Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 → Archive 9

Mugabeism in Lede

In this edit, MS96 made bold changes to the Lede, using Mugabeism as the first example and also reframing the lead sentence to state, in Wikivoice, that Reverse Racism refers to a real social phenomenon. As the latter is not an accurate summary of the article, I proposed this alternative, RETAINing the new Zimbabwe material while restoring NPOV in Wikivoice. MS96 subsequently reverted to their preferred version; a more neutral version should stay in place until consensus is reached, per WP:BRD. Newimpartial (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Other than the sources provided below, just use your common sense. Where humans exist, racism exists. Thinking that only whites can be racist is funny. So, not even a single racist guy lives in China? or Africa? Aren't they humans? Just please explain why don't they have the capability of being racist!? A sentence one hundred times less severe than "Whites are part of an evil alliance" would have been considered racism if used by a white.
  • Kimberly et al., Counseling in Zimbabwe: History, Current Status, and Future Trends. "The racism and brutality of colonialism still haunts Zimbabwe; this pain has been passed down in families and is evidenced in domestic violence and alcoholism. The reverse racism of the 2000s created personal grief and national despair when most White farmers and their family members were brutally assaulted and lost their farmlands under the auspices of the Land Reform and Resettlement Programme" [1]
  • Kriger et al., From Patriotic Memories to ‘Patriotic History’ in Zimbabwe, 1990 – 2005: the anti-white racism, always present within the ZANU leadership, becoming dominant in exile from about 1977 [2]
  • Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Africa for Africans or Africa for “Natives” Only? “New Nationalism” and Nativism in Zimbabwe and South Africa: When the Native Club came under heavy criticism by white liberal intellectuals as retrogressive and as nothing but reverse-racism, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of South Africa (UNISA) N. Barney Pityana (2006) tried to justify the Club as drawing its inspiration from the Fanonian language [3]
  • Ndlovu-Gatsheni, Making Sense of Mugabeism in Local and Global Politics: ‘So Blair, keep your England and let me keep my Zimbabwe’: Part of Mugabeism’s strategy of sorting out the intractable socioeconomic lacuna fashioned by settler racism was to use a reverse racism that first of all denied the white settlers Zimbabwean citizenship in order to take the land from them. [4]
  • Van Vuuren, Democracy versus nationalism and elite legitimation in Zimbabwe: In 2000 Mbeki not only paraded with Mugabe during the parliamentary election campaign marked by naked anti-white racism ... [5]
  • Esterhuyse, The strategic contours of the South African military involvement in Namibia and Angola during the 1970 / 1980s: The struggle for independence left most of Africa's leaders with an ingrained attitude of anti-colonialism and anti-(white) racism. [6]
  • Caroline Marcus: Reverse racism in South Africa (Daily Telegraph). [7]
  • "What we are seeing in action is reverse racism of the worst kind, and racism in any form should be deplorable" (The Washington Times) [8]
There are more references, will provide if necessary. MS 会話 17:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
All very interesting, but irrelevant to this article. This article is about reverse racism, a term very widely used to allege that white people are subject to racial discrimination. What you are talking about is racism, not reverse racism. And please, do not use The Washington Times as a source for this article. O3000 (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Made the relevant phrases bold to see better. All are either "anti-white racism" or "reverse racism", neither is general racism. Also, you closed your eyes to 7 references to pick 1? Other than that, based on WP:RSP, "There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations." MS 会話 18:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
MS96, lease note that this article is a general one on the controversial concept of "reverse racism", not an article on anti-white racism in Zimbabwe. As a result, sources that are specific to Zimbabwe (or to South Africa) should not be used to make claims about "reverse racism" as a general phenomenon, any more than US sources should be used as though they provided, in themselves, a global perspective in the subject. It is not obvious that discrimination against white settler minorities in former colonies is illustrative of a more general phenomenon of "reverse racism".
Also, appeals to "common sense" do not work on topics, like racism, where sense is not in fact common. The claim "Where humans exist, racism exists" is in any case deserving of a "citation needed" tag. Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
But, it does solidly prove that reverse racism exists, hence using the term alleged and therefore your reversion are incorrect. Also, you have obviously not bothered reading the sources I have provided because (1) it is impossible to even have a glance in such a short time; (2) The sources are also using the term for other African countries. MS 会話 18:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Sure I can provide citations. But, regarding this comment, I see it a mere waste of time to escalate this argue with you. MS 会話 18:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
And for the record, Objective3000, I disagree with your apparent view, expressed in this edit, that the inclusion of additional Zimbabwean and South African material represents a different topic from the current article. The sources - including scholarly sources - on Zimbabwe use the term "reverse racism", and in my view the rejection of such sources is a failure to maintain a "global view of the subject" as WP intends to do. The challenge is to integrate diverse sources without SYNTH, but the appropriate response to this challenge is not to reject the sources themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 18:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
MS96, please do not refector my comments by inserting yours between paragraphs, per WP:TPG. Also note that your sources do not demonstrate that "reverse racism exists", as you apparently believe - they demonstrate that the term "reverse racism" is used to describe discriminatory actions taken against white minorities in Zimbabwe (and South Africa). Let's leave the debate over what "exists" to the ontologists, since this is an article about a contested concept. Newimpartial (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm certainly open to discussion, which is why I brought it back here. But, the Zimbabwean additions quite changed, if not reversed, the focus of the article, particularly with the additions in the lead and at the top of the body. It nearly took over the article, with the common use of the term as almost an aside. Reverse racism is the common name for allegations related to programs like affirmative action dating back a half century; not the actions of a once colonial state to reverse the effects of colonialism. I should add that whites are less than 1% of the Zimbabwe population. If there are racist actions against whites in Zimbabwe, that’s not reverse racism. That’s racism. O3000 (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Think the other side, why should everything be devoted to the US? What I added was already much shorter (1/2 to 2/3) than the part devoted to the US. Also keep in mind that the articles can't be written in the specific "focus" that you wish to. A myriad of Scholarly articles and essays agree on the term. So, killing farmers is "reverse the effects of colonialism"? Great. Perhaps they should kill the rest? MS 会話 18:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Sarcasm isn't helping. I said this was racist. But, how is it reverse racism if the majority is black? We do not assume that all racist actions are against non-whites. O3000 (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I repeat, the term "reverse" racism has been widely used for describing the racist actions against whites (as contrasted to "normal" racism, where non-whites are subjected to racial discrimination). MS 会話 19:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Go for WP:3O from any of the active admins. MS 会話 19:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Objective3000, I think you will find that the term "racism" is often used in RS for the attitudes and practices of powerful minorities against colonized majorities, which makes sense of the usage "reverse racism" for the actions of those formerly subjugated majorities in post-colonial situations. I still believe that we should follow the sources here. We should also seek some kind of balance between US and other contexts, rather than letting the article be dominated by one or the other. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Yes, racism is used, correctly. It does not follow that the term reverse racism would be used for post-colonial racism. There is a role reversal. But, it’s still racism. On the sources, I wouldn’t use the Caroline Marcus or The Washington Times refs. Esterhuyse, Kriger and Van Vuuren call it anti-white racism. I’m OK with that. Only Ndlovu-Gatsheni and Kimberly used the words reverse racism. But, Ndlovu-Gatsheni wrote about Zimbabwe: “fashioned by settler racism was to use a reverse racism”. It doesn’t sound like actual use of the term reverse racism. Just sounds like it’s like a reverse of what previously existed. About South Africa, he writes that was a claim made by white liberal intellectuals. He didn’t appear to say it in his voice. I don’t see a preponderance of sources using these as examples of reverse racism. I do see a preponderance for anti-white racism. Anti-white racism certainly exists in the world, and it should be acknowledged instead of classifying it as a different kind of racism, even if it has been less common than white racism over the last few hundred years. O3000 (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Incidentally, there is a lengthy article Land reform in Zimbabwe. O3000 (talk) 20:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of the article on Land reform in Zimbabwe, but this article is about the theorizarion in terms of "reverse racism". Objective3000, I see you splitting hairs somewhat in order to say that the term isn't "actually" being used. I would rather say that the term is being used in South Africa and Zimbabwe (as well as in the US), then say by whom and for what purpose. These are not "examples of reverse racism" - they are examples of places and times where white minorities (and some scholars) have labelled the things happening to them as "reverse racism". Which is what this article is about. Newimpartial (talk) 21:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
We must be very careful with South Africa because of the white genocide conspiracy theory attached to that situation. O3000 (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
The overlap between white genocide conspiracy theory and "reverse racism" as a concept is scarcely limited to South Africa. Newimpartial (talk) 22:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, and it is pushed by white supremacists, neo-Nazis, and the current POTUS, which is why care is required. O3000 (talk) 00:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Not every passing mention or trivial use of a term belongs in an encyclopedia, and the fact that some sources use the (rather generic) term anti-white racism for Mugabeism doesn't mean Mugabeism belongs in this article. Some of the sources mentioned here look like opinion pieces, which are not generally reliable.

That said, the article already has a section on South Africa, so some content could be added there. And the sources by Ndlovu-Gatsheni look reliable enough to add some information about use of the term in Zimbabwe. @Ms96: could you provide links to your sources so others can see the parts you quoted in context? Based on the sources given here, making Zimbabwe the very first example in the article is extremely WP:UNDUE. Please also note that anyone's personal feeling as to whether something is racist/reverse-racist is irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't see it as a "passing mention" or "trivial".
  • No source uses anti-white racism for Mugabeism; reverse racism (or anti-white racism, these terms have been used interchangeably) is only one part of the Mugabeism.
  • Yes, 2 sources (out of 8; all others that I provided are actually peer-reviewed scholarly articles) are opinion pieces; although from perfectly citable and trusted journals that could be used in WP with correct attribution.
  • Zimbabwe is not South Africa. Just as much as the US is a different country. Also, the references mention other nations as well.
  • Why should (roughly) 920 words out of 1400 words (65%) of the article be devoted to the US part? This rises to 1100 out of 1400 (~80%) if the lead is also counted since it is almost completely devoted to the issue in the context of the US. The Zimbabwe section I had added had around 620 words (out of 620+1400=2000; 30%). It doesn't even deserve that, and it's "extremely WP:UNDUE" to mention it in the lead because it's an unimportant third world country? Or because the US is e pluribus unum?
  • I added the links to the references above. I add more references below:
  • Mashau, Unshackling the chains of coloniality: Reimagining decoloniality, Africanisation and Reformation for a non-racial South Africa: the decoloniality project should help African Christians to reaffirm the equality of the entire human race and the rejection of any form of human oppression, whether it takes the form of white supremacy, racism, sexism or otherwise. This should include reverse racism on the side of blacks as well. [9]
  • Horáková, Non-racialism and nation-building in the new South Africa: new forms of racism have been widely debated in South Africa, such as reverse racism, or 'black racism' towards whites, and black racism towards the black immigrants. [10]
  • Žagar, Rethinking Reconciliation: The Lessons from the Balkans and South Africa: Yet they did not eliminate deep divisions, social and economic injustice and inequality, exclusion and marginalization (particularly of poor, predominantly black populations in diverse environments) or racism (that exists in the forms of traditional, internal and reverse racism). [11]
  • ...Few deny that reverse discrimination is sometimes caused by preferential policies, and most agree that some cases of reverse discrimination exist in which a white male has unjustifiably been excluded from consideration and has a right to compensation. [12] hence the word "alleged" is incorrect. Worth noting that this reference discusses the issue in the US mainly. MS 会話 14:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: Sangdeboeuf went forward and deleted the whole Racism in Zimbabwe article claiming that "sources are largely opinion pieces or unrelated to the topic" while clearly being aware of 10+ absolutely reliable sources I have provided above (and, I could provide tens of other sources if necessary). MS 会話 20:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a note: It is hilarious how unreasonable this aspect is. There is no concept associated with the conservative movement that entails quote, "belief that social and economic gains by black people in the United States and elsewhere cause disadvantages for white people".

If someone could eliminate that line... it's pure disinformation, and a shameful irrelevant opinion of complaints regarding laws which place white people behind based on race alone. Even more rich is that this comes up first on google for search term, "systemic racism against whites". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:7A7F:F3C8:2126:AF83:5C62:FA76 (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

White racial resentment isn't a thing in the United States? That's not what studies show. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Response: Racial resentment is not reverse racism. The definition of Reverse Racism is: "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism on the basis of race directed against a member of a dominant or privileged racial group." I can see my concern has no hope of being considered. I figured it wouldn't given the nature of such edit ever making it in. Either way, have fun with your little falsehoods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C51:7A7F:F3C8:2126:AF83:5C62:FA76 (talk) 18:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

I was reverted by Beyond My Ken (totally absent in the whole discussion), who also added an edit warring tag to my talk page minutes after O3000 had added another one. I see this as a clear disruptive behavior. MS 会話 21:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
After asking why they have not participated in this discussion through these 4 days and whether they have any objections to the sources, they replied by a single sentence: "I took a 4-day vacation on Mars", which I highly doubt regarding their activity. MS 会話 21:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
You clearly do not have consensus for these massive changes, so beyond that, you are mistaken if you think anyone owes you a lengthy conversation. Continuing to make changes despite this lack of consensus is edit warring. This is true regardless of who warns you, or where they spend their vacations. Being warned for inappropriate behavior is not "disruptive", and this isn't the place for wikilawyering. Grayfell (talk) 22:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
Not sure if I got it correctly, but by "lengthy conversation" you mean I have provided too many sources (and maybe should delete some)? And, this is NOT true, because, adding edit warring tags to a user's talk minutes after another user has already done that is not true. Totally right about "this isn't the place for wikilawyering", I apologize. MS 会話 22:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
IP, racial resentment isn't reverse racism, it is regular old racism. I was offering racial resentment as the more specific term for the "belief that social and economic gains by black people in the United States and elsewhere cause disadvantages for white people", which you said didn't exist and that there was no concept for it. It does exist, per multiple RS, and the concept is "racial resentment". Newimpartial (talk) 00:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Yet more sources:

  • Nhlahla, Poor whites struggle by in Zimbabwe: "Hayes Mabweazara, a Zimbabwean academic based in Scotland, said the year 2000 saw whites becoming victims of reverse racism which forced many to retreat from public life." [13]
  • Chaulia, British neo-imperialism and cricket in Zimbabwe. (Globalization): "The apparent reason for the boycott was apparently "moral," owing to the fact that white farmers are being brutalized by Robert Mugabe's government in a form of reverse racism. [14]
  • Ndlovu-Gatsheni S.J. (eds) Mugabeism?. African Histories and Modernities. Palgrave Macmillan, New York: "To Henning though, the anti-imperialist position is bogus. It is underpinned by a "reverse-racist" and homophobic sentiments"; "Unlike Mandela’s nationalism, Mugabe’s nationalism had escalated to what appeared like reverse-racism as a form of liberation when he pushed for fast-track land reform program predicated on compulsory land acquisition from white commercial farmers to give to black Zimbabweans"; "Fanon (1968) had warned of the dangers of degeneration of African nationalism into chauvinism, reverse racism, and xenophobia"; "Zimbabwe has been repeating and practicing the canons of racial nationalism (reverse racism) as a solution to the problems rooted in white settler racial colonialism"; "At another level, the crisis in which political figures like Mugabe are entrapped manifests itself in the practice of deploying leftist political language, while remaining steeped in right-wing Eurocentric epistemology that reproduces all the negatives of coloniality such as reverse racism, tribalism, patriarchy, sexism, nativism, and xenophobia". [15]
  • Africa and International Relations in the 21st Century, edited by S. Cornelissen, F. Cheru, T. Shaw: ""The white man is not indigenous to Africa. Africa is for Africans. Zimbabwe is for Zimbabweans." This statement was one of many that indicated Mugabe's redefinition of nationalism in nativist terms and the promotion of reverse racism. [16]
  • The View From Abroad - Zimbabwe: "These were all people, though, who have learned the bitter lesson of the consequences of reverse racism -- Mugabe's seizure of white-owned farms and businesses that has led to Zim's collapse, and to widespread hunger in the formerly most prosperous African country." [17] (the Atlantic).
  • "After a decade and a half of total mismanagement, made worse by a policy of systematic reverse racism against the white farmers, Mugabe has thrown away that inheritance, and left his people facing ruin." [18] (BBC) MS 会話 06:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
A central problem I see with many of these sources is that they are not describing the concept of reverse racism in itself, but rather using the term "reverse racism" to refer to something else without explicitly defining what "reverse racism" means in that context (see use–mention distinction). Many are clearly not describing the topic of this article, namely, perceived racial discrimination against a dominant white majority by government programs aimed at redressing racial inequality. Taking the sources one by one:
• Kimberly et al. (2012): passing comment about "reverse racism" in the context of Zimbabwean land reform, no explanation of what this means. The focus of the source is psychological counseling, not the study of race or ethnicity.
• Krieger (2006): brief mention of (another author's reference to) "anti-white racism" among ZANU leadership. Does not explain what this means. Does not use the term "reverse racism".
• Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2009a): brief mention that South Africa's Native Club was criticized for "reverse racism". Not much relevant material overall, but could be added to the "South Africa" section.
• Ndlovu-Gatsheni (2009b): describes Mugabe's denial of citizenship to whites in Zimbabwe as "a reverse racism". Seems like a use–mention problem; no elaboration on what makes something "reverse racism" in this context. Could be used with attribution at Robert Mugabe.
• Van Vuuren (2005): full text requires payment. Quoted excerpt does not use the term "reverse racism".
• Esterhuyse (2008): ditto.
• Marcus (2018): source is the Australian tabloid The Daily Telegraph, not to be confused with the UK's The Daily Telegraph. Not usable.
• Washington Times (2018): an opinion essay in a partisan newspaper. Not usable.
• Madhau (2018): brief mention of "'reverse racism on the side of blacks'" (quotation marks in source). No elaboration on what this means. Source is a theological journal, not a political/sociological one.
• Horáková (2011): full text requires registration. Overall seems like a good source, could be added to the "South Africa" section.
• Žagar (2010): brief, parenthetical reference to "reverse racism" in South Africa. No explanation of what the term means.
• The SAGE Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society (2008): nothing to do with Zimbabwe or South Africa. The statement that "most agree that some cases of reverse [racial] discrimination exist" is certainly at odds with most of the sources cited in the article, which raises a red flag for me.
• Nhlahla (2008): source is an advocacy organization. Quotes an academic who says "reverse racism" happened in Zimbabwe. No elaboration of what makes something "reverse racism".
• Ndlovu-Gatsheni, ed. (2015): several references (in separate chapters) to something called "reverse racism", with little to no explanation of what the term means. Note that the book also contains the following quote under the heading "White victimhood": "For that reason, 'reverse racism' is based on a false and dishonest premise: 'when the slave takes the whip from the slave master [...] that is not reverse racism, it's the slave getting out of the yoke of bondage and slavery'" (link).
• Cornelissen et al., eds. (2012): brief mention of "reverse racism" as a label for Mugabe's policies, no elaboration of what makes something "reverse racism" in this context. Another use–mention problem.
• The Atlantic (2008): this is a reader's letter to the editor. Not usable.
• BBC (2008): this is a reader's comment on a blog. Not usable.
Frankly, it looks like someone just collected a bunch of search results for "reverse racism + Zimbabwe", without actually reading any of the sources. That just adds clutter to the talk page without helping us find duly weighted material to add to the article. Overall, I see a small amount of material that could be added to the "South Africa" section, and some that could be used for Racism in Zimbabwe, but certainly not sufficient sourcing to make Zimbabwe a major part of this article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the BBC, Atlantic, and (to a lesser extent) Daily Telegraph, you're right. But, neglecting all the other sources (and hundreds of others that are available), peer-reviewed journal articles and books is your problem. It stems from your assumption that " [the] topic of this article [is] perceived racial discrimination against a dominant white majority by government programs aimed at redressing racial inequality". This notion has undeniably been discussed in many sources but does not mean to ignore tones of works using it in reference to the actual anti-white racial discrimination. 25/100 of the latest edits on this article are yours, so I think you are simply trying to keep your preferred version, closing your eyes on the wide usage of this term outside of your scope. A source does not have to define the meaning of reverse racism in detail to be usable in "this" article. Yes, the " The SAGE Encyclopedia of Business Ethics and Society" is in odds with your sources and naturally raises your red flags. I will provide other sources suggesting that the issue is not "imaginary" in the US, as you (and your sources) suggest. (And you know anti-white racism redirects here, right? Don't understand why is it so puzzling for you that some sources "do not use the term reverse racism", but actually use anti-white racism) MS 会話 10:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
A Wikipedia redirect is not a reliable source. Regarding my edits, kindly WP:AGF. As for whether sources have to define the meaning of reverse racism in detail, the point is more that most of these sources are not about reverse racism itself, but simply use the term "reverse racism" to describe something else. Usage of a term itself isn't relevant; Wikpedia is not a dictionary. Some of these sources might be good candidates for a Wiktionary entry, but not an encyclopeedia article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
And I never said a Wikipedia redirect is an RS; but citation number 4 in the article (one of your sources) is. If scholars "use the term reverse racism to describe something else" and Wikipedia doesn't, it's not their fault, but Wiki's (its contributors, to be more specific). MS 会話 16:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Not if the majority of sources using reverse racism for something else are primary sources for such usage. Sources should be about the topic at hand. If they just use a term with no explanation of its meaning then there's little to add to an encyclopedia article. We already cover Mugabeism and Land reform in Zimbabwe in other articles. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The majority of the sources I provided were not primary, to the best of my knowledge. "If they just use a term with no explanation of its meaning then there's little to add to an encyclopedia article." True, but there are differences between a Japanese novel in which someone eats food, which obviously is not appropriate for use in Rice, and scholarly articles and books dedicated to post-1980 Zimbabwe blatantly using the term "reverse racism" for the violence against the whites in this period. MS 会話 21:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
To repeat, how sources use a term is not relevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; it doesn't define how terms are used, but describes topics that sources cover in depth. In your example the topic would be History of Zimbabwe § Independence and the 1980s, Land reform in Zimbabwe, or perhaps Racism in Zimbabwe, not the term reverse racism itself. What are we actually proposing to add to the article beyond "Source X calls thing Y 'reverse racism'"? —22:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
"What are we proposing to add to the article beyond Source X calls thing Y 'reverse racism '?" This question also applies to this issue in the US. It actually applies to all other topics; based on this logic there would be no need for WP because Wiktionary would be able to cover everything. (May be things like its backgrounds, the events leading to it in Zimbabwe, the events taken place within this context (RR in Zimbabwe), the reactions toward it, its outcomes, etc are your answer). Having several other overlapping articles doesn't mean that this topic can't be mentioned here and hundreds of RS should be neglected. MS 会話 07:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Then please propose specific text to be added, and indicate which sources support such an addition. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

why is this article implying that reverse racism exists only in the context of affirmative action?

there are countless articles today saying "you cannot be racist against whites". there is no context of affirmative action in any of those articles. 2601:602:9200:1310:3493:1BEE:8DD5:87D4 (talk) 17:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based on what published sources say. If they say "reverse racism" is related to affirmative action, then we do too. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"or reverse racism" in lead

Are these the same? If so, why do we have Reverse racism? Doug Weller talk 14:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Did you mean reverse discrimination? That article is a bit of a mess, and there was a failed proposal to merge it with this article a while back. The two terms are often synonymous in a US context, but there seem to be some unrelated usages as well – I think Reverse discrimination could be a useful broad-concept article after some cleanup. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverse discrimination needs checking

I'm not happy about the recent edits. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect naming

Articles are based on published, reliable sources, not the beliefs and/or experiences of users. No actionable proposal here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:23, 2 October 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The title "Reverse racism" implies that this form of racism is somehow different or has less impact than other forms of racism, and can be found offensive by some people. It should either be titled "Anti-white racism", or should be under the "Racism" article of Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.147.45.43 (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

  • Reverse racism is a well-documented and well cited claim that may indeed be considered related to racism -- but not in the manner that you suggest. Please read the entire article and its cites. O3000 (talk) 01:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
  • First poster is correct: there is nothing "reverse" about this sort of racism, and the qualifier "reverse" serves only to attempt to justify or cover for it. It's literally just racism (as is the qualifier "reverse" itself). Being well-cited within a society saturated in racism of this specific kind isn't exactly a compelling argument against first poster's comment. Wikipedia's readership includes people who have been fired or otherwise discriminated against, solely due to their white appearance, or male presentation. These folks can tell when it's raining, and when it's not.24.55.249.158 (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Our opinions don't count. You need to find reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 22:45, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is only racism

The very meaning of the phrase "reverse racism" is racist. Implying that whether or not someone can be racist depends on the race of the offender. This is quite obviously false. The existence of this fringe ideology might be worth a foot note under racism, but not its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:D2:DF10:4900:5CA2:43F:6DB:B420 (talk) 10:47, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

So you're saying all the published sources on the topic are wrong? Cool, I'm sure we all look forward to reading your rebuttal in a qualified academic journal. –Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:19, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Pointless snark, WP:NOTAFORUM. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Racism is a phenomenon that is only experienced by people of colour, all humans can be and are victims of racism. Whites can only be the self perceived victims of "reverse racism", a made up term for a thing that does not exist, as racism requires prejudice and institutional power. Because people of colour are human, they can be discriminated against by a prejudiced institution. Murder and rape should be redefined in a similar manner. It's unpossible to murder or rape a white, they can only be killed or forced to have sex, because both murder and rape require that the murderer and rapist have power over their victim. 88.106.238.93 (talk) 15:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like you just proved the existence of reverse racism. You'll need reliable sources for this. O3000 (talk) 19:07, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
First, I'd ask for your "reliable sources" to disprove that whites are incapable of being victims. 88.106.238.93 (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Part of a racial backlash against social gains by people of color

This phrase misrepresents the referenced book (Ansell 2013) pages 17 and 137. This phrase implies that white people want people of color to not make social gains, and Ansell suggests nothing of the kind. Answell doesn't imply that there is a backlash because of social gains. Rather she states that there is backlash because of perceived inequality of opportunity for individuals. This is irrespective of actual social gains or losses. This phrase should be fixed to correctly paraphrase the source and not misrepresent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bmacisaa (talk • contribs) 08:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Remove redirection

Anti-white racism redirects here. It should not, because many pages on Wikipedia, particularly those detailing hate crimes, specifically use the term anti-white racism. It's statistically rare, but black-on-white hate crimes do occur, and those particular incidents are best described as a (non-systemic) form of racism, not reverse racism. Reverse racism refers to the systemic. --Sebanderson (talk) 05:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Which sources refer to "reverse racism" as "systemic"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:28, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Please provide examples of these articles which describe "hate" "crimes" against whites. They have obviously been vandalised and such outlandish claims need to be moved to an article about fictional events, specifically this one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.238.93 (talk) 12:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Here you are : Category:Anti-white racism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:80B:7840:E451:E5FF:EB43:1324 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2021

I've verified source 32 in the South Africa section. OldCause (talk) 20:43, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Could you quote the part of the source that supports the text so other users can verify it as well? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
"To give another example: affirmative action and black economic empowerment were controversial and often misrepresented. In a society in which the greater majority of desk and management jobs were held by whites, there was a clear need for action to move towards a more level job market. Yet many whites have persisted in claiming 'reverse racism'." This comes after a couple of paragraphs talking about corrupt white civil servants. OldCause (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Malaysia

I think the article should mention the discussion in Malaysia in regards to affirmative action for Malays, where many Chinese and Indian Malaysians claim reverse racism and discrimination (see also Bumiputera (Malaysia), Ketuanan Melayu, Racism in Malaysia and Social contract (Malaysia)). Any opinions? Nordostsüdwest (talk) 13:55, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where any of those pages mention either "reverse racism" or "reverse discrimination". What are your sources for this? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Tearing down the concept during the definition of the concept

For your interest, the only people in the world who I'm aware of that are less racist than white people and who don't racially abuse white people more than white people abuse them are Pacific islanders. They hold no racism towards each other or other races. This article needs to be rewritten. It is an article about why there is no credit at all or meaning behind those who "believe that reverse racism exists." It should be an article describing reverse racism. Where is even the basic definition of those who feel abused by people who tear down all Caucasian Westerners and Western civilisation, but doing the same thing to a very very very very very very large country of NON Caucasians is "racist." This appears to be some weird form of gaslighting to make an article about reverse racism by writing an article proving that those who believe that it exists is wrong. To further this abuse, please notice that in almost any non-Western country, Westerners will suffer several thousand times more racial abuse than people from that country coming to the Western world. I leave it as an example to whoever is reading this that the concept that what I just said is wrong or not exaggerated is an example of reverse racism. Reverse racists won't even let up to the concept of non-Caucasians being racist and abusing Caucasians. This is because of the ugly reality that non-Caucasians are significantly more racist to Caucasians and the Western world is the only place on the planet where "calling out racism" on a large scale has become culturally normal. In all other countries on the planet, racism is considered normal and accepted and isn't even considered a topic of discussion. White people discriminating against their country, however, is "racism." This article is just totally abusive and vile. This is the only word I can think of.

Please rewrite the entire introduction and at least DEFINE the other perspective to which you clearly hate and desire to gaslight and abuse.

Please provide a basis in reliable sourcing for your assertions. Talkpage s are not fora for personal analysis and accusations. Acroterion (talk) 10:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Should a link to Wikipedia's Anti-Racism article be added?

Due to the nearly identical linguistic structure and denotation in the meaning of the terminology, it seems relevant to understand the topic of the article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-racism

E.g. Reverse racism, Anti-Racism, or reverse discrimination is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:201:500:68b5:b294:d24b:5ed2 (talk) 18:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Not seeing any similarity. Where do published sources make such a comparison? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Not a source making a comparison, rather the leading source for the antiracism article. "Being Antiracist". National Museum of African American History and Culture. 2019-10-01. Retrieved 2020-08-11.
The description of what underlying actions would constitute antiracism being so broad as to include "Being antiracist is fighting against racism."
Would fit the description of the interpreted actions which are described in
Ansell, Amy Elizabeth (2013). Race and Ethnicity: The Key Concepts. Routledge. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-415-33794-6.
Cashmore, Ellis, ed. (2004). "Reverse Racism/Discrimination". Encyclopedia of Race and Ethnic Studies. Routledge. p. 373. ISBN 978-1-13-444706-0.
Cyr, Lauren (2018). "Literature Review: Interdisciplinary Findings on Diversity and Inclusion". In Kim Gertz, S.; Huang, B.; Cyr, L. (eds.). Diversity and Inclusion in Higher Education and Societal Contexts: International and Interdisciplinary Approaches. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 24. ISBN 978-3-31-970174-5.
Linking the articles in both directions seems to be the most appropriate way to neutrally describe the underlying actions and concepts in both articles. Rather than rehashing them both on the other's page. As the reverse racism sources predate the antiracist source, but the description of antiracist acts, encompass the description of what's interpreted to be reverse racism in the sources of this article. Yet since the term antiracist hadn't appeared yet, it couldn't have been used in the cited sources here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:342:201:500:24e4:a1ab:a14b:396 (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Still not seeing the similarity. Where do any of these sources say reverse racism means fighting against racism? Anti-racist has been used an an adjective since at least 1971, and as a noun since 1938, according to the OED:
anti-racist, n. and adj.

"1938 New Statesman 19 Feb. 302/2 On the other hand, he recognises the importance, as anti-racists, of H. J. Muller, Humboldt, [etc.] ...

"1971 N.Y. Times 12 Jan. 6/6 The recent awarding of $200,000..to 19 anti-racist organizations..had some 'negative results'."

— "anti-racist". Oxford English Dictionary.
Lacking a reliable source explicitly making the comparison with reverse racism, such a link would constitute original research. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is 'reverse racism' and 'anti-white racism' combined into a single entry?

'Reverse racism' seems to imply that anti-White racism cannot exist.

So isn't it biased to merge 'anti-White racism' into this single article? Why aren't they separate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.67.195.202 (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

See WP:V. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with this one. "Reverse racism" talks about the belief that institutional racism in the US against white people exists and is specifically because of affirmative action, which obviously isn't the case. But the article doesn't talk about the subject of anti-white racism as a whole so it should be a different page. I think we need a different article specifically about anti-white racism as a whole, so mostly NOT institutional racism but personal racism which can be experienced by everyone. They really are separate subject, and for the second article we need to add the information, and maybe try to find reliable sources from Category:Anti-white racism and Black supremacy. And speaking about institutional racism against whites, it can exist but in countries with a white minority like Nigeria, South Africa etc (but NOT because of affirmative action). Because everything isn't about the US. 2A01:E0A:80B:7840:E451:E5FF:EB43:1324 (talk) 21:41, 5 December 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the fact that 'Reverse racism' seems to imply that anti-White racism cannot exist. Please correct86.6.148.125 (talk) 17:00, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
That's not generally how we write articles. Please refer to our core content policies, including Verifiability and No original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Unless other sources specifically discuss "anti-white racism" itself in depth (and don't just use the term to describe something else), basing a separate article on such sources would be a form of original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
I also agree. The conflation of reverse racism (e.g. in the US) and anti-White racism (e.g. in South Africa) is bizarre. The kinds of racism discussed in the two sections are entirely different. If this is to be a page on reverse racism (which relates to the claim that affirmative action is racist), then there should be a separate page on anti-White racism. OldCause (talk) 18:21, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
Per the above explanation, that's not how this works. Start with reliable sources and work from there. Don't start from your own understanding of a term and extrapolate on how you think that term should be covered. That is original research, which Wikipedia tries to avoid. Instead, stick to sources. Grayfell (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
On the basis of which sources has the decision been made to conflate "reverse racism" with "anti-white racism" such that the latter redirects to the former?OldCause (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Ansell (2013), p. 136: "reverse racism is alleged to be a new form of anti-white racism practiced by blacks and/or the so-called civil rights establishment". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:59, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I would've thought the clue would be in the phrase "a new form of" anti-white racism, no? Implying that reverse racism is a kind of anti-white racism, but there are other "forms" of anti-white racism. OldCause (talk) 18:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Ansell also mentions that critics of color-consciousness "contend the doctrine ... constitutes a new form of anti-white reverse racism" (p. 46). Since the phrase "anti-white" is apparently only used in the context of "reverse racism" in the book, Ansell seems to be saying in both instances that "reverse racism" is alleged to be a new form of racism which is also anti-white. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
I also agree, there should be separate articles. The FBI mentions "Anti-White Hate Crimes", 775 people fell victim to that in the United States in 2019, according to their data. That is completely separate from the so-called "Reverse Racism" that some talk about in regards to Affirmative Action as listed in this article. Nordostsüdwest (talk) 13:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
Hate crime § Victims in the United States already talks about white victims, as does Hate crime laws in the United States. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
These are quite separate concepts and topics, as the opening sentence of the article concedes. An "anti-white racism" article will need to be created. Observoz (talk) 02:03, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

[C]ircumstances in which members of a society's most predominant ethnic group face disadvantages resulting from implementations of affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs largely do not exist, as the sources for this article make clear. The concept of "reverse racism" is an invention of US conservatives angry about affirmative action. To say any less is simply a whitewash. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

America

WP:NOTFORUM, no concrete improvements suggested. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


Why is there been no progress towards update including outside the USA, for example the UK & Europe has now had over an estimated 500.000 white girls and woman between the ages of 7-30 who have been targeted, groomed and abused by Black & Asian men according to there local Governments, or why there has been no mention in the rising crimes against white persons globally. You would think wiki to be updated, equal & fair on facts surrounding the heading. Please update. 147.161.166.209 (talk) 10:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)RF

[citation needed] Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:31, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

13 September 2021

WP:NOTFORUM, no concrete improvements suggested. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Thread retitled from "This article needs to be deleted".

"reverse racism" isn't real, it's just called racism. Anyone who uses reverse racism is using it to mask their own racism. Pyromilke (talk) 23:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Notability. The concept of reverse racism has been covered extensively in published, reliable sources. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe that it is real, but it's still a contentious topic, so it needs an article, unfortunately Justknowthatyourenotinthisthingalong (talk) 23:40, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Rename article?

Should this article be retitled "Reverse Racism Debate in the United States"? It is flagged as part of the USA portal and is written almost entirely from an American POV, but the subject matter could go well beyond the USA. The subject matter is also somewhat contentious and disputed. How can we reflect this in the article? Observoz (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

As the sources for this article make clear, the concept of "reverse racism" in the US is an invention of conservatives angry about affirmative action. This is not in dispute among published, reliable sources that I've seen. Ergo, it would be extremely WP:UNDUE to call it a "debate". The article mentions other countries where appropriate sourcing is found. If there are other non-US sources, feel free to present them. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 02:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Please do not attempt to reverse the POV flag for this article again. As this talk page demonstrates, this article is flawed, contentious and US-centric. Observoz (talk) 04:23, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
This talk page does not show that. Responded on your user talk page. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that the POV tag is being misused. I prefer problems to be solved rather than labeled. Wikipedia as a whole is inevitably American centered, .... centered it does not seem like enough for a warning in upone itself. What exactly is the problem, which sentence, what is missing we can put it there. I would prefer a name change to "Reverse Racism in the United States" and merging the South Africa section somewhere, to making this page one of those country list pages with half backed sentences after each one.Dushan Jugum (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

I think Reverse Racism in the United States would imply that reverse racism is something that exists in the US, as opposed to a faulty conception that the majority of RSes characterize it as. Ansell (2013, p. 137) also directly mentions South Africa. What would be a better place for that content specifically? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC) For comparison, even though Pizzagate was a mainly US phenomenon, it would be incorrect to name the article Pizzagate in the United States, for example. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:17, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Good call User:Sangdeboeuf If refs link the two countries then I am cool. If not Racism in South Africa would be fine. My fear is it becoming a page set out like Home front during World War II which is not the end of the world and we are far away from it. So yeah, ignore me on that one. My main point would be that POV tags are for pages with POV editing (which can be fixed) not pages on POV subjects (which can not).Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
oh, the tag is gone, well just ignore me on that one two, just pretend I am not here. Dushan Jugum (talk) 08:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 October 2021

Editing for an assignment Emmaalliison (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone will add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Cannolis (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

No quotations or citings of supporters of this notion?

It seems absurd to me, and in breach of Wikipedia's intended neutrality, that almost all of the supposed viewpoints of believers of this phenomenon are from Amy Ansell, a critic of the idea of reverse racism. Why not simply quote or cite directly the views of supporters of this idea, thus avoiding the phrase "according to Ansell", which seems to all but tell us we are listening to an unreliable narrator? Letsgoraiding (talk) 05:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The reason we don't directly cite believers of this phenomenon is that virtually all reliable sources say it isn't real; to give equal validity to proponents of reverse racism would be the real breach of NPOV, just as would doing the same for believers in flat Earth or Moon landing conspiracy theories. Statements are credited to the author mainly to avoid plagiarism and also to signal that the statements themselves may be biased (which does not make them unreliable). --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No such thing

White people can't experience racism because racism in structural and white people are at the top. There is literally no way a white person can be discriminated for being white. ZoombomberGuy (talk) 18:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM EvergreenFir (talk) 21:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Empirical evidence

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

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

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

Concerns.

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

Rename the article from reverse racism to anti white racism

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

Please provide a published, reliable source to support your desired changes. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 10:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
The top Google Scholar results for "'anti-white' racism" are sources describing perceptions—especially right-wing perceptions—of anti-white bias, not anti-white racism as a reality. Renaming this (or any other) article to suggest that anti-white racism is a notable topic would be highly misleading and WP:POV. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:14, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Reverse_racism/Archive_5&oldid=1136376835"