Talk:Reverse racism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Discrimination  
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Semi-protected edit request on 11 June 2018[edit]


Empirical studies have found little evidence that such institutional anti-white racism exists.[1]


Only few empirical studies exist that research the existence and the impact of reverse racism against white men, but the studies that do exist find little evidence that it does in fact exist in the sociological academic definition of the word racism.[2]

This reflects more accurately the meaning and intention of the quote in the book. See the Empirical studies section of this comment section for the full quote from the book and further discussion. (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Oppose: the proposed text is semantically garbled and muddies the actual issue. "[I]n the sociological academic definition" is simple WP:SYNTH, not to mention unnecessary waffling. The article is already about reverse racism "in the sociological academic definition". The existing text is clear and represents the source accurately. See § Empirical studies, above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Would you support the edit request if the sociological academic part was omitted? (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
No, for reasons given above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:02, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I did not know one needs a consensus to make a justified edit. I have proposed a compromise, but it was dismissed. What would be next step for reaching a consensus? (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi protection is in place to avoid edit warring around controversial edits; and for controversial edits consensus is always needed. From the comments it is clear that both your original idea and compromise are controversial. The next step would be to gain support for the need to change, and come up with a generally accepted version of the new text. Arnoutf (talk) 08:08, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way to bring in the opinions of other users? The sentence in the article is misrepresenting the given source. I have explained the need for change several times, but to no avail. (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

I think the institutional claim is clear if one includes the context from page 136 - 138. The author is clearly talking about the academic definition of racism which implies institutional power. The author argues reverse racism might not exist, because there is no institutional oppression against white males. The example of awarded court cases does not make sense outside of that context, so removing the "institutional" part of the statement has the opposite effect. It removes the statement further from the source. I am okay with removing the statement all together. So please do that instead.
As a side note: the 2.2% refers to the number of court cases filed by white males, not the number of successful cases, which would be even lower. (talk) 19:47, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
Ansell directly states that there is "little evidence that reverse racism in fact exists". How much clearer do you need the statement to be? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Sangdeboeuf has resolved the biggest point of contention by adding additional sources. As my original demand was more/better sources for such a strong claim, I see no more direct problems with it. From a style perspective I would still prefer to see the explanation of what is meant exactly with racism (requiring institutional power) before this statement is made in the article, but it appears Sangdeboeuf is unwilling to compromise and I get no support from user Arnoutf in the matter. Unless someone else wants to chime in, I see the matter as closed. (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

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


  1. ^ Ansell (2013), p. 137.
  2. ^ Ansell (2013), p. 137-138.

Prejudice plus power[edit]

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

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

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

Therefore, I suggest this article be rewritten with a neutral point of view. A good start to make would be to present both sides of the argument, and include both definitions of racism. Scottiekaz. 8.29.2018 Scottiekaz (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottiekaz (talkcontribs) 02:42, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

A neutral point of view doesn't mean we present "both sides" equally. Please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Also, articles must be based on published, reliable sources. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I believe an article over a topic like this is difficult to write in the traditional sense of 'neutral'. The idea of reverse racism itself is already biased. Is there any way to maybe bring more examples into the article other than the separate section over South Africa?Isabellasiragusa (talk) 14:22, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
Just because the sources are published does not make them reliable. The 'Garner, Steve' source literally states that reverse racism should not be discounted. Secondly, when a source says that something doesn't exist, and it can be easily proven that it does, it means it's wrong and shouldn't be used, even if it is published in a journal.[1], [2].
The fact is that 'Reverse Racism' (which is really just racism against white people) DOES exist. I don't like to be blunt like this but trying to say that it does not exist is a flat out lie, and if you actually believe this then you are lying to yourself. Any race can have prejudice against them.
Also, before you start saying that reverse racism somehow has a different definition, I will remind you that Racism against whites redirects here and has a separate definition, while Racism against Japanese somehow has a different definition. Racism is racism and Wikipedia cannot change that. Gamebuster (Talk)Contributions) 22:29, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Just because someone personally disagrees with sources does not make them unreliable. Whether anyone likes it or not, Wikipedia is based on published sources that have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. When challenging existing sources, please provide equally reliable sources that unambiguously support the notion that "reverse racism" exists (blog posts and Wikipedia pages do not constitute "proof"). Garner, for his part, states that the idea of reverse racism is pertinent because many people seem to believe it, not that it is a valid concept itself; in fact, he calls it a "fantasy".

This article does not say that reverse racism does not exist; it says that little evidence exists for reverse racism, which is a statement supported by multiple published sources. Whether any of us believes this or not is irrelevant, as is what any of us thinks the proper "definition" of racism is. If there are published sources for the idea of racism against whites as a separate phenomenon, then feel free to create an article about it, but be prepared to defend your edits. Suggestions that we instead base articles on users' personal beliefs about what constitutes "flat-out lying" should be proposed in the appropriate forum, but I doubt they will find much support. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:53, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

How you define something is important and significant when doing research in the social sciences, so it is in fact rather important here to cover how the studies involved are defining their terminology. It's also a subject that I honestly don't expect to see much quality research getting done that does not use a biased operational definition. It is rather concerning, since in my experience prejudice against White people often spills into being effectively Colorism with the prejudice being against paler individuals. Werhdnt (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
Wikpedia articles are based on published, reliable sources, not Wiki editors' personal experiences or beliefs. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:10, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2018[edit]

The article shouldn't be called 'Reverse Racism' as the definition of racism is "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." Racism; in of itself, is not 'Whites v. Blacks', calling racism towards whites from blacks is racist in of itself. Thanks for your consideration (talk) 13:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:07, 8 October 2018 (UTC)