their statements, and whether their conclusions are based on robust evidence. Additionally, the article neglects to consider alternative viewpoints or dissenting opinions from other experts in the field, which could provide a more nuanced understanding of the issue.

Cherry-Picking

The article demonstrates a selective use of evidence, particularly in its treatment of empirical studies related to reverse racism. While it emphasizes the scarcity of empirical evidence supporting the existence of reverse racism, it downplays or outright ignores studies and data that may present a different perspective. This cherry-picking of evidence creates a biased narrative that fails to acknowledge the complexity of the issue. By not addressing counterarguments or alternative research findings, the article presents an incomplete picture that may mislead readers about the broader discourse surrounding racism.

Echo Chamber

The article operates within an echo chamber, assuming that readers will accept the premise that reverse racism is a myth without question. This assumption of acceptance limits the scope of the discussion and fails to engage with the opposing perspective. By not providing a balanced view that includes arguments for the existence of reverse racism, the article alienates readers who may hold differing opinions. A more effective approach would involve acknowledging and addressing these opposing viewpoints, fostering a more inclusive and comprehensive dialogue on the subject.

Oversimplification

The article presents a simplistic view of racism by suggesting that only systemic and institutional forms of racism are relevant, thereby dismissing individual experiences of discrimination. This oversimplification ignores the multifaceted nature of racism, which can manifest in various forms, including interpersonal and cultural dimensions. By reducing racism to a binary framework, the article fails to capture the lived experiences of individuals who may face discrimination based on their race, regardless of the systemic context. A more nuanced exploration of racism would recognize the interplay between systemic issues and individual experiences, allowing for a richer understanding of the topic.

Unfounded Arguments

While the article asserts that there is little empirical evidence supporting the concept of reverse racism, it does not provide substantial data or studies to comprehensively support this claim. This lack of empirical support undermines the article's credibility and raises questions about the validity of its conclusions. To strengthen its arguments, the article should engage with existing research, present relevant data, and critically analyze the findings of studies that address reverse racism. Without this empirical foundation, the article risks making unfounded assertions that may mislead readers and contribute to a skewed understanding of the issue.

Conclusion

In summary, the article's reliance on logical fallacies such as appeal to authority, cherry-picking, echo chamber effects, oversimplification, and unfounded arguments detracts from its overall effectiveness. A more balanced and critical examination of the topic would enhance the discourse surrounding reverse racism, allowing for a deeper understanding of the complexities involved. Engaging with diverse perspectives and empirical evidence is crucial for fostering a more informed and nuanced conversation about racism in all its forms. ChonokisFigueroa (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

‹The template Fake citation needed is being considered for merging.›  Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

As I've said many times, Wikipedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not armchair philosophizing. What you call dissenting opinions from other experts in the field is also known as false balance. We don't rely on individual authority figures, but rather sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. If you have a problem with that then you have a problem with Wikipedia's core content policies that is not going to be resolved on this talk page. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)

these sources are basically just ideologically motivated fringe academic op-eds they don’t belong in an encyclopedia there is not a single reliable source in the whole article. But because you are one of wikipedia’s most infamously fanatical povwarriors you will do everything in your power to defend the dismally anti-encyclopedic state of this article. 217.180.219.133 (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

The main sources are textbooks, monographs, and academic encyclopedias from mainstream academic publishers such as Palgrave Macmillan, Routledge, and SAGE Publications. There's nothing "fringe" about them, and it's going to take a lot more than one anonymous commenter's opinion to demonstrate otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

There's nothing to respond to here as there are no sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:34, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Mayrl & Saperstein (2013)

Mayrl & Saperstein (2013) is a primary research study whose findings should not be relied on for significant claims per WP:PSTS. Their assertion that whites who claim to have experienced racial discrimination don't fit "the singular profile of disgruntled whites common in public discourse" is vague; what "singular profile of disgruntled whites" is that exactly? This statement basically implies that white people who claim reverse discrimination are not all "disgruntled", which is subjective and WP:UNDUE unless it can be attributed to a more authoritative source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:00, 17 September 2024 (UTC) edited 22:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

See the preceding sentence in the article: "Ansell associates the idea of reverse racism with that of the 'angry white male'". This is the "singular profile of disgruntled whites" that Mayrl and Sperstein are referring to. Ansell's claim that reverse racism is associated with "the angry white male" is equally subjective--it violates WP:NPOV to include Ansell's claim but not Mayrl and Sperstein's counterargument. Stonkaments (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Ansell (2013) is a secondary source from a major academic publisher. The author's opinion is properly attributed and entirely WP:DUE.

Do Mayrl & Saperstein specifically reference Ansell's "angry white male" comment? If not, conflating the two would be improper synthesis.

NPOV doesn't mean we need to include a counter-argument to every reliably sourced opinion; that would be an example of false balance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:34, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Both statements are equally relevant, well-sourced, and properly attributed. Mayrl and Saperstein's statement stands on its own; there is no improper synthesis. I was just helping you understand the relation to the "angry white men" association. Stonkaments (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

They are not equally well sourced, as I already stated. Ansell is a secondary source, while Mayrl & Saperstein's study is a primary source. Implying any relation between the two is WP:SYNTH unless stated in a source. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action

Does the 2023 Supreme Court decision regarding affirmative action in university admissions deserve mention in the History section of this article? The article discusses affirmative action extensively as one of the main examples of alleged reverse racism in US society, so the Supreme Court decision certainly seems relevant and noteworthy. But @Sangdeboeuf: claims it's not relevant. Can you explain why? Stonkaments (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

This has been discussed previously, if you'd like to check the archived thread. In a nutshell: you need a reliable source that discusses the Supreme Court case specifically in the context of reverse racism for it to be relevant to this article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. As you can see here, numerous reliable sources have discussed the Supreme Court case in the context of reverse racism:

• https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/column-even-some-justices-are-raising-questions-about-us-supreme-courts-2023-07-10/ ("They added that the court is essentially engaged in white grievance politics and embracing the “myth” of reverse racism...")
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/12/27/dei-affirmative-action-legal-challenges-corporate-america/ ("the Supreme Court decision in June gave momentum to opponents of corporate DEI efforts...the resistance facing corporate programs today is a 'step-for-step echo of the reverse racism and anti-affirmative-action attacks that were very successful back in the ’60s and ’70s.')
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/08/29/morgan-stanley-reverse-discrimination-lawsuit-dei-goals-affirmative-action/ ("The case is the latest in a flurry of legal actions...in the wake of the Supreme Court decision in June striking down affirmative action in college admissions. Experts have been anticipating a rise in cases such as Meyersburg’s, which allege reverse discrimination, as some litigants are eager to translate the court’s race-blind stance to the workplace. Even before the recent ruling on affirmative action, reverse-discrimination claims appeared to be on the upswing...")
• https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/30/business/dealbook/corporate-diversity-affirmative-action.html ("...Thursday’s ruling opens the door for employees — and conservative activists — to bring legal challenges to those policies. Though the number of so-called reverse discrimination claims filed with federal regulators dropped between 2011 and 2021, it has begun to rise more recently...")
• https://www.american.edu/cas/news/the-upcoming-supreme-court-ruling-on-affirmative-action-why-it-matters.cfm ("Both strategies have effectively depicted race-conscious admissions as archaic and discriminatory...and Asian American and white students as victims of so-called ‘reverse racism.’ All three of these strategies—litigation, ballot initiatives, and popular messaging—have culminated in the two cases currently under deliberation by the Supreme Court.")
• https://www.forbes.com/sites/janicegassam/2023/06/29/4-ways-the-supreme-courts-affirmative-action-decision-could-impact-workplace-dei/ ("...the court ruling 6-3 that race-based admissions policies are unconstitutional. Despite mounting evidence that indicates that affirmative action programs have actually served to increase racial diversity within higher education, critics have claimed affirmative action programs somehow disadvantage white applicants, causing 'reverse racism.'")
• https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/23/economy/lawsuit-law-firms-diversity-fellowships/index.html
• https://ed.stanford.edu/news/after-supreme-court-rulings-what-s-next-affirmative-action
• https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/what-to-know-about-a-conservative-lawsuit-against-reparations-in-evanston-illinois

Stonkaments (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for providing those sources. Just to note that the Forbes article is written by a "senior contributor", meaning it is essentially self-published with minimal editorial oversight, so generally unreliable as a source for factual claims. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

True but some of the other secondary sources cited above by Stonkaments are unassailable. A WP:BALANCED presentation of these sources is evidently due, either here or at the article Reverse discrimination (I'm agnostic as to which, or whether it should appear in both articles). That balance would include e.g. the perspective of critics quoted in the Reuters source that the court is engaging in "white grievance" politics, but the topic itself is clearly germane. Generalrelative (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the dissenting Justices didn't actually use the phrases "white grievance politics" or "the 'myth' of reverse racism", so including those as a direct quote attributed to the Justices seems misleading and undue. Can we find a better way to paraphrase the dissenting opinion? Here are links to Sotomayor's official dissent (starts on page 140) and Ketanji Brown Jackson's . Sotomayor's dissent includes this line: "The Court’s suggestion that an already advantaged racial group is 'disadvantaged' because of a limited use of race is a myth." That's the only mention of "myth" in the dissent; note that it's used in a more narrow context than calling reverse racism altogether a myth. And I can't find any mention of "white grievance politics" or similar. Stonkaments (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

This is WP:SECONDARY commentary from a highly reliable news source. Per policy, this is precisely who we trust to interpret the meaning of the dissenting opinion. Generalrelative (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

You selectively chose to include the secondary source with the most inflammatory rhetoric, and phrased it in such a confusing way that it creates the false impression that the judges made these inflammatory comments themselves. Furthermore, this is an opinion piece, as noted by the disclaimer: "The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters." Quoting this opinion piece with such inflammatory comments, and attributing it to Reuters no less, is patently inappropriate. Stonkaments (talk) 16:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Sigh. It's literally item #1 in your list of "numerous reliable sources". I cannot even begin to imagine how you think it's appropriate to characterize what I "selectively chose to include" when I stated my rationale in my comment of above (23:16, 17 September) while attempting to find common ground with you. Apparently that was a fool's errand. Generalrelative (talk) 16:53, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Apparently I was also wrong in my comment above when I stated that some of Stonkaments' sources are "unassailable." Seems I was too quick to extend the benefit of the doubt. After examining the sources used in the article (i.e. the one Stonkaments initially described as reliable but now decries as an inflammatory opinion piece) I see that none of the non-opinion news sources cited above explicitly tie the court case to "reverse racism". Ironically, the Reuters opinion piece really is Stonkamets' best source of the bunch. And we cannot have it both ways. So pending some better sources or a new consensus to include a due presentation of what the best source says, I'll go ahead and remove all the disputed content for now. Generalrelative (talk) 17:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, the Reuters opinion piece is reliable insomuch as it supports the fact that the Supreme Court decision is noteworthy and relevant to the issue of reverse racism, but not for specific inflammatory rhetoric and allegations. This shouldn't be hard to understand. And in what world are the Washington Post and New York Times not reliable sources? I posted three separate articles from those two publications that directly discuss how the 2023 Supreme Court case has led to an increase in reverse racism lawsuits. That is, your claim that "the unambiguously reliable sources do not explicitly connect the court case to 'reverse racism'" is incontrovertibly false. This case is clearly due for inclusion, and I'm thoroughly confused as to why you're fighting it so hard. Stonkaments (talk) 03:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The term "reverse racism lawsuit" means a lawsuit where reverse racism is alleged and does not imply that it occurred. Of course, the right wing espouses a White grievance viewpoint that classifies efforts to help racial minorities achieve real equity (rather than only formal equality) as "reverse racism". But that doesn't mean that the term is ever appropriate to use in wikivoice. NightHeron (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

In spite of your attempts to redefine racism to categorically exclude anti-White discrimination, plenty of reliable sources in fact use the term reverse racism without scare quotes, and it is therefore entirely appropriate to use in wikivoice. Stonkaments (talk) 17:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What's relevant is not whether or not the sources use scare quotes, but rather what the context is for their use of the term. The context here is that they're talking about the allegations that certain individuals or organizations make. Wikipedia does not treat allegations the same way as facts; they are not stated in wikivoice. NightHeron (talk) 19:38, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

References

Empirical support, belief among white people

Thread retitled from ""While not empirically supported, belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States, primarily among white people."".

This sentence is problematic for two separate reasons:

1) As noted earlier in the article, Ansell states "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." The fact that little empirical research has been done on the subject is an important qualifier, and should be noted when claiming that reverse racism isn't empirically supported. In fact, many studies on racial discrimination exclude white subjects altogether, focusing solely on minorities.

2) The claim that belief in reverse racism is widespread "primarily among white people" is false. A 2016 Pew Research survey shows that 57% of whites, 38% of Hispanics, and 29% of blacks agree that "discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities", [8]https://www.vox.com/2016/6/29/12045772/reverse-racism-affirmative-action [9]https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2016/06/27/on-views-of-race-and-inequality-blacks-and-whites-are-worlds-apart/ therefore it's more accurate to say that belief in reverse racism is widespread across all races, and particularly among white people. Stonkaments (talk) 20:07, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't get it. The evidence you provide fully supports the existing text on both points: "not empirically supported" and "primarily among white people". What am I missing here? Generalrelative (talk) 20:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Which sources discuss empirical support in the context of public opinions regarding reverse racism? Lacking any such sources, the discussion of empirical support in the “public opinion” section appears to be inappropriate SYNTH. Stonkaments (talk) 15:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

What original claim do you think is being made here that is not present in the cited sources? Generalrelative (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Ansell is not the only source for the not empirically supported claim. The article also cites:

• Garner (2017): There is no evidence that [reverse racism] is a social fact, or that a pattern of disadvantageous outcomes for white people qua white people exists.
• Spanierman & Cabrera (2014): While there is no empirical basis for white people experiencing 'reverse racism', this view is held by a large number of Americans.
• Bax (2018): Many Americans—including some people of color—staunchly believe in the existence of reverse racism, or racism against whites. The evidence to support this perception of 'whiteness as disadvantage' is highly suspect.
• Roussell, Henne, Glover, & Willits (2019): Claims of reverse racism are often deployed to undermine efforts toward racial equity, particularly affirmative action measures, but evidence for these claims has been rigorously debunked

—Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Do Vox or Pew Research explicitly say belief in reverse racism is widespread across all races? If not, this looks like a novel evaluation or interpretation of the data. Personally, I wouldn't say a belief held by 29% of a given racial group is "widespread" among that group. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

you shouldn’t use fringe sources 217.180.219.133 (talk) 02:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

The sentence may be contentious because it tries to do 2 different things. Perhaps splitting it would already help that would also allow to bring in some nuance on who believes. E.g. There is no empirical supported for reversed racism (REF). Nevertheless, belief in reverse racism is widespread across all population groups in the United States, with a majority of white people believing in it (REF). Arnoutf (talk) 08:55, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Once again, which source explicitly says belief in reverse racism is widespread across all population groups? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

Two of the sources you cited say: "this view is held by a large number of Americans" and "Many Americans—including some people of color—staunchly believe in the existence of reverse racism", without any sort of qualifier that the view is held "primarily among white people". Therefore it's undue weight for the article to include this. Stonkaments (talk) 16:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

100% of reliable sources do not need to say something for it to be WP:DUE. However, I specifically used these sources to support the statement that belief in reverse racism is not empirically supported. Other sources exist for the belief being held primarily by white people, such as Roussell, Henne, Glover, & Willits (2019): This idea is primarily supported by Whites who perceive gains in racial equity as losses in White status.

Bax (2018) also discusses belief in reverse racism in the context of a Mainstream white society [which is] permeated with vague notions of white disadvantage, and Spanierman & Cabrera (2014) go on to describe belief in reverse racism as a manifestation of white rage in a society that now frowns upon overt expressions of racial superiority and hatred. So when these sources say things like "a large number of Americans" or "many Americans", we can probably infer that they're talking about white people. It helps to look at the context of these statements, not just isolated quotations. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:20, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't agree with that interpretation. Stonkaments (talk) 03:47, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Unless you can offer specific reasons for your disagreement based on sources, policy, and/or common sense, this discussion seems to have reached an end. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

No actually, it's ridiculous. When I cited research showing that a significant minority of Hispanics and blacks agree that reverse racism is a problem, you claim it's original research to say that belief is widespread across all races. And when I cited Mayrl and Saperstein's claim about "the singular profile of disgruntled whites" being inaccurate, which common sense says is obviously referring to the stereotype of the "angry white male", you call that inappropriate synth. But when you read between the lines to infer that "a large number of Americans" and "many Americans" were surely only referring to White people, you argue with a straight face that's a reasonable and straightforward interpretation given the context? The double standard is absurd. Stonkaments (talk) 18:42, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say only referring to white people. Fortunately, we already have a source (Roussell, Henne, Glover, & Willits 2019) explicitly saying that believe in reverse racism is primarily supported by Whites, as I already noted above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Additional sources are Bonilla-Silva (2010): the anti-affirmative action and 'reverse racism' mentality [...] that took a firm hold of whites' racial imagination since the 1980s; and Ansell (2013), who says the impact of reverse racism discourse is felt most notably in the form of the 'angry white male' factor in US electoral politics. There's also a big difference between inferring the context of a given statement based on related text within the same paragraph in the case of Spanierman & Cabrera (2014) and combining entirely different sources that don't even mention one another. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Empirical support for reverse racism, from Discrimination in Recruitment: An Empirical Analysis (1978): "Since the nonequivalent resumes favored the white applicant, we expected the responses generally to favor that applicant. However, as Table 2 indicates, in 14 companies out of 50 (28 percent) in the nonequivalent group the black applicant received more favorable treatment. Even by the most conservative definition these cases would be classified as reverse discrimination." Stonkaments (talk) 19:39, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

The talk page for reverse discrimination is thataway. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Can you help me understand the difference as you see it? It's my understanding that reverse racism is simply reverse discrimination against the racial majority, and the literature seems to align with this, using the two terms interchangeably in this context. The lead of the article itself says that reverse racism can also be referred to as reverse discrimination. Why do we even have two separate articles? Stonkaments (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverse racism is sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination (Yee 2008). However, you are using a 45-year-old research study (i.e., a primary source) to argue against more recent, high-quality scholarly sources. That's the epitome of WP:UNDUE. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

To quote the racism article: Garner summarizes different existing definitions of racism and identifies three common elements contained in those definitions of racism. First, a historical, hierarchical power relationship between groups; second, a set of ideas (an ideology) about racial differences; and, third, discriminatory actions (practices). Racism is a system, of which discrimination is just a part, and the reason that reverse racism doesn't exist is because white people aren't systemically disadvantaged overall by things like affirmative action. By a literal definition, affirmative action is discrimination, but that discrimination doesn't outweigh the centuries of white supremacy that has been baked into the society of places like the US. That's why that whole second paragraph of this article's lede is there; while you will be able to find isolated instances and policies that might discriminate against or disadvantage a white person at a micro level, that doesn't add up to a systemic disadvantage to white people at a macro level. Or, as the lede puts it: Racial and ethnic minorities generally lack the power to damage the interests of whites, who remain the dominant group in the U.S. Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which most scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 21:18, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

So by that definition it's impossible for reverse racism to ever exist? Then we should say that, instead of saying there's a lack of empirical support. Because of course there's no empirical support for something that you've defined in such a way that it's impossible. Stonkaments (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

First of all, that's not my definition; that's how the sources define it. Feel free to check the sources cited in the article to confirm this; I chose source 8 at random for this exercise, but I doubt the others say differently. Second of all, it's not at all theoretically impossible for white people to be systemically oppressed; it's just not a thing that actually exists, as white people have historically been and are presently still the ones doing the systemic oppression. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page for racism defines it as "discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or ethnicity." So unless the Wikipedia page for racism is wrong, it's safe to say this is the standard definition, not your Marxist definition that hinges on some sort of perceived "systemic oppression".

And under the revisionist Marxist definition, how could a group be systemically disadvantaged at the same time they are supposedly systemic oppressors? It's logically impossible. Stonkaments (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think Writ is defining racism as Prejudice plus power, which has been the prevailing definition in american progressive circles over the past decade or so. Whether this definition is right or not is another debate entirely, but in this case your question about "how could a group be systemically disadvantaged at the same time they are supposedly systemic oppressors?" is already answered by Writ's earlier argument that "while you will be able to find isolated instances and policies that might discriminate against or disadvantage a white person at a micro level, that doesn't add up to a systemic disadvantage to white people at a macro level". Harryhenry1 (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

To remove the inconsistency with the Racism page, the introductory paragraph there could be edited so that it clarifies the distinction between a common popular use of the term to refer to any discrimination and prejudice and the standard usage among scholars of the subject, who define it more narrowly as directed against groups that have historically been victimized by systemic oppression. NightHeron (talk) 11:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

So you agree that this definition categorically excludes the possibility that Whites could face racism? Does it make sense for the article to discuss empirical support for something that isn't even theoretically possible? Stonkaments (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

If reliable sources discuss it, yes. Wikipedia is based on reliable, published sources, not armchair philosophizing about what is theoretically possible. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:53, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Marxist: Ah, there we go. I knew we would get around to you demonstrating that you're not worth anyone's time eventually. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 12:26, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

If you cannot present a convincing argument, bring up Marx. Yes, this thread is a time sink. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:48, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeesh, I didn't realize Marx was such a touchy subject. For what it's worth, I meant it in the more colloquial sense, as defined here:[10] "Cultural Marxism is a term used to describe the idea that our society is best interpreted as being a power struggle between different identity groups or cultures". Stonkaments (talk) 23:47, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

...And if you look at the Wikipedia article on cultural Marxism that I linked above, you'll find that it's an alt-right conspiracy theory with no basis in fact, and the fact that you a) give it the time of day, and b) use it as an attack on your "opponents" tells me everything I need to know. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 01:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

...You're aware that words can have multiple meanings, that aren't all alt-right conspiracy theories?[11] Also, I didn't use it as an attack; it was purely descriptive. But it sure is interesting that you're so defensive about it. Stonkaments (talk) 02:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, words can have multiple meanings. For example, "racism" has a different meaning in the scholarly literature than among the general public, as Writ Keeper has already pointed out to you. So bickering over standard definition[s] is both pointless and misguided. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:48, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I didn't use it as an attack; it was purely descriptive. But it sure is interesting that you're so defensive about it. That is an attack itself. O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:Anti-white racism

As discussed previously, placing this page in Category:Anti-white racism necessarily implies that anti-white racism exists and that "reverse racism" is defined by it. This does not reflect the majority view among reliable sources, making this categorization both non-defining and non-neutral. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:46, 31 October 2024 (UTC) edited 06:45, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

You’ve misrepresented CATDEF both here and in the previous discussion; it says: “Be sure to include categories for all defining characteristics. For non-defining characteristics, editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include.”

Why does the category exist at all, if its existence necessarily implies that anti-white racism exists? Do we need to change it to “alleged anti-white racism”, because apparently the consensus is that Whites are the one racial group that has never faced racism?

Reverse racism is arguably the quintessential example of anti-white racism, so clearly it’s a relevant and appropriate category for this article. Stonkaments (talk) 23:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverse racism is arguably the quintessential example of anti-white racism. This is WP:OR on your part. You might read White defensiveness. O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:44, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

editors should use their judgment to choose which additional categories (if any) to include. Using my judgment is explicitly called for in the category guidelines; dismissing it as OR is unreasonable and unproductive. And many reliable sources equate reverse racism with anti-white racism, so it’s clearly not OR. Can you explain, using your own judgement, why the article shouldn’t be added to the anti-white racism category?

Also, I kindly ask that you remove your comment about “white defensiveness”, as I find it quite offensive and condescending (WP:UNCIVIL)—you know nothing about my racial background, and it only serves to distract from the conversation. Stonkaments (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Reverse racism is arguably the quintessential example of anti-white racism is a personal opinion that does not fit with the preponderance of reliable sources. I included the link to White defensiveness because it discusses this view of reverse racism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I take it that shifting the goalposts to “the preponderance of reliable sources” is your way of admitting you were wrong about it being OR. Also, I imagine you’re aware that OR doesn’t apply to talk pages anyway. Now, could you please explain using your own judgement, why the article shouldn’t be added to the anti-white racism category? Stonkaments (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

I have not misrepresented anything. I said the proposed category does not define the topic according to published, reliable sources. Therefore, it should be removed until a positive consensus exists for including it.

Per WP:CATPOV, Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view. Categorizations appear on article pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition [...] Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial. The notion that reverse racism is the quintessential example of anti-white racism is definitely controversial and does not reflect the sources cited in the article, making this a non-neutral categorization. You may call that my judgment if you like.

Whether or not to rename Category:Anti-white racism is outside the scope of this discussion. Where are the supposedly reliable sources that equate reverse racism with anti-white racism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Stonkaments is clearly not going to get a consensus of editors for their change, and so should WP:DROPTHESTICK. The concept of "anti-white racism" grew out of white defensiveness. Note that I'm not accusing Stonkaments of anything, just commenting on the concept's historical origin. NightHeron (talk) 08:55, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Claiming that anti-white racism isn’t real, and dismissing any claims of anti-white racism as “white defensiveness”, is itself extremely racist. Stonkaments (talk) 15:18, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Which is why no one here made either claim. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

How else can you interpret this claim: "The concept of 'anti-white racism' grew out of white defensiveness"? Especially from someone who has said previously, "White people...have no legitimate reason to form groups based on their racial identification."

@NightHeron: could you please clarify, do you believe that anti-white racism is real, or are claims of anti-white racism simply "white defensiveness"? Stonkaments (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Neither. I believe that its origins were in white defensiveness, but people might have other motivations, for example, they might have a notion of fairness or balance that tells them that if anti-Black racism exists, then anti-white racism must also exist, although I think of that rationale as similar to Wikipedia's WP:FALSEBALANCE.- Here I'm not judging your or anyone else's motives. NightHeron (talk) 17:05, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place to right perceived wrongs. Since this discussion has devolved into accusations of racism, there's no point in continuing it further. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:30, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Per this RfD from 2022,[12] consensus is that anti-white racism should be a standalone article. I have started a draft, which can be found here if anyone would like to contribute. Stonkaments (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Why isn’t this article called “anti white racism”

? Gahex220 (talk) 17:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Because reverse racism is NOT anti-white racism, as explained in the article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:09, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

I see, is there an article by that name? Gahex220 (talk) 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gahex220: I have started Draft:Anti-white_racism–please feel free to contribute. A fringe minority of woke far-left scholars (and editors here) have begun defining racism in such a way that excludes all anti-white discrimination. Stonkaments (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest you strike your name-calling. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Where's the name calling? I don't see it Gahex220 (talk) 15:38, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Seems pretty obvious. Doug Weller talk 15:42, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Far-left is actually worse. In fact, the entire sentence should be stricken. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

also how come when i type up "anti white racism" it redirects me here? Gahex220 (talk) 01:33, 15 November 2024 (UTC)