Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 7

Racism and systemic racism
The article's introduction appears to be quite loose with its terminology around racism. In particular this line stands out: "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 citations provided for that claim refer specifically to systemic/institutional racism, not racism as a general concept. Should the line not be reworded to accurately reflect the sources it cites? 41.133.75.138 (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The sources use racism to mean systemic/institutional racism, which is one of the accepted meanings of the term racism. The line you quoted makes this explicitly clear. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 11:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: The Economics of Social Justice and Injustice
— 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 . Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 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 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 say that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs are a form of anti-white racism. It says that they are  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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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: Enough? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 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..." 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." 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." 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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, pp. 135–136 (my bolding):
 * I trust this is definitive enough?
 * Bax ... does not define reverse racism – reading further, we find (my bolding): Seems like a clear equivalence to me.
 * Definition 2 refers to the United States – no it doesn't. The discusses the concept primarily in a US context, but their definition is just.
 * Reverse racism is the idea...? Where is this idea expressed? – who cares? You asked for . Roussell et al. give one:.
 * 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 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 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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)
 * 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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)
 * 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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 &#9863;&#9812; 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)