Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 9

Reverted edit
@Generalrelative has reverted my edit, my edit making the article read, describing "Reverse racism" in the lede:

"is a term which describes situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities. The concept holds that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism, with accusations thereof seen in countries such as the United States and South Africa."

This user's sole reasoning is that this has been "discussed" "extensively" on the talk page. Now, it is clear that my wording here is sourced. To spell the first source out quite simply (Yee, Encyclopedia of Race, Ethnicity and Society), it reads outright,

"[T]he term reverse racism (or reverse discrimination) has been coined to describe situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities".

This is a source that has been used in this article in describing reverse racism's similar relationship to reverse discrimination, but strangely editors here insist that "reverse racism" is solely the concept referring to reverse-racism in examples of claimed "anti-white racism". It is clear that Yee's description is much more definitive, referring to the concept of "typically advantaged people", as opposed to just white people, outright, which is indeed where the term is more commonly used. I have quoted almost word-for-word of Yee's quote in my reverted first sentence.

Secondly, if there is emphasis on "anti-white racism" accusations in the first paragraph, that can only be improved by adding context. Again, it is clear that the term "anti-white racism" is linked - but not definitively so - with "reverse racism", and so the context I added was simply, "accusations thereof [of anti-white racism] seen in countries such as the United States and South Africa", which are mentioned extensively throughout the article.

Who here seriously believes that reverse-racism is fundamentally the concept that "affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism."? Indeed this refers to the concept contextually, e.g., in the US and South Africa (which most sources write of), but their wording is never exactly as fundamental as Yee's definition. I am reverting my edit back as it is much clearer. Zilch-nada (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)


 * According to Wikipedia policy, if you want to edit against the current consensus, you first need to seek a new consensus, keeping in mind that other editors are not favorably disposed toward relitigating an issue that has already been extensively discussed, unless something fundamental relating to the topic has changed. NightHeron (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. What is your opinion of my reasoning? Zilch-nada (talk) 23:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The first problem with your proposed change in wording is that it accepts the premise of the white-grievance conservatives that there are common situations where whites are put at a disadvantage compared to Blacks and other minority groups. The consensus of editors that's reflected in the current wording is that "reverse racism" is a belief system of conservatives, not a description of reality. NightHeron (talk) 23:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry? That is not more than disruptive polemic. I literally added the quotation, "[T]he term reverse racism (or reverse discrimination) has been coined to describe situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities" to the first sentence. That is a sourced description. It does not say whether it is valid or invalid, but refers to it as a sort of notion. To mention a notion doesn't mean to validate to which you accuse me of doing.
 * "The consensus of editors that's reflected in the current wording is that "reverse racism" is a belief system of conservatives, not a description of reality" That reverse-racism is a notion - or concept - promoted by conservatives - I never disputed nor negated that, whatsoever. You appear to be dodging my argument against the focus on "anti-white racism" as a fundamental component of the overall concept of reverse-racism. Tell me, where does my wording dispute that it is "not a description of reality"? (a polemical statement which I doubt is the consensus.) Zilch-nada (talk) 23:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I disagree on this point as well. This topic is notable because it is a widely held belief system that persists in spite of the fact it has been roundly shown to be empirically unverifiable as a "description of reality". As a description of a belief system, a broader context is more important for the description than the current narrow focus on governmental action. Alot of the well sourced refutations here take a broader tone, the opening should as well. Crescent77 (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * In addition to being a WP:CLOSEPARAPHRASE of the Yee source, your edit also cherry-picks the paraphrased content from the middle of a longer paragraph. That entry specifically contextualizes the term contrary to your own summary. The elided beginning of the sentence starts with for example... because it is expanding on a more complicated point, and continues with However... because it explains that scholars do not generally accept this as a starting premise. Decontextualizing a source in this way is not appropriate, but as NightHeron said, you will find very little appetite for re-litigating this yet again. Grayfell (talk) 23:36, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have access to the full context of Yee's quotation? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Because, while if context is added, it wouldn't necessarily negate the definition (unless it states that scholars generally reject reverse-racism as it being a coin termed for "situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities" - as you have claimed the full context does.) Zilch-nada (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I.e., I guess I'm asking... what do scholars accept as a "starting premise", if not a "coin termed" for "situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities"? Zilch-nada (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem with the phrase: "situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities" is that it is simplistic racism per se. As an example, any attempt to correct the racial inequity in Harvard admissions is declared reverse racism. There are two problems here. First, Harvard has historically given extra points to admission candidates who are progeny of alumni. That is, whites. To halt attempts to redress this inequity while leaving in place the extra points whites receive is racist. Secondly, Harvard has an enormous endowment. Where did this originate? It originated with slave trading and use by Harvard itself of slaves. See . The recent USSC ruling has brought this to light and several universities are now dropping alumni favoritism. Simplistic phrases belie the centuries of background behind a complex situation. And can contribute to ongoing racism. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The fact that anti-white racism claims make up the bulk of discussion of reverse-racism in general does not mean that reverse-racism should be described as a concept in relation solely to anti-white racism. I think describing "reverse racism" in relation to "anti-white racism" claims is simplistic, and that describing it with Yee's more and inclusive references to it referring to power relations in general is much more encyclopedic. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I have generally seen the term, reverse racism is not anti-white racism. It is a racist term used typically by white racists who don't like uppity-XXX that refuse to accept their "place". O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Simple question: when did I say that reverse racism was anti-white racism? Zilch-nada (talk) 02:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Socially, I agree with what you're saying, it is reasonable, but that's not what's notable here. What's notable is that people believe it happens (however unreasonable that may be, to the point it often borders on "simplistic racism"). We should be focused on documenting the belief, as absurd as it may be, not wp:rightgreatwrongs. Crescent77 (talk) 01:47, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes that is notable. But defining the belief cannot stop at the surface. That would be the purpose of a dictionary, not an encyclopedia. O3000, Ret. (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Exactly! That's why I believe we need a lede scentence that better lends itself to that broader belief system as well, not just a narrow focus on systemic specifics. Details would all follow in the article below.
 * I would say the article body itself is problematic for the same reason, as it focuses heavily on the lack of empirical evidence, not the extent to which it the belief happens. If you read the article, it paints it as a fringe conspiracy theory, unfortunately, I think we all agree the belief is much more prevelant than that. For reference, I would point out that a referendum on affirmative action in government hiring recently failed in California, often considered to be the US state at the forefront of DEI. The "silent majority" may still believe in Reverse racism. Crescent77 (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that talk about the prevalence of the belief in reverse racism? Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 02:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Glad you backed off on Creationism. That kind of illustrates my point.
 * More importantly, to your question, there's already info in the existing article references :
 * How about #41? "Whites believe that they have replaced blacks as the primary victims of racial discrimination in contemporary America, according to a new study from researchers at Tufts"
 * Or #29 : 49% of Americans agree that "Today discrimination against whites has become as big a problem as discrimination against blacks and other minorities."
 * Or #47 "Sixty-three per cent (of Americans) thought that racial minorities enjoyed at least a little bit of “unfair” reverse discrimination."
 * There's plenty of room for interpretation as to what those numbers mean, but i think it's fair to say it's "prevelant". Crescent77 (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is stated in the first sentence of the second paragraph: Belief in reverse racism is widespread in the United States. The beliefs of Americans, especially conservatives, are described in detail throughout the article, particularly under . If published, reliable sources focus on the lack of empirical evidence, then so do we, whatever the "silent majority" may believe. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Relaible sources do focus heavily public attitudes, but this article chooses to focus on sources proclaiming the lack of empirical evidence. Crescent77 (talk) 13:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If there are other reliable sources comparable to those already cited, feel free to present them here. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing the reliable sources present; they are being presented in ways which seem to lack full consideration of due weight. Crescent77 (talk) 14:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How so? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As others have pointed out, the Yee quote and the "anti-white" context have been dicussed already at length here, here, and here. To sum up why "anti-white" is specifically used in the lead: Yee is giving a very general overview of various conceptions of racism. We tend to rely on more in-depth sources such as Ansell and Garner, who each devote a section specifically to the idea of reverse racism. The argument that Yee is more definitive has been heard and rejected. One new point: a term coined to describe XYZ and one which describes XYZ have very different meanings; the latter statement implies more strongly that XYZ actually exists, which is misleading. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you please expand on the Yee quotation. I do not have access to the full article. "The argument that Yee is more definitive has been heard and rejected"; the source is literally used in the first sentence to describe it in relation to reverse discrimination. Plenty (most) of articles speaking of reverse racism in relation to anti-white racism do so in American contexts. It is extremely bad faith, and myopic, to nitpick the usage of it in a specific country.
 * "a term coined to describe XYZ and one which describes XYZ have very different meanings; the latter statement implies more strongly that XYZ actually exists, which is misleading."
 * This is an outright false argument. A term is a term, regardless of whether or not it has been "coined". The comments on the validity of the term are mentioned vastly through the article. I am ok with including "a term coined", because it's hardly a difference... Zilch-nada (talk) 04:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Plenty (most) of articles speaking of reverse racism in relation to anti-white racism do so in American contexts – Which sources describe reverse racism in any other context than the US & SA? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yee's quotation, for instance, which does not reference specific ethnic groups. That particular definition does not refer to US or SA contexts, but of a structuralist and general (I insist on "definitive") view of the topic. You agree and acknowledge that the research is primarily (if not entirely) done in the US, and South Africa. If the article's first sentence relates to specific ethnic groups ("white"), but not the countries in which the notion is described (the US and SA), then I believe that is myopic. "White" is an important term within US and SA contexts, and thus, if "anti-white racism" must be mentioned, it must refer to it in such a context. Because the status quo is that there is no context provided for "anti-white racism" because "white" is not specific without context to said countries. Reverse-racism is primarily used in contexts with regard to "anti-white racism", and so the article should not draw an absolute or definitive line between the notion of anti-white racism and reverse racism as a concept: again, that line of specific ethnicity can be drawn definitively in national contexts; such contexts are vital. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This is the old appeal to ignorance again. The fact that Yee does not specifically mention the U.S. or South Africa does not imply they are referring to other countries besides the US & SA. As I have stated before, limiting the scope of the lead as you suggest 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 ... and Australia; see. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yee refers to reverse racism without referring to the US or SA context. That's literally what you asked for, not whether or not he refers to another country; "does not imply they are referring to other countries besides the US & SA" - you never mentioned country, only context.
 * You provided me with examples of articles that talk of "reverse racism" in relation to "anti-white racism" in multiple countries. Song doesn't define reverse racism, and describes Britain. Nelson describes it in Australia. Again, these are national contexts. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring my argument. My argument is that no source definitively defines reverse racism in relation to anti-white racism, except in specific national contexts. I don't know how I can make this point any clearer.
 * I don't intend on limiting scope; but all the articles you have linked refer to reverse-racism in national contexts regarding white people. This Wikipedia article references white people, but not countries in the first sentence, and does not describe "anti-white racism" to be a notion in multiple countries; countries were the common denominator is that they are all white-majority (or in SA economic majority). I am not saying that the article should write of the concept solely in the US and SA, which you accuse me of doing. But there is a very clear national context that is excluded from the first sentence. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We've already established that "reverse racism" is a term & concept for "anti-white racism" in majority-white countries such as the US, UK, and Australia, as well as minority-white South Africa. That seems like an context to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The context is that "reverse racism" is a term used in countries with white people holding economic power, or a population majority. You appear to be ignoring that this phenomenon is described in such countries. Why do you oppose including the concept of it being widespread in countries where whites hold power, in the article? Because that's clearly what you believe - you have to acknowledge that this the concept is described in countries with white people, and can only be so if "reverse racism" is defined in relation to "anti-white racism". It is clearly defined as such within said countries. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, find a published source explicitly saying so, and I'll be happy to see it added to the article. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You just said above, (emphasis mine), that "reverse racism" is a term & concept for "anti-white racism" in majority-white countries such as the US, UK, and Australia, as well as minority-white South Africa." Do you thus not agree that that context is absolutely necessary, in describing reverse racism in relation to the notion of anti-white racism without mentioning that these are all countries where white people hold considerable power? The context of reverse-racism in said specific countries-where-white-people-hold-power is related to the notion of anti-white racism. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I was pointing out a flaw in the idea of a very clear national context to the topic, not suggesting a specific addition to the article. Once again, we need a published source to directly support any material added. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * You said "we've already established", implying your agreement. By national context I refer to what these countries have in common - white people. That is a fundamental context, and reverse-racism within those particular countries is indeed defined in relation to "anti-white racism". I don't see how that's anything less than fundamental context when referring to it in relation to "anti-white racism". Zilch-nada (talk) 05:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I am not in agreement. Don't put words in my mouth, thanks. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I misinterpreted "we've already established" then. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What any of us seriously believes about the topic is irrelevant; we go by published, reliable sources, not editors' beliefs, opinions, or experiences. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I am referring to "serious belief" in the current wording, in relation to its sources, not original research. If opinions and beliefs didn't matter on Wikipedia, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Sources can never exist by themselves; they must be interpreted, and I believe the "consensus" has done so so very wrongly. Zilch-nada (talk) 04:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then the next step is WP:Dispute resolution, not edit-warring and rehashing the same arguments over and over. When interpreting sources we must be careful not to go beyond their intended meaning; that would be original research. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that Ansell and Garner are referring to the concept of reverse-racism on a global level (which may well include America as the primary example), defining it in relation to such, or are they dealing with specific American contexts, with specific American ethnic groups? Zilch-nada (talk) 04:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ansell states on pp. 135–136 (my bolding): We've been over this before. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. And where does it outright link "anti-white racism" to "anti-racist movements abroad"? Zilch-nada (talk) 05:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In the very next sentence: . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is so clearly not an outright link with "anti-racist movement abroad". It is so clear that this article describes the US as the primary topic. It hardly outright shows a link, considering the primary topic is the United States.
 * For instance, it describes the "the so-called civil rights establishment", having previously referring to "the civil rights movement in the United States". The civil rights movement is described specifically in relationi to the US, because the "movements abroad" are under the label "anti-racist movements". Furthermore, the article carries on from that sentence, describing "Reparations during reconstruction", clearly referring to the United States. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * So based on this source, who are the victims of "anti-racist movements abroad" supposed to be if not white people (according to proponents of the idea of "reverse racism")? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 05:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The article does not specify that - that is literally what I claimed above. The article does not refer to white people nor "anti-white racism" outright abroad. "Who are the victims"? I don't know - the source doesn't say about victims abroad. Zilch-nada (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's clear that that would be an original assumption to assume that it refers to white people abroad, just as your assumption, which claims a link between countries abroad and "anti-white racism" does. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * In the absence of any conflicting statements in the source, I think we can reasonably infer that refers in part to . The one is literally stated right after the other. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I just said that "anti-white racism practiced by blacks" is described in the article in relation to specifically the idea of reverse-racism in the US. Not abroad. We can't reasonably infer that, because it is clearly very vague as to how it refers to "reverse racism" abroad. The bulk of the article is in the American context. I think we can reasonably infer that "anti-white racism practiced by blacks" refers specifically to the American context. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Ansell elaborates on the very next page that debate over "reverse racism" occurs internationally, citing South Africa as the main example. The connection between "anti-white racism" and "anti-racist movements abroad" (i.e. doing away with white supremacy) seems pretty clear. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not a definition, but a discussion of the notion of "anti-white racism" in areas of white supremacy has diminished. The connection you suggest is so vague; Ansell gives an example of reverse-racism of being in contexts of "anti-white racism" notions where white supremacy has diminished; you are inferring a definition from an example. Ansell clearly doesn't say that "reverse racism" refers to the notion of "anti-white racism" on a global level. The fact that the debate occurs internationally where white supremacy has diminished is fundamentally different from reverse racism being definitively linked to the notion of "anti-white racism." Zilch-nada (talk) 06:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you actually read the source? Ansell states,  Seems pretty definitive to me. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:32, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * "debate has come to bear" is still not definitively linking reverse racism with "anti-white racism." It is still an example that it has occurred in said contexts.
 * "At its most general level" refers to the debate about reverse racism in a general sense, and how such a debate is common (an example) in areas where white supremacy has diminished. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Gee, I wonder what people could be debating when they talk about "reverse racism" in areas where white supremacy has diminished. Might it be their belief that whites are now the of racism? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes... I don't dispute that. "contexts where white supremacy has diminished" is an example of where the very general debate has occurred. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:50, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I.e., the reverse racism debate occurring in "any and all contexts" where white supremacy has diminished; not "any and all contexts of the reverse racism debate occur where white supremacy has diminished." Zilch-nada (talk) 06:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Once again, I smell an appeal to ignorance. If there are other contexts of the reverse racism debate besides places where white supremacy has diminished, what are they? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I stated above: Yee's quotation "[T]he term reverse racism (or reverse discrimination) has been coined to describe situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities" describes and defines reverse racism without referring to specific ethnic groups, nor "places where white supremacy has diminished". This is a context beyond anti-white racism, and beyond specific countries, and so is much more of a full picture of the topic. Zilch-nada (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * And as I already said, we tend to rely on more in-depth sources than this. Given that so many sources describe "reverse racism" as perceived anti-white racism, the idea that it has has any other meaningful definition is an exceptional claim that needs more to support it than a single brief mention in a general entry about racism. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * For the tenth time, the sources are not in-depth in defining it as they do not define reverse racism in relation to "anti-white racism", aside from where examples of "contexts where white supremacy has diminished" take place. Those are clearly national and ethnic examples. The only source that defines the concept structurally, regardless of specific countries, areas, or ethnic groups, is that of Yee. The sheer number of articles you have cited, falsely claiming that they suggest reverse racism is defined in relation to "anti-white racism" - aside from specific examples of countries -, is what is extraordinary. Zilch-nada (talk) 07:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * We've been over this at length already. The sources cited are mainstream academic works and quite reliable here. It's not anyone's problem if they aren't definitive enough for you. Rather than say the same thing for an eleventh or twelfth time, a more productive next step would be formal WP:Dispute resolution. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:35, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As I have said outright above - "Sources can never exist by themselves; they must be interpreted, and I believe the "consensus" has done so so very wrongly." I am not disputing the validity of the sources, but the application of them here. Zilch-nada (talk) 07:40, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Then start a formal process to change the consensus, rather than wasting everyone's time by rehashing old arguments. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A formal way of establishing consensus? Only you have responded to my arguments here. Consensus - for or against - comes with discussion among many editors. Zilch-nada (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you think Ansell means by "White loss of privilege" if not an example of perceived "anti-white racism" in an international context? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 06:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It gives examples of two countries; the US and South Africa; clearly not giving an international definition. It cites South Africa as an example because it is an example of where white supremacy has diminished. As I said above, areas where white supremacy has diminished are examples of the notion of reverse racism. Zilch-nada (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * That is not what the source says. Ansell mentions to show what happens, not just in one or two countries. Once again, what is meant by "white loss of privilege" if not perceived "anti-white racism"? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It specifies two countries within a narrow paradigm of countries "where white supremacy has diminished." SA and USA are examples of such countries. Places where white supremacy has diminished is an example of where reverse racism is discussed. "white loss of privilege" blatantly describes the example of "contexts where white supremacy has diminished". In those particular countries, the concept discussed with reverse racism is that of "anti-white racism", in those specific countries where white supremacy has diminished. Zilch-nada (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Since is the only "example" Ansell gives of where the reverse racism "debate" has come to bear, I'd say it's not an  but a generalized description. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:27, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is literally an example. Definitively, it is an example to describe "any and all contexts where white supremacy has diminished" as examples of places where the general debate is discussed. It does not say it definitively, as I said above, it describes:
 * A) Reverse racism debate occurring in "any and all contexts" where white supremacy has diminished; not B) "any and all contexts of the reverse racism debate occur where white supremacy has diminished.
 * A) describes an example of where the reverse racism debate occurs. B) is associating - as you are doing - definitively all contexts of debate of reverse racism, solely with areas where white supremacy has declined. Zilch-nada (talk) 07:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary; we are concerned with more than simple definitions. Ansell is a mainstream academic source and quite reliable for a general description of "reverse racism". It's not anyone's problem if the source isn't definitive enough for you. What you call I call watering down the concept to minimize the centrality of white conservative opposition to race-conscious policies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 07:44, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let me just write out what my actual edit was:
 * "[Reverse racism] is a term which [has been coined to] describes situations where typically advantaged people are relegated to inferior positions or denied social opportunities to benefit racial and ethnic minorities. The concept holds that affirmative action and similar color-conscious programs for redressing racial inequality are forms of anti-white racism, with accusations thereof seen in countries such as the United States and South Africa." The sentence right after that was "The concept is often associated with conservative social movements."
 * How am I "minimizing" the centrality of white conservative opposition to race-conscious policies? That was never in the first sentence to begin with. You are "maximizing" the centrality of "anti-white racism" in the defintion. I am minimizing your maximizing, to put it facetiously. Zilch-nada (talk) 07:53, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Let's see: Shifting the first mention of "color-conscious programs" from the first sentence to the second sentence, and shifting "conservative social movements" from the second sentence to the third sentence, thereby reducing the impact of both statements. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 08:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC) Struck "fourth", added "third" 15:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * The structure is first sentence: Yee's definition; second sentence: examples in relation to anti-white racism; third (not fourth) sentence: Conservative opposition. So by your analysis of what's in sentence n, I only added one sentence. I do acknowledge that terms that are used earlier in the lede are more likely to have a greater effect, and am willing to merge some elements of sentences together. Perhaps a reference to specific programs could be in the first sentence with Yee's definition, and then the second sentence consists of the notion of anti-white racism alongside reference to conservative opposition, followed by a mention of it being a belief held by American conservatives.
 * But the most provocative term to have in the first sentence is clearly "anti-white racism" which describes the concept much less than Yee's definition. Zilch-nada (talk) 08:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yee's definition reads (my bolding):  Why are we not talking about adding "women" to the definition in the lead sentence? Could it be that Yee's definition is intentionally broader than the specific topic of reverse racism in that it encompasses other forms of "reverse discrimination" as well? Not very "definitive" at all, is it? —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * This reasoning is spurious. If Ansell said that Loraxes live "any and all places where Truffula Trees grow", I could reply, "Ah ha! You didn't say where Truffula Trees grow are any and all places where Loraxes live! That is only one example!" That would be a pure appeal to ignorance. Likewise, if Ansell says debate over "reverse racism" occurs, we can infer that those are the most noteworthy contexts unless and until a different source says otherwise. You can say that's not "definitive", but so what? Wikipedia  topics according to due weight, not whether they satisfy some arbitrary standard of . —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, the cases of it being "contexts where white supremacy has diminished" we can infer that these are the most noteworthy. But those cases are examples, not definitions - you, as I have said, cannot infer definitions from examples, or "contexts"; only from definitions.
 * Your accusation of appeal to ignorance is unjust; as there is both not a clear, definitive statement defining reverse racism solely in relation to "anti-white racism", and also not a definitive evidence of absence of it used elsewhere. The burden of proof is not on me to provide instances elsewhere, contrary to your claims; I am not, in fact, arguing about additional sources, but of the inference of definition from examples. I.e., the current wording is not supported by the sources referenced.
 * What is necessary is either a clear definitive evidence of absence (a hypothetical source negating the idea that reverse racism doesn't relate only to anti-white racism, i.e., it says that it exists no where else) - which is almost impossible, or, a definition in the first place defining reverse racism solely in relation to anti-white racism. That is the criteria for defining - or at least discussing in the first sentence - reverse racism in relation to anti-white racism. Such criteria has not been fulfilled. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, don't act like you don't know or care what "definitive" means. As you spoke above; when certain terms are described closer to the start of the article, such as the first sentence, they are given more weight. While there certainly is weight to the discussion of said anti-white racism (My suggested edits did include it), this does not warrant a definition that says
 * "Reverse racism is the concept that [programs et. al] are forms of anti-white racism",
 * which is how the article currently reads. You know that that is a definitive statement; weight is given to the mention (which is just), but there is no justification for bluntly stating that reverse racism "is such a concept: i.e., a clear example of a definition; while Wikipedia is not a dictionary, this is a clear definitive statement. Zilch-nada (talk) 13:38, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the lead section (including the first sentence) should reflect the description of the topic given in the main body of the article, based on the predominant views of reliable sources. There is no WP policy I have seen that says we need to define the topic as narrowly as you suggest. We follow the sources such as, pp. 135–136: . This directly supports the statement in the lead. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Just because something is the lead sentence of an article and has the form “[article title] is…”, that does not means that what follows is necessarily a definition. For example, Great replacement is an article that in some sense is similar to Reverse racism. Its first sentence, like that in Reverse racism, is not a definition of what the term in the title means, but rather is a description of what its importance is in the real world: “The Great replacement […] is a white nationalist far-right conspiracy theory…”

By the way, I hope you’ve noticed that most of the 7 editors besides you have argued against your edit, and none have supported it. Undoubtedly other editors are not inclined to enter the discussion because it deals with issues that have already been extensively discussed before, because there is near-zero likelihood that the consensus on these matters will be changed now, and because reading and responding to your WP:WALLOFTEXT is a time sink. Please read WP:DROPTHESTICK. NightHeron (talk) 14:18, 9 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The Great Replacement theory is universally described as a far-right white-nationalist conspiracy theory. "Reverse racism", for the 57th time, does not refer solely to the concept of "anti-white racism", and I have quoted Yee for that purpose. It refers to the concept from a structuralist view, disregarding specific ethnic groups. The ethnic group (white people) is fundamental to mention after; that it has been used in countries such as the US and SA where "white supremacy has diminished."
 * I count 3 people. Only 1 has corresponded with my arguments. This is such a disingenuous appeal to the masses, that "none have supported it." The importance in consensus is also relevant to having more editor's viewpoints, instead of a particular few people who have guarded this article over the past 6 years. It is an appeal to the authority of 3 people. This discussion must be opened up, because a grand total of these 3 people are clearly never going to be convinced. Cry me a river.
 * You also made the claim to me earlier that reverse racism was "not a description of reality", and accused me of falling for a conservative agenda. When did I say that it was a description of reality? It is a concept commonly used with regards to a notion of anti-white racism. We cannot outright say that it is solely / fundamentally / definitively in relation to anti-white racism, because external context - that goes beyond specific ethnic groups - is reliably sourced. Zilch-nada (talk) 14:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How can you seriously deny that "Reverse racism is the concept that [programs et. al] are forms of anti-white racism" is a definitive statement? Zilch-nada (talk) 14:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * If you wish the discussion to be opened up, the procedure for doing so is described at WP:CONTENTDISPUTE. Knock yourself out. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I support the change.
 * I'm a little concerned that folks here are inclined to dismiss discussion in rather uncivil terms, with rather uncivil accusations. This might be less of a content dispute, and more of an ownership issue. Crescent77 (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Or perhaps it is one or two users disputing the validity of the WP:CONSENSUS process and refusing to WP:LISTEN when consensus is clearly against them? As NightHeron suggests above, I've just been watching this conversation unfold because the community seems to have it in hand, and I'm not sure what I can add. Absent some new consensus –– which is not apparently forthcoming –– we will not be changing the lead. Please do not confuse failing to persuade others with being the victim of incivility. Generalrelative (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * What community? This article did not refer to reverse-racism as a concept in definitive relation to anti-white racism until March 2019 - edits from @Sangdeboeuf, with another array of very specific editors "holding on to the stick" since then; @NightHeron, @Generalrelative. If a mere three editors with old accounts and thousands of edits have authority solely because they stick adamantly to maintaining their specific changes from 4 years ago, then maybe - as I have continuously said - we need a bit more diversity in this 4-year discussion. Zilch-nada (talk) 21:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * a mere three editors? What on earth are you talking about? I count 7 questioning your POV in this thread alone. And that is leaving aside previous discussions where this matter was already settled. Having one's views confirmed by consensus and continuing to edit in accordance with that consensus is in no way "holding onto the stick". That's absurd. You are of course free to post at a noticeboard, but you've certainly been afforded a heaping measure of AGF here so far. We are not, after all, required to WP:SATISFY you. Generalrelative (talk) 21:24, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I referred to three specific editors who have focused on this article over multiple years and been involved in just about all discussions. That's what I referred to. Zilch-nada (talk) 21:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * As @Crescent77 said above,
 * "This might be less of a content dispute, and more of an ownership issue." Zilch-nada (talk) 21:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you go back and reread the previous discussions here, here and here. You appear to have conveniently forgotten about the patient work of e.g., and  to explain why this change is undue. This really is a textbook example of flogging a dead horse. Referring to the normal consensus process as "an ownership issue" just betrays a profound misunderstanding of how this place works. In any case, I am done engaging with you. You are free to either seek additional input at a noticeboard or continue to shake your fist at the sky. Generalrelative (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think the ownership issue referred to you. You seem to be a minor participant in the linked discussions, as well as in this one. Crescent77 (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I think that the stable lead is more neutrally-worded; the proposed change essentially reads like it's trying to drop the rationale people use for these beliefs in the first paragraph of the lead as if it were fact, when the sources cited don't support that (the one source being used here, Yee, specifically goes on to criticize it.) It's also placing undue weight on a single passing mention in a single source; per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY, the lead needs to summarize the body of the article, which doesn't really support the proposed change at all. --Aquillion (talk) 15:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Precisely this. Generalrelative (talk) 20:11, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely no sources say - regardless of a national context - of reverse racism being the concept that [programs] are a form of anti-white racism. No sources say this, whatsoever. Yee's description does not mention specific ethnic groups nor specific countries; and is a more general and full description of the concept. Yee going on to criticize it doesn't mater; all sources go on to criticize the notion of reverse racism (I feel as if some editors here are accusing me of being an activist; I believe that reverse racism isn't real, and I haven't said otherwise.)
 * What sources do you have that describe the fundamental concept of reverse racism in a definitive sense; i.e., describing the general concept, not within specific national contexts? Because again, if all sources - as is the case - use "anti-white racism" specifically with regards to countries where "white supremacy has diminished", the mention of those said countries - that they are "white" countries - is necessary if the term "anti-white racism" is kept in the first sentence.
 * P.S. when I say definitive I don't mean dictionary-style definition; I mean similar such wording along the lines of "X is that concept that Y". Zilch-nada (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No sources? See pp. 135–136):, : , : , : , : , :.
 * See also Gerald Early (2022, p. xvi):, Ian Hawkins & Muniba Saleem (2022): , and Bongki Woo (2018):.
 * Once again, Wikipedia topics according to the predominant views of reliable sources such as these per WP:WEIGHT, not some arbitrary standard of . Per WP:RSCONTEXT, the most reliable sources are those focused on the topic at hand, rather than mentioning the topic in passing.  definition of reverse racism is mainly used as an  supporting their larger point that racism in general is sometimes difficult to confirm because its existence may be based on one's perception of an interaction or situation.  Compared to the more in-depth sources cited above, Yee's definition is the opposite of a full description since it leaves out the entire context relating to conservative opposition to affirmative action, perception of anti-white bias, etc. Fixating on the presence or absence of specific national contexts dilutes this more important context stated in  RSes. Yee's definition also includes women among perceived victims of reverse racism/discrimination. Are we proposing to add that to the lead sentence as well? It seems that Yee is intentionally talking about other forms of "reverse discrimination" along with "reverse racism". —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

17 January 2024
This article alleges that non whites are inferior to whites? How is this considered an academic description? How am I inferior to whites? That is nazi ideology, I am just as valid as whites, and superiority of whites is an outdated belief. Shameful. 172.59.197.239 (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Where do you think it says this? O3000, Ret. (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Definition of racism
Mariam-Webster defines "racism" as

1



also : behavior or attitudes that reflect and foster this belief : racial discrimination or prejudice

2

a



specifically : WHITE SUPREMACY sense 2

b



Whilst the article meets the criteria for the second definition it disregards the first definition. This leads to a article where only one view of the word is represented. The first definiton does not require a majority population nor the control of the "system" by an particular race.

Even meeting the second definiton this article disregards any non american view on the topic. To meet the definiton the writers of the article must assume the state/country/region where the racism takes place is majority and systemically white.

Reverse racism is persay just racism according to the first definiton as seen on Mariam-Webster. I therefore suggest rewriting this article to represent a broader view of the topic including but not limited too a less american standpoint, I further suggest changing the headline to something like "Racism against white people" if you don't agree that this is actually a thing we should ad a sub-section for criticism like it is done in most articles. But the truth remains the term "racism" meets the first definition on Meriam-Webster.

I understand this is a hot topic, but either this article is rewritten too meet Wikipedia standards or it should be deleted in its entirety. Superpig05 (talk) 06:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If you want to fundamentally rewrite this article, you will need way more in the way of reliable sources than a Merriam-Webster definition of one-half of the article title. More importantly, you will need reliable sources that actually discuss the specific concept or phrase "reverse racism", not just extrapolate from the word "racism" just because it happens to be in the article title. Writ Keeper &#9863;&#9812; 12:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Well its not only the definition on Mariam-Webster but every lexicon you can find. And still my point stands, this article has an america centric view of the concept. Peoples opinions on what the meaning of a word is changes rapidly, thats why we have lexicons and defined definitions. As an educational platform that is supposed to be impartial to opinions its appropriate to use lexicon definitions. Superpig05 (talk) 14:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The article is about the of reverse racism, not just the term. The most reliable sources are the ones that examine the topic in depth, not just give the literal meaning of the word(s). Making any inferences about the topic from a dictionary entry on "racism" (not "reverse racism") would be textbook improper synthesis. Both the dictionary issue and the US-centric issue have been discussed at length several times; for instance, see Talk:Reverse racism/Archive 8. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 14:37, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Many articles are US-centric because the topic itself and/or the available sources are concentrated in the US. The article already addresses this: While the U.S. dominates the debate over the issue, the concept of reverse racism has been used internationally to some extent wherever white supremacy has diminished. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:24, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It is painfully laughable how you point out how this article is insultingly U.S. centric yet you point out to sources about foreign matters that come from tangential mentions from U.S. references.
 * I agree this article deserves some further review as this article has a title that makes no sense but to Americans. 181.224.234.143 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely spot on with that observation; but look at the talk page archives. I have insisted the exact same; the exact same editors dismiss the fact. Zilch-nada (talk) 03:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * 1000% agree. I made the same arguments above. Any serious encyclopedic entry should have a definition from a reputable dictionary to accurately define the subject matter. Many/most Wikipedia pages cite to dictionaries. However, there are several very active editors on this page that disagree with the prevailing dictionary definitions on this subject. Gumbear (talk) 22:11, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * As has been said, Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and Many/most Wikipedia pages cite to dictionaries. is the opposite of fact. A tiny percentage do so. In fact, this is rare. There is a difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. O3000, Ret. (talk) 22:51, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course this isn't a dictionary, but there's no reason the definition here should deviate from dictionary definitions. BLUF: The current definition in the lead doesn't conform to any mainstream definition. It even strays far from the encyclopedic definition it references, and is a synthesis of several sources. However, aligning this article to mainstream definitions (whether from a dictionary or encyclopedia) would necessitate a major rewrite of this entire article. Gumbear (talk) 13:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC) — Gumbear (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I am no expert on the topic of reverse racism - but to me it seems the term reverse racism as used in the sources does focus very much on the second definition of racism and not so much the first. Given that we are talking about the entire term "reverse racism" here that context should probably matter and limit the way racism is used for most of this specific article (e.g. it also makes little sense to rewrite the bank (geography) article to include discussion of the financial institution). Arnoutf (talk) 13:50, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree there should be well defined parameters in encyclopedic entries. However, when discussing "bank (geography)" it should probably be defined holistically rather than narrowing the definition to only include "banks on the Mississippi", as if "banks (geography)" couldn't exist outside of the Mississippi River. More to the point, if every other credible source that claims to be a definition defines the subject without limiting it to a particular race or specific government program, we probably shouldn't limit the definition to only pertain to white people or affirmative action. Gumbear (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There's no reason the definition here should deviate from dictionary definitions – there is a very good reason, namely that dictionaries define according to how they are used by the general public, whereas an encyclopedia describes  based on the works of expert sources. Oftentimes this requires using more technical and/or niche-scholarly definitions of words. If we re-wrote the lead to define "racism" according to the dictionary, not only would it give undue weight to non-scholarly perspectives, but the rest of the article would no longer make any sense. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * the definition of "reverse racism" given in the lead section is taken almost exactly from, pp. 135–136. There is no synthesis, as has been explained to you at length already. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The dictionary definition mentioned is for racism. The term reverse racism does not mean the opposite of the definition of racism or necessarily the reverse. It doesn't work that way. You cannot use the definition of a word to define another word or term that includes the first. Words are defined according to their common usage. Racism and reverse racism are used differently. As an encyclopedia, we use reliable sources, not our own conclusions based on dictionaries. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)