Talk:Reverse racism

Rename the article from reverse racism to anti white racism

Sorry but it is possible for white people to experience racism just like any other ethnic group. Just ask the white people who were forced off their land by threats and murder in Zimbabwe or the current legislation being proposed in South Africa to expropriate land from white farmers. There is also racism against white people in the United States which is sugar coated in the form of equity. The American rescue plan explicitly discriminates against white people in the United States by prioritizing non - white people applying for financial support. The name of this article suggests that white people cannot experience racism something they sure can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.92.181.67 (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Please provide a published, reliable source to support your desired changes. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The top Google Scholar results for "'anti-white' racism" are sources describing perceptions—especially right-wing perceptions—of anti-white bias, not anti-white racism as a reality. Renaming this (or any other) article to suggest that anti-white racism is a notable topic would be highly misleading and WP:POV. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Empirical evidence

The article state there is no empirical of reverse racism/discrimination, yet, not only is there empirical evidence, it is documented in court rulings all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Here's a few of them dating as far back as the 1970's and as recently as 2021:

• https://www.littler.com/publication-press/publication/10-million-reverse-race-gender-discrimination-verdict-gives-dei
• http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-10-12a.cfm
• http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/12-13-12.cfm
• https://www.flastergreenberg.com/experience-Former_Philadelphia_School_District_Employees_Win_2_96_Million_Reverse_Race_Discrimination_Verdict.html
• https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/20773795-order-granting-tro-against-biden-administration
• https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/427/273.html
• https://www.thoughtco.com/ricci-v-destefano-reverse-discrimination-case-2834828
• https://www.crowell.com/NewsEvents/AlertsNewsletters/all/Jury-Awards-10-Million-in-Punitive-Damages-to-Former-Executive-in-Reverse-Discrimination-Lawsuit
• https://www.jacksonlewis.com/resources-publication/michigan-supreme-court-levels-field-reverse-discrimination-claims\
• https://law.jrank.org/pages/24197/University-California-v-Bakke-Reverse-Discrimination-Claimed.html

I initially came to the talk page to recommend there be a notable cases section when I realized the claim of "no evidence". Additionally note that they teach reverse racism and discrimination in law school along with CTR and have for decades. That wording should most certainly be removed. OnePercent (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The statement in the article is that there is little to no empirical evidence that white Americans suffer systemic discrimination (my bolding). A handful of isolated incidents of purported "reverse discrimination" don't change that. Please see Wikipedia:No original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Concerns.

This article, in my opinion, requires urgent edits, a purging of bias, and the introduction of objective fact. It reads like a political manifesto, not a clear and concise guide, we even have an editor on the talk page saying that an ethnic group cannot experience discrimination, there is no doubt in my mind that this is directly affecting the article, let it be known, political bias is against the very pillars upon which this site rests. Absolutely no bias, regardless of content or context, is permissable. Not only did this article come off as an argument, a debunking of another's views, it failed to capture what "Reverse Racism" as a concept is, and at that, it is objectively taking a side, the citations are vague and barely keep the article from collapsing in on itself, and every line reeks of almost borderline manipulative or intentionally biased writing, I am very strongly of the opinion that this article is more of a political tool, and not a source of information. Neutrality is key, this article is not neutral, and edits made must reflect Wikipedia's policy and it's Pillars, there is no taking sides here, without exception. All subsequent attempts to edit this article must take measures to correct this error, correction of which is vital. The situation is awful, to the point of which I believe it must be entirely rewritten from the ground up, I am attempting to work on correcting it with better sources and more information as written from as neutral a perspective as possible. Exigent edits are pending completion. I wish no offense with my strong words, but the damage has been done to the article, and now everything seems rotten, I ask all who care to read to help in this endeavor, and at last, put this mistake to rest. I intend no modification of my above wish, that this article is corrected. I believe, quite strongly, that the editors responsible for this error are honest, even decent, and that this was but a simple mistake, something got out of hand, as such, I do not believe they are accountable for any wrongdoing, rather, the work must be corrected. Farewell, I wish all the greatest, and that is all at the present moment. Markovich Rashkolnikov (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

• The article is based on published, reliable sources. Any "corrections" must likewise be reliably sourced and not violate undue weight. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

  The editor, like so many new editors,doesn’t understand WP:NPOV. Doug Weller talk 17:29, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Why, if the racism article does not adopt the "prejudice plus power" view as fact, does this article do so?

That seems to violate NPOV. --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The article is based on numerous published, reliable sources. Perhaps it is the Racism article that should be changed. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:27, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be using this as a mantra to any criticism. Have you actually conducted surveys of the studies that are out there, and are not merely assuming that the sources citied in this article say everything there is to know on the subject? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:V is a core policy. If there are similar, high-quality sources that present a different view, feel free to present them here. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

The way a single paragraph was previously written was incredibly biased, or at the very least misleading. It is entirely possible that individuals can be hateful towards white people because they're white, such as this source or this source. I don't think anybody reasonable should argue that these two sources aren't documenting racism towards white people. That being said, I do agree that they aren't systemically oppressed, so systemic racism towards white people doesn't exist but the previous writing made it seem like individual racism towards white people didn't exist at all either. Unnamed anon (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The lead sentence says (my bolding): Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism. Nothing there about individual racism or hate. The paragraph you edited specifically references systemic discrimination. Not sure why anyone would get the idea that this says anything about individual prejudice. The § Overview section states, The concept of reverse racism has also been used to characterize various expressions of hostility or indifference toward white people by members of minority groups. The word "also" indicates that this is not the main meaning of "reverse racism". --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 31 May 2022

Reverse racism → Discrimination towards white people – Like the discussion on reverse sexism, the current name, and some of the writing, seems heavily biased towards the idea that these do not exist and serve mostly to delegitimize one side while propping up the other of a highly controversial topic. While the name is notable, and should be mentioned in prose somewhere, it also breaks WP:NPV, similarly to the reverse sexism article. Unnamed anon (talk) 03:29, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:FRINGE, etc. This is pretty obvious stuff, but if folks need sources, see e.g. [1]. Generalrelative (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Strong oppose; I suppose next you'll want articles titled "Discrimination against heterosexual people", "Discrimination against non-disabled people", and "Discrimination against rich people". By the way, the word I think the OP meant to use is "against", not "towards". NightHeron (talk) 04:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose per Generalrelative, wikipedia policy, and common sense. --mikeu ^talk 05:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Per WP:COMMONNAME, as that is what it is widely referred to in sources, as well as WP:FALSEBALANCE as no clarification is needed on who most racism targets. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:34, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose. The nominator is confusing false balance for neutrality. As numerous WP:RSes cited in the article make plain, white people do not suffer systemic discrimination; see e.g. the explanatory footnote in the lead section. "Reverse racism" is an epithet specifically used to denigrate affirmative action and similar programs. If anyone wants to create a separate article on anti-white discrimination, they are free to do so. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Have you actually looked for reliable sources that may present a different perspective? --Eldomtom2 (talk) 13:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The burden to provide sources is on the person who wants to change the contents of the article. That's not me. I would suggest sticking to secondary and tertiary academic sources to avoid imbalance. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

If you genuinely think relying on academic sources is avoiding imbalance...!--Eldomtom2 (talk) 16:24, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community does. See WP:SOURCETYPES. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:10, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to say that I absolutely agree that white americans do not suffer from systemic discrimination nor negative affirmative action, but the current name implies that individuals can not act hatefully towards white people because they're white. As an asian american, I have seen the latter happen. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose. Wikipedia is, in fact, heavily biased towards things that are true. – Joe (talk) 14:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It is absolutely true that white americans don't suffer systemic discrimination, but the current name implies that it is impossible for individuals to be racist towards white people, which just isn't the case. I think the page is about the former, but the name implies the latter. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose for the reasons above, particularly in the US context. Mathsci (talk) 15:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
• Opposeespecially per Sangdeboeuf's comment " "Reverse racism" is an epithet specifically used to denigrate affirmative action and similar programs." and Joe Roe's statement that we are heavily biased towards things that are true. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

In that case, there should be a way to make it more clear that this page is about white americans/south africans not suffering affirmative action, which is true, than not suffering individual racism, which is not. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose this attempts to make a political statement with an article title, and does not assume good faith.Sheehanpg93 (talk) 17:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd argue the current name also makes a political statement by implying that individuals can't be racist towards white people (though I absolutely agree that white americans do not suffer systemic discrimination), but I can see how my proposed name also reads like a political statement. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I withdraw my name change proposal, as I can see how the proposed name makes a political statement. I do, however, think the page needs to make the distinction between systemic racism/affirmative action (which white americans and south africans don't suffer, I'm not going to argue against that) and individuals acting hatefully towards white people for being white (which absolutely can and does happen, and I believe I linked some in one of my edit summaries) more clear, because currently the distinction isn't clear enough. I also think the globalize banner should stay. Unnamed anon (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2022 (UTC)