| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reverse racism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9Auto-archiving period: 3 months
 |
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Reverse racism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Reverse racism at the Reference desk. |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Mariam-Webster defines "racism" as
1
: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
2
a
: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
specifically : WHITE SUPREMACY sense 2
b
: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles
Whilst the article meets the criteria for the second definition it disregards the first definition. This leads to a article where only one view of the word is represented. The first definiton does not require a majority population nor the control of the "system" by an particular race.
Even meeting the second definiton this article disregards any non american view on the topic. To meet the definiton the writers of the article must assume the state/country/region where the racism takes place is majority and systemically white.
Reverse racism is persay just racism according to the first definiton as seen on Mariam-Webster. I therefore suggest rewriting this article to represent a broader view of the topic including but not limited too a less american standpoint, I further suggest changing the headline to something like "Racism against white people" if you don't agree that this is actually a thing we should ad a sub-section for criticism like it is done in most articles. But the truth remains the term "racism" meets the first definition on Meriam-Webster.
I understand this is a hot topic, but either this article is rewritten too meet Wikipedia standards or it should be deleted in its entirety. Superpig05 ( talk) 06:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to fundamentally rewrite this article, you will need way more in the way of reliable sources than a Merriam-Webster definition of one-half of the article title. More importantly, you will need reliable sources that actually discuss the specific concept or phrase "reverse racism", not just extrapolate from the word "racism" just because it happens to be in the article title.
Writ Keeper
⚇
♔ 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well its not only the definition on Mariam-Webster but every lexicon you can find. And still my point stands, this article has an america centric view of the concept. Peoples opinions on what the meaning of a word is changes rapidly, thats why we have lexicons and defined definitions. As an educational platform that is supposed to be impartial to opinions its appropriate to use lexicon definitions.
Superpig05 (
talk) 14:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article is about the concept of reverse racism, not just the term. The most reliable sources are the ones that examine the topic in depth, not just give the literal meaning of the word(s). Making any inferences about the topic from a dictionary entry on "racism" (not "reverse racism") would be textbook improper synthesis. Both the dictionary issue and the US-centric issue have been discussed at length several times; for instance, see Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 8#POV issues. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 14:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Many articles are US-centric because the topic itself and/or the available sources are concentrated in the US. The article already addresses this:
While the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue, the concept of reverse racism has been used internationally to some extent wherever white supremacy has diminished
. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 15:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)- It is painfully laughable how you point out how this article is insultingly U.S. centric yet you point out to sources about foreign matters that come from tangential mentions from U.S. references.
- I agree this article deserves some further review as this article has a title that makes no sense but to Americans.
181.224.234.143 (
talk) 17:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- You're absolutely spot on with that observation; but look at the talk page archives. I have insisted the exact same; the exact same editors dismiss the fact. Zilch-nada ( talk) 03:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well its not only the definition on Mariam-Webster but every lexicon you can find. And still my point stands, this article has an america centric view of the concept. Peoples opinions on what the meaning of a word is changes rapidly, thats why we have lexicons and defined definitions. As an educational platform that is supposed to be impartial to opinions its appropriate to use lexicon definitions.
Superpig05 (
talk) 14:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- 1000% agree. I made the same arguments above. Any serious encyclopedic entry should have a definition from a reputable dictionary to accurately define the subject matter. Many/most Wikipedia pages cite to dictionaries. However, there are several very active editors on this page that disagree with the prevailing dictionary definitions on this subject.
Gumbear (
talk) 22:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- As has been said, Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and
Many/most Wikipedia pages cite to dictionaries.
is the opposite of fact. A tiny percentage do so. In fact, this is rare. There is a difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 22:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)- Of course this isn't a dictionary, but there's no reason the definition here should deviate from dictionary definitions. BLUF: The current definition in the lead doesn't conform to any mainstream definition. It even strays far from the encyclopedic definition it references, and is a synthesis of several sources. However, aligning this article to mainstream definitions (whether from a dictionary or encyclopedia) would necessitate a major rewrite of this entire article.
Gumbear (
talk) 13:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC) —
Gumbear (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I am no expert on the topic of reverse racism - but to me it seems the term reverse racism as used in the sources does focus very much on the second definition of racism and not so much the first. Given that we are talking about the entire term "reverse racism" here that context should probably matter and limit the way racism is used for most of this specific article (e.g. it also makes little sense to rewrite the
bank (geography) article to include discussion of the financial institution).
Arnoutf (
talk) 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree there should be well defined parameters in encyclopedic entries. However, when discussing "bank (geography)" it should probably be defined holistically rather than narrowing the definition to only include "banks on the Mississippi", as if "banks (geography)" couldn't exist outside of the Mississippi River. More to the point, if every other credible source that claims to be a definition defines the subject without limiting it to a particular race or specific government program, we probably shouldn't limit the definition to only pertain to white people or affirmative action. Gumbear ( talk) 20:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
There's no reason the definition here should deviate from dictionary definitions
– there is a very good reason, namely that dictionaries define terms according to how they are used by the general public, whereas an encyclopedia describes topics based on the works of expert sources. Oftentimes this requires using more technical and/or niche-scholarly definitions of words. If we re-wrote the lead to define "racism" according to the dictionary, not only would it give undue weight to non-scholarly perspectives, but the rest of the article would no longer make any sense. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 15:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)- @ Gumbear: the definition of "reverse racism" given in the lead section is taken almost exactly from Ansell (2013), pp. 135–136. There is no synthesis, as has been explained to you at length already. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 16:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am no expert on the topic of reverse racism - but to me it seems the term reverse racism as used in the sources does focus very much on the second definition of racism and not so much the first. Given that we are talking about the entire term "reverse racism" here that context should probably matter and limit the way racism is used for most of this specific article (e.g. it also makes little sense to rewrite the
bank (geography) article to include discussion of the financial institution).
Arnoutf (
talk) 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Of course this isn't a dictionary, but there's no reason the definition here should deviate from dictionary definitions. BLUF: The current definition in the lead doesn't conform to any mainstream definition. It even strays far from the encyclopedic definition it references, and is a synthesis of several sources. However, aligning this article to mainstream definitions (whether from a dictionary or encyclopedia) would necessitate a major rewrite of this entire article.
Gumbear (
talk) 13:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC) —
Gumbear (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- As has been said, Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and
- The dictionary definition mentioned is for racism. The term reverse racism does not mean the opposite of the definition of racism or necessarily the reverse. It doesn't work that way. You cannot use the definition of a word to define another word or term that includes the first. Words are defined according to their common usage. Racism and reverse racism are used differently. As an encyclopedia, we use reliable sources, not our own conclusions based on dictionaries. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 14:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Apart from this being written and titled exclusively from an American or– more generally– a Western perspective; reverse racism infers that racism is a characteristic of white people; that it originates from white people; that it's mainly white people who are racist; thus the 'reverse' has connotations that the racism against White people is different from racism. I suggest changing the article name to match and similarly reflect the 'anti-black' article. 90.247.86.238 ( talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- We don't have the power to change language. We only document.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And the NAACP both disapproved of the Black Power movement. In fact, he was quoted saying, the black power movement "connotates black supremacy and an anti-white feeling that does not or should not prevail." Also
2603:9008:1107:2755:E162:BD98:940B:CA9D (
talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I fail to see how that relates to this article. If anything, reverse racism is an anti-black/asian/etc racist concept. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And the NAACP both disapproved of the Black Power movement. In fact, he was quoted saying, the black power movement "connotates black supremacy and an anti-white feeling that does not or should not prevail." Also
2603:9008:1107:2755:E162:BD98:940B:CA9D (
talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Sangdeboeuf None of them say "systemic discrimination". All of them say "reverse racism". Literally all of the five sources. You are inferring "systemic discrimination" from different terms, whereas "reverse racism" is literally the central impetus of each cited phrase. Zilch-nada ( talk) 12:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what "reverse racism" is supposed to be other than "systemic discrimination" against white people specifically. In any case I've changed "discrimination" to "disadvantage" to more closely follow the cited sources, e.g.
Garner (2017) p. 185:
[T]here is no evidence that [reverse racism] is a social fact, or that a pattern of disadvantageous outcomes for white people qua white people exists
; Bax (2018):Many Americans—including some people of color—staunchly believe in the existence of reverse racism, or racism against whites. The evidence to support this perception of 'whiteness as disadvantage' is highly suspect
. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 12:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC) - Also, it's not true that none of the
five sources mention systemic discrimination.
Ansell (2013) states on p. 137,
For example, a study of complaints of reverse racism brought before the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found that, between 1987 and 1994, only 2.2 percent of claims came from white males charging race discrimination, and a small minority of those were found to have merit. Similar findings have been published with respect to US federal court decisions.
— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 15:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)- "
of each cited phrase
" Zilch-nada ( talk) 09:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)- The point of the five
quotes in the footnote is to support the statement that
there is little to no empirical evidence that white Americans as a group are disadvantaged
. Once again, it's unclear what "reverse racism" is supposed to mean in this context other than systemic discrimination against whites. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)- Agreed, for the record. Zilch-nada, this is a pedantic objection. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- The point of the five
quotes in the footnote is to support the statement that
- "
The text "White" & "Black" in this article should be capitalized, as these words refer to their respective racial group.
MOS:RACECAPS
AppGoo0011 ( talk) 15:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't agree, and that's not what MOS:RACECAPS says:
Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white).
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 15:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)- I would favor a change to capitalized Black and White. Since so much of the RS coverage of this topic is focused on the US, and since US style guides predominantly recommend capitalization, I think following suit would be helpful to readers. Since this topic covers not just Black and White racial groups—also including Indian, Hispanic, etc.—capitalization is recommended by the part of RACECAPS that says
"The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort"
. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)- The changes made included one or more changes to quotes where capitalization did not exist in the quoted material. Also, cites to Wikipedia articles where caps weren't used. Plus the term "whiteness" which I haven't seen capped before. Clearly a mass find/replace won't work. As there are so many uses of the words in this article, and either is acceptable; seems the status quo makes more sense. As Writ said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Of course I object to changes to quotes, reference titles, etc. Wikipedia article titles could definitely be changed. I agree mass find/replace is not the way to go. I think the status quo is a little bit broke, and I'd like to fix it. Would you say you're neutral on which style we use, or are there reasons (besides bias toward status quo, which I share) that you would prefer lowercase? Our experiences with the word "Whiteness" also differ; there are quite a few recent reliable sources that capitalize "Whiteness" available at Google Scholar.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looking around, there are articles that capitalize and those that don't. Like there are articles using British spelling and those that use American spelling. What's important is that there is consistency within an article. American blacks are quite likely to have mixed DNA starting with the rape of African slaves by white slave traders and owners. Then again, West Africans invaded what is now Spain and Italy in the 7th and 8th centuries mixing peoples. And race mixing is becoming and will continue to become more common making the terms less and less meaningful -- except when pointing out racism. This article is a bit unusual in that it is titled "Reverse racism", which is itself a racist term. So it's not really that much about race. My personal preference is no caps to avoid emphasizing a term of difference that over time is losing whatever meaning it may have once had. We are pretty much mutts nowadays. Racists want to keep alive a concept of difference. (I'll stop now before I get into Neanderthals moving from Africa to Europe 600,000 years ago.
)
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't buy OP's rationale for capitalizing "Black" & "White" here, but I'm not really buying this rationale for opposing it either. It's not up to us to decide whether a particular typographic style is valid in an abstract or philosophical sense; that seems too much like editorializing. Instead we should follow reputable style guides. Since many US style guides now favor capitalizing
"Black" & "White", I'm in favor of this change for this article per
MOS:TIES. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through the the article sources, looks like they generally use non-caps outside of titles. The NYTimes has two cites, both of which use non-caps.
[1]
[2] I think same with quotes. Same with Vox, The Atlantic, WaPo, and The Baltimore Sun. All non-caps. Didn't look at the books. Too much work.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 20:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Those aren't style guides though. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 23:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- The papers use style guides. I believe NYT has its own guide. And, these are the sources for this article.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- If the sources pre-date the switch to "Black" & "White", naturally they will use a different style. For what it's worth, the NYT now says
"our policy will now capitalize 'Black' but not 'white.'" —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and other sources capitalize both. AppGoo0011 ( talk) 02:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- If the sources pre-date the switch to "Black" & "White", naturally they will use a different style. For what it's worth, the NYT now says
"our policy will now capitalize 'Black' but not 'white.'" —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- The papers use style guides. I believe NYT has its own guide. And, these are the sources for this article.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Those aren't style guides though. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 23:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through the the article sources, looks like they generally use non-caps outside of titles. The NYTimes has two cites, both of which use non-caps.
[1]
[2] I think same with quotes. Same with Vox, The Atlantic, WaPo, and The Baltimore Sun. All non-caps. Didn't look at the books. Too much work.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 20:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't buy OP's rationale for capitalizing "Black" & "White" here, but I'm not really buying this rationale for opposing it either. It's not up to us to decide whether a particular typographic style is valid in an abstract or philosophical sense; that seems too much like editorializing. Instead we should follow reputable style guides. Since many US style guides now favor capitalizing
"Black" & "White", I'm in favor of this change for this article per
MOS:TIES. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looking around, there are articles that capitalize and those that don't. Like there are articles using British spelling and those that use American spelling. What's important is that there is consistency within an article. American blacks are quite likely to have mixed DNA starting with the rape of African slaves by white slave traders and owners. Then again, West Africans invaded what is now Spain and Italy in the 7th and 8th centuries mixing peoples. And race mixing is becoming and will continue to become more common making the terms less and less meaningful -- except when pointing out racism. This article is a bit unusual in that it is titled "Reverse racism", which is itself a racist term. So it's not really that much about race. My personal preference is no caps to avoid emphasizing a term of difference that over time is losing whatever meaning it may have once had. We are pretty much mutts nowadays. Racists want to keep alive a concept of difference. (I'll stop now before I get into Neanderthals moving from Africa to Europe 600,000 years ago.
- Of course I object to changes to quotes, reference titles, etc. Wikipedia article titles could definitely be changed. I agree mass find/replace is not the way to go. I think the status quo is a little bit broke, and I'd like to fix it. Would you say you're neutral on which style we use, or are there reasons (besides bias toward status quo, which I share) that you would prefer lowercase? Our experiences with the word "Whiteness" also differ; there are quite a few recent reliable sources that capitalize "Whiteness" available at Google Scholar.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- The changes made included one or more changes to quotes where capitalization did not exist in the quoted material. Also, cites to Wikipedia articles where caps weren't used. Plus the term "whiteness" which I haven't seen capped before. Clearly a mass find/replace won't work. As there are so many uses of the words in this article, and either is acceptable; seems the status quo makes more sense. As Writ said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would favor a change to capitalized Black and White. Since so much of the RS coverage of this topic is focused on the US, and since US style guides predominantly recommend capitalization, I think following suit would be helpful to readers. Since this topic covers not just Black and White racial groups—also including Indian, Hispanic, etc.—capitalization is recommended by the part of RACECAPS that says
- Interesting article covering this on the CJR. "At CJR, we capitalize 'Black,' but not 'white,' when referring to racial groups."
[3] which is the way I've done this here for years. It also discusses other styles.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 23:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- The trend appears to be capitalize Black only:
- The AP guide: “AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses. This decision follows our move last month to capitalize Black in such uses. We consulted with a wide group of people internally and externally around the globe and considered a variety of commentary in making these decisions.” [4]
- WSJ guide: “Why is Black uppercase and white lowercase?” [5]
- NYTimes: “Then there are those troubled that our policy will now capitalize ‘Black’ but not ‘white.’ Over all, the view was that there was a growing agreement in the country to capitalize and that The Times should not be a holdout.” [6] O3000, Ret. ( talk) 12:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a trend (within the past four years). Since the MOS is not so hot on mixed capitalization of ethnoracial color labels, I'd prefer to just capitalize them all.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 13:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. So Sangdeboeuf points out
MOS:TIES says we should use US style guides and you're saying we should follow MOS, which is now the "holdout" not following style guides. If we're not going to follow the trend of US style guides, and we don't want mixed cases; status quo is the easiest rather than changing many instances in multiple articles. Or, we can take the discussion to MOS.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 13:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think US style is firmly to only capitalize "Black", just that there's a trend of some sources doing so. I wouldn't describe the MOS as a holdout, and it is aligned pretty well with global style guides. I agree that the status quo is easier, I just don't think it's the optimal choice for this article. It's trivially true that I am seeking change at multiple articles, but it's just two, and the amount of work involved is minimal.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 13:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- MOSTIES says we should use the style of the country related to the article This article is heavily weighted toward the US where this is a hot issue even going to the USSC, which is why I looked at the US journalism style guides as opposed to global. I got the list from
here I didn't bother with The BuzzFeed Style Guide, although it also agrees.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- The big two American style guides are AP and Chicago, and we tend to follow Chicago, since we're more of an academic publication than a journalistic one. Chicago is a bit "between editions" on this, but their
online guidance says to prefer capital Black and that similar terms, including White, "may also be capitalized when used in this sense".
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 14:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, CMOS say capitalize Black and you "may" capitalize white. Whereas the AP and the journalism guides say don't capitalize white. As the WSJ states: "The adjective white doesn’t define a cohesive ethno-cultural group in the way Black does, and therefore will remain lowercase in the Journal."
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, we have a MOS that recommends consistent capitalization, one major American style guide that permits it, one that recommends mixed use, and then many individual American organization style guides that differ on their recommendation for "White" but generally recommend "Black". We are not particularly influenced by individual org guidelines, but they're informative of trends. I could cite some that recommend capitalizing both (like
the NIH), but I think it's fair to say that there's a mix in American usage between all-caps or just capital "Black". One of those options is currently endorsed by the MOS. I think we should switch to that one.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- As you say, within the past four years has changed. When did MOS last look at this?
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- More recently than that. Definitely within the past three years. I can dig up some discussions for you soon. I do think we're ripe for a US-specific discussion, which I recall being recommended by one of the last closes. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- As you say, within the past four years has changed. When did MOS last look at this?
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, we have a MOS that recommends consistent capitalization, one major American style guide that permits it, one that recommends mixed use, and then many individual American organization style guides that differ on their recommendation for "White" but generally recommend "Black". We are not particularly influenced by individual org guidelines, but they're informative of trends. I could cite some that recommend capitalizing both (like
the NIH), but I think it's fair to say that there's a mix in American usage between all-caps or just capital "Black". One of those options is currently endorsed by the MOS. I think we should switch to that one.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, CMOS say capitalize Black and you "may" capitalize white. Whereas the AP and the journalism guides say don't capitalize white. As the WSJ states: "The adjective white doesn’t define a cohesive ethno-cultural group in the way Black does, and therefore will remain lowercase in the Journal."
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- The big two American style guides are AP and Chicago, and we tend to follow Chicago, since we're more of an academic publication than a journalistic one. Chicago is a bit "between editions" on this, but their
online guidance says to prefer capital Black and that similar terms, including White, "may also be capitalized when used in this sense".
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 14:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- MOSTIES says we should use the style of the country related to the article This article is heavily weighted toward the US where this is a hot issue even going to the USSC, which is why I looked at the US journalism style guides as opposed to global. I got the list from
here I didn't bother with The BuzzFeed Style Guide, although it also agrees.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think US style is firmly to only capitalize "Black", just that there's a trend of some sources doing so. I wouldn't describe the MOS as a holdout, and it is aligned pretty well with global style guides. I agree that the status quo is easier, I just don't think it's the optimal choice for this article. It's trivially true that I am seeking change at multiple articles, but it's just two, and the amount of work involved is minimal.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 13:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. So Sangdeboeuf points out
MOS:TIES says we should use US style guides and you're saying we should follow MOS, which is now the "holdout" not following style guides. If we're not going to follow the trend of US style guides, and we don't want mixed cases; status quo is the easiest rather than changing many instances in multiple articles. Or, we can take the discussion to MOS.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 13:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- The trend appears to be capitalize Black only:
It makes good sense to capitalize Black and not white when referring to people. The situations are not symmetrical, and it's a type of false balance to think that they are. Black is a designation similar to Hispanic and Native American in the US and First Nation in Canada, all of which have to be capitalized. Black people form civic, religious, and other groups based in part on shared heritage, and it's not an attack on anybody when they do that. White people, in contrast, have no legitimate reason to form groups based on their racial identification. The POV that advocates forming such groups is called white nationalism, aka racism. Note that Black pride is a positive concept, whereas white pride is just another euphemism for racism. NightHeron ( talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with that at all, I just don't find "Black/white" to be worth fighting for here. If we have enough consensus here for it, add me to that please. If not, I hope you might agree that "Black/White" is preferable to "black/white".
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 21:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Capitalizing both is clearly the most correct and unbiased way to proceed. AppGoo0011 ( talk) 23:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Whites are actively demonized for forming racially exclusive groups, Blacks are not.
AppGoo0011 (
talk) 23:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- You might want to strike that edit. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 23:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Here's what I've seen:
- RfC ending December 2020 – This was the big one, and the close has roughly determined the guideline ever since
- Discussion in early 2021 workshopped language to implement the RfC close
- April 2021 diff of workshopped language added to MOS:CAPS; the language said that the RfC "concluded firmly against mixing styles as "Black but white"
- April 2021 and May 2021 edits to CAPS change that "concluded firmly" and similar language to emphasize the lack of consensus on mixing styles
- Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_33#RFC:_representation_of_consensus_in_current_guideline An RfC ending in June 2021 confirms the lack of consensus on mixing styles. (This was a subheading of the discussion in #2)
- A flurry of edits in November 2021 (which includes me) results in the removal of the line "there is no consensus against what is sometimes perceived as inconsistency in the same article"
- A series of edits in January 2022 restores similar language: "There is no consensus either for or against using mixed case (Black and white)".
That's it for now. There's more to the story, but I have to step away for a while. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 21:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I hesitated to add the quote from Emerson as it sounds insulting and I don't mean it that way as I also understand the need for consistency: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...." The words I omitted are yet more insulting.
The point is that accuracy is more important than seeming consistency of capitalization. Black and white have different kinds of meaning in this article.
- The word Black in the US (the focus of this article) refers to a people that have endured centuries of difficulties at the hands of non-Blacks who came and come from a variety of backgrounds. Whites are not really a racial group as per our own article:
White (often still referred to as Caucasian) is a racialized classification of people generally used for those of mostly European ancestry. It is also a skin color specifier, although the definition can vary depending on context, nationality, ethnicity, point of view, appearance, etc.
[7] I realize WP is not RS, but it is based on RS. Black does have a definition. White, in the context of this article, consist of aggrieved bigots of many backgrounds. The only reason we use the word white here is their self-identification, not an actual ethnic grouping. I apologize for rambling. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 23:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)- I get your point, and I don't mind a little Emerson. You had earlier expressed a preference for lowercase, and it seems like you're now advocating for mixed case. I'm fine with that, and I think Sangdeboeuf and NightHeron are as well. Writ Keeper has supported lowercase, though it's not clear if that's just because it's the status quo. AppGoo seems to just support all caps. Maybe we have enough rough consensus for a change soon to mixed case?
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with mixed-case (uppercase "B" for "black" & lowercase "w" for "white") as well, as this seems to be the style preferred by most US style guides. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 12:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mixed makes no sense. They're both racial groups. Having a mix implies bias. AppGoo0011 ( talk) 18:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with mixed-case. There's a reason style guides are moving in that direction. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 19:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just confirming that I support having a mixed-case policy. NightHeron ( talk) 19:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely fine with mixed-case. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 20:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with mixed-case (uppercase "B" for "black" & lowercase "w" for "white") as well, as this seems to be the style preferred by most US style guides. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 12:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I get your point, and I don't mind a little Emerson. You had earlier expressed a preference for lowercase, and it seems like you're now advocating for mixed case. I'm fine with that, and I think Sangdeboeuf and NightHeron are as well. Writ Keeper has supported lowercase, though it's not clear if that's just because it's the status quo. AppGoo seems to just support all caps. Maybe we have enough rough consensus for a change soon to mixed case?
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thread retitled from "Reverse-Racism doesn't exist".
alone. By implying that "reverse racism" is a valid concept, it suggests that racism only flows in one direction—against minority or marginalized groups. This perpetuates the false notion that only certain races can be victims of racism, while others are immune or exempt from it. Such thinking ignores the reality that racism can manifest in various forms and affect individuals of any racial or ethnic background. Furthermore, the term "reverse racism" undermines efforts to address systemic inequality and discrimination experienced by minority communities. It trivializes their experiences by equating them with the hypothetical notion of racism against majority groups, which lacks the historical and institutional power dynamics that perpetuate racism against marginalized communities. In essence, the notion of "reverse racism" not only fails to accurately capture the complexities of racism but also serves to uphold and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes and structures. It is essential to recognize and confront racism in all its forms, rather than perpetuating divisive and harmful narratives that further marginalize already disadvantaged groups. 2603:3011:29D:6100:2CC4:E7C1:F353:84BD ( talk) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you have provided no sources and this is not a forum for your personal opinions.
WP:NOTFORUM
WP:OR
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- You say this like the sources provided by the article itself are valid or high-quality in the first place. They're not. Funny how you should condescend to the above commenter about how wikipedia "is not a forum for your personal opinions." As if the fact that white people can experience racism is a "personal opinion," or that you aren't POV pushing your own racist personal opinion that white can't experience racism by writing such a reply. What irony. The truth is, this article needs to be either deleted or seriously reworked. It fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and verifibility. That's not an opinion. That's a fact.
Tyrone Jahir (
talk) 11:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not make things up. I said nothing of the sort and suggesting that I am a racist will get you nowhere you want to go. You have provided nothing to back up your claim that
this article needs to be either deleted or seriously reworked.
O3000, Ret. ( talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)- Nothing was fabricated or suggested as you say. Implying the fact that white people can experience racism is a dubious "personal opinion" is, in fact, a racist opinion.
- Don't care much if you're a racist or not (don't think you are, just misinformed), I care about the quality of the information on this page.
- Why would my previous comment "back up [my] claim that this article needs to be either deleted or seriously reworked"? The purpose of that reply was to criticize your racist comment and state my position, not to lay out the abundance of evidence for why this is a low-quality article.
- (Not that I have my work cut out for me; this article is rife with embarrassing sources and self-contradictory in the opening sentence.) It'll take some time, but don't you worry, I'll gather all relevant info for the case I want to make - pretty sure that will get me where I want to go, thanks.
Tyrone Jahir (
talk) 13:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I said or even suggested no such thing. Indeed, I said nothing about race at all. Stop making things up and stop the personal attacks. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 14:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not make things up. I said nothing of the sort and suggesting that I am a racist will get you nowhere you want to go. You have provided nothing to back up your claim that
- You say this like the sources provided by the article itself are valid or high-quality in the first place. They're not. Funny how you should condescend to the above commenter about how wikipedia "is not a forum for your personal opinions." As if the fact that white people can experience racism is a "personal opinion," or that you aren't POV pushing your own racist personal opinion that white can't experience racism by writing such a reply. What irony. The truth is, this article needs to be either deleted or seriously reworked. It fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and verifibility. That's not an opinion. That's a fact.
Tyrone Jahir (
talk) 11:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
| This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reverse racism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
|
Archives:
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7,
8,
9Auto-archiving period: 3 months
|
| This page is not a forum for general discussion about Reverse racism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Reverse racism at the Reference desk. |
|
| This article was nominated for deletion on 6 May 2013. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:
|
Mariam-Webster defines "racism" as
1
: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice
2
a
: the systemic oppression of a racial group to the social, economic, and political advantage of another
specifically : WHITE SUPREMACY sense 2
b
: a political or social system founded on racism and designed to execute its principles
Whilst the article meets the criteria for the second definition it disregards the first definition. This leads to a article where only one view of the word is represented. The first definiton does not require a majority population nor the control of the "system" by an particular race.
Even meeting the second definiton this article disregards any non american view on the topic. To meet the definiton the writers of the article must assume the state/country/region where the racism takes place is majority and systemically white.
Reverse racism is persay just racism according to the first definiton as seen on Mariam-Webster. I therefore suggest rewriting this article to represent a broader view of the topic including but not limited too a less american standpoint, I further suggest changing the headline to something like "Racism against white people" if you don't agree that this is actually a thing we should ad a sub-section for criticism like it is done in most articles. But the truth remains the term "racism" meets the first definition on Meriam-Webster.
I understand this is a hot topic, but either this article is rewritten too meet Wikipedia standards or it should be deleted in its entirety. Superpig05 ( talk) 06:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- If you want to fundamentally rewrite this article, you will need way more in the way of reliable sources than a Merriam-Webster definition of one-half of the article title. More importantly, you will need reliable sources that actually discuss the specific concept or phrase "reverse racism", not just extrapolate from the word "racism" just because it happens to be in the article title.
Writ Keeper
⚇
♔ 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well its not only the definition on Mariam-Webster but every lexicon you can find. And still my point stands, this article has an america centric view of the concept. Peoples opinions on what the meaning of a word is changes rapidly, thats why we have lexicons and defined definitions. As an educational platform that is supposed to be impartial to opinions its appropriate to use lexicon definitions.
Superpig05 (
talk) 14:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article is about the concept of reverse racism, not just the term. The most reliable sources are the ones that examine the topic in depth, not just give the literal meaning of the word(s). Making any inferences about the topic from a dictionary entry on "racism" (not "reverse racism") would be textbook improper synthesis. Both the dictionary issue and the US-centric issue have been discussed at length several times; for instance, see Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 8#POV issues. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 14:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- Many articles are US-centric because the topic itself and/or the available sources are concentrated in the US. The article already addresses this:
While the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue, the concept of reverse racism has been used internationally to some extent wherever white supremacy has diminished
. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 15:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)- It is painfully laughable how you point out how this article is insultingly U.S. centric yet you point out to sources about foreign matters that come from tangential mentions from U.S. references.
- I agree this article deserves some further review as this article has a title that makes no sense but to Americans.
181.224.234.143 (
talk) 17:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
- You're absolutely spot on with that observation; but look at the talk page archives. I have insisted the exact same; the exact same editors dismiss the fact. Zilch-nada ( talk) 03:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Well its not only the definition on Mariam-Webster but every lexicon you can find. And still my point stands, this article has an america centric view of the concept. Peoples opinions on what the meaning of a word is changes rapidly, thats why we have lexicons and defined definitions. As an educational platform that is supposed to be impartial to opinions its appropriate to use lexicon definitions.
Superpig05 (
talk) 14:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
- 1000% agree. I made the same arguments above. Any serious encyclopedic entry should have a definition from a reputable dictionary to accurately define the subject matter. Many/most Wikipedia pages cite to dictionaries. However, there are several very active editors on this page that disagree with the prevailing dictionary definitions on this subject.
Gumbear (
talk) 22:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
- As has been said, Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and
Many/most Wikipedia pages cite to dictionaries.
is the opposite of fact. A tiny percentage do so. In fact, this is rare. There is a difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 22:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)- Of course this isn't a dictionary, but there's no reason the definition here should deviate from dictionary definitions. BLUF: The current definition in the lead doesn't conform to any mainstream definition. It even strays far from the encyclopedic definition it references, and is a synthesis of several sources. However, aligning this article to mainstream definitions (whether from a dictionary or encyclopedia) would necessitate a major rewrite of this entire article.
Gumbear (
talk) 13:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC) —
Gumbear (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- I am no expert on the topic of reverse racism - but to me it seems the term reverse racism as used in the sources does focus very much on the second definition of racism and not so much the first. Given that we are talking about the entire term "reverse racism" here that context should probably matter and limit the way racism is used for most of this specific article (e.g. it also makes little sense to rewrite the
bank (geography) article to include discussion of the financial institution).
Arnoutf (
talk) 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I agree there should be well defined parameters in encyclopedic entries. However, when discussing "bank (geography)" it should probably be defined holistically rather than narrowing the definition to only include "banks on the Mississippi", as if "banks (geography)" couldn't exist outside of the Mississippi River. More to the point, if every other credible source that claims to be a definition defines the subject without limiting it to a particular race or specific government program, we probably shouldn't limit the definition to only pertain to white people or affirmative action. Gumbear ( talk) 20:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
There's no reason the definition here should deviate from dictionary definitions
– there is a very good reason, namely that dictionaries define terms according to how they are used by the general public, whereas an encyclopedia describes topics based on the works of expert sources. Oftentimes this requires using more technical and/or niche-scholarly definitions of words. If we re-wrote the lead to define "racism" according to the dictionary, not only would it give undue weight to non-scholarly perspectives, but the rest of the article would no longer make any sense. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 15:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)- @ Gumbear: the definition of "reverse racism" given in the lead section is taken almost exactly from Ansell (2013), pp. 135–136. There is no synthesis, as has been explained to you at length already. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 16:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- I am no expert on the topic of reverse racism - but to me it seems the term reverse racism as used in the sources does focus very much on the second definition of racism and not so much the first. Given that we are talking about the entire term "reverse racism" here that context should probably matter and limit the way racism is used for most of this specific article (e.g. it also makes little sense to rewrite the
bank (geography) article to include discussion of the financial institution).
Arnoutf (
talk) 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
- Of course this isn't a dictionary, but there's no reason the definition here should deviate from dictionary definitions. BLUF: The current definition in the lead doesn't conform to any mainstream definition. It even strays far from the encyclopedic definition it references, and is a synthesis of several sources. However, aligning this article to mainstream definitions (whether from a dictionary or encyclopedia) would necessitate a major rewrite of this entire article.
Gumbear (
talk) 13:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC) —
Gumbear (
talk •
contribs) has made
few or no other edits outside this topic.
- As has been said, Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and
- The dictionary definition mentioned is for racism. The term reverse racism does not mean the opposite of the definition of racism or necessarily the reverse. It doesn't work that way. You cannot use the definition of a word to define another word or term that includes the first. Words are defined according to their common usage. Racism and reverse racism are used differently. As an encyclopedia, we use reliable sources, not our own conclusions based on dictionaries. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 14:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Apart from this being written and titled exclusively from an American or– more generally– a Western perspective; reverse racism infers that racism is a characteristic of white people; that it originates from white people; that it's mainly white people who are racist; thus the 'reverse' has connotations that the racism against White people is different from racism. I suggest changing the article name to match and similarly reflect the 'anti-black' article. 90.247.86.238 ( talk) 15:04, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- We don't have the power to change language. We only document.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And the NAACP both disapproved of the Black Power movement. In fact, he was quoted saying, the black power movement "connotates black supremacy and an anti-white feeling that does not or should not prevail." Also
2603:9008:1107:2755:E162:BD98:940B:CA9D (
talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- I fail to see how that relates to this article. If anything, reverse racism is an anti-black/asian/etc racist concept. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 18:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. And the NAACP both disapproved of the Black Power movement. In fact, he was quoted saying, the black power movement "connotates black supremacy and an anti-white feeling that does not or should not prevail." Also
2603:9008:1107:2755:E162:BD98:940B:CA9D (
talk) 18:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@ Sangdeboeuf None of them say "systemic discrimination". All of them say "reverse racism". Literally all of the five sources. You are inferring "systemic discrimination" from different terms, whereas "reverse racism" is literally the central impetus of each cited phrase. Zilch-nada ( talk) 12:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure what "reverse racism" is supposed to be other than "systemic discrimination" against white people specifically. In any case I've changed "discrimination" to "disadvantage" to more closely follow the cited sources, e.g.
Garner (2017) p. 185:
[T]here is no evidence that [reverse racism] is a social fact, or that a pattern of disadvantageous outcomes for white people qua white people exists
; Bax (2018):Many Americans—including some people of color—staunchly believe in the existence of reverse racism, or racism against whites. The evidence to support this perception of 'whiteness as disadvantage' is highly suspect
. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 12:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC) - Also, it's not true that none of the
five sources mention systemic discrimination.
Ansell (2013) states on p. 137,
For example, a study of complaints of reverse racism brought before the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found that, between 1987 and 1994, only 2.2 percent of claims came from white males charging race discrimination, and a small minority of those were found to have merit. Similar findings have been published with respect to US federal court decisions.
— Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 15:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)- "
of each cited phrase
" Zilch-nada ( talk) 09:55, 31 January 2024 (UTC)- The point of the five
quotes in the footnote is to support the statement that
there is little to no empirical evidence that white Americans as a group are disadvantaged
. Once again, it's unclear what "reverse racism" is supposed to mean in this context other than systemic discrimination against whites. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 23:09, 1 February 2024 (UTC)- Agreed, for the record. Zilch-nada, this is a pedantic objection. Generalrelative ( talk) 23:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
- The point of the five
quotes in the footnote is to support the statement that
- "
The text "White" & "Black" in this article should be capitalized, as these words refer to their respective racial group.
MOS:RACECAPS
AppGoo0011 ( talk) 15:05, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't agree, and that's not what MOS:RACECAPS says:
Ethno-racial "color labels" may be given capitalized (Black and White) or lower-case (black and white).
If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 15:17, 22 February 2024 (UTC)- I would favor a change to capitalized Black and White. Since so much of the RS coverage of this topic is focused on the US, and since US style guides predominantly recommend capitalization, I think following suit would be helpful to readers. Since this topic covers not just Black and White racial groups—also including Indian, Hispanic, etc.—capitalization is recommended by the part of RACECAPS that says
"The capitalized form will be more appropriate in the company of other upper-case terms of this sort"
. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:23, 22 February 2024 (UTC)- The changes made included one or more changes to quotes where capitalization did not exist in the quoted material. Also, cites to Wikipedia articles where caps weren't used. Plus the term "whiteness" which I haven't seen capped before. Clearly a mass find/replace won't work. As there are so many uses of the words in this article, and either is acceptable; seems the status quo makes more sense. As Writ said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Of course I object to changes to quotes, reference titles, etc. Wikipedia article titles could definitely be changed. I agree mass find/replace is not the way to go. I think the status quo is a little bit broke, and I'd like to fix it. Would you say you're neutral on which style we use, or are there reasons (besides bias toward status quo, which I share) that you would prefer lowercase? Our experiences with the word "Whiteness" also differ; there are quite a few recent reliable sources that capitalize "Whiteness" available at Google Scholar.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looking around, there are articles that capitalize and those that don't. Like there are articles using British spelling and those that use American spelling. What's important is that there is consistency within an article. American blacks are quite likely to have mixed DNA starting with the rape of African slaves by white slave traders and owners. Then again, West Africans invaded what is now Spain and Italy in the 7th and 8th centuries mixing peoples. And race mixing is becoming and will continue to become more common making the terms less and less meaningful -- except when pointing out racism. This article is a bit unusual in that it is titled "Reverse racism", which is itself a racist term. So it's not really that much about race. My personal preference is no caps to avoid emphasizing a term of difference that over time is losing whatever meaning it may have once had. We are pretty much mutts nowadays. Racists want to keep alive a concept of difference. (I'll stop now before I get into Neanderthals moving from Africa to Europe 600,000 years ago.
)
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 19:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't buy OP's rationale for capitalizing "Black" & "White" here, but I'm not really buying this rationale for opposing it either. It's not up to us to decide whether a particular typographic style is valid in an abstract or philosophical sense; that seems too much like editorializing. Instead we should follow reputable style guides. Since many US style guides now favor capitalizing
"Black" & "White", I'm in favor of this change for this article per
MOS:TIES. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through the the article sources, looks like they generally use non-caps outside of titles. The NYTimes has two cites, both of which use non-caps.
[1]
[2] I think same with quotes. Same with Vox, The Atlantic, WaPo, and The Baltimore Sun. All non-caps. Didn't look at the books. Too much work.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 20:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Those aren't style guides though. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 23:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- The papers use style guides. I believe NYT has its own guide. And, these are the sources for this article.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- If the sources pre-date the switch to "Black" & "White", naturally they will use a different style. For what it's worth, the NYT now says
"our policy will now capitalize 'Black' but not 'white.'" —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, and other sources capitalize both. AppGoo0011 ( talk) 02:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- If the sources pre-date the switch to "Black" & "White", naturally they will use a different style. For what it's worth, the NYT now says
"our policy will now capitalize 'Black' but not 'white.'" —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 23:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- The papers use style guides. I believe NYT has its own guide. And, these are the sources for this article.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 23:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Those aren't style guides though. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 23:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looking through the the article sources, looks like they generally use non-caps outside of titles. The NYTimes has two cites, both of which use non-caps.
[1]
[2] I think same with quotes. Same with Vox, The Atlantic, WaPo, and The Baltimore Sun. All non-caps. Didn't look at the books. Too much work.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 20:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't buy OP's rationale for capitalizing "Black" & "White" here, but I'm not really buying this rationale for opposing it either. It's not up to us to decide whether a particular typographic style is valid in an abstract or philosophical sense; that seems too much like editorializing. Instead we should follow reputable style guides. Since many US style guides now favor capitalizing
"Black" & "White", I'm in favor of this change for this article per
MOS:TIES. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 20:13, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- Looking around, there are articles that capitalize and those that don't. Like there are articles using British spelling and those that use American spelling. What's important is that there is consistency within an article. American blacks are quite likely to have mixed DNA starting with the rape of African slaves by white slave traders and owners. Then again, West Africans invaded what is now Spain and Italy in the 7th and 8th centuries mixing peoples. And race mixing is becoming and will continue to become more common making the terms less and less meaningful -- except when pointing out racism. This article is a bit unusual in that it is titled "Reverse racism", which is itself a racist term. So it's not really that much about race. My personal preference is no caps to avoid emphasizing a term of difference that over time is losing whatever meaning it may have once had. We are pretty much mutts nowadays. Racists want to keep alive a concept of difference. (I'll stop now before I get into Neanderthals moving from Africa to Europe 600,000 years ago.
- Of course I object to changes to quotes, reference titles, etc. Wikipedia article titles could definitely be changed. I agree mass find/replace is not the way to go. I think the status quo is a little bit broke, and I'd like to fix it. Would you say you're neutral on which style we use, or are there reasons (besides bias toward status quo, which I share) that you would prefer lowercase? Our experiences with the word "Whiteness" also differ; there are quite a few recent reliable sources that capitalize "Whiteness" available at Google Scholar.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 18:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- The changes made included one or more changes to quotes where capitalization did not exist in the quoted material. Also, cites to Wikipedia articles where caps weren't used. Plus the term "whiteness" which I haven't seen capped before. Clearly a mass find/replace won't work. As there are so many uses of the words in this article, and either is acceptable; seems the status quo makes more sense. As Writ said, If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:40, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- I would favor a change to capitalized Black and White. Since so much of the RS coverage of this topic is focused on the US, and since US style guides predominantly recommend capitalization, I think following suit would be helpful to readers. Since this topic covers not just Black and White racial groups—also including Indian, Hispanic, etc.—capitalization is recommended by the part of RACECAPS that says
- Interesting article covering this on the CJR. "At CJR, we capitalize 'Black,' but not 'white,' when referring to racial groups."
[3] which is the way I've done this here for years. It also discusses other styles.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 23:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
- The trend appears to be capitalize Black only:
- The AP guide: “AP style will continue to lowercase the term white in racial, ethnic and cultural senses. This decision follows our move last month to capitalize Black in such uses. We consulted with a wide group of people internally and externally around the globe and considered a variety of commentary in making these decisions.” [4]
- WSJ guide: “Why is Black uppercase and white lowercase?” [5]
- NYTimes: “Then there are those troubled that our policy will now capitalize ‘Black’ but not ‘white.’ Over all, the view was that there was a growing agreement in the country to capitalize and that The Times should not be a holdout.” [6] O3000, Ret. ( talk) 12:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I agree that this is a trend (within the past four years). Since the MOS is not so hot on mixed capitalization of ethnoracial color labels, I'd prefer to just capitalize them all.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 13:15, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. So Sangdeboeuf points out
MOS:TIES says we should use US style guides and you're saying we should follow MOS, which is now the "holdout" not following style guides. If we're not going to follow the trend of US style guides, and we don't want mixed cases; status quo is the easiest rather than changing many instances in multiple articles. Or, we can take the discussion to MOS.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 13:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think US style is firmly to only capitalize "Black", just that there's a trend of some sources doing so. I wouldn't describe the MOS as a holdout, and it is aligned pretty well with global style guides. I agree that the status quo is easier, I just don't think it's the optimal choice for this article. It's trivially true that I am seeking change at multiple articles, but it's just two, and the amount of work involved is minimal.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 13:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- MOSTIES says we should use the style of the country related to the article This article is heavily weighted toward the US where this is a hot issue even going to the USSC, which is why I looked at the US journalism style guides as opposed to global. I got the list from
here I didn't bother with The BuzzFeed Style Guide, although it also agrees.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- The big two American style guides are AP and Chicago, and we tend to follow Chicago, since we're more of an academic publication than a journalistic one. Chicago is a bit "between editions" on this, but their
online guidance says to prefer capital Black and that similar terms, including White, "may also be capitalized when used in this sense".
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 14:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, CMOS say capitalize Black and you "may" capitalize white. Whereas the AP and the journalism guides say don't capitalize white. As the WSJ states: "The adjective white doesn’t define a cohesive ethno-cultural group in the way Black does, and therefore will remain lowercase in the Journal."
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, we have a MOS that recommends consistent capitalization, one major American style guide that permits it, one that recommends mixed use, and then many individual American organization style guides that differ on their recommendation for "White" but generally recommend "Black". We are not particularly influenced by individual org guidelines, but they're informative of trends. I could cite some that recommend capitalizing both (like
the NIH), but I think it's fair to say that there's a mix in American usage between all-caps or just capital "Black". One of those options is currently endorsed by the MOS. I think we should switch to that one.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- As you say, within the past four years has changed. When did MOS last look at this?
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- More recently than that. Definitely within the past three years. I can dig up some discussions for you soon. I do think we're ripe for a US-specific discussion, which I recall being recommended by one of the last closes. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- As you say, within the past four years has changed. When did MOS last look at this?
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- As far as I can tell, we have a MOS that recommends consistent capitalization, one major American style guide that permits it, one that recommends mixed use, and then many individual American organization style guides that differ on their recommendation for "White" but generally recommend "Black". We are not particularly influenced by individual org guidelines, but they're informative of trends. I could cite some that recommend capitalizing both (like
the NIH), but I think it's fair to say that there's a mix in American usage between all-caps or just capital "Black". One of those options is currently endorsed by the MOS. I think we should switch to that one.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 15:01, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, CMOS say capitalize Black and you "may" capitalize white. Whereas the AP and the journalism guides say don't capitalize white. As the WSJ states: "The adjective white doesn’t define a cohesive ethno-cultural group in the way Black does, and therefore will remain lowercase in the Journal."
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 14:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- The big two American style guides are AP and Chicago, and we tend to follow Chicago, since we're more of an academic publication than a journalistic one. Chicago is a bit "between editions" on this, but their
online guidance says to prefer capital Black and that similar terms, including White, "may also be capitalized when used in this sense".
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 14:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- MOSTIES says we should use the style of the country related to the article This article is heavily weighted toward the US where this is a hot issue even going to the USSC, which is why I looked at the US journalism style guides as opposed to global. I got the list from
here I didn't bother with The BuzzFeed Style Guide, although it also agrees.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 13:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think US style is firmly to only capitalize "Black", just that there's a trend of some sources doing so. I wouldn't describe the MOS as a holdout, and it is aligned pretty well with global style guides. I agree that the status quo is easier, I just don't think it's the optimal choice for this article. It's trivially true that I am seeking change at multiple articles, but it's just two, and the amount of work involved is minimal.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 13:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Hmm. So Sangdeboeuf points out
MOS:TIES says we should use US style guides and you're saying we should follow MOS, which is now the "holdout" not following style guides. If we're not going to follow the trend of US style guides, and we don't want mixed cases; status quo is the easiest rather than changing many instances in multiple articles. Or, we can take the discussion to MOS.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 13:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- The trend appears to be capitalize Black only:
It makes good sense to capitalize Black and not white when referring to people. The situations are not symmetrical, and it's a type of false balance to think that they are. Black is a designation similar to Hispanic and Native American in the US and First Nation in Canada, all of which have to be capitalized. Black people form civic, religious, and other groups based in part on shared heritage, and it's not an attack on anybody when they do that. White people, in contrast, have no legitimate reason to form groups based on their racial identification. The POV that advocates forming such groups is called white nationalism, aka racism. Note that Black pride is a positive concept, whereas white pride is just another euphemism for racism. NightHeron ( talk) 21:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with that at all, I just don't find "Black/white" to be worth fighting for here. If we have enough consensus here for it, add me to that please. If not, I hope you might agree that "Black/White" is preferable to "black/white".
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 21:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. Capitalizing both is clearly the most correct and unbiased way to proceed. AppGoo0011 ( talk) 23:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Whites are actively demonized for forming racially exclusive groups, Blacks are not.
AppGoo0011 (
talk) 23:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- You might want to strike that edit. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 23:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Here's what I've seen:
- RfC ending December 2020 – This was the big one, and the close has roughly determined the guideline ever since
- Discussion in early 2021 workshopped language to implement the RfC close
- April 2021 diff of workshopped language added to MOS:CAPS; the language said that the RfC "concluded firmly against mixing styles as "Black but white"
- April 2021 and May 2021 edits to CAPS change that "concluded firmly" and similar language to emphasize the lack of consensus on mixing styles
- Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters/Archive_33#RFC:_representation_of_consensus_in_current_guideline An RfC ending in June 2021 confirms the lack of consensus on mixing styles. (This was a subheading of the discussion in #2)
- A flurry of edits in November 2021 (which includes me) results in the removal of the line "there is no consensus against what is sometimes perceived as inconsistency in the same article"
- A series of edits in January 2022 restores similar language: "There is no consensus either for or against using mixed case (Black and white)".
That's it for now. There's more to the story, but I have to step away for a while. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 21:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I hesitated to add the quote from Emerson as it sounds insulting and I don't mean it that way as I also understand the need for consistency: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...." The words I omitted are yet more insulting.
The point is that accuracy is more important than seeming consistency of capitalization. Black and white have different kinds of meaning in this article.
- The word Black in the US (the focus of this article) refers to a people that have endured centuries of difficulties at the hands of non-Blacks who came and come from a variety of backgrounds. Whites are not really a racial group as per our own article:
White (often still referred to as Caucasian) is a racialized classification of people generally used for those of mostly European ancestry. It is also a skin color specifier, although the definition can vary depending on context, nationality, ethnicity, point of view, appearance, etc.
[7] I realize WP is not RS, but it is based on RS. Black does have a definition. White, in the context of this article, consist of aggrieved bigots of many backgrounds. The only reason we use the word white here is their self-identification, not an actual ethnic grouping. I apologize for rambling. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 23:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)- I get your point, and I don't mind a little Emerson. You had earlier expressed a preference for lowercase, and it seems like you're now advocating for mixed case. I'm fine with that, and I think Sangdeboeuf and NightHeron are as well. Writ Keeper has supported lowercase, though it's not clear if that's just because it's the status quo. AppGoo seems to just support all caps. Maybe we have enough rough consensus for a change soon to mixed case?
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with mixed-case (uppercase "B" for "black" & lowercase "w" for "white") as well, as this seems to be the style preferred by most US style guides. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 12:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Mixed makes no sense. They're both racial groups. Having a mix implies bias. AppGoo0011 ( talk) 18:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with mixed-case. There's a reason style guides are moving in that direction. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 19:08, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Just confirming that I support having a mixed-case policy. NightHeron ( talk) 19:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely fine with mixed-case. Writ Keeper ⚇ ♔ 20:38, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- Done. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 22:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I'm fine with mixed-case (uppercase "B" for "black" & lowercase "w" for "white") as well, as this seems to be the style preferred by most US style guides. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 12:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
- I get your point, and I don't mind a little Emerson. You had earlier expressed a preference for lowercase, and it seems like you're now advocating for mixed case. I'm fine with that, and I think Sangdeboeuf and NightHeron are as well. Writ Keeper has supported lowercase, though it's not clear if that's just because it's the status quo. AppGoo seems to just support all caps. Maybe we have enough rough consensus for a change soon to mixed case?
Firefangledfeathers (
talk /
contribs) 23:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
- Thread retitled from "Reverse-Racism doesn't exist".
alone. By implying that "reverse racism" is a valid concept, it suggests that racism only flows in one direction—against minority or marginalized groups. This perpetuates the false notion that only certain races can be victims of racism, while others are immune or exempt from it. Such thinking ignores the reality that racism can manifest in various forms and affect individuals of any racial or ethnic background. Furthermore, the term "reverse racism" undermines efforts to address systemic inequality and discrimination experienced by minority communities. It trivializes their experiences by equating them with the hypothetical notion of racism against majority groups, which lacks the historical and institutional power dynamics that perpetuate racism against marginalized communities. In essence, the notion of "reverse racism" not only fails to accurately capture the complexities of racism but also serves to uphold and perpetuate discriminatory attitudes and structures. It is essential to recognize and confront racism in all its forms, rather than perpetuating divisive and harmful narratives that further marginalize already disadvantaged groups. 2603:3011:29D:6100:2CC4:E7C1:F353:84BD ( talk) 12:08, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sorry, but you have provided no sources and this is not a forum for your personal opinions.
WP:NOTFORUM
WP:OR
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 12:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
- You say this like the sources provided by the article itself are valid or high-quality in the first place. They're not. Funny how you should condescend to the above commenter about how wikipedia "is not a forum for your personal opinions." As if the fact that white people can experience racism is a "personal opinion," or that you aren't POV pushing your own racist personal opinion that white can't experience racism by writing such a reply. What irony. The truth is, this article needs to be either deleted or seriously reworked. It fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and verifibility. That's not an opinion. That's a fact.
Tyrone Jahir (
talk) 11:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not make things up. I said nothing of the sort and suggesting that I am a racist will get you nowhere you want to go. You have provided nothing to back up your claim that
this article needs to be either deleted or seriously reworked.
O3000, Ret. ( talk) 12:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)- Nothing was fabricated or suggested as you say. Implying the fact that white people can experience racism is a dubious "personal opinion" is, in fact, a racist opinion.
- Don't care much if you're a racist or not (don't think you are, just misinformed), I care about the quality of the information on this page.
- Why would my previous comment "back up [my] claim that this article needs to be either deleted or seriously reworked"? The purpose of that reply was to criticize your racist comment and state my position, not to lay out the abundance of evidence for why this is a low-quality article.
- (Not that I have my work cut out for me; this article is rife with embarrassing sources and self-contradictory in the opening sentence.) It'll take some time, but don't you worry, I'll gather all relevant info for the case I want to make - pretty sure that will get me where I want to go, thanks.
Tyrone Jahir (
talk) 13:35, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Again, I said or even suggested no such thing. Indeed, I said nothing about race at all. Stop making things up and stop the personal attacks. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 14:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
- Please do not make things up. I said nothing of the sort and suggesting that I am a racist will get you nowhere you want to go. You have provided nothing to back up your claim that
- You say this like the sources provided by the article itself are valid or high-quality in the first place. They're not. Funny how you should condescend to the above commenter about how wikipedia "is not a forum for your personal opinions." As if the fact that white people can experience racism is a "personal opinion," or that you aren't POV pushing your own racist personal opinion that white can't experience racism by writing such a reply. What irony. The truth is, this article needs to be either deleted or seriously reworked. It fails to meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality and verifibility. That's not an opinion. That's a fact.
Tyrone Jahir (
talk) 11:55, 27 April 2024 (UTC)