Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

No mention of interpersonal racism?

For some reason this article fails to mention interpersonal racism against white peoples.

Instead, it heavily relies on Institutional sort of racism, citing that white Americans are not disadvantaged and so on.

Someone who might stumble upon this article will likely walk away with an understanding that the only kind of white racism that can exist is an institutional one, and henceforth in the current society no kind of reverse racism (against white people) exists. Feels wrong to have only one perspective represented.

I suggest amending the first 3 paragraphs to also include references and give examples of interpersonal racism. CorrectingCorrector (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Interpersonal "racism" is mentioned in the first paragraph of § United States: The concept of reverse racism has also been used in relation to various expressions of hostility, prejudice or discrimination toward white people by members of minority groups. The fact is that reliable sources tend to focus on institutional aspects such as the effects of affirmative action. Feel free to present any mainstream, published scholarship that focuses on interpersonal "reverse racism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:43, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Why not incorporate that “The concept of reverse racism has also been used in relation to various expressions of hostility, prejudice or discrimination toward white people by members of minority groups.” into one of the first three paragraphs?

I like the way that the Racism Against Asians is structured. It mentions the racist policies as well as (implied to be) interpersonal discrimination/mistreatment. Failure to mention interpersonal racism against white people in one of the first 3 paragraphs seems wrong, those 3 are heavily making an impression that only institutional kind of racism against white people can exist.

What exactly are you asking as far as a citation for interpersonal racism goes? You can be racist against any race on a personal level, not sure what kind of published literature would you want on that? CorrectingCorrector (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I've never heard of the term "reverse racism" used in this context. Racism against whites on an interpersonal level is just "racism", not "reverse racism". Do you have reliable sources? O3000, Ret. (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If you are asking for a change to article contents, you have to be able to support that change with a reference to a published, reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish the opinions or observations of its users.

The sentence I quoted is not in the lead section because it is based on only one source out of many. Wikipedia articles must represent the views of reliable sources proportionately, without giving undue weight to any particular viewpoint or aspect of the topic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Editorial Gatekeeping

Not useful WP:TPG O3000, Ret. (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Over the past year, it has become increasingly obvious that editors User:Sangdeboeuf and User:Objective3000 are engaging in egregious POV pushing to gatekeep this article from necessary editing. These two editors consistently appear under every talk page post here, flaunting WP: NPOV, WP: NOR, and WP: GAMES as they refuse to intellectually engage with, or otherwise wilfully mischaracterize any critisms brought by other editors -- editors who have consistently and accurately illuminated the numerous, glaring flaws in this article's sourcing, coverage, and adherence to wikipedia standards (see current talk page and talk page edit history). Such talk page sections are then either retitled or deleted by these same editors, presumably in the hopes that others will not investigate and find the mountain of incisive criticism hidden in the article history links. Months ago, I pointed out the problematic nature of one of User:Objective3000's stated views in a talk page section here (now deleted, unsurprisingly). In response, I was rapidly and illegally blocked (see User talk:Tyrone Jahir#Moderator Fiasco), then quickly ganged up on by a group of moderators who could not justify my ban, deleted non-violative statements off my own personal talk page (while keeping my alleged violation up on the article talk page), and even blocked me further for behavior it was actually not possible for me to have engaged in. This experience was incredibly bizarre, but reflecting, makes perfect sense in light of the fact that this article is firmly ideologically captured, and has users such as User:Sangdeboeuf and User:Objective3000 (and probably others) working together to ensure it can't be changed. This article desperately needs a group of unbiased editors - totally unafilliated with User:Sangdeboeuf and User:Objective3000 - to go through and examine this article's talk page history. I am confident they will come to the conclusion I have. Tyrone Jahir (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2024 (UTC) This is not appropriate for this page, per the talk page guidelines: "Keep the discussions focused on the topic of the talk page, rather than on the editors participating." If you have a conduct dispute, please follow the steps at WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, which begin with discussion at a user talk page. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:11, 16 September 2024 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers User:Acroterion has blocked this editor twice for personal attacks. Their unblock requests denied making PAs and were denied by User:331dot and User:Daniel Case Doug Weller talk 15:17, 16 September 2024 (UTC) i was on the fence about just removing this section, and I wasn't aware of that background. If someone feels removal is the best call, they should know I don't object to my comment being removed as well. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:20, 16 September 2024 (UTC) @Firefangledfeathers the comment above "In response, I was rapidly and illegally blocked (see User talk:Tyrone Jahir#Moderator Fiasco)" which led to another block and was a personal attack onf User:Objective3000 , now repeated above, is unacceptable and shows they don't understand what a PS is. I think they need another block, possibly indefinite, but could take it to ANI instead. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 16 September 2024 (UTC) I've indeffed the editor, since it's clear that they've learned nothing from the previous two blocks. Acroterion (talk) 15:31, 16 September 2024 (UTC) I saw this thread this morning and ignored it. Figured they were on the way out. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:41, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

Anti-white racism

Thread retitled from "Change to anti-white racism".

Apart from this being written and titled exclusively from an American or– more generally– a Western perspective; reverse racism infers that racism is a characteristic of white people; that it originates from white people; that it's mainly white people who are racist; thus the 'reverse' has connotations that the racism against White people is different from racism. I suggest changing the article name to match and similarly reflect the 'anti-black' article. 90.247.86.238 (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

We don't have the power to change language. We only document. O3000, Ret. (talk) 15:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And the NAACP both disapproved of the Black Power movement. In fact, he was quoted saying, the black power movement "connotates black supremacy and an anti-white feeling that does not or should not prevail." Also 2603:9008:1107:2755:E162:BD98:940B:CA9D (talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I fail to see how that relates to this article. If anything, reverse racism is an anti-black/asian/etc racist concept. O3000, Ret. (talk) 18:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Actually, it implies that racism is a characteristic of white people, but other than this rather pedantic point I agree with you.

A search for "Anti-white racism" redirects to the "reverse racism" article, the suggestion being that "racism" is a quality unique to white people, hence "reverse racism" is "white people getting what they deserve" from other ethnicities.

Firstly, there's no such thing as "reverse" racism...there's just "racism", plain and simple.

Secondly, "anti-white racism" is a very real phenomenon (if you trust "lived experience" as the basis of CRT, you can trust my lived experience on this point), and deserves an article of its own, not a redirect to an article attempting to justify "affirmative action". 86.14.43.73 (talk) 12:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is explicitly not based on the lived experience of its users, as explained in the very first sentence of Wikipedia:Verifiability. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:48, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 July 2024

In the past decade experts have found that implicit bias does exist in police officers. This manifested in a stronger hesitancy to use deadly force against historical recipients of systemic racism and no hesitancy to use deadly force against historical perpetuators of systemic racism. In the same study, the experts recognize the controversy of the study, and acknowledged that further studies must be done to more firmly conclude the presence of reverse-racism. PlatypusInAHat (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart ^(talk) 15:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

80 cops in Washington state does not make a solid conclusion EvergreenFir (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The authors have published a correction to their 2016 study (my bolding):

We would like to acknowledge our misuse of the term 'Reverse Racism' within this article's title and content. We did not account for the deeply controversial racial context surrounding the term within race/racism scholarship [...] In hindsight, our use of the term to describe officers fearing the consequences of being perceived as biased and modifying behavior accordingly would have been better titled 'The Counter Bias Effect.' 

Doing a quick search for academic secondary source coverage of James et al. turned up the following consensus study report (my bolding again):

Results with police officers in similar experiments are somewhat mixed. [...] in the work by James and colleagues, there was reason to suspect that officers and lay people responded strategically, intentionally attempting to act without racial bias [...] This concern is compounded because, in these studies, participants had several seconds to respond. Given sufficient time, the desire to respond in an egalitarian fashion can override factors like racial animus or statistical prediction when individuals are aware that race may influence behavior.

An appropriately weighted summary of this material might be included in Racial profiling in the United States if anywhere. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:13, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

References

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)

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)