This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
The big problem of this article seems to be a confusion about the definition of racism. There is a popular / historical / dictionary definition and one used by social liberals and certain circles of social science. This difference / conflict must be mentioned in the article.
"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. "
The distinction between facts and opinions is not made. The sources mentioned and their statements are subjective in nature and indeterminable.
"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."
Numerous commentators and politicians have called AA laws racist. AA laws have a very low popularity, and large parts of the population perceives discrimination against whites as strong as against non-whites [1] [2]. The opposition to the information presented in the article is therefore significant.
"We should then list all points of view, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated."
Please keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the editor's side. Bafabengabantu ( talk) 18:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
My criticism refers to the overall tone of the article. In order to promote the comprehensibility of my criticism, I will give an example on the basis of the introduction:
Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is a concept that portrays affirmative action in the United States, and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, as a form of anti-white racism on the part of black people and government agencies; it is commonly associated with conservative opposition to such programs.
The fat words are problematic. Redressing , for example, is used here in a way that suggests that any inequality needs to be addressed. Without a subjective moral command, however, it can not be determined that ethnic inequalities must even be politicized. Otherwise this part is acceptable.
1 There is little to no empirical evidence to support the idea of reverse racism. Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States generally lack the power to damage the interests of white people, who remain the dominant group. 2 Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism.
1 The first statement is a factual statement, however, the sources given here do not permit any factual statements. 2 This definition is valid only for certain believers in the concept of "cosmic justice". The majority of the public-, statutory- and scientific bodies defines racism simply as hateful discrimination against certain races. The representatives of the "reverse discrimination theory" believe in this latter definition, it creates confusion when the different definitions are not made clear.
Allegations of reverse racism by opponents of affirmative-action policies began to emerge prominently in the 1970s. In the early 21st century, belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States, despite a lack of supporting evidence. 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, such as in post-apartheid South Africa. Allegations of reverse racism therefore form part of a racial backlash against gains by people of colour.
Here again we have the problem with definitions and factual statements. The statements would only be true if they were factual (thanks to their sources) and the definitions of the sources were in line with the popular definitions. Bafabengabantu ( talk) 22:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable. The current sources meet this standard. If you have a problem with them, then you're welcome to open a discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard, where I'm sure others will say the same. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 11:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Opinions about affirmative action being discriminatory belong in an article on "reverse racism" only if reliable, published sources explicitly connect them with the idea of reverse racism. Articles mainly summarize sources that are directly about the topic of that article, giving due weight to the most prominent views.
That said, we can dismiss your first three sources right off – the first is a senior thesis from a student at Liberty University. This in no way meets the standards for reliable sources. The second is from the Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human Sciences and has received a total of six citations, so I think we can discount that one. The third is a report by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Their whole purpose is to promote an ideological agenda, not publish factual research.
That leaves us with a 1986 Harvard Law Review essay by Morris B. Abram, written from his personal point of view and published under "Commentaries". It might be useful as a primary source if reliable, secondary sources have discussed it, but I don't see it as having the same weight as a book by an actual scholar in the field of sociology and ethnic studies.
Now I know you're going to say that all these "opinions" are just as valid as the "opinions" cited in the article, but that's just not how we evaluate sources. Peer-reviewed journals and books from respected academic publishers simply hold more weight. Go ask at WP:NPOV/N if you have doubts. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Four weeks and degenerated into tit for tat. Not going anywhere. O3000 ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Adding a new section to discuss issues of worldview. At the moment, the sources seem to be used at one point to make general statements about the subject and, at the other points, to specifically discuss only the US. As they're often the same sources, it probably isn't both. So what information can we draw that we know isn't specifically discussing the US? Thank you. Scoundr3l ( talk) 22:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Since no significant disparity has been shown between the article and
existing RS coverage, I've removed the {{
globalize}} template. Vague complaints that the sources "probably" don't represent the whole topic as a "universal subject" need to be supported with
published sources that actually establish the "worldview of the subject" as different to what's in the article. The existing sources don't do that, and the "lack of coverage" beyond the United States is exactly why the article focuses on the U.S. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 01:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:DROPTHESTICK Sangdeboeuf.
188.129.143.42 (
talk) 22:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
|
This article seems to be discussing the same subject as Reverse discrimination but focused almost entirely on the subject of Affirmative Action. Per the lead, the two terms are synonymous, so it seems we may have a redundant article. IMO, the other article is much better written and most of the focus of this article could be covered under the article for AA controversy (i.e. Resistance to diversity efforts in organizations). Is there anything I'm missing in the scope of this article? Scoundr3l ( talk) 22:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Reverse racism is a concept commonly associated with conservative opposition to affirmative action and other color-conscious victories of the civil rights movement...So yes, the concept is framed in terms of affirmative action. After mentioning Reconstruction, Ansell says that it was "not until the 1970s" that the discourse on reverse racism became prominent. Incidentally, that's when affirmative action was strongest in the U.S., before quotas were outlawed in UC Regents v. Bakke.
The Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society actually says the term was "coined to describe" such situations, not that such situations are reverse racism. Still, the question arises: what situations? I'm going by Ansell's definition here because it's more in-depth and comprehensive. Encyclopedia of Politics (2005) also describes the idea of reverse racism as a reaction against affirmative action. I'm not saying that's the only possible meaning, but that's what seems to have gotten the most in-depth coverage in quality sources. Per Due and undue weight, we should adhere to what sources choose to focus on. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 09:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Reverse racism ... is a concept that portrays affirmative action in the United States, and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, as a form of anti-white racism
seems clear enough, if a bit wordy; it tells us what the concept of reverse racism does, namely, equate affirmative action with racism. That's supported by numerous sources. Concepts like this, that represent misguided views of reality such as "
white genocide", are difficult to define concisely without appearing to endorse the views themselves. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 01:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was out of town for a few days. I never said my latest change solved the problem. Nor is that appropriate grounds for a revert (see nirvana fallacy). I notated what problem that was solving (one of the great many problems with this article, believe it or not). The diff that sovled the problem was reverted we're currently discussing it, so I have yet to restore it. You have still yet to provide me with a reason you don't want the term defined. A definition doesn't tell us what a concept is used to do, it tells us what the concept is. "Racism is a concept used to make blackface inappropriate" is not a definition, nor is your provided example. Not only do we have an apt definition provided by reliable sources, it's the same definition used by Ansell, even if she doesn't say it word-for-word. We're not here to build an article around just the source you like. If I had to wager a guess, you may feel that defining the term somehow validates the concept. I don't know what to tell you. This is an encyclopedia, we're here to provide information about things. Good things, bad things; things you agree with, things you don't agree with. The term means what it means whether you're saying it exists or saying it doesn't exist. It has a definition and we can discuss it with a neutral point of view. At this point, I don't see any value in discussing the changes further with you as I don't think you're adequately explaining your actions or engaging the issue, so I'm just going to invite a third party opinion. Thank you. Scoundr3l ( talk) 21:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Reverse racism is a conceptis an adequate definition. The subsequent text elaborates the definition. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
In political discourse, or better yet, "In American political discourse". The term is evidently a creation of political conservatives, not sociologists, so
In sociologywould be misleading. It's used far more frequently outside academic sociology. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 11:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: Discussion over the inclusion of 'reverse discrimination' as an WP:ALTTITLE on this article
Changing it from a wikilink to an alt title does not further clarify the term, it does the opposite. If you have a definition that distinguishes it from other articles, per Title policy, please contribute to the discussion. Otherwise, you're idly edit warring attempts to improve the article. Scoundr3l ( talk) 23:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. Several sources indicate that "reverse discrimination" is an alternative name for "reverse racism".
Whether a separate page on reverse discrimination exists is not the issue. That ambiguity can be handled with hatnotes or a disambiguation page if necessary.
The statement "Reverse racism is a form of reverse discrimination" implies that such discrimination exists, which is not what the sources say, including Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content and the basis for the article's page name and URL.You are talking about the lead sentence, not the title, so this is completely pointless. There's no reason to remove legitimate alternative titles from the lead, especially when supported by multiple sources. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
the term reverse racism (or reverse discrimination)(Yee 2008, p. 1118);
the term 'reverse racism', or 'reverse discrimination'(Cashmore 2004, p. 373);
conservatives have charged that whites are the victims of new forms of discrimination – affirmative or reverse discrimination (see reverse racism)(Ansell 2013, p. 57). I don't know what you mean about "the same scope" in two different articles. Reverse discrimination covers a broader topic with different examples from around the world. Nonetheless, the terms are synonymous here. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 18:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
If you disagree with the results of that AfD, you can dispute them through the appropriate channels. See WP:CLOSEAFD. This is not the appropriate place to dispute the results, and your disagreement does not constitute a new consensus. There is also another ongoing merge discussion which I see you're participating in. Best of luck, but please do not disrupt this article to make a point. Scoundr3l ( talk) 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Reverse discrimination being "recorded to exist" in a "limited degree" by the courts seems to be a misrepresentation. First, the source is probably outdated, and is also unduly weighted by being placed in the lead section. Right on the first page, it says "few reverse discrimination cases occur ... The cases provide little evidence that reverse discrimination is widespread". [1] This is in line with Ansell, who states, "only 2.2. percent of (EEOC) claims came from white males charging race discrimination, and a small minority of these were found to have merit. Similar findings have been published with respect to U.S. federal court decisions". I suggest moving the material to § Legal challenges and changing it to focus on the fact that these are a very small minority of cases, rather than it existing in a "limited degree". — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 06:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
References
"Allegations of reverse racism therefore form part of a racial backlash against gains by people of colour."
This statement is too broad and assumptive. It assumes that all allegations of reverse racism are "part of a backlash against gains by people of colour", which is an association fallacy. There may be many reasons for allegations of reverse racism, whether reasonable or not. For example: "Disappointment at college application rejection", or "Worry of racially-partial policymaking", etc.
The article will be more accurate and impartial with this statement removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfuu1234 ( talk • contribs) 09:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 9 |
The big problem of this article seems to be a confusion about the definition of racism. There is a popular / historical / dictionary definition and one used by social liberals and certain circles of social science. This difference / conflict must be mentioned in the article.
"Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. "
The distinction between facts and opinions is not made. The sources mentioned and their statements are subjective in nature and indeterminable.
"Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts."
Numerous commentators and politicians have called AA laws racist. AA laws have a very low popularity, and large parts of the population perceives discrimination against whites as strong as against non-whites [1] [2]. The opposition to the information presented in the article is therefore significant.
"We should then list all points of view, according to their importance, and, if possible, be precise as to who holds them. There exist some cases where the vast majority of political parties, politicians and journalists hold a certain opinion, while a sizeable minority do not: both views should be stated."
Please keep in mind that the burden of proof is on the editor's side. Bafabengabantu ( talk) 18:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
My criticism refers to the overall tone of the article. In order to promote the comprehensibility of my criticism, I will give an example on the basis of the introduction:
Reverse racism or reverse discrimination is a concept that portrays affirmative action in the United States, and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, as a form of anti-white racism on the part of black people and government agencies; it is commonly associated with conservative opposition to such programs.
The fat words are problematic. Redressing , for example, is used here in a way that suggests that any inequality needs to be addressed. Without a subjective moral command, however, it can not be determined that ethnic inequalities must even be politicized. Otherwise this part is acceptable.
1 There is little to no empirical evidence to support the idea of reverse racism. Racial and ethnic minorities in the United States generally lack the power to damage the interests of white people, who remain the dominant group. 2 Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism.
1 The first statement is a factual statement, however, the sources given here do not permit any factual statements. 2 This definition is valid only for certain believers in the concept of "cosmic justice". The majority of the public-, statutory- and scientific bodies defines racism simply as hateful discrimination against certain races. The representatives of the "reverse discrimination theory" believe in this latter definition, it creates confusion when the different definitions are not made clear.
Allegations of reverse racism by opponents of affirmative-action policies began to emerge prominently in the 1970s. In the early 21st century, belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States, despite a lack of supporting evidence. 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, such as in post-apartheid South Africa. Allegations of reverse racism therefore form part of a racial backlash against gains by people of colour.
Here again we have the problem with definitions and factual statements. The statements would only be true if they were factual (thanks to their sources) and the definitions of the sources were in line with the popular definitions. Bafabengabantu ( talk) 22:54, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Articles must be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy ... If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable. The current sources meet this standard. If you have a problem with them, then you're welcome to open a discussion at the Reliable sources noticeboard, where I'm sure others will say the same. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 11:04, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Opinions about affirmative action being discriminatory belong in an article on "reverse racism" only if reliable, published sources explicitly connect them with the idea of reverse racism. Articles mainly summarize sources that are directly about the topic of that article, giving due weight to the most prominent views.
That said, we can dismiss your first three sources right off – the first is a senior thesis from a student at Liberty University. This in no way meets the standards for reliable sources. The second is from the Undergraduate Research Journal for the Human Sciences and has received a total of six citations, so I think we can discount that one. The third is a report by The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. Their whole purpose is to promote an ideological agenda, not publish factual research.
That leaves us with a 1986 Harvard Law Review essay by Morris B. Abram, written from his personal point of view and published under "Commentaries". It might be useful as a primary source if reliable, secondary sources have discussed it, but I don't see it as having the same weight as a book by an actual scholar in the field of sociology and ethnic studies.
Now I know you're going to say that all these "opinions" are just as valid as the "opinions" cited in the article, but that's just not how we evaluate sources. Peer-reviewed journals and books from respected academic publishers simply hold more weight. Go ask at WP:NPOV/N if you have doubts. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:52, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
Four weeks and degenerated into tit for tat. Not going anywhere. O3000 ( talk) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Adding a new section to discuss issues of worldview. At the moment, the sources seem to be used at one point to make general statements about the subject and, at the other points, to specifically discuss only the US. As they're often the same sources, it probably isn't both. So what information can we draw that we know isn't specifically discussing the US? Thank you. Scoundr3l ( talk) 22:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Since no significant disparity has been shown between the article and
existing RS coverage, I've removed the {{
globalize}} template. Vague complaints that the sources "probably" don't represent the whole topic as a "universal subject" need to be supported with
published sources that actually establish the "worldview of the subject" as different to what's in the article. The existing sources don't do that, and the "lack of coverage" beyond the United States is exactly why the article focuses on the U.S. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 01:08, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
WP:DROPTHESTICK Sangdeboeuf.
188.129.143.42 (
talk) 22:50, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
|
This article seems to be discussing the same subject as Reverse discrimination but focused almost entirely on the subject of Affirmative Action. Per the lead, the two terms are synonymous, so it seems we may have a redundant article. IMO, the other article is much better written and most of the focus of this article could be covered under the article for AA controversy (i.e. Resistance to diversity efforts in organizations). Is there anything I'm missing in the scope of this article? Scoundr3l ( talk) 22:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Reverse racism is a concept commonly associated with conservative opposition to affirmative action and other color-conscious victories of the civil rights movement...So yes, the concept is framed in terms of affirmative action. After mentioning Reconstruction, Ansell says that it was "not until the 1970s" that the discourse on reverse racism became prominent. Incidentally, that's when affirmative action was strongest in the U.S., before quotas were outlawed in UC Regents v. Bakke.
The Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society actually says the term was "coined to describe" such situations, not that such situations are reverse racism. Still, the question arises: what situations? I'm going by Ansell's definition here because it's more in-depth and comprehensive. Encyclopedia of Politics (2005) also describes the idea of reverse racism as a reaction against affirmative action. I'm not saying that's the only possible meaning, but that's what seems to have gotten the most in-depth coverage in quality sources. Per Due and undue weight, we should adhere to what sources choose to focus on. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 09:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Reverse racism ... is a concept that portrays affirmative action in the United States, and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, as a form of anti-white racism
seems clear enough, if a bit wordy; it tells us what the concept of reverse racism does, namely, equate affirmative action with racism. That's supported by numerous sources. Concepts like this, that represent misguided views of reality such as "
white genocide", are difficult to define concisely without appearing to endorse the views themselves. —
Sangdeboeuf (
talk) 01:26, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, I was out of town for a few days. I never said my latest change solved the problem. Nor is that appropriate grounds for a revert (see nirvana fallacy). I notated what problem that was solving (one of the great many problems with this article, believe it or not). The diff that sovled the problem was reverted we're currently discussing it, so I have yet to restore it. You have still yet to provide me with a reason you don't want the term defined. A definition doesn't tell us what a concept is used to do, it tells us what the concept is. "Racism is a concept used to make blackface inappropriate" is not a definition, nor is your provided example. Not only do we have an apt definition provided by reliable sources, it's the same definition used by Ansell, even if she doesn't say it word-for-word. We're not here to build an article around just the source you like. If I had to wager a guess, you may feel that defining the term somehow validates the concept. I don't know what to tell you. This is an encyclopedia, we're here to provide information about things. Good things, bad things; things you agree with, things you don't agree with. The term means what it means whether you're saying it exists or saying it doesn't exist. It has a definition and we can discuss it with a neutral point of view. At this point, I don't see any value in discussing the changes further with you as I don't think you're adequately explaining your actions or engaging the issue, so I'm just going to invite a third party opinion. Thank you. Scoundr3l ( talk) 21:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Reverse racism is a conceptis an adequate definition. The subsequent text elaborates the definition. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 22:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
In political discourse, or better yet, "In American political discourse". The term is evidently a creation of political conservatives, not sociologists, so
In sociologywould be misleading. It's used far more frequently outside academic sociology. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 11:32, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: Discussion over the inclusion of 'reverse discrimination' as an WP:ALTTITLE on this article
Changing it from a wikilink to an alt title does not further clarify the term, it does the opposite. If you have a definition that distinguishes it from other articles, per Title policy, please contribute to the discussion. Otherwise, you're idly edit warring attempts to improve the article. Scoundr3l ( talk) 23:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
significant alternative names for the topic should be mentioned in the article, usually in the first sentence or paragraph. Several sources indicate that "reverse discrimination" is an alternative name for "reverse racism".
Whether a separate page on reverse discrimination exists is not the issue. That ambiguity can be handled with hatnotes or a disambiguation page if necessary.
The statement "Reverse racism is a form of reverse discrimination" implies that such discrimination exists, which is not what the sources say, including Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity, and Society. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 01:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
An article title is the large heading displayed above the article's content and the basis for the article's page name and URL.You are talking about the lead sentence, not the title, so this is completely pointless. There's no reason to remove legitimate alternative titles from the lead, especially when supported by multiple sources. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 02:22, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
the term reverse racism (or reverse discrimination)(Yee 2008, p. 1118);
the term 'reverse racism', or 'reverse discrimination'(Cashmore 2004, p. 373);
conservatives have charged that whites are the victims of new forms of discrimination – affirmative or reverse discrimination (see reverse racism)(Ansell 2013, p. 57). I don't know what you mean about "the same scope" in two different articles. Reverse discrimination covers a broader topic with different examples from around the world. Nonetheless, the terms are synonymous here. — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 18:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
If you disagree with the results of that AfD, you can dispute them through the appropriate channels. See WP:CLOSEAFD. This is not the appropriate place to dispute the results, and your disagreement does not constitute a new consensus. There is also another ongoing merge discussion which I see you're participating in. Best of luck, but please do not disrupt this article to make a point. Scoundr3l ( talk) 20:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Reverse discrimination being "recorded to exist" in a "limited degree" by the courts seems to be a misrepresentation. First, the source is probably outdated, and is also unduly weighted by being placed in the lead section. Right on the first page, it says "few reverse discrimination cases occur ... The cases provide little evidence that reverse discrimination is widespread". [1] This is in line with Ansell, who states, "only 2.2. percent of (EEOC) claims came from white males charging race discrimination, and a small minority of these were found to have merit. Similar findings have been published with respect to U.S. federal court decisions". I suggest moving the material to § Legal challenges and changing it to focus on the fact that these are a very small minority of cases, rather than it existing in a "limited degree". — Sangdeboeuf ( talk) 06:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
References
"Allegations of reverse racism therefore form part of a racial backlash against gains by people of colour."
This statement is too broad and assumptive. It assumes that all allegations of reverse racism are "part of a backlash against gains by people of colour", which is an association fallacy. There may be many reasons for allegations of reverse racism, whether reasonable or not. For example: "Disappointment at college application rejection", or "Worry of racially-partial policymaking", etc.
The article will be more accurate and impartial with this statement removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdfuu1234 ( talk • contribs) 09:26, 23 April 2019 (UTC)