Jump to content

Talk:Reverse discrimination/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Destructive editing is not constructive

Anthony removed the following graf, and replaced it with nothing:

Such policies, of course, may tend to decrease the proportion of opportunities within the society available to members of the majority group in comparison with their historical opportunities. Since the intent of such policies are to increase opportunities for traditionally discriminated groups, they may tend to develop this increase by decreasing the opportunities for other groups, though it is arguable that they bring about a closer equality of opportunities among groups. When such policies are perceived to bring about a decrease in the opportunities available to the dominant group, those who feel affected by that loss of opportunity often refer to the policies as "reverse discrimination".

This graf provided an socially-derived explanation of why this term exists, and IMO that is an essential part of an encyclopedic entry on a term. To repair his destructive edit, I reworded. Why the problem with this graf was not discussed on the Talk page as is customary (and productive) I do not know, though everyone is entitled to their speculation.

67.171.139.232 added the following complaint:

Yet, since 1999, the UK government's Home Office sets targets for the recruitment, retention and progression of minority ethnic staff.

This doesn't seem relevant: I'm stating that the practice is technically illegal in that country, as an example. The added portion is a complaint about a party that is breaking the law. It's not relevant to the explanation of the term, but just a political issue.

Revert and rewrite the following reword by Func:

As it is alleged to be a type of discrimination in the traditional sense,

The argument made in the edit summary (which should have been made here, on the talk page, instead) is the following distinction:

  • "Traditional" discrimination works *against* a group.
  • "Reverse" discrimination works *towards* a group.

This is folly. Discrimination *against* a group wouldn't exist if it wasn't to protect or improve another group. If I'm discriminating *against* another group, it's because I want to *benefit* my group. The individual perspective of who is benefitting from the discrimination doesn't change the effects or practice of the discrimination. Also cut out the following by Func:

In some common or casual conversation, "reverse discrimination" is often used incorrectly to describe true discrimination or racism, an example being where a black employer might choose to not hire a white person because of a personal bias against white people. This is not reverse discrimination, because the motive is not to benefit a group, but rather to discriminate against a group.

Explained as addressed above. Moreover, since "reverse discrimination" is a colloquial term, it's redundant (or contradictive) to say that it is used differently in casual conversation.

- KeithTyler 17:43, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I initially responded before realizing you had typed all of the above.

Keith, the term "reverse discrimination" is not colloquial, except in casual conversation. In academic settings and in courts of law, it has a very specific meaning, and its meaning concerns motive, not actual or perceived effect. And yes, it is possible to be against a group without intending to be for another group. Consider, that same black employer might be willing to hire hispanic employees, which you cannot argue as being for blacks. func(talk) 18:21, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

To continue... Your definition adheres to the colloquial use of the term only. When a white university president and his primarily white staff institute an affirmative action policy that results in reverse discrimination, are you saying that these people of European heritage are acting against themselves? Of course not, they are acting for another group. The matter is a simple one of logic and grammar. "Reverse discrimination" is not the discrimination of a minority against a non-minority, it is the practice of attempting to reverse discrimination. By the way, are you from a country other than the U.S. I only ask because you may have an understanding of this issue that is different than how it is perceived in the U.S. func(talk) 19:18, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The point of encyclopedic articles is to cover them in an objective manner - not based on perception. (Note that the term "Point Of View", taken literally, is synonymous with "perception".) If included, individual perceptions must be covered as such -- not stated as fact or treated as the rule.
The use of "reverse discrimination" as a term is by those who perceive that their group is being operated against by such policy. So yes, a white person who is upset that they were not admitted to a college run primarily by whites due to a racial quota would say that the primarily white institution is working against whites. That is the whole point of the term "reverse discrmination". In the dominantly understood usage, one would not use the term "reverse discrimination" to refer to, say, a black college denying a white applicant.
"Reverse discrimination" is not the discrimination of a minority against a non-minority -- I agree, and which is why the latter example above is not reverse discrimination.
As for your black hiring hispanics over whites example, you seem intent on defining my carefully worded "social group" term as being only definable as "race". However, "social group" can easily refer to groups of multiple races (compare the groups "Asians" and "Chinese"), especially one with which the discriminating party feels comraderie. In America, it is not a far reach to say that many blacks feel comraderie with Latinos as a group. Furthermore, "social group" does not have to be race at all; it can also be gender, class, education, or even profession. And yes, it can be the social group of "non-whites" or "non-blacks". If you are working against one group, you are working in favor of its complement (or some part of it).
If you have a non-colloquial-use definition of this term, please, by all means, show it to me. I am not aware of, say, a legal, or even sociological, definition of this term that is not rooted in its colloquial use, but I am happy to concede that there is one if you can find a generally accepted source for one.
As for what country I am in, my user page should provide enough info.
- KeithTyler 19:42, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)
The point of encyclopedic articles is to cover them in an objective manner - not based on perception...

I agree with this statement in every possible conceivable way. You seem to be implying that I am attempting to insert POV. I believe I was attempting to define the term reverse discrimination as it is understood in academic and legal circles, in particular, to explain how it is different from mere bias against a defined group. (If they are the same fundamental concept, then why did the term come into use?)

Even more in particular, it was my intention to document that "reverse discrimination" is not the discrimination of a minority against a non-minority, which you say you agree with. This, however, is a point that many who use the term "reverse discrimination" are confused over.

...use of "reverse discrimination" as a term is by those who perceive that their group is being operated against by such policy...

It is also used by academics and lawyers who discuss and are professionally involved with issues surrounding reverse discrimination, and when they do, it is clear that they are discussing an issue that involves motive on the part of the discriminator.

one would not use the term "reverse discrimination" to refer to, say, a black college denying a white applicant

Correct, which is what I was trying to point out. There are lots of people who would say that this is an example of reverse discrimination, and they are wrong for doing so. This is what I meant by common or casual conversation.

As for your black hiring hispanics over whites example, you seem intent on defining my carefully worded "social group" term as being only definable as "race".

No, I used race as a readily understood example. My example would still be valid if we were talking about people who butter their bread on the top as opposed to the bottom.

In America, it is not a far reach to say that many blacks feel camaraderie with Latinos as a group.

But it is a far reach to suggest that a person who butters their bread on the top, who has just turned down an application from someone who butters his bread on the bottom, is acting for the benefit of his group AND the benefit of those who don't use butter at all.

If you have a non-colloquial-use definition of this term, please, by all means, show it to me... a generally accepted source for one

That's a tall order for me just at the moment. I will provide many academic and legal sources on the Internet when I get home from work. Note: Once a term is used for a long period of time in formal, educated settings, it ceases to be colloquial.

func(talk) 20:53, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I may have misread your second graf, but I still disagree that reverse discrimination is not still discrimination. If I make the determination that I am going to favor group A over group B, it is because I favor group B less, and therefore I am effectively working against them in terms of their ability to benefit from my acceptance. Whether I deliberately say that I want to screw Group B over is not relevant; I am still discriminating in a way that is against the acceptance of Group B. Historic discrimination is rife with such false distinctions (e.g. "I have nothing against Group B, but I would rather have a Group A person for _____."). We see this phenomenon even in today's major discrimination issues.
You seem to be implying that I am attempting to insert POV. I believe I was attempting to define the term reverse discrimination as it is understood in academic and legal circles, in particular...
You suggested that the article did not come from the right perspective, which is why I said that.
(If they are the same fundamental concept, then why did the term come into use?)
A sociological question, to be sure. I can't explain how society comes up with its colloquialisms. Discrimination is discrimination, regardless of direction. It is a choice of one group over another group (or groups of groups, etc.). The *direction* of the discrimination may be reversed from its traditional direction, and the *intent* of the discrimination may be arguably different, and I try to explain that in the opening graf(s). But the *act* of discrimination doesn't change -- I am still favoring one group over another.
But it is a far reach to suggest that a person who butters their bread on the top, who has just turned down an application from someone who butters his bread on the bottom, is acting for the benefit of his group AND the benefit of those who don't use butter at all.
I don't think whom he is trying to benefit matters. He is trying to benefit a group he feels to be a part of. Going back to the black/Latino example, this is true whether the group he's benefitting is only his own race, or in a group of races he identifies with (e.g. "non-whites" or "non-whites and non-Asians", or some other grouping).
- KeithTyler 21:53, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)


===========

"Reverse discrimination" most certainly colloquial. A court of law can redefine a Starbuck's coffee cup as a 757 aircraft of a "new type". If there are restraints on legal redefinitions, I am unaware of them.

The term is based, purely and simply, on the assumption that racial discrimination is an in-born characteristic of white males of northwestern european extraction. Thus, when those people are discriminated against, it is "reverse". This seems abundantly clear through the presence of "reverse". Thus the term itself is inherently and unavoidably racist. It has nothing to do with discrimination against "minorities". The world is full of examples where a minority actively and aggressively discriminated against an ethnic/ racial majority. Try South Africa.

"Discrimination" always benefits the group that practices it, and it can be practiced by any race, ethnic group, or sex.

I deliberately avoided the word "minority" iin my version of this article because, as you indicate, the majority is not always the dominant group.
Legal redefinitions are neither linguistically canonical nor conventional. (For example, the U.S. legal definition of a corporation as "a person".) Legal definitions do not equal standard definitions. I'm not in the practice of basing conventional understanding or usage of terms on their various legal definitions, and I don't think Wikipedia is either. (Besides, legal definitions usually only have scope within a particular section of law -- and can be completely different for a given term among other sections of law.) The meaning of the word in its common use is what needs to be focused on; legal definitions take a back seat. - KeithTyler 19:36, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

don't get emotional.

I had to enjoy this bit of choose-your-own-definition:

While discrimination is simply the ability to discern between one group and another, and carries no moral overtones, it is a subject often fraught with emotion. Groups who have historically fought discrimination and labeled it as 'morally bad' now find themselves supporting the same sort of policies that benefit them. In order not to be labeled 'bad' by their own definitions they use the term "reverse discrimination".

"The dictionary definition of discrimination is merely to tell your kind of person apart from my kind of person, so you shouldn't be upset over me not giving you this job because you're a different kind of person from me."

Classic. - Keith D. Tyler [flame] 18:31, Feb 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and someone please explain to me what "reverse equality" is supposed to mean. Before conservative PC was invented, we used to call it inequality. - Keith D. Tyler [flame]


Disagree with merge

I don't think this article should be merged with Affirmative action. Affirmative action refers to a specific employment strategy; it is only one of a set of policies which are or could be considered to be "reverse discriminatory".

For example, some may consider reparations to be reverse discrimination, but this would not be affirmative action. Likewise for land reform in Zimbabwe.

-Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 20:16, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Reverse racism

The problem with saying "some people call this reverse racism" is that racial discrimination is not the only arena in which reverse discrimination can occur. That is a common presumption, but the article takes pains not to imply that "reverse racism" is the only form of perceived reverse discrimination or even lean towards it. - Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 18:07, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Keith, thanks for bringing this up on the talk page. I see your point. I edited the sentence to try to make it clearer that, as you emphasize, the racial arena is just one example of reverse discrimination. It does seem that supposed reverse discrimination is mostly employed regarding race, so I think it should be OK to mention the term 'reverse racism.' Also, the term is definitely in wide use: a google search for the phrase (in quotes) yields 25,000 results, vs 96,700 results for 'reverse discrimination'. Do you see any problems with the revised sentence?
Also, I removed the specification from the sentence that only those in the majority group who are unhappy with such policies use the term reverse discrimination; individuals in minority groups that benefit from such policies also express opposition, commonly expressing that they believe such policies suggest they need help in order to compete with individuals from other groups, that is, white and asian groups.--Nectarflowed 03:50, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, that sounds good to me too. Thanks for considering my comments. - Keith D. Tyler [AMA] 05:10, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)
Racism and discrimination are not synonyms. Currently reverse racism is a redirect here, which I find illogical; but since I will not tamper any further with these page(s) here at English Wikipedia I won't do anything about it. However, the interwiki link from here to Swedish Wikipedia pointed to sv:Omvänd rasism - reverse racism, not reverse discrimination. We do not (yet) have an article on sv:WP about reverse discrimination, but i do think these two concepts should be kept separate; and so, I removed the interwiki link. /Habj 18:11, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

article needs expansion

This article needs to be filled out. It seems like simply an abstraction of the affirmative action article. The two terms are NOT synonymous, and this article should not be treated as such. In particular, the opening paragraph says "policies and acts", and then talks only about policies. I would like to work on this some, but let's bring this article up to par. - Che Nuevara 04:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Common use

Whether or not the term is literally oxymoronic or nonsensical doesn't eliminate the fact that it is a term in common use. The article makes an effort to explain its conventional meaning as well as address its literal invalidity. - Keith D. Tyler 05:28, August 12, 2005 (UTC)
I'm gonna make that a little bit less vague. --Edward Wakelin 20:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Am just adding the actual meaning of the phrase, "However, it is usually agreed that the term 'reverse' refers to the discrimination in the name of preventing discrimination, which has similarities to the idea of doublespeak." --Max 01:00 01st Feb 2006 GMT

explanation of changes

I moved "politically charged" from the opening line to 'criticism of the term itself.' Some people do think of it as politically charged, but that's POV.

I clarified 'criticism of the term itself.' It seemed a bit vague. 1st paragraph: criticism from those who support affirmative action - I removed the counter-argument, which really belongs in a different place. In controversial areas of Wikipedia, you get counter-argument after counter-argument tacked on by disagreeing parties. Since the heading is 'criticism of the term,' I've just left the criticism itself.

2nd paragraph: criticism from those oppose reverse discrimination - it's not actually a tautological term. A tautology might be 'prejuduced discrimination.' The objection to it being labelled 'reverse' is that discrimination is discrimination, period, so why qualify it at all. I also removed that it can't be quantified, because that's not entirely true: you can talk about how many people have suffered discrimination, or by how much.24.64.223.203 01:11, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


Reverse racism in the television

Is this the appropriate article to talk about certain black comedies making racist jokes against whites, where the same kinds of jokes made by whites against black would be considered inappropriate? -Doubleg 23:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Wrong page. Sorry.--Cberlet 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Colloquial use

This page really needs a forthright disucssion of the widespread colloquial use:

  • "The term is sometimes used colloquially to suggest that unqualified minorities and women are being unfairly hired and promoted and taking jobs and positions away from qualified white workers and male workers; although there is no persuasive statistical evidence to support this claim."

This is probably the most widesperad use of the term in the United States. We can't just ignore it.--Cberlet 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. 74.37.228.44 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Incomprehensible and dubious

I have read this page over and over for the past few weeks, and I have to say that it is just as incomprehensible and full of dubious uncited claims as it was the first time I read it. I have obtained several books on the subject, and browsed a list of websites. Nothing I read seems to support 80% of the text on this page. If there is someone reading this from England or Australia, can they provide a cites to how the term is used in those countries. In the United States, the term is almost universally used by critics of affirmative action to suggest that:

  • When a society, government agency, or other public or private institution or group uses certain methods to try to increase participation, employment, or membership from historically minority or marginalized groups; that the intent, process, and outcome creates "reverse discrimination" against members of the historically majority or dominant group."

Is this not the proper definition used by both supporters of the idea and opponents of the idea. What is all this other obtuse and contradictory language about? I have flagged the page as POV and factually disputed. This whole page needs a major overhaul.--Cberlet 22:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Anyone here?--Cberlet 14:30, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure. But this is "one of those articles" where any time spent improving it will immediately be countered by someone else disemproving it.
Atlant 15:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
I am totally with you. This page needs an overhaul. What "evidence" is there in case law to prove reverse discrimination? Only the fact that people have brought such allegations to the supreme court? --Farbotron 05:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
First off, the fact that the allegations made it and were heard by the Supreme Court does warrant seriousness. A case based on nothing would not have made it through appeal. The Bakke case does prove discrimination with their set-aside policies. What more is necessary? Matt620 21:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fair enough with the Bakke case and quotas, (yes there were quotas and that has been proven fairly) but the article states that reverse discrimination "is" happening in the present tense. Where is the evidence for this? Allegations brough before the supreme court may prove a case's seriousous, but it is not proof that reverse discrimination is happening, rather that it may be happening.

--Farbotron 23:49, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

By that logic, we could no sooner prove reverse discrimination then we could prove regular discrimination or anything at all. There are some articles on the top that provide more information. Matt620 20:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your arugment is here because I can think of many other kinds of evidence in support of reverse discrimination or discrimination existing besides case law. This includes sociological experiments/studies, statistics, and the testimony of individuals. In additional the articles you have provided are not sufficient as I stated in a different section. Yes, one of your internet articles states that there have been 6 six cases of substantiated reverse discrimination. But then it just has in parenthesis US Labor Dept. How can you expect me to follow up on this source? I need more information. See the thing is, I would rather take off inacurate and dubious things and try to start from scratch rather than leaving this mess of an article intact with a complete lack of citation. Who's with me? --Farbotron 22:43, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


Now Let's Finally Be Constructive

As mentioned previously this page is rife with dubious facts and a lack of reliable sources. Thus, it is going to have to cut down, and I will explain each of the changes. I suspect that some of the people editing this page may not be from the United States, where I am fairly certain that the term "reverse discrimination originated. Before we can go any further I think we need to agree on a few basic things.

1. Reverse Discrimination is a politically charged and contreversial term. There is alot of evidence to support this, first of the all the fact that proponents of affirmative action do not use the term. But if you look at the website sources currently on the page you will notice that reverse discrimation is a term only used by opponents of affirmative action.

2. As of the sources cited now, there is not adequate case law which is evidence for reverse discrimination. Just because people have brought allegations before courts, it does not mean reverse discrimination occurs. The second source, a website claims that only six cases have been substantiated and then references the U.S. department of Labor, but gives me nowhere else to go. I do not consider this to be a reliable source and therefore I am removing this statement until further evidence can be found.

3. This article is filled with a ton of weasel words and they need to be fixed or taken out. More or less the whole "Policies Regarding Reverse Discrimination is filled with them. I will put a tag there for now.

4. Oprah Winfrey's Ball is not an example of reverse discrimation. Her ball was designed to celebrate African American Women. So by definition she could only invite African American Women. If she said the ball was to celebrate women in general that would be a different matter. So this event is different from a job which should ideally be open to anyone of any race. So I'm cutting this example.

5. The Asian American fetish example seems to me totally off topic and not really about reverse discrimiation. This is about people's sexual preferences, and assumes that white people should naturally be attracted to white people which is an entirely prejudiced assumption. Should straight men claim that women who are lesbians discriminate against them? Perhaps I am reading the argument wrong, but it is entirely convoluted and until it can be written in a more coherent way I'm taking it out.

6. There are too many inconsistent scare quotes. I'm fixing those. If we don't put scare quotes on reverse discrimination there certainly shoudn't be any on affirmative action.

I am just attempting to make this article as objective as possible. If people want to help me and find sources that's cool. What we need good evidence here for whatever claims are being made.--Farbotron 22:13, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Give it a try. What is here is a mess.--Cberlet 03:14, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
So apparently no one has heeded or even responded to my concerns and comments. I am going to attempt more cuts of sections with no citations.

Page seems internally inconsistent?

As far as I can see, the article defines the term as "used to describe discriminatory policies or acts that benefit ...." Therefore, shouldn't the links to "Racial quota" and "Affirmative action" be in the subsection "Discrimination" rather than "Counter-discrimination"? The Slimey 00:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean "Anti-discrimination." Admittedly, "counter-discrimination" would actually be a more correct term for those, but I wouldn't advocate further section-creep. I suppose such a question could be hacked to death at Template_talk:Discrimination2. I think my working theory in putting them there is that they are policies intended to work against historic discrimination, therefore anti-. Counter-discrimination (like anything counter-, e.g. counterrevolution) is essentially discrimination and anti-discrimination at the same time. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 20:16, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Need for cleanup

I tagged this article for cleanup for what I hope will be obvious reasons. Feel free to remove the tag once the article is not so much of a mess. -Fagles 17:36, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

You should be more specific. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 18:56, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

These Articles Should not be Merged

Affirmative Action is different from "reverse discrimination" and deserves a distinct article. Combining these articles would not amount to a neutral point of view.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.54.194.179 (talk • contribs) 22:28, 6 June 2007

Outside of the US, policies with intent similar to Affirmative Action are sometimes called by the governments that put them in place 'reverse discrimination'207.69.137.10 04:16, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I just removed these links:

If they go back it it should be as a reference to a point in the article. --evrik (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

POV

This article is very poorly written. Reverse discrimination does not exist in law, but is a perception. The article should reflect that. --evrik (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


I Guess Rascism is a Perception too, as well as Sexism,Classism(?) in fact theres no such thing as Discrimination while were at it, everything is a perception, law itself is a perception, its only what we percieve, and from my Perception, Reverse Discrimination does indeed exist, it is giving advantages to a group who was previously discriminated against, this unfortunately, is Discrimination in itself since it is giving a particular group advantages, which is what Discrimination is, favouring one or more groups, and not others, but this Article is poorly written, Ill agree with you on that --- Baltezegaurd 13:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

needed in this article are arguments that "reverse discrimination" doesn't exist at all. you know, kind of like when that phrase is applied to minority group people because they are supposedly "playing the race card", when actually the majority group persons the whole concept of having to deal with race is new to them because they've lived a sheltered life up until then.


1.Sign your posts. 2.So what your saying is that only the Majority can Discriminate, while the Minority cant.ALL GROUPS can Discriminate, its just that the group with the most power is the one usually doing the Discrimination, How can you prove reverse discrimination dosent exist? Give some Solid Concrete evidence it does not exist, let me make a example.Take Blacks(no im not going to be politically correct), they are a Minority here in the States, they've been discriminated against alot in the past, so what your saying is that they are not able to Discriminate just because they are a Minority, Every person can Discriminate, when they are Discriminated against, are they going to treat those who discrimnate them just as they would someone of their same group? Not likely, they will Discriminate against those who Discriminate them, would you ever see a Jew shake the hands of a Nazi? No because the Nazi's Holocausted millions of Jews out of Discrimination, and MOST of the Jewish Population is going to hold no love for the Nazi's, they Discriminate the Nazis because the Nazi's Discriminate them, thus Reverse Discrimination, does in fact exist, take your Narrow-Minded Liberal Perceptions elsewhere, this a Encyclopedia, to give facts on both sides of the Subject at hand, this article does Need its Fair Share of Critics, give Arguments thats Reverse Discrimination does not exist but at least have some Solid Evidence to support these Claims. Baltezegaurd 00:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)


I just put up the POV tag for many reasons which I've pointed out previously on this talk page, and some of my criticisms have been rolled back. I dislike that this article and talk page has become mostly a debate about whether or not reverse discrimination exists and a debate about race in general. It has certainly reduced the neutrality of this article. For example, there is no need for the article to detail the achievements of Ward Connerly. That's for the Ward Connerly article. Sure, you link to him, but what is here is mostly irrelevant and compromises NPOV.

I propose these points to guide further editing of the article: 1. The article should not assume that reverse discrimination is a fact to be verified, rather it is a perception as ervik stated earlier. The term "reverse discrimination," at least in the United States is used to frame the issue of Affirmative Action in a certain way.

2. The article should have narrower view of "reverse discrimination." It does not refer to simple prejudice. As far as I can tell, here in the United States reverse discrimination is a critical term employed by opponents of affirmative action (in the form of extra consideration given to minority college applicants or government incentives for using minority businesses). I've never heard of anyone in the United States who supports affirmative action use the term "reverse discrimination" except to criticize it. If anyone can find a source to disprove me, I would love to see it, but until then I remain committed to the argument that by definition, in the U.S., "reverse discrimination" is a politically-charged and controversial term used almost exclusively by opponents of Affirmative Action policies.

Speaking of which affirmative action is not just about race. It's about gender, as white women are some of the primary beneficiaries of affirmative action.

3. People should really plan on bringing forward more substantial sources rather than internet sites. I have previously criticized the link to the MS Encarta article about discrimination and court cases and I see it's still here. I plan on reading some books from the library to find more reliable sources and I hope other people editing this article will do so as well.

3. The article needs to have views which question the term "reverse discrimination" itself. I am working on getting some concrete examples of these views from books. Any help would be appreciated. But until there is entire section like this, the article is going to have significant POV.

I hope some people can see why all these suggestions are in the interest of making the article more neutral and further increasing its readability and use as an informational resource. I know this is a very heated and controversial topic (as should be explained in the term's definition) but hope we can at least try to make it better sourced and more informative than what we have now. --Farbotron (talk) 00:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

--I can give a real life example of reverse discrimination, or whatever you call it. My company spent months recruiting, per our policy, for a position. I interviewed along with the other candidates that applied. The job was awarded to me, but a week later I was told that HR decided the interview slate was not diverse enough. This to me is reverse discrimination. All parties inside my company had equal and adeqaute time to review and apply for the position. It should not be my fault that a minority person did not apply. Why should we have to look outside our company for a diverse candidate, when this is not what normally happens. I have no issues with going against any candidate that applies. If I am not qualified than do not give me the job.

On a seperate note I fit into the mold of discrimination myself. I am a white male from the South living in the North. I have to deal with discrimination on a daily basis. Gee you are form the South I will talk slower so you can keep up. These are the things I hear all the time. However, I as a white male can not speak of iscrimination without being public ridiculed. People should learn to deal with the discrimination, because it will never go away. This is the nature of mankind. Brazwewn (talk) 15:15, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Brazwewn, I understand your concerns, but this is wikipedia, not a political discussion board. If write about your real-life example in a book, newspaper or magazine, or file it in a court case then we can put it on wikipedia. --Farbotron (talk) 04:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Majority/Minority Problem

Reverse discrimination is a term that is used to describe policies or acts that are seen to benefit a historically socio-politically non-dominant group (typically minorities or women), at the expense of a historically socio-politically dominant group (typically men and majority races).

I've edited the above. It's clear that socio-political dominant groups are rarely in the majority. For example, American people are a minority, making up less than 10% of the world's population, yet the gross GDP of America is about 40% of world GDP. People over 6-feet-tall only make up about 3% of the population yet 30% of Fortune 500 CEOs are over 6-feet-tall. Usually it's the minority that contorls

124.190.148.16 04:13, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Encarta as a reliable source?

I'm not so familiar with Wikipedia policies, but is it legit to cite another encyclopedia/dictionary as a reliable source?

The sentence, under the "In the United States" section reads, "The practice has been applied to university admissions, employment, and other situations.[4]" The citation leads to an Encarta definition which states reverse discrimination is "discrimination against a member of a social group generally regarded as dominant or privileged, e.g. in employment or admission to a university."

Anyone with more knowledge of policy on this want to comment? 7secondsed (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)7secondsed

My changes

I made "critics of Affirmative Action" a subheader of the US section and made the introduction more country-neutral by moving relevant content to new headers "In the UK" and "In India". Also, I added reasoning as to why the term "reverse" is used...which is my opinion, but something I think anyone who disagrees with may remove. I think that much more should be added to this. There is five times as much content on this talk page than the article. I haven't read all of the above comments, but can people from or knowledgeable about countries outside the US please contribute to this!!! (I was not logged for the first set of changes I made) IBstupid (talk) 04:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Off Topic

I've seen alot of off topic information posted in this article lately. Let me be clear. Please do not post examples of what you yourself consider to be reverse discrimination. If you're going to add a section to this article please make sure that the situation you're talking about is specifically referred to by others as "reverse discrimination" or "reverse racism" and that you have links to reliable websites or citations from reliable sources that back that up. Otherwise the section will be tagged and deleted.--Farbotron (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think discrimination applies in both cases. there is no reverse of discrimination except for the absense of it Nft999 (talk) 12:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


Archive 1

Citation for India sentence

50% of higher education spots in India reserved for economically disadvantaged castes and classes. Here's a citation for that fact: [1] Can someone please add the reference to the article? 123.243.236.11 (talk) 03:16, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Roberts Supreme court opinion

I added this Supreme Court case with Justice Robert's comments that are written into the decision but somebody keeps taking it out. In Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1, 551 U.S. 701 (2007), decided together with Meredith v. Jefferson County Board of Education, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that, "The way to stop discrimination based on race is to stop discriminating based on race."Malke 2010

(talk) 13:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Solating WP:3RR and you're running close to WP:MPOV. It took me all of 90 seconds to find a reliable source with a simple Google search, so I am curious: Why were you unable or unwilling to do so? And, why did you attempt to include so many different incorrect versions of what Chief Justice Roberts actually said? We're building an encyclopædia here, and accuracy is paramount. You aren't being "censored"—and complaining of same is failure to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. You're being held to encyclopædic standards. If you don't understand this community's expectations of editors, please brush up and ask questions if you have them. Thanks for editing coöperatively. —Scheinwerfermann T·C16:15, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann: Apparently you found the very same source on Google that I did. All of my posts did have the correct quote by Justice Roberts as well as the correct source. I did not come close to violating any Wikipedia rules. Because I am new to Wikipedia, I very carefully reviewed all the rules. I took great care in adding the information, but apparently the accuracy and importance of the finding was disregarded. If there is any lack of good faith, it is not on my part. Perhaps, given your self-righteous tone, you should examine your own motives. Better yet, you should re-read your own philosophy you posted on your Wikipedia page:

Scheinwerfermann's Guiding Principles of Wikipedia Editing: Steady, incremental improvement: Most articles on Wikipedia have problems. Nobody's interests would be served if we let the unrealistic goal of instant perfection interfere with the realistic and achievable aim of steady, incremental improvement. If you can make a contribution to an article, please be bold and go right ahead, even if it means leaving a problem only partly fixed, or leaving other problems in the article totally untouched. [edit]

And regarding the rules you've pointed out, you've said this about that on your page: Coöperate, don't compete: Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is a coöperative venture, not a competitive one. It is not a forum for credentials-wielding statesmanship, nor is it appropriate to beat editors over the head with the rules. The verifiability and reliability criteria for information sources and all the other protocols and regulations exist to facilitate the improvement of the project, not to foment the aggrandizement of one editor over another.'Malke 2010 (talk) 00:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Noto Bene: Speaking of editing cooperatively, each time my entry was deleted I checked the talk page to see if an explanation had been posted but found none. It was only after I sent a message to the editor's desk that the above posts appeared.Malke 2010 (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The source provided is essentially a primary source quoting Roberts opinion. What actually ties his statement to Reverse discrimination? What is the importance/meaning of his statement in the context of Reverse discrimination. The quote shouldnt be there unless those questions can somehow be answered and those questions of analysis and interpretation need to be done by third parties, not Wikipedia editors implying such connections by simply placing inserting a primary source quote into the article. WP:OR. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What ties Justice Robert's quote to reverse discrimination is the case itself. The case and the majority and minority opinions of the Court speak for themselves, just as the Bakke case does.Malke 2010 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The quote does not discuss "reverse discrimination"- it discusses "discrimination". Wikipedia articles are not like essays for school or opinion pieces for newspapers where you are encouraged to take Fact A and Fact B and draw Conclusion C. For wikipedia, that analysis needs to be done by a third party and then we cite the published third party's analysis. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not drawn any conclusions by adding this case to the page. The quote by Justice Roberts most definitely addresses reverse discrimination. The section where the case and the quote are positioned in the article speak to what is happening in the United States in terms of reverse discrimination. The Seattle case cited is another example. I have not provided any original research or personal commentary. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and the case and the quote are appropriate and would benefit any user doing research on the subject of reverse discrimination. Malke 2010 (talk) 05:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

See, by your statement, by positioning the quote where you have you are intending the quote to say more than the words actually do about things that they do not directly address. That is a violation of our policies WP:NPOV / WP:SYN. -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You are clearly upset by what the quote says. You are presenting a nonsensical circular argument that almost borders on the paranoid. The entire case involves reverse discrimination. Read the case and the opinions and you will see for yourself. If you are upset that the United States is moving toward a day when discrimination is not sanctioned against any race, then you are out of luck. I could easily add the quotes of the majority opinion in the Bakke case. That would really upset you. You most definitely would not like what the Justices had to say about the polices of UC Davis at the time Dr. Bakke was applying to medical school.Malke 2010 (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

New comment on Justice Robert's opinion

The issue is accuracy, not whether someone is upset. The dispute here is whether the quote is an accurate summary of the holding of the case, and therefore appropriate for this encyclopedic summary definition of "reverse discrimination". It is not. It is a select quote, a cute tag line. Justice's Roberts one liner about stopping discrimination by stopping discrimination is at best dicta and it is of no more legal effect than his rephrasing of the constitutional's oath of office on January 20, 2009. W E Hill (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this is that inclusion of a dissenting opinion is clearly not WP:NPOV WP:MPOV or any of the rest of this business- it rather serves to cover the dissenting opinion which should be covered in any discussion of supreme court case law as to present conflicting point of views. However, the source cited should be the opinion itself to the extent it offers a quote in order to ensure the quote is absolutely accurate and that the wording is not misrepresented, not secondary or tertiary sources which may or may not misquote the opinion- however citations related to discourse involving the underlying implications (e.g. what the quote means beyond what the dissenting opinion says directly on it's face) should be secondary or tertiary sources. In fact, Failure to adequately cover a dissent is violation of WP:NPOV on it's face. Otherwise the effect becomes that Wikipedia is then actively promoting politics, which is extremely unencyclopedic, and causes Wikipedia's credibility to suffer drastically, as this is part of the reason that some educational institutions are beginning to outright ban the use of Wikipedia as a valid source for coursework. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Non neutral point of view violations

From the 1st sentence onward, it is clear this article suffers from multiple WP:POV issues. Every sentence contains a misstatement and some of these show bias. For example - reverse discrimination is not always a denial of equal protection of the law, this is a conclusion for a court to reach. Yet sentence #1 declares without qualification that:"Reverse discrimination 'is denial of equal protection of the laws". A gross misstatement which shows bias is also found in sentence #1: "proponents of racial quotas and affirmative action programs generally view it as discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group"

There are also several lack of balance issues interspersed in the article. WP:Weight For example, a blanket and inaccurate definitions of racial quotas are given, followed by a quote from one ultra conservative law professor with no rebuttal from the other side of this controversial issue.

Finally, a quote from Roberts, that the way to stop discriminating is to just stop discriminating is given as if it was the holding of the case, and it is not. It is a catch phrase that conservatives may like, and although it is cute and succinct, it is not the law or the holding. It might be appropriate to include this statement in a much longer article that discusses the case at length, but such discussion is beyond the scope or the purpose of this article -- at least until we get the basic definitions and holding right.WP:Cherry

Therefore I am tagging the article. Please do not remove the tag until consensus is reached, per Wikipedia policies. W E Hill (talk) 16:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this tiny article has always had large problems. I've just checked one of the sources and removed the material in the WP article first, because the WP sentence did not make sense to a lay reader and second, because the article was far more technical and narrow (and not clearly about reverse discrimination) than its inclusion here would have suggested. I may get to looking at the court case material, but probably not right now. At this stage I think it should possibly be deleted as not relevant to the concept under discussion in this WP article, but I would need a closer reading to be sure. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
I find myself offended by the term "positive discrimination". That is obviously a POV label invented at some point to make that particular form of discrimination look "good", and therefore necessarily imply that its counterpart is "the bad one". Backhandedly bypassing the opposing argument that both are in fact bad. I searched for references to such a term (I've never heard it before) and saw people using it. But people use lots of POV terms these days. I'm not sure what it takes to have that term inserted into "askoxford.com". But I'm offended that its there also and would like to know more about the origin and usage of this term. And possibly either delete it or rephrase it more clearly to acknowledge that it is POV and/or its usage may be more popular with one side of the debate. Thunderlippps (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think many of the problems people have with 'positive discrimination' result from a failure to distinguish between 'Equality of Provision' and 'Equality of Outcome'. Consider job candidates asked to walk up a flight of stairs, clearly Equality of Provision is ensured because both are being asked to do the same thing. But if one candidate is a wheelchair user, then Equality of Outcome is not ensured. Ensuring Equality of Outcome by simply putting a ramp in place is a form of Positive Discrimination that is hopefully acceptable to all. The article as a whole seems not to recognise these distinctions and could clearly be improved by discussing the legal situation WRT Equality of Provision vs Equality of Outcome in each country. I'm going to add a segment for the UK, but don't have the background to discuss it for other countries. DWG 17 Jan 2911 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.255.55 (talk) 01:47, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
I do not think installing a ramp would be considered discrimination as it would not disadvantage anyone (except for the one who pays for the ramp). PinkShinyRose (talk) 23:32, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Failing to distinguish between equality of provision and equality of outcome is one of two critical problems with this article. The other big problem is a failure to acknowledge the existence of both historical discrimination and continuing discrimination. The opening paragraph refers repeatedly to historical (and only historical) discrimination against minority groups, suggesting implicitly that discrimination against minorities is "over", and that "reverse discrimination" against majority groups has taken its place. But discrimination against minority groups does, of course, continue in the present, and is much more common and systemic than discrimination against majority groups. Failing to acknowledge this is misleading, and contributes to the article's non-neutral POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.191.203.183 (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to split article

India's problems with racial discrimination and her approaches to it are so vastly different from those of the U.S. that they can only be dealt with in separate articles. True, the split articles would each be short stubs, however, as long as notability is established in each stub, they will each remain on Wikipedia and will grow incrementally. I would like to split the articles within one week and will check back here for comments before doing so. W E Hill (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. One of the benefits of good Wikipedia articles is that they present worldwide views of their subjects. Reverse discrimination is a concept, and this article should focus on explaining the concept and how it is relevant in various contexts. We should not give undue weight to its application in the United States, and we should not split the article up, as what is most needed is an article about the concept, rather than about the concept as it applies in any particular country. hamiltonstone (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

"Reverse Discrimination" is a legal and perhaps social-cultural issue. India and the U.S. have entirely different legal systems, societies, histories, cultures, religions and dominant languages. The only thing that might be in common is the use of the term. A hat note at the top would serve the purpose of quickly referring anyone who wanted to read about India's caste problems to the other article. W E Hill (talk)

I do not see a benefit in dividing one cohesive topic into multiple articles. Notability for reverse discrimination is bolstered by it's global application. The underlying mechanisms and nomenclatures don't matter; the concept itself is the topic, and its presence in multiple places throughout the world (particularly increasingly so in the late 20th Century) is the best service of the argument. If there are other terms that are used, then wikilinks and/or redirects are more appropriate. - Keith D. Tyler 18:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverse Discrimination As Euphemism

Reverse Discrimination is a euphemism for anti-white bias in the United States and is based on questionable sociological framing. In Justice Antonin Scalia’s concurring opinion in a major case on affirmative action, the 1995 Adarand case,[2] he wrote: “Individuals who have been wronged by unlawful racial discrimination should be made whole, but, under our Constitution, there can be no such thing as either a creditor or a debtor race.”[3]By framing history in terms of creditor (the 'victim' of 'discrimination') and debtor (the 'historical' 'benefactor' of 'discrimination') the practioner of Frankfurt School derived sociological argumentation maintains the veneer of 'social progress' while handicapping one ethnic group for the sake of another.<--Wittsun (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Reverse discrimination is sometimes used as a cover for anti-white bias. But there's no evidence that whites are exercising "anti-white bias", in the sense of having an anti-white agenda, when implementing reverse discrimination. To argue that would mean that all whites who favor reverse discrimination operate on the basis of some sort of self-hatred, and there is no evidence offered for this.
There appear to be three meanings of the phrase "anti-white bias" in use so far:
  • policies that are meant to address a perceived present-day imbalance;
  • policies that are meant to redress a perceived historical injustice;
  • resentment or hatred toward a racial group.
We need to be careful not to conflate these meanings, because they are clearly not the same thing.
The opinions expressed in the links above argue against reverse discrimination on constitutional grounds. That argument is an interesting potential addition to this article, but does not support the thesis that reverse discrimination and anti-white bias are always the same thing. Empty Buffer (talk) 08:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
It is possible to have anti-white bias without being conscious of bias. When it is practised by whites it can be interpreted as anti-social behavior from a pragmatic standpoint or 'selflessness' from a religious standpoint. In the case of the Frankfurt School, the bias is self-interested. So the problem we are facing here is whether we are showing enough sensitivity to neutrality or if we are relying on tainted catch-phrases to describe a phenomenon.--Wittsun (talk) 09:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
What evidence exists for the presence of unconscious bias, and how does that support the thesis that having laws or policies aimed at getting more blacks and Asians hired in the US is really the same thing as killing white farmers in Zimbabwe? Empty Buffer (talk) 10:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Before we wander off the beaten track into the field of unconscious biases[4], my primary objection here is one of semantics; i.e. finding a more accurate term for the phenomenon erroneously referred to as "reverse descrimination". If we were to apply the same semantic extremism to your example then there should be such a thing as "reverse murder" -- but I think you will agree that that would be equally inappropriate.--Wittsun (talk) 10:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Please feel free to propose a better, less semantically-extremist term. Empty Buffer (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
This entry absolutely demands and requires a 'Criticism' section to deal with this issue. If there are no objections I will add the section and ask that the 'pro-reverse discrimination' camp allow it to develop without heavy-handed editing war.--Wittsun (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
All of your sources must discuss 'reverse discrimination' using that phrase. Expect to be reverted if they don't. 08:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)Dougweller (talk)

Removal of 'Incidents'

I've removed the 'incidents' section. Racially motivated crimes is not relevant to the article about reverse discrimination. -Oescp (talk) 01:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Incidents have been reinstated. Discrimination IS racism, and racially motivated crimes are driven by discrimination. For the sake of historical reference or even example, this incidents section is necessary - Gunnanmon (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There are several problems here:

1) you are reducing the definition of word reverse discrimination (keep in mind, this is what the article is about) to mean racism. This is absurd, and speaks to the bias which these "examples" illustrate.

2) The fact that racially motivated crimes are driven by racial discrimination does not mean it warrants inclusion in an article about reverse discrimination. These crimes do not provide either "historical reference" or "example" of reverse discrimination, they provide examples of racially motivated crimes. The definition of reverse discrimination is fairly loose, I admit, but these incidents fall clearly out of these bounds; nobody would justify a killing by calling it reverse discrimination.

19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

69.90.55.180 (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Racism is a form of discrimination. Acts committed for racist reasons by a racial minority against a racial majority is the perfect definition of "Reverse Discrimination". These incidents do, in fact, provide historical reference and example -- "res ipsa loquitur". - Gunnanmon (talk) 03:19, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
Nobody is disputing that "Racism is a form of discrimination", but "reverse discrimination", while not having a particular and well-defined meaning, is usually used when the government or other organization (company/universty/etc) uses "discrimination" to "restore the balance", favoring disadvantages minorities, at least that is the theory... Racially-motivated crimes, while could be classified under "discrimination", hardly fit the definition of "reverse discrimination". At the momment this just seems to be your POV, and possibly original research, do you have reliable sources to support your statements? If this belongs anywhere, it is on the discrimination article, not here. --Jerebin (talk) 21:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Creating an original list of alleged incidents of reverse discrimination is synthesis. And even if you could source it, it would still fall under WP:YESPOV and would not be allowed. Evanh2008, Super Genius Who am I? You can talk to me... 04:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Actually both definitions above about reverse discrimination being discrimination againist a majority AND attempts at correcting discrimination againist a majority are correct the only thing qualifier it needs is to be discriminative towards a majority. HOWEVER, we can not and should not limit this to racial attacks againist whites (if whites are the majority of said country). Sexism towards men, ageism towards adults 30-50, classism towards the upper class, mentalism towards the able minded (especially anti-intellectualism), religious discrimination towards Christians (note this only works if Christians are the majority in the country in question), sexualism towards heterosexuals, discrimination against cisgender people, and weightism towards thin people are all just as valid. I do think that at least some of these other discriminations should be addressed in order to make this less of an article about white bashing and more of an article about reverse discrimination.-Rainbowofpeace (talk) 04:44, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
I don't really think all discrimination (including crimes, etc) against a majority is "reverse discrimination". All the forms of discrimination you mention, are, by definition, "discrimination" and they might be appropriate for the discrimination article, but they should only be added here if there are multiple, reliable sources clearly describing them as "reverse discrimination", otherwise it would fall under WP:SYNTHESIS. Jerebin (talk) 02:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

One child seating policy of airlines

Concerning this revert I will explain my rationale: Banning men from seats next to unaccompanied children on flights is a case of reverse discrimination, because

  1. this is a gender issue (undisputable) and since men have been traditionally the dominant sex (undisputable fact) and reverse discrimination is defined as "against members of a dominant or majority group" (see lead), discriminating these male passengers is reverse discrimination, not just discrimination.
  2. the term has also been used explicitly in one of the cited articles "I hate to say this but it is a sign of that reverse discrimination that occasionally exists out there," he said. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Merge

This page talks about the same subject as Reverse racism. I say a merge or maybe even turning one of these pages into a redirect would be appropriate. BlueRidiculous (talk) 23:31, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I change my mind. BlueRidiculous (talk) 23:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

South Africa versus whites and Afrikaaner?

Nothing on black empowerment discriminating against the former white minority???? This article is one sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.187.145 (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Unclear where sources establish notability of topic

My tag was removed so I'm asking here as instructed: where is this established as a notable subject in need of its own article? It says from the get-go that this is simply a form of discrimination. Why should we set this apart from others, and why should we name it what we do?

In passing glance, we do not see any references incorporated into the article until after this sentence:

Reverse Discrimination can be defined as the unequal treatment of members of the majority groups resulting from preferential policies, as in college admissions or employment, intended to remedy earlier discrimination against minorities.

I bolded the first two words because the implication is that these references define this term. Yet here are the two references:

The third reference:

Pincus, F (2008). R. Schaefer, ed. Encyclopedia of race, ethnicity, and society. Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 1160–1162. ISBN 9781412963879.

is not one we can easily check. The first reference to spark any feelings of notability would be the fourth, the George Cher publication. If that is the case, if it establishes the notability of the topic, I think we should use it to support something more prominent to the forefront of the article, rather than something in a subsection. Ranze (talk) 05:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

First of all I think you misunderstand the purpose of the lead section (WP:LEAD). It's not necessary to have any references at all cited in the lead as the lead is meant to summarize what's in the body of the article. The sources in the body establish the notability and the lead summarizes what the body says. Second of all, I think you understand the concept of notability (WP:N). Notability is established by which sources are in the world rather than by which sources are in the article. It seems clear enough to me that the sources in the article establish notability as it's defined on Wikipedia, even if the article is in kind of crappy shape. Notability is explicitly defined not to depend on the state of the article, though. If you think the sources in the article aren't enough to establish notability, look at this google books search and this google scholar search. There's no question that the subject is notable by Wikipedian standards. If you don't feel that the notability is established in the article because not enough sources are used or the ones that are used are too low quality for your taste, by all means, improve it, but don't template it for that. If you truly believe that it's actually not notable you can take it to AfD and find out what others think. Templating an article like this when you clearly don't understand the two relevant guidelines is in very bad taste. Either fix the article, take it to AfD, or discuss actual conflicts with policy, not your feelings about whether things in the lead need to be cited.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:40, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Eight years later, the article is still full of weasel-word and missing-source tagging, and no real evidence is provided of actual people actually using the term.

Because they don't. Everyone I've ever met who complains about the topic (including myself) just calls it "discrimination". (Because it is.) 184.145.113.157 (talk) 02:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

affirmative action in American schools/workplace

With the recent display of racism by an NBA owner and the recent rulings in Michigan from the Supreme Court, which upheld the state’s decision to prohibit Affirmative Action as a determining factor in admissions in public colleges, discrimination may still be a hot topic which still divides our country. While many and I would say most people in our country, judge individuals based on their actions and behaviors and not their skin color, religious convictions, gender or other appearances, and would suggest that if this were not the case we would not have elected an African American president, not once but twice. Based on this history and the goal of fairness to all, I believe it is time that all colleges and universities base admission and scholarships on ability, desire and need and that employment, promotions, and contracts be based on quality, merit and skill, moving from an affirmative action based society to one that recognizes individuals who are seeking to better themselves and have a level playing field for all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.181.63.243 (talk) 17:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Citations Needed

The only source for the given definition is dictionary.com, other sources do not contain the phrase 'reverse discrimination' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.39.54.108 (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Suggest Merge With Discrimination

Almost every source given does not even contain the phrase 'reverse discrimination,' since this would fall under the umbrella of discrimination I suggest we merge what can be salvaged of this article into discrimination. 166.170.34.140 (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

reverse discrimination is discrimination 13:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)13:02, 14 September 2016 (UTC)78.42.255.27 (talk)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Reverse discrimination. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

NNPOV

badly NNPOV; multiple issues. treats a hotly disputed concept in sociology, & society as a whole, as "received truth" with only one ideologically-correct perspective, & weak coverage & "dismissal" of opposing/contesting views. Lx 121 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Your comment contains no actionable proposal. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I've removed the {{POV}} template. Template messages are supposed to lead to an effort to fix specific problems, not merely signal disagreement with the contents of an article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reverse_discrimination/Archive_1&oldid=1152417236"