Talk:Reverse racism

POV issues

This article is deeply biased is favor of fringe scholarship and does not represent the full breadth of published thought on this subject 2601:405:4A80:B950:386F:67E:A01F:7359 (talk) 23:45, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

^{[ citation needed ]} Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:03, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

the sources given deeply misrepresent the subject 2601:405:4A80:B950:D972:B44F:E405:159E (talk) 09:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Without specifics about both claims this is useless. Doug Weller talk 09:50, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

so basically you are going to ignore the extreme pov pushing of this article2601:405:4A80:B950:D189:CD3A:9675:39D4 (talk) 03:10, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The WP:ONUS is on you to show there's an [[WP:UNDUE]] representation of certain sources. EvergreenFir (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I 100% agree. The examples of bias here are too extensive to list (though I take a stab at it on just a few in the conversation above), and many of the cited sources have an obvious bias when doing even a cursory look at their background. It's almost worth throwing out the entire page and starting anew. Gumbear (talk) 19:15, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll add my name to those who don’t think dictionaries are good sources for this article. Doug Weller talk 19:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to describe a topic without a generally accepted definition of what the topic is. The "definition" here is an out-of-context cite from sources with demonstrated biases. Dictionaries generally don't have such baggage. Agree to disagree. Gumbear (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any issues presented and agree that dictionaries aren't good sources for this article. O3000, Ret. (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries define words, not topics, and the definition given here is based on several high-quality scholarly sources. The assertion that such sources are biased but dictionaries are not draws on no evidence whatsoever. Your complaints have been heard and rejected already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

And they get them wrong at times, probably because dictionaries today often reflect common usage. Eg I've seen archaeology as defined as study of the past through material culture, which is incomplete as archaeology also studies the present through material culture. Doug Weller talk 09:09, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

To respond to you and Sangdeboeuf, consider racism. It uses several encyclopedias and dictionaries (i.e. objective sources) to define the topic. It also uses broad definitions rather than a narrow straw-man definition from a biased source(s) that advances an ideology. Whether it's a dictionary or encyclopedia is besides the point--the definition should be objective. The current definition would not encompass current SCOTUS cases dealing with reverse racism--which may be the point but is an obvious hole. And don't turn your back on dictionaries just because you disagree with some passages in some dictionaries. Gumbear (talk) 11:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Dictionaries usually follow usage and encyclopaedias don't even have a policy of showing opposing views as we do. Neither is objective. You are striving for a goal which is almost if not virtually impossible for many subjects. There is no objective definition of racism for instance. That's why we have several with the first one being that it is a belief - are beliefs objectivre? Doug Weller talk 11:59, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

You're deflecting. Tell me how the current definition (cobbled from several passages from overtly biased "experts") is more objective than any of the definitions from the several reputable dictionaries I suggested. Objectivity is the goal. And tell me how we could use a definition that would exclude a seminal SCOTUS case on reverse racism. Gumbear (talk) 13:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

The so-called objective sources cited in the Racism article include Ansell (2013), Dennis (2004), and Garner (2009), which this article also cites prominently. How exactly are these objective in one case but biased source(s) that advances [sic] an ideology in the other? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion isn't about using ideologically biased sources in an article. It's about using ideologically biased sources to define the article. Gumbear (talk) 13:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Gumbear you don’t like our policies and guidelines, try to change them. But don’t look for objectivity fir social issues. Doug Weller talk 14:34, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

What policies and guidelines are you referring to? Gumbear (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I am still not certain what view is being characterised as fringe scholarship at the start. There seems to be 3 choices - dictionaries (which do have alternate views to some extent expressed as as alternate definitions, but have a long lag), scholarship (which may be ideological), or newspapers/popular books etc. Maybe the solution is to add more of the latter, espeically if the polling that it exists is so high (but maybe not).

Maybe the POV issues vary by country - if South Africa has a seperate section what about expanding the one for the US to remove more from the lede? Personally, I find the term reverse racism confusing as it doesn't mean the reverse of racism. Are there different terms used elsewhere ??

The 11 levels of replies makes this a bit hard to read with Vector 2022. Would the editors involved mind re-arranging the discourse slightly? Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The view that is fringe is the idea that "reverse racism"--that is to say, the systematic oppression of historically over-privileged groups like white people--actually exists in the real world. The US already has a separate section--in fact, it makes up the bulk of the article at the moment. Deep indent levels are inevitable in Wikipedia discussions; if you find them hard to read in Vector 2022, you might want to check your preferences menu; in the Appearances tab under the Skin Preferences section, make sure that "Enable limited width mode" is unchecked, to give you more width on the page, or switch to another skin entirely.

Also, just throwing this out there: this thread is about two months old, so it's a bit stale to be replying to. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank-you for explaining and the comment about skin preferences - I have now changed to Minerva and it is AWESOME. (Vector 2022 was showing the deepest indent level as two words wide, so I was using edit mode instead!! Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:37, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying newspapers and especially popular books are never ideological? I know there's a long history of anti-intellectualism in American politics, but Wikipedia does in fact rely on mainstream scholarship, whatever horror stories the media tells about "woke" college professors or any other such nonsense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:14, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

I commented becuase there seems to be an ongoing impasse (template since 2019 and lots of reverts) and the article didn't answer what I wanted to know (although some were mentioned on the reverts!). What is the difference between reverse racism and Reverse_discrimination? Is it just part of the White_backlash or White privilege? Does it mainly exist only in anglophone/ex-colonial nations? (I found some stuff on France ([1]). I also think racism article's definition of racism should be included, so the definition can be countered.

@Sangdeboeuf My suggestion of newspapers etc was not a plea for anti-intellectualism (and I am not American but I did find the article overly US-centric), but should a topic oft discussed in the popular sphere [2]

depend totally on academia? "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics."

@Sangdeboeuf "Are you saying newspapers and especially popular books are never ideological?" Of course they are, and so are scholarly works and even unpopular books sometimes. But it would be nice to have some slightly different perspectives [3] [4] , and some quotes (I am not talking about the tabloids) and some poll discussion [5][6] Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 05:35, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

But it would be nice to have some slightly different perspectives – this is a common objection whenever academic consensus disagrees with a popular myth. When high-quality sources, scholarly or otherwise, present a generally unified view at odds with opinion polls, we go with the high-quality sources. For more info please refer to WP:UNDUE and WP:FALSEBALANCE. We certainly don't interpret primary sources such as polls ourselves; see WP:PSTS. As for including the definition listed in the Racism article, it depends on which definition, and from which source. This article doesn't need to counter anything that isn't already discussed in the relevant sources. For general questions about the topic that the article doesn't answer, the place to go is WP:REFDESK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources." The part of the WP:RS guideline you referenced is more relevant to avoiding news sources than using non-scholarly sources specifically. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:07, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Just because a topic is oft discussed in the popular sphere doesn't mean we need to document everything said in the press; Wikipedia is explicitly not a news aggregator. Per WP:NOTEVERYTHING, Wikipedia articles should be a summary of accepted knowledge about their subject, which is why we filter out low-quality sources along with breaking news and passing mentions of a topic. Many articles, like this one, are US-centric because the most reliable sources tend to focus on the United States. That said, we can always use high-quality sources that focus on other countries. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:33, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

@Sangdeboeuf

Let's start off the things I think we agree with.

1. We agree that the accepted consensus by reliable sources is that the claims of reverse racism are not well founded, and have been misused in politics by populists.
2. We agree that if suitable non US centric references can be found that we should add them.

We disagree that

# the quality and need for the references I suggested. The references support the consensus, are of high quality ( NYT, Scientific America, The Guardian, The Times, Al Jazeera, and the Conversation), and do not fall victim to recentism. The poll is discussed on a secondary source (The Conversation), and so is not original research.

1. the need to reflect the consensus case by discussing in the article what racism is, why "reverse racism" isn't racism, and how it differs from reverse discrimination. Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 00:45, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I have changed the lede to link the mention of reverse discrimination to the reverse discrimination article, (which I hope is non controversial)I think it would be best to clarify that this has the same meaningas anti white racism based on the discussion about categorisation below. The two major groups of good faith edits that have been reverted seem to be confusion about Reverse discrimination and the use of any non scholastic work or dictionary.

@Sangdeboeuf Bump. Have I summarised what we agree on correctly? Are you happy with the article status quo, or do you see areas where the article coul be improved? Or is it just that "Many articles, like this one, are US-centric because the most reliable sources tend to focus on the United States. That said, we can always use high-quality sources that focus on other countries."

Although you pointed me to the help desk, Wikipedia is after all written for all audiences. As I mentioned previously, the current status quo is confusing for a non US person or even for a general reader for the reasons I mention. (Some other poitnts, is it black peoples that are the target or is it orhte racial groups/ethnicities? And when the lede mentions black, does it only refer to just African American? Why discuss the US so much in the lede?

As an example of why US focus in the lede is bad, when the lede mention conservative groups it really refers to modern US conservative groups. Some of the left wing European groups have been very xenophobic in thier actions and policies [7]https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2021.666717/full] for reverse racism type reasons, And it's not just conservatives (I assume in the US that is the same as Repubkicab) as 40 per cent of Democratic voters believe in it [8] and I have a vague memoroy tat the the Democrats used to be against it in the 60s,

Similarly the Overview, is an overview of the US, not of other countries Wakelamp d[@-@]b (talk) 13:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

You're operating under a couple of misconceptions. First of all: the reason the reverse racism article focuses so much on the US is that "reverse racism", as a concept, doesn't exist--it is only relevant/notable in places where people are using the term "reverse racism" to refer to something else (that does not actually resemble anything like "reverse racism"). Thus, the article talks mainly about the US because the US is mainly where the term is used; there is no wider scope to the term, outside of the handful of other countries where the term has also been used in a similar way.

So, your link to the Frontiers in Sociology is not relevant to this article, because it's not discussing the actual term reverse racism, and there is no wider truth underlying that term that the Wikipedia article can discuss (apart from stating that there is none, which the article already does). That said, if you do have high-quality sources that actually discuss the *term* reverse racism in other countries, then yes, we can use those and might be able to incorporate them into the article.

Also, racism =/= xenophobia. I'd point you to the (sourced) line in the article: ...disparities in power and authority are seen by scholars as an essential component of racism; in this view, isolated examples of favoring disadvantaged people do not constitute racism. It's not just prejudice or dislike based on race, it's systemic discrimination and oppression, and that simply hasn't been shown to exist in the reverse. So saying that "some left-wing people are prejudiced/xenophobic too", while obviously, trivially true, is not relevant to this article, because we're talking about systems of power and oppression, not individuals.

Also, yes, prior to the '60s, the Democratic Party in the US was the party of Jim Crow laws, segregation, etc.; that is to say, racism. That's no longer true or relevant to the Republican/Democratic Parties of today, because there was a conscious effort by the Republican Party that started in the '60s to take over the role of "the party of racism". Read Southern strategy for more information. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:15, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Economics of Social Justice and Injustice

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 January 2023 and 5 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ASPASP09 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by WCSUEconProf (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

'a form of anti-white racism'

No serious scholar or academic; or anyone with social awareness can seriously suggest that reverse racism is defined by 'a form of anti-white racism.' The referenced sources do not have an accurate worldview of the topic in that there is reference only to the US and S. Africa in "definitions." Basic semantics suggest that, while this article may refer contextually mostly to the US and South Africa, reverse racism is not defined by black & white, but roughly by majority (or systemic oppressor) / minority relations.

Considering the concept of 'reverse racism' deals entirely with the nature of systemic racism, it is important to refer to the actually meaning of the term, systemic racism: "a form of racism that is embedded in the laws and regulations of a society or an organization." Now, considering there is no reliable source defining systemic racism as white-oriented, why on Earth would it make sense to suggest that the concept of reverse racism - the opposite of that - is defined by such?

What I would suggest is, in the meantime, this article should make clear that reverse racism is defined in countries such as the United States and S. Africa by white-black relations. Then we should aim to find a wider outlook of the term globally. But it makes no sense, regardless of the scope of this article, to suggest that reverse-racism is an alleged form of anti-white racism. If there is sense to these semantics, then where is it? Zilch-nada (talk) 13:29, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The phrasing in the 'Reverse Discrimination' article - which this article says it is synonymous with in the lede - is much clearer, wherein reverse discrimination is defined as "a term used by those in a dominant or majority group to describe discrimination against members of a dominant or majority group, in favor of members of a minority or historically disadvantaged group." The second paragraph henceforth refers to the empirical example in the U.S. in the 1970s. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The article doesn't say the two are synonymous--if they were, we wouldn't have two separate articles. The article indicates that people sometimes use the phrase "reverse discrimination" to refer to a concept most accurately described by "reverse racism". I still think (as I mentioned in a section above) we should get rid of that comparison in the lead sentence; it's misleading for exactly this reason, and while I don't have access to the full book it's cited to, I don't see direct support for it in the limited view that Google Preview gives us.

For the rest of your post: do you have any reliable sourcing for any of it? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

By synonymous I mean the phrase "sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination". (roughly synonymous, I agree.) I do agree that this relationship "sometimes referred" is misleading.

I presently have no further sources, but am working with the sources already present, aiming for consistency and, semantic logic. (I am merely criticising the severe inconsistencies in this article.) Per WP:CAT, the implied "is a form of anti-white racism" is said in a definitive manner; a manner which is not backed up by sources, (i.e., no non US-centric source defines it as such). As sources defining it seem to refer to the U.S., I have made a slight edit to specify the American focus of the term. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I think what you're missing is that "reverse racism" isn't actually a thing, and is just a term that is used by white people who (wrongly) feel disenfranchised by marginal gains in society that non-white people have made. The reason we don't "find a wider outlook of the term globally" is because the term simply doesn't exist outside of that usage. The reason we focus so much on the US is that the term isn't used much outside of that, which the lead already makes explicit through phrases like Belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States and the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue. The reason we focus so much on white people is that only white people have used the term; to reuse your words: no serious scholar or academic; or anyone with social awareness can seriously suggest that reverse racism exists at all.

I'm going to revert your changes to the lead, not because they're wrong per se, but just that they feel redundant to me in light of those other two lines which are also in the lead. Happy to discuss that further if you wish. As for your proposed "global scope", well, you'd have to find sources that support its broad usage outside the United States, etc. before we can meaningfully discuss anything like that. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:44, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

But, regardless of how you feel about the concept of reverse racism, this article does not outright state it does not exist either. Where are your sources for it outright not being a thing? Many sources will refer the absence of reverse racial systemic discrimination, but the term 'reverse racism' should not be taken as outright non-existent (in your view), but taken as debated, though supporting more so against its systemic existence.

My changes were absolutely not redundant. They added to the context of the term being used in the U.S. (which you admit), which therefore explains the white/black conflict. The point that the term is mostly American (which you admit) should be used to justify, and clarify, the term 'anti-white.'

Ultimately, the term 'anti-white' must be immediately tied to context; the definitive style of writing cannot speak of reverse racism as being an anti-white concept, but as an American anti-white concept. (or as I said, "especially in the United States"). Being immediately tied to context would suggest the American reference in the first sentence, which you reverted. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The second paragraph of the lead is: Belief in reverse racism is widespread in the U.S.; however, there is little to no empirical evidence that white Americans suffer systemic discrimination. Racial and ethnic minorities generally lack the power to damage the interests of whites, who remain the dominant group in the U.S. Claims of reverse racism tend to ignore such disparities in the exercise of power and authority, which most scholars argue constitute an essential component of racism. The entire Overview section confirms this: Such disparities in power and authority are seen by scholars as an essential component of racism...the terms reverse racism and reverse discrimination misleadingly imply that racism is a question of beliefs and prejudices, ignoring the material relations between different groups...individual members of minority groups in the United States "may be racists" toward white people, but cannot wield institutional power or shape the opportunities available to the majority as the white majority does in relation to minorities. It's not seriously in debate.

For the record, I think you're being entirely too pedantic in your usage of the word "define". The sources may not explicitly have the sentence "reverse racism means racism against white people", but when the entire discussion of the term in source 1 is in the context of white people claiming reverse racism in response to affirmative action and the like, I don't think it needs to.

Some direct quotes from the sources: [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.(cite 2) Not much sober empirical study has been applied to the subject, but the studies that do exist find little evidence that reverse racism in fact exists. (cite 1) "While there is no empirical basis for white people experiencing 'reverse racism', this view is held by a large number of Americans." (cite 17) [A]ffirmative action and black economic empowerment were controversial and often misrepresented. In a society in which the greater majority of desk and management jobs were held by whites, there was a clear need for action to move towards a more level job market. Yet many whites have persisted in claiming 'reverse racism'. (cite 36) Hopefully that gets the point across that reliable sources do in fact support the notion that a) "reverse racism" as a term is used predominantly to refer to "anti-white racism", and b) it doesn't actually exist.

My problem with your addition to the lead is that it implies that reverse racism means something else elsewhere, which again, is not supported either in the text of the article or in any reliable sources (as you haven't provided any). I don't mind adding something to the first para to indicate that reverse racism is a term used predominantly in the US, but it would need to make this explicit, probably through a separate sentence. Something like "The term is used predominantly in the US". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The word "define" is important with context to the lede, in which we must present a definitive summary of the article. If the first sentence is that "...affirmative action... a form of anti-white racism", that is not at all definitive, as I have said. Reference must be brought to where terms, especially those like "affirmative action", are used: The United States.

In your phrase "a)"reverse racism" as a term is used predominantly to refer to "anti-white racism""; I must underline the word "predominantly"; that is precisely my point; it is predominantly, not definitively. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:26, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Again: if you have sources to support that it's used to refer to anything else, feel free to present them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:30, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, in case you weren't aware, most of this, including the fixation on the "definition" of the term, has already been discussed extensively above, in the section #Semi-protected_edit_request_on_14_September_2022. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:36, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Still, no source has definitively said that reverse racism = anti-white racism. Considering this is a chiefly American topic, most sources used are focused on the US and therefore are not definitive towards an objective descriptor.

I understand that I am not providing sources, but I am interpreting the ones already used. I am sure that these sources are being misused by WP:CAT. You are misinterpreting sources; no source has definitively said that reverse racism = anti-white racism. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:53, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

If we were to maintain the pseudo-definitive definition as above, being definitive only to the United States, this article may as well be entitled "Reverse Racism in the United States", or begin with the phrase, "Reverse racism is an American concept whereby... anti-white racism..." Zilch-nada (talk) 16:55, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Our article does not say that reverse racism equals anti-white racism. It says (in the lede) that reverse racism is a concept and a belief that is widespread in the U.S., with little to no empirical evidence to support it. Random users' opinions about whether published, academic sources have an accurate worldview are irrelevant. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:16, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

It does not say that at all. The first sentence (I see my edits reverted), still reads

"Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism."

which is a ridiculous statement. It does not immediately refer to it being widespread in the US, against your claim.

The wording of the current sentence literally implies; "Reverse racism... concept... form of anti-white racism." which very much suggests reverse racism equals anti-white racism; there is no source to definitively say that this is the case.

What I am saying is, the current interpretations of the sources are completely wrong, as no source that refers to the term definitively (outside of descriptions of the US and S. Africa) as "anti-white racism." Zilch-nada (talk) 02:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The relevant information is included in the first two paragraphs sentences of the lede. There's no need to cram everything into the first sentence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC) edited 04:21, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay then, the first paragraph logically reads like this:

"Reverse racism... concept... form of anti-white racism... especially in the United States."

The idea of moving the American reference to the second sentence, after describing it as "anti-white", is inaccurate. While the term is predominantly used in the U.S., (hence "especially"), there are no sources to refer to suggest that reverse racism is a form of anti-white racism in the first sentence. It would obviously make more sense to write something like;

"Reverse racism... concept... especially in the United States as anti-white racism." Zilch-nada (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say reverse racism is a form of anti-white racism. Not sure where that idea is coming from. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:19, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph already has all the information you're proposing, which seems sufficient per MOS:LEDE. Putting it all in a single sentence would result in a needlessly complex run-on sentence. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:27, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article's lede states that, "affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality" are alleged be a form of anti-white racism. This implies that reverse racism is only in the form of anti-white racism: that is what I'm getting at.

I know the article does not say (hence the term "which very much suggests" 2 post above) "reverse racism" is a form of anti-white racism, but it does say that "affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs" - which are alleged to be 'reverse-racist' - are a form of it. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs are a form of anti-white racism. It says that they are believed to be a form of it by conservatives etc. Not the same thing. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm literally repeating myself now:

The article's lede states that, "affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality" are alleged be a form of anti-white racism. This implies that reverse racism is only in the form of anti-white racism: that is what I'm getting at.

The article states that it is believed / alleged, as I stated. In saying "affirmative action... are a form of [reverse racism]", I am describing the belief conservatives have, as likewise described in the article - alleged. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:12, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You dodged my question below, but let's try again: what other types of "reverse racism" do you think there are, and do you have any reliable sources for them? Because the thing is that Wikipedia summarizes what is discussed in reliable sources. If reliable sources only describe "reverse racism" in the context of (alleged) anti-white racism, then so will we. We don't need to draw a distinction between "anti-white reverse racism" and "other reverse racism" if reliable sources don't already do so, and I haven't seen anything yet to indicate that they do. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:36, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know if there are any other types of reverse racism, and that's not my point; I am focusing on poor interpretations of the current sources.

You are disputing the statement "reverse racism is especially in the form of anti-white racism". The term "especially" does not call for it to significantly exist elsewhere; the term is used as reverse racism isn't definitively anti-white racism. (no evidence yet for this.) Similar to what I said below;

To say that something especially occurs in place X with no found evidence of the term used in place Y, the term "especially" does not call for its significant existence elsewhere.

The point is, if we don't know if it exists in place Y (we don't know as we haven't yet sources), to dispute the term "especially" for a definitive sense (i.e. definitively anti-white racism), that requires sourcing to suggest that it exists nowhere else.

I have said many times before: most sources describe "reverse racism" in the context of alleged anti-white racism, but no present sources definitively link them, only referring to it in American and S. African contexts.

Wikipedia summarises reliable sources, of course. But it does not come up with definitions without sources; we are discussing reliable sources - my strong feelings are that no present source definitively refers to reverse racism as alleged anti-white racism. Zilch-nada (talk) 15:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

To say that something especially occurs in place X with no found evidence of the term used in place Y, the term "especially" does not call for its significant existence elsewhere. um...yes, it absolutely does. This is just a wrong statement. My dictionary has the definition of the word "especially" as follows: "used to single out one person, thing, or situation over all others." It absolutely does imply that there are other things that exist, such that the subject can be singled out from them. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Hence the adjective, "significant"; "used to single out one person, thing, or situation over all others" fits precisely what I just described - the "others" are insignificant. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

You then would say; "So you admit other forms exist - where are your sources?"

Where are your sources saying that no other forms exist? Zilch-nada (talk) 16:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The phrase "no other forms exist" is the current state of this article; implied by the pseudo-definitive nature of the first sentence. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:18, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Of these two below, it is clear that you choose something along the lines of option (a):

a) Reverse-racism is definitively affirmative action (and policies) being described as a form of anti-white racism.

b) Reverse-racism is especially affirmative action (and policies) being described as a form of anti-white racism.

You may think it's dishonest to throw the word 'definitively' in there. But, the current wording of the article's first sentence is this:

current) Reverse racism... concept that affirmative action etc.... are a form of anti-white racism.

This current wording clearly aligns with option (a), describing - with no sources - reverse-racism as definitively policies described as a form of anti-white racism. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not how this works. The burden of proof is on you, the person who wants to change the article, to prove that your change is supported by reliable sources. Your line of logic is pointless, a la What the Tortoise Said to Achilles. "Pseudo-definitive" is not definitive. The reliable sources discuss reverse racism as a term used by white people to complain about things that benefit non-white people, and so that's what we do too. We're not obligated to bend over backwards to avoid implying something that there is absolutely no evidence against. You have yet to provide a reliable source that describes reverse racism in anything but a white context, and until you do, worrying about pointless implications is...pointless. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"To prove that my change is supported by reliable sources." - No: The current wording is not supported by reliable sources. The burden of proof is on those who want to justify the current wording, with better sources - sources which definitively describe reverse-racism... from programs in the sole form of anti-white racism. As there are no sources conveying this "sole form" definition, the term "especially" is much more accurate.

It would be like you suggesting that "All sources suggest A - none suggest B", and then I responding with "All known sources suggest A - no known sources suggest B." We do not have perfect knowledge. The term "all known sources" cannot be equated with "all sources"; it would more accurately be used as "most sources suggest A" or, as I have suggested, "sources especially suggest A."

""Pseudo-definitive" is not definitive." What are you trying to say here? That is precisely my point - the claimed definitive nature of the article's first sentence is not backed by sources, and is unfounded: therefore the prefix "pseudo."

"The reliable sources discuss reverse racism as a term used by white people to complain about things that benefit non-white people.": Yes, they discuss it. They do not define it as such, no where suggesting that this is exclusive to anti-white racism.

"Pointless implications"? I would say it is quite an important implication; the one that suggests reverse-racism is solely alleged to take the form of anti-white racism. As User:Gumbear below pointed out, this article is centred on the US and S. Africa, about white people and black people. There are many other people in the world - more than 7 billion outside of these two countries, in fact. There are no sources to say that "reverse racism" is a term used no where else, nor that it doesn't exist anywhere else. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, we also don't have any known reliable sources that say that Pluto is not made entirely out of barbecue spareribs. Sure, all of the sources we have talk about Pluto in the context of it being a rocky planetoid, but none of them actually define the term Pluto as not being made entirely of barbecue spareribs. Maybe we should put some hedging language in the article, just to be safe.

But seriously, no, as WP:BURDEN says (as linked above): The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. (emphasis original). You are trying to change wording based on the notion that there might be some sources out there somewhere that talk about it differently. That's not how we write articles. You want to add wording to soften the language of the article, so you need to present actual reliable sources that support your change. You have yet to do so, despite all your handwaving. In other words, you're doing a lot of hemming and hawing that the article might be incorrect--no, show me that it is incorrect, and then we can talk about how to fix it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No: sources do not merely discuss Pluto as being a rocky planetoid; they define it as such (along with other defining characteristics of Pluto) and from an astronomical perspective, as opposed to a national one, which is what these sources focus on. As pluto is defined as a rocky planetoid (alongside its other objective features), there are no other definitive interpretations, and therefore that statement is definitive, and belongs in the lede. That is not our own case.

Our current sources do not define reverse racism as referring to solely alleged anti-white racism - they discuss it - as you stated above.

"The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material."; I am saying that the burden of proof is on those editors who add or restore material. Editors do not need additional sources for every edit. What would you do if you believed that current sources were severely misinterpreted? Those in support of the current wording ought to accurately justify it with sources (additional or current) - which no one has yet to do so, despite handwaving. Zilch-nada (talk) 17:43, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There is also no evidence that there are no other interpretations out there. The article currently takes a handful of discussions (of reverse racism and anti-white racism) and defines it from such discussions. That is completely inaccurate, and a completely different scenario from the case of Pluto. Zilch-nada (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Again, The article currently takes a handful of discussions (of reverse racism and anti-white racism) and defines it from such discussions--yes, this is how Wikipedia works. We summarize the content about a topic as it is discussed in reliable sources. If reliable sources only talk about a term in a specific context, then so will we. There is also no evidence that there are no other interpretations out there--you presumably know that it's impossible to prove a negative, so that's a non-starter.

But fine, if you absolutely goddamn must: Reverse racism is the perception that White individuals experience discrimination, prejudice, or group-based bias because of the color of their skin (Bax, 2018). ref: Hawkins, Ian; Saleem, Muniba (2022). "How social media use, political identity, and racial resentment affect perceptions of reverse racism in the United States". Computers in Human Behavior. 134. ISSN 0747-5632. Enough? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Do you have any further context to that Bax reference? You've linked Hawkins & Saleem which it cites, but not Bax. Hawkins and Saleem, referring to American surveys, American perceptions of reverse racism, and the influence of American conservatism. Again, reference to the term solely in the U.S., whereby the sources mentioning reverse racism as seen by only white Americans, is not definitive.

"yes, this is how Wikipedia works."; you say "We summarize... as discussed in reliable sources." Yes, Wikipedia summarises. But Wikipedia does not interpret definitions from discussions. It interprets definitions from definitions, e.g., the definitive characteristics of Pluto as defined by astronomical sources. No source has mentioned the definitive characteristics of reverse-racism on a global scale; no source has definitively suggested it as taking the form of "anti-white" racism. Zilch-nada (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Also, you are the one suggesting that there are no other reliable interpretations out there; the nature of this article's lede being definitive suggests that there are no other interpretations - i.e., it is a definitive definition (funny that). Therefore, the burden of proof is on you to support the claim that "reverse-racism... affirmative action and programs are a form of anti-white racism" is a definition of the concept. Zilch-nada (talk) 18:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I kinda figured you'd move the goalposts. So here's the definition from Bax:

...a third discourse has sprung up on the political right: that of “whiteness as disadvantage” (Winant 1997). Proponents of this worldview believe that it is in fact people of color who receive disproportionate privilege, and that whites today are subjected to the brunt of racial discrimination (King 2015). In this article, I analyze the discursive construction of this so-called reverse racism...

— Bax, A. (2018), “The C-Word” Meets “the N-Word”: The Slur-Once-Removed and the Discursive Construction of “Reverse Racism”. J Linguist Anthropol, 28: 114-136. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/jola.12185

I also have

However, a growing discourse around reverse racism, a concept holding that whites believe they are discriminated against as much as or more than racial/ethnic minorities, warrants further investigation.

— Woo, Bongki. “Racial Discrimination and Mental Health in the USA: Testing the Reverse Racism Hypothesis.” Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities, vol. 5, no. 4, 2018, pp. 766–73. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/48706890. Accessed 4 Mar. 2023.

and

Reverse racism is the idea that the Civil Rights Movement not only ended the subordination of communities of color in all aspects of social life but also simultaneously led to a similar subordination of Whites.

— Roussell, A., Henne, K., Glover, K.S. and Willits, D. (2019), Impossibility of a “Reverse Racism” Effect. Criminology & Public Policy, 18: E5-E16. https://doi-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12289

Is four definitions not enough for you? How many does it take? Because right now it's starting to look like it takes "whatever number of definitions I've supplied, plus one". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not moved the goalposts. The term "definitive", as I have stated many times before, may be definitive in an American context in terms of black and white people. The equivalence reverse-racism = anti-white racism would be the case if the article was entitled, "Reverse Racism in the United States." As this article is beyond the US, the definition definitive to the US is not universally definitive.

Okay, 3 more definitions:

Definition 1 is not even a definition; Bax says "this so-called reverse racism" to merely describe "whiteness as disadvantage"; Bax does not equate this terms and therefore does not define reverse racism, only speaking of "this so-called reverse-racism"; it is not clear that this is equated, and "this so-called reverse-racism" is semantically similar to "this form of so-called reverse-racism."

Definition 2 refers to the United States. If this source refers to a more definitive, global outlook, then I would support it. This source speaks solely of "Racial Discrimination and Mental Health in the USA."

Definition 3; I do not have access to this entire source, alongside the others. Reverse racism is the idea...? Where is this idea expressed? Considering there is specific mention to the Civil Rights Movement - an American movement - I am pretty sure they are referring to the idea expressed in the United States - not a definitive worldview.

"How many does it take?" One. It would take one source that definitively defines reverse racism as that which is perceived definitively as solely anti-white racism.

With the American sources you have supplied, you are further making the case for this article to be entitled "Reverse racism in the United States" or, beginning the article with something like, "Reverse racism is a concept in the United States..." Zilch-nada (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The lead already says that: (Belief in reverse racism is widespread in the U.S., the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue. Per WP:PRECISE, we don't name articles more precisely than they need to be; even if it were an exclusively US topic, we would still name the article "Reverse racism", because there is no wider-scope article to differentiate it from. The reasons the sources are US-centric is that this is primarily a US-centric phenomenon; outside of some outliers like South Africa, there is no global scope for reverse racism (because the concept of reverse racism has no basis in reality outside the claims of the (white) people using it in the US and those other outliers). This is what the sources all say, so this is what the article says. You're assuming without evidence in reliable sources a global scope outside of the countries already mentioned in the article for the term "reverse racism". You need to cite reliable sources to back that claim. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:33, 4 March 2023 (UTC)`

That said, I would be remiss if I didn't mention: I don't have a fundamental problem with saying "reverse racism is a term used in the US and other countries like South Africa that...". It's redundant, because the lead already discusses that at length, but it's fine. My problem is when we use language that implies that "reverse racism" is used elsewhere to mean something else, which is unsupported by sources. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 19:49, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"No other forms exist" is the current state of this article – this is an appeal to ignorance, suggesting that a lack of descriptions of reverse racism as a worldwide concept implies that it's is limited to the United States & South Africa. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Reference to the term solely in the U.S., whereby the sources mentioning reverse racism as seen by only white Americans, is not definitive – if that's how sources define it, then yes it is. We don't go around adding our own context just because we think it's missing from published sources. That would be original research.

No source has mentioned the definitive characteristics of reverse-racism on a global scale – see Ansell (2013), pp. 135–136 (my bolding): Reverse racism is a concept commonly associated with conservative opposition to affirmative action and other color-conscious victories of the civil rights movement in the United States and anti-racist movements abroad. While traditional forms of racism involve prejudice and discrimination on the part of whites against blacks, reverse racism is alleged to be a new form of anti-white racism practiced by blacks and/or the so-called civil rights establishment (alternately referred to as the anti-racism industry).

I trust this is definitive enough?

Bax ... does not define reverse racism – reading further, we find (my bolding): 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. Seems like a clear equivalence to me.

Definition 2 refers to the United States – no it doesn't. The source discusses the concept primarily in a US context, but their definition is just a concept holding that whites believe they are discriminated against as much as or more than racial/ethnic minorities.

Reverse racism is the idea...? Where is this idea expressed? – who cares? You asked for definitions. Roussell et al. give one: Reverse racism is the idea that the Civil Rights Movement [...] led to a similar subordination of Whites.

It would take one source that definitively defines reverse racism as that which is perceived definitively as solely anti-white racism. You can't prove a negative (reverse racism is perceived as solely anti-white racism and nothing else). This is more appeal to ignorance. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC) edited 02:18, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

This debate may be days old, and the current state is a somewhat better-worded opening that refers more so immediately to the US. But I'm afraid I must respond to your comments here, as they are inaccurate.

"The appeal to ignorance" is exactly my point. This article suggests "the concept that affirmative action and similar programs are a form of anti-white racism." This is an appeal to ignorance as it clearly definitively ties anti-white racism to reverse-racism, saying that no other forms exist; It clearly appeals to ignorance when it takes this proposition for granted based on the current absence of other interpretations; describing this subject is very subjective, and therefore I must emphasise the usage of terms such as "especially" and "often" (recent changes have somewhat improved this), instead of definitively defining terms in this way. Simply put, with subjective interpretations, we should not take them as definitions.

"if that's how sources define it, then yes it is [definitive]." You are clearly admitting that the article's mention of the concept is definitive. If sources refer to the term - while not tying exclusively to the U.S. - but as especially in the U.S., in a particular manner, we should refer to "anti-white racism" with particular (especial-ly) reference to the U.S., considering no sources in this article have explicitly mentioned "anti-white racism" as the definition of "reverse-racism" abroad. Saying definitively that reverse-racism abroad doesn't exist - which is what User:Writ Keeper has suggested - without basis - in

"because the concept of reverse racism has no basis in reality outside the claims of the (white) people using it in the US and those other outliers"

is a major appeal to ignorance. Please Writ Keeper, if you're reading, what are your sources for "no basis in reality"? If not, what is your interpretation from current sources that drove you to make such a claim?

It is not original research to interpret a source(s) as not being definitive; in defining the term reverse-racism as anti-white racism, it is my strong interpretation (not research) that they are doing so in a US-focused manner. Okay, your mentioned definition as a reference to abroad movements (which is good), but is not definitive; it is extremely vague (I'm sure you agree) in referencing it in simply "anti-racist movement abroad" before the mention of "anti-white racism" in the second sentence. It does not explicitly tie reverse-racism with anti-white racism abroad (it semantically could refer to the U.S., which is the main focus of the definition; not clear either way): perhaps because "reverse racism" isn't a term widely used abroad; "reverse racism" not being used abroad isn't a basis for defining it as "anti-white racism" abroad. The article is better in explicit refer to the United States, but with the mere term "often", still ultimately defining it as explicitly "anti-white racism."

Your expansion on Bax's definition is more explicit ("...many Americans—including some people of color—staunchly believe in the existence of reverse racism, or racism against whites..") in creating an equivalence, but again, in an American context.

""Definition 2 refers to the United States" – no it doesn't. The source discusses the concept primarily in a US context" - that's what "refer" means; it refers it in allusion to the US., not defining it as exclusive to the US.

Perhaps you misread me in "Reverse racism is the idea...? Where is this idea expressed?" when you said "who cares? You asked for definitions. Roussell et al. give one: Reverse racism is the idea that the Civil Rights Movement [...] led to a similar subordination of Whites.""; "Where is this idea expressed?" is clearly an allusion to the contents you provided that I referenced; "Where" is a reference to the US., as this definition alludes to the American Civil Rights Movement.

"It would take one source that definitively defines reverse racism as that which is perceived definitively as solely anti-white racism. You can't prove a negative" Not being able to prove a negative is exactly my point; this article defining instead of alluding, or referring reverse-racism as anti-white racism is, as I aforementioned, cannot be proven, as we cannot prove whether or not it is defined as this elsewhere. Hence, my strong preference is for non-definitive terms such as "especially" and "often", which this article needs more of, especially when "defining" the concept.

"It would take one source that definitively defines reverse racism as that which is perceived definitively as solely anti-white racism."; such a definition would justify the wording of the article as definitive. My point is, because of its appeal to ignorance that you mentioned, no such definition can exist, and therefore the current wording of the article can never be justified in saying "reverse racism = anti-white racism." Zilch-nada (talk) 09:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

It would take one source that definitively defines reverse racism as that which is perceived definitively as solely anti-white racism ... no such definition can exist, and therefore the current wording of the article can never be justified – I wonder if you would use this "definitiveness" argument with any other topic: we cannot prove that creamed eggs on toast is never eaten for dessert, therefore we cannot define it solely as a breakfast dish. Reliable sources that define reverse racism have already been supplied. It's no one else's problem if they're not definitive enough for you. The meanings of defining, alluding, and referring that you are invoking seem to be yours alone. No one else is obligated to agree to them. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

That's a dishonest comparison, as "breakfast dish" does not refer to food exclusively eaten at breakfast, but "commonly" or "especially". See e.g., Wiktionary's definition of breakfast cereal; "A food made from processed grains, such as maize, oats, wheat or rice, usually eaten for breakfast with milk and sometimes sugar."

"Breakfast dish" does not exclude eating such food outside breakfast.

"Anti-white racism" specifically refers to the concept whereby white people allege racial discrimination against them; that clearly excludes any other examples of reverse-racism, suggesting that they don't and can't exist by the nature of definition. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:00, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems like special pleading; a "breakfast dish" is just that, a dish eaten for breakfast. But it doesn't matter; you've made it clear that no published sources can possibly meet your personal standard of "definitiveness". I disagree with this kind of inflexible approach and prefer to just summarize published, reliable sources. If you can't provide a published source defining, alluding, or referring (take your pick) to reverse racism in any other context than perceived "anti-white racism", this argument is pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

---

Thank you for this logical critique. The anglo-centric slant here is clearly one of the weaknesses of this article. It ignores the fact that racism is not a uniquely "white" issue, and that wherever policies (or even attitudes) are used to fight racism against minorities, such policies/attitudes may be abused against individuals from majority races/ethnicities. This article captures that dynamic: https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/the-adroit-human/the-scourge-of-reverse-racism/ Gumbear (talk) 05:53, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The Times of India is not a strong source in the best of times, and certainly not anything from its blog section. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 06:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's the problem: reverse racism is a concept that isn't intuitively limited to any race. Yet your arguments tend to suggest that, unless we prove through authoritative sources (as defined by you and a few other biased editors that follow this page) that it can exist outside of an anglo-centric perspective, it doesn't exist. It's like saying "Until you show me studies that say racism can exist in the South Pole, racism in the South Pole can't exist." It doesn't work that way. As Zilch has been trying to explain, show some evidence that reverse discrimination, an ostensibly race-neutral concept, is only defined by anti-white racism. And explain why the Times of India's description of "reverse racism" is wrong and what term they should have used to describe their situation. Gumbear (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

No one is saying, nor does the article imply, that reverse racism doesn't exist outside of an anglo-centric perspective. This is a classic appeal to ignorance. Wikipedia users' intuitions have no bearing on how we summarize published, reliable sources. We don't have to refute a Times of India blog any more than we have to refute the existence of Bat Boy. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Here's your definition: "the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism." That explicitly excludes non-anti-white racism. You seem to be conceding that reverse racism isn't limited to anti-white racism, but are intent on defining it as such. Explain, because this comes off as cognitive dissonance. Gumbear (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not my definition. It's a summary of published, reliable sources. See WP:V. There is no exclusion of non-anti-white racism, explicit or otherwise. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

No. It's an aggregation of cherry-picked, out-of-context sources from authors with a demonstrated bias. We've been over this ad nauseum. It blatantly violates policies on original research and NPOV. And your assertion that your definition, which explicitly excludes non-anti-white racism, doesn't exclude non-anti-white racism IS cognitive dissonance. We need to get away from this anglo-centrism. Gumbear (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Give us reliable sources that discuss "reverse racism" in any other context, and we'll discuss it in the article. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

We've been over this ad nauseum – yes, and your complaints were consistently rejected. Time to either provide reliable sources to back up your claims or WP:DROPTHESTICK. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:10, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

What part of the article do you consider uncredible? And can you cite any credible sources that say reverse racism is uniquely a "white-black" concept? If not, we should remove that from the definition. Gumbear (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

The article, as @Gumbear suggested (I do disagree with The Times of India source, though), explicitly excludes non-anti-white racism in its definition. As the defintion is to define reverse-racism as anti-white racism, that itself is an appeal to ignorance in defining it with absence of evidence. Such absence of evidence of the term used elsewhere does not mean the evidence of its absence elsewhere. The lede's definition does do this, however.

"There is no exclusion of non-anti-white racism"; please explain how "the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism" doesn't exclude non-anti-white racism. Isn't defining it as a "form of anti-white racism" exclusionary? This is a intended definitive definition, as you have admitted. How can this wording be definitive?

@Writ Keeper Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence of the term used differently elsewhere. We can not therefore be definitive in saying "reverse-racism = anti-white racism", but can in saying "most often" - don't you agree? "Most often" is a more definitive description of how the term is used, as it most often (not inherently) refers to anti-white racism. You ask for evidence of the term outside the "most often" occurences. Absence of such evidence is not evidence of such absence. Zilch-nada (talk) 09:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Show us a reliable source that discusses non-white reverse racism, then we can talk. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

I have simply mentioned that you cannot definitively call reverse-racism a form of "anti-white racism" as the absence of evidence of other forms does not equate to evidence of their abscence. Below I have suggested the term, "most often". Zilch-nada (talk) 13:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

No. We shouldn't imply the existence of discussion of other "types" of reverse racism without reliable sources that such discussion exists. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

We shouldn't define it as exclusive to one type when other types are not mentioned, especially when no sources explicitly define it. Absence of evidence =/= Evidence of absence. But please check my suggested edit at the bottom of section "Suggestion for rewording opening." Thanks. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Reliable sources define as such (I quoted four of them above), so we should too. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:39, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

They don't define it as such; I have made my opinion clear; there is no explicit reference to it definitively being a form of anti-white racism. Therefore, it is more definitive to use such terms as "most often", or "especially." Zilch-nada (talk) 15:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Then consider me unconvinced. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:52, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment: Having been through enough of these kinds of debates –– where one or two folks who are unhappy with a longstanding implicit consensus show up on a talk page and continue to engage in long-winded exchanges with one or two experienced editors after it's clear that no one is being convinced –– I'll just weigh in to state that Writ Keeper and Sangdeboeuf have by far the stronger arguments here. I second the suggestion that it may be time for the others to WP:DROPTHESTICK. You have raised your objections and those objections have been replied to. Absent some kind of deus ex machina of truly impressive new information, the conversation appears to have reached its natural conclusion. Let's all devote our attention to more productive things now. Generalrelative (talk) 22:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

  I understand the nature of Wikipedia in that benefit of the doubt is given to conserving the current style of writing in the article and the defenders of it. But I do not understand how the experience of editors matters at all. @Gumbear and I have not vandalized nor been at the foul play of disruptive editing, and our conduct follows Wikipedia's own rules. The rule you now suggest us to follow is to "drop the stick." Please weigh in a bit more and be constructive to this talk page; why do @Sangdeboeuf and @Generalrelative have better arguments? I genuinely want to hear your interpretations; it might be of more substance in establishing a consensus. A discussion of 5 is better than one of 4, and an established consensus of 3 is better than one of 2 (simply put, more interpretations and value added to this long conversation.) Zilch-nada (talk) 09:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for rewording opening

The lede currently reads:

"Reverse racism is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, especially in the United States, are a form of anti-white racism."

I suggest changing this to something along the lines of:

"Reverse racism is the concept that policies, such as affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality, are a form of racism. The term is especially used in the United States in regard to alleged anti-white racism. The concept is often associated with conservative social movements and the belief that social and economic gains by black people cause disadvantages for white people. It is sometimes conflated with the concept of reverse discrimination."

This wording uses the same sources, and deduces the term "racism" from the term "anti-white racism.", considering "anti-white" is not definitive, and the article is intended to reference racism in general. Understanding that all sources used refer (but not definitively) to alleged anti-white racism, the second sentence makes it clear that the concept is mostly used in the US with the descriptor, "anti-white."

I added the phrase "policies, such as..." as no source refers definitively to affirmative action / color-conscious programs. Zilch-nada (talk) 16:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with this, absent sourcing that indicates the term has any usage outside of the context of anti-white "racism". Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 16:46, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Your logic therefore suggests "reverse racism = anti-white racism" is definitive. There are no sources present to support that.

"The term is especially used... anti-white racism" does not imply other significant forms of reverse racism, hence the word "especially." Therefore, while the article refers to "especially" anti-white racism, that does not necessitate the immediate description of usage outside the context of anti-white "racism", as anti-white "racism" is most significant. Zilch-nada (talk) 17:03, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, let's phrase it this way: what other uses of the phrase "reverse racism" are there, signficant or otherwise? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

You have no sources to definitively suggest that "Reverse racism... concept... form of anti-white racism." No sources definitively imply this. The only sources implying this refer to the U.S. and South Africa.

The phrasing "Reverse racism... concept... form of anti-white racism." implies a definitive outlook with no basis, as this is slyly based on the U.S. and S. Africa. As I said previously, from the sources saying that reverse-racism = anti-white racism (in Country X and Y), this article, by your logic of saying it doesn't exist otherwise, may as well be titled; "Reverse racism in the United States and South Africa", or "Anti-white racism."

Again, no source definitively says "reverse racism = Anti-white racism", which is what the lede dishonestly and illogically interprets from country-based sources that describe the term in country X and Y. The lede is a logical error. Zilch-nada (talk) 02:50, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

As well as no sources present acknowledging reverse racism otherwise, there also are no sources to suggest that there are no other "uses of the phrase 'reverse racism'... significant or otherwise." Zilch-nada (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia policy that says we have to start every article with a disclaimer like "in Country X" when the available sources focus on Country X. Doing so would be silly and excessively pedantic. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

That is precisely my point; above, I said "by your logic of saying it doesn't exist otherwise, may as well be titled; "Reverse racism in the United States and South Africa", or "Anti-white racism."". We are aiming for a worldwide view, then emphasising where the term is used in academia and media - the US and S. Africa. It is a worldwide view to say "It is a term... especially used in the US", not worldwide to say "It is a form of anti-white racism, especially used in the US" or "a term used in the US."

It may be especially a form of anti-white racism, just as I used the word especially to describe the U.S.

As I suggested above, the logic in

"Reverse racism... concept... especially in the United States as anti-white racism."

makes a lot more sense. Zilch-nada (talk) 03:29, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

It's hard to parse your proposed wording when you replace all the verbs with ellipses. The lede already states, 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. The article is about the concept of reverse racism, not just the term. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:17, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

"Anti-white racism" is not a universal descriptor of reverse racism, or more specifically, affirmative action and color-conscious programs, as the article states presently.

I'll fill in ellipses:

"Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of racism, especially in the United States as anti-white racism. This logic is much more clear. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

We could also use a descriptor (provided by RS) for the simple term, "racism" which stands on its own.

It makes semantic sense that, whether or not anti-white racism exists, it is nominally a form of racism, and therefore the deduction of "anti-white."

As mentioned by other editors above, the more universal topic is majority or "advantaged" groups alleging to experience reverse-racism. Of course, in the US and South Africa, that is the case via RS, but we cannot yet interpret that as "majority/minority" conflict. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article does not say that "anti-white racism" is a universal descriptor of affirmative action and color-conscious programs. It says this is a belief widely held in the U.S, Not the same thing.

... are a form of racism, especially in the United States as anti-white racism implies that there is a different form of racism called "reverse racism" outside the U.S. Which published, reliable sources support this implication? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The article literally states the concept, as a perception from conservatives; that "affirmative action, and color conscious programs... are a form of anti-white racism." That definitively equates the concept - the idea of affirmative action, etc. - take the perceived form of reverse racism as solely anti-white racism. By referring exclusively to anti-white racism, instead of "especially", or, "used especially in the United States...", that is an overly simplistic, and dishonest summary.

WP:ONUS is on the current intepretations of the current sources. I am fine with using the current sources if interpreted fairly; they are not.

"... are a form of racism, especially in the United States as anti-white racism implies that there is a different form of racism called "reverse racism" outside the U.S."

I could equally say that there are no sources to suggest reverse-racism (or its relationship with affirmative action etc.) occurs only in the United States, or in the form of anti-white racism. To negate that, I write that the term is especially used in the United States; "Especially used in the US... with regard to alleged anti-white racism." This interpretation does not imply solely the US, nor does it necessarily call for significant mention of it outside of the US in different forms.

Affirmative action, etc., are interpreted to be a form of racism in the US; specifically anti-white racism, a sort of subcategory of racism. As this is a 'subcategory', (deducing "racism" from "anti-white racism"), we can specify, with the term "especially," the importance of this 'subcategory' with regard to the US and S. Africa. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:37, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

To say that something especially occurs in place X with no found evidence of the term used in place Y, the term "especially" does not call for its significant existence elsewhere.

The point is, if we don't know if it exists in place Y (we don't know as we haven't yet sources), to dispute the term "especially" for a definitive sense (i.e. definitively anti-white racism), that requires sourcing to suggest that it exists nowhere else. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Whether or not anti-white racism exists, it is nominally a form of racism, and therefore the deduction of "anti-white." ... Affirmative action, etc., are interpreted to be a form of racism in the US; specifically anti-white racism, a sort of subcategory of racism – putting "racism" before "anti-white racism" would fail to give due weight. The cited sources specifically focus on perceived anti-white racism/discrimination. All this talk of "deduction" and "subcategories" is original research.

The article literally states the concept ... as solely anti-white racism – no it doesn't. Saying "reverse racism is X" is not the same as saying "reverse racism is not Y". This is the appeal to ignorance again.

There are no sources to suggest reverse-racism ... occurs only in the United States, or in the form of anti-white racism. To negate that, I write that the term is especially used in the United States – once again, this article is about the concept of reverse racism, not just a term used in the United States. The lead section already states, While the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue, the concept of reverse racism has been used internationally to some extent.

To say that something especially occurs in place X ... does not call for its significant existence elsewhere – define "significant".

To dispute the term "especially" for a definitive sense ... that requires sourcing to suggest that it exists nowhere else – nowhere does the article state or imply that the concept of reverse racism "exists nowhere else" outside the US or SA; see above. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 21:24, 4 March 2023 (UTC) edited 23:46, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't "anti-white racism" semantically a form of "racism"? Whether or not it exists, people arguing in favour of this existence of "reverse racism" are doing so because they believe affirmative action etc. is a form of racism, specifically describing it as "anti-white" racism". The article's first paragraph summarizes the sentiments of such people through reliable sources; is it really original research (as opposed to interpretation of sources, and basic semantics) to suggest the proponents of the term describe policies as racist, given that they believe "anti-white racism" is a form of it? If a source used the term "purple car", wouldn't it be just to refer to them describing a "car"?

Saying that "reverse-racism is anti-white racism" in a definitive manner is exlcusionary of the term used differently in other contexts. This wording is an appeal to ignorance, being definitive without source.

The concept is a concept which is especiialy used in the United States. The current article's wording is "often", (in refernce to it being associated with conservative movements.) But you cannot deny that it is especially used in the US.

"To say that something especially occurs in place X ... does not call for its significant existence elsewhere – define "significant"." I mean "significant" as in worthy of mention. I don't know if reverse-racism (being seen as) as anti-white racism is elsewhere; I don't know if it doesn't exist at all. But I think it is fair to say it doesn't significantly exist elsewhere; the absence of sources mentioning it elsewhere clearly suggest it isn't worthy of mention elsewhere, but that does not mean it does not exist elsewhere. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But it is evidence of it not being mentioned (hence, "absence of evidence" is similar to "absence of mention" of it elsewhere).

"nowhere does the article state or imply that the concept of reverse racism "exists nowhere else" outside the US or SA". I didn't say that. The article suggests that reverse racism exists as only anti-white racism and in no other contexts ("where" referring to instances of the term use, not geography.) Zilch-nada (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't [Spider-Man] semantically a form of [man]? Whether or not [Spider-Man] exists, people arguing in favour of this existence of [Spider-Man] are doing so because they believe [Spider-Man] is a [man] ... is it really original research (as opposed to interpretation of sources, and basic semantics) to suggest the proponents of the term describe [Spider-Man] as [a man], given that they believe [Spider-Man] is a [man]? Yes. These "semantic" arguments are a silly distraction.

If a source used the term "purple car", wouldn't it be just to refer to them describing a "car"? A better example would be "low-rider". It may be semantically valid to refer to a low-rider as a "rider", i.e. something that rides, but it would be reductive and incomplete. Same with "reverse racism", which is an epithet specifically used to denigrate affirmative action, not a generic type of racism.

This wording is an appeal to ignorance, being definitive without source – plenty of sources have already been supplied. If they're not definitive enough for you, take it to WP:RS/N.

The concept is a concept which is [especially] used in the United States – source?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But it is evidence of it not being mentioned – exactly. When published, reliable sources mention it, then we can too. Until then, we don't.

The article suggests that reverse racism exists as only anti-white racism and in no other contexts – no it does not. This is your appeal to ignorance again. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Calling "Spider-Man" a type of man isn't reductive or incomplete; it is a descriptor. But I do agree that that context is from original research (we cannot deduce this from a trademark or proper noun.)

Calling "Low-rider" a type of "rider" isn't reductive or incomplete; it is a desciptor - likewise to be used if sources describe it as a type of "rider."

Calling "anti-white racism" a form of "racism" isn't reductive or incomplete; it is a descriptor. My interpretation was, that those who alleged the term to affirmative action, etc., were doing so because they were describing a type of racism. But anyway, seeing there is disagreement on this deduction, please see my suggested edits.

The article does suggest that no other forms exist when it says "affirmative action... a form of anti-white racism"; isn't descibring something as a "form" of, very definitive? If it is a form of "anti-white" racism, it cannot be a form of anything else. It is "most often" / "especially" / "often" (although I think it's more than often - open to conversation on this wording) used in this manner, not definitively.

"Plenty of sources have been supplied"; I have been over how I feel they are misinterpreted. Just because "plenty" of them have been supplied describing chiefly - especially the U.S., does not mean that the term is defined by its definition in the U.S. Please check my suggested edit below where I have not deducted "anti-white", but focused on where that description is given - "most often" / "often" / "especially" in ''the United States. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

If it is a form of "anti-white" racism, it cannot be a form of anything else – says who? Lots of things can be a form of more than one thing. Swimming is a form of locomotion, a form of exercise, and a type of competitive sport. This argument is just silly. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:23, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Saying that "reverse-racism is anti-white racism" in a definitive manner is [exclusionary] of the term used differently in other contexts – once again, absent sources that mention "reverse racism" in any other context(s), this argument is pointless. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the proposed wording above:

Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is the concept that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of racism, especially in the United States as anti-white racism.

The addition of "especially in the United States" is vague and awkwardly phrased. "Especially" what? Especially referred to? Especially a concept? Especially a form of racism? The phrase "as anti-white racism" seems to imply that there is a phenomenon of anti-white racism and that reverse racism somehow pertains to it. This is completely backwards according to the sources, which describe "anti-white racism" as a perceived phenomenon which has been labeled "reverse racism" by some. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I completely agree with you here. I would say that the concept of reverse-racism in the US. is particularly aligned with alleged "anti-white racism." Zilch-nada (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Emphasis on the term "alleged", or term like "perceived" as you suggest.

Zilch-nada (talk) 13:30, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Ansell doesn't Sources don't say anything about reverse racism being conflated with reverse discrimination. She Yee (2008) mentions "reverse discrimination" as a synonym of "reverse racism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC) edited 20:10, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, I think there are only two minor changes to this lede I think are necessary. Considering we have disagreement on deducing "anti-white racism" as "racism" (in the minds of proponents of the concept), we must refer to the term "anti-white racism". But I don't - as we have conversed for days about - believe the article should definitively link "reverse racism" to "anti-white racism". My two minor suggested edits (This is not exhaustive - I am looking for conversation surrounding this wording below):

Original: "Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is a concept often associated with conservative social movements in the United States, which holds that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism."

Suggested: "Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is a concept most often associated with conservative social movements in the United States, where it holds that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism."

This definition refers more explicitly to the US., where sources do explicitly refer to it as alleged "anti-white racism." Zilch-nada (talk) 10:08, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

You should probably check the talk page archives before devoting more of your time to this. We've already been over this quite recently with Gumbear, and a solid consensus emerged to keep the current wording: Talk:Reverse racism/Archive_6#Semi-protected edit request on 14 September 2022. I've read what you've written above and haven't seen anything new. We're not required to retread the same ground every time someone comes along making the same old arguments. See e.g. WP:SATISFY for further advice. Generalrelative (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Which sources say reverse racism is most often associated with conservative social movements in the United States? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll scrap that. (Just as I think we should scrap defining "reverse racism" in relation to "anti-white racism"; no source outside U.S.) What about keeping the undeniable term, "where", to this defintion:

Suggested: "Reverse racism, sometimes referred to as reverse discrimination, is a concept often associated with conservative social movements in the United States, where it holds that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are a form of anti-white racism."

"It" refers to "concept"; "it" is defined in this way in the United States. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

This unduly limits the lead sentence. "Reverse racism" has been invoked in other countries besides the U.S. – not only South Africa as described in the article but also the UK; see Song (2014). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

And Australia; see Nelson et al. (2018). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

30 March 2023

Thread retitled from "Bad faith sources".

Some of the sources seem to be arguing in bad faith In specific, I understand that "reverse racism" refers to belifs that specific grovernment programs (such as afirmative action) and/or social movements are racist for privileging certain racial groups over others Yet many sources (namely 4 to 10) frame it as a belif that white people are sistemicaly disadvantaged in general This seems a bit disonest Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 20:11, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Based on what? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I thought I made it clear I was refering to my personal experience with the topic

In my experience the term is mostly used in the way defined in the opening, that color-concious legislation is racist for disadvantaging certain ethnic groups over others, but none of the sources atempting to debunk it seem to even ackowlege that definition Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 11:26, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:V; users' personal experience is largely irrelevant, let alone in accusing published sources of bad faith. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Not to make this a WP:FORUM, but what is the effect of privileging certain racial groups over others supposed to be if not making some racial groups [systemically] disadvantaged in general? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You can simultaneously understand that the goal is to help disadvantaged groups but that the result is a sistematic disadvantage for groups not benefitted

While obviously there is no widespread racism against white people in the US, they (along with Asians) are directly disadvantaged by afirmative action, for example, as it makes it harder for them to enter college than it would be otherwise

While adressing the claims of widespread racism against whites in the US is important, the article shouldn't imply that's the only kind of belif under the unbrella of "reverse racism" when several other, more reasonanle, views also fall under it. Such as the view that color-concious legislation is racist for directly disadvantaging certain ethnic groups over others

The article ackowleges this view in the opening, but none of the sources seem to even mention it when atempting to debunk reverse racism Pedro Prada Carciofi (talk) 11:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Ansell (2013) specifically mentions this on p. 46. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

Peer Review

In the History section, you could definitely elaborate more on the history of reverse racism. Historically, there has been preconceptions by many white supremacists and supporters of slavery that the advancement of black people directly undermined the superiority of white people. There is a very long history regarding anti-white racism that dates back to the beginning of slavery that could be delved further into. Furthermore, in the Public Attitudes section, you could incorporate information regarding the fact that many white people associate black people protesting racial injustices with being anti-white. You could also elaborate more on how racism towards black people is deeply rooted in the concept of reverse racism. All in all, you did a great job of explaining the concept! Butterflies&rainbows (talk) 04:01, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Please provide sources WP:RS along with proposed text to add to the article. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 07:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Update to the "Legal challenges" section

Any issues updating this section to reflect SFFA v. Harvard/UNC? Something that just focuses on the ruling and doesn't editorialize? I don't want to make edits just for them to get deleted, but this section needs an update. Gumbear (talk) 21:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm wary of WP:SYNTH here. The issue in SFFA v. Harvard was discrimination against Asian Americans, not anti-white (i.e. "reverse") racism. A better article to update would be Affirmative action in the United States. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Asians were the plaintiffs that suffered reverse discrimination in SFFA, but the ruling against racial discrimination in college admissions clearly applied to all races--including whites. No one seriously disputes that. The cases cited to here are no longer good law. Gumbear (talk) 05:29, 27 July 2023 (UTC)